SRS & Sri Sai Ganesh Productions V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Hyderabad

ITTA/307/2013

AI Insights

The case involves SRS & Sri Sai Ganesh Productions appealing against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which pertained to various issues related to the admission of additional evidence and grounds of appeal, as well as the assessment of undisclosed income during a block period. The appellant contested the Tribunal's refusal to consider additional evidence that was crucial for explaining a credited amount in seized material and the refusal to admit an additional ground of appeal. The Tribunal had also made determinations on the acceptance of certain amounts as undisclosed income and the period up to which expenditures were considered. The High Court's decision focused on the Tribunal's discretion to admit additional evidence and the factual determinations made by the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796389 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Block period; Income Tax; Seized Material; Undisclosed income
• Section: 292C

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.307 OF 2013 DATED:17.7.2013 Between: SRS & Sri Sai Ganesh Productions Plot No.45, Phase-I Kamalapuri Colony Opp. Great India Entertainment Hyderabad Rep. by its Partner Mr. Bellamkonda Suresh … Appellant And Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. NO.307 OF 2013 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, dt.22.2.2013, and is sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law: (A) “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in refusing to admit the additional evidence that was very much critical in explaining the amount found credited in the seized material in the name of A. Mallikarjuna? (B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in refusing to admit the additional ground of appeal when all the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the additional ground are already on record? (C) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessing officer and the CIT(A) were justified in not accepting the amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/- that was credited in the name of A. Mallikarjuna in the seized material without discharging the onus that stood upon them u/s.292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (D) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the CIT(A) did not err in considering the expenditure incurred only upto 25th November, 2000, when the block period extended upto 21st February, 2003? (E) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) are justified in bringing to tax a sum of Rs.31,50,000/- towards sale of CD/DVD/Satellite/Overseas rights and Rs.3,00,000/- towards sale of 16MM rights in the absence of any entries found in the seized material to show that the appellant actually received these amounts? (F) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) are justified in computing the undisclosed income for the block period at a positive figure when as per the seized material the undisclosed income resulted in a loss? We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. From the aforesaid questions of law, it is mainly sought to be considered whether the Tribunal is justified in refusing to admit the additional evidence. We are of the view that it is the discretion of the learned Tribunal either to allow additional evidence at second appellate stage or not. If the discretion is not exercised or such exercise of discretion is not arbitrary, then this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot substitute its own discretion. Moreover, from the narration of the facts mentioned in the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, the additional evidence sought to be produced is not part of the seized material. It appears, the learned Tribunal has come to a fact finding on each and every ground and correctly decided the matter. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the fact finding as, according to us, no element of law is involved for consideration in this matter. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________________ G. ROHINI, J 17.7.2013 bnr "