Sunil Kumar Ahuja V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

ITTA/135/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sunil Kumar Ahuja against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which upheld the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act concerning unexplained cash deposits. The appellant contended that the cash deposits were gifts from his estranged wife for their minor son. However, the assessing officer, supported by the Commissioner and the Tribunal, found that the appellant could not substantiate the source of the cash deposits and that the funds were used for business activities, thus doubting the appellant's claim. The High Court, after reviewing the materials and arguments presented, concluded that there was no substantial question of law arising from the case that warranted interference with the lower authorities' findings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808290 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: KAILASH P S S
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Year 2007-08; Cash deposit; Gift; Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal
• Section: 68; 260A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 1 35 0F 2023 Appeal Under Section 260 A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 25-04-2023 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 in ITA No. 'l55lHydl2022 on the file of the Court of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad \"A\" Bench, Hyderabad preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax ( Appeals ) -'t 1, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad in Appeal No. 10079 12019-20 daled 28-02-2O22 preferred against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax Central Circle -1, Hyderabad dated 30-12-2010 in PAN /GlR No. ABLPA2822L Between: Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Aged 54 years, Occ. Business, Rio H.No.6-3-596/72, Naveen Nagar, Behind Taj Krishna, Hyderabad (PAN. ABLPA2822L) / (PAN. ABLPA2822L) ...APPELLANT AND Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle 1(1 ), Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. KAILASH NATH P S S Counsel for th6 Respondent: The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI(]E P.SAM KOSHY ANt) THE HON'BI-E SRT JUSTICE LAXN,II NARAYANA AI,ISIIETTY I.T.T.A.No.l35 of 2023 COMMONJUD GMENT :(per Hon'ble Sri .Iusrice P-SAM KOSHy) Heard Mr.Kailash Nath p.S.S., Iearned counscl fbr the appellant and perused the material available on record. 2. The challenge in the prcsenr appeal is ro the au.ard passcd by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, bench .A. Hy,derabad in I'T.A.No. l55ft1YDl2o22 for rhe assessrnenr year 2007-200g. dated 25.04.2023. 3. The challenge is primary on the ground thar the Tribunal below has upheld the addition made under'section 6g of the Act with r.egard to cash deposit, which according to the appellant rvaS in lact a gift received lrom his wife for the minor son in custody with the assessee and the gift was in the form of cash receipt. 4. However, a perusal of the findings given by the assessir-rg officer which has been confirmed by thc commissioner Appears and .rso there is a concurrent finding by the Tribunal, what is reflected is in trre course of the assessment, the assessing officer had confronted the .ssessee and I 2 asked to explain the source of thc cash de-posits alleged to have been received fiom his estranged wife with whotn he has separated way back in the year 2001 . Uporr confrontation, the asscssee was not able to provide any detail, so far as the wlicreabouts ol'his estranged wife viz, Smt.Ahuia is concemed. Nor was he able to provide any other detail of the cash receipts, so made by the wile who is separated almost five years back, except for a letter which was said to have been issued which also has been duly considered by the fribunal. -l'he asscssing olficer also lound that the said cash gift reccived trom lris wile towards minor children, was inlact utitizcd by rhe assessee lbr his business activities and it was proved it through his accoutlts. -fhus, thc contention of the assessee becomes doubtful. 5. Given the said findings of tacts by thc assessing officer which has been concurrently uphetd by the Commissioner Appeals as also by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, we do not find any substantial material made available belore this Couft for admitting the appeal. We do not find any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, as is required under Section 260,4 of the Income Tax Act. 6. In view of the same, we do not find any merits in the appeal and the appeal is accordingly rejected. 3 7 . Consequently, rniscellaneous petitions pending, if iury. shall stand closed. sdr-B S.9HI5AII+EREAH'/ qD SECTION OFFICER IITRUE COPY'/ To , ,.,.rorahad ,.A\" Bench, Hyderabad 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad \" , l[..f :[ E :..?::il\"\"J; :iiffi ]8lJ ^o o':' \"': l''\" F r o o r' Aav a ka r 1 The Assistant Co\"it'iont' of lncome Tax ' Central Circle '1' ; :'.:\":::: sRr' KATLA=H NArH P s S Advocate roPucr 5. Two CD CoPies 6 HIGH COURT DATED: 3011012023 JUDGMENT lTTA.No.135 ot 2023 REJECTING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ' t .ltr-,1 LU-\" 5^{A I e Or ( c o 1.1 C) i + (:, (i . I Pr i 23 "