TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 906
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allied appeals. 3. Heard learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Varun K. Patel assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Dev Patel for the appellant - revenue. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer passed assessment order dated 29.12.2018 for the assessment year 2017-18 and thereby held that an amount of Rs.13,86,85,279/- being sale consideration of one-third share in the land is treated as being undisclosed capital gain in the hands of assessee and is, therefore, added to the total income of the assessee. It is further submitted that against the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority i.e. CIT Appeals and the CIT Appeals allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, against which, revenue preferred appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by impugned common order, dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue and, therefore, present appeals have been filed. 5. In Tax Appeal No.9/2023, following substantial questions of law are proposed, "(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.13,86,85,279/- without ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (f) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in observing and laying emphasis that an opportunity for cross examination was not granted to the assessee, which is baseless as the assessee was granted ample opportunity by the Investigating Officer before preparation of appraisal report as also by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceeding and the assessee, however, choose not to avail them for the reason best known to him and, therefore, demand of cross examination which would at best be 'self-serving' should have been rejected/ ignored?" 6. In Tax Appeal No.10/2023 as well as Tax Appeal No.680/2022, similar substantial questions of law are proposed by the revenue. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant has referred to the observations made by the Tribunal in the impugned order and, thereafter, mainly contended that the Tribunal has committed an error while treating incriminating documents in the form of duly written and signed "Sauda Chithhi" found and seized during the search action taken under Section 132 of the IT Act carried out by the department as dumb documents without apprecia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot be disturbed. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with law in force at the relevant time. The conditions mentioned in Section 260A must be strictly fulfilled before an appeal can be maintained under Section 260A. Such appeal cannot be decided on merely equitable grounds. 15. An appeal under Section 260A can be only in respect of a 'substantial question of law'. The expression 'substantial question of law' has not been defined anywhere in the statute. But it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements. In Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR (1962) SC 1314, this court laid down the following tests to determine whether a substantial question of law is involved. The tests are: (1) whether directly or indirectly it affects substantial rights of the parties, or (2) the question is of general public importance, or (3) whether it is an open question in the sense that issue is not settled by pronouncement of this Court or Privy Coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) 3 SCC 179 and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar 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 decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis." 20. In Hero Vinoth (Minor) Vs. Seshammal (2006) 5 SCC 545, 556, this Court has observed that: "The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings ....