9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in Ram Kumar Aggarwal Anr. vs. Thawar Das (through LRs), [ 1999 (8) TMI 1008 - SUPREME COURT] has reiterated that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below is confined to hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Supreme Court in State of Haryana Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited Ors. [ 1990 (8) TMI 416 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the High Court was not justified in law in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, [ 2006 (5) TMI 478 - SU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer under Section 68 of the Act, while ignoring the fact that during the assessment proceedings the Assessee had failed to produce controlling persons of share applicant companies along with supportive documentary evidence for examination and field enquiries in respect of share applicant companies revealed that such companies never existed on given addresses. 4. He states that the ITAT has also erred in holding that since this is the first year of operation of the Assessee it can't be said that the Assessee has brought its unaccounted funds through these investor companies as bogus share capital or share premium. He further contends that the ITAT has ignored the fact that in its first year there could have been no valid reason for the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tantial question of law and interference with finding of fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Further, the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 659 has held that the High Court was not justified in law in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has also held that "in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible." It has also been held that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
