- (1.) The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 24th November, 2003, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") in IT(SS) No. 46/Del/97 relevant for the block period 1st April, 1985 to 22nd February,1996.
(2.) At the outset, learned counsel for the Assessee has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in Homi Jehangir Gheesta Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City, [1961] 41 ITR 135, to contend that the order passed by the Tribunal should not be examined sentence by sentence, through a microscope as it were, so as to discover a minor lapse here or an incautious opinion there to be used as a peg on which to hang an issue of law.
(3.) He has also drawn our attention to a decision of this Court in Mahavir Woollen Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2000] 245 ITR 297, wherein this Court considered what is a substantial question of law. It was observed that a question of fact becomes a question of law if the findings are without any evidence or material or the finding is contrary to the evidence or perverse or there is no direct nexus between the conclusion of fact and the primary fact upon which that conclusion is based. It was further held in that decision that even though the words "substantial question of law" have not been defined, usually five tests are accepted for determining whether a substantial question of law is involved. These five steps, as enumerated by this Court, are as under :- "1. Whether, directly or indirectly, it affects substantial rights of the parties, or 2. the question is of general public importance, or 3. whether it is an open question in the sense that the issue has not been settled by pronouncement of the Supreme Court or Privy Council or by the Federal Court, or 4. the issue is not free from difficulty, and 5. it calls for a discussion for alternative view.";