The Supreme Court dismissed the assessees appeal against the IBAT order confirming an addition under Section 68 for income not proved. The bench held that no substantial question of law arose from the concurrent findings of fact on the unexplainable nature of the funds.
The appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission with no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
I.T.T.A.No.415 of 2012
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)
Heard Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the appellant.
This appeal by the assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) is preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench dated 19.06.2009 whereby the assessee’s appeal-I.T.A.No.140/Hyd/03, pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99 was rejected.
While computing the assessment pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99 under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer by order dated 30.03.2001 made an addition of Rs.31,79,083/- under Section 68 of the Act, concluding that the assessee had received the said amount from 25 parties for which the assessee had been unable to prove either the identity of the persons or their credit worthiness.
The assessee’s appeal was considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad who remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the genuineness of the loan transaction and identify the credit worthiness of the creditors. In his report, the Assessing Officer stated that on examination of the bank pass books produced in respect of 11 creditors, it was noticed that those creditors had deposited the actual amount in cash either on the same day or just a day before, in their bank accounts; and issued cheques for purchasing D.Ds and obtained D.Ds either on the same day or on the following day. After considering the
report of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the genuineness of Rs.6 lakhs, but confirmed the addition by the Assessing Officer to an extent of Rs.25,79,083/-.
Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred a further appeal to the Tribunal, which dismissed the assessee’s appeal on a cogent consideration of the material on record and concurring with the finding that the creditors presented by the assessee were drawing meager amounts of salary from the assessee’s own organization; none of them had obtained D.Ds out of the bank balances built over a period of time; the cash equivalent to the D.Ds amounts were deposited either on the same day or on the next day; some of the creditors even directly obtained the D.Ds. by paying cash as they were not having bank accounts; and the D.Ds were prepared by only one person and the signatures on the D.D applications do not tally with signatures of the creditors.
On the aforesaid concurrent findings of fact based on legitimate and logical inferences from the record, we find no question of law, let alone a substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal.
Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
______________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
__________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
07th November 2012 DR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a substantial question of law warranting jurisdiction under Section 260-A of the Act given the concurrent findings on application of mind by the authorities.
Whether the explanations offered by the assessee regarding the receipt of unexplained cash are convincing enough to override the authorities' finding.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Assessee
Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Goda Raghuram
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
