TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1555
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... processed, but later selected for scrutiny and a notice was issued to the respondent assessee under Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act on 27.9.2013. The notice was apparently served on the respondent assessee on 28.9.2013. 4. The assessee was represented before the Assessing Authority by his authorised representative. Materials before the Assessing Officer revealed that the respondent assessee was a Law Graduate, residing with his parents in the address specified in the return, that is, No.4/212A, MGR Salai, Palavakkam, Chennai 600 041. 5. By a registered deed of settlement executed on 19.11.2010, the respondent assessee was given property at Injambakkam by his father, a partner in a flat promoting concern. The said property is hereinafter referred to as the Injambakkam property . 6. On 6.12.2010, the respondent assessee sold the Injambakkam property for a consideration of Rs. 4,00,00,000/-, from which the respondent assessee has purchased property measuring 6.95 acres at Nallanpillai Petral Village on 15.7.2011. The purchase was made by a registered deed of conveyance No.2953/2011, registered with the Sub Registrar Officer, Thirukazhukundram, for an amount of Rs. 86,87,500/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....late Tribunal, which has given rise to the order dated 23.9.2016 under appeal. By the order under appeal, the Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the respondent assessee and set aside the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act holding the same not to be justified. 13. The learned Appellate Tribunal held that the respondent assessee had furnished all details of sale and purchase of the Injambakkam property and had claimed deduction under Section 54/54F of the 1961 Act. After careful perusal and analysis of Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act, the Appellate Tribunal found, on facts, that it could not be said that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or he concealed any part of income. The Appellate Tribunal held that the respondent assessee had furnished details of the transactions relating to the Injambakkam property and the sale of the Injambakkam property for Rs. 4,00,00,000/- had been disclosed. 14. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the respondent assessee had computed the capital gain and disclosed the capital gain, but claimed exemption under Section 54/54F for investment in another land and property, which, according to the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormulate 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 substantial question of law not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question. (5) The High Court shall decide the question of law so formulated and deliver such judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded and may award such cost as it deems fit. (6) The High Court may determine any issue which - (a) has not been determined by the Appellate Tribunal; or (b) has been wrongly determined by the Appellate Tribunal, by reason of a decision on such question of law as is referred to in sub-section (1). (7) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) relating to appeals to the High Court shall, as far as may be, apply in the case of appeals ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case. In Sir Chunilal case [1962 Supp (3) SCR 549 : AIR 1962 SC 1314] the Constitution Bench expressed agreement with the following view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju [AIR 1951 Mad 969 : (1951) 2 MLJ 222 (FB)] : (Sir Chunilal case [1962 Supp (3) SCR 549 : AIR 1962 SC 1314] , SCR p. 557) "When a question of law is fairly arguable, where there is room for difference of opinion on it or where the Court thought it necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss alternative views, then the question would be a substantial 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." This Court laid down the following test as proper test, for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial: (S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. (ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents, and, involves a debatable legal issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second ty....