(Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 11, 1975, of the Allahabad High Court in Income-tax Reference No.109 of 1973. The judgment of the High Court is reported as C.I.T. v. Surajpal Singh (1977) 108 ITR 746 (All.).

Income-tax---

----Assessment---Period of limitation---Extension---Finding of concealment-- No finding within four years---Assessment beyond four years of assessment year barred by limitation---Income-tax Act, 1922, Ss. 28(1)(c) & 34(3).

From the decision of the Allahabad High Court in C.I.T. v. Surajpal Singh (1977) 108 ITR 746, affirming the order of the Tribunal that the assessment for the assessment year 1961-62 passed on March 25, 1970, was barred by limitation inasmuch as the Income-tax Officer had not recorded any finding of concealment within a period of four years, the Department preferred an appeal to .the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that there was no good reason to take a different view.

C.I.T. v. Surajpal Singh (1977) 108 ITR 746 affirmed.

Manoj Arora and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates for Appellant.

A.P. Chauhan, Roopendra Singh and C. K. Ratnaparkhi, Advocates for Respondent.

ORDER

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated July 11,1975, C.I.T. v. Surajpal Singh (1977) 108 ITR 746, answering the question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Department.

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question to the High Court:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer was barred by limitation."

The High Court, on a detailed consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the case was not one to which the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, corresponding to section 28(1)(c) of the old Act apply inasmuch as the Income-tax Officer had not recorded any finding or brought any material on record within a period of 4 years to show that it was a case of concealment. The High Court agreed with the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the assessment was clearly time-barred.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any good reason to take a different view. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

M.BA./1229/T Appeal dismissed.