TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal is heard on merits only on the questions framed by the High Court under subsection (3) of Section 260A of the Act as provided u/s 260A (4). In other words, the appeal is heard only on the questions framed by the Court. If the High Court was of the view that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law, it should have recorded a categorical finding to that effect saying that the questions proposed by the appellant either do not arise in the case or/and are not substantial questions of law so as to attract the rigor of Section 260A of the Act for its admission and accordingly should have dismissed the appeal in limine. In our view, the respondent had a right to argue at the time of hearing of the appeal that the ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Mumbai( appellant herein). 3. A few facts need mention here-in-below for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point. 4. The appellant is the Revenue-Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, whereas the respondent is an assessee. 5. The respondent-assessee is a Company engaged in the business of development and building of properties. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2008-09. 6. On 24.12.2009, the Assessing Officer (for short, the AO ) completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and determined the total income at ₹ 7,77,49,790/. 7. On 22.09.2010, the AO issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act seeking th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said sum in the total income of the respondent-assessee for the assessment year under consideration. 13. The respondent-assessee felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the CIT (appeal). By order dated 21.02.2013, the CIT (appeal) dismissed the appeal and upheld the addition made by the AO. The respondent-assessee felt aggrieved and filed second appeal before the ITAT. By order dated 05.02.2014, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT (appeals). 14. The Commissioner of Income Tax felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the High Court under Section 260A of the Act. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Tribunal giving rise to filing of the special leave to appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 23. The questions, which are proposed by the appellant, fall under Section 260A (2) (c) of the Act whereas the questions framed by the High Court fall under Section 260A (3) of the Act. The appeal is heard on merits only on the questions framed by the High Court under subsection (3) of Section 260A of the Act as provided under Section 260A (4) of the Act. In other words, the appeal is heard only on the questions framed by the Court. 24. Third, if the High Court was of the view that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law, it should have recorded a categorical finding to that effect saying that the questions proposed by the appellant either do not arise in the case or/and are not substantial questions of law so as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 148 are relevant and sufficient for issuance of the said Notice dated 22.09.2010 ? (ii) Whether any case of escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year in question is made out by the Commissioner of Income Tax on the basis of the reasons set out in the notice ? (iii) Whether a case of presumption as contemplated under Section 132(4A) of the Act could be drawn against the respondent-assessee on the basis of a document (Annexure AB1) which was seized in search operation carried in the business premises of another assessee M/ s Ashok buildcom by adding a sum of ₹ 1,70,94,000/for determining the total tax liability of the respondent for the year in qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
