Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 of the Act. Tribunal set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. High Court admitted appeal and held that mere establishing of their identity and fact that amounts had been transferred through cheque payments, did not by itself mean that transactions were genuine and accordingly \u00a0\u00a0restored addition made by Assessing Officer. On appeal to Supreme Court Court held that\u00a0 an appeal before High Court is maintainable only on a substantial question of law however the\u00a0 issuance of notice prior to admission without framing any substantial question(s) of law is not contemplated under section 260A of the Act. High Court has either to admit or not admit appeal. If the\u00a0 High Court admits appeal then substantial question(s) of law has to be framed and respondent put on notice on such substantial question(s) of law, however, if High Court is of view that no substantial question of law arises, then appeal has to be dismissed. On the facts\u00a0 the High Court did not formulate any substantial question of law at time of admitting appeal, rather appeal was heard on merits and in absence of formulating substantial question of law appeal was reserved for judgment, procedure adopted by High Court was not in consonance with what was contemplated under section 260A of the Act. Accordingly\u00a0 judgment is set aside and matter is\u00a0 remanded to High Court for reconsideration of appeal. \u00a0(AY. 2011-12)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Procedure to be adopted by High Court \u2014 Court must formulate question and admit appeal-Hear parties and dispose of appeal-High Court admitting appeal without formulating substantial question of law and hearing appeal on merits and reserving judgment \u2014 Question of law thereafter framed and appeal allowed \u2014 Procedure not in consonance with law-Judgment was set aside and matter is remanded to High Court for reconsideration of appeal. [S. 260A(7), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100, O. XLII, R. 1] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39532","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-ahC","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39532","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39532"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39532\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39533,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39532\/revisions\/39533"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39532"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39532"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39532"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}