Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) V. A Audinarayana Reddy

ITTA/176/2014

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad, against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, which had deleted the addition on account of unexplained donation of gold to Shri Shirdi Sansthan for the assessment year 2008-09. The main legal questions pertained to the justification of the Tribunal in deleting the addition without sufficient proof that third parties contributed to the donation and despite the assessee's admission of additional income on account of donations. The Tribunal's decision was based on the inadequacy of evidence to sustain the addition, a stance upheld by the High Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 718929 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASAD
• Keywords: Addition; Gold; Retraction statement; Undisclosed income; Unexplained donation; Shri Shirdi Sansthan
• Section: 260-A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 176 of 2014 Date: 13.03.2014 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad. … Appellant And Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy, Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 176 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 22.02.2013 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09 on the following suggested questions of law: “1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition on account o f unexplained donation of gold to Shri Shirdi Sansthan without appreciating that the assessee has failed to prove that third parties have contributed to such donation? 2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition on account o f unexplained donation of gold to Shri Shiridi Sansthan without appreciating that the assessee has admitted voluntarily Rs.7,67,74,956 as additional income on account of donations made vide letter dated 26.04.2010? 3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition on account of donations by placing reliance on the retraction statement filed by the assessee vide letter dated 28.12.2010 without appreciating that the retraction made by the assessee after eight months was without any cogent reasons and evidence? We have heard Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. It appears that the appeal is confined only to one issue, and the said issue has been dealt by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 37 of the judgment, which reads as follows: “In our opinion, the CIT(A) should have appreciated that all the incriminating evidences available in the seized documents were considered by the DDIT (Inv.) in toto in course of post search investigation in the hands of individual and also by the Assessing Officer in course of assessment proceeding and undisclosed income resulting from these seized papers were to be considered in the assessment of the assessee leaving no room for any further addition in the hands of assessee on the basis of offer by the assessee, in such circumstances there could be no undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee particularly on the basis of receipts relating to donation as the impugned receipt is not in the name of the present assessee.” In paragraph 39, the learned Tribunal has held that the evidence brought on record is not enough to sustain the addition in the hands of the assessee. When the learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence, which is totally inadequate to sustain the addition, we cannot admit the appeal for re-appreciation of the evidence simply it is not permissible under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 13.03.2014 ES "