9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 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 - Income Tax Appeal No 37 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 10-5-2012 - MR ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, MR MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, JJ. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava counsel for the appellant Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri counsel for the respondent Judgement Income Tax Appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act 1961. The following order of the Court was passed by Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Heard. 2. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax Act) under Section 260- A of the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessing officer and that of the Commissioner of Appeals, but does not say anything about the finding of the Tribunal recorded in the impugned order, which is under challenge. Learned counsel contended that the respondent can always raise such objection at the time of hearing of the appeal by the respondent and hence, this Court should decide this objection as a preliminary objection. 7. Though learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) made attempt to counter this objection, but having heard the submissions of the counsel and on perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the submission/objection of the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. On perusal of the question of law framed, it is amply clear that firstly question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee and got the question of law framed on such finding in this appeal as substantial question of law relating to such question. It is only then this Court would have been in a position to examine the legality and correctness of such finding with a view to find out as to whether such finding is liable to be upheld or reversed. It was not done in this appeal and hence, we cannot answer the question framed, which does not satisfy these parameters. Fifthly, even otherwise 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
