GOVARDHAN K. OZA, V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

ITA/100028/2015

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Govardhan K. Oza against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which pertained to the assessment year 2009-2010. The primary issue was the treatment of certain cash deposits and withdrawals in the appellant's bank account, which were considered unexplained investments by the tax authorities. The Tribunal had partially allowed the appellant's appeal by recognizing some withdrawals but upheld the unexplained status of the remaining deposits. The High Court, after reviewing the Tribunal's decision, found no grounds to interfere with the factual findings and thus dismissed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697269 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: H R KAMBIYAVAR
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2009-2010; Cash deposit; Income tax appeal; Unexplained investment; Unexplained money
• Section: 69A; 260A

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JUNE 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE A. S. BOPANNA AND THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY INCOME TAX APPEAL No.100028 OF 2015 BETWEEN: GOVARDHAN K. OZA, SANT SENA ROAD, PAN: AAGP06449R, BELAGAVI. ... APPELLANT (By Sri. H R KAMBIYAVAR ADV.) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BELAGAVI. 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), BELAGAVI. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Y V RAVIRAJ ADV.) 2 THIS ITA IS FILED U/S.260A OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO: (a) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE; (b) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET - ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 28.11.2014 BEARING ITA NO.332/PNJ/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, A.S.BOPANNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T The appellant assessee is before this Court assailing the order dated 28th November 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.332/PNJ/2013. 2. The issue involved in this appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2009-2010. Since the deduction as claimed by the appellant has not been considered by the first appellate authority, the appellant was before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal through 3 the order dated 28th November 2014 has partially allowed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and rejected other contentions. It is in that light, the appellant is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant while seeking consideration of the appeal would urge that the entries of the deposits and withdrawals in the bank passbook by the Appellate Tribunal should have been only with reference to the peak amount as ‘unexplained money’ as provided under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In that light, it is contended that the same would raise a question of law for consideration and the appeal be admitted and be considered. 4. In the light of the contentions put forth, we have perused the order impugned in relation to the nature of consideration that was made by the Tribunal. The grounds that had been raised by the appellant before the Tribunal is with regard to the first appellate 4 authority holding the entire cash deposit of `19,57,370/- as unexplained investment and also with regard to the confirmation of additional `5,90,000/- which according to the appellant was not appropriately done by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal while taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, on reference to the documents available, has taken note of the cash withdrawal to the extent of `1,35,000/- on 02nd April 2008 and 29th March 2008. In that view, the relief to such extent insofar as cash deposits out of `19,57,370/- was accepted and for the balance it was held that no source was explained by the appellant. 5. Further, the benefit relating to the interest as received and in that regard the benefit of `5,90,000/- was granted by accepting the second ground which had been raised before it. Therefore, in that background, a perusal of the appeal papers would indicate that insofar 5 as the explanation that was sought to be put forth with regard to the cash deposits and the benefit claimed towards the interest, the Tribunal has considered the available records and on rendering a factual finding, has partially granted the benefit. 6. In the absence of any other document placed before us, a different conclusion on facts, in any event, cannot be reached by us. Therefore, neither the fact finding as recorded by the Tribunal calls for interference in this appeal nor does the appeal raise any question of law for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RK/- "