9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent assessment years. This is an application made by the Revenue (Income-tax Department) under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act prayer for calling for a reference on the questions proposed in the application from the Tribunal to this court for being answered by this court under section 256(1) of the Act. In all these cases, the Tribunal declined to make the reference to this court and rejected the applications made by the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act holding that the questions proposed by the Revenue do not or cannot be regarded as questions of law for being referred to this court for answer on merits. According to the Tribunal, all the questions proposed were pure questions of fact and hence, were not capable of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was then accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal seemed justified while rejecting the application made by the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Act when it held that it is a pure finding of fact involving no question of law as such, which can be referred to this court for re-examination. We find no reason to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal on this issue because in our opinion also, the question proposed is essentially a question of fact and not a question of law. The question, whether a particular addition or deletion as the case may be should be allowed or not in favour of the assessee, is essentially a question of fact. It is only when a particular ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal with a view to find out whether deduction claimed by the assessee in his gross income can be allowed, or not. This inquiry being essentially factual in nature does not involve any question of law much less abstract question of law. It is only when one is able to notice that the deduction claimed or granted is totally perverse, or on the face of it illegal which no judicial man can ever grant, the question of law may emerge out of it requiring interference by the court by calling for a reference, if already declined by the Tribunal, or answer the reference, if already made. Coming to the facts of the case, so far as the issue relating to one particular type of deductions is concerned, the Tribunal held them to be falling in the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40A(3) read with rule 6DD(j). In our opinion, even the deductions claimed under this rule are pure question of fact and do not need examination by the High Court in its reference jurisdiction. The deduction under section 40A(3) is available provided the assessee is able to make out a case that he/they has/have satisfied the conditions specified in rule 6DD(j) ibid. Now, whether the assessee has satisfied the conditions specified in rule 6DD(j), or not depends upon the facts of each case and further depends upon the explanation offered by the assessee. This exercise also does not involve any question of law as such, unless it is shown that the finding on this issue is so perverse and/or illegal that no judicial man can ever reach. No such at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
