Madhya Pradesh High Court
Cit vs Shankar Lal Dwarka Das on 27 August, 2004
Equivalent citations: [2005]144TAXMAN173(MP)
ORDER Sapre, J.
The decision rendered in this case shall also govern disposal of other two cases being M.C.C. Nos. 252 and 254 of 1995 because all these applications relate to one assessee and secondly arise out of one impugned order passed by ITAT, on 9-9-1993. The only difference being that they arise out of different assessment years.
2. This is the question which the revenue has proposed for being answered by this court on a reference being called from the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Act:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied by the assessing officer for concealment of Income?"
3. The dispute in this case essentially relates to imposition of penalty which was imposed on assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Though, the penalty was imposed upon the assessee by the assessing officer, the same was quashed by the Tribunal holding that there was no deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee in disclosing the return. In the absence of any material to indicate that the disputed materials actually belong to assessee, the Tribunal was of the opinion that no case for imposition of penalty is made out against the assessee. It is on this basis, the Tribunal set aside the order of imposition of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals). When a reference was sought by the revenue from the Tribunal for making a reference under section 256(1), the same was declined, holding that it does not involve any referable question of law.
4. We are also while concurring with the order passed by the Tribunal hold that the matter does not involve any referable question of law and what it involves, is a question of fact. The issue must arise out of the question which is based upon the interpretation of law for being answered by the High Court, such is not the case here. In the opinion of assessing officer the assessee made certain concealment. The assessee came with an explanation and the same was accepted. It is in our opinion, a question of fact. It does not involve any issue of importance as such. A grant of imposition of penalty on the assessee is essentially a question of discussion. If proper explanation was offered and the same was accepted by the Tribunal, this court would not like to disturb such finding in exercise of their jurisdiction conferred upon them under section 256(1) of the Act. The Tribunal has rightly declined to refer the question proposed by the revenue to High Court to examine such question which does not involve any issue of law.
5. We are respectfully agreeing with the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal, as a consequence, the application fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.
No costs.