9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the material available on record. Tribunal being a final fact finding authority, in the absence of demonstrated perversity in its finding, interference with the concurrent findings of the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT therewith by this Court is not warranted. We have no hesitation in holding that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal requiring consideration of this court. Appeal dismissed. - HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI And HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA Shri Siddharth Sharma Advocate for the appellant. ORDER Per : Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari Heard on the question of admission. The present Income Tax Appeal has been filed under Section 260 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 30.10.2023 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in ITA No.2437/MUM/2018. 2. In the present appeal the appellant has proposed following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT was justified in law in setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) which upheld the addition of Rs.3,73,00,000/- made on account of une ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and provides financial assistance. He filed his return of income for the year in consideration declaring his total income of Rs.3,49,810/-. During the course of proceedings the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee is rising loans from several parties. In order to examine those loans, the AO issued notices under Section 133(6) of the Act to the creditors, but did not get reply from 15 creditors. Before the AO, the assessee submitted that the creditors are not cooperating and accordingly, furnished available details as the assessee had repaid the loans to almost all the creditors prior to the commencement of present assessment proceedings. 5. Being aggrieved by the action of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33 Mumbai which passed the following orders : 14. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the issue involved, in my considered opinion, the ratio of the judgments in the Pavankumar M Sanghvi vs. ITO (supra) and Pr.CIT vs. Bikran Singh (supra) are fully applicable to the facts and the instant case. Hence, respectfully following these discussions, it is held that the AO has correctly treated the unsec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Before dealing with the aforesaid controversy, it would be expedient to refer to Section 260-A of the Act of 1961. The provisions, relevant for our purpose, read thus: 260-A. Appeal to High Court - (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or Commission or an assessee aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this sub-section shall be (a) filed within one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the assessee or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commssioner or Commissioner; (b) xxx (c) in the form of a memorandum of appeal precisely stating therein the substantial question of law involved. (2A) The High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of one hundred and twenty days referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law. 14. Similarly, in Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 it was observed that: 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, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, AIR 1962 SC 1314 (2001) 3 SCC 179 and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law involving in the case there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding of the Tribunal on facts is perverse, in the sense that it is such as could not reasonably have been arrived at on the material placed before the Tribunal. In this case, there was no such question before the High Court. Unless and until a finding of fact reached by the Tribunal is canvassed before the High Court in the manner set out above, the High Court is obliged to proceed upon the findings of fact reached by the Tribunal and to give an answer in law to the question of law that is before it. '' 18. When tested on the anvil of the afore-noted legal principles, we are of the opinion that in the instant case no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal as the appellant has raised all the questions 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
