Madhya Pradesh High Court
Cit vs Smt. Anita Chouhan on 22 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: [2008]296ITR691(MP), [2006]155TAXMAN136(MP)
ORDER
1. This is an appeal filed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order, dated 11-2-2005, passed by learned Members of ITAT in ITA No. 494/IND./2004.
2. The question that arises for consideration is; whether appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of section 260A of the Income Tax Act so as to admit this appeal.
3. Heard Shri A.P. Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, we are of the opinion that appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
5. In substance, the question involved in the case and now in appeal is; whether addition and then deletion made by assessing officer and then deleted by Tribunal is proper or not in the case of assessee ? It is a case where explanation offered by assessee on facts found favour to the authorities/ Tribunal and, hence, the addition made by assessing officer came to be deleted. The question; whether Explanation offered should be accepted or not is essentially a question of fact and hence, it does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law within the meaning of section 260A of the Act.
6. It was a case of unexplained investment made by assessee in her house which she had constructed. Since there was a difference of amount in two valuations and hence, assessee was called upon to explain the amount which she actually spent and its source. The assessee explained and the same found acceptance by the Tribunal. Now in this appeal, the revenue says rather complains that the explanation offered by the assessee ought not to have been accepted. We do not agree because in our view, this court cannot as a 3rd court of Appeal and exercising the defined legal powers under section 260A ibid, interfere in factual finding of fact. It is for the reason that once a finding is recorded by the Tribunal accepting the Explanation offered then in that event, it becomes a finding of fact and thus binds the 3rd Appellate court because of its peculiar legal jurisdiction recognized under section 260A ibid. It is only when the finding of fact recorded is so bad that it is de hors the evidence or case set up or against any provision of law or no judicial man can ever reach to such conclusion being totally perverse, a case for interference in appeal under section 260A can be made out. But in the facts of this case, no such error is visible and/or made out.
7. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.