OM PRAKASH, C. J. The Revenue made an application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, asking the Tribunal to refer the following questions for the opinion of this Court :
" 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in accepting the assessee's explanation as reasonable, probable and convincing ?
2. Whether, on the iacts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in law in holding that AO has not brought on record any evidence to hold the opinion regarding the explanation offered by the appellant as unsatisfactory ?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in holding that amount of gold claimed by the assessee's wife really belonged to her, and the appellant might have accumulated 77,800 gms of gold out of the manufacturing waste over the year ?
4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and fact in holding that it is reasonable to hold that other goldsmiths are the owners of gold ?
5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and fact in holding that "therefore, the assessee succeeds on the ground of making addition of the value of gold and gold ornaments in its entirety ?
6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in deleting the interest levied under s. 234B and 234C ?
7. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in law in holding that s. 69A of the IT Act is not attracted ?
8. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law in not following the principles laid down in the decision in CIT vs. Nirmal Liquors (1991) 92 CTR (Ker) 213: (1991) 190 1M 636 (Ker): 4".
2. The Tribunal allowed the application in part and referred the following questions only for the opinion of this Court and rest of the application was rejected :
2. The Tribunal allowed the application in part and referred the following questions only for the opinion of this Court and rest of the application was rejected :
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that s. 69A of the IT Act, 196 1, is, not attracted ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the additions made under s. 69A of the IT Act, 1961 are eligible to be deleted ?
3. The learned senior standing counsel states before us that he is pressing only question No. 6, which, in our opinion, is a question of law. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer question No. 6 only for the opinion of this Court.
3. The learned senior standing counsel states before us that he is pressing only question No. 6, which, in our opinion, is a question of law. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer question No. 6 only for the opinion of this Court.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
OPEN