TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 appeal cannot be decided on merely equitable grounds. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread. See Madan Lal Vs. Mst. Gopi Anr. [ 1980 (8) TMI 204 - SUPREME COURT] , Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi Vs. Rajat Vidyarthi [ 2008 (12) TMI 724 - SUPREME COURT] . We have gone th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing not live evidence and therefore the admission of Shri Manoj C Patel regarding the entirety of the transaction and involvement of on money in the land transaction in question has to be given full effect to? (d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT is justified in not appreciating the fact that the subsequent retraction of his statement by Shri Manoj C. Patel was only an after-thought for the purpose and convenience of the parties involved in the whole land transaction and such retraction should not be a guiding factor for the appellate authority for ignoring of the clinching evidences brought on record by carrying out search and seizure action? (e) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT is justified in not appreciating the fact that the Valuation Report of the DVO (Departmental Valuation Officer) was mere estimates the basis of sale instances of the locality as per their Jantri Value without taking into consideration the incriminating and corroborative evidences in respect of the very land in question, found and seized during the course of search proceedings and the overall development of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 appeal cannot be decided on mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee 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 of law for a just and proper d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
