COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS all these cases involve the same question of law against the same assessee, therefore, they are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) IT may be relevant to mention here that for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1973-74, the assessee was found to have concealed wealth and a penalty was levied in respect of both the assessment years by the Wealth-tax Officer. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal and the appellate authority found the explanation of the assessee satisfactory and set aside the penalty. Against this, an appeal was preferred before the Tribunal by the Department and the appeal was dismissed by a detailed order dated October 26, 1983. Thereafter, the Department approached the Tribunal for making a reference under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and the reference was made by the Tribunal and the following question was referred by the Tribunal for answer by this court :

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel and perused the record. Since a similar question has already been answered by this court on the same facts, therefore, it would be a futile exercise now to enter into that controversy once again when the Tribunal has already taken a view that the assessee has not concealed the wealth and has satisfactorily explained. Therefore, the WEalth-tax Commissioner set aside the order and the order was confirmed by the Tribunal and when the matter came up in reference before this court, this court also answered it against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee and held that no question of law arises in the matter as the matter was decided on the facts. Hence, a similar situation arises in the present cases also and we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in these cases because whether the assessee has explained the facts satisfactorily or not is essentially a question of fact. The WEalth-tax Commissioner was satisfied on the facts explained by the assessee and there was no question of concealment and the same was confirmed by the Tribunal. This court has held in order in M. C. C. No. 205 of 1985 that no question of law arises and adopting the same reasoning, we hold that no question of law arises in the present cases. The Division Bench of this court in M. C. C. No. 205 of 1985 observed as under :