- (1.) AT the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench), referred the following question for the opinion of this court : " Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 was/in law maintainable ?"
(2.) SMT Lajja Wati Singhal wife of one Babu Lal is the assessee and she was a partner in the firm, Satya Industrial Corporation. The husband of the assessee constructed a house in the accounting years relevant for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The husband of the assessee while explaining the investment in the construction, stated that the two advances of Rs. 12,000 and Rs. 15,000 had been taken by him from his wife in the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The assessee at the stage of the assessment for the years in question surrendered the amounts of advances of Rs. 12,000 and Rs. 15,000 and then the said two amounts were brought to tax in her hands. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income-tax found that no inquiry whatsoever was made by the assessing authority into the amounts surrendered by the assessee at the stage of the assessment made for the assessment years in question and he, therefore, invoked Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), and concluded that the assessment orders made by the assessing authority to that extent were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Income-tax set aside the assessment orders relating to the aforesaid years and directed the assessing authority to make the assessments de novo in accordance with the law.
(3.) AGGRIEVED, the assessee carried the dispute in appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which by an order dated July 22, 1980, affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax. This is how the Tribunal referred the aforementioned question for both the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 under Section 256(1) of the Act for the opinion of this court.;