Srinath Bullion Refinery vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Sapre, J.

Having perused the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal impugned in this appeal filed by assessee u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), we find no question of law much less substantial question of law in the appeal as is required to be made out being sine qua non for invoking the jurisdiction conferred u/s 260A ibid and, hence, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal in limine.

What is involved in this appeal is essentially a question based on facts. The issue was whether deletion of Rs. 1,34,422 made by the Commissioner (Appeals) by relying on section 40A(3) of the Act is proper or not. It was found by the Tribunal that in this very case, i.e., for the year 1979-80, the matter came up to the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal gave direction to the assessing officer to find out and verify the details of transaction relating to deletion of Rs. 1,34,422 by obtaining confirmatory letters from the person concerned. In other words, the assessing officer was asked to examine the genuineness of transaction in relation to Rs. 1,34,422. This was not done and, hence, it was held to be the income of the assessee.

It is this addition which is impugned by the assessee. In the opinion of the Tribunal since the assessee failed to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation by not filing any documents to prove the genuineness of transactions, it has to be held to be the income in the hands of the assessee.

In a case like the one it is a pure question of fact, namely, whether the transaction in question is genuine or not. If the assessee despite the directions issued by the Tribunal (quoted in the impugned order in para 3) fails to comply with it, by not producing the material to support the genuineness of transactions, then in such event the addition made in the income treating the said transactions to be bogus cannot be faulted with.

This issue does not constitute any issue of law requiring this court to examine in second appeal which is confined to only examination of substantial question of law. It also does not involve application of rule 6DD(j) because when the assessee fails to file evidence as directed by the Tribunal, he has to suffer for the consequences of its non-compliance.

Since none appeared for the appellant, we could have dismissed the appeal in default but we did not do so. We perused the order and found no substance in the appeal. It fails and is dismissed in limine.