Cit Vs. Electra (India) Ltd - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....of section 40a(5)(c) of the income tax act, 196 1?3. whether the findings of the tribunal are not perverse and unreasonable on the basis of facts and materials brought on record and discussed in the order of the income tax officer?'2. we have heard shri a.n. mahajan, the learned standing counsel for the commissioner and shri r.r. agarwal, the learned counsel for the assessee.we have also been taken through the order passed by the commissioner (appeals) and by the tribunal. as regards question no. 2, shri mahajan informs that this question has already been referred to this court by the tribunal under section 256(1). therefore, the application in this regard is not maintainable.3. as regards the other two questions, they relate to an addition of rs. 9,02,450 made by the assessing officer on account of alleged excess/ short consumption of various raw materials. the excess and shortage was with reference to the specified quantities given in the approved drawing by the parties to whom the assessee supplies transformers. the commissioner (appeals) has given a chart at page 2 of his order which shows that the variations were of a minor nature. the commissioner considered the.....

Judgment:

ORDER

This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner praying that the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', be directed to state a case and refer the following questions stated to be of law and to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated 24-6-1996 in cross appeals being IT Appeal Nos. 2885 and 3157 (Delhi) of 1991 for the assessment year 1984-85 for the opinion of this court :

'1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the account books of the assessee could not be rejected even if the assessee had not maintained any records for showing consumption of various raw materials and the consumption shown by the assessee was found to be highly excessive following the orders of the court on the reference applications filed by the department under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1979-80 which have not become final ?

2. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,618 made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) in view of the provisions of section 40A(5)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 196 1?

3. Whether the findings of the Tribunal are not perverse and unreasonable on the basis of facts and materials brought on record and discussed in the order of the Income Tax Officer?'

2. We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned standing counsel for the Commissioner and Shri R.R. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the assessee.

We have also been taken through the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and by the Tribunal. As regards question No. 2, Shri Mahajan informs that this question has already been referred to this court by the Tribunal under section 256(1). Therefore, the application in this regard is not maintainable.

3. As regards the other two questions, they relate to an addition of Rs. 9,02,450 made by the assessing officer on account of alleged excess/ short consumption of various raw materials. The excess and shortage was with reference to the specified quantities given in the approved drawing by the parties to whom the assessee supplies transformers. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a chart at page 2 of his order which shows that the variations were of a minor nature. The Commissioner considered the matter in detail and held the addition to be unjustified and deleted the same. This has been affirmed by the Tribunal. Whether the addition was justified is a pure question of fact and it has been so held by this court in similar application for the assessment year 1982-83 being IT Appeal No. 241 of 1988 which was rejected by this court vide order dated 16-1-1989. In our opinion, no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The application is rejected.