TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence or material or is it contrary to the evidence on record or there is no direct nexus between the conclusion of fact and the primary fact upon which that conclusion is based. It is only under any one of these circumstances, a finding of fact may be interfered with. Otherwise, a bare question of fact cannot be turned into a question of law by asking whether as a matter of law the authority came to a correct conclusion upon a matter of fact. - - - - - Dated:- 3-12-2002 - Judge(s) : D. K. JAIN., MAHMOOD ALI KHAN. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by D.K. JAIN J.- This is an appeal by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act"), against the order dated May 9, 2002, passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 1,34,50,000 as advance against share application money as on March 31, 1992, from two private limited companies, namely, (1) Nobru Commercial Ltd. (Rs. 45,00,000) and (2) National Commercial (P) Ltd. (Rs. 89,50,000). It was claimed that against the said amounts 45,000 and 89,500 equity shares, respectively, were allotted to the two companies. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce necessary evidence to prove the existence and identity of the said two companies, as also the source of funds in their hands. In response thereto, the assessee produced confirmation letters from the two companies; copies of the accounts as found in their books of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income-tax (Appeals), who vide his order dated December 22, 1995, deleted the said addition by holding that the assessee has been able to establish the identity and the existence of the said two companies. The said conclusion was arrived at by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the basis of the aforenoted documents and the letters dated March 29, 1989, received from the Under Secretary (Land Revenue, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok), stating that both the companies were incorporated in Gangtok and their addresses were disclosed in the return of allotments (Form No. 2) filed in pursuance of section 75(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Revenue took the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Otherwise, a bare question of fact cannot be turned into a question of law by asking whether as a matter of law the authority came to a correct conclusion upon a matter of fact. In the present case, as noticed above, the Tribunal's finding, which is essentially factual, is based on cogent material highlighted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had even gone to the extent of examining the bank account of the two companies from where the cheques in question were issued and had found that there were numerous transactions of deposits and withdrawals and whenever the cheques in favour of the see were issued, there was sufficient balance available. It is pertinent to note that it was not the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
