TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal) in Income Tax Appeal No. 645 of 2011 relating to assessment year 2005-06. 2. Proceedings were initiated against Assessee appellant under Section 148 of Act, 1961 with regard to alleged loan of Rs. 10,00,000/-advanced to one Sri Satya Prakash Jaiswal Proprietor of M/s Akash Trading Co., Malviya Road, Basti. Assessing Authority has held that despite advancement of said loan, same was not recorded in the books of accounts and return was filed without disclosing the same. Assessing Authority issued notice under Section 142 (1) on 19.08.2009, on which date learned counsel on behalf of the assessee appeared and requested for adjournment. He was asked to furnish vakalatnama and source of investment of loan of Rs. 10,00,000/-given to Sr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that there was no material for reopening and therefore, reopening is not valid. He placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncement: (I) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aggarwal Engg. Co.[2008] 302 ITR 246 (P&H) (ii) Raj Mohan Saha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1964] 52 ITR 231 (Ass) (iii) Baliah (K) Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax[1965] 56 ITR 182 ( Mys) (iv) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. [1998] 229 ITR (All)" 7. Tribunal has considered the aforesaid contentions and after confirming concurrent findings of fact recorded by Assessing Authority and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the C.I.T.(A)] has dismissed appeal. 8. Before this Court, there is not e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdinarily, interference with findings of fact is permissible, namely, (a) when material or relevant evidence is not considered, which if considered, would have led to opposite conclusion, and (b) where a finding has been arrived at by court below by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence, which if would have been omitted, an opposite conclusion would have been possible. We derive these principles from some of the authorities of Apex Court and, briefly, it would be appropriate to refer the same. 13. In Dilbagrai Punjabi Vs. Sharad Chandra, AIR 1988 SC 1858, the Court affirmed the observations of High Court that First Appellate Court is under a duty to examine entire relevant evidence on record and if it refuses to consider important ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... . . . ." "13. The second situation in which interference with findings of fact is permissible is where a finding has been arrived at by the appellate Court by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence which if it was omitted, an opposite conclusion was possible. . . ." 18. In Govindaraju Vs. Mariamman 2005 (2) SCC 500 the Court said that existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code. If a second appeal is entertained under Section 100 without framing substantial questions of law then it would be illegal and would amount to failure or abdication of duty cast on the Court. The Court relied on its earlier decisions in Kshitish Chandra Purkait Vs. Santosh Kum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Company Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314. Referring to above authorities, the Court in Santosh Hazari (supra) said: "A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be substantial, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, in so far as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law involving in the case there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decid....