Income Tax Oflbcer Ward 1(1), Raipur v. Respondent Ram. Narayan Agrawal

HIGH COTJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B: HON'BLE MR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE &HON'BLE MR. MANIKDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA. JJ. Tax Case Income Tax Appeal No.37 of 2006 APPELLANT Income Tax OflBcer Ward 1(1),Raipur VersusRESPONDENTRam. Narayan Agrawal Incoine Tax Appeal under Sectlon 260A of Incoiae Tax Act1961. Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for fhe appeUant. ShriMalayKumarBhaduri,counselforfherespondeut. ORDER (10.05.2012} The following order of the Court was passed by AbhayManohar Sapre, J. Heard. 2.This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Commissionerof Income Tax Act) under Section 260-A of fhe Income TaxAct against the order dated 07.07.2006 passed by IncomeTax appeUate Tribunal (for short caUed the Tribunal') inITA No.264/Nag/2004. 3.By impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appealfiledbvfhe assesee andset aside fheorder of theCoiumissioner oflnconie Tax (Appeals). 4.So the question that arises for consideration ia fhisappeal is whether fhe Tritounal was justi&ed in aUowing theassessee's appeal or/ and whether fhis appeal involves any A ^. fi substantial auestion of law within fhe; l&eaxung of Section260-Aibid.A' 5.Thisappeal wasadmittedforfinalhearingonfollowing substantial question oflaw:- 'Whether jwwtzng offact arrived at bytheAssessmentauthority &theCom.rmssioner could have been disturbed byshifting burden ofproofon departmenty 6.At fhe out set, leamed counsel for fhe assessee(respondent)[by][ taking][ recourse][ to][ fhe]provisions[of][ Section]260-A (6) of the Act, contended by raising an objection fhatthe question of law framed by fhis Court at fhe time ofadmission of fhe appeal, quoted supra, does not constitutea substantial question of law and nor does it satisfy fherigour of substantial question of law within the ineaning ofsection 260-A ibid. He also iirged that Che said questionalso does not arise out of ttie order of the Tribunal if onelook to the impugned order of the Tribunal. He also urgedfhat it is equally vague in all respect and does not speU outany sense if read carefalfy because it refers to finding ofassessing of&cer and that of the Conimissiouer of Appeals,but does not say anyfhing about fhe finding of the Tribunalrecorded m. fhe im.pugned order, which is under chaUenge.Leamed counsel contended that fhe respondent can alwaysraise such objection at fhe time of hearing of fhe appeal byfhe respondent and hence, this Court should decide fhisobjection as a preliminary objection. 7.Though leamed counsel for fhe appeUaat (Revenue)inade attempt to counter fhis objection, but having heardthe subniissions of fhe counsel and on perusal of therecordofthecase,wefindforceinthesubmission/objectionof fhelearnedcounselfortherespondent. ^ •\ 7.Though leamed counsel for fhe appeUaat (Revenue)inade attempt to counter fhis objection, but having heardthe subniissions of fhe counsel and on perusal of therecordofthecase,wefindforceinthesubmission/objectionof fhelearnedcounselfortherespondent. ^ •\ 8.On perusal of fhe question of law ff^med, it is ainply'.;. x\clear fhat firstly question framed lo6ksi totatty vague.Secondly, it is general ia nature and does not specify whichfinding of fact recorded by fhe Tribunal (even fhe wordTribunal is not mentioned in question) is bad ia law.Thirdly, whea fhis appeal arises out of fhe order by passedthe Tribunal, then fhe appellant was luider legal obUgationto pouit out the error of law in the findings recorded by ftieTribunal in their order but not fhe errors in the order ofassessment cominitted by the Income Tax Ofiicer or/andCommissioner of Appeals. In the question of law of framed,we find fhat it is confined to referring to so-called errorscommitted by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner ofAppeal in their respective orders, but do not refer to the so-caUed error of the Tribunal in fheir order.This makes thequestion of lawtotaUy redundant and unanswerable.Fourthly, ia fhe absence of any speci&c chaUenge not being]aid to a findiag of fact recorded by fhe Tribunal, particularit is not possible for titus Court to travel to the entirecontroversy decided by fhe Tribunal. It is for fhe reasonthat keeping in view the parameters contam.ed in Section260-A (4) of the Act, ttus Court can only confine itself fordeciding the appeal by answering the question fram.ed, butcaanot travel outside fhe said question, which is notframed. Siace the Tribunal decided fhe appeal on sixquestions aad hence, it was obligatory upon ttie appeUantto attack a speci&c question or questions decided by fheTribunal in favour of the assessee and got fhe question oflaw framed on such finding in this appeal as substantialquestion of law relating to such question. It is only thenthis Court would have been in a position to examine thelegaUty and correctaess of such findmg with a view to findout as to whether such finding is liable to be upheld orreversed. It was not done ia ttus appeal axid hence, wecannot answer fhe question frauied, which does not satisfyfhese parameters.PifUify, even otherwise question of fact -•Is^-sS,;- Buri %• are binding on this Court unless it hps any legal errorli.which is not noticed and lastty, siace np'prayer is made bythe appeUant as provided in Section 260-A for eitherreframing the already fram.ed or for franiuig any questionadditional questions which according to tfaein. are said toarise out of fhe case, and hence, we have to confineourselves to whatever question alreadyframed and thendecide this appeal keeping in view the requu-ements ofSection 260-A ibid. 9.In the light of foregoing discussion, we are of the viewthat fhis appeal does not involve any question of law m.uchless substantial question of law and what is framed asbeing substantial question of law do not satisfy tfae rigourof substaatial question of law for the reasons inentionedabove and hence, we have no option but to dismiss fheappeal in Umine. 10.In view of fhis, we do not wish to burden our order bymentioning fhe factual matrix of fhe case, because, it doesnot appear necessary. Indeed, fhe objection raised by fberespondent could weU be decided by mere reading of fhequestion itself without referring to the factual matrix. 11.As a result of aforesaid discussion fhe appeal faUsand is accordingly dismissed. 12.No cost. Sd/-Abhay Manohar SapreJudge Sd/-Manindra Mohan ShrivastavaJudge