PATHAK, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under S. 66(2) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, by the CIT, U. P., Lucknow.
(2.) THE assessee is an HUF. For the asst. year 1951 -52, the ITO took assessment proceedings against the assessee and during the proceedings discovered a number of credit entries in the account of Smt. Ram Kali Devi and Smt. Devi, wives of two members of the family. The assessee explained that the amounts proceeded out of the sale of ornaments for an amount of Rs. 25,168, and supported the explanation by parchas issued by one Banwari Lal Saraf of Delhi on September 27, 1950. Those parchas and the affidavit of Banwari Lal were filed by the assessee. The ITO, however, did not accept the explanation of the assessee and treated the sum of Rs. 25,168 as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. The finding was upheld in appeal by the AAC and, thereafter, in second appeal by the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that it was not satisfied with the explanation rendered by the assessee, as satisfactory evidence had not been adduced in support of the explanation. The ITO initiated proceedings against the assessee for the imposition of a penalty, and on February 15, 1965, the IAC made an order under S. 27(1)(c), IT Act, 1961, imposing a penalty of Rs. 6,682. An appeal by the assessee against the penalty order was allowed by the Tribunal on March 21, 1966. The Tribunal held that the assessee had, prima facie, made out a case that the moneys arose out of the sale proceeds of the ornments and that had not been rebutted by the ITO and the charge of concealment of income had not been brought home to the assessee. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the ITO had established beyond reasonable doubt that the amount in respect of which the penalty was sought to be imposed must be held to be the assessee's income and that he deliberately concealed the particulars of that income. The CIT applied to the Tribunal for a reference of the case, and the application having been rejected, this reference application has now been made.
(3.) IT seems to us that the finding on the Tribunal is a finding of fact and we are unable to see that any question of law arises. The question suggested in the reference application is : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty under S. 27(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, was justified in law ?" ;