- (1.) THE Revenue, by this application under Section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, has prayed that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that amount in question was not chargeable to gift-tax and as such no penalty under Section 17(1)(c) is leviable ?"
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the deceased H. H. Maha-rana Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar (now represented through his son and legal heir M. K. Arvind Kumar Singhji), in response to the notice under Section 16 of the Gift-tax Act issued by the Gift-tax Officer, District B-Ward, Udaipur, filed a nil return under protest. The Gift-tax Officer also issued a notice under Section 15(2) of the Act to the assessee for the assessment year 1969-70 and in pursuance of which the authorised representative of the assessee attended the proceedings. The assessee was required to file reasons as to why gift of Rs. 2,50,000 to M. K. Arvind Kumar Singhji; Rs. 50,000 to Smt. Nirupamma Kumariji and Rs. 50,000 to Smt. Raghuraj Kumariji made by the assessee may not be taxed. The assessee was also required to file reasons why the gift be not calculated for sale of 1/4th share of Daisylea House on the basis of the valuation adopted by the Government Valuer at Bombay. The assessee filed a reply and contended that the amount paid to these persons including others, were paid from the privy purse for the maintenance of the members of the royal family. The Assessing Officer, by his order dated March 3, 1979, completed the assessment under Section 15(3) of the Act and held that the following amounts are chargeable to the gift-tax : " (a) Deemed gift of Rs. 1 lakh made by the assessee to M. K. Mahendra Singhji on account of transfer of 1/4th share in the Daisylea House property at Bombay. (b) Gift of Rs. 4,800 made by the assessee to his real parents. (c) Gift of Rs, 15,000 made to Raghuraj Kumar, married sister of the assessee. (d) Gift of Rs. 25,000 made to Princess Yogeshwari Kumar, married daughter. (e) Gift of Rs. 2,50,000 made to M. K. Arvindkumar Singhji otherwise for maintenance out of privy purse." The Assessing Officer also simultaneously initiated the penalty proceedings against the assessee under Section 17(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act as according to the Gift-tax Officer the assessee has concealed the particulars of the taxable gifts. Notices were issued to the assessee and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, the Gift-tax Officer levied the penalty of Rs. 32,600. The assessee, aggrieved with the order passed by the Assessing Officer, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals). The appeal was heard by the Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals) on August 11, 1989, and the Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the order imposing the penalty of Rs. 32,600 under Section 17(l)(c) passed by the Assessing Officer. He, also, upheld the gift to the extent of Rs. 3,09,750 against the gift assessed by the Gift-tax Officer at Rs. 3,94,800. Aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals), both, i.e., the assessee and the Revenue, preferred appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The Tribunal, by its order dated November 13, 1991, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue relating to imposition of the penalty.
(3.) AGGRIEVED with the order dated November 13, 1991, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, affirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals), cancelling the penalty, the Revenue moved an application under Section 26(1) of the Act to state the case and refer the questions of law mentioned in the application for the opinion of the High Court. The Tribunal, by its order dated February 17, 1993, refused to refer the question of law for the opinion of the High Court on the ground that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are purely findings of fact which do not give rise to any question of law fit to be referred for the opinion of the High Court. The Tribunal, therefore, declined to refer the proposed questions for the opinion of the High Court. Aggrieved with the order dated February 17, 1993, passed by the Tribunal refusing to refer the question of law for the opinion of the High Court, the Revenue has filed this application under Section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act for directing the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law, mentioned in paragraph 1 above, for the opinion of this court. It is contended by learned counsel for the Revenue that (i) the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to refer the question proposed by the Revenue in the application for the opinion of the High Court though it is purely a question of law; and (ii) in the quantum case, the Tribunal has referred the question of law for the opinion of this court. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to refer the question referred in the application which is purely a question of law. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has submitted that no question of law arises in the present case and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are purely the findings of fact. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that even if the quantum reference is answered in favour of the Revenue even then the penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of the findings arrived at in the assessment proceedings. ;