CHANNAL LAL DINGHARA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under S. 256 (2) of the IT Act, the assessee is requesting this Court to refer the following questions for the opinion of this Court :

(2.) THOUGH the questions are five in number they ultimately relate to one aspect only whether the finding of the Tribunal that the Fiat car No. UPP 425 belongs to the assessee even though it does not stand in his name and on that basis adding a sum of Rs. 77,713 (purchase priced) under S. 69 of the IT Act is justified ? The finding against the petitioner was arrived at on the basis of the statement of one V. K. Sood. Sri V. K. Sood was called as a witness and the petitioner was apprised of the said date so as to enable him to cross-examine the witness, if he so chose. However, the assessee's Advocate did not appear in time to cross-examine the witness. He reached the office at 4 PM. and applied for recalling the witness. The ITO rejected that application. This has been confirmed by both the appellate authorities. It is thus clear that this is not a case where no opportunity was given. This is a case where opportunity was given but was not availed of by the petitioner. He requested for further opportunity. That request was not acceded to an, in the circumstances of the case the said rejection of the request cannot be said to be arbitrary. In any event it cannot be said that any question of law arises from the order of Tribunal.

(3.) NO cost.