Skip to content


Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Lahore Watch Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case Number I.T.A. No. 792 of 1974
Reported in(1977)6CTR(All)62
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax
RespondentM/S. Lahore Watch Co.
Excerpt:
- - 44,863 has become final, the penalty is clearly unsustainable......explanation of the assessee in the absence of any document any evidence regarding the source of currency notes of rs. 44,863 ?3. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal was legally correct in cancelling penalty of rs. 52,000 imposed by iac u/s. 271(1)(a) of the income tax act, 1961 ?whether a sum of rs. 44,863 was available to the assessee on 21-5-1968, is in our opinion, a matter of inference from circumstances and probabilities of the case. the assessees explanation is also a relevant material for the conclusion of the tribunal on this question. it is obvious that there was material for the tribunal coming to its conclusion on this point. hence the first question does not merit reference.2. once there is some material for an finding of the.....
Judgment:

D. M. Chandrashekhar, J. - By this application, the Income Tax Department has prayed for directing to the Income Tax Tribunal to refer the following questions of law :

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Tribunal to hold that Rs. 44,863 was available to the assessee on 21-5-1968 besides the amount of Rs. 1,05,000 withdrawn from the various bank accounts ?

2. Whether or not the Tribunals decision is vitiated in law by relying on the uncorroborated explanation of the assessee in the absence of any document any evidence regarding the source of currency notes of Rs. 44,863 ?

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling penalty of Rs. 52,000 imposed by IAC u/s. 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

Whether a sum of Rs. 44,863 was available to the assessee on 21-5-1968, is in our opinion, a matter of inference from circumstances and probabilities of the case. The assessees explanation is also a relevant material for the conclusion of the Tribunal on this question. It is obvious that there was material for the Tribunal coming to its conclusion on this point. Hence the first question does not merit reference.

2. Once there is some material for an finding of the Tribunal, the sufficiency of such material is not a question of law. Hence the second question is not a question of law.

3. When once the finding of the Tribunal on the question of concealment of Rs. 44,863 has become final, the penalty is clearly unsustainable. The third question also does not arise from the order of the Tribunal.

4. Hence this application is dismissed. No cost.


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