JUDGMENT B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.
1. Through this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is asking this court to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions :
"(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in treating a sum of Rs. 35,000 as the assessee's income which was a deposit given by Sri Shaukat Ali to the assessee ?
(2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the discrepancy of Rs. 1,00,000 in the balance-sheet representing excess of assets over the liabilities was the assessee's income liable for taxation ?
(3) Whether the Tribunal did not err in law in holding that the deposit made by Sri Ghummar Singh to the tune of Rs. 51,000 was the undisclosed income of the assessee and hence liable for taxation ?
(4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to allow the assessee to lead additional evidence for the purposes of determining its correct and true income in the present appeal ?
(5) Whether the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction in adjudicating upon the issue not considered by the authorities below and then giving its conclusion that the income should have been enhanced by the authorities below as regards a sum of Rs. 35,000 representing debt due from Sri Ghummar Singh ?"
2. The main contention before us is that though the petitioner did not produce any evidence in support of his contention before the Income-tax Officer, the appellate authority ought to have allowed the petitioner an opportunity to produce evidence. It may be noticed that, in the first appeal, no written application was made nor was any affidavit filed by the party showing sufficient cause for his inability to produce the material before the Income-tax Officer. Indeed, the request was that the appellate authority should summon the evidence under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 46A. The first-appellate authority refused to do this. In spite of this, no written application supported by affidavit was filed even in the second appeal before the Tribunal. The same oral request was repeated. The Tribunal also refused to summon any evidence. The Tribunal also found that the first appellate authority, was not in error in not summoning additional evidence. All the findings of the Tribunal are against the assessee. Indeed, one of the findings is that he has forged the accounts.
3. The income-tax application is accordingly dismissed. No costs.