Commissioner of Income Tax vs Damodardas Ralhi (HUF)

All the above review applications relate to common controversy and they are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the Section 260A Sub-Section 7 of income tax Act makes the provision of CPC applicable to the appeals filed thereunder, review lies under the provisions of O.47.R.1 of the C.P.C. Sub-Section 7 of Section 260A of income tax Act, 1961 reads as under:

Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), relating to appeals to the High Court shall, as far as may be, apply in the case of appeals under this section.

From perusal of the provisions contained in sub-section 7, it does not appear that they enable a party to file review under the provision of 0.47.R.1. Be that as it may, we proceed to consider the review application on merits.

For the purpose of this order, facts have been taken from order dated 1.11.06 passed in I.T.A. 145/06. The following two questions were formulated by the department in the appeal memo:

1) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon''ble Tribunal is correct in holding that the loans stated to have been received from alleged creditors are genuine ?

2) Whether the ITAT erred in construing the mandatory provisions applicable u/s 132 and resultantly disability of the assessee to prove his cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act in proper perspective ?

According to the department, in the enquiry/raid under S. 132 of the Wealth/Income, it was noticed that the income had not been accounted for by the assessee in his return. On that basis, addition was made to income but on appeal some relief was given by the CIT (Appeal). The matter was thereafter carried to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that assessee had satisfactorily accounted for cash credits and creditors were genuine. Since the finding of the Tribunal was based only on facts of the case, the appeal filed by the department was dismissed on the ground that it did not involve any question of law, much less substantial. Learned counsel for the revenue has invited attention to paragraph 18 of the review application and contended that it was not proved that amount had been borrowed from obliging friends and relatives for helping the assessee in need. It is further contended that by no stretch of imagination, appellants submission that entire capital invested in pawning business was borrowed from others, could have been deleted. These contentions also fall in the realm of facts and do not give rise any question of law. Thus, there is no ground for review of the impugned order. These applications for review are accordingly dismissed on merits notwithstanding that they are barred by time also. A copy of this order be retained in each connected files.