B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, J. - (1.) BY this application under S. 256 (2) of the IT Act, the assessee is requesting this Court to refer the following questions for the opinion of this Court : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case read with the documents at serial Nos. 92 to 97 of Annexure A found at the time of search, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the Fiat car No. UPP 425, even though it was not registered in the name of the assessee, was purchased by the applicant thereby up holding an addition of Rs. 77,713 ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case read with the statement of Sri Hardeo Kumar who had purchased the said can in Jan., 1983 from Sri V. K. Sood, the original owner, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that his statement was false, thereby raising a presumption that the witness had come forward to give false evidence to oblige the assessee in utter disregard of the dictum laid down by the jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of Sheo Narain Duli Chand vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 766 (All) ? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified to decide the issue on conjectural basis without disproving the documentary evidence as produced before the authorities below and also before the Tribunal regarding the ownership of the car ? 4. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,000, though disclosed by the applicant himself in the return as assessable income of the applicant, particularly when income from various sources had been assessed separately ? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in not telescoping the amount of Rs. 25,000 assessed to tax in the hand of the applicant with the investment of Rs. 77,713 in the Fiat car, thereby denying the relief of Rs. 25,000 to the applicant ?
(2.) THOUGH the questions are five in number they ultimately relate to one aspect only whether the finding of the Tribunal that the Fiat car No. UPP 425 belongs to the assessee even though it does not stand in his name and on that basis adding a sum of Rs. 77,713 (purchase priced) under S. 69 of the IT Act is justified ? The finding against the petitioner was arrived at on the basis of the statement of one V. K. Sood. Sri V. K. Sood was called as a witness and the petitioner was apprised of the said date so as to enable him to cross-examine the witness, if he so chose. However, the assessee's Advocate did not appear in time to cross-examine the witness. He reached the office at 4 PM. and applied for recalling the witness. The ITO rejected that application. This has been confirmed by both the appellate authorities. It is thus clear that this is not a case where no opportunity was given. This is a case where opportunity was given but was not availed of by the petitioner. He requested for further opportunity. That request was not acceded to an, in the circumstances of the case the said rejection of the request cannot be said to be arbitrary. In any event it cannot be said that any question of law arises from the order of Tribunal. The application is rejected.
(3.) NO cost.;