MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. - (1.) REVENUE has preferred this reference application under the provisions of Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal had refused to make reference of any of the questions, vide its order dt. 28th Jan., 1999.
(2.) A reference application was filed before the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the IT Act for reference of certain questions to this Court. Those questions were arising out of the order of the learned Tribunal vide its order dt. 25th Aug., 1998 in relation to the block asst. yrs. 1986 -87 to 1996 -97. Following questions were sought for reference: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in altogether ignoring the circumstantial evidence and deleting the addition of Rs. 2,51,056 made as undisclosed income for asst. yr. 1991 -92 on account of unexplained investment in gold ornaments, etc.? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 45,525 made as undisclosed income for asst. yr. 1991 -92 on account of unexplained investment in silver articles? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the statement of the assessee's husband regarding surrender on account of unexplained investment in construction of house at 115 Central School Scheme, Jodhpur recorded at the time of search is to be ignored? (4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,43,625 out of addition of Rs. 5,00,000 made on account of unexplained investment in construction of house at 115, Central School Scheme, Jodhpur? (5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the AO to ignore the statements recorded at the time of search in respect of surrender made with reference to incriminating documents, while setting aside for fresh consideration the addition of Rs. 48,880? (6) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in altogether ignoring the circumstantial evidence and deleting the addition of Rs. 5,62,000 made on account of undeclared payments made for the purchase of immovable property? (7) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 87,000 made on account of unexplained credit and interest thereon, inspite of the fact that the creditor had not been proved by the assessee? Learned Counsel for the Revenue urged that all the seven questions asked for reference involve a question of law, thus Tribunal ought to have referred those questions to the High Court for its answer. It was thus submitted that the High Court should call for reference of those seven questions by issuing appropriate order to the Tribunal. The ground for seeking reference was also argued by stating that mere disclosure of gold and silver ornaments, investment in construction of house in WT return for asst. yr. 1991 -92 were not enough in the facts and circumstances of the present case particularly when the assessment was also open for a scrutiny while computing the block assessment year. The Tribunal had in fact deleted the addition of Rs. 3,43,625 on protective basis. It was lastly urged that undeclared income made for the purpose of immovable property was wrongly deleted though the addition was based on informations. It was thus prayed that looking to the legal issue involved in the present case all the issues involving the question of law need to be call for reference.
(3.) PER contra, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee supported the order of the Tribunal and stated that reference was refused by the Tribunal on proper ground thus without there being any legal issue involved in this case, calling for reference from the Tribunal would not be proper. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.;