2012 (8) TMI 667 - HC - Income Tax

Provisions of Section 260-A of the Act Revenue contended that question of law framed at the time of admission of the appeal, quoted supra, does not constitute a substantial question of law and nor does it satisfy the rigour of substantial question of law within the meaning of section 260-A ibid Held that - Question of fact are binding on this Court unless it has any legal error which is not noticed and lastly, since no prayer is made by the appellant as provided in Section 260-A for either reframing the question already framed or for framing any additional questions which according to them are said to arise out of the case - appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law and what is framed as being substantial question of law do not satisfy the rigour of substantial question of law for the reasons mentioned - appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act 1961; Justification of Tribunal's decision; Substantial question of law regarding burden of proof on department.

Analysis:
The High Court heard an Income Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, where the Revenue challenged the Tribunal's order dated 07.07.2006. The Tribunal had allowed the assessee's appeal, leading to the question of whether the Tribunal was justified in its decision and if the appeal raised a substantial question of law. The appeal was admitted for final hearing based on the substantial question of law regarding the Assessment authority's finding and the Commissioner's decision being disturbed by shifting the burden of proof on the department.

The counsel for the assessee contended that the question of law framed did not constitute a substantial question of law as per Section 260A(6) of the Act. The High Court found merit in the objection raised by the respondent, noting that the question was vague, general, and did not specify any error in the Tribunal's order. The Court emphasized that the question should have addressed errors in the Tribunal's findings, not those of the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Appeals.

The Court highlighted that the question of law lacked specificity, making it redundant and unanswerable. Since the appeal arose from the Tribunal's order, the appellant should have challenged specific findings of the Tribunal to frame substantial questions of law. As the question did not meet the parameters set by Section 260A(4) of the Act, the Court could only decide based on the framed question. Without a specific challenge to the Tribunal's findings, the Court could not review the entire controversy decided by the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law and did not meet the requirements for framing such questions. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. The Court chose not to delve into the factual details of the case, as the objection raised by the respondent could be determined solely by analyzing the question itself. The appeal was dismissed with no costs incurred.