The Commissioner of Income-tax-I Hyderabad. v. Kuldeep Singh Bagga
[Citation -2014-LL-1231-80]

Citation 2014-LL-1231-80
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax-I Hyderabad.
Respondent Name Kuldeep Singh Bagga
Court HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 31/12/2014
Assessment Year 2000-01
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags books of account • bank statement • audit report • tax audit


HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 729 of 2014 DATE: 31.12.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-I Hyderabad. Appellant And Sri Kuldeep Singh Bagga, Hyderabad. Respondent This Court made following: HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 729 of 2014 Judgment: (per Hon ble Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against judgment and order of learned Tribunal dated 19.7.2013 in connection with assessment year 2000-2001 on following suggested questions of law: 1. Whether in facts and circumstances of case, order of Tribunal is not perverse ? 2. Whether in given facts and circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal is correct in deleting addition made under Section 69C of Income Tax Act, when assessee could not satisfactorily explain sources of investments ignoring principles laid down by Apex Court s decision in case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (214 ITR 80) (SC) ? Reading first question and after going through portion of judgment and order of learned Tribunal, we are of view that findings of learned Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse as learned Tribunal has specifically recorded as follows: That materials like Bankers Letters, Certificates and Export Invoices, Bank Statement of Account and Audited Books of Account both for purpose of Statutory Tax Audit and Audit Report for purpose of claim for deduction under Section 80 HHC which are all filed before Income Tax Authorities prior to Search Operations on group by I.T. Department on 3.1.2002 and Returns of Income were all accepted and department has to give credence to this records and facts, but not to statement given by minor share holding partner. It is clear from above findings that same is based on material. Therefore, it cannot be said to be perverse. Adversity in our view can be presumed when there is no material at all. Adequacy, sufficiency and genuineness of documents cannot be subjected to scrutiny under this jurisdiction. In so far as second question is concerned, provision of Section 69-C of Income Tax Act has been applied by Tribunal appreciating facts correctly. Hence, we need not re-appreciate facts. Under circumstances, learned Tribunal has reached conclusion based on fact finding. We do not find any element of law in this appeal. appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs. K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Commissioner of Income-tax-I Hyderabad. v. Kuldeep Singh Bagga
Report Error