9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nouncements. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread. (See: Madan Lal Vs. Mst. Gopi Anr. R [ 1980 (8) TMI 204 - SUPREME COURT] and Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi Vs. Rajat Vidyarthi[ 2008 (12) TMI 724 - SUPREME COURT] ) As in the instant case no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal as the appellant has raised all the question of facts and have disputed the fact findings of the ITAT in the garb of substantial questions of law which is not permitted by the statute itself. This Court refrains from entertaining this appeal as there is no perversity in the order passed by the ITAT since the ITAT has dealt with all the grounds raised by the appellant in the order impugned and has passed a well reasoned and speaking order taking into consideration all the material available on record. Tribunal being a fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... private limited company carrying on the business of government work contract for construction of road. The assessee/respondent filed e-return of income on 29.09.2012 for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring a loss of Rs. 1,79,88,391/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 25.03.2015 at the loss of Rs. 1,79,88,391/- as declared by the assessee. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 18.12.2017. On receipt of notice, the assess filed its Return of Income on 20.01.2018 declaring loss of Rs. 1,79,56,045/-. Considering the facts and material, reassessment was completed on 28.09.2018 by making addition of Rs. 3,75,50,000/- on account of amount received by the assessee from M/s SCC Projects Pvt. Ltd. ('SCCPPL' for short) by treating it as income. Being aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) which was allowed vide order dated 16.08.2021. Against the said order, Revenue preferred an appeal before the ITA which was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2022 and the cross objection of the assessee was allowed. 7. Learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (4) The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated, and the respondents shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question, (5) The High Court shall decide the question of law so formulated and deliver such a judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded and may award such cost as it deems fit. (6) The High Court may determine any issue which- (a) has not been determined by the Appellate Tribunal; or (b) has been wrongly determined by the Appellate Tribunal, by reasons of a decision on such question of law as is referred to in sub-Section (1). (7) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), relating to appeals to the High Court shall, as far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis. 14. In Hero Vinoth (Minor) Vs. Seshamma, (2006) 5 SCC 545 , the Apex Court has observed that: The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to decision based on no evidence , it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
