Dr. V. Suryanarayana Reddy V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Karimnagar

ITTA/14/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Dr. V. Suryanarayana Reddy, the appellant, contesting an order from the learned Tribunal regarding the assessment year 2002-03. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision, which included the addition of Rs.6,28,000 to his income, claiming it was received through a will from his grandmother, who was still alive at the time of the appeal. The Tribunal and the High Court found the claim absurd and legally untenable, as benefits from a will can only be derived after the death of the testator or testatrix. Furthermore, the will in question was un-probated, and no benefits could be derived from it while the testatrix was alive. The court also noted that the appellant had previously agreed to the addition of the said amount during the proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 820983 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Indian Succession Act, 1925
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2002-03; Income Tax; Testamentary Succession; Un-probated Will
• Section: 213

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A. No. 14 of 2013 DATE: 01.08.2013 Between: Dr. V. Suryanarayana Reddy … Appellant And The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Karimnagar. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A. No. 14 of 2013 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, dated 13.04.2011, in relation to the assessment year 2002-03. It appears that as many as four appeals have been disposed of by the learned Tribunal on the identical facts and circumstances. This appeal is sought to be admitted by the appellant on the following suggested questions of law. 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the order of the Tribunal is not perverse in holding that the petitioner has not discharged his onus of proving the fact that he received through will the amount of Rs.15,44,702/-? 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in ignoring the fact that the petitioner’s grandmother filed her returns of income and such returns does disclose the amount that are claimed to have been received by the appellant through Will and thereby erred in holding that the petitioner has not proved the factum of Will? 3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the appellant in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted for addition of Rs.6,28,000/- without appreciating the legal proposition that an alternate plea does not amount to acceptance? A reading of the aforesaid suggested first two questions and going by the law, it is absurd that the appellant could receive a sum of Rs.15,44,702/- on the strength of a Will and that testatrix of which is still alive. It is the fundamental law of testamentary succession that the benefit of the Will can be derived only after the death of the testator or testatrix as the case may be. Here the testatrix is admittedly alive and she has filed her returns. Even if we hypothetically assume that the testatrix died, then it is an un-probated Will and under the provisions of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, no benefit can be derived from an un-probated Will. Here the probate cannot be obtained, because the testatrix is still alive. Therefore, the attempt of the appellant by preferring the appeal is to unwillingly kill his grandmother prematurely, who does not want to be killed. Therefore, the authority should have considered this mixed legal and factual aspect. The appellant wants the authority including this Court to believe the absurd things. Insofar as the third ground is concerned the assessee through his authorized representative has agreed to the aforesaid addition. We just quote the relevant portion of the judgment and order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), mentioned in paragraph 3.2, which reads as follows. “However, I agree with the alternative contention of the learned AR that the addition should be restricted to Rs.6,28,000/- reflecting the amounts introduced in the books of accounts of the appellant during the year.” In our view the submission must have been made to concede the aforesaid amount before adding. That is why the Commissioner decided to accept this submission. The learned Tribunal has further held that since this being an agreed addition, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal and we uphold the same. Hence, we dismiss the appeal, as no point is involved to be decided by this Court. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ________________ K. C. BHANU, J Date: 01.08.2013 ES "