Full Judgment
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.
Pursuant to direction given by this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the following question has been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench A, for the opinion of this court :
'Whether, on the facts and in tile circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that levy of penalty for concealment was correct ?'
2. In short the factual position as emerges from the statement of case is as follows :
The assessed had returned his total income of Rs. 9,000 for the assessment year in question, i.e., 1973-74 and the assessment was completed at Rs. 20,100. A sum of Rs. 10,000 which was shown as cash credit from his wife Smt. Prabha Kumari, was not accepted as a genuine loan and was treated as the assessed's income from undisclosed sources. The addition was challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and before the Tribunal, but without any success. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated by issuing show-cause notice. After considering and analysing, the Explanationn furnished, the Income Tax Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000. The said levy was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal. The assessed moved an application under section 256(1) for reference of a question, stated to be a question of law. Same having been rejected by the Tribunal, this court was moved and pursuant to directions given by this court, the question as set out above has been referred for opinion.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. The learned counsel for the assessed stated that the assessed had discharged the onus put oil him and to say that there was no substance in the Explanationn which was offered or that same was not supported by materials has no legal foundation. The learned counsel for the revenue, on the other hand, submitted that after analysing the factual position, the Income Tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal came to hold that the Explanationn offered by the assessed was not acceptable and the case was clearly covered by the Explanationn to clause (c) of section 271(1). It is further submitted that the conclusions are essentially factual giving rise to no question of law.
4. The question whether in a given case the Explanationn offered by the assessed is acceptable or not is essentially one of fact giving rise to no question of law. We find that the forums below have analysed the case of the assessed, and the Explanationn offered by him and concluded that the source of the loan allegedly obtained was not properly explained. This conclusion is also one of fact. That being the position, no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. thereforee, we decline to answer the question referred.
The reference is disposed of accordingly.