COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SANT DAS NIHAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue, by this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has prayed that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to state a case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court, which according to the Revenue, arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal :

(2.) THE assessee, Santdass Nihal Chand, Station Road, Jodhpur, is a registered firm, a dealer of Godfrey Philips India Limited. For the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act on the returned income of Rs. 84,474. Subsequently, a search was conducted in the business premises of the firm as well as the residential premises of the partners of the firm. Certain incriminating documents were found which disclosed that a substantial amount of "on money" was received by the assessee on the sales of cigarettes, which were not accounted for by the assessee in the books of account. THE Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, Jodhpur, therefore, issued a notice under Section 148 read with Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act to the assessee. In response to this notice, the assessee filed the return showing the income of Rs. 84,470. In the order passed under Section 132(5) of the Act, the Income-tax Officer determined the concealment of "on money" to the tune of Rs. 12,196 during the assessment year 1984-85. THE assessee, during the reassessment proceedings, agreed for an addition of Rs. 12,196 on account of "on money" which was not disclosed by it in the return. THE assessing authority, vide its order dated June 5, 1989, reassessed the assessee on a total income of Rs. 96,660. While passing the reassessment order, the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,880.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this application under Section 256(2) of the Act filed by the Revenue and the same deserves to be dismissed. No case for directing the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question, which is purely a question of fact, does arise in this case.