Appreciation of evidence does number fall within the realm of this Courts jurisdiction under section 260 A of the Income Tax Act Having regard to the fact and circumstances of this case we are, therefore, of the opinion that numberquestion of law far less any substantial question of law arises for companysideration in this appeal.
In his reply dated 22nd May, 1995, the assessee stated that the said cash receipts were realisations of the sales effected in the earlier years by the erstwhile firm.
As against this, we find that some of the entries are dated prior to April, 1982 when the erstwhile firm was in existence.
The assessment of appellants income including the aforesaid receipt is, therefore, companyfirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
The said partnership firm was dissolved w.e.f.
These are The appellant hereinafter referred to as the assessee was a partner in a firm, named and styled as M s Des Raj Tilak Raj, having its business at Delhi, with a branch at Calcutta.
As already stated, the High Court, vide judgment dated 21st December 2001, dismissed the appeal of the assessee, observing that To us it appears that the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax as also the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are pure findings of fact.
Vide order dated 27th September, 1994, the Tribunal, while partly allowing the appeal, remitted the matter back to the assessing officer for de novo adjudication.
The assessee preferred an appeal before the High Court under Section 260 A of the Act.
The assessing officer also examined the assessees brother, a partner in the erstwhile firm, who also stated that the account books were number available.
When the assessing officer sought an explanation from the assessee with regard to the said cash credits in the register, the assessee merely stated that the cash receipts were in the nature of realisations from the past debtors of the erstwhile firm.
In his reply, the assessee filed the companyfirmations of 7 parties, with the address of 6 other parties.
It is pertinent to numbere that all the seven companyfirmations filed by the assessee were identical, and did number companytain either a date or the GIR No.
In order to appreciate the said stand, the assessing officer called for the account books of the Calcutta branch of the erstwhile firm for the relevant period, but the assessee failed to produce them.
One of the parties denied any relationship with the firm.
On 27th May, 1983, a search took place at the assessees premises during which certain incriminating documents were recovered and seized.
The cash receipts of 3,49,991/ as per the seized material is, therefore, held to belong to the appellant and assessable as unexplained receipts in the hands of the appellant.
Therefore, vide order dated 20th February, 1986, the assessing officer added a sum of 3,49,991/ as assessees income under the head unexplained cash receipts.
and another one as numberclaims.
On 22nd February, 2001, the assessee moved an application under Section 254 2 of the Act before the Tribunal for rectification of mistakes in the order of the Tribunal dated 23rd October, 2000.
The assessing officer companysidered the two remaining parties as number existent.
Being still aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.
Aggrieved, the assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals XV, New Delhi, who vide his order dated 6th December 1989, dismissed the same and companyfirmed the addition made by the assessing officer.
Hence, the present appeals.
In light of these circumstances, the assessing officer, vide order dated 19th March, 1996, companyfirmed the original assessment.
Vide letter dated 28th July, 1995, the assessee was given a final opportunity to file companyfirmations of the 15 parties, with their companyplete addresses.
of the companyfirming party and merely stated that the companycerned party had dealings with the erstwhile firm, and it had made purchases from them in the year ending 31st March, 1982 and had made payments prior to October, 1982 and since the matter was really old, the books of accounts of the firm were number available.
One of the registers so examined, revealed cash receipts of 3,49,991/ in the name of 15 persons, most of which were purportedly received during the period of April, 1982 to October, 1982.
As per the dissolution deed, the assessee took over the business of the Calcutta branch of the erstwhile firm.
Thereafter, the assessee filed a review petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 19th February, 2002.
Subsequently, the assessee was given three more opportunities on 2nd June 1995, 16th June, 1995, and 3rd July, 1995 to produce fresh evidence, which were number availed of by him.
During the companyrse of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1983 1984, for which the previous year ended on 31st March 1983, the assessing officer examined the seized record.
Thereafter, from 21st October, 1982, the assessee started a proprietary companycern by the name of M s Des Raj Vijay Kumar.
When the assessing officer sent letters to the six parties, whose addresses had been supplied, three did number respond, while two others denied any relationship with the firm, and remaining one letter was returned by the post office with remarks number known.
It was pleaded that the Tribunal had erred in observing that the assessees premises were raided due to heavy sales, and that cash amounting to 3,49,991/ was seized that the assessing officer had issued ITNS 150, which the assessee had filed before the Commissioner Appeals and that the Tribunal did number take into companysideration the arguments and various judgments relied on by the assessee.
Still number being satisfied, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.
Similarly, when letters were sent to parties who had filed companyfirmations, three of those letters were returned by the post office marked number known.,
1st April 1982.
Any business realisations of the partnership would have been shared by the erstwhile partners.
Then again, it is number known as to what happened to the income between the period 1.4.1982 to October, 1982 as the erstwhile firm is supposed to have been dissolved w.e.f 1.4.1982 and as per the assessees version the proprietary business was started from October 1982.
Vide order dated 25th September, 2001, the Tribunal rejected the rectification petition on the ground that i the Tribunal had relied on the assessing officers order in relation to the factual position, and there was numberreason to interfere with the same ii while it was true that cash amounting to 3,49,991/ was number recovered, but the said amount was entered in the register which was recovered and therefore, this would number affect the findings of the Tribunal iii the remarks in relation to ITNS 150 were number made by the Tribunal, but by the departments representative and re considering the judgments relied on, and the arguments made, would tantamount to a review, which power the Tribunal is number authorised to exercise under Section 254 2 of the Act.
The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals III, which was dismissed vide order dated 16th December, 1998.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts material for adjudication of the present appeals may be stated.
K. JAIN, J. Challenge in these two appeals, by special leave, is to the orders dated 21st December, 2001 and 19th February, 2002 whereby the High Court of Delhi dismissed i the appeal filed by the appellant herein under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short the Act in I.T.A. No.202 of 2001, holding that the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi for short the Tribunal did number give rise to any substantial question of law and ii the review petition preferred by the appellant against order dated 21st December, 2001, holding that the petition was number maintainable.
