Delhi High Court
Suram Chand Rehlan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 August, 1990
Author: B Kripal
Bench: B Kirpal, S Duggal
JUDGMENT
B.N. Kripal, J.
1. The petitioner had sought reference of the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :
"1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, there is any material before the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to enhance the income from transportation business even though this income is fully supported by a register and vouchers ?
2. Whether, on the fact and circumstances of the case, there is any material before the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to enhance the income from the coal depot by ignoring the history of the case ?
3. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is competent to enhance the income of the Moti Nagar Depot to more than that determined by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) ?
4. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in taking sales of Rs. 22,050 at Sarla Devi Depot as cash credits and in not adjusting the same against the enhancement in income from transportation and coal depot ?
5. Whether on the facts of the case, the assessment is void, being barred by limitation ?
6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the income of Rohit Coal Depot and Ramesh Kumar and Co., the depot licenses for which are in the names of the assessed's adult sons who have been assessed on such income, could be taken as the income of the assessed ?"
2. The income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question No. 5 to this court. The present petition under section 256(2) of the Act has been filed seeking reference of question Nos. 1 to 4 and 6.
3. In our opinion, the aforesaid questions are not questions of law. As far as questions Nos. 1 and 2 are concernned, there is material on record on the basis of which the Tribunal has come to its conclusion and the said questions are pure question of fact.
4. As far as question No.3 is concerned, the total income which was determined as income from coal business was over Rs. 74,000 which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal has reduced this income from coal to Rs. 30,000 and, therefore, this question does not arise.
5. As regards question No.4 is concerned,the said question was never argued before the Tribunal, nor considered by the Tribunal and, as such, it cannot be said that the said question arises from the order of the Tribunal.
6. Question No. 6 is also a question of fact. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the income of Rohit Coal Depot and Ramesh Kumar and Co. belong to the assessed and there is material that an assessment had been made in the names of the sons of the assessed though, in actual fact, there is no assessable income of the sons.
7. In our opinion, no question of law arises, We are not in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner that any relevent material has been produced on record. Dismissed.
