(1.) THE applicant before us was assessed to tax by the Income-tax Officer of Mirzapur on a total income of Rs. 32,856. This included a sum of Rs. 17,051. He appealed and his appeal was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner. He then applied for relief under Section 33 of the Act to the Commissioner, and he also prayed that the Commissioner should state a case and refer the same to us, formulating certain questions of law. THE learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces, refused both the requests of the assessee.
(2.) WE have thus before us an application under Section 66(3) of the Act, and the question which we have got to decide is whether the Commissioners decision that no question of law arose in the case was correct or not. After having gone through the various orders of the Income-tax authorities and after having heard Mr. Malik, we have come to the conclusion that the question involved in this case is a pure question of fact and the Commissioners decision is correct.
(3.) THE position therefore is that the Income-tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner have on the account books of the assessee himself and on the statements made by him, come to the conclusion that a particular sum entered in the books represented the profits of the assessee for the year in question and the two questions formulated by the assessee, therefore, do not arise out of the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner and if they do arise, they are pure questions of fact and we cannot, under these circumstances, require the Commissioner to state and refer a case under Section 66(3) of the Act. THE application is dismissed with costs. THE learned counsel for the Department is entitled to a fee of Rs. 75.