9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght in holding that the difference in stock was only on account of valuation notwithstanding the fact that there was difference in quantity of stock found as specified in para. 3 of the order under section 271(1)(c)?" From the statement of the case we find that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, "the Tribunal") referred questions Nos. 1 and 2 only to this court for its opinion, the reference may be had to para. No. 8 of the statement of case. As regards question No. 3 proposed to be referred to this court for opinion by the Revenue in para. No. 9 of the statement of the case the learned Tribunal has recorded reasons to decline to refer the same. The learned Tribunal was of the view that it is a question of fact that the difference in the stocks was mainly on account of difference in valuation and it does not give rise to referable question of law. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that search operations had taken place on September 22,1987, at the business premises of the firm and the residential premises of the partners. Return declaring an income of Rs. 6,50,000 was filed on February 28, 1989, unaccompanied by the annual accounts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e construed harmoniously in order to give effect to the intention of Parliament. It is observed that the word "in the course of the search" appearing in clause (2) of Explanation 5 cannot be interpreted too technically and too narrowly, particularly when the search by itself is an incidental power. According to the Tribunal it would be sufficient if the disclosure is made before the process under section 132(5) commences, the immediate previous step is search and seizure during which a person may be examined as provided for in section 132(4). It is held that it would be too technical to say that "during the course of search" means only the physical search of the premises or the person. The Tribunal concluded that the search was not complete till October 14,1987, and thus the assessee earned the immunities under Explanation 5 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961. On the merits the learned Tribunal held that the penalty imposed cannot survive. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that as per the Departmental valuation, the value arrived at of the undisclosed stock of precious and semiprecious stones was Rs. 15,85,331 whereas as per the books of the assessee it was Rs. 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), i.e., the penalty of Rs. 1,68,000 and the consequential liability of payment thereof upon the assessee. The Union of India and the State are the biggest litigants, in the courts. Both the Union of India and the State are impersonal machinery. The officers responsible for the affairs of the administration should be very careful, cautious and concerned to see that unwarranted and avoidable litigation is not filed in the court. They should not unnecessarily burden the court with the work with which it is already highly burdened. It is also the equal responsibility of the members of the Bar to see that not a single case which has no merit or does not involve a question of law or the questions raised therein are only academic meaning thereby even if the same are decided in favour of the Revenue in this case, will not materially affect the final result, should come to the court so that the court's precious and valuable time is not unnecessarily consumed and wasted. It is the people's time. Looking to the heavy pendency of cases and the fact that the courts never work with full strength, a heavy burden lies upon the officers of the Union of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961, which is closed by the order of the Tribunal as question No. 3 has not been referred nor the Revenue has taken any step to file an application under section 256(2) of the Act for a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer that question. Sub-section (1) of section 260 of the Act, 1961, no doubt, provides that the High Court or the Supreme Court upon hearing any such case shall decide the questions of law raised therein, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and a copy of the judgment shall be sent under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar to the Appellate Tribunal which shall pass such orders as are necessary to dispose of the case conformably to such judgment. From this provision of section 260 of the Act, 1961, it does not mean that this court is bound to answer the question of law referred to it by the Tribunal for its opinion or to give its decision where a question raised is only and purely of academic interest and does not resolve the real controversy. In such circumstances where the question is only academic or is unnecessary or it does not comple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal that there was no sale of import licences, but there was only a sale of imported goods was accepted. Learned counsel, who was appearing for the assessee in that case, vehemently contended before the court that it is not possible for this court to go behind the finding of the Tribunal that there was no sale of import licences by the assessees but there was a sale of imported goods, unless there is a specific question raised by the Tribunal whether the finding of the Tribunal is borne out by the materials on record, and in this case, there being no such question referred to this court at the instance of the Revenue, the Revenue was bound by the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal as to whether there was a sale of import licences or sale of imported goods by the assessees. The Madras High Court held: "A perusal of the statement of the case indicates that the Tribunal did not reject the Revenue's request to refer the two questions on the ground that they did not arise out of the Tribunal's order. But, it has been refused only on the ground that the question referred was comprehensive." In view of this position of the facts in the case, the Madras High Court directed the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
