AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sapre, J.
This is an appeal filed by the revenue (Income Tax department) u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order, dated 13-2-2004, passed by I.T.A.T. in ITA No. 229/IND./97.
In short, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law as is required to be made out u/s 260A of the Act that being the pre-requisite for admission of appeal.
Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, we are of the opinion that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal and that two questions proposed by the appellant (Revenue) do not satisfy the rigour of substantial question of law within the meaning of section 260A of the Act.
As observed supra, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. While dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Tribunal had this to say in para 8 of the impugned order:-
"Para 8 - We have considered the rival submissions carefully and gone through the relevant material on record. We find that assessing officer has not pin pointed any specific defects in the accounts except for variance in power consumption which could be due to various reasons. We also find that net profit margin had decreased during the year because of increase in wheat rate. In any case, assessee had already surrendered Rs. 32 lakhs by way of KVSS which would cover up any shortfall in profit. In these circumstances, we decline to interfere with the order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)."
Mereafore quoted conclusion of the Tribunal would indicate that the discussion on the issue sought to be raised by the revenue before the Tribunal was more on facts and not in law. Even the Tribunal also came to a conclusion that the issue being more on facts and evidence, the finding so recorded cannot be upset in appeal. We cannot now in our appellate jurisdiction u/s 260A ibid examine the issue of fact.
Even otherwise, the question whether and why and on what basis, the variation in stock had arisen resulting in variation between what is rendered in audit report and stock record is a matter of causes. These causes are based on facts and need factual explanation. This does not involve any issue of law much less substantial one.
It is for this reason that we do not find any merit in this appeal. It fails and is dismissed in limine.