LAWS(MPH)-1996-2-76

KAMLABAI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Decided On February 12, 1996
KAMLABAI Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant-assessee has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the questions of law as proposed arid extracted below arising out of the order dated November 29, 1986, passed by the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 632/(Ind) of 1985 :

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant was assessed. She estimated the income from her agricultural activities at Rs. 48,983. The Income-tax Officer thought that this estimate was very excessive. He, therefore, demanded the particulars. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer caused the enquiry through Tahsildar, Jaora. The Income-tax Officer, then, noticed the applicant to show cause as to why the estimate given by the Tahsildar after enquiry be not accepted. The explanation was that the report did riot show the correct position. The Income-tax Officer eventually added the sum of Rs. 15,000 to the income of the assessee. This addition of Rs. 15,000 was, however, knocked off by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the appeal filed by the applicant. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the non-applicant filed the second appeal which was registered as I. T. A. No. 632/(Ind) of 1985. The appeal was allowed. The order of the first appellate authority was set aside and the order of the Income-tax Officer was restored. In the result, the addition of Rs. 15,000 was brought back to life. Aggrieved, the applicant filed R. A. No. 17(Ind) of 1987 for reference. That application was rejected on November 22, 1988. Thereafter, the applicant has filed this miscellaneous civil case.

(3.) SHRI Vyas, on the other hand, submitted that the applicant has already been given benefit of the amount other than the sum of Rs. 15,000. According to him, the order is based on an appreciation of the entire material and the conclusion is one of fact. He, therefore, submitted that there is no referable question of law.