Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 V. Sabbineni Surendra

ITTA/352/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which pertained to the assessment year 2012-13. The core issue was the treatment of unexplained jewellery worth Rs.5,25,86,550 discovered during a search. The CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT both found that the assessing officer had not justified the inclusion of all the investments in the year of search, especially considering the periodic investments in gold and jewellery reported in previous years' returns. The High Court, upon reviewing the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities, concluded that there was no substantial question of law arising from the case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 719812 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NO NE APPEARED
• Assessee Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Commissioner of Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal; Search; Unexplained jewellery
• Section: 260-A

Judgement Text

"[ 3386 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA , ATHYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRt JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY NCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 352 OF 2019 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 2604 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' B ' Hyderabad in l.T.A. No.599/Hyd/20'16, for assessment Year 20'12-13 dated:13-03-2019 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad Appeal No.012412014-15, dated:18-12-2015, preferred against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome-Tax, Central Circle- 4, Hyderabad PAN/GlR No. ADQPS3461E dated 31-O3-2O14. Between: Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax 1,7rh Floor, A-Block, Income Tax Towers, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004. ...Appellant AND Sabbineni Surendra, No.5121R, Road No.29, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad Telangana State. [PAN No: ADQPS3461E]. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.V. PRASAD, SC FOR INCOME TAX appearing for SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA, SC FOR lT DEPARTMENT Counsel forthe Respondent: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT ?. THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY I.T.T.A. No. 352 ol 2Ol9 JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Sri J.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant. Perused the record. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been preferred by the Revenue against the order, dt. 13.03.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', Hyderabad, (for short \"the Tribunal) in I.T.A.No.599/Hyd/2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-13' 3. The challenge primarily is to the so called unexplained jewellery of Rs.5,25,86,550/- found during the course of search. However, upon going through the impugned order of the ITAT, which has affirmed the order of CIT (Appeals), we lind that there is a concurrent finding of fact given by the two authorities in the said issue. The CIT (Appeals) at the first instance in paragraph No.5.5 has extensively dealt with the said issue and reached to the conclusion that the finding given by the assessing authority is not justified, particularly, when the returns of the previous years reflect the investment made in gold and jewellery by the :rl re assessee periodically. And in the process, the assessing officer was not fair to bring all the investments in the hands of the assessee at one go in the year of search, which has also been discussed by the ITAT while deciding the appeal against the Revenue. 4. In rriew of the said facts, we are of the considered opinion that since there is a concurrent finding of fact by the CIT (Appeals) as also by the ITAT, we do not find any question of law, much less a substantial question of law for entertaining the instant appeal and the appeal fajls. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGIS,trRAR / / ,/ (/ SECTION OFFICER 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' B ' Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-12' Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy Commissioher of lncome-Tax, Central Circle- 4, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA, SC FOR lT DEPARTMENT IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies //TRUE COPY// To, kam - \"\" --l I HIGH COURT PSK, J & LNA, J DATED:01 111t2023 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.3i2 of 2O1g q J o 1 5 0Et 20?3 r e STAfF 1 f .,:, .) /-1c ( c) +. * THE APPEAL IS REJECTED a 'll "