AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.L. Dattu, C.J.—This appeal is filed u/s 260A of the income tax Act, 1961 (''Act'' for short), against the orders passed by the income tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in ITA. No. 733/1993, dated 15-2-999, for the assessment year 1987-1988. The assessee has raised the following questions, which according to it are the substantial questions of law. They are as under:
"1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the question whether minimum penalty need only be imposed raised and argued by the appellant must be deemed to have been decided against the appellant?
2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding so when there is no reference or discussion about the minimum penalty in the order?
3) Whether this is a case where minimum penalty need only be levied?"
To entertain an appeal u/s 260A of the Act, the court must be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The tests for finding whether a substantial question of law would arise or not is explained by the Apex Court in the case of M. Janardhana Rao v. Jt. CIT [2005] 273 ITR 50 1 (SC). Keeping in view the settled legal position, we have gone through the questions of law framed by the assessee. The questions so framed, in our view, does not directly or indirectly affects substantial rights of the parties; it is not of general public importance; and it does not call for a discussion for alternative view. This only means the questions framed are pure questions of facts. Therefore, we cannot entertain this appeal filed u/s 260A of the income tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly.