Bhaskar Yadav Seemala V. Pr. Commissioner

ITTA/377/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Bhaskar Yadav Seemala against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had confirmed the addition of Rs. 32,50,000 as unexplained investment for the assessment year 2014-15. The appellant sought to condone a delay of 143 days in filing the appeal, which the court allowed. However, upon reviewing the substantive issue of the unexplained investment, the court found that the Tribunal had adequately addressed the matter and that the appellant had failed to provide cogent materials and proof to substantiate the source of the investment. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 740133 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: D SASHANK MANMOHAN
• Keywords: Appeal; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Tribunal; Unexplained investment
• Section: 151; 260-A

Judgement Text

"[ 337s ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI l.A.No.1 of 2019 IN/AND I.T.T.ANoi 377 ot 2019 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A' Hyderabad, in ITA No.2096l+ydl2O17, for assessment Yeat 2014-15 dated 15-03- 20lgpreferredagainsttheorderoftheCommissioneroflncomeTax(Appeals)-7' Hyderabad, Appeal No.48 1 /clT(A)-7l20 1 6. 1 7, daled..zo - 1 o.20 1 7, pref erred against the Order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward-l5(1), Hyderabad' PANiGIR.No.BXMPSI004C dated 19-12-2016 Between: BhaskarYadavSeemala,H.No.s-8-lg,JJNagarColonyYapral'Secunderabad- 50oo87. \"'ApPellant AND Pr. Commissioner of lncome Tax - 7, lT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad' ...ResPondent lA NO: 1 OF 2019 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 143 days in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. D. SASHANK MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. SUNITHA, appearing for Mr' J'V PRASAD (sc FoR lNcoME TAX) The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE N.TI'KARAMJI I.A.No.1 of 2OL9 IN AND I.T.T.A. No.977 of 2019 JIIDGMENT:/per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHE) Heaid Mr.D.Sashank Manmohan, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.Sunitha, learned counsel appeared under the instructions of Mr.J.V.Prasad, leamed Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/ Department. Perused the material available on record. 2. Heard on I.A.No. 1 of 2Ol9 which is an application for condonation of detay of 143 days in filing the appeal. 3. On due consideration of the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit and also hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, we are of the considered opinion thar a strong case for allowing the I.A. has been made out. 4. Accordingly, the application stands allowed and the detay of 143 days in frling the appeal stands condoned. 5. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard on admission 6. Lcarned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal has been substantially filed so far as the issued No.4 which has been dealt wirh by the Tribunal, so far as addition of Rs.32,50,OOO/- as un_ explained inves[ment is concerned. However, perusal of record would 2 clearly show that the Tribunal has in paragraph Nos.9 to 11 of its order has extensiv€ly dealt with the said issue itself and have reached to the conclusion that suffrcient explanation have not been provided by the assessee by way of cogent materials and proof in respect of the said amount of Rs,32,50,OOO/-. 7. In view of the fact ttrat ttre Tribunal has extensively dealt with the said fact, we are of the considered opinion that the said issue stand decided by the Tribunal as finding of fact which now cannot be considered to be one which involves a substantial question of law in admitting the appeal. We are of the considered opinion that the finding given by the Tribunal to the said issue cannot be in any manner said to be erroneous or bad in law. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly rejected. 8- Consequently, miscellaneous petitions stand closed. /TTRUE COPY// To, . Two CD CoPies kam pending, if any, shall .,,'5.?'[lwi[iR SECTION OFFICER 1. 2 3 4 6 The lncome Tax Appellate Tr'lbunal' Hyderabad Bench ' A' Hyderabad il; b;;t\"$nei of lncome Tax (Appeals)-7' Hvderabao H:!f n$lHsffiffi'.tltt{iffi o'n j*n;'aru:l MY4lrA HIGH COURT DATED:1 110112024 JUDGMENT !TTA.No.377 of 2019 THE APPEAL !S REJECTED € r A T S e !r B D t B AT C) ;r {- z$lt { c J $ t E t * o F 3 "