Commissioner of Income Tax vs Smt. Sunita Wadhwa

Kirpal, J.—Heard. In this petition u/s 256(2) of the income tax Act, 1961, the petitioner is seeking reference of the following questions to this Court:

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessment made by the income tax Officer for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84 could not be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner was entitled in law while initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the income tax Act, 1961, to take into consideration the result of the enquiries made by her in the case of the assessee as also the case record of Shri O.P. Wadhwa and its effect on other allied cases?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no material before the Commissioner to justify the finding that the assessment order for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84 was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal was not perverse and against the evidence on record?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the orders made by the income tax Officer were not erroneous even though it contained an apparent error of facts as also being stereo-typed and by which he accepted what the assessee stated without making any enquiries?"

In this particular case, the respondent filed a return on 21-3-1984, pertaining to the three assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84. The ITO framed the assessment on 28-3-1984, within the space of one week. A notice was issued by the Commissioner asking the respondent to show cause why the Commissioner should not pass an order u/s 263 of the Act. The Commissioner, by a speaking order, has given reasons for coming to the conclusion as to why the ITO''s order should be set aside. For the view which we are taking, we do not think it is appropriate for us to comment upon the reasons except to note that the Commissioner has stated in her order that there was enough evidence to show that no coaching centre existed at the address given and as the bank account produced by the assessee needed elaborate examination, the orders passed by the ITO were prejudicial to the revenue. It may be noted here that the income which was disclosed by the respondent was alleged to have been derived by her from a coaching centre.

The Commissioner has set aside the order of the ITO and directed that a fresh assessment be made.

The Tribunal went into the merits of the case and came to the conclusion that the assessment could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

In our opinion, the Tribunal should state the case and refer the following question of law to this Court:

"Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessments made by the income tax Officer for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1983-84 could not be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue?"

No costs.