1994 (5) TMI 283 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of application under section 254 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Correct interpretation of the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Rejection of the claim under sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The assessee, a charitable trust, sought direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer questions of law arising from the common order in IT Appeal Nos. 2819 to 2821 and 5994 of 1989 for assessment years 1983-84 to 1985-86 and 1988-89. The Tribunal rejected the application under section 254 of the Act, prompting the assessee to challenge this decision. The Tribunal's findings were considered factual, and the Court concluded that no error was apparent from the record, dismissing the application for rectification under section 254(2).

2. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) had previously examined the market value of shares of a closely-held company related to the trustees of the assessee-trust. The Deputy Commissioner found that the shares had no market value and could not serve as adequate security. The Tribunal upheld this decision, and the assessee contended that the order was incorrectly interpreted. However, the Court determined that the issue was a factual finding and did not give rise to a question of law, as the Tribunal's decision was based on the specific circumstances regarding the security of shares.

3. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's application for rectification based on alleged mistakes in the record. The Tribunal found that the statements made during the appeal process were correctly considered, and the assessee's contentions regarding the security of loans were not supported by the evidence presented. The Court held that the Tribunal's findings were factual and not indicative of any error in the record. The Court concluded that the assessee's attempts to re-argue the matter through rectification applications were beyond the scope of section 254(2) and ultimately dismissed the applications.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the applications, emphasizing that no error was apparent from the record and that the attempts to re-open and reargue the matter through rectification applications were not permissible under the law.