KRISHAN PAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N this petition, the petitioner is seeking reference of following 18 questions of law to this Court :

(2.) THE questions involved in this case arose when the petitioner showed a receipt of his winning the proceeds of a lottery ticket. The IAC made enquiries and come to the tentative conclusion that the lottery of Rs. 1,00,000 alleged to have been won by the petitioner was in fact not won by the petitioner. The IAC wrote a letter dt. 23rd March, 1979 in which it was indicated as to what the enquiry which had been made revealed. A reply dt. 26th March, 1979 was received and thereafter the IAC regarded this amount of lottery as the income of the petitioner from undisclosed sources and completed the assessment. An appeal was filed which was rejected by the CIT (A). Second appeal was filed to the Tribunal and the Tribunal also dismissed the appeal.

(3.) BEFORE us also the learned counsel has reiterated the submission made before the Tribunal that the aforesaid questions should be referred. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and we find that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the material which had been collected by the assessing authority was made available to the assessee. It was contended by Shri Dalip Singh that the statements which were recorded behind his back were never made available to the assessee at the time of assessment. Even assuming this to be so, vide letter dt. 23rd March, 1979 the synopsis of the material which had been collected by the IAC was delivered to the assessee. According to the Tribunal as well ad according to the CIT the assessee did not ask for the opportunity to examine the person whose statement was recorded behind his back. Learned counsel states that in the letter dt. 26th March, 1979 the assessee did ask for the material on which reliance was placed. We find that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that the material in which reliance was placed was made available to the assessee. The CIT has also stated the "enquires made by the IAC from the Director of State Lotteries and even the ground on which the assessment was to be made was given out in this letter". With regard to the validity of the order of assessment and the ITNS 150 as well as with regard to the validity of notices under S. 143 (2) we agree with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal in regard to the same were pure questions of fact and no questin of law arises. The Tribunal has fond that valid notices have been issued. All the questions which have been raised by the petitioner are questions of fact. We, accordingly, dismiss the petition.