TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 68 of the Act, by producing the parties in whose name the amounts in question had been credited by the assessee in his books of account It is well settled that in view of Section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year, if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the assessing officer, not satisfactory - (See: Sumati Dayal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (1995 -TMI - 5469 - SUPREME Court) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. P. Mohanakala (2007 -TMI - 6558 - SUPREME Court) - 3265-3266 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2010 - D.K. Jain and T.S. Thakur, JJ JUDGMENT D.K. Jain, J 1. Challenge in these two appeals, by special leave, is to the orders dated 21st December, 2001 and 19th February, 2002 whereby the High Court of Delhi dismissed: (i) the appeal filed by the appellant herein under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") in I.T.A. No.202 of 2001, holding that the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-XV, New Delhi, who vide his order dated 6th December 1989, dismissed the same and confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer. 6. Being still aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 27th September, 1994, the Tribunal, while partly allowing the appeal, remitted the matter back to the assessing officer for de-novo adjudication. The Tribunal observed that: "We find that some of the entries pertained to the period when the erstwhile firm was in existence whereas the assessee did not conduct business at Calcutta in a proprietary capacity but was only a partner in the erstwhile firm. The A.O. himself observed in the assessment order that the cash receipts are from April 1982 to October, 1982 i.e. prior to the start of the assessee's proprietary business in the name of M/s Desraj Vijay Kumar. As against this, we find that some of the entries are dated prior to April, 1982 when the erstwhile firm was in existence. Then again, it is not known as to what happened to the income between the period 1.4.1982 to October, 1982 as the erstwhile firm is supposed to have been dissolved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were returned by the post office marked "not known.", and another one as "no claims." One of the parties denied any relationship with the firm. In light of these circumstances, the assessing officer, vide order dated 19th March, 1996, confirmed the original assessment. 9. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-III, which was dismissed vide order dated 16th December, 1998. The Commissioner observed that: "The contention of the appellant is apparently unacceptable. Any business realisations of the partnership would have been shared by the erstwhile partners. The cash receipts of Rs.3,49,991/- as per the seized material is, therefore, held to belong to the appellant and assessable as unexplained receipts in the hands of the appellant. The assessment of appellant's income including the aforesaid receipt is, therefore, confirmed and the appeal is dismissed." 10. Still not being satisfied, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 23rd October, 2000, while partly allowing the appeal, held that the addition of Rs.3,49,991/- was correct. It observed that: "We are also of the opinion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .................................................. ............................................ Having regard to the fact and circumstances of this case we are, therefore, of the opinion that no question of law far less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal." 13. Thereafter, the assessee filed a review petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 19th February, 2002. 14. Hence, the present appeals. 15. Mr. K.R. Manjani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, assailed the impugned orders on the ground that since the Tribunal had taken into consideration irrelevant materials, its findings were perverse and, therefore, the High Court has erred in holding that there was no substantial question of law involved. 16. Per contra, Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue supported the view taken by the High Court and asserted that the impugned orders deserve to be affirmed. 17. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be expedient to refer to Section 260-A of the Act. The provisions, relevant for our purpose, read thus: "(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bench of this Court 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, 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 question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is well settled that in view of Section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year, if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the assessing officer, not satisfactory. (See: Sumati Dayal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (1995 Supp (2) SCC 453) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. P. Mohanakala ((2007) 6 SCC 21)). We are of the opinion that on a conspectus of the factual scenario, noted above, the conclusion of the Tribunal to the effect that the assessee has failed to prove the source of the cash credits cannot be said to be perverse, giving rise to a substantial question of law. The Tribunal being a final fact finding authority, in the absence of demonstrated perversity in its finding, interference therewith by this Court is not warranted. 23. For the foregoing 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 the High Court. There is no merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
