N.D.Ojha, J. - (1.) Proceedings for assessment under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in regard to the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 were initiated against the opposite party and were finalised. Subsequently, these proceedings were sought to be reopened under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that there had been omission or failure on the part of the opposite party to disclose certain land which was not agricultural land in his return. The case of the opposite party on the other hand was that the land in question was agricultural land and did not fall within the definition of the term "asset" under the Act during the assessment years in question and that there was neither any omission nor failure on his part to disclose the said land in his return. The plea raised by the opposite party did not find favour with the Wealth-tax Officer and on appeal with the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. On a further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it was held by the Tribunal that there was no omission or failure on the part of the opposite party to disclose fully and truly all material facts for assessment during the relevant assessment years. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Department made an application before the Tribunal for making a reference to this court under Section 27(1) of the Act. That application having been dismissed, these three applications under Section 27(3) of the Act have been made before this court with the prayer that the Tribunal may be required to state the questions of law referred to in these applications for the opinion of this court.
(2.) Having heard Shri Markandey Katju, counsel for the Income-tax Department, and Shri R.K. Gulati, counsel for the opposite party, who has put in appearance, we are of the opinion that in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in its appellate order referred to above that there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for assessment, no question of law arises from the said order which may justify this court in requiring the Tribunal to make any reference. In CIT v. Lakhiram Ramdas, [1962] 44 ITR 726 (SC), which was a case under Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, it was held that the finding that there was no omission or failure as contemplated by the said section was a finding of fact. Section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act are in pari materia and in our opinion, in view of the authority of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, it is apparent that the finding of the Tribunal referred to above in the instant case is essentially a finding of fact.
(3.) In the result, all these three applications are dismissed with one set of costs assessed at Rs. 125.;