Mir Anwaruddin V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

ITTA/622/2013

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mir Anwaruddin against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad, concerning the assessment year 2008-09. The primary issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee did not explain the sources of investment in jewellery, and whether the addition treated as income could be considered for making such investments. The Tribunal had previously reduced the addition made by the Assessing Officer from Rs.24,84,153 to Rs.4,46,652, based on the assessee's income from Lukhmies. However, the Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs.4,46,652 for unexplained jewellery, as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence regarding the sources of these investments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 812637 (HC-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: K KUMAR
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2008-09; Income Tax; Investment in jewellery; Telescoping of Addition

Judgement Text

"HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.622 of 2013 Date: 13.02.2014 Between: Mir Anwaruddin .....Appellant AND The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. ...Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.622 of 2013 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta ) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 24th January 2013 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09 on the following suggested questions of law: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the assessee has not explained the sources of investment in jewellery though the issue before the Appellate Tribunal was whether telescoping of addition made on some other issue could be made or not? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in not appreciating the legal provision that once there is no evidence of time of investment, telescoping of addition treated as income could be considered as available for making such investment? We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal on fact found as follows: “Assessee has not furnished evidence regarding sources for investment in these impugned assets. Further, addition made on account of the discrepancy in the investment in jewellery has been reduced or deleted in above paras. Therefore, in the absence of evidence of source of acquisition of assets, we set aside the order of the CIT (A) in restricting the addition to Rs.4,46,652/- as against the addition of Rs.24,84,153/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted investment in jewellery for Assessment Year 2008-09 and confirm the order of the Assessing Officer on this issue. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the revenue is allowed.” Mr.K.Vasanth Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant, has heavily relied on the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which are quoted hereunder: “The assessee’s plea that the income earned from Lukhmies which was brought to tax now amounting to Rs.30,37,500/- is to be telescoped. Considering this argument and also keeping in view the addition sustained by me under the heads Lukhmies, I feel it would be reasonable to allow relief. Out of the addition sustained by me of Rs.30,37,500/- towards income earned from sale of Lukhmies, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards drawings needs to be considered towards personal expenses over the years. Thus, the balance of Rs.20,37,500/- (Rs.30,37,500/- – Rs.10,00,000/-) being additional income brought to tax as income earned from Lukhmies, is to be considered for telescoping. If this amount is telescoped, there will be addition of Rs.4,46,653/- (Rs.24,84,152/- - Rs.20,37,500/-) to be made on account of unexplained jewellery. In view of this, the addition made of Rs.24,84,153/- made by the Assessing Officer is directed to be substituted with Rs.4,46,652/- for the Assessment Year 2008- 09.” We are of the view that the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are absolutely without any evidence. When no evidence is forthcoming, we fail to understand how the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted such relief. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 13.02.2014 Gsn "