Mohd. Yusuf v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2, Bikaner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR J U D G M E N T INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.90/2010 MOHD. YUSUF VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, BIKANER. Date of Judgment: 24.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. SAPREHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mr. Sunil Bhandari, for the appellant. BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE SAPRE,J.) 1.This is an appeal filed by the assessee underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act against an order dated09.10.2009 passed by I.T.A.T., Jodhpur (for short calledTribunal) in IT(SS)A No.11/JU/2004 for the period AY 1990-91 to 2000-01. 2.By the impugned order, the Tribunal upheld theadditions made by A.O. by dismissing the appeal filed byassessee and in consequence upheld the order of CIT (Appeal). 3.So the question that arises for consideration in thisappeal is whether it involves any substantial question of lawwithin the meaning of Section 260-A ibid? 4.Having heard the learned counsel for the appellantand on perusal of record of the case, we are inclined todismiss the appeal in limine as in our opinion the appeal doesnot involve any substantial question of law as is required to bemade out within the meaning of Section 260-A ibid. 5.The issue relates to certain additions which weremade by the A.O. in the course of assessment proceedingsinitiated against the assessee under the Act. The A.O. did notaccept the explanation offered by assessee and treating thesaid amount to be that of assessee added in his total incomeby taking recourse to Section 68 ibid. The CIT (Appeal) tooupheld the additions when he also dismissed the appeal filedby assessee. The order of CIT (Appeal) was then upheld byTribunal. In other words, the Tribunal too did not accept thefactual explanation coupled with the evidence tendered byassessee in relation to the impugned additions made by A.O.and upheld by CIT (Appeal) and held that since the same hasnot been properly explained and hence, they have to beincluded by adding the same while computing the total incomeof the assessee. 6.In substance, the issue involved in the appeal wasin relation to addition/deletion of certain amount in the handsof assessee in the assessment years under consideration TheAO did not find explanation offered by assessee to beplausible and accordingly added the amount treating it to bean income from unexplained source added the same by takingrecourse to Section 68 ibid. It was upheld by CIT (Appeal) butlater also upheld again reversed by Tribunal in an appeal filedby the assessee when his appeal was dismissed. 7.Learned counsel for the appellant (assessee)contended that firstly Tribunal erred in not accepting theexplanation offered by Assessee in relation to his source ofincome. His second submission was that assessee had offeredplausible and good explanation and hence it should have beenaccepted by A.O. and lastly learned counsel made sincereattempt on his part after taking us through factual scenario of the explanation and contended that it can be taken assatisfactory explanation for deleting the addition made byAssessing Officer. We do not agree to this submission formore than one reason. 8.In the first place, what is involved in the case is apure question of fact and not any question of law much lesssubstantial question of law. Secondly, this Court cannot againin this appeal undertake the examination of factual issues norcan draw factual inferences on the basis of explanationoffered by assessee. Thirdly, once the explanation is found tobe not worthy of acceptance by an appellate court (Tribunal inthis case), then in such event, a finding recorded on suchexplanation is binding on the High Court. the explanation and contended that it can be taken assatisfactory explanation for deleting the addition made byAssessing Officer. We do not agree to this submission formore than one reason. 8.In the first place, what is involved in the case is apure question of fact and not any question of law much lesssubstantial question of law. Secondly, this Court cannot againin this appeal undertake the examination of factual issues norcan draw factual inferences on the basis of explanationoffered by assessee. Thirdly, once the explanation is found tobe not worthy of acceptance by an appellate court (Tribunal inthis case), then in such event, a finding recorded on suchexplanation is binding on the High Court. 9.Perusal of impugned finding quoted supra wouldgo to show that Tribunal did examine the explanation offeredby assessee in detail and then recorded a finding for its notacceptance. Such finding when challenged does not constitutea substantial question of law within the meaning of Section260A ibid in an appeal arising out of such order. 10.In our opinion, therefore, once the Tribunal did notaccept the explanation of assessee and accordingly, addedcertain additions made by A.O., then it would not involve anysubstantial issue of law as such. In other words, this Court inits appellate jurisdiction under Section 260-A ibid, would notagain denovo hold yet another factual inquiry with a view tofind out as to whether explanation offered by assessee andwhich did not find acceptance to the Tribunal is good or bad,or whether it was rightly accepted, or not. It is only when thefactual finding recorded had been entirely dehors the subject,or that it had been based on no reasoning, or based on absurdreasoning to the extent that no prudent man of averagejudicial capacity could ever reach to such conclusion, or that it had been found against any provision of law, then a case forformulation of substantial question of law on such finding canbe said to have been made out. 11.Learned counsel for the appellant contended thatloose papers cannot be treated as books of accounts. We findno merit in this submission. In fact, the loose papers weretaken into account for examining the source of income andthen accordingly factual finding was recorded against theappellant. In view of this, the submission urged really need notbe examined as a substantial question of law. 12.In our view, no such error could be noticed by us inthe impugned order because as observed supra, the Tribunaldid go into the details of explanation offered by assessee andthen did not find any merit in the explanation. As aconsequence thereof, the additions made by Assessing Officercame to be upheld. 13.We thus, do not find any merit in the appeal. It failsand is dismissed in limineby holding that it does not involveany substantial question of law. No costs. [C.M. TOTLA], J. [A .M. Sapre],J. /Anil/