9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived on sale of land to the assessee, was deposited in bank accounts of sellers who have no other income but for sale of the land in question? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in observing that no opportunity to cross examination was provided by the AO, whereas, ITAT has completely ignored that the facts were brought in knowledge of the assessee vide show cause notice dated 03.02.2015 and the assessee vide reply dated 12.05.2015 expressed his inability to explain/comment on it? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in ignoring the decision of Hon'ble SC in the case of Ayub Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra & others in civil appeal No. 7728 of 2012 and KL Tripathi Vs State Bank of India & Others AIR 1984 SC 273 in which it was held that cross examination has first to be sought by the person concerned. It was held by Hon'ble SC that a party who does not wish to controvert the veracity of evidence on record cannot expect to succeed in any subsequent grievance raised by him stating that no opportunity of eross examination was provided? 5. Whether, the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. During the course of assessment proceeding Ld. AO enquired about the issue of unexplained investment in property. Search action was carried out u/s 132 of the Act in M/s. Sagar Group. Various incriminating documents were found. Based on the seized documents Annexure LPS-3 page 62 to 75 it was observed that the assessee through its partner Sanjeev Agrawal purchased 1.495 hectare land located at Gram Katara, Patawari Halka No.25, RI No.03, Vikashkhand, Huzur Bhopal from Shri Pankaj Mikhija. Shri Pradeep Sharma and Shri Pradeep Hirani Power of Attorney (POA) holder of Smt. Rekha Bai, Shri Lala Ram and Shri Devi Singh and Agarwal Buildcon through partner Shri Sanjeev Agarwal. During post search enquiry summons were issued to the sellers. Smt. Rekha Bai, Shri Lalaram and Shri Devi Singh attended before DDIT (Investment) and statements recorded on oath on 30 10.2011. During the statement, these persons produced agreement dated 27.11.2010 between Shri Raj Kumar Hirani, Shri Pradeep Sharma and Shri Lalaram, Shri Devi Singh and Smt. Rekkha Bai for purchase of 1.495 acres of land located at Gram Katara, Patwari Halka No.25, RI No.03, Vikashhand, Huzur, Bhopal for total sale cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion of the assessee deleted the addition observing that the additions were made merely on the basis of statement of seller but no opportunity of cross examination was provided and the additions made only on the basis of oral evidences and the same are on assumption basis without having any incriminating material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the ITAT erred in observing that no opportunity to cross-examination was provided by the AO. This fact is overlooked by the learned appellate tribunal. He further submitted that the ITAT erred in passing the impugned order as the same has been passed without appreciating the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan Noor Khan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. Civil Appeal No.7728 of 2012 and KL Tripathi vs. State Bank of India & ors. AIR 1984 SC 273 in which it was held that cross examination is first to sought by the person concerned. He further submitted that the ITAT erred in ignoring the fact that the sellers Shri Pradeep Sharma and Pradeep Hirani also offered additional income of Rs. 9,12,000/- each during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, considering the human probability, busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question, (5) The High Court shall decide the question of law so formulated and deliver such a judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded and may award such cost as it deems fit. (6) The High Court may determine any issue which- (a) has not been determined by the Appellate Tribunal; or (b) has been wrongly determined by the Appellate Tribunal, by reasons of a decision on such question of law as is referred to in sub- Section (1). (7) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), relating to appeals to the High Court shall, as far as may be, apply in the case of appeals under this section." 8. From a bare reading of the Section, it is apparent that an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal lies only when a substantial question of law is involved, and where the High Court comes to the conclusion that a substantial question of law arises from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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." 11. In Hero Vinoth (Minor) Vs. Seshamma, (2006) 5 SCC 545 , the Apex Court has observed that: "The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to "decision based on no evidence", it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding." 12. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
