Case Law Details
Blue Lines Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court)
Learned counsel for the revenue has invited our attention to para 11 of the order passed by the tribunal and has submitted that the assessee has failed to produce any material to show that the cash seized during the course of search belonged to M/s S.S.Tours and Travels. It is further submitted that in any case, the aforesaid issue is a finding of fact in which no perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee, therefore, no case for interference is made out. It is also pointed out that no perversity has been alleged in the memorandum of appeal.
It is evident that even before the tribunal, the assessee did not produce any material despite opportunity being afforded to show that the amount seized during the search belonged to M/s S.S.Tours and Travels. Even otherwise, the aforesaid finding is a pure finding of fact, which does not suffer from any perversity. It is well settled that this court in exercise of powers under Section 260A of the Act cannot interfere with the finding of fact until and unless the same is demonstrated to be perverse. (See: SYEDA RAHIMUNNISA VS. MALAN BI BY L.RS. AND ORS. (2016)10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGAL ORE & ORS. VS. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD., (2018) 406 ITR 513)
In view of preceding analysis, the substantial questions of law framed by a bench of this court are answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
