High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
CIT vs. Ram Piyara Satish Kumar
Sections 256(2)
Jawahar Lal Gupta & Ashutosh Mohunta, JJ.
IT Case Nos. 23, 24 and 66 of 1999
11th October, 2001
Counsel Appeared
R.P. Sawhney, with Kishan Singh, for the Revenue : A.K. Mittal, for the Assessee
JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. :
These are three petitions under s. 256 (2) of the IT Act, 1961. The Revenue maintains that the following three questions of law arise for consideration and that the Tribunal be directed to refer these for the opinion of this Court : “1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) with regard to the deletion of addition on account of investment in purchase price, when the order of the CIT(A) is itself based on incorrect facts and presumption of law and facts under the Evidence Act ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not setting aside the order of the CIT(A) based on incorrect facts and presumption ? Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in not upholding any addition on account of purchase price paid for unrecorded purchases even when accepting that the assessee must have made some investment therein ?” Notice of these petitions given to the respondent-assessee. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
Mr. R.P. Sawhney, learned counsel for the Revenue, contends that the assessee was not maintaining his accounts properly. Thus, the AO had made certain additions in the declared trading results. These were wrongly reduced by the CIT(A). This order was later on affirmed by the Tribunal. Thus, counsel submits that the Tribunal should be directed to make the reference to this Court.
On the other hand, Mr. Mittal, appearing for the assessee, has submitted that on the material on record the additions were not justified. After consideration of the matter, the CIT had partly accepted the assessee’s claim. The order of the appellate authority having been accepted by the Tribunal, no question of law arises for the consideration of this Court.
After consideration of the matter, we find that 36 appeals had been consolidated by the Tribunal and decided by a common order of 7th May, 1997. By this order the Tribunal had affirmed the order passed by the CIT(A). The Department filed petitions under s. 256(1) of the Act in only three cases relating to the present assessees. No petitions for reference were filed by the Revenue in the remaining 33 cases. Thus, while considering the petitions under s. 256(1) of the Act, the Tribunal, inter alia, noticed that “the Department has not filed any reference application in the cases of all other dealers …”. Still further, the Tribunal also noticed that it was “on the basis of appreciation of entire relevant facts and circumstances” that “the CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to sustain the addition in respect of unexplained investment at two per cent, of the total value of unrecorded sales of the unrecorded goods purchased by the assessee. Such findings are pure findings of facts which do not give rise to any referable question of law”.
7. Mr. Sawhney contends that the view taken by the Tribunal is wrong. Is it so ?
8. The assessees in all the cases were working as wholesale dealers of cloth at Shori Market, Rohtak. The Investigation Wing of the IT Department had made certain enquiries. It was reported that various dealers had received consignments of bales of cloth from different places. It was on the basis of this report that the AO had made addition on account of unexplained investment. After consideration of the matter and the entire evidence on the record, the CIT had found that the addition to the extent of two per cent, of the allegedly unrecorded sales was warranted. This view has been affirmed by the Tribunal. It may be possible to take two views. However, on examination of the evidence, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have taken one of two possible views. The findings are based on appreciation of evidence. In the process, no question of law which may require the expression of opinion by this Court really arises. This is all the more so in view of the fact that the Revenue has accepted the order of the CIT in 33 out of the 36 cases by not filing any appeal.
9. No other point has been raised.
In view of the above, we find that no question of law arises which may require an expression of opinion by this Court.
Resultantly, the three petitions are dismissed. No costs.
[Citation : 257 ITR 768]
