D. Suresh Babu V. Income Tax Officer, Sangareddy, Medak District

ITTA/632/2006

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by D. Suresh Babu against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restored the AO's order. The dispute originated from the assessment year 2000-01, where the appellant, engaged in the business of purchasing and selling buffaloes, reported a significant discrepancy in the number of buffaloes sold to M/s. Alkabeer Exports Ltd. The AO added income based on the discrepancy, which was contested by the appellant. The Appellate Commissioner partially allowed the appellant's appeal, but this was overturned by the Tribunal, leading to the present appeal in the High Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 685347 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K MAMATHA
• Assessee Lawyers: DUNDU MANMOHAN
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2000-01; Disputed tax; Income Tax; Buffaloes
• Section: 151; 260

Judgement Text

"t 3386 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 23-06- 2006, 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 No.S-993, dated: 31-03-2003. tl 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 the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of collection of disputed tax and interest of Rs. 5,91,495/- due for the assessment year 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 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,; .: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)r- r,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.: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 n I I I I t re j' ( /,( l I iii | ,a.i:.t :' 2 Courseinmotorlorriesotlday-to-d:r}.basisandcaclltl.uckcatt con[ain onll' 8-9 buiialocs The bulfaloes $ hel trilllsl]ortcd rlr rnotor lorrics/trucks arc made to sllnd colilttltt,usl lilr mor(' than 1O hours at a strctch at-rd as most ol- tlli'sc lltrfi;rloes arc aimost at the last stage of their life Lheir (lal)ir( rtY to $ iLhstatrcl such Iong journcys whilc standing is mininrzr'1 u'h ich restrlt in fatalitY at the raLc of 3o/o to 7oh' 5. In this process, the appellant had pltrcl-rr:st:rl a total bulfaloes of 15,O8l The appellant ltlcd return of itrr:oLrrc ltl r llic Asscssmetlt Year 2O00-01 declaril.rg a tzt'xitblt' ttl<:omc ol Rs. 1,25,84O/ - and also has shou'n an agriculltural itlcorne of J Rs. 30,000/-. The Assessir-rg Ofhcer (for short \"AO ) lrad taluJ'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 ol jncontc 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[. buffaloes trr Rs. 1583 (per bulfaloJ iLnd finall_v determinc.d roL.rl incorre zr t lls. 13,19,422/- ulcle orcler dared 3t.03.2O03 754 the ,. --:st' ?.? + 7,11 I1' I/ it!.l ',/' t)\" 13.05.2OO3, the AO P: c[crrcd 7 . Aggrievcd by thc order' datcd 3 1 '03'2OO3 passcd trr r ( ) ' [hc apllellant preferrcd appcal beforc the Commissiotict- 6f Incomc Tax (Appeal)-2' Visakhaptrtnam Thc Commi*s' "