LAWS(ALL)-1997-10-57

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MIDLANDS P LTD

Decided On October 14, 1997
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant
V/S
MIDLANDS (P) LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application made under S. 256(2), the applicant requires us to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question for opinion of this Court :

(2.) WE have gone through the order of the Tribunal. The facts as found by the Tribunal are that the assessee-company engaged in the business of dealing in television and typewriter, etc., filed duly audited accounts under S. 44-AB of the IT Act, 1961 (briefly, the Act). The due date for filing return under S. 139(1) of the Act was 30th June, 1985. Before the return could be filed, a special survey was conducted on 31st May, 1985, on the business premises of the assessee. Originally, the return was filed showing a loss of Rs. 24,400. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to give quantitative tally of television sets, inter alia. At that time, it transpired that whereas the purchase of 25 television sets valued at Rs. 70,731 from Uptron India Ltd. had duly been accounted for at the end of the year, the corresponding stock was not included in the value of closing stock. The explanation of the assessee was that it always declared such stock on physical verification, and as 25 television sets did not reach the assessee's business premises at the close of the accounting year, the same was not reflected in the closing stock. The assessee explained that it had no intention of suppressing its income as 25 television sets had been duly entered in the relevant stock register which was seized by the special survey team conducted on 31st May, 1985, and that the sale of 25 television sets was duly accounted in the subsequent year. On these facts, the Tribunal found as follows:

(3.) THE question whether there was wilful concealment on the part of the assessee or not, is a question of fact, as it has been so held by the apex Court in several cases. We are, therefore, of the view that the aforementioned question is not a question of law. The application is, accordingly, rejected. ***** Copyright 2000 Current Database Media, All Rights Reserved.