2024 (3) TMI 434 - HC - Income Tax

Substantial question of law to be made u/s 260A - prerequisite of admission of the appeal before the High court - The ITAT hold that the assessee had correctly offered the net amount to tax and deleted the additions made by the AO - Further, the ITAT allowed the cross-objection of the assessee and hold that the reopening of the case of the assessee tantamounts to change of opinion which is not permissible as per Section 147 - HELD THAT - From a bare reading of the Section, it is apparent that an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal lies only when a substantial question of law is involved, and where the High Court comes to the conclusion that a substantial question of law arises from the said order, it is mandatory that such question(s) must be formulated. The expression substantial question of law is not defined in the Act. Nevertheless, it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread. (See Madan Lal Vs. Mst. Gopi Anr. R 1980 (8) TMI 204 - SUPREME COURT and Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi Vs. Rajat Vidyarthi 2008 (12) TMI 724 - SUPREME COURT ) As in the instant case no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal as the appellant has raised all the question of facts and have disputed the fact findings of the ITAT in the garb of substantial questions of law which is not permitted by the statute itself. This Court refrains from entertaining this appeal as there is no perversity in the order passed by the ITAT since the ITAT has dealt with all the grounds raised by the appellant in the order impugned and has passed a well reasoned and speaking order taking into consideration all the material available on record. Tribunal being a final fact finding authority, in the absence of demonstrated perversity in its finding, interference with the concurrent findings of the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT therewith by this Court is not warranted. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal requiring consideration of this court.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Condonation of delay in filing the appeal
- Question of admission for appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- Substantial questions of law raised in the appeal

Summary:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh heard an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, allowing the delay of 50 days. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the addition of certain amounts in the assessment for the year 2012-13.

The appellant contended that the ITAT erred in its decision regarding the treatment of certain amounts as income and the liability to deduct labor cess. Additionally, the appellant argued that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was not in accordance with Section 147 of the Act. The ITAT's decision to allow the cross-objection of the assessee was also challenged by the appellant.

After considering the arguments and perusing the substantial questions of law, the High Court referred to Section 260-A of the Act, emphasizing that an appeal to the High Court requires the involvement of a substantial question of law. The Court cited legal principles regarding substantial questions of law from various judicial pronouncements to determine the criteria for such questions.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The Court found that the appellant's challenges were primarily related to factual findings, and there was no perversity in the ITAT's decision. As the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority, the Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in limine for lack of merit and failure to meet the requirements of Section 260(A) of the Act.