TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this sub-section shall be (a) filed within one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the assessee or the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner; (b) [***]; (c) in the form of a memorandum of appeal precisely stating therein the substantial question of law involved. (2A) The High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of one hundred and twenty days referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within that period. (3) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (4) The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated, and the respondents shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious issue of law involved in the appeal, the Court might have considered that issue as an issue of law for entertaining an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. However, even the findings of the Appellate Commissioner impugned before the Tribunal did not involve any substantial question of law. 7. In the instant case, the appellant assessee had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2009-2010 on 22.05.2009, declaring total income of Rs. 4,40,330/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, after which assessment was completed and an assessment order was passed. The assessment order is extracted herein below. "The explanation of the cash deposits in IDBI was sought to which the representative stated that to avoid cash deposit tax in the M/s.Southerland Forex & Services (India) Private Ltd. in which the assessee is a Managing Director, the assessee had deposited cash into his account and transferred to the company. The sources of the cash deposits were not provided for were the proofs that these deposits were reflected in the company furnished. Therefore, the total cash deposits of Rs. 32,17,717/- is added as undisclosed cash investment. The ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t received prior to 18/8/2008 cannot in any case linked to the sale of property. Further, even if there was a sale, the amount does not belong entirely to Mrs.Gnanagandhi. It will belong to her and three others. 7.2. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the assessee was not able to give any evidence in support of cash deposit in his bank account to the tune of Rs. 33,17,177/- This will be treated as unexplained income of the assessee and the addition stands confirmed in the hands of the appellant." 11. The Appellate Commissioner found that the cash deposits were not explained and substantiated by cogent evidence. The entire loan amount had been advanced by cash and there were cash deposits even before the date of the alleged sale agreement executed by Mrs.Gnanagandhi. 12. Needless to mention that receipt of money from customers for travellers cheques also could not remain unaccounted for. Moreover cogent evidence was necessary to prove the receipt of cash from customers. That seems to be lacking. 13. An appeal lies under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, only when there is a substantial question of law. We find that there is no question of law involved....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tantial question of law. On the other hand if the question was practically covered by the decision of the highest court or if the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and the only question was of applying those principles to the particular fact of the case it would not be a substantial question of law." 19. In Chunilal Mehta (supra), the Supreme Court laid down the following as proper test, for determining whether a question of law raised in the case was substantial: "The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea....