TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (1) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferences made to it under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the revenue. Both sets of questions relate to the assessment year 1962-63. The first set of questions relates to the assessee's quantum appeals; the other set relate to the consequential penalty proceedings. The questions reads thus : In I. T C. No. 29 of 1973 "1. Whether there was any evidence before the Tribunal to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Singh and S. K. Burman was the assessee's income ? 6. If answers to questions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are in the affirmative whether the findings of the Tribunal in respect of the amounts referred to in the said questions are otherwise legally justified?" In I. T. C. No. 30 of 1973 : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... patent from the questions in the quantum appeal that they are questions of fact. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and it had decided against the assessee. The High Court ought not to have entered into a discussion of the evidence to come to a conclusion on facts contrary to that reached by the Tribunal. That it had done so is clear from the judgment under appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the High Court was really a question of law in that the Tribunal had not correctly appreciated the basis upon which it could be held that there had been "benami" transactions. The submission has to be rejected because the High Court has not differed from the Tribunal's finding that there had been benami transactions, as shown by the following sentence : "No doubt, these persons are benami ....