2021 (2) TMI 1103 - HC - Income Tax

Substantial question of law or fact - application for condonation of delay of 1350 days - HELD THAT - There are concurrent findings of fact of the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I and ITAT, and what the appellant is calling upon us to do, is to re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which consistent findings, on the aspects from which the appellant is aggrieved, have been rendered. Appellant however has contended that a substantial question of law arises because the Income Tax Authorities and the ITAT have ignored material evidence. It is contended that owing to plethora of material in public domain, of the project, of which the appellant has been found to have earned commission, having been scrapped, the possibility of the appellant being paid commission did not exist. Appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Substantial question of law raised by the appellant.
4. Evidence ignored by the Income Tax Authorities and the ITAT.
5. Appreciation of evidence and conclusions drawn.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi (ITAT) dated 16th March, 2018, which was filed after a delay of 1350 days. The court observed that the appeal was time-barred and did not find any sufficient reason for the delay. Furthermore, the court noted that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law as there were consistent findings by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, and ITAT on the aspects in question.

2. The appellant contended that a substantial question of law arose due to the alleged ignorance of material evidence by the Income Tax Authorities and the ITAT. The appellant argued that since the project, for which they were paid a commission, had been scrapped and evidence in the public domain supported this, the possibility of receiving a commission did not exist. However, the court held that this argument was also a matter of evidence appreciation and did not raise any substantial question of law.

3. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant's request to re-evaluate the evidence was not valid as there were concurrent findings by the relevant authorities. The court found no merit in the arguments presented by the appellant regarding the alleged ignorance of material evidence and the scrapping of the project. The judgment highlights the importance of substantial questions of law in appeals and the significance of evidence appreciation in tax matters.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment provides a detailed overview of the issues involved and the court's reasoning behind dismissing the appeal.