Century Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3746 of 1998
Petitioner: Century Flour Mills Ltd.
Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3746 of 1998
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, U.C. BANERJEE & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 08, 2000
Head Note:
INCOME TAX
Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 251 – Reference – High Court declining to call for reference – Concealment of income – Extra consideration of sale – Levy of penalty – All questions of fact. Held that High Court was right in declining for calling for the reference. Appeal dismissed.
(Paras 1,2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The High Court declined to call for a reference of the following questions:
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the levy of penalty of the sale consideration of the sale of land is justified ?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sale consideration is not Rs. 8,16,550/- as disclosed in the deed of sale, but is a sum of Rs. 16,43,539/- as estimated by the Assessing Officer?
3. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the extra consideration alleged to have been received by the Managing Director should also be attributed to the applicant company ?
4. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the extra consideration alleged to have been received by the Managing Director of the applicant company is also applicable for the purpose of levy of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act?
5. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the applicant company has concealed the particulars of the real consideration in respect of the sale of the land and , consequently, the income is liable for penalty ?”
2. It did so on the basis that they were questions of fact.
3. We have perused the order of the High Court and heard learned Counsel and are in no doubt that the High Court was right. The Appellate Tribunal having arrived at the finding of concealment of income on the basis of the material on record, no question of law arose, reference of which could be called for.
4. The civil appeal is dismissed with costs.
1. The High Court declined to call for a reference of the following questions:
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the levy of penalty of the sale consideration of the sale of land is justified ?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sale consideration is not Rs. 8,16,550/- as disclosed in the deed of sale, but is a sum of Rs. 16,43,539/- as estimated by the Assessing Officer?
3. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the extra consideration alleged to have been received by the Managing Director should also be attributed to the applicant company ?
4. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the extra consideration alleged to have been received by the Managing Director of the applicant company is also applicable for the purpose of levy of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act?
5. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the applicant company has concealed the particulars of the real consideration in respect of the sale of the land and , consequently, the income is liable for penalty ?”
2. It did so on the basis that they were questions of fact.
3. We have perused the order of the High Court and heard learned Counsel and are in no doubt that the High Court was right. The Appellate Tribunal having arrived at the finding of concealment of income on the basis of the material on record, no question of law arose, reference of which could be called for.
4. The civil appeal is dismissed with costs.
