Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

CIT vs. Rama Krishna Jewellers (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 26, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 5, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2000-01 to 2004-05 and 2006-07
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
A factual decision is perverse if the authority has acted without any evidence or on view of facts, which cannot be reasonably entertained. A perverse finding is one, if it is arrived at without any material or if it is arrived at or inference is made on material, which would not have been accepted or relied upon by a reasonable person conversant with the law.

This Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Act is not an appellate Court for facts reprise. Factual findings can be challenged only on the ground that the factual findings recorded are perverse or relevant evidence has not been considered or irrelevant material has been relied. In such cases, pleadings in this regard have to be specific, erudite and the should indicate clearly the error or mistake. This Court in CIT versus Sunaero Limited [2012] 345 ITR 163, at page 187, regarding perversity of a decision of the Tribunal, has observed:- “A factual decision is perverse if the authority has acted without any evidence or on view of facts, which cannot be reasonably entertained. A perverse finding is one, if it is arrived at without any material or if it is arrived at or inference is made on material, which would not have been accepted or relied upon by a reasonable person conversant with the law. If the finding is based upon surmises, conjectures or suspicion and is not rationally possible. A factual conclusion is regarded as perverse when no person duly instructed or acting judicially could act upon the record before him, have reached the conclusion arrived at by the tribunal/authority

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*