ORDER : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. This tax appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 22.11.2022 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed in Appeal being ITA No. 195/SRT/2021 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Following substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this court: “(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.41,67,45,000/- relying upon, the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umrigar in ITA No. 134 to 137/SRT/2021 dated 10.05.2022 without appreciating the fact that addition was made on the basis of incriminating documents, showing unaccounted land transactions carried out by the assessee, found and seized during the course of search proceedings? (b) Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT is justified in treating the incriminating documents in the form of duly written and signed “Sauda Chithi’ found and seized during the search and seizure action carried out by the Department as dumb documents without appreciating that the same carries an evidentiary value and the person from whom the same was found and seized has admitted that it was found from his possession in the statement recorded on oath and the contents therein were also clearly explained as to be pertaining to the unaccounted transactions of land in question as also the said document was received by him from the assessee, Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya through WhatsaApp message? (c) Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT is justified in not appreciating the fact that the assessee could not bring on record any cogent explanation in respect of ‘Sauda Chitthi’ being 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 the area in which the land in question was situated which includes the Dream City project? (f) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT is justified in observing 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 assessing officer during the course of assessment proceeding and the assessee, however, chose not to avail them for the reason best known to him thereby leading to the erroneous observation and eventually granting relief to the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs.41,67,45,000/- made in the assessment order? (g) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT is justified in not appreciating the fact that one of the co-owners of the property has admitted that he has sold his share of land to Shri Vasantrai A. Modi for a consideration of Rs.8500000/- even though the property was standing in the name of the assessee himself in the revenue records and no registered sale deed has been even executed which shows that the land transactions in real estate business are taking place on the basis of ‘Sauda Chitthi’ and hence the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that the land in question has not been transferred to purchaser has no merit at all? 3. Shortly stated, it appears that the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the issue under consideration was squarely covered by the judgement of the coordinate bench in the case of Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umriger in ITA Nos. 134 to 137/SRT/2021 dated 10.05.2022. The Revenue came in appeal against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal wherein this court vide order dated 03.07.2023 passed in Tax Appeal No. 9 of 2023 and allied matters dismissed the appeals of the revenue holding as under: “9. It is pertinent to note at this stage that this Court in Tax Appeal No.162/2021 has passed an order on 15.07.2021 and after considering various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has discussed what is the meaning of substantial questions of law. This Court in the said order in Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 has observed as under, “11. It may be noted that the Appeal under Section 260A could be admitted only on the High Court being satisfied that the case involves asubstantial 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 merely equitable grounds. 15. 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. 15. An appeal under Section 260A can be only in respect of a 'substantial question of law'. The expression 'substantial question of law' has not been defined anywhere in the statute. But it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements. In Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR (1962) SC 1314, this court laid down the following tests to determine whether a substantial question of law is involved. The tests are: (1) whether directly or indirectly it affects substantial rights of the parties, or (2) the question is of general public importance, or (3) whether it is an open question in the sense that issue is not settled by pronouncement of this Court or Privy Council or by the Federal Court, or (4) the issue is not free from difficulty, and (5) it calls for a discussion for alternative view. There is no scope for interference by the High Court with a finding recorded when such finding could be treated to be a finding of fact. 12. Again the Supreme Court in case of Vijay Kumar Talwar versus Commissioner of Income Tax in (2011) 330 ITR 1 considered the issue of substantial question in context of Section 260A of the IT Act and observed as under: “18. It is manifest from a bare reading of the Section 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 the said order, it is mandatory that such question(s) must be formulated. The expression "substantial question of law" is not defined in the Act. Nevertheless, it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements. In Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons, Ltd. Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. The expression "substantial question of law" is not defined in the Act. Nevertheless, it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements. In Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons, Ltd. Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 a Constitution Bench of this Court, while explaining the import of the said expression, observed that: "The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by 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 of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking 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." 20. In Hero Vinoth (Minor) Vs. Seshammal (2006) 5 SCC 545 , 556, this 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.” 21. 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) 4 SCC 855; Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi Vs. Rajat Vidyarthi (2009) 3 SCC 287 ; Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Vijay Dasharath Patel (2007) 4 SCC 118 ; Metroark Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta (2004) 12 SCC 505 ; West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. CESC Ltd. (2002) 8 SCC 715 ).” 10. We have gone through the observations made by the Tribunal while passing impugned common order. We have also considered the submissions canvassed by learned Standing Counsel for the revenue. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta (2004) 12 SCC 505 ; West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. CESC Ltd. (2002) 8 SCC 715 ).” 10. We have gone through the observations made by the Tribunal while passing impugned common order. We have also considered the submissions canvassed by learned Standing Counsel for the revenue. If the facts of the present case are examined on touch stone of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as observed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the present appeals do not involve any substantial question of law. 11. Hence, all these appeal deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stand dismissed.” 4. In light of the above, since the present tax appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, the same is dismissed. No costs.