9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread.
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 requiring consideration of this court. Revenue appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment order) shows the complete failure of the assessee to' produce the separate accounts for the claimed 'eligible' business? (e) That, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 257 (SC), relied upon by the Hon'ble ITAT, applies squarely in favour of the Revenue as the addition made by the "Assessing Officer had its firm foundations on account of seized material and statement recorded during the search proceedings? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,70,88,927/ - made on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IA of the IT Act, completely ignoring that the assessee is not engaged in. "Development work" rather assessee is a "works contractor" in terms of the provisions of section8O0IA(4) of the Act the intention of legislature for grant of benefit u/s 80IA(4), captured in the Explanation at the bottom of the section, which specifically excludes "works contract" and moreover without appreciating the: (a) That, the detailed finding of AO in the assessment order that the assessee is-not engaged in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 40A(3) on the basis of seized incriminating document A-1/LPS-6/Page-35 & 36 and admission in statement u/s 132(4) of Shri Padam Singhania being amounts paid in cash by Shri Guddu Rastogi between 29.04.2010 to 29.12.2010 against the purchase of cements, stating that the AO has not made even more corroborative verifications from Shri Guddu Rastogi and that the statement was later retracted by Shri Singhania, without: (a) Appreciating that the decision in Jansampark advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd. [2015] 56 taxmann.com 286(Delhi) where Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, though it is obligation of AO to conduct proper scrutiny of material, in event that ITAT felt that AO failed to discharge his functions properly (here assuming, but not admitting, AO not making even more corroborative verifications), the obligation to conduct proper inquiry/addition shifts to ITAT and the Tribunal cannot simply delete addition made by AO ? (b) That, testing the so-called retraction to the test of the dictum of law pronounced in case of Banna lal Jat Construction (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT 106 Taxmann 128(SC) and in ignoring that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the act has evidentiary valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and decision made by ITAT suffers from perversity on facts and law as it failed to allude. To relevant facts, misread the evidence and its probative value and the legal position, which itself gives rise to question of law in view of ratio of decisions in several cases including in the case of Sudarshan Silk and Sarees 300 ITR 205 (SC) ? AND/OR Any other question of law that may arise during the course of hearing based on the relevant law in view of the factual backdrop in the instant matter?" 3. Brief facts of the case are that the ITAT decided the appeals ITA No.82/JAB/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08, IT(SS)A Nos. 5 to 10/JAB/2018 for AY 2009- 10 to 2014-15, ITA No. 22/JAB/2018 for A.Y 2015-16 in the impugned composite order. The tax effects in the appeals for A.Y. 2007-08, 2010-11 and 2014-15 are below the monetary limit i.e. Rs. 2,00,00,000/- as prescribed in CBDT's Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, therefore, the issues do not fall in any of the exceptions as laid down in CBDT Circular No.5/2024 dated 15/03/2024 for filing of appeal before the High Court. A search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the Act of 1961 was carried out in the case of Singhania Group, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions, 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 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 the same within that period. (3) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion 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 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 entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 demonstra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
