Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kuldip Industrial Corporation

V. Ramaswami, C.J.—We are satisfied that the following questions of law do arise out of the order of the Tribunal and, accordingly, we direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the questions for its opinion :

"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) could, u/s 250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, admit evidence of the death of Smt. Darshana Devi without giving any opportunity to the Income Tax Officer to rebut the same as required under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Income Tax Officer was given reasonable opportunity to examine/rebut the evidence in the form of a death certificate of Smt. Darshana Devi ?

(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding genuineness of the firm was not questioned before the Appellate Tribunal ?

(iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that Smt. Darshana Devi could not be said to be the same person as Smt. Darshana Devi Gupta of Ambala ?

(v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the said Darshana Devi whose death certificate was relied upon by the assessee was the same -person who was a partner of the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1974-75 ?

(vi) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that a genuine firm was in existence for the assessment year 1974-75 ?"