Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Major Shamsher Singh (No. 1)
1989 Latest Caselaw 597 Del

JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.

1. By this application under section 256(2), the petitioner is seeking reference of the following four question to this court :

"(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct, in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 66,182 is not taxable as the assessed's business income from dealings in land ?

(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 66,782 is not chargeable to tax as capital gain without recording any finding whether the transferred asset is an agricultural land outside the purview of capital gain within the meaning of clause (iii) of sub-section (14) of section 2 ?

(c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,02,717 as the assessed's income from undisclosed sources ?

(d) Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in accepting the figures of production of chillies different from those given to the Income-tax Officer without affording an opportunity to the Income-tax Officer for verification thereof ?"

2. The respondent is the husband of one Mrs. Prem Shamsher Singh and we find that, in case, the Tribunal itself had referred a question to this court pertaining to the taxability of the income from the sale of land. In this view of the matter and even otherwise, in our opinion, the first two question should be referred by the Tribunal.

3. As far as question Nos. (c) and (d) are concerned, in our opinion, the same are pure question of fact. The respondent had disclosed income from agriculture contending that he had sold chilies. The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the respondent could not have produced the quantum of chillies as alleged and treated a sum of Rs. 1,02,717 as income from undisclosed sources. The addition was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no reason as to why the production of chillies shown by the respondent should be disbelieved. In our opinion, the said decision of the Tribunal is a pure question of fact and no question of law arises.

4. For the aforesaid reasons, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the aforesaid question (a) and (b) to this court.