AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
February 25, 1987.
S. Ranganathan, J.—The Commissioner has proposed two questions. We are of opinion that first is a question of fact because the Tribunal has found that the books are not reliable and sustained an estimated addition having regard to the past history of the assessed. In our opinion, however, the second question which has been raised is a question of law particularly in view of the specific finding of the CIT (Appeals) that certain in payments were not covered by s. 40A(3). We Therefore direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following questions of law for the decision of this Court :
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in not disallowing a part of the payments for purchase in view of provisions of s. 40A(3) of the IT Act ?"
The petition is disposed of. No costs.
March 13, 1987
By the Court - By our order dt. 25-2-1987 in ITC 207/82 we directed the Tribunal to state a case and refer the second of the questions on which the Commissioner had sought reference. At that time it was brought to our notice that in the appellate order of the Tribunal no findings had been given in relation to the applicability of s. 40A(3) of the Act. The assessed now brings to our notice that the Tribunal had dealt with this matter in subsequent order under s. 254(2) in which they have given a finding that none of the purchase was of more than R 2,500. In view of this fact which was not brought to our notice on the earlier occasion, it is clear that the question of law or which we directed the Tribunal to state a case does not also arise. In the circumstances the order dt. 25-2-1987 is recalled and ITC 207/82 is dismissed. There will be no statement of case by the Tribunal on any of the questions referred to in the application. This application is disposed of accordingly.