COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GANGADIN KEDARNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The Revenue has filed this application under s. 256 (2) of the IT Act, 1961 (`the Act') seeking reference of the following questions:--

(2.) WE have heard the learned standing counsel for the Revenue.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue that since the Tribunal found that an application was made and was not considered by the assessing authority, the Tribunal should have remanded the matter to the assessing-authority for considering the application explaining the delay and should have refrained from holding that there was sufficient cause for the delay and treating the declaration as filed within time. The learned counsel also pointed out that the judgment of the Tribunal does not show that the Tribunal applied its mind to the question whether sufficient cause was made out. The Tribunal confirmed the findings of the Dy. CIT (A) who would have gone into this question and recorded a finding. The Revenue has not cared to produce copy of order passed by the first appellate authority. In these circumstances, we proceed on the basis that the matter was considered and adjudicated by the Dy. CIT (A) and that finding is confirmed by the Tribunal. The questions suggested are merely questions of fact.