UDAYAN MUKHERJEE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal was admitted on the following ground: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the mistake in computation was intentional concealment and wrong furnishing of particulars though the assessee pointed out that there is a mistake in indexation and paid the entire tax and interest immediately ?

(2.) MR . Dipak Deb, learned senior counsel representing the Department, pointed out that this is a ground on fact, not a substantial question of law. In fact, as it appears from the ground, it seems to be misleading. The ground, if we read properly, may be coined as such: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the wrong calculation on the basis of mistaken indexation could be treated to be furnishing of wrong particulars or concealment of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 ? The submission of the Department:

(3.) IN the said decision, Mr. Deb had occasion to appear and make similar submission, viz., (p 7) 'The statute has to be interpreted in the manner it has expressed its intention. Neither the Tribunal nor the court can interpret an enactment in a manner different from the way it is expressed by the Legislature through express language 'employed' therein.' This submission was accepted in the said decision by the Division Bench in which one of us (D.K. Seth J.) was a party. He has also pointed out that the learned Tribunal and the Assessing Officer have come to a finding of fact that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and therefore this Court should not interfere with such finding of facts. Submission by the appellant/assessee: