COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SATNAM MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the CIT, Jodhpur at Jaipur, for requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state a case and refer to the court, a certain question of law said to arise from its order in I.T.A. No. 86/JP/1974-75, decided on December 10, 1975, pertaining to the assessment year 1967-68.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this reference application briefly stated are as follows: THE assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1967-68, declaring the income of Rs. 3,986. Subsequently, the return was revised, and in the revised return the income was declared at Rs. 11,703. THE total income as determined by the ITO was Rs. 67,960. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal determined the income at Rs. 42,591. THE amount assessed included amongst others income from plying of truck No. RJY 1600 and profits on sale thereof under Section 41(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which the assessee had failed to disclose in the return filed by her. THE order of assessment became final in respect of the assessment year 1967-68.

(3.) IN opposing the application for reference, learned counsel for the assessee has referred us to the decisions in Addl. CIT v. Noor Mohd. & Co, 1974 97 ITR 705 and Addl. CIT v. Gem Palace [1975] 98 ITR 640 (Raj), laying down that the question whether the presumption under the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) had been rebutted or not or that the question whether there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee are questions of fact. We refrain from expressing any opinion on this aspect at this stage.