Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 981 - HC - Income TaxUnaccounted land transactions carried out - Incriminating documents in the form of duly written and signed “Sauda Chithi’ found and seized during the search and seizure action carried out by the Department - ITAT Deleted the addition - substantial question of low or fact - Whether ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of relying upon, the decision of Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umrigar [2022 (5) TMI 1479 - ITAT SURAT] without appreciating the fact that addition was made on the basis of incriminating documents, showing unaccounted land transactions carried out by the assessee, found and seized during the course of search proceedings? HELD THAT:- As decided in the case of Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umriger [2022 (5) TMI 1479 - ITAT SURAT] the ‘sauda chithi’ is a dumb document as far as the assessee is concerned. Hence, the additions cannot be made on the basis of such dumb documents. High Court must make every effort to distinguish between a question of law and a substantial question of law. In exercise of powers under Section 260A, the findings of fact of the Tribunal cannot be disturbed. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with law in force at the relevant time. The conditions mentioned in Section 260A must be strictly fulfilled before an appeal can be maintained under Section 260A. Such appeal cannot be decided on merely equitable grounds. 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], Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi Vs. Rajat Vidyarthi [2008 (12) TMI 724 - SUPREME COURT]. We have gone through the observations made by the Tribunal while passing impugned common order. We have also considered the submissions canvassed by learned Standing Counsel for the revenue. If the facts of the present case are examined on touch stone of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as observed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the present appeals do not involve any substantial question of law.
|