TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds ITAT decision on unverifiable income addition. AO lacked specific errors in books.</h1> <h3>Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Raipur Versus Roopchand Tharani</h3> Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Raipur Versus Roopchand Tharani - TMI Issues:Appeal by Revenue against ITAT order on substantial questions of law regarding rejection of books of account without pointing out mistakes.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) based on substantial questions of law. The Assessing Officer (AO) had added back a certain amount to the assessee's income, claiming the books of account were not fully verifiable despite being maintained by a Chartered Accountant. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) later deleted this addition, stating that the AO did not specify any mistakes in the books. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO did not point out any defects or mistakes. The High Court noted that the AO's finding was erroneous, as no specific mistake in the books of account was identified. The Court emphasized that the substantial question of law arises only if there is perversity in the finding of fact.The High Court referred to previous judgments to highlight that a finding of fact may lead to a substantial question of law if it is based on no evidence, relevant evidence is not considered, or legal principles are not applied correctly. In this case, the Court found that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had appropriately appreciated the facts, and there was no perversity in their findings. The Court concluded that the issue at hand was purely a question of facts and not a substantial question of law. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as it involved only factual considerations and did not raise any legal issues.
TaxTMI 