TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 906
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., all these appeals are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. All these appeals, which are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "IT Act" for short), are arising out of the common order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" for short) in IT Appeal No.137/SRT/2021 and 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and seized has admitted that it was found from his possession in the statement recorded on oath and the contents therein were also clearly explained as to be pertaining to the unaccounted transactions of land in question as also there was no denial of the fact that the assessee was one of the co-owners of the property in question? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in not appreciating the fact that the Valuation Report of the DVO was mere estimate based on sale instances of the locality as per their Jantri Value without taking into consideration the incriminating and corroborative evidences in respect of the very land in question, found and seized during the course of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 appreciating the fact that same carries a solid and complete evidentiary value and the person from whom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Janardhana Rao versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2005) 2 SCC 324, while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, observed as under : - "14. Without insisting on the statement of substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal and formulating the same at the time of admission, the High Court is not empowered to generally decide the appeal under Section 260A without adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 260A. Further, the High Court must make every effort to distinguish between a question of law and a substantial question of law. In exercise of powers under Section 260A, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12. Again the Supreme Court in case of Vijay Kumar Talwar versus Commissioner of Income Tax in (2011) 330 ITR 1 considered the issue of substantial question in context of Section 260A of the IT Act and observed as under: "18. It is manifest from a bare reading of the Section that an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal lies only when a substantial question of law is involved, and where the High Court comes to the conclusion that a substantial question of law arises from the said order, it is mandatory that such question(s) must be formulated. The expression "substantial question of law" is not defined in the Act. Nevertheless, it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements. In Sir Chunil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned. 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 justi....