Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 691 (MP)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sharad Kumar

2004-08-24

A.M.SAPRE, ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI

body2004
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal filed by the Revenue (IT Department) under Section 260a of the IT Act against an order, dt. 4th Dec, 1998, passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 1045/ind/1994. ( 2. ) IN short, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under Section 260a of the Act that being the prerequisite for admission of appeal ( 3. ) HEARD Shri R. L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri J. K. Jain, learned counsel for respondent. ( 4. ) WE may mention at this stage that though this Court (R. D. Vyas and Shambhoo Singh, JJ.) on 24th July, 2000, admitted this appeal but did not frame any" substantial question of law as is required to be framed while entertaining the appeal under Section 260a ibid. Indeed, this Court cannot admit any appeal under Section 260a of the Act unless the Court is satisfied that appeal involves any substantial question of law. Not only that this Court is under legal obligation to frame that substantial question of law which according to the view of the Court arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal and which is sought to be impugned in the appeal. Mere use of the word "admit" in appeal for issuance of notice to other side does not conform to the requirement of Section 260a of the Act. Indeed, this legal position which is discernible by mere reading of Section 260a of the Act was candidly conceded by learned counsel for the appellant. That apart, the infirmity appearing in the order dt. 24th July, 2000 which was taken note of by this Court referred supra, was also accepted by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is due to all these reasons this Court on 19th July, 2004 fixed the case for admission, i. e. , for hearing on the question as to whether appeal involves any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under Section 260a of the IT Act, or not. ( 5. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we find no substantial question of law arises out of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal ( 6. ( 5. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we find no substantial question of law arises out of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal ( 6. ) THE dispute in the case relates to asst. yr. 1987-88. The question arose in relation to accounts maintained by the assessee. An addition of Rs. 85,344 was accordingly made. However, when the assessee filed computerised accounts, it was noticed that opening and closing difference in the balance sheet comes to the same. It was then, the addition of Rs. 85,344 was deleted. It is this deletion which was challenged by the Department unsuccessfully before the Tribunal giving rise to filing of this appeal. ( 7. ) IN the impugned order, the issue raised by the Department was virtually conceded to against the Department. In fact, there was neither any debate nor discussion, nor even challenge at the instance of Department. It was simply conceded by the Department. We, therefore, fail to appreciate -as to what is that basis on which the challenge in this appeal is laid by the Department. ( 8. ) IN any event, we find that the issue of deletion does not involve any question of law as such, so as to attract the rigour of Section 260a ibid. It is a pure question of fact. When on comparison of opening and closing balance, the entries tally then there is no question of any addition in the total income of the assessee. ( 9. ) WE, thus, find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed in Uwine. No costs.