- (1.) BY way of this petition, the assessee seeks review of the order dated 24.11.2010 as passed in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.90/2010 whereby the Division Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. A.M. Sapre and Hon'ble Mr. C.M. Totla,JJ.) dismissed in limine the appeal filed by him against the order dated 09.10.2009 as passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Appeal No.11/JU/2004.
(2.) IN the order dated 24.11.2010, the Court considered the background aspects that the Tribunal had upheld the additions made by the A.O. by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee and upholding the order as passed by the CIT (Appeal). The Court further considered as to whether the appeal involved any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260-A of the INcome Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act of 1961') and noticed the substance of the matter thus: "5. The issue relates to certain additions which were made by the A.O. in the course of assessment proceedings initiated against the assessee under the Act. The A.O. did not accept the explanation offered by assessee and treating the said amount to be that of assessee added in his total income by taking recourse to Section 68 ibid. The CIT (Appeal) too upheld the additions when he also dismissed the appeal filed by assessee. The order of CIT(Appeal) was then upheld by Tribunal. IN other words, the Tribunal too did not accept the factual explanation coupled with the evidence tendered by assessee in relation to the impugned 2 Db Civil Misc. Review Petition No.13/2011 Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax additions made by A.O. and upheld by CIT (Appeal) and held that since the same has not been properly explained and hence, they have to be included by adding the same while computing the total income of the assessee." The Court thereafter, noticed broadly the submissions as made on behalf of the appellant-assessee and thereafter, found no substantial question of law being involved in the case for the questions sought to be raised being essentially the questions of fact and for the reason that once the explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted by the Appellate Authority, the finding recorded on such explanation was binding on the High Court. The Court found no substantial question of law being involved while observing,- "10. In our opinion, therefore, once the Tribunal did not accept the explanation of assessee and accordingly, added certain additions made by A.O., 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 did not find 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 that it had been based on no reasoning, or based on absurd reasoning to the extent that no prudent man of average judicial capacity could ever reach to such conclusion, or that it had been found against any provision of law, then a case for formulation of substantial question of law on such finding can be said to have been made out." A contention was urged pertaining to Section 68 of the Act of 1961 that the loose papers could not have been treated as books of accounts. The Court found such contention meritless with the observations that the loose papers were taken into account for examining the source of income and then, factual finding was recorded against the appellant. The Court, therefore, observed that the submission urged really need not be examined as a substantial question of law. The Court, while observing that the Tribunal did go 3 DB Civil Misc. Review Petition No.13/2011 Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax into the details of the explanation given by the assessee and then did not find any merit in the explanation, proceeded to dismiss the appeal in limine in the following: "11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that loose papers cannot be treated as books of accounts. We find no merit in this submission. In fact, the loose papers were taken into account for examining the source of income and then accordingly factual finding was recorded against the appellant. In view of this, the submission urged really need not be examined as a substantial question of law. 12. In our view, no such error could be noticed by us in the impugned order because as observed supra, the Tribunal did go into the details of explanation offered by assessee and then did not find any merit in the explanation. As a consequence thereof, the additions made by Assessing Officer came to be upheld. 13. We thus, do not find any merit in the appeal. It fails and is dismissed in limine by holding that it does not involve any substantial question of law". This review petition, filed on 24.01.2011, remained in defect side and defects were removed on 24.08.2011. The matter was, thereafter, not listed with the office noting that the concerning Division Bench has not formed. Be that as it may. Seeking to maintain this review petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Court did not deal with all the arguments of the petitioner, particularly, those relating to Section 68 of the Act of 1961 and so also Section 37 thereof. Leaving aside the competence of this petition for review, we find the submissions not making out any case for review of the order dated 24.11.2010 because therein, the Court has taken a comprehensive view of the matter and found the case not involving any substantial question of law. The submissions as sought to be made on behalf of the appellant were essentially found concerning the issues of fact. The question as to whether loose papers could 4 DB Civil Misc. Review Petition No.13/2011 Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax have been treated as books of accounts for the purpose of Section 68 was specifically dealt with by the Court with the observations that such loose papers were taken into account so as to examine the source of income and factual finding was recorded accordingly. The Court specifically observed that the submissions urged really need not be examined as the substantial questions of law. The submissions as sought to be urged before us are essentially in the nature of seeking a re-hearing of the appeal and we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to seek re-hearing of the appeal by way of review petition. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that several of the contentions have not been dealt with though urged before the Court but we find the submissions lacking in strength to make out a case for review. Even if each and every submission, essentially pertaining to the question of fact, has not been dealt with elaborately by the Court, it cannot be said to be leading to such an error apparent on the face of record as to call for review of the order impugned.
(3.) TO put in nutshell, it is noticed that in a comprehensive view of the matter, the Court found no substantial question of law being involved in the matter so as to entertain the appeal of the assessee. The submissions essentially relating to the findings of fact do not make out any substantial question of law and in any case, do not make out a case for review of the order passed by the Court. The review petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.;