DINESH KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to direction given by this Court under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), the following question has been referred by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' (in short "the Tribunal"), for the opinion of this Court :

(2.) IN short the factual position as emerges from the statement of case is as follows : Assessee had returned his total income of Rs. 9,000 for the assessment year in question i.e., 1973 74 and assessment was completed at Rs. 20,100. A sum of Rs. 10,000 which was shown as cash credit from his wife Smt. Prabha Kumari, was not accepted as a genuine loan and was treated as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. The addition was challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income tax (in short 'AAC') and before the Tribunal, but without any success. Penalty proceedings under S. 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated by issuing show cause notice. After considering and analysing the explanation furnished, ITO imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000. The said levy was confirmed by the AAC as well as by the Tribunal. Assessee moved an application under S. 256(1) of the Act for reference of a question, stated to be a question of law. Same having been rejected by the Tribunal, this Court was moved and pursuant to directions given by this Court, the question as set out above has been referred for opinion.

(3.) THE question whether in a given case the explanation offered by the assessee is acceptable or not is essentially one of fact giving rise to no question of law. We find that the forums below have analysed the case of the assessee, and the explanation offered by him and concluded that the source of the loan allegedly obtained was not properly explained. This conclusion is also one of fact. That being the position, no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, we decline to answer the question referred. The reference is disposed of accordingly. *****