High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Prestige Feed Mills Ltd. vs. CIT
Section 260A
A.M. Sapre & Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 109 of 2004
25th January, 2005
Counsel Appeared :
R.T. Thanevala, for the Appellant
JUDGMENT
A.M. Sapre J. :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961, against an order dt. 17th Sept., 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in Misc. Appln. No. 31/Ind/2004, rejecting the prayer made by the assessee for rectification of order dt. 29th April, 2004, passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.741/Ind/1998.
The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether appeal involves any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under s. 260A of the Act. Since in order to entertain and admit the appeal, the finding out of substantial question of law is a mandatory requirement of law, i.e., s. 260A of the Act, it is obligatory on our part to first find out this question and then proceed by formulating this question. Since, this exercise has not yet been undertaken and hence, the appeal was fixed for this purpose. Heard Shri. R.T. Thanevala, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, we are of the view that this appeal has no substance. In other words, despite hearing learned counsel for the appellant at great length, we could not persuade ourselves for finding out any substantial question of law out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. As a necessary consequence, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal in limine.
Learned counsel for the assessee challenged the impugned finding of the Tribunal contending that it is contrary to banking norms, etc. We are not impressed by any of the submissions as they are basically question of facts involving no substantial question of law as such needed for entertaining the appeal under s. 260A ibid. In our opinion, every question is not substantial question of law. When the explanation offered by the assessee on the question was not acceptable to the authorities, it ended the issue calling no interference by this Court, as last appellate Court.
As observed supra, we have not been able to notice any such substantial question of law which can be said to arise out of the Tribunal’s order sought to be impugned in this appeal. As a consequence, we cannot entertain this appeal for probing into so many questions raised by learned counsel for the appellant.
As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.
[Citation : 297 ITR 344]
