Sri P. Rami Reddy V. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), New Range-7, Hyderabad

ITTA/415/2006

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sri P. Rami Reddy against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which upheld the inclusion of Rs. 33,77,329 in the assessee's taxable income for the assessment year 1998-99. The amount was considered as unexplained income. The assessee had made a declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, but failed to pay the required tax. The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme and the applicability of Sections 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning unexplained investments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 812871 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ashok Kumar Rastogi v. CIT, 59 ITR 411
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961, Finance Act 1997
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: K P REDDY
• Keywords: Assessment Year 1998-99; Income tax appeal; Unexplained income; Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme; Additional substantial question of law
• Section: 69; 69A; 260A; 67(1); 151 CPC

Judgement Text

"133111 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI I.A.NO.1 0F 2023 IN/AND INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO:415 OF 2006 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Application under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to raise additional substantia-i question oi law which is purely legal and relevant for adjudication in the interests oi justice. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K.p. AMARNATH REDDY FOR SRt KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI J. V. PRASAD, SC FOR TNCOME TAX The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act 1 961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Trrbunal, Hyderabad Bench ,A,, Hyderabad in ITA No.49lHydt2 O2, for Assessment year 1998_1999, dated 31-03-2006, preferred against the order of the commissioner of lncome Tax Appeals-V, in Hyderabad, tTA No 677M t(3)/C|T(V)/200-02 dated 28_12_2001, preferred against the order of the lncome tax officer, ward-i (3), Hyderabad PAN/GlR No. F-891,dated 20-03-2001 ) Between: Sri P. Rami Reddy, 201. Sai Nidhi Residency, Naqariuna Naoar Colonv. Sri Nagar Cotony, Hyderabad_500073 ...AppELLANTlAppeu(r AND lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3) New Range-7, Hyderabad_500001. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT TH E IION]B I,EJIHE CHI ET TICE U AI B I{LryAN AND ]HEJIOSLE SRI ICE N.TUKABAIUT I.A.Nrr.1 of 202-l rnl& I.T.T.A. No.415 of 2006 J llDGIrt-EN'I, r i lin t t,,: i.i, t h? t t..'.,,i:t (,tia/ Bhut,tn) Ifeard - &. K.P.Amamath Reddn leamed counsel for the appellant and M-r. J.V.Prasad, leamed Standing Counsel, Income Tax Depanment for rhe respondenr. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee as the appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 @iefly 'the Act' herehafter) againsr the order dated 31.a3.2006 passed by the Income fax Appeliate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', H;derabad (briefly 'the 'Iribunal' hereinafter) ln I.T.A No.a9/H1d/2002 for the assessmenr year 1998-99. l. Though the appeal as admined on 27.09.2006, no substantial question of iaw was framed. However, in rhe memo of appeal, appeilant has proposed the following quesrions as substantial questions of [aw: I 7 { 1. X/hether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was justified in uphotding the inclusion o[ a sum of k.33,77,329.00 in the taxable income of the assessee holding it as the assessee's unexplained income for assessment year 1998-99 ? 2. tff/hether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cxe, the Tribunal wx jutified in holding that the declaration filed bythe assessee under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme of 1997 should be treated x a ,ralid document, though Secdon 67Q) of the Finance Act, 1997 mandates that such a declaration shall be deemed to have never been made, when the appropriate tax was not paid within the stipulated time ? 3. Whether on the facs and in the circumstances of the case' the Tribunal was justified in treating one Part of the declaration as valid evidence, and treating another part of the same declaration as invalid evidence ? 4. X/hether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribnnal was justified in ignoring Secdon 72 of the Finance Act, 1997 which ensures secrecy of a declaration ? 5. X/hether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justilied in rruking use of r.he declaration when nnder Section 7 7 of the Finance Acr, 1997 , tle declaration is not admissible as evidence against a declarant ? 6. V{hether on the facts and in fie circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was jusdfied in upholding the addition in assessment year 1998-99, qzhereas any addition, if at all, could have been l I 3 made onlt' lor assessment v'trs 1978-79 to 1981-82, n*Lich hrd rlre:ldv become tirne-b:rrcrl. by the time the assess.ing officer made the relcvant 6sessm('nL ? 7. lherher ()n the f.rcts :rntl Ln the circumstances oltthe case, the 'IribLmel r.-a:, right in holJing, tlrat the assessee should explain the source oi his acqtLisition of the jewellery even though the ecquisition t,rok place q'hen the assessee was a minor ? 8. V4rether on the f:rcts and r,r the circumstances of the case, the 'fribunal was right in holding that the burden of proof *as on the assessec to demonstmtc that the jewellery was not acquired cluring the accounting year ,elevant to assessment yar 1998-99 ? 9. tff4rether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ha