Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2010 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (8) TMI 960 - HC - Income TaxSubstantial question of law u/s 260A ibid - Addition of income from unexplained source u/s 68 - addition reversed by CIT (A) and Tribunal - HELD THAT:- In our opinion, once the CIT (A) and Tribunal accepted the explanation of assessee and accordingly, deleted certain additions made by AO holding the transaction of shares to be genuine, then it would not involve any substantial issue of law as such. This Court in its appellate jurisdiction under section 260A ibid, would not again de novo hold yet another factual inquiry with a view to find out as to whether explanation offered by assessee and which found acceptance to the CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal is good or bad, or whether it was rightly accepted, or not. It is only when the factual finding recorded had been entirely de hors the subject, or that it had been based on no reasoning, or based on absurd reasoning to the extent that no prudent man of average judicial capacity could ever reach to such conclusion, or that it had been found against any provision of law, then a case for formulation of substantial question of law on such finding can be said to have been made out. In our view, no such error could be noticed by us in the impugned order because as observed supra, the Tribunal did go into the details of explanation offered by assessee and then accepted the explanation by placing reliance on the documents filed by assessee. As a consequence thereof, the additions made by Assessing Officer came to be deleted. As submission was dealt with by Tribunal and negatived finding no merit therein and lastly when the issue on this fact was examined and finding recorded then unless it constitutes a substantial question of law, the same cannot be entertained in appeal under section 260A. It is in our opinion, amounts to re-appraisal of evidence already done by two appellate courts and hence third appellate court would not do it.Appeal dismissed.
|