TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2023 - Honourable Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi And Honourable Mr. Justice Devan M. Desai For the Appellant(s) : Mr.Varun K.Patel(3802) COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI) 1. As the substantial questions of law in all these appeals are similar and as the Tribunal has passed common order, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant revenue has requested to hear all these appeal together and, hence, all these appeals are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. All these appeals, which are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as IT Act for short), are arising out of the common order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal for short) in IT Appeal No.137/SRT/2021 and allied appeals. 3. Heard learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Varun K. Patel assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Dev Patel for the appellant revenue. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer passed assessment order dated 29.12.2018 for the assessment year 2017-18 and thereby held that an amount of Rs.13,86,85,27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ject? (d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT is justified in not appreciating that the assessee has not been able to bring on record any cogent explanation in respect of Sauda Chithi being not a live evidence and therefore, the admission of Shri Majoj C Patel regarding the entirety of the transaction and involvement of on money in the land transaction in question has to be given full credence? (e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT is justified in not appreciating that the subsequent retraction of statement was only for the purpose of convenience of the parties involved in the whole land transaction and should not be guiding the appellate authority leading the ignoring of the clinching evidence brought on record? (f) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT is justified in observing and laying emphasis that an opportunity for cross examination was not granted to the assessee, which is baseless as the assessee was granted ample opportunity by the Investigating Officer before preparation of appraisal report as also by the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed only on the High Court being satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Janardhana Rao versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2005) 2 SCC 324, while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, observed as under : - 14. Without insisting on the statement of substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal and formulating the same at the time of admission, the High Court is not empowered to generally decide the appeal under Section 260A without adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 260A. Further, the High Court must make every effort to distinguish between a question of law and a substantial question of law. In exercise of powers under Section 260A, the findings of fact of the Tribunal cannot be disturbed. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with law in force at the relevant time. The conditions mentioned in Section 260A must be strictly fulfilled before an appeal can be maintained under Section 260A. Such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 19. Similarly, in Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (2001)3 SCC 179 a three judge 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,AIR 1962 SC 1314 (2001) 3 SCC 179 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
