Shri Kalyanam Bhaskara Rao V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle \\u2013 5, Hyderabad

ITTA/491/2010

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Kalyanam Bhaskara Rao against the order of the Income Tax Tribunal, Hyderabad, which upheld the decision that Rs.1,75,000 found in the appellant's possession was undisclosed income. The appellant argued that the cash was withdrawn from a bank to repay a loan for purchasing a Tata Indica Car, but this explanation was not accepted by the lower authorities. The Tribunal and the CIT (Appeals) found the explanation improbable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 797109 (HC-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: A V KRISHNA KOUNDINYA
• Keywords: Loan agreement; State Bank of India; Undisclosed income; Unexplained Cash; Tata Indica Car
• Section: 260-A

Judgement Text

"THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN INCOME TAX TTRIBUNAL APPEAL No.491 of 2010 August 30, 2010 Between: Shri Kalyanam Bhaskara Rao, Hyderabad … Appellant And The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 5, Hyderabad. ... Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN INCOME TAX TTRIBUNAL APPEAL No.491 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ‘B’, in I.T. (SS) No.81/Hyd/05 dated 31.7.2009, the present appeal is filed under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The only contention urged before us in this appeal, relates to the sum of Rs.1,75,000/-, which was brought to tax as unexplained cash found with the belongings of the asessee. Sri A.V. Krishna Koundinya, learned Counsel for the appellant, would draw attention of this Court to the grounds of appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), wherein the contention of the assessee was that his wife had initially entered into a loan agreement for purchasing a Tata Indica Car; the agreement was terminated on 22.9.1999 after receiving back the car booking advance of Rs.2,66,241/- and by paying interest thereon at Rs.8,855/-; thereafter the car was delivered on 29.5.2000 on payment of Rs.3,26,263.21; the assessee had borrowed money from private sources for the car purchased by his wife; later a loan of Rs.1,75,000/- was taken from the State Bank of India, Balkampet Branch, Hyderabad on 29.5.2000, which was credited to the appellant’s wife’s account No.32828 of the said Bank; the said sum of Rs.1,75,000/- was withdrawn on the same day and held as cash balance with the appellant on the date of search; and the loan of Rs.1,75,000/- was taken from the Bank with an intention to repay the loans taken on 22.9.1999 for booking the Tata Indica Car. In his order in I.T.A.No.202/ CC-5/CIT(A)-IV/2004-2005, the CIT (Appeals) rejected the contention of the assessee that Rs.1,75,000/- was withdrawn from the Bank to be utilized for purchase of Tata Indica Car, and held that it was not probable that the cash found in the belongings of the appellant on 11.6.2000, while he was travelling from Srikakulam to Hyderabad, related to this withdrawal. The CIT (Appeals) did not accept the appellant’s explanation regarding the unaccounted cash of Rs.1,75,000/-. This finding of the CIT (Appeals) was confirmed by the Tribunal in the order under appeal before us wherein it was held that the cash of Rs.1,75,000/- found with the assessee, at the time of the search of his belongings at Visakhapatnam Railway station, was his undisclosed income. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, and in the light of the explanation offered by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the order under appeal did not necessitate interference since there was no infirmity in the said order. The appellant before us was, at the time of search, an Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise at Srikakulam. The sum of Rs.1,75,000/- was withdrawn from a Bank at Hyderabad, and the loan said to have been taken was also from the State Bank of India, Balkampet Branch at Hyderabad. The cash found in the belongings of the assessee was not when he was traveling from Hyderabad to Srikakulam but when he was traveling from Srikakulam to Hyderabad. The cash was found when his belongings were searched at Visakhapatnam Railway station. The explanation of the assessee that the amount was taken to repay the loan with the same Bank is not convincing. It is difficult to believe that a person would carry cash all the way from Hyderabad to Srikakulam, and then bring it back to Hyderabad for repaying the loan, more so when the person concerned is a Senior Official in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise with the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The finding of fact recorded by the CIT (Appeals), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, do not warrant interference. No question of law arises for consideration in the appeal filed before us under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) August 30, 2010 YS "