- (1.)By way of this reference application filed under Section 256 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the revenue has canvassed that he submitted a reference application under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur requesting the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court:-
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Tribunal is perverse? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right: i) in accepting possession of 46.300 Kgs. of silver ornaments as on approval from M/s. Lodhilal Radha Govind not considering the fact that the said party was not maintaining stock register and it was almost its entire stock which had been given to assessee for sale which is not the normal practice of business? ii) in rejecting the working adopted for valuation of silver by the IAC to ascertain availability of stock by M/s Lodhilal Radha Govind and applying a lower rate without any evidence and basis? iii)in not taking into account the fact that the alleged letter regarding delivery of gold by M/s. Lodhilal Radha Govind was found at the time of search but a similar letter regarding delivery of silver was not found and this clearly indicated the manipulation? iv) in ignoring the fact that in normal practice when one trader sends goods to other on approval basis no entries are passed in the regular books but as per procedure of accounting approval memo is issued and entries are made in stock register? v) in drawing an inference otherwise than that the deviation from normal practice and procedure of business by M/s. Lodhilal Radha Govind by making entries in books of account regarding goods sent on approval basis was meant to accommodate the assessee to enable him to explain the source of silver ornaments? vi) in not taking note of overall conduct of the assessee particularly with regard to non-disclosure of existence of concealed almirah by Shri Nem Prakash who was virtually conducting the business of the assessee and very well conversant with its affairs and he denied any knowledge about the almirah but subsequently handed over the key? Vii)in ignoring the discrepancy that how the gross weight of gold ornaments received from Shri Navrattanmal Soni could be 910.300 Gms. While ornaments having gross weight of 464.900 gms. only were left with him after receiving 284 gms. by assessee from his prior to 10.3.84 and sent to Shri Shiv Kumar of Delhi? and also in not taking into consideration the discrepancy that voucher No. 25 was dated 10.3.84 and voucher No. 26 was allegedly issued on 6.3.84? and also, in not taking into consideration the over-writings in the month column of the vouchers? and also in not considering the purchase voucher No. 9 which shows that signatures are fabricated as they differ? Viii)in not considering the infirmities and discrepancies noted in the statements of Shri Heeralal, Prop. Lodhilal Radha Govind recorded at the time of survey on 11.5.84?

(2.)Despite the aforesaid questions being the pure questions of law which needed adjudication thereof, the learned Appellate Tribunal rejected the reference application on 13th October, 1993. The revenue has prayed that the reference application be allowed and the Tribunal may be directed to refer the aforesaid questions of law along-with statement of the case for the decision by this Court.
(3.)Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.