9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. 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. [ 1980 (8) TMI 204 - SUPREME COURT] ) 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. The 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. For the aforesaid reasons, 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 requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell P. Ltd. [TS-202-SC-2023] ? (b) for a case to fall u/s 153C, the jurisdictional requirement is the satisfaction of the AO that the books of accounts and documents or assests seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee and, in the instant case, there was no basis for the AO to proceed u/s 153C, since no incriminating material in relation to the assessee was found during the search conducted as per seized material handed over to the AO. ? (c) the mere handing over of the seized material to the AO was not sufficient to take up assessment u/s 153C since there is nothing incriminating about the material seized in the present case. ? (d) the AO cannot be compelled to be satisfied, since doing so would amount to questioning the judgment of the AO in the matter and, accordingly, the non-recording of satisfaction by the AO is to be taken as conclusive of his being not satisfied in the matter and, therefore, the question of abatement of the pending assessment in such a case does not arise. ? (d) the assessment u/s 143(3) is the determination of total income and an instance of search does not annul or dilute the same in the present case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee, whereby the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed. Being aggrieved appeal was filed by the assessee was allowed by learned ITAT on the sole ground /basis that assessment should have been made under Section 153C and not under Section 143(3) of the Act and treating the assessment as invalid and bad in law, thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 3,68,00,000/- made by the A.O.(which was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act of 1961. During assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee company had received credits of Rs. 3,68,00.000/- from M/s Little Star Securities Pvt. Ltd., which is an identified/established bogus company having no business and provides accommodation entries only. Further, it was observed by the AO during assessment proceedings that neither search nor any survey was carried out at the premises of the assessee-company. Learned ITAT confirmed the order passed by the CIT(A). Feeling aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been filed on the substantial questions of law, which has been enumerated in the preceding paragraphs. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 may be, apply in the case of appeals under this section. 8. From a bare reading of the Section, it is apparent that an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal lies only when a substantial question of law is involved, and where the High Court comes to the conclusion that a substantial question of law arises from the said order, it is mandatory that such question(s) must be formulated. The expression substantial question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olongation in the life of any lis. 11. 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 capable of supporting the finding. 12. 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. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
