Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bhanwar Lal Jas Raj Gehlot. on 2 May, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1996)134CTR(RAJ)568
JUDGMENT
B. R. ARORA, J. :
The Revenue has moved this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act with a prayer that the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur may be directed to refer the following three questions of law for the opinion of the High Court in the case of assessee Bhanwar Lal for the asst. yr. 1987-88, which, according to the Revenue, arise out of the order dt. 30th April, 1993 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1377/Jp/1990 :
"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honble Tribunal was legally justified in :
(i) upholding the order of CIT(A) thereby accepting the agriculture income of the assessee as shown by him on the basis of alleged declared income from this source in asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1988-89 which have been set-aside under s. 263 of the IT Act ?
(ii) upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) that difference between estimated agriculture income of Rs. 1,11,000 and as shown by the assessee and his family members at Rs. 2,58,000 should not be treated as the assessees undisclosed income from his real estate business ?
(iii) deleting the addition of Rs. 20,000 made on account of low house-hold expenses ?"
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. A search was conducted at the residence of the assessee by the IT Department under s. 132 of the Act on 22nd Aug., 1987 which continued upto 31st Aug., 1987. During this raid, the statements of the assessee and his sons were recorded. The assessee, for the asst. yr. 1987-88, on 23rd Feb., 1988, filed the return of his income declaring the taxable income at Rs. 36,821 and the agricultural income of Rs. 1,18,550. The ITO, Central Circle, Jodhpur, for the asst. yr. 1987-88 took the agricultural income at Rs. 1,11,000 and vide order dt. 26th March, 1990 completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 2,09,331.
3. The assessee, aggrieved with the order dt. 26th March, 1990 passed by the Asstt. CIT, Central Circle, Jodhpur, preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), Jodhpur. The CIT(A), Jodhpur, by his order dt. 3rd Aug., 1990 allowed the appeal filed by the assessee in part. The assessee, aggrieved with the order dt. 3rd Aug., 1990 filed an appeal before the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The Revenue, also, filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the CIT(A), Jodhpur. Both these appeals relating to the asst. yr. 1987-88 were decided by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur by its order dt. 30th April, 1993. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed while the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal.
4. Aggrieved with the order dt. 30th April, 1993 passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue moved an application under s. 256(1) of the Act to refer the questions of law mentioned in para 1 above for the opinion of the High Court and the Tribunal, by its order dt. 28th Feb., 1994 refused to refer these questions because according to the Tribunal, no referable questions of law arise out of the judgment passed by the Tribunal as the decision of the Tribunal is based on the facts and the appreciation of the evidence.
5. The Tribunal has considered these three points in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the judgment. The Tribunal, after consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case observed that it is in full agreement with the decision of the CIT(A) that when the property is owned by the major sons of the assessee, it were they who had sold the assets, there was no justification in adding the capital gain in the hands of the assessee and the income of the major sons cannot be considered to be the income of the assessee. The Tribunal further observed that the observations of the AO relating to the income from agriculture were based on conjecture and surmises and the AO has ignored all the evidence produced by the assessee in the form of revenue record, certificate from the District Agriculture Officer assessees own record wherein the income of the assessee from the agriculture, during the asst. yr. 1983-84 has been accepted at Rs. 1,73,894 and during the asst. yr. 1984-85 it has been accepted as Rs. 1,48,800.
6. The judgment passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur is based on the appreciation of the evidence and does not give rise to any question of law. As the questions raised by the Revenue are purely the questions of fact and do not give rise to any question of law, the application filed by the Revenue, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
7. In the result, we do not find any merit in this application filed by the Revenue. No referable question of law do arises in the present case and as such the application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act is dismissed.