The case involved a claim for long-term capital gains from the sale of shares, which the Commissioner (Appeals) determined to be bogus after examining the factual details and the modus operandi of the transactions. This finding was upheld by the Tribunal. Subsequently, the petitioner sought to introduce new documents obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act for re-examination by the Tribunal or Commissioner (Appeals). The petitioner also referenced a Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) order related to the company whose shares were traded, arguing that it could provide fresh evidence. However, the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, ruled that it could not re-examine factual issues that were not raised before the lower authorities. Additionally, the Court found the reliance on the SEBI order to be misplaced, as it did not relate to the specific transactions in question. In light of these factors, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, affirming that no substantial question of law arose and dismissing the Special Leave Petition (SLP).(AY. 2015-16)