1997 (12) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the onus on the assessee within the meaning of section 69A had shifted on to the Department merely by owning up the seized cash in the hands of the director and paying taxes on it ?" Learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue has contended that the abovesaid question arises as a question of law from the order of the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in declining the reference under section 256(1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee has submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are mainly on facts and hence no question of law arises therefrom. The assessee-company is carrying on the business of lending and bor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... sum up, the Tribunal has, vide its appellate order, found : "(i) Shri O. P. Lamba (a) admitted the possession of this money ; (b) moved an application before the Settlement Commission offering the amount for taxation in his hands ; (c) the application of Shri 0. P. Lamba has been admitted by the Settlement Commission. (ii) Shri O. P. Lamba (a) was the managing director of the assessee-company, (b) was also carrying on some business in his individual capacity utilising the premises of the assessee-company for this purpose, and (c) was having his own telephone number (in the company premises). (iii) The premises (from which recovery and seizure had taken place) was jointly used by the company for its business and by O. P. Lamba for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s not lay challenge to any of the findings recorded by the Tribunal and so long as the findings remain binding on the High Court, the question as suggested would not arise as a question of law. He has placed reliance on a few decisions which are referred to in the succeeding paragraphs. In Patnaik and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 365 (SC), it has been held: "It is now well-settled that the Appellate Tribunal is the final fact finding authority under the Income-tax Act and that the court has no jurisdiction to go behind the statements of fact made by the Tribunal in its appellate order. The court may do so only if there is no evidence to support the findings or the Appellate Tribunal has misdirected itself in law in arriving at the f....