CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsFull Bench(1998) 08 DEL CK 0091

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs TRILOKI NATH OBEROI

Delhi High Court · Decided on 17 August 1998 · Citation: (2000) 107 TAXMAN 382 : (1999) 107 TAXMAN 382

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.C. Lahoti, J · C.K. Mahman, J
CASE NUMBER
Income Tax C. No. 154 of 1993 17 August 1998 A.Y. 1981-82

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 363 words

Heard finally.

2.

This is a petition u/s 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') filed by the revenue seeking Mandamus to the Tribunal to draw a statement of the case and refer the following question pertaining to the assessment year 1981-82 to the High Court for its opinion:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon''ble Tribunal was correct in law:

(a) in allowing the appeal of the assessed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming penalty of Rs. 1,06,687 levied u/s 271 (1)(c).

(b) in discarding the overwhelming evidence and the conclusions drawn by the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal in the quantum appeal and in holding that the revenue has failed to establish with any cogent and positive evidence that the income represented assessor�s concealed income without considering the position of law that by virtue of the Explanations to section 271 (1)(c) the onus was on the assessee, which had not been discharge ?"

3.

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are satisfied that the questions do arise as questions of law from the order of the Tribunal and, Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the petition u/s 256(1) of the Act. However, in our opinion, the questions need to be re-framed, which we do as under:

(i) Whether the finding recorded by Tribunal (vide para 13 of its order dated 16-12-1992) that the ''estimate basis'' on which the assessed had furnished his return of income has not been held to be false, is perverse.

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it would be covered by Part A or Part B of the Explanation 1, as appended to sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act (as it stood at the relevant time).

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, (depending on the answers to question No. 1, above), the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty on the assessee.

The Tribunal shall draw up a statement of the case and refer the above said questions to the High Court.