Skip to content


Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jai Jawan Radios - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Application No. 235 of 1974
Judge
Reported in[1984]146ITR504(All)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 256
AppellantAddl. Commissioner of Income-tax
RespondentJai Jawan Radios
Excerpt:
- - it is well settled that the evidence may be direct or circumstantial......in cancelling the penalty of rs. 8,000 imposed by the inspecting asst. commissioner of income-tax under section 271(1)(c) of the i.t. act, 1961 ?' the order of the tribunal shows that from certain circumstances in the case, it (the tribunal) inferred that the assessee had surrendered a sum of rs. 7,000 at the persuasion of the ito. it is well settled that the evidence may be direct or circumstantial. it is quite clear that there was circumstantial evidence which formed the basis for the aforesaid conclusion of the tribunal. hence, question no. 1 does not call for reference to this court. as question no. 2 is based on question no. 1, it follows that question no. 2 also does not call for reference to this court.2. in the result we dismiss this application. but, in the circumstances.....
Judgment:

Chandrashekhar, J.

1. In this application under sub-s, (2) of Section 256 ofthe I.T. Act, 1961, the Revenue has sought for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') to refer,to this court the following two questions of law :

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is not vitiated in law as it is either on assumptions not siipported by evidence or on evidence which could not be used against the Department as no opportunity was given to it ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 8,000 imposed by the Inspecting Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?'

The order of the Tribunal shows that from certain circumstances in the case, it (the Tribunal) inferred that the assessee had surrendered a sum of Rs. 7,000 at the persuasion of the ITO. It is well settled that the evidence may be direct or circumstantial. It is quite clear that there was circumstantial evidence which formed the basis for the aforesaid conclusion of the Tribunal. Hence, question No. 1 does not call for reference to this court. As question No. 2 is based on question No. 1, it follows that question No. 2 also does not call for reference to this court.

2. In the result we dismiss this application. But, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //