Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Estate of Late P. N. Beri. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....which stood accepted by the revenue in the relevant assessment. the argument that the finding of facts arrived at by the tribunal was not based on facts is devoid of any legal force particularly when the revenue has not urged that the will was a forgery but has tried to show that the same could not be genuine as it was allegedly executed under some suspicious circumstances. it is contended that as independent witnesses were not associated and the will was not got registered the same should be deemed to be a forgery. the argument though attractive on the face of it but is devoid of any legal force. the high court does not exercise appellate powers over the tribunal while deciding a petition under sub-section 2 of section 256. the jurisdiction is only supervisory and the court can direct to make a reference only if it is found that there existed a question of law not settled by the apex court or that high court is having jurisdiction in the matter. the mere possibility of arriving at a different conclusion regarding facts cannot be made a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction under sub-section 2 of section 256. the point sought to be raised and required to be referred to this..........sub-s. 2 of s. 256 of the act with a prayer for directing the said tribunal to make a reference to this court.2. it is submitted that the finding of facts arrived at by the tribunal was not justified and that the will relied upon by the heirs of the deceased was not genuine. the tribunal after relying upon some judgments, as referred to in its order, came to the conclusion that the findings of the dy. cit(a) as approved by the tribunal clearly showed that the revenue itself had accepted the will dt. 1st jan., 1973 and the necessary effect was given to it, which stood accepted by the revenue in the relevant assessment. the argument that the finding of facts arrived at by the tribunal was not based on facts is devoid of any legal force particularly when the revenue has not urged that the will was a forgery but has tried to show that the same could not be genuine as it was allegedly executed under some suspicious circumstances. it is contended that as independent witnesses were not associated and the will was not got registered the same should be deemed to be a forgery. the argument though attractive on the face of it but is devoid of any legal force.3. the high court does not.....

Judgment:

ORDER

BY THE COURT :

Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal rejecting to make a reference to this Court under sub-s. (1) of s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), the present application has been filed under sub-s. 2 of s. 256 of the Act with a prayer for directing the said Tribunal to make a reference to this Court.

2. It is submitted that the finding of facts arrived at by the Tribunal was not justified and that the will relied upon by the heirs of the deceased was not genuine. The Tribunal after relying upon some judgments, as referred to in its order, came to the conclusion that the findings of the Dy. CIT(A) as approved by the Tribunal clearly showed that the Revenue itself had accepted the will dt. 1st Jan., 1973 and the necessary effect was given to it, which stood accepted by the Revenue in the relevant assessment. The argument that the finding of facts arrived at by the Tribunal was not based on facts is devoid of any legal force particularly when the Revenue has not urged that the will was a forgery but has tried to show that the same could not be genuine as it was allegedly executed under some suspicious circumstances. It is contended that as independent witnesses were not associated and the will was not got registered the same should be deemed to be a forgery. The argument though attractive on the face of it but is devoid of any legal force.

3. The High Court does not exercise appellate powers over the Tribunal while deciding a petition under sub-s. 2 of s. 256 of the Act. The jurisdiction is only supervisory and the Court can direct to make a reference only if it is found that there existed a question of law not settled by the apex Court or that High Court having jurisdiction in the matter. The mere possibility of arriving at a different conclusion regarding facts cannot be made a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction under sub-s. 2 of s. 256 of the Act. The point sought to be raised and required to be referred to this Court is purely a question of fact involving no question of law requiring reference to this Court under sub-s. 2 of s. 256 of the Act. There is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.