TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a notice to the appellant pursuant to a search and seizure operation carried on the premises of the Architect of the appellant under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 2nd February 1996. The notice under section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was issued to the appellant on 4th November 1997 required him to prepare a true and correct return of his total income including the undisclosed income. By an order dated 30th November 1998, the Assessing Officer held that the appellant had undisclosed income of Rs. 19,75,000/- for the block period 1986-87. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the following grounds:- "(i) section 158DB of the Act is not applicable as because the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rao vs CIT, 173 ITR 340, 344(AP) it was held that section 40A(3) apply to a business carried on illegally. In that case, the cash payment by the assessee to persons from whom smuggled goods were purchased was held not covered by the then Rule 6DD(j). In the case of CIT vs. Maddi Venkataratnam & Co. (P) Ltd. 144 ITR 373, 392 (AP), on appeal (1998) 229 ITR 534 (SC) it was held that an illegal payment cannot be brought within the exception of Rule 6DD(j). As such, we do not find any force in the ground of the assessee on this count. 28. We have perused the impugned order. In our opinion, correct view was taken in the matter. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly we uphold the same. 29. In the result, appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he High Court while exercising powers under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law and not merely a question of law. In "Chandrabhan (deceased) through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Saraswati & Ors" (2022) 20 SCC 199, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :- " 31. .........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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o referred to section 292B to reflect on the undisclosed income of the appellant. 8. Two forums have recorded concurrent findings of fact on the issue of satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that the appellant did not disclose income of Rs. 19,75,000/-. We find that the Tribunal has discussed in the judgment dated 9th July 2003 that the requirements in law are satisfied and the petitioner had suppressed income. Merely referring to the statutory provisions and contending that he had disclosed the expenditure are not sufficient grounds to hold that the substantial question of law as formulated vide order dated 3rd December 2004 shall arise in this case. In "Chunnilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd." 1962 SCC OnLine SC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich the present Court succeeded, as to whether a substantial question of law meant a question of general importance. Their Lordships think it is quite clear - and indeed it was conceded by Mr De Gruyther - that that is not the meaning, but that 'substantial question of law' is a substantial question of law as between the parties in the case involved." (p. 128) Then Their Lordships observed that as the case had occupied the High Court for a very long time and on which a very elaborate judgment was delivered the appeal on its face raised as between the parties a substantial question of law. This case is reported in Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Deputy Commissioner of Partabgarh [(1926-27) 54 IA 126]. What is a substantial quest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or where there is some doubt as to the principle of law involved, it certainly would raise a substantial question of law which would require a final adjudication by the highest court." One of the points which the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court had to consider in this case was whether the question of the construction to be placed upon a decree was a substantial question of law. The learned Judges said in their judgment that the decree was undoubtedly of a complicated character but even so they refused to grant a certificate under Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appeal to the Federal Court because the construction which the Court was called upon to place on the decree did not raise a substantial question of l....