2017 (1) TMI 1499 - HC - Income Tax

No opportunity provided by AO before completing the assessment u/s 144 - Held that - No substantial question of law has arisen in this matter. Besides the discussion made above, learned counsel for the appellant has also failed to point out any perversity, legal or otherwise in the judgments of Courts below, so as to warrant interference by this Court. It is not shown that any admissible and relevant evidence was ignored or any inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration or there is any other perversity, legal or otherwise, in the judgment under appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against judgment and order related to alleged undisclosed loan.
2. Validity of assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Grounds raised before the Tribunal not considered.
4. Existence of substantial questions of law.
5. Interference with findings of fact.
6. Definition of substantial question of law.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against a judgment regarding an alleged undisclosed loan of ?10,00,000. The Assessing Authority found that the loan was not recorded in the books of accounts, leading to an addition to the total income of the Assessee. The appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal was dismissed, resulting in the current appeal.

2. The validity of the assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act was questioned. The Assessee contended that no opportunity was provided before completing the assessment, and there was no material for reopening. However, the Tribunal confirmed the findings of the Assessing Authority and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. The appellant argued that several grounds raised before the Tribunal were not considered. However, the Tribunal only addressed two specific questions raised by the Assessee, and the appeal was dismissed based on the contentions and concurrent findings of fact.

4. The issue of substantial questions of law was raised, with the appellant claiming that certain legal questions were involved. The Court observed that the questions raised did not amount to substantial questions of law and were either abstract legal propositions or already covered by established authorities.

5. The Court discussed the circumstances under which interference with findings of fact is permissible, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant evidence and avoiding reliance on inadmissible evidence. Various legal precedents were cited to illustrate the principles governing the interference with findings of fact.

6. The concept of a substantial question of law was extensively analyzed, with references to legal definitions and precedents. The Court highlighted that a substantial question of law must be debatable, not previously settled, and have a material bearing on the case. The need for balancing justice and avoiding prolongation in legal proceedings was emphasized.

In conclusion, the Court rejected the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law had arisen, and there was no perversity in the judgments of the lower courts to warrant interference. The decision was based on the lack of new grounds presented and the failure to demonstrate any legal or factual errors in the lower courts' judgments.