1998 PLP 1428 (PTD)
GULSHAN KUMAR Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1428 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 223 I T R 207 |
| Bench Members | D.P. Wadhwa and Dr. M. K. Sharma, JJ |
| Parties | GULSHAN KUMAR Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1428 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1428 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 223 I T R 207 bench comprising: D.P. Wadhwa and Dr. M. K. Sharma, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1428 (PTD) (GULSHAN KUMAR Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.S. Sya1i with Satyen Sethi for Petitioner.
- Rajendra with R.N. Verma for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Appeal to CIT (Appeals)
Direction by C.I.T. (Appeals) to enquire into investment by assessee
Tribunal finding that such a direction did not amount to enhancement of income or investigation into a new source of income
No question of law arises
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256. , Held, dismissing the application for reference, that the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that no new source of income was being explored by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) when he gave a direction to make an enquiry in respect of investments made by the assessee. The Tribunal further came to a finding that the directions of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) did not amount to enhancement of income. The findings of the Tribunal were based on appreciation of evidence and were findings of fact. They did not give rise to any question of law.
Judgment & Decree
DR. M.K. SHARMA, J.
By this petition the assessee seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions, stated to be questions of law, to this Court for its .opinion, relevant to the assessment year 1983-84: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not amount to enhancement of the assessee's income? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) would not result in a new source of income which was neither returned by the assessee nor considered by the Assessing Officer? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal did not err in not appreciating the contention of the assessee that the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) would result in an addition under the head 'Income from ether sources' which would be a new head of income not considered by the Assessing Officer?" We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the assessee as also the standing counsel for the Revenue. Counsel for the parties have taken us through the order passed by the Tribunal on appeal, namely, Income-tax Appeal No. 1977/(Del) of 1987. On a perusal of the said order passed by the Tribunal, we find that on appreciation of the records the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that no new source of income was being explored by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) when he gave a direction to make an enquiry in respect of investment made in the purchases. The Tribunal further came to a finding that the directions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not amount to enhancement of income much less investigations into a new source of income which was not processed by the Income-tax Officer at all. In our opinion, the said findings of the Tribunal are based on appreciation of evidence and are findings of facts. Therefore, they do not give rise to any question of law. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we decline to call for any reference on the aforesaid question as proposed by the assessee and we accordingly dismiss this petition. M.B.A./1476/FC Order accordingly.