Dismissed
D. Suresh Babu v. Income Tax Officer, Sangareddy, Medak Dist.
Telangana HCITTA/632/2006
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA…
What the court decided
AI extract
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA…
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.
t3386 l
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 632 of2006
lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260 of the lncome Tax Act,'1961 against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' B', Hyderabad in ITA No.987/Hyd12003, for assessment Year 2000-01 dated 23-062006, preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-2, Visakhapatnam, Camp at Hyderabad, Appeal No.01651CI(A)-2 VSP/2002-03, dated '13-05-2003, preferred against the Order of the lncome Tax Officer, Sangareddy, GIR tl No.S-993, dated: 31-03-2003.
Between:
D. Suresh Babu, S-41, lsnapur Village, Patancheru lvlandal, Medak District.
...Appellant
AND
Income Tax Officer, Sangareddy, Medak District.
...Respondent
ITTAMP. No: 217 of 2008
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to grant stay of collection of disputed tax and interest of Rs. 5,91,495/- due for the assessmentyear 2000-0'1 pending disposal 0f the above appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI DUNDU IilANMOHAN
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. MAMATHA, Sr. SC FOR lT DEPARTMENT
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
n
I
I I t
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI IYARAYANA ALISHETTY
INCOME 1]A]('I'RIBUNAL APPEAI, NO.632 OF 2006
JUDGMENT: il). t I ou l,; \n.:ustke !,(Lxt t lontLlartt AltsJt.,ltt/)
'iht irrcscr I it1.r1.ical hirs l-rcen illcd under section 26O-A of lrii ()1nc'i':;r Acr i!t(t I (1or shorL tllc "Act") aggrier,e(l by l)rr,rrlcr [):rssc(l l]\r lncome Tax Appcllate 'lribunal, Bt:nclt lJ, iliri, i:rl;acl (jir; sir,rrt "'llibunarl") ir I'IA No.9tl7 ltlvrll2r-t.t.. 'i,,rr ri ..2.1 \ll , ?1)Or r i,,, rltt /\ssc:rst-l.l( rrr Y('itt-2000 2OOl
.r. Wl Ir:n'rr lrr::rrd thc learnt.<l coLlusel Srr l)urciLr t fvir;rrr:;oIralr ic:rrrrr:r1 coLillsoI lor tl-rc appeilant zrrrrl rr,ls. [i.\1.rr,r:; ]t:,j;trlncd Strritrr :lianding OounsrI for tl-r, ! i' ii )a)ldc1t I
i. Thc l;r:r:f lacts leading to filing of prcsent appeal are as i.i ;rric r
t. 'l'hc zlpl;e I an'r is in thc business of prirchasr: ol'bullalocs b1' proculrng, them liom vanous placcs ilt the state of Alldhra I)r'.'rrli'sirrlrr,, r(ilr ,.i: 'rls a;rtl sr:llilig iiqi, same r() M/s. Alkr:rhet.r'
I:.>:pLrrts i,tci., s lri.:h is an arxp()rter ol- LTreat Lo varic)Lls ioroiqt) c()irrtries.-l'he lI', si,-,ck,/calt[(.arc Lrirnsp()rtccl in tltc rcgulzrr
re
j'( /,( l\ I iii| \ ,a.i:.t:'
2
Courseinmotorlorriesotlday-to-d:r}.basisandcaclltl.uckcatt con[ainonll' 8-9 buiialocs The bulfaloes$ hel trilllsl]ortcdrlr rnotor lorrics/trucksarc made to sllnd colilttltt,usl\lilr mor(' than1O hours at a strctchat-rdas mostol- tlli'sclltrfi;rloesarc aimostat the last stage of theirlife Lheir (lal)ir(rtY to $ iLhstatrcl such Iongjourncyswhilc standingis mininrzr'1u'h ich restrltin fatalitYat theraLc of 3o/o to 7oh'
/,.!A i (,/ \ t.l i | \1,t ;-. )t.tltta)
'I,)tal l)ur( ltils( o1 lrLrll;rloes r5,oB 1 l-( ss;5(lir (l( acit rje(l 7.5 4 Iirrlttrrr'e I.r,.12 7
