VIDYA SAGAR OSWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this reference are as follows: The assessee is an individual and for the assessment year 1961-62 (previous year commencing on 1st of April, 1960, and ending on 31st of March, 1961), he filed his return of income showing a total income of Rs. 86,029. The assessee had withdrawn Rs. 2,000 on account of household expenses and the amount was debited to his account at the end of the year as per his account books. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the statement of the assessee that his household expenses during the accounting year commencing on 1st April, 1960, and ending on 31st March, 1961, amounted to only Rs. 2,000. The Income-tax Officer estimated that the household expenses of the assessee must have been at the rate of Rs. 500 per month and at that rate he must have spent Rs. 6,000 during the accounting year. Thus, the difference of Rs. 4,000 was added in his income for the purpose of assessment. This addition was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and also by the Tribunal on appeal. The penalty proceedings were initiated at the time of completing the assessment and as the minimum penalty exceeded Rs. 1,000, the matter was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,061 under Section 271 (1) (c) read with Section 274 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"), vide his order dated January 17, 1968. Aggrieved by the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal against the penalty. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, vide its order dated 22nd April, 1971. Thereafter, two applications were moved under Section 254 (2) of the Act for rectification of the order of the Tribunal but the game were dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order dated 4th April, 1972.

(2.) THE assessee then moved an application under Section 256 (1) of the Act requiring the Tribunal to refer to the High Court three questions of law, enumerated therein, arising out of its order. This application was also dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated 4th April, 1972. The assessee then moved the High Court under Section 256 (2) of the Act which was allowed and the department was directed to state the case and refer the following question of law for opinion by the High Court:

(3.) IN this view of the matter we hold that there was ample evidence before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the assessee had concealed his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of his income.