TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) dated 30.03.2015 setting aside the addition of ₹ 93,11,000/-, as undisclosed income of the respondent-assessee, during the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer found that there had been cash deposit of ₹ 30,61,000/- in the Pondicherry State Co-operative Bank Ltd., in the name of the respondent-assessee and another cash deposit of ₹ 62,50,000/- in the Indian Overseas Bank account of the respondent-assessee during the Assessment Year 2011-12 corresponding to the Previous Year 2010-11. 3.It was the case of the respondent-assessee that she had received a sum of ₹ 60,00,000/- from her mother as gift. The money was given by the respondent-assessee's mother to the respondent-assessee for admission of her son, Rufus Mathew Rajee in a private medical college. The assessee also claimed that she has received a sum of ₹ 30,61,000/- from her husband, Shri.Khalur Rajeev. 4.It appears that the Assessing Officer proceeded to treat the aforesaid gift amounts received by the respondent-assessee from her mother and her husband respectively as undisclosed income of the respondent-assessee. The reasoning for the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw. (2) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or an Assessee aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this sub-section shall be- (a) filed within one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the Assessee or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. (b) [***]; (c) in the form of a memorandum of appeal precisely stating therein the substantial question of law involved. (2A) The High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of one hundred and twenty days referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within that period. (3) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (4) The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated, and the respondents shall at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of substantial question of law by suffixing the words of general importance as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta [(1927-28) 55 IA 235 : AIR 1928 PC 172] the phrase substantial question of law as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 100 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case. In Sir Chunilal case [1962 Supp (3) SCR 549 : AIR 1962 SC 1314] the Constitution Bench expressed agreement with the following view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju [AIR 1951 Mad 969 : (1951) 2 MLJ 222 (FB)] : (Sir Chunilal case [1962 Supp (3) SCR 549 : AIR 1962 SC 1314], SCR p. 557) When a question of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntirely 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 impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis. (See Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC 179].) 24.The principles relating to Section 100 CPC relevant for this case may be summarised thus : (i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. (ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
