Commissioner of Income-tax-III v. Uppalapati Srinivasulu - 2014-LL-0910-119

Citation	2014-LL-0910-119
Appellant Name	Commissioner of Income-tax-III
Respondent Name	Uppalapati Srinivasulu
Court	HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	10/09/2014
Assessment Year	2009-10
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	disallowance of expenditure • books of account
Bot Summary:	614 of 2014 JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred and sought to be admitted against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2014 passed by the learned Tribunal in I.T.A.No. i. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon ble Tribunal is correct in law in holding that no separate disallowance of expenditure can be made once the income of the Respondent-assessee is estimated without appreciating the fact that the income was not estimated by the Assessing Officer but was offered by the Respondent-assessee on estimation and that no where in the order of the Assessing Officer was the rejection of the books recorded ii. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon ble Tribunal is correct in law in deleting the disallowance on the ground that the income was estimated without considering the ground that whether the purchase of harvester in cash comes within the purview of exceptions provided in Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Act 1961 We have heard Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. Nothing has been produced before us nor anything could be gathered from the record that the assessee has been maintaining any books of account or he has produced the audited books of account before any officers below. On the other hand, it could be found from the order of the assessing officer that in real sense, there has been no books of account. Under those circumstances, the income was estimated. There is nothing wrong in the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.614 OF 2014 DATED: 10.09.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-III Appellant and Sri Uppalapati Srinivasulu Respondent HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.614 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (per Hon ble Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred and sought to be admitted against judgment and order dated 23.04.2014 passed by learned Tribunal in I.T.A.No.161/Hyderabad/2013 in relation to assessment year 2009-10 on following suggested question of law. i. In facts and circumstances of case, whether Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holding that no separate disallowance of expenditure can be made once income of Respondent-assessee is estimated without appreciating fact that income was not estimated by Assessing Officer but was offered by Respondent-assessee on estimation and that no where in order of Assessing Officer was rejection of books recorded? ii. In facts and circumstances of case, whether Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in deleting disallowance on ground that income was estimated without considering ground that whether purchase of harvester in cash comes within purview of exceptions provided in Rule 6DD of Income Tax Act 1961? We have heard Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for appellant and gone through impugned judgment and order of learned Tribunal. Nothing has been produced before us nor anything could be gathered from record that assessee has been maintaining any books of account or he has produced audited books of account before any officers below. On other hand, it could be found from order of assessing officer that in real sense, there has been no books of account. Under those circumstances, income was estimated. When estimation is done, it takes care of all deductions allowable under statute. Hence, there is nothing wrong in impugned judgment and order of Tribunal. Hence, we dismiss this appeal. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 10th SEPTEMBER, 2014. SANJAY KUMAR, J kvni Commissioner of Income-tax-III v. Uppalapati Srinivasulu

Metadata

Judgment