2004 (10) TMI 76 - HC - Income Tax

Firm bogus/genuine question of law assessee s contention that the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proving that the firm in question is a benami is not acceptable - Firstly the overwhelming material brought on record and the same having been examined threadbare by the Tribunal completely negatives this assessee s submission. We are fully satisfied with the manner in which the Tribunal examined the issue on facts for recording the finding of fact against the assessee. We do not therefore wish to examine each and every circumstance on facts which was examined by the Tribunal for coming to a conclusion that the firm is a bogus firm of the assessee and his family members. It is really not necessary nor possible in view of our limited jurisdiction conferred under section 260A. We can only examine substantial questions of law and not questions of fact. - Apeal has no merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against a common order dated January 15, 1999, passed by the Tribunal.
- Determination of whether a firm is genuine or a benami concern of the assessee.
- Examination of the burden of proof regarding the firm being a benami.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by an assessee under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against a common order passed by the Tribunal. The central issue revolved around whether a firm named "S. Machhi Singh and Family, BHEL, Barkheda Bhopal" was a genuine firm or a benami concern of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and the Tribunal had all held against the assessee, concluding that the firm was not genuine but a benami entity. The Tribunal's order, while upholding the finding of the firm being not genuine, granted partial benefit to the assessee concerning cash credits. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances, ultimately affirming the benami nature of the firm.

The Court emphasized that the determination of whether a firm is genuine or benami is essentially a question of fact. In this case, all authorities had concurred on the finding that the firm in question was not genuine. The Court highlighted that such factual findings, not involving any legal question, are binding and cannot be challenged in further appeal under section 260A of the Act. The judgment underscored that the Court's role is limited to examining substantial questions of law, not questions of fact.

Regarding the burden of proof on the Revenue to establish the firm as benami, the Court found no merit in the argument that the Revenue had failed to discharge this burden. The overwhelming material on record, thoroughly examined by the Tribunal, supported the conclusion that the firm was a benami entity. The Court reiterated that it could not delve into factual circumstances beyond examining substantial legal questions under its jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the Court held that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly. The judgment clarified that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law required under section 260A of the Act. The decision reaffirmed the Tribunal's finding regarding the firm's benami nature and upheld the dismissal of the appeal without costs.