Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Nirmal Anand on 29 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000 110 TAXMAN 308 Delhi
Author: A Kurnar
JUDGMENT
Arun Kurnar, J.
By this petition under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') the revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions, stated to be one of law, arising out of RA No. 374 (Delhi) of 1997 in respect of the assessment year 1986-87, for the opinion of this court:
" 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Commissioner had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act?"
2. The assessee, an individual, was assessed to income-tax in respect of the relevant assessment year on a total income of Rs. 4,05,520 as against the returned income of Rs. 3,69,740. However, the Commissioner, after examining the assessment record, came to the conclusion that the said assessment was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue inasmuch as: (i) the deduction on account of house tax, pertaining to the earlier years but paid during the year, was wrongly allowed by the assessing officer because the income from immovable property was not assessed under the head 'Income from house property' as the assessee was not the legal owner thereof; (ii) the assessee had not disclosed interest income on the amounts lying deposited in her compulsory deposit account; and (iii) though the assessee had made disclosure under the Amnesty Scheme in respect of the wealth, no corresponding disclosure was made under the Act. He, accordingly, set aside the assessment and directed the assessing officer to make a fresh assessment.
2. The assessee, an individual, was assessed to income-tax in respect of the relevant assessment year on a total income of Rs. 4,05,520 as against the returned income of Rs. 3,69,740. However, the Commissioner, after examining the assessment record, came to the conclusion that the said assessment was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue inasmuch as: (i) the deduction on account of house tax, pertaining to the earlier years but paid during the year, was wrongly allowed by the assessing officer because the income from immovable property was not assessed under the head 'Income from house property' as the assessee was not the legal owner thereof; (ii) the assessee had not disclosed interest income on the amounts lying deposited in her compulsory deposit account; and (iii) though the assessee had made disclosure under the Amnesty Scheme in respect of the wealth, no corresponding disclosure was made under the Act. He, accordingly, set aside the assessment and directed the assessing officer to make a fresh assessment.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal to the Tribunal.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal to the Tribunal.
While setting aside the said order, the Tribunal observed that insofar as the question of allowability of house tax and disclosure of interest earned on compulsory deposit account was concerned, it was clear from the record that in the past amount of interest was brought to tax on receipt basis and the deduction in respect of the house tax was allowed after due application of mind by the assessing officer. As regards the issue relating to the source of acquisition of jewellery, declared under the Amnesty Scheme, the Tribunal held that there was no material on record to show that the jewellery was acquired in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and not in the year as mentioned by the assessee in her declaration under the Amnesty Scheme and, therefore, in the absence of any clear finding that income on account of unexplained investment was assessable in the relevant assessment year, it could not be said that the assessment order was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
4. The revenue's application under section 256(1) having been dismissed, this petition has been filed.
4. The revenue's application under section 256(1) having been dismissed, this petition has been filed.
5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the view that in the light of the afore noted findings recorded by the Tribunal, which are pure findings of fact, not challenged by the revenue by a specific question, the proposed questions are not questions of law fit for reference to this court.
5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the view that in the light of the afore noted findings recorded by the Tribunal, which are pure findings of fact, not challenged by the revenue by a specific question, the proposed questions are not questions of law fit for reference to this court.
6. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
