- (1.) Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has conceded that other similar appeal (Income Tax Appeal No.503/2011) has been dismissed vide order dated 14th October, 2011, in which similar question was involved. In that appeal following order was passed : This is an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against an order dated 30.11.2010 passed by I.T.A.T., Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short called Tribunal) in I.T.A. No.565/JP/2010 arising out of AY 2002-03. 2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Revenue and in consequence upheld the order of Commissioner of Appeals. 3. So the question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260A ibid 4. Facts of the case are these : 5. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of cotton woolen and synthetic fabric etc. The question arose as to the addition of certain amount during the year under consideration because of invocation of powers under Section 145(3) of the Act against the assessee which resulted in rejection of their books of account. The CIT(Appeals) after examining the whole case on facts came to a conclusion that AO was not right in invoking powers under Section 145(3) of the Act for rejection of books of account and accordingly while modifying the order of AO to that extend in favour of assessee granted relief. It is this finding which was challenged by Revenue in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concurred with the finding of CIT(Appeals) in toto and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Since the Tribunal in toto agreed with the detail reasoning of the CIT(A) and hence it did not give its own reasoning except to record its own concurrence. 6. It is, therefore, proper to reproduce the reasoning of CIT(Appeal) infra to show as to how the issue was dealt with: I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made. From the perusal of details filed it is seen that the AO had not considered the change in the nature of activity being carried on by the appellant. From the comparative chart of profit and loss account furnished by the A/R it is seen that upto the year under consideration the appellant company was engaged in manufacturing and trading activity but from the year under consideration and subsequent years the appellant company was mostly engaged in only trading activity. This is clearly evident from the absence or merely nominal charges being booked under the operational expenses. It is also seen that the AO had primarily relied upon the qualifications mentioned in the audit report filed along with the return of loss by the appellant but did not point out any specific defects either in the books of accounts or in the details furnished by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. The AO did not even consider the change in the nature of business activity being carried on by the appellant upto the year under consideration, during the year under consideration and the subsequent years. In view of this the rejection of books of accounts by the AO at a lesser figure than claimed by the appellant it is seen that the AO failed to provide any basis for the rejection of the appellant's claim and consequent reduction of the loss 7. In the first place, what is involved in the case is a pure question of fact and not any question of law much less substantial question of law. Secondly, this Court cannot again in this appeal undertake the examination of factual issues nor can draw any factual inferences on the basis of explanation offered by assessee. Thirdly, once the explanation is accepted by an appellate court on facts, then in such event, a finding recorded on such explanation is binding on the High Court being a finding of fact. 8. Perusal of the impugned finding would go to show that Tribunal did examine the issue in detail and then recorded a finding. In fact since it concurred with CIT (Appeal) and hence did not consider it proper to record separate and detail finding. Such finding when challenge does not constitute any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260A ibid in an appeal arising out of such order. As a matter of fact, when once the order under Section 145(3) is held as bad in law then benefit must go to assessee of their books of account for determining their tax liability. 9. In our opinion, therefore, once the Tribunal accepted the factual explanation of assessee and accordingly, deleted the additions in question made by A.O. In exercise of its appellate discretionary powers, then it would not involve any substantial issue of law as such. In other words, this Court in its appellate jurisdiction under Section 260-A ibid, would not again denovo hold yet another factual inquiry with a view to find out as to whether explanation offered by assessee and which found acceptance to the Tribunal is good or bad or whether it was rightly accepted, or not. It is only when the factual finding recorded had been entirely dehors the subject, or when it had been based on no reasoning, or when it had been based on absured reasoning to the extent that no prudent man of average judicial capacity could have ever reached to such conclusion, or when it had been found against any provision of law, then a case for formulation of any substantial question of law on such finding can be said to arise. Such is not the case here on facts. 10. In view of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the apepal that does not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. No costs.
(2.) Question raised in this appeal has been answered/dealt with in the aforesaid appeal. No substantial question of law has been found to be involved in this appeal. For aforesaid reasons, this appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
(3.) Consequently, this appeal is also dismissed.;