TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g been raised, it cannot be said that any question of law arises for consideration, and much less a substantial question of law, as contemplated under Section 260A of the I.T. Act. The learned Counsel for the appellants has re-worded the substantial questions of law as framed in the memoranda of appeals and as framed by this Court at the stage of admission, as on 14.06.2016 at the final hearing as above. The principle that if a finding of fact is not challenged as being perverse, the High Court is bound to accept such finding. Therefore, as no such substantial question of law has been framed and the questions pertain to findings of fact, which cannot be said to be perverse as it is evident that the books of accounts of the respondent had been rejected by the assessing authority, in which case the same books of accounts could not be relied upon in an addition on account of trade creditors and also for arriving at the closing stock. Thus there is no substantial question of law that arises for consideration and the findings of the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 5026/2011, INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 5025/2011, & INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5026/2011 - - - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee, as well as the Revenue, are said to have filed appeals before the ITAT. The Tribunal, in turn, had deleted the entire additions made by the Assessing Officer as well as the enhancement made by the CIT (Appeals). However, the addition on account of gross profit was confirmed. On the issue of addition of ₹ 2,67,556/- made on account of difference in the Trade Creditors accounts, it was claimed as a discount given by the said parties and which was not accounted for by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the correctness of accounts as appearing in the books of a supplier itself was not based on any evidence. 6. Further, the next addition made on account of unaccounted purchases at ₹ 50,18,173/-, which was deleted by the CIT (Appeals), the Tribunal held that no interference was required as regards those findings. As regards the addition made as gross profit on account of suppressed sales at ₹ 13,33,242/- which was increased to ₹ 90,96,818/- by the CIT (Appeals), the Tribunal held that the sales declared by the assessee and the unaccounted sales worked out by the Assessing Officer had not been disputed by the CIT (Appeals). It was further observed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade creditors, no outstanding balance was reflected. 10. Further it is contended that the Tribunal was also in error in confirming the order of the CIT (Appeals) deleting the addition of ₹ 50,18,173/- on account of unaccounted purchases. It ought to have been noted by the Tribunal that from the records it was evident that the assessee had indulged in unaccounted purchases and sales, year after year, as evident during the course of the search. 11. It is further contended that the Tribunal s observations that the assessee was found to have been carrying on business for over two decades and had indulged in carrying on sales out of purchases which were recorded as well as purchases which were not recorded and that the unrecorded purchases as on 09.06.2004 was ₹ 15,01,204/- as evident from Annexure-C to the assessment order and therefore the Tribunal alternatively ought to have confirmed the addition as unaccounted purchases under Section 69B of the I.T. Act at ₹ 15,01,204/- representing the amount of peak purchase. 12. It is contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the Assessing Officer had merely recast the day book and had accurately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T. Act. 14. It is further contended that there are clear findings of fact by the ITAT, on all the issues raised in the present appeals. It is significant that no additional material is placed before this Court to demonstrate that the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse. It is emphasized that the cardinal principle is that the Tribunal which is the final fact finding authority and if such findings of fact are to be assailed, it would require a substantial question, as to there being a perverse finding of fact by the Tribunal, to have been raised. In the absence of any such question having been raised, it cannot be said that any question of law arises for consideration, and much less a substantial question of law, as contemplated under Section 260A of the I.T. Act. Reliance is placed on the following authorities by the learned Counsel in support of the above proposition: 1. 330 ITR 1 (SC) @ 7-9 (Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) 2. 378 ITR 640 (SC) @ 648 (Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another) 3. 273 ITR 50 (SC) @ 55 (M. Janardhan Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax) 4. 300 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has held as follows: 18. The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law. 18. Similarly, in Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari [2001] 3 SCC 179 , a three-judge Bench of the Apex Court has 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 bind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (Preventive) Vs. Vijay Dasharath Patel [2007] 4 SCC 118; Metroark Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta [2004] 12 SCC 505; West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. CESC Ltd. [2002] 8 SCC 715 ). 21. Further, in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi works case supra the Supreme Court has held as follows: 19. xxx There is a clear finding of fact by the Tribunal that the legal expenses incurred by the assessee were for protecting its business and that the expenses were incurred after November 18, 1994. There is no reason to reverse this finding of fact particularly since nothing has been shown to us to conclude that the finding of fact was perverse in any manner whatsoever. That apart, if the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal were to be set aside, a specific question regarding a perverse finding of fact ought to have been framed by the High Court. The Revenue did not seek the framing of any such question. In this regard, reference may be made to K. Ravindranathan Nair v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2001] 247 ITR 178, 181 (SC) wherein it was observed: The High Court overlooked the cardinal principle that it is the Tribunal which is the final fact-findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
