9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread. Thus, we are of opinion 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. Thus, in our opinion, the present case does not involve any substantial question of law so as to meet the provisions of Section 260(A) of the Act for admitting the appeal. - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari And Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anuradha Shukla For the Appellant : Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate ORDER PER: JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI Instant appeal is filed by the appellant-Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') being aggrieve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eciating that the land owners (Smt. Rekha Bai, Shri Devi Singh and Shri Lalaram) furnished agreement dated 27.11.2010, which makes it amply clear that the land in question was sold at Rs. 5,03,68,500/- to Shri Pradeep Sharma Others through Power Of Attorney. ITAT also ignored that the land owners admitted having received On-money on sale of same land and this is in conformity with the deposits in their bank accounts as well as utilization of money. Further, Shri Pradeep Sharma Others, who sold the same land to assessee admitted having received total consideration of Rs. 5,30,30,000/- (out of which Rs. 3,53,80,000/- was On-Money) from assessee? 7. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in ignoring that the sellers Shri Pradeep Sharma Pradeep Hirani also offered additional income of Rs. 9,12,000/- each during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, considering the human probability, business prudence and nature of real estate transaction), it is established beyond doubt that Payment of On-money of Rs. 3,53,80,000/- was done in purchase transaction of said land? 8. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, while delet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harma and Shri Pradeep Hirani stated that they were broker for the said land and the entire deal was for Rs. 5,30,30,000/- and they have received their commission. Therefore, the AO during the course of assessment proceedings required the assessee to explain source of investment of Rs. 3,53,80,000/- paid in cash for purchase of The assessee in reply submitted that no over and above consideration was paid to the amount mentioned in registered sale deed. Further, the land was purchased from Shri Pradeep Sharma and Pradeep Hirani and has no knowledge of agreement dated 27.11.2010. The AO after considering reply of the assessee did not find the same acceptable and made additions for unexplained investment u/s 69 of the act for alleged 'on money' paid at Rs. 3,53,80,000/- for purchase of the above said land through its partner Shri Sanjeev Agrawal and further observed that the payment of 'on money' in cash is not recorded in the books of account of the assessee nor in the books of account of the partner Shri Sanjeev Agrawal. After making alleged addition u/s 69 of the Act income assessed at Rs. 3,53,80,000/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal, therefore, same deserves to be dismissed. 6 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the substantial questions of law. 7. 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 Commissioner 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court 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. 10. 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 fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. A decision on fact of the Tribunal can be gone into by the High Court only if a question has been referred to it which says that the 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.'' 14. 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 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 ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
