In The Matter Of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA ON THE 10[th] OF OCTOBER, 2023 INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 73 of 2023 BETWEEN:- ESSENCE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. THROUGHSHRI SHAILESH AGRAWAL S/O SHRI SURESHCHANDRA AGRAWAL, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O 630,USHA NAGAR EXTENTION, OPP. DASHAHRAMAIDAN, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER). .....PETITIONER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, ROOM NO.101, AAYKAR 1.BHAWAN, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)(MADHYA PRADESH) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL-3) ROOM NO. 103, AAYKAR2.BHAWAN, AREA HILLS, HOSHANGABADROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reserved on: 17.08.2023Pronounced on : 10.10.2023 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut ArvindDharmadhikari passed the following: JUDGMENT This appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 assailing the final order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Indore in Cross Objection No. 04/IND/2021(arising out of the ITA 278/IND/2020) in respect of the Assessment Year2012-13 proposes the following substantial questions of law : (1)Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case,the Ld. ITAT. merely erred in not deciding thegrounds raised by the appellant in the crossobjection specifically the ground no. 3 pertainingto the A.Y. 2012-13?the Ld. ITAT. merely erred in not deciding thegrounds raised by the appellant in the crossobjection specifically the ground no. 3 pertainingto the A.Y. 2012-13? (2)Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case,the Ld. ITAT merely brushed aside all thegrounds raised in the cross objection by holdingthat the grounds raised in the cross objectionmerely in support of the order of the FirstAppellate Authority and no substantial argumentswere raised whereas the grounds raised in theappeal before the ITAT specifically ground no. 3was challenging the addition sustain by the FirstAppellate Authority? the Ld. ITAT merely brushed aside all thegrounds raised in the cross objection by holdingthat the grounds raised in the cross objectionmerely in support of the order of the FirstAppellate Authority and no substantial argumentswere raised whereas the grounds raised in theappeal before the ITAT specifically ground no. 3was challenging the addition sustain by the FirstAppellate Authority? (3)Whether the order of the Ld. ITAT is perverseand therefore to the extent of the ground no.3and therefore to the extent of the ground no.3 order of the Ld. ITAT ought to have been setaside? 2.During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellantpressed the aforesaid three substantial questions of law. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on the question of admission. (3)Whether the order of the Ld. ITAT is perverseand therefore to the extent of the ground no.3and therefore to the extent of the ground no.3 order of the Ld. ITAT ought to have been setaside? 2.During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellantpressed the aforesaid three substantial questions of law. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on the question of admission. 4.The findings rendered by the Tribunal are tested on envil of aforesaidthree proposed substantial questions of law and this Court finds thus : Thegrounds of assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are identical andsimilar and the learned CIT (DR) could not show any distinct or dissimilarfactual position of situation between the A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Ys. 2012-13 and2013-14. Therefore, the conclusion recorded in the appeal filed by theRevenue with regard to ground Nos. 1 to 5 of Revenue for A.Y. 2011-12would apply mutatis mutandis to ground No. 1 to 5 of Revenue for A.Ys.2012-13 and 2013-14. The assessee has filed the cross objections only tosupport the first appellate order. However, no substantial arguments wereadvanced in support of cross objections by the assessee. The appeals of therevenue having been dismissed for the A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14,the cross objection having become academic and infructuous were notadjudicated. In the result, the cross objections raising the grounds (1) to (3)filed by the assess were dismissed. 5.In the matter of Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari observed the following: “A point of law which admits of no two opinions maybe a proposition of law but cannot be a substantialquestion of law. To be substantial, a question of lawmust be debatable, not previously settled by law of theland or a binding precedent, and must have a materialbearing on the decision of the case, if answered eitherway, in so far as the rights of the parties before it areconcerned. To be a question of law involving in thecase there must be first a foundation for it laid in thepleadings and the question should emerge from thesustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of factsand it must be necessary to decide that question of lawfor a just and proper decision of the case. An entirelynew point raised for the first time before the HighCourt is not a question involved in the case unless itgoes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, dependon the facts and circumstance of each case whether aquestion of law is a substantial one and involved inthe case, or not; the paramount overall considerationbeing the need for striking a judicious balancebetween the indispensable obligation to do justice atall stages and impelling necessity of avoidingprolongation in the life of any lis” 6.In view of the above discussion and the findings arrived at by the ITAT,this Court is of the view that neither any of the proposed substantial questionsof law (1) to (3), nor any other substantial question of law arises forconsideration herein. 7.Consequently, in the absence of any substantial question of law having vidya 5 been made out by the assessee, the present appeal preferred by the assessee against the order impugned passed by the ITAT, Indore does not deserve to be admitted. 8.Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE (PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE