1976 (3) TMI 3 - SC - Income Tax

If the Tribunal holds that there was no concealment whether a question of law arises - no question of law really arises from the order of the Tribunal and the order dismissing the application under section 66(2) cannot be said to be wrong - Appeal of revenue is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of profits from jute transactions.
2. Imposition of penalty for concealment of income.
3. Validity of penalty reduction.
4. Application for reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.
5. Dismissal of application under section 66(2) by the Tribunal.
6. Appeal against the High Court's order dismissing the application.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the assessment of profits from jute transactions by a limited company for the assessment year 1952-53. The company claimed that a portion of the profit was earned by other entities and not attributable to them. The Income-tax Officer rejected this claim, leading to appeals and ultimately a reference to the Patna High Court. The High Court ruled in favor of the company, stating that the material on record did not support the rejection of the company's claim regarding the profits.
2. Subsequently, a penalty was imposed on the company for concealing income based on the same disputed amounts. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the penalty after considering the High Court's decision excluding a portion of the profits. The company argued that the entire disputed amount should be treated similarly, as it had an arrangement with the other entities to reimburse the tax paid on their behalf.
3. The Appellate Tribunal in Calcutta disagreed with the penalty imposition, considering it separate from the assessment proceedings. They concluded that there was insufficient material to justify the assessment of the disputed amount as the company's income. The Tribunal set aside the penalty, leading to an application by the Commissioner for reference to the High Court under section 66(1) of the Act.
4. The High Court rejected the application for reference, prompting a subsequent application under section 66(2) to the High Court. The High Court dismissed this application without providing reasons, leading to an appeal against this order.
5. The appeal argued that the High Court should have provided reasons for the dismissal of the application under section 66(2). However, the Supreme Court decided to proceed with the appeal on its merits without sending it back to the High Court.
6. The Supreme Court analyzed the arguments presented before the Tribunal regarding the disputed amount and the company's explanation for not challenging its inclusion in the assessment. The Court considered the agreement between the company and the allied concern, which led to the exclusion of a portion of the profits. The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the decision was based on factual circumstances and the agreement with the allied concern, concluding that no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.