No interference with factual findings where Tribunal's Section 68 deletion was evidence-based and not perverse.

The Delhi High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's deletion of an addition made under Section 68 relating to alleged bogus long-term capital gains and accommodation-entry commission, because the Tribunal's findings were factual and evidence-based. It noted that no effective enquiry was conducted, the broker was not examined, the shares were shown as freely traded on the stock exchange, and surrounding market and financial data supported the assessee's explanation. As no perversity was shown, the Court held that re-appreciation of evidence was impermissible and no substantial question of law arose, so the addition was not revived.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's deletion of the addition made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged bogus long-term capital gain and commission paid for accommodation entry suffered from perversity warranting interference.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded that no effective enquiry was conducted, the assessee's broker was not examined, the shares in question were shown to have been freely traded on the stock exchange, and the surrounding market and financial data supported the assessee's explanation. Interference in such findings was declined because the High Court's jurisdiction does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence unless the findings are shown to be perverse or give rise to a substantial question of law. The cited principles on second appeal were applied to uphold the Tribunal's fact-based conclusions.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's findings were not perverse and no substantial question of law arose; the addition was not revived.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the assessee succeeded on the merits of the challenge to the tax addition.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of perversity, factual findings based on evidence cannot be interfered with merely because another view is possible, and no substantial question of law arises from such re-appreciation of evidence.

---