THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD. vs. SAMBHAJI LAXMAN PAWAR

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

In our view, no question of law, much less, a substantial question of law arises for determination, and therefore, appeal cannot be entertained under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The facts necessary for our conclusion are stated below.

In a search seizure operation carried out in the premises of respondent, it was inter alia noticed that he had not disclosed his full income by under reporting consideration paid for the purchase of a land. The respondent had purchased 16,000 square feet of land at Shegaon for Rs. 4,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer on the basis of documents found at the search held that the actual consideration paid by the respondent for purchase of the land was Rs. 10,00,000/-. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that the difference between the real consideration (Rs. 10,00,000/-) and the paper consideration (Rs. 4,50,000/-) amounting to Rs. 5,50,000/- was an undisclosed income of the assessee which he added in the income of the assessee. On appeal by the respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

The CIT (Appeals) held that Rs. 2,75,000/- were paid in cash but not shown by the assessee in his books of account and accordingly added Rs. 2,75,000/- instead of Rs. 5,50,000/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the decision of the CIT (Appeals), the Revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Pune (For short, "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal noted that two receipts, one of Rs. 2,75,000/- and another of Rs. 7,25,000/-, were found in the course of search. The Tribunal, however, on consideration of the material before it, came to the conclusion that the receipt of Rs. 7,25,000/- was a (4) Tax Appeal No. 107 of 2008 cumulative receipt which included earlier receipt of Rs. 2,75,000/-. The Tribunal accordingly affirmed the finding of the CIT (Appeals), that the total consideration paid for purchase of the land was Rs. 7,25,000/- only, while paper consideration was of Rs. 4,50,000/-. It, therefore, confirmed the decision of the CIT (Appeals), that the undisclosed consideration was of Rs. 2,75,000/- only. This finding of the Tribunal is clearly a finding of fact and in the absence of any perversity, no question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Mr. Alok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant, however, urged that the ground no.3 noted by the Tribunal, in paragraph 1 of its order, has not been answered by it and that gives rise to a substantial question of law. The ground no.3 reads thus : " On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,53,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of delay in filing of return of income for the assessment year 2000-01. " In paragraph 5 of its order, the Tribunal has stated that so far as Ground No.3 is concerned, the CIT (Appeals) has given the relief

Mr. Alok Sharma, learned ASG, for the appellant, submits that the observations quoted above in the Tribunal's order, that these findings were not controverted before the Tribunal, were incorrect. If any concession or other fact has been wrongly recorded by a Tribunal in its order, it is duty of the party to move the Tribunal for correction of the error, if any, immediately after the order is pronounced when facts are fresh in the mind of the Tribunal. It would not be good practice to allow a party to challenge a factual observation about any concession or non-urging of a point made in the order of a Court or a Tribunal for the first time in an appeal before the superior Court for the first time. We, therefore, decline to entertain the contention that the Tribunal had wrongly not decided this point.

No other point is urged before us.

The Appeal is accordingly dismissed summarily.