Commissioner of Income Tax vs Chandra Mohan Sawhney

These are two batches of applications under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. They relate to four persons who are co-owners of the property in respect of whom capital gains has been brought to tax by the department. There is one application in the case of each of the co-owners arising out of the assessment and one application arising out of the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) in respect of each of them. It would be convenient to dispose of all the applications by a common order.

ITCs Nos. 45 to 48 of 1984 arise out of the assessment order. After hearing counsel for the petitioner we are satisfied that a question of law does arise out of the order of the Tribunal. We, Therefore, direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question of law for the decision of this court :

"Whether, on the facts in the circumstances of the case there was a transfer within the meaning of s. 2(47) of the IT Act, 1961 in the hands of each of the petitioners resulting in capital gains ?"

So far as ITCs Nos. 67 to 70 of 1985 are concerned the penalties imposed have been set aside by the Tribunal consequent upon its decision in the assessments. Since we have directed a reference in the matter of assessment, question regarding penalty has to be kept alive. We, Therefore, direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer to this court the following question for decision in these four batches :

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of each case the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income represented by capital gains ?"

The Tribunal may make a consolidated statement in respect of all the 8 applications. Applications are disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.