Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: Factual Examination & Scope of Appeal under Section 260A - Calcutta H Decision

 

The Calcutta High Court in its ruling has provided an important clarification regarding the scope of appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, particularly in cases involving additions made under Section 68, which deals with unexplained cash credits. The case centered on whether factual disputes regarding the legitimacy of a cash credit can be examined at the appellate stage under Section 260A.

Factual Background of the Case:

The case arose from an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Assessing Officer (AO) had made an addition under Section 68 to the income of the taxpayer, claiming that certain amounts credited to the taxpayer's books of accounts represented unexplained income. The taxpayer contended that these credits were from genuine transactions and had been properly explained with supporting documents, including confirmation letters from the creditors.

Issues in Dispute:

The central issue in this case was whether the Tribunal's decision on the matter could be appealed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Specifically, the dispute revolved around whether factual findings related to the genuineness of the cash credits could be re-examined in an appeal under Section 260A. The appellant argued that the Tribunal had failed to consider the material evidence, while the revenue argued that the Tribunal's order was based on sound factual findings.

Court’s Ruling:

The Calcutta High Court held that factual issues such as the genuineness of cash credits and the credibility of documents submitted by the taxpayer could not be re-examined in an appeal under Section 260A. The Court emphasized that Section 260A is not intended for a de novo examination of facts; instead, it is meant to address questions of law. Therefore, if the Tribunal has made a factual determination, it cannot be overturned unless there is an error in the legal interpretation of the matter.

The Court further noted that the scope of an appeal under Section 260A is confined to legal questions, and once factual findings are made, those findings are binding unless they are perverse or unsupported by the evidence on record. As a result, the factual dispute in this case was beyond the scope of the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A.

Conclusion:

The Calcutta High Court’s ruling clarified that appeals under Section 260A are limited to questions of law, and factual findings made by the Tribunal or lower authorities cannot be re-examined or challenged in such appeals. This decision reinforces the principle that the scope of appellate review is restricted to legal aspects, not factual disputes.

Court Practice Community

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community