TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd to these concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the appellate authorities below, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be said to be giving rise to a question of law. - - - - - Dated:- 30-7-2003 - Judge(s) : D. K. JAIN., MADAN B. LOKUR JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by D.K. JAIN J.-This appeal by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), is directed against the order dated October 11, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "E", New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal"), in I.T.A. No. 1911/Delhi of 1998, pertaining to the assessment year 1991-92. The background fact giving rise to the appeal which need to be noted, are as under: The respondent ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 994, the Commissioner set aside the assessment and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer, with a direction to him to decide the issue afresh after granting further opportunity to the assessee to explain her stand on both the accounts. However, both the said additions were repeated by the Assessing Officer on the ground that no fresh evidence had been adduced by the assessee in respect of the discrepancies noticed. Being aggrieved, the assessee again preferred appeal to the Commissioner. Observing discrepancies in the method of valuation of the stocks, namely, the search party had valued the stock of finished goods at its tag price after deducting 55 per cent. gross profit rate whereas from the documents furnished by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order involves the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated October 11, 2002, upholding deletion of addition of Rs. 6,64,527 on account of stock of finished products and Rs. 1,78,314 on account of cartons stocks is contrary to the facts on record and is perverse as it ignores and does not deal with the observations and the findings of the Assessing Officer? 2. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the additions of Rs. 6,64,527 and Rs. 1,78,314 on account of discrepancies in stocks will amount to double addition as additions have been made on account of unrecorded sales? We have heard Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, learned senior stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper test would be whether: (i) it is of general public importance; or (ii) it directly or substantially affects the rights of the parties; or (iii) it is an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the Supreme Court; or (iv) it is not free from difficulty and (v) it calls for discussion of alternative views. The mere appreciation of the facts, the documentary evidence or the meaning of entries and the contents of the documents cannot be held to be giving rise to a substantial question of law. These very broad tests have been reiterated in a catena of subsequent decisions of the apex court and various High Courts. Applying the above tests to the facts in hand, we are of the view that no question of law, mush less a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
