D. M. Chandrashekhar, J. - In these applications under Sub-S. (2) of S. 256 of Income-tax Act, 1961 the Revenue has sought for a direction to the Income Tax Tribunal to refer the following two questions :
1. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income during the course of original assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1957-58 to 1960-61.
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling penalties of 5,000/- 1,500 and Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 4,000/-imposed under S. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the assessment year 1957-58, 58-59 59-60 and 1960-61 respectively.
2. The assessee is common in all the four cases and there was a common order passed by the Tribunal for these years. In such reassessment proceedings the assessee agreed to certain amounts being treated as his income during those years and being subject to tax. After the conclusion of reassessment proceedings the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax levied penalties on the assessee for those flour years :
3. In the appeals filed by the assessee challenging the levy of penalty the Tribunal while setting aside the levy of penalties has observed thus :
'on the other hand, the letter clearly shows that the assessee agreed to be assessed on those amounts to purchase peace an to close the litigation. On these facts, we are afraid it is not possible for us to give a finding that the amounts added represented the assessees concealed income of the relevant years'.
4. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Divendra Singh a Division Bench of this court has held that a finding recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee was not guilty of concealment is a finding of fact and cannot be challenged in a reference.
5. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. the Supreme Court has observed that whether or not an assessee has concealed its income is a question to be decided on the facts of a case and no question of law really arises from such finding of the High Court.
6. The learned Senior standing counsel for the Revenue submitted that the aforesaid two decisions can have no application to a case whether an assessee had not disclosed certain income in the original assessment and had agreed that certain amounts may be treated as his income in reassessment. We are unable to see any distinction between the original assessment proceedings and reassessment proceedings in regard to the conclusion to be drawn from an assessees agreeing to certain amounts being treated as his income for purchasing peace.
7. In view of the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court and the ruling of this court, no question of law can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal which has held that it is not possible to give a finding that the amounts added by the Income Tax Officer represented the assessees concealed income for the relevant years.
8. In the result we dismiss these applications.
9. In the circumstances of these case we make no order as to costs.