Dismissed

Kishan Kothwal v. Income Tax Officer

Telangana HC3 Dec 2021ITTA/99/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This income-tax appeal before the Supreme Court dismissed without costs as there were no substantial questions of law arising. The Court held that principles under Section 68 do not apply to additions made under Section 69-A, distinguishing the present case from Tilak Raj Kumar, and that the Tribunal's factual findings were correct regarding unexplained cash deposits.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

Kishan Kothwal Vs Income Tax Officer — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEI,IBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 99 OF 2021

¶7

lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench^'B' Hyderabad in ITA No.2B9lHl2020 for assessment year 2017-18 daled 2810612021 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-7 Hyderabad, Appeal No. 0 1 69/ClT(A)-7l20 1 9-20 dated 27 101 I 2020 preferred against the Order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1,Siddipet, PAN/EKSPK6368F dated 2411012019

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kishan Kothwal, 10-4-466, Nasarpura, Siddipet, Medak, Telangana- 502103.

¶10

AND

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

lncome Tax Officer, Ward- 1 , Siddipet, Medak.

¶13

.,.RESPONDENT

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the order in lrA No. 2$9l\l2o2o (Assessment Year 2017-18) (on the file of lncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench'B' Hyderabad)

¶16

For the Appellant : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, Advocate

¶17

For the Respondent : NONE APPEARED

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HONOL RABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYI.N AND HONOUR.BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADIIAVI T)EVI

¶20

I.T.T.A.No.99 OF 2021

¶21

QEDE&^{fpn,fro n't te SriJustice t}jjal Bhuyanl}

¶22

Heard Mr.^y'ijay Kumar Punna, learned counsel for the

¶23

appellant

¶24

This appeal ras been prefened by the assessee,^as the appellant, under Section 26C { of the Income^Tax Act,^{1961 (briefly 'the Act'} hereinafter) agains the order dated 28.06.2021^{passed by tlte Income} Tax Appellate Tril unal, Hyderabad Bench 'B',^{Hyderabad (Tribunal)} in LT.A.No.28^glH.2020 for the assessment^year2017-18.

¶25

The issue in 'olved in the present appeal is confirmation^{of the} addition made by t re Assessing Officer^{to the income oltht: assessee} under Section 69-A ofthe Act

¶26

In the proc:edings for the assessment^{year 2017-18,the} Assessing Officer bund cash deposits^{in the bank accountof the} assessee aggregatin 3 to Rs.13,16,304.00.^{Assesseesubmitted thathe} has deposited only {s.10^{lakhs during the demonetization periodand} not Rs.13,16,304.0 ).^{Verifrcationof the bank accountstatement} showed the deposit^{of cash of Rs.10 lakhs on 12.11.20 l6 in addition} to certain other deoosits^{in tranches. Regarding cash depositof} Rs.10 lakhs, acco'ding to^{the assessee,the same was out of} 1/3'd salary savings^{fromhis salary since2006 and also 1/3"r savings}

¶27

¶28

of his son^{since2011. This explanationwas not acceptedby the} Assessing Officer^{on the groundthat it was difficult to believethat} such savings^{werekept at home over so many years' In addition'a} furthersumofRs.2.T5lakhswasalsofoundtobeunexplained. Therefore, the^{AssessingOfficer added a sum of Rs'12,75'000'00 to} the retumed income^{of theassesseeas unexplaineddepositsin bank} account, considering^{the same as incomeunder Section69A of the} Act.

¶29

In appeal before the^{Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals)-7'} Hyderabad^(for short,^{'CIT (A)' hereinafter), the AppellateAuthority} recorded the statement of^{the assesseeunderSection 13 I of the Act in} the presence of his^{authorized representative.It was noted that} assesssee is a State^{Government employee and he was required to} inform the State Government^{in the eventof making any investment} in speculative transaction.^{While grantingrelief to the extentof} Rs.2.75 lakhs, which^{wasstatedto be on accountof withdrawalfrom} his GPF, the first^{Appellate Authorityconfirmed the additionof} Rs.l0 lakhs made by^{the AssessingOfficer'}

¶30

6 In further appeal^{beforethe Tribunal, Tribunalheld as follows:}

¶31

"We have considered the rival submissions^and perused the material on record as^{well as gone throughthe} orders of revenue authorities.^{The CIT(A) demonstratedin} his order that the assessee^{does not have sufficient money} to pay monthly chit^{installments by way of recordinghls} statement u/s 131 of the^{Act and examiningthebank} statements, further observed that^{no documentary}

¶32

¶33

evide rce was filed by the assessee to est,ablish genur reness of the chit fund claim. Further, the CIT (h) obser /ed that being govt. employee, the assessee is not permi ted to enter in chit fund. Even before us, the ld AtL of th( assessee failed to establish that the amount cf Rs.10 00,0001 received from chit fund and thr-' submi ;sions in the written submissions are general and vogue which are not supported to the case of the asses ee. The CIT (A) examined the bank statement of the as iessee and after observing the monthly expenditur€) of the lssessee and nature of transactions carried out b), the as;essee, he has rightly sustained the addition nrad€, by the AO. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order cf the CIT (A) in confirming the addition ol Rs.10, 10,000/- made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act and therefc'e, upholding the order of the CIT(A), we dis,niss the grc rnd raised by the assessee on this issue".

¶34

7 . On due conr ideration, we do not find any error or in firnrity in the view taken by t re Tribunal. Besides, there is concurrent tinding of fact. No question cf law arises from the said order of the Trirunal, not to speak ol any iubstantial question of law.

¶35

Learned cou rsel for the appellant relied upon the bllorving decisions:

¶36

(i) COMN IISSIONER of INCOME TAx, HYDE{ABADv. TILAK RAJ KUMAR⁽²⁰¹⁵⁾ 56^"axmann;com 36^(Andhra Pradesh^and Telang rna).

¶37

(ii) HAWX INS v. POWELLS TILLERY STEAM coAL IOMPANY LIMITED^(988KING',S BENC] TDMSION 1911).

¶38

¶39

g.InsofarthedecisionofthiscourtinTilakRajKumar(supra)is concerned,^{we find that it was a case of sale transactionof diamonds} under Section 68 of^{the Act. The parametersfor makingaddition} under Section 68 ofthe^{Act and under Section69A ofthe Act, though} may appear to^{be similar,however,is not so; therefore,addition of} cash credit under^{Section 68 0f the Act wouldstand on a different} pedestai. The^{principles governing cash credit under Section68 of the} Act cannot be^{extended to unexplained investmentsunderSection} 69A of the Act.

¶40

Insofar the English^{decisionis concerned,the facts are totally} different, the^{same arising out of benefits received underthe} Workmen's Compensation^{Act. The said decision is not at all} applicable to the^{factsatld circutlstances of the presentcase'}

¶41

I I . Consequently,^{tl.re appeal is dismissed'}

¶42

Miscellaneous applications,^{il anypending, shallstand closed'}

¶43

1 3. No cttsts.

¶44

¶45

Sd/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Q't

¶46

SECTION OFFICER

¶47

¶48

The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad^'B' Bench, Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax^(Appeals)-7, 3'o Floor, l.T.Towers, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad, Telangana-500 004

¶49