High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench
Deepak Chugh vs. CIT
Section 260A
A.M. Sapre & Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 19 of 2005
4th February, 2005
Counsel Appeared
P.M. Choudhary, 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. 25th Aug., 2004, passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1204/ Ind/1996.
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 s. 260A of the Act that being the pre-requisite for admission of appeal.
Heard Shri P.M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant. 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 s. 260A ibid. 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.
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 28th Aug., 1989. It is this question, which was examined by the AO, the CIT(A) and lastly by the Tribunal on facts and evidence adduced by the parties (assessee). The AO added the amount holding that the same could not be explained. The CIT(A) 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.
The submission of learned counsel for the appellant/assessee was mainly one. According to him, some evidence and/or statements 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 s. 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 of 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.
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.
[Citation : 290 ITR 541]