(). t\s pt.r (ltc cxp(.nriiLurc, thc total purchilsed vallrc c,f M/s. AIk:rbecr Exl:,or.Ls L[cl shou.n as Rs. 2,g5,97,2g31_. Along u,ith tlre s:ri.l rcpl'". tht' :rppc ant arso c-ncrosecr a certilrcatc issLrcd lrr I\47's. Al]< rlrt.er Intcrnational l_f<i., n.hich sho\,s thlt the t:rtalitr..l' rlrc t.lrtr- ,[ l>uJ'ltrloes rvould bc at an aver.tse bt:t*.ccn 3('1, Lo 7').,,, 'l'lte A() on consiclerertion of clarifications/ r:xpler.ati.rrs p.virled b! the assessee, c.tmc to conclusion that ih(' ass('ssc(, has ltot macle any clairn of such loss due to thc clcarh ol thc :rnirnais rn rhe profit and loss u."o.ln, cncloscd to lhc rcturrr oljncontc or ir.r the Audit Report enciosed to thc rcturn.'l-lrcr,:lirrc. ttre claim of deceascd animals tt Jo/o nu rnbr:ring ,'51 is only an aftcrthought to explaiD thc d,screpant--ies arrd r1; ps16[ Lhc figures u,ith the infornration rcccived from M/s.Atkabccr Exports Ltd. The AO did rror iiccept the claim of appellant of death of 754 buffaloes and madc :rddition ol Fis. I 1 ,93,592/- r.vhich is estimated cosL o[. 754 buffaloes trr Rs. 1583 (per bulfaloJ iLnd finall_v determinc.d the roL.rl incorre zr t lls. 13,19,422/- ulcle orcler dared 3t.03.2O03
,. --:st' ?.?
7,11I1'\I/ it!.l ',/' t)" +
7 . Aggrievcdby thc order'datcd31 '03'2OO3passcd trr r( ) ' [hc apllellantpreferrcdappcal beforc the Commissiotict- 6f IncomcTax (Appeal)-2'Visakhaptrtnam ThcCommi*<ir 'trcrr 'I Incomc'la-x(Appeals)(lor short' 'thc AppcllatcCo mtnisstotrer') uidLeorc)cr datcd13 05 2003 had substantialtyallou ecl tht: claimof thc appellant whiieholdingthat the loss claimcclclr-te to th€rdearh o[ buffaroesduring thc transit canrloL bc di:.icdi. futl andhcld loss at Rs' 80'000/-and delelcd thetrzrLanccr amourltof Rs1 l,l3'5821-'
13.05.2OO3,the AO P: c[crrcd 8 AggrievedbY lhe order dated in LT.A.No987l appealbcforcthe Tribunal' Hyderabad uide</sup> ord..'dated Ht'cl/ 2OO3TheAppellateTribunal'
23.06 -2f)06set-asidethe ordcr of the Appellate Comtnisstotrr-t ancl rcstoredthe order of AO'
g. Aggrieved bythe order of Tribunal' dated 23'06 2006' the prcscntappeal is filed by the appellant'
/,(/(!l\l.l !t,1t,t:o,:tt)1,
-,
-)
submitted that Triltunalgrosslvcrred in not consideringthc crucr.ll la(:ttral cvidcrtccotl tllclttccclf asscssrncnt rccord and pcr-vcrsc 1indin11 coIttral.r/ roiiiu'. l'lc s'ould further subnlit that ccr-t illca te issu<:clbr thc Vctcrinitrl' Doctor clearly showsthc lzrlalitr, ratt oI ;(t i, Lo 1O(l,i, ol lrnim:rls during trzutsitrvhich q':ls also ignored.I Ir: iirtall;., subrnits that Tribunal is not.lustifie din setting-asidc tlrc ordcr ol thc Tribunal and thuspra,vei for sett ing-asidt' thc rrrdcr clirted 23.06.2006 passcd by the Appellate Tri bttr-rirl
L 1. Per contr:t, leart'red cottrtsellor the rcspondent sullmitted that the ordcl passed i:rt he'l'ribr-tr-ralis propcr a ncl thc q 'l'ribr-tnal irlrs rct or-clt'cl collcltI rc.lsons u'hile sctting aside the order o[ thc AppellateCommissioncrand doesnot walrant interfcrence blr this Bench.The learned counsel forthe respondent rel'erred to rcasonsrccorded bv the Tribuntllat paragraph-5 of Lhe order, particularlythe relevantportion u'hich is as unrf cr:-
"lt is ar-r admitte d fact that 15,08 1 buffaloeswere purchrrse,C and what \t,as given to Alkabeer Exports Lt(1. Is orrly 13,949 buffakrcs. When AlkabeerExports Ltd.. conlirrrs that I3,949 anim{s werepurchascdbr tl'rcm, u'e do r-rot fincl ar-ryjustification inthc explimaLi:rr.t of the :rssessee that the bulfaloesu'cre sold onrveight basis. If actually the meatwas sold. \ All<abrlc'x Expolts Ltd, nray not have thedctailso1'
