SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, under Section 250(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the assessec was the managing director of Messrs. Anchor Pressings Pvt. Ltd. THE relevant assessment year is the assessment year 1972-75. In respect of the accounting year relevant to this assessment year, as it was found by the income-tax authorities that Messrs. Anchor Pressings Pvt. Ltd. had advanced a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the asses-see on June 25, 1971, describing it as imprest or temporary loan. THE Income-tax Officer added this amount to the assessee's income invoking Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

(3.) A perusal of the Tribunal's order shows that the Tribunal has observed " the argument that liabilities have not been taken into account has no force as, even if the liabilities subsisting on the dale of payment were taken into account, there was still sufficient surplus to advance the loan of Rs. 1,00,000 ". This is a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. Unfortunately for the assessee, this finding has not been challenged by way of a specific question under Section 256(1). It is well-settled that a finding of fact of the Tribunal can be challenged only in a reference under Section 256 of the Income lax Act by raising a specific question, vide Kanga and Palkhivala's Law and Practice of Income Tax, Eighth Edition, page 1547. All the necessary authorities on this point have been discussed in Kanga's book at page 1547 and it is unnecessary to refer to them in detail. The assessee should have framed a specific question as to whether the aforementioned finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is based on no evidence or has been reached after ignoring relevant evidence, but no such question has been framed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act by the assessee.