TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al filed by the appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') being aggrieved by the consolidated order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bench Indore in ITA No. 232/Ind/2022 and C.O.No. 15/Ind/2022 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The following substantial question of law has been proposed in this appeal : (i) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,37,50,000/- on account of receipts not shown in the Return of income towards completion of specified works as per the milestone schedule of payment and cannot be treated as advance money? (ii) Whether on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....completed on 28.09.2018 by making addition of Rs. 3,75,50,000/- on account of amount received by the assessee from M/s SCC Projects Pvt. Ltd. ('SCCPPL' for short) by treating it as income. Being aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) which was allowed vide order dated 16.08.2021. Against the said order, Revenue preferred an appeal before the ITA which was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2022 and the cross objection of the assessee was allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the ITAT erred in holding that the assessee had correctly offered the net amount of Rs. 7,05,28,925/-. It was held that the assessee had already offered the amount of advance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y order passed 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 Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; (b) xxx (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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 12. While explaining the import of the said expression, the Apex Court in case of Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons, Ltd. Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314, observed that: "6. 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 dire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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." 14. In Hero Vinoth (Minor) Vs. Seshamma, (2006) 5 SCC 545, the Apex Court has observed that: "The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal can be gone into by the High Court only if a question has been referred to it which says that the finding of the Tribunal on facts is perverse, in the sense that it is such as could not reasonably have been arrived at on the material placed before the Tribunal. In this case, there was no such question before the High Court. Unless and until a finding of fact reached by the Tribunal is canvassed before the High Court in the manner set out above, the High Court is obliged to proceed upon the findings of fact reached by the Tribunal and to give an answer in law to the question of law that is before it. 17. When tested on the anvil of the afore-noted legal principles, we are of the opinion that in the instant case no substantial qu....