THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and HON BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A. No.300 of 2003 % 12.11.2014 Between: # Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. ... APPELLANT Versus $ Shri Rameshwarlal Gehlot. ...RESPONDENT < Gist: > Head Note: ! COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :- Sri S.R.Ashok ^COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT :- Sri Dwarakanath ? Cases Referred: HON BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A No.300 of 2003 JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) respondent is proprietor of M/s.Bhagawathi Enterprises, which is mainly dealer in groundnut seeds. For assessment year 1989-90, returns were submitted on 06.09.89. sum of Rs.50,000/- was shown as total income. search was conducted on 18.08.1989 under Section 132 of Income Tax Act (for short Act ). Based upon facts and figures gathered therein, order of assessment was passed on 31.03.1992. taxable income of fairly high order was shown in order of assessment. respondent filed appeal before Commissioner of Appeals. appeal was allowed and order of assessment was set aside mainly on ground that adequate opportunity was not given to respondent. matter was remanded for fresh consideration and disposal. On remand, Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 143(2) of Act. order of assessment was passed on 25.03.1995. It was shown that respondent has income of Rs.24,70,520/- . Major item shown therein was one from other sources, being Rs.17,23,400/-. Mostly feeling aggrieved by inclusion of amount of Rs.17,23,400/-, respondent filed appeal before Commissioner of Appeals. Through order, dated 29.02.1996, Commissioner dismissed appeal. Thereupon, respondent filed I.T.A.No.917 of 1996 before Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. said appeal together with two similar appeals referable to subsequent assessment years were allowed by Tribunal through its order, dated 30.09.2002. Hence, this appeal under Section 260A of Act. Heard Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Standing Counsel for appellant and Sri S.Dwarakanath, learned counsel for respondent. following questions of law are canvassed before this Court: 1. Whether Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting addition made on account of undisclosed investment to tune of Rs.17,23,400/-? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, finding of Appellate Tribunal that estimate of 3% of sales turnover, should result in deletion made on account of unaccounted investment is sustainable in law and at any rate whether it is based on material on record? 3. (a) Whether Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting addition made on aforesaid account even in absence of finding that sales are referable to accounted for purchases of groundnut seeds? (b) Whether findings of Appellate Tribunal in this behalf are based on material on record? controversy is about sum of Rs.17,23,400/-. In books of account, said amount was not reflected. source of information for Assessing Officer was statement recorded under Section 132(4) of Act. respondent pleaded that groundnut seeds worth Rs.17,23,400/- was purchased on credit and in that view of matter, no entries were made in books of account. Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Appeals took view that once transaction involving such huge amount has taken place, it ought to have been reflected in one form or other in books of account and non-disclosure of same would enable them to treat it as unexplained investment. Tribunal took view that purchase of groundnut of value of Rs.17,23,400/- is part of Rs.30,80,270/- for assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91, which was treated as unexplained income and said amount cannot be subject matter of taxation for second time. Learned counsel for appellant is not able to point out that reason assigned by Tribunal is not factually correct. Once it emerges that amount of Rs.17,23,400/- is nothing but part of larger figure, which was brought under purview of Act, there was no basis for inclusion of same in different assessment year. At any rate, finding of Tribunal was just on pure appreciation of facts and no question of law arises for consideration. appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J ________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J Date:12.11.2014 Note: L.R. copy to be marked. kdl Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad v. Rameshwarlal Gehlot