SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant-assessee has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), seeking direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the proposed six questions, as mentioned in the application and extracted below, arising out of the order dated March 6, 1992, passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 640/IND of 1990 for the assessment year 1985-86 after rejection of the application presented under Section 256(1) of the Act and registered as RA No. 117/IND of 1992 on February 15, 1993 :

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual Having income from salary from S.M. Kabra and Company besides the income from other sources. The assessment was framed on December 9, 1986, under Section 143(1) of the Act. The returned income was Rs. 13,620. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of Section 143(2)(b) of the Act and served a notice of hearing on the asses-see, ultimately leading to framing of an assessment under Section 144 of the Act on March 30, 1988, for want of co-operation from the assessee at an income of Rs. 3,35,000. The assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which was dismissed. Thereafter, the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed with the direction to the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment after reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the application under Section 256(1) of the Act which was rejected. The assessee has, thus, filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Act.

(3.) WE notice that the Tribunal declined to state the case holding that this, as other questions, is not a referable question of law. The Tribunal held that there was no allegation from the assessee as to the arbitrariness or mala fides in reopening of the assessment under Section 143(2)(b) of the Act. According to the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer was not required to state the reasons for reopening of the assessment as is required under Section 147 of the Act. According to the Tribunal, the entire thing depended upon the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer.