Court orders Tribunal to refer question of law on concealment of sales amounting to Rs. 1,40,340

The court allowed the application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, directing the Tribunal to state the case and refer a question of law regarding the concealment of sales amounting to Rs. 1,40,340 for the assessment year 1980-81. The court emphasized the scope of judicial review in assessing orders for perversity and lack of evidentiary backing, citing relevant case law. Each party was to bear their own costs, and the court specified the counsel fees for both sides. The order was to be promptly transmitted to the Tribunal for compliance.

---

---

Issues: Application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 seeking direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer questions of law arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal for the assessment year 1980-81.

Analysis:
The applicant filed an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requesting the Tribunal to state the case and refer questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1980-81. The questions raised pertained to the Tribunal's conclusion of concealment of sales amounting to Rs. 1,40,340 and the alleged perversity of this finding. The facts of the case revealed discrepancies between sales recorded in the cash book and sales vouchers, leading the Income-tax Officer to suspect concealed sales. The applicant contended that all purchases were made from a known supplier, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and provided documents to refute the concealment allegations. Despite the explanations, the Income-tax Officer added Rs. 1,40,340 to the income, which was upheld by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).

The applicant then appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal, prompting the applicant to file the current application. During the hearing, the applicant's counsel argued that the addition lacked evidentiary support and justification, emphasizing the transparency of purchases from the known supplier. Conversely, the Department's counsel contended that the questions for reference were not legal but factual in nature, based on appropriate findings. The court, after considering the arguments and reviewing the order, decided to refer one question of law to be considered and opined upon. Citing the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, the court highlighted the scope of judicial review to assess orders for perversity, irrationality, lack of application of mind, or absence of evidentiary backing.

The court found that the question regarding the Tribunal's conclusion on the concealment of sales did arise from the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the court allowed the application, directing the Tribunal to state the case with particulars and refer the question for opinion within a specified timeframe. Each party was instructed to bear their own costs, and the court fixed the counsel fee for each side. Finally, the court ordered the immediate transmission of the order to the Tribunal in compliance with the law.

---