TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1018
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Also heard on the question of admission. 4. This is an appeal 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 order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bench Indore in ITA No. 185/Ind/2020 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 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 law in confirming the Order of CIT(A) that the undisclosed income surrendered during the Search and Seizure action, is liable to be taxed at normal rate instead of the tax rate stip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017-18 was selected for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 on 30.02.2018. No fresh addition was made to the total income and income so declared was taxed at special rate in view of the provisions under Section 115BBE of the Act of 1961. The Assessing Officer himself has admitted that at the time of Search and Seizure that the undisclosed income so surrendered was not entered in regular books of accounts. The undisclosed income falls within the ambit of Section 69A of the Act and therefore, liable to be taxed at special rate within the meaning of Section 115BBE of the Act of 1961. Being aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the respondent/assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), Bhopal. The CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or Commission or an assessee aggrieved by any 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 precise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 under this section. 12. From a bare reading of the Section, it is apparent 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. 13. While explaining the import of the said expression, the Apex Court in c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulatory Commission Vs. CESC Ltd. (2002) 8 SCC 715). 17. The Apex Court in case of K.Ravindranathan Nair vs. CIT, (2001) 1 SCC 135 has observed as under : ''The High Court overlooked the cardinal principle that it is the Tribunal which is the final fact finding authority. A decision on fact of the 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 ....