TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 981
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of this court: "(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,67,45,000/- relying upon, the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umrigar in ITA No. 134 to 137/SRT/2021 dated 10.05.2022 without appreciating the fact that addition was made on the basis of incriminating documents, showing unaccounted land transactions carried out by the assessee, found and seized during the course of search proceedings? (b) Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT is justified in treating the incriminating documents in the form of duly written and signed "Sauda Chithi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction? (e) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT is justified in not appreciating the fact that the Valuation Report of the DVO (Departmental Valuation Officer) was mere estimates the basis of 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 search proceedings and the overall development of the area in which the land in question was situated which includes the Dream City project? (f) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT is justified in observing that an opportunity for cross ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal wherein this court vide order dated 03.07.2023 passed in Tax Appeal No. 9 of 2023 and allied matters dismissed the appeals of the revenue holding as under: "9. It is pertinent to note at this stage that this Court in Tax Appeal No.162/2021 has passed an order on 15.07.2021 and after considering various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has discussed what is the meaning of substantial questions of law. This Court in the said order in Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 has observed as under, "11. It may be noted that the Appeal under Section 260A could be admitted only on the High Court being satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Council or by the Federal Court, or (4) the issue is not free from difficulty, and (5) it calls for a discussion for alternative view. There is no scope for interference by the High Court with a finding recorded when such finding could be treated to be a finding of fact. 12. Again the Supreme Court in case of Vijay Kumar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law." 19. Similarly, in Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (2001)3 SCC 179 a three judge Bench of this Court observed that: "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, AIR 1962 SC 1314 (2001) 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding." 21. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been (2006) 5 SCC 545 taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread. (See: Madan Lal Vs. Mst. Gopi & Anr. (1980) 4 SCC 855; Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi Vs. Rajat Vidyarthi (2009) 3 SCC 287; Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Vijay Dasharath Patel (2007) 4 SCC 118; Metroark Ltd. ....