TMI Blog1971 (1) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. S. HEGDE., A. N. GROVER. and J. C. SHAH. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by SHAH C.J.--- The facts in these four appeals are substantially common. We will deal with the facts in respect of only one appeal (Civil Appeal No. 631 of 1967), relating to the assessment of income-tax for the assessment year 1943-44. The decision will govern the other appeals. The assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty, appeals were taken to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was of the view that there was concealment only in respect of cash credits and in suppressing sales in the partners' accounts and reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,000 only. The Commissioner of Income-tax then applied under section 66(1) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred. In our judgment the question raised was purely one of fact. On the materials and in the circumstances of the case, if the Tribunal reached the conclusion that it did, that there was no suppression of sales on the facts disclosed, no case could be referred to the High Court under section 66(1) seeking to upset that conclusion. We do not think that any question of law arose which would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 66(1). The appellant could not ask the High Court to call for a statement of case on a question on which the Tribunal was not asked to submit a statement. Under section 66(2) of the Act, the High Court may call for a statement of case if the High Court is not satisfied about the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal refusing to state a case to the High Court. The High Court cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly shows that what the Tribunal was asked to do was to submit a case to the High Court on the question whether the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion on the facts and circumstances of the case that no concealment was proved by the department. That question cannot, in our judgment, include an enquiry whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to reach a conclusion different from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
