Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1102 - HC - Income TaxDifference between a ‘question of law’ and a ‘substantial question of law’- Addition u/s 68 - creditworthiness of the companies with whom assessee company had executed large scale transactions - ITAT upheld the findings of the CIT (A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue - addition made u/s 37(1) assessee has claimed and received excess incentive on the basis of erroneous declaration - HELD THAT:- Appellate Authorities below have recorded concurrent findings of fact on both the issues - no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. vs. Thawar Das [1999 (8) TMI 1008 - SUPREME COURT]has reiterated that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below is confined to hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Khalsa Motor Limited & Ors.[1990 (8) TMI 416 - SUPREME COURT]has held that the High Court was not justified in law in reversing, in second appeal, the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below. The Supreme Court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal,[2006 (5) TMI 478 - SUPREME COURT] has also held that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, the one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible.” It has also held that there is a difference between a ‘question of law’ and a ‘substantial question of law’.
|