Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 173 (MP)

Deepak Chugh v. Commissioner of Income-tax

2005-02-04

A.M.SAPRE, ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI

body2005
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260a of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated August 25, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 1204/ind of 1996. ( 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 P. M. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the appellant. ( 4. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case, we are of the opinion that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal, as is required to be made out under Section 260a ibid. ( 5. ) A mere perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal rendered in the appeal would indicate that it is based on facts involving no substantial question of law as such. In other words, what is involved in this appeal and before the taxing authorities which eventually led to passing of the impugned order are questions relating to facts and not law. It is for this reason we are inclined to hold that the appeal does not involve any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. ( 6. ) IN substance, the question relates to addition/deletion of unexplained investment of Rs. 2,00,000 made by the assessee in purchase of plot on August 28, 1989. It is this question, which was examined by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and lastly by the Tribunal on facts and evidence adduced by the parties (assessee ). The Assessing Officer added the amount holding that the same could not be explained. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held otherwise. However, the Tribunal did go into the facts, evidence and documents including the statements of several persons involved in the transaction in question. In the view of the Tribunal, the explanation offered by the assessee is not proper, adequate convincing and hence, not acceptable. The Tribunal did examine the statements of persons recorded, and came to their own conclusions which as stated supra have gone against the assessee. ( 7. In the view of the Tribunal, the explanation offered by the assessee is not proper, adequate convincing and hence, not acceptable. The Tribunal did examine the statements of persons recorded, and came to their own conclusions which as stated supra have gone against the assessee. ( 7. ) THE submission of learned Counsel for the appellant/assessee was mainly one. According to him, some evidence and/or statement of persons were not taken note of and hence, it is a question of law. He took us to the oral evidence and the statements of persons for showing that it supports his version. We are afraid, it is not so possible. It is again going into the area of evidence and that too oral. We do not consider it possible to go into such refined way of appreciation of oral evidence for upsetting the factual finding of fact in our second appellate jurisdiction under Section 260a, nor are we prepared to accept the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that what is not taken note of has resulted in vitiating the finding impugned. In our view, the Tribunal has taken into consideration all relevant facts, evidence and has recorded the factual finding calling for no interference. A wrong finding on fact cannot be said to involve any question of law unless it is extremely perverse. Such does not appear to be the case though learned Counsel urged it to be so with vehemence. ( 8. ) IN the totality of the whole factual scenario, we are unable to notice any substantial question of law in appeal. The appeal thus fails and is dismissed in limine.