COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GOSWAMI CHANDRALATA BAHUJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these applications under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan II, requires the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ' A ', to refer a certain question of law said to arise out of its consolidated order in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 321 to 323/JP of 1971-72, dated November 24, 1973, pertaining to the assessment years 1957-58, 1961-62 and 1963-64, and out of its consolidated order in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 323 and 324/JP of 1973-74, dated February 6, 1975, pertaining to the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, to the High Court for its opinion, namely :

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these reference applications, in brief, are as follows:

(3.) THE learned counsel contends that there is a finding of concealment of income in the relevant years by the Tribunal in the quantum appeals. He relied upon the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Anwar Alt [1970] 76 ITR 696. He says that it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have noticed the Explanation as the revised returns were all filed after April 1, 1968, i.e. after the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was added by the Finance Act, 1964, w.e.f. April 1, 1966. In support of his contention, Shri Lodha formulated five propositions, viz., (1) the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was attracted in the cases as the returns were filed after April 1, 1968 : CIT v. Data Ram Satpal [1975] 99 ITR 507 (All), CIT v. K.C. Behera, 1976 103 ITR 479 and CIT v. K.C. Behera [1976] 105 ITR 193 (Orissa); (2) after the insertion of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c), in view of the presumption therein, the burden was on the assessee to show that the disparity between the returned and the assessed income was not due to fraud or gross or wilful neglect on her part: CIT v. Kedar Nath Ram Nath [1977] 106 ITR 172 (All); (3) if any finding is arrived at by the Tribunal by the placing of wrong burden, i.e., there is an erroneous approach, a question of law arises: Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC) and CIT v. Bharat Tubewell Stores [1975] 100 ITR 678 (P & H) ; (4) the question as formulated is a question of law : CIT v. Bharat Tubewell Stores [1975] 100 ITR 678 (P & H) and Addl. CIT v. Chandra Vilas Hotel (Special Appeals Nos. 1649 and 1650 (T) of 1973) decided on August 1, 1977 (since reported in [1978] 115 ITR 118 (SC)); (5) the decision in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC), on which the Tribunal relied, has no application.