Commissioner of Income Tax vs Uttam Singh and Sons

D.P. Wadhwa, J.—This petition u/s 256(2) of the Income Tax Act has been preferred by the Revenue, relevant to the assessment year 1985-86, seeking a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer to this court six questions stated to be questions of law for its opinion :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in :

holding that the addition of the value of undisclosed stock-in-trade of Rs. 5,57,000 as also the addition of Rs. 13,000 as unaccounted sales were not justified ?

holding that the relevance of stock statement as on December 31, 1984, seized during the course of search as on December 23, 1985, ''dies automatically'' because the bank concerned had not provided the assessed any overdraft facility based on that stock statement ?

ignoring the essential matter on record relating to the relevant closing date of the accounting year by basing its conclusions on circumstantial evidence of a much later date and on the basis of a misunderstanding of the material document ?

ignoring that the assessed had not discharged the onus placed on it in terms of section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by failing to furnish any plausible Explanation regarding the stock statement giving also the item-wise rate and quantity of the closing stock for the relevant assessment year ?

placing instead the burden of proof wrongly on the Department by observing that no unaccounted sales or purchases had been brought on record ?

deleting another addition of Rs. 13,000 without assigning any reasons ?"

Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the Revenue, very fairly conceded that he will press only question No. 1 for the purpose of the present case, which according to him is a pure question of law and accordingly a question fit to be referred to this court for its opinion. So far as the other five questions are concerned learned counsel for the Revenue conceded that they are questions of fact and accordingly does not press for their reference to this court.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and in our considered opinion question No. 1 formulated by the Revenue is also a question of fact and no question of law arises there from. The petition stands dismissed. No costs.