I.P.MUKERJI,J. - (1.) This appeal was heard on the questions of law framed by the order dated 8th June, 2005 by a Division Bench of this Court. Those questions of law are enumerated below: (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal retaining disallowance of Rs. 8, 00, 000/- only out of the claim of expenditure of Rs. 59, 88, 728/- for alleged security at tea gardens, thereby giving relief of Rs. 51, 88, 728/- is perverse as the entire expenditure was unproved, the payee concerns were non-existent, no confirmation was filed for security claimed to have been provided and security had been provided by Indian Tea Association against payment ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing payment of Rs. 1, 68, 10, 480/- to Gangan Properties Pvt. Ltd. for alleged supply of organic manure is perverse and erroneous as the party had passed only accommodation entries through a circuitous chain of transactions without rendering actual services and a confessional statement to that effect was made by the alleged supplier of Gangan Properties Pvt Ltd ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing payment of alleged rent of Rs. 12, 01, 320/- to Dakorji Properties Pvt. Ltd is perverse as the premises had been transferred to Dakooji Property Pvt. Ltd. by the actual owners of the property, a dispute was going on and the keys of the premises were lying with the police ? (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding interest of Rs. 22, 07, 47, 000/- received as "Profits and Gains of Business" instead of "Income from other Sources", contrary to law, on the basis of its order for earlier years against which appeals under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been admitted by the Hon'ble Court ? (v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing provisions of Rs. 82, 64, 000/- for post-retirement benefit of the employees is perverse and erroneous as it was in the nature of only a contingent liability ? (vi) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowing ex gratia payment of Rs. 1, 02, 00, 000/- as compensation to the retired employees is perverse and erroneous as the scheme had fallen through and the amounts received from the employees were returned to them with interest ?
(2.) It is well-settled by authority that a substantial question of law denotes a question of law of great substance and public importance. An ordinary question of law cannot be termed as a substantial question of law. The statute, while engrafting section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allowed appeals from the orders of the Tribunal to the High Court on substantial questions of law only, making it akin to second appeals under the Civil Procedure Code.
(3.) In this appeal, we find that five issues have been identified as giving rise to substantial questions of law, by the said order dated 8th June, 2005. On hearing this appeal we find that these questions are substantially factual. They do give rise to any substantial question of law.;