TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (5) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee cannot be regarded as having concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income is contrary to weight of the record and also to the finding given in quantum appeal in its order dated November 16, 1978, in I. T. A. No. 864/(Gau) of 1975-76 for this assessment year, and was arrived at without considering the entire evidence and materials on the records including those contained in the Tribunal's order dated November 16, 1978, in I. T. A. No. 864(Gau) of 1975-76 ? " The facts for the purpose of answering the questions may be narrated as follows : The assessee is a registered firm dealing in grocer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise book seized did not contain the real transactions. The explanation of the assessee was rejected and penalty was imposed under section 271(1)(c) for Rs. 1,00,668. The assessee thereafter, took up the matter before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reiterating the same ground that there was no concealment and all the facts were before the Income-tax Officer and the assessed income was enhanced only because of rejection of the assessee's submissions and not because of any finding that income was deliberately concealed by the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal considered various aspects and came to the conclusion that the exercise book must be regarded as a genuine record of the unaccounted transactions of the assessee and the assessee was i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision. However, Mr. Joshi strenuously argues that the Tribunal came to the conclusion altogether contrary to the evidence on record, therefore, it is perverse and if it is perverse surely it is a question of law and this court has jurisdiction to answer the question. Mr. Joshi further submits that this court directed the Tribunal by order dated December 23, 1988, in Civil Rule No. 85(M) of 1979 to refer the questions mentioned above for opinion of this court and this itself is sufficient to indicate that there are some questions of law to be answered. Dr. Saraf vehemently opposes the submission of Mr. Joshi. According to Dr. Saraf, this court under section 256(1) or under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act has jurisdiction to answer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oration of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC), the apex court held thus (page 13) : " The question referred to the High Court for its opinion proceeds on the basis that the facts and circumstances of the case as found by the Tribunal are not in dispute but what is disputed is the legal effect of the facts and circumstances found by the Tribunal. As held by this court in the earlier decisions that when a question refers to the facts and circumstances in the case, it means the facts and circumstances as found by the Tribunal. If any party wants to challenge the correctness of the findings given by the Tribunal either on the ground that the same is not supported by any evidence on record or is based on irrelevant or inadmissible eviden....