.IFT I
6
inrliridutrl anirtrals. In rirrs casc, i;oth ttrc assesscc and Alkal;r:cr Exports Ltd. C,rnfirmecl rlrat I _?.q.+!) buffalc,cs uerr: sold and there was a shorlage of 1.132 buff:riocs ln rLciv o[ the above, rve are unable to accepl lhc cxl;i:u'ration oi the assessee that lvhat ivas sokl ivas rnenr artcl nclt rnCividual anirnais. In our opinion, $.lrirt u.as sold w.cre only indiviclual animals and, therclorc. it is for thc assessee to explain wherc the l.lil2 artimais hacl gone. In the abscnce of any vahcl cxplarraiion, in our oprnion, the AO has rightly marlc tl-re addition
t2 Learned counsel for the respondent further poinred orrr th(' obser,:rtion of thc Tribunal at paragraph-6, rvhich rt'acl:; i,:, u nrlcr
"'lhc CIT(A) [ound thal thc loss claimcrl g:y tlie assessee duc to death oI buffaloes cannot bc clenicd in full. f.lowcvcr, he obsen,ecl that the loss u,as on the I'righcr side. When thc Ci'l'(A) says that. thr_. loss rvas on titc highcr side, he dcleted thc additi,:n to the cxtcnt of Rs.ll,l3,5g2l_ without any basis. As we have already observed, if at all there was death of the animals, it should have been noticed by the assessce and details would have been available with the assessec. The asessee. being in thc regular trade of purchase of buffaloes frrr several lakh s of rupees, cannot claim that he has no details of death of the atrimals. In the absenco of any details rccaJdine dcalh oI animals. we do nor ttt anr.lustificJtiorr in the clarnr of thc assesscc on estimate basis,,.
/r5A ./,! /- \ I J l;l t ,. a.:- ot :t1tt6
7
)4. It is rcl,'r,anr lo relitr to ri ist.re pzrr-rc1, in the cerlifir;aLe, dated 08.04.2O03 rssuecl bt, VcLerinary Assistant Surgeon wherein, the name of the sigr-ratory is mentioned as An imal Doctor. The corrtention of thc counscl lor thc appellant theLt in vierv of the cou, vlgililnte, thc buflalocs r.r,ere bcing transported for long distance \r,ithout an1, break during lhe transit and thus, it invariably result in death of some of buffaroes carrnot be acceptcd in l.he abscnce ol any material to support tlie :;aid contention and also that in fact, there u,as issue ol :o\4, vigilante during the year 2000-0 1 which is subject ma tte r of thc present appr:a l. !
s:,
.r(
/'.\A 'r/\ l'l iill\tt':: t:it')'
8
,'I'hus,the s tobe decicledin the negattve lhctrPPtlal'c"eserve disrnissed, LOltetrrrcl isaccordirrgN' atp Pcaldeservcs toco s1s ' 'lribunal.No ord er as conflrmingthe order ol Lhe
Irendinqmiscellancous applicatioi'rs'if an]" shallstancl
c [osccl
/ITRUECOPY'I
SECTIONOFFICER
To,
? The commissionerof '"""t";;' HYderabad
5.one cc to sRlK ^;;:;'
6.Two cD copies
kam
Pr'\c,
t
HIGH COURT
DATED:04 t09t2023
JUDGMENT
S!
T EI. 4t.
,a
.$
IJJ
o
I!
\ s
,vgil l
lTTA.No.632 of 2006
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED
t
@e^* z\to'l>s'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Appellate Commissioner and restoring the order of the Assessing Officer.
Whether the appellant's claim of loss due to the death of buffaloes during transit, supported by a Veterinary certificate, warranted the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ITA No.987/Hyd/2003Referred¶27
2 provisions across 1 enactments
D. Suresh Babu
Income Tax Officer, Sangareddy
P. Sam Koshy
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court