9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 - - - Dated:- 6-11-2020 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD APPELLANT (BY SRI. BALACHANDRAN B.S., ADV.,) RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ARAVIND K.V., ADV.) JUDGMENT ALOK ARADHE J., This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2004-05. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 20.02.2020 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in law the findings of the tribunal is perverse inasmuch as the tribunal ignored the plea that the book was open as on the date of search and the cash w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ravels. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 12.09.2007 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee but sustained the addition of ₹ 20,03,680/- made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee as well as the revenue approached Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short) by filing the appeals. The tribunal by an order dated 07.03.2008 inter alia held that books of accounts were not updated on the date of the search but updated book was produced at the time of assessment proceeding and before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and with proper reconciliation supported by books of accounts, relevant documentary evidence and audited statement of accounts, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee has failed to produce any material to show that the cash seized during the course of search belonged to M/s S.S.Tours and Travels. It is further submitted that in any case, the aforesaid issue is a finding of fact in which no perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee, therefore, no case for interference is made out. It is also pointed out that no perversity has been alleged in the memorandum of appeal. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. A bench of this court vide judgment dated 02.08.2014 passed in I.T.A.No.760/2008 and connected matters had remitted the matter to the tribunal in the following terms: In so far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh founding the nads of the present assessee. In reply, the learned AR of the assessee had nothing to say except reiterating that the cash found in the present case is belonging to M/s S.S.Tours and Travels. 9. Thus, it is evident that even before the tribunal, the assessee did not produce any material despite opportunity being afforded to show that the amount seized during the search belonged to M/s S.S.Tours and Travels. Even otherwise, the aforesaid finding is a pure finding of fact, which does not suffer from any perversity. It is well settled that this court in exercise of powers under Section 260A of the Act cannot interfere with the finding of fact until and unless the same is demonstrated to be perverse. [ See: SYEDA RAHIMUNNI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
