Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Ram Kishan, Etc.
1984 Latest Caselaw 81 Del

JUDGMENT

D.K. Kapur, J.

1. I.T. Cs. Nos. 35, 36 of 1979 are concerned with re-opening of the assessments of the assesseds, there being two assesseds in the case who are brothers and I.T.Cs. Nos. 14 and 117 of 1980 are concerned with the penalty proceedings in respect of the same assesseds.

2. In the penalty matter, the question sought to be referred arises as a consequence of the substantive assessment because the penalty matter was decided in favor of the assesseds on the ground that the substantive assessments had already been set aside by the Tribunal.

3. It is, therefore, more convenient to deal with I.T.Cs. Nos. 35, 36 of 1979 first. In these cases, the capital gain of the assesseds had been calculated initially by the ITO as a consequence of the sale of plots situated at Jhandewalan at Rs. 30,000 but on re-opening of the assessment under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, the capital gain was computed at Rs. 76,875.

4. The Tribunal held in the end that there was no material to upset the value of the plot as given initially and it was wrong to take the selling price as Rs. 80,000 as against Rs. 48,000 because all the material regarding the purchases as well as the sale was already with the ITO at the initial assessment.

5. We have analysed the facts of the case and gone through the various orders. It does appears that there are only questions of facts involved because on the same facts as on 1-1-1954, Rs. 18,000 was adopted as the cost of the plot at the time of initial assessment but the concerned ITO wanted to take the value as Rs. 3,925. On the other hand, on the same facts, the sale price was fixed at Rs. 48,000 by the first ITO after excluding the security amount of Rs. 32,300, but at the time of reassessment it was computed at Rs. 80,000. We agree with the Tribunal that no question of law arises and the finding of the Tribunal that there was no information kept back by the assessed is a question of fact in this particular case.

6. As a result of the substantive assessments being not subject to review, there is no question which arises regarding the penalty matter. As a result all the four applications are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.