JUDGMENT
A.M. Sapre, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated September 17, 2004, passed by the Tribunal (ITAT) in Miscellaneous Application No. 31/Ind/04, rejecting the prayer made by the assessee for rectification of order dated April 29, 2004, passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 741/Ind/98.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether appeal involves any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under Section 260A of the Act. Since in order to entertain and admit the appeal, the finding out of substantial question of law is a mandatory requirement of law, i.e., Section 260A of the Act, it is obligatory on our part to first find out this question and then proceed by formulating this question. Since, this exercise has not yet been undertaken and hence, the appeal was fixed for this purpose.
3. Heard Shri R.T. Thanevala, learned Counsel for the appellant/assessee.
4. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, we are of the view that this appeal has no substance. In other words, despite hearing learned Counsel for the appellant at great length, we could not persuade ourselves for finding out any substantial question of law out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. As a necessary consequence, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal in limine.
5. Learned Counsel for the assessee challenged the impugned finding of the Tribunal contending that it is contrary to banking norms etc. We are not impressed by any of the submissions as they are basically question of facts involving no substantial question of law as such needed for entertaining the appeal under Section 260A ibid. In our opinion, every question is not substantial question of law. When the explanation offered by the assessee on the question was not acceptable to the authorities, it ended the issue calling no interference by this court, as last appellate court.
6. As observed supra, we have not been able to notice any such substantial question of law which can be said to arise out of the Tribunal’s order sought to be impugned in this appeal. As a consequence, we cannot entertain this appeal for probing into so many questions raised by learned Counsel for the appellant.
As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.