Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that Rs. 1,42,706 had not been incurred for loading and unloading was vitiated because it rested on unwarranted assumptions, inadmissible evidence, or failure to consider relevant material.
Analysis: The Tribunal reappraised the evidence, including fortnightly and final statements, the diary, and oral testimony, and reached a factual conclusion different from that of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In reference jurisdiction, the Court does not sit in appeal over findings of fact. Such findings are binding unless shown to be based on irrelevant material, excluded relevant material, or unsupported by any admissible evidence. The assessee's new factual contention could not be entertained because it had not been raised before the tax authorities and did not arise from the question referred. On the record, the Tribunal had considered the material and its conclusion was not shown to suffer from any legal infirmity.
Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative. The finding of the Tribunal was upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A Tribunal's finding of fact on reappraisal of evidence is binding in reference unless it is shown to rest on irrelevant material, omit relevant material, or proceed on unwarranted assumptions.