Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suvas Estates (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 12 May, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)189CTR(MP)130, [2004]270ITR373(MP)
Author: A.M. Sapre
Bench: A.M. Sapre
ORDER A.M. Sapre, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act filed by an assesses against an order, dt. 17th Sept., 2002, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Indore (for short called Tribunal, infra) in ITA No. 228/Ind/1996.
2. Heard Shri G.M. Chafekar, learned senior counsel with Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) and having perused record of the case, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law as is required to be made out under Section 260A of the Act. Since, the prerequisite, or we may say, sine qua non for entertaining the appeal under Section 260A of the Act being not present in the appeal, we dismiss the appeal in limine.
4. The issue essentially centers around to proceedings initiated against the appellant (assessee) under Section 148 of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1990-91. In substance, the challenge to these proceedings was essentially on two grounds namely, notice under Section 148 proceedings was not served strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and secondly, reasons which are made basis for initiating proceedings under Section 148 are either vague or not germane to the issue sought to be eventually made basis for additions. Both these grounds were elaborately gone into and dealt with by the Tribunal with reference to the relevant case law on the subject dealing specifically the aforementioned two grounds and as stated supra, were repelled on facts giving rise to challenge in this second appeal by the assessee. These two grounds are again reiterated in support of this appeal by contending that finding of the Tribunal on both these grounds is not correct and hence, need to be upturned. We do not agree.
5. So far as issue in relation to service of notice under Section 148 is concerned, it was rightly held to have no merit. We concur with the finding of Tribunal which has dealt with this issue in its proper perspective. It was rightly held that it was served on the appellant and that no prejudice was caused to the appellant in any manner and that they got full opportunity to defend themselves and challenge the proceedings. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant when he placing reliance on the law laid down in the case of CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapsi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) contended that no notice as contemplated in this case law was served on the assessee. In our opinion, the facts of each case differ from other and hence, what has to be seen is the facts first and then law. As observed supra, when the Tribunal has recorded after perusing the facts of this case that notice was rightly served on the employee of the company/assessee and that assessee having throughout participated in the proceedings, then this Court in its appellate jurisdiction cannot hold otherwise. In other words, this does not involve any issue of law as such though vehemently contended by the counsel.
6. Coming to the second issue also, we, have not been able to notice any apparent illegality in the finding of the Tribunal when the Tribunal proceeded to uphold the initiation of proceedings on merits. In our opinion, the Tribunal in para 12 has given cogent reasons to support the proceedings on evidence and facts. It is, in our view, a pure question of fact calling no interference at this appellate stage. It was found that there were adequate material and reasons to initiate the proceedings under Section 148 ibid.
7. In our opinion, not raising an objection, nor indicating the prejudice caused, we cannot possibly hold that any question of law much less pure and substantial question of law arises in entire proceedings initiated against the assessee under Section 148 of the Act. Indeed, it will be too far to go to this extent in second appeal and set aside the entire proceedings on the ground of so-called irregularities in notice when all the authorities on evaluation of evidence on facts have upheld the proceedings.
8. We, therefore, really find no merit in any of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and thus, dismiss the appeal in limine, i.e. without notice to respondent/Revenue.