JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri R. C. Mukati, learned counsel for the applicant, on the question of admission.
2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ” the Act”).
3. The material facts giving rise to this application, briefly, are as follows :
While framing the assessment for the assessment year in question, the Income-tax Officer added certain amount which according to the Income-tax Officer had not been disclosed by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In those proceedings, the assessee contended that a mistake had crept in in the return filed by the assessee due to inadvertence. The Income-tax Officer was
not satisfied with the explanation and found that the assesses had deliberately concealed the particulars of income. The Income-tax Officer accordingly levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appeal preferred by the assesses before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was allowed. The Revenue thereupon preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and found that the mistake had been made by the assessee inadvertently and that there was no conscious concealment of income. The Tribunal, therefore, upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Aggrieved by that order, the Department sought a reference but that application was rejected. Hence, the Department has filed this application.
4. Having heard learned counsel Shri Mukati, for the applicant, we have come to the conclusion that this application deserves to be dismissed. The question, as to whether there was a bona fide mistake made by the assessee in disclosing his income and whether there was or was not conscious concealment of income, are questions of fact. Learned counsel for the Department was unable to point out any question of law arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal. In our opinion, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
5. The application accordingly fails and is dismissed.