It is well-settled in law, that the High Court in exercise of powers under section 260A of the Act would not interfere with the finding of fact until the same is perverse (See : Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [2001] 251 ITR 84 (SC) ; [2001] 3 SCC 179 and a decision of this court in Pr. CIT v. Softbrands India (P.) Ltd. [2018] 406 ITR 513 (Karn), Kulwant Kaur S. Gurdial Singh Mann [2001] 4 SCC 262, Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 1 (SC) K. Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 178 (SC) and Sudarshan Silks and Sarees v. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 205 (SC).
Vide (2021) 431 ITR 303 (Kar) the Court held that the issue whether or not the assets leased out by the assessee to various companies were in existence at the relevant time and whether the transactions in question were genuine or not is a pure question of fact and the Court would not interfere with such finding given the fact that the assessee has produced sanction letters, master/supplemental lease agreements, purchase invoices, installation certificates and inspection reports, a joint inspection conducted by the bank officials, independent valuation report before authorities.
Both the CIT(a) and ITAT have appreciated such evidences so little did the revenue could fight its case in appeal before High Court.
It is thus very important to bring all relevant facts in the paper books filed before Commissioner ( Appeal) and the ITAT.