Concurrent factual findings on asset revaluation and no colourable device raised no substantial question of law under section 260A.

The HC condoned a substantial delay in filing the revenue's appeal despite an unsatisfactory explanation, taking account of related matters already decided in the assessee's favour. It then held that no substantial question of law arose under section 260A because the Tribunal's findings on the nature of the land as a current asset, the inapplicability of section 45(3), the absence of any colourable device in the revaluation, and the absence of taxable income in the partners' hands were concurrent factual determinations. The revenue's challenge to the Tribunal's order therefore failed and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the inordinate delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. (ii) Whether any substantial question of law arose in the revenue's appeal challenging the Tribunal's decision on revaluation of assets and applicability of the Income-tax Act provisions.

Issue (i): Whether the inordinate delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was substantial and the explanation was found to be wholly unsatisfactory. Even so, the Court took note of the fact that identical issues had already been considered in the assessee's own case for a subsequent assessment year and the connected matters had been decided shortly before.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in the exercise of discretion.

Issue (ii): Whether any substantial question of law arose in the revenue's appeal challenging the Tribunal's decision on revaluation of assets and applicability of the Income-tax Act provisions.

Analysis: The Court noted that the issues raised by the revenue had already been held in the assessee's favour in the connected appeal decided earlier. The Tribunal's findings that the land was treated as a current asset, that section 45(3) was inapplicable, that revaluation was not a colourable device, and that no taxable income arose in the partners' hands were accepted as factual determinations not giving rise to a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose for consideration and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's order failed, and the revenue's appeal was brought to an end with the delay petition also standing disposed of.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent factual findings of the appellate authorities, particularly on the nature of the asset and absence of any colourable device or taxable transfer, do not give rise to a substantial question of law under section 260A.

---