9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No. 5 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2017 - Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal And Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, JJ. For the Appellant : Desh Deepak Chopra For the Respondent : Sidharth Dhaon,Mr. Sidharth Dhaon ORDER 1. This Income Tax Appeal filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961 ) has arisen from judgment and order dated 05.09.2014 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Income Tax Appeal No. 645 of 2011 relating to assessment year 2005-06. 2. Proceedings were initiated against Assessee appellant under Section 148 of Act, 1961 with regard to alleged loan of ₹ 10,00,000/-advanced to one Sri Satya Prakash Jaisw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant contended that he had raised several grounds before Tribunal but those grounds have not been considered by it. 6. However, we find that only two questions were raised which have been mentioned in para 3 of judgment of Tribunal which read as under:- It was submitted by Learned A.R. of the assessee that no opportunity was provided by the Assessing Officer before completing the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and therefore, the assessment u/s 144 is not valid. He also submitted that there was no material for reopening and therefore, reopening is not valid. He placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncement: (I) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aggarwal Engg. Co.[2008] 302 ITR 246 (P H) (ii) Raj Mohan Saha Vs. Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entire edifice of defendant-appellants would shatter or the questions do not arise at all in this case. 11. In our considered view the arguments advanced by learned counsel for appellants, though per se, may involve some questions of law but either none is arising in this case, or, well settled and require only application. In any case it cannot be said that any substantial question of law is arising in this case. 12. There are two situations in which, ordinarily, interference with findings of fact is permissible, namely, (a) when material or relevant evidence is not considered, which if considered, would have led to opposite conclusion, and (b) where a finding has been arrived at by court below by placing reliance on inadmissibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) through Lrs. Vs. Sohan Lal (Dead) through Lrs., 2000 (1) SCC 434 the Court in paras 11 and 13 of the judgment clearly mentioned two situations in which inference with findings of fact is permissible. It is said: 11. There are two situations in which interference with findings of fact is permissible. The first one is when material or relevant evidence is not considered which, if considered would have led to an opposite conclusion. . . . . 13. The second situation in which interference with findings of fact is permissible is where a finding has been arrived at by the appellate Court by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence which if it was omitted, an opposite conclusion was possible. . . . 18. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther hand, if the question was practically covered by decision of highest Court or if general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and the only question was of applying those principles to the particular fact of case, it could not be a substantial question of law. 21. The above observations were affirmed and concurred by a Constitution Bench in Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons Ltd. Vs. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314. Referring to above authorities, the Court in Santosh Hazari (supra) said: A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be substantial, a question of law must be debatable, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do so for the reason that after all the purpose of the establishment of Courts of justice is to render justice between the parties, though the High Court is bound to act with circumspection while exercising such jurisdiction. In second appeal the court frames the substantial question of law at the time of admission of the appeal and the Court is required to answer all the said questions unless the appeal is finally decided on one or two of those questions or the court comes to the conclusion that the question(s) framed could not be the substantial question(s) of law. There is no prohibition in law to frame the additional substantial question of law if the need so arises at the time of the final hearing of the appeal. 24. We are, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
