T.a./34/2007 Of Commissioner Of Incometax Cent v. M/S J.ram And Sons

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI T.A. No. 34 of 2007Commissioner of Income Tax, Central RevenueBuilding, Main Road, Ranchi ...... AppellantVrs.M/s J. Ram & Sons ......Respondent ------ Dated 19th September 2012. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2.While admitting this appeal, the following question of law has been framed: (I)Whether having regard to the undisputed finding, not disputed by the CIT (A), that the whole-sale business of battery done by the assessee was not at disclosed and the same came to light only on receipt of information from M/s Radiohms Agencies, both the appellate authorities have committed error of law in reversing the finding and order passed by the Assessing Authority ? 3.Learned counsel for the respondent has raised objection that though the question of law has been framed but in fact, in the facts of the case, the question referred is not a question of law as the finding of fact has been recorded by the CIT(Appeal) and that has been confirmed by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that all materials were before the appellate authority and the appellate authority, after considering the material, have reversed a part of the findings recorded by the A.O. It is submitted that whether particular transaction involves the investment or not is the question of fact and the CIT(Appeal), recorded the finding that A.O. had no reason at all to treat entire purchases as unexplained investment and it was a purely imagination of the A.O. So far as the estimation of the income is concerned, for that also, cogent reason has been given by the CIT(Appeal) as well as considered by the Tribunal. 4.After going through the detailed reason given by the CIT(Appeal) in its order dated 22.7.2005 for the Assessment Years 1996-97 to1998-99 and the order dated 22.7.2005 for the Assessment Years 1996-97 to1998-99 and the Tribunal's order dated 14.12.2006, we are also of the considered opinion that the question of facts have been decided by the CIT(Appeal) as well as by the Tribunal after appreciation of the evidences which have not been vitiated because of non-consideration of the material evidence, nor because of consideration of irrelevant evidence, nor the findings recorded by these two authorities can be said to be perverse. 5.Therefore, in view of these facts, we do not find that the question framed is a question involved in this appeal. Hence, this tax appeal is dismissed.is a question involved in this appeal. Hence, this tax appeal is dismissed. (Prakash Tatia,C.J.) (Jaya Roy, J.)