M. Bala Narasimha Reddy v. Income-tax Officer, Hyderabad
[Citation -2017-LL-0413-70]

Citation 2017-LL-0413-70
Appellant Name M. Bala Narasimha Reddy
Respondent Name Income-tax Officer, Hyderabad
Court HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 13/04/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags construction company • oral evidence • advance
Bot Summary: As per the said agreement, the appellant in these appeals and three others entered into an agreement for the purchase of Acs.56.24 guntas of land in Bogaram Village, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District, from one Mr. Rama Sunder Reddy and others, at the rate of Rs.32.00 lakhs per acre. As on the date of the survey, the appellant and others had paid an amount of Rs.4.9 crores. The Assessing Officer accepted the appellant s contribution of Rs.5.00 lakhs, but treated the balance of Rs.1,17,50,000/- allegedly received from seven other persons, as unexplained investment. The appeal filed by the assessee/appellant was partly allowed by the CIT. The assessee as well as the Department filed appeals before the I.T.A.T. The I.T.A.T. allowed the appeal of the Department and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The main ground of attack to the order of the Tribunal is that a paper-book filed by the appellant containing the depositions of all 3 VRS,J JUD,J ITTA Nos.54 55 of 2017 those seven persons, from whom the appellant received money, was not at all considered by the Tribunal. Drawing our attention to the depositions of those seven witnesses, it is contended by Mr. A.V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the appellant, that instead of looking at the oral evidence, in the light of the documents produced by those seven witnesses, the authorities including the Tribunal extracted a few portions convenient to the conclusions eventually reached and that the order of the Tribunal was perverse. The Tribunal found it hard to believe that all those seven persons at about the same time received the sale proceeds and invested the same in cash with the appellant.


THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI I.T.T.A.Nos. 54 and 55 of 2017 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per VRS,J) assessee has come up with these appeals under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Mr. A.V. Raghuram, learned counsel for appellant. Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned senior standing counsel for Income Tax Department, takes notice for respondent. 3. appellant/assessee is partner in finance Company. He filed his return of income for assessment year 2007-2008 on 18.02.2008, admitting income of Rs.1,55,089/-. 4. survey operation under Section 133A was conducted in case of partner of construction Company. During course of survey in premises of partner of construction Company, copy of agreement of sale, dated 18.11.2006, was found. As per said agreement, appellant in these appeals and three others entered into agreement for purchase of Acs.56.24 guntas of land in Bogaram Village, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District, from one Mr. Rama Sunder Reddy and others, at rate of Rs.32.00 lakhs per acre. amount of Rs.3.9 crores had been paid as advance as on 18.11.2006. 2 VRS,J & JUD,J ITTA Nos.54 & 55 of 2017 5. As on date of survey, appellant and others had paid amount of Rs.4.9 crores. appellant sought to explain his share of Rs.1,22,50,000/-, out of said payment of Rs.4.9 crores, by claiming that he invested his own funds to tune of Rs.5.00 lakhs, and that he also had funds from seven other persons, by name, Mr. S. Ram Reddy, Mr. K. Raghunath Reddy, Mr. D. Satyanarayana Rao, Mr. A. Narasimha Reddy, Mr. A. Buchi Reddy, Mr. P. Buchi Reddy and Mr. P. Pandu. 6. Assessing Officer accepted appellant s contribution of Rs.5.00 lakhs, but treated balance of Rs.1,17,50,000/- allegedly received from seven other persons, as unexplained investment. Apart from this, Assessing Officer also brought amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs to tax in hands of appellant, on basis of certain receipts impounded during course of survey operation. In other words, Assessing Officer came to conclusion that appellant and others had paid total amount of Rs.5.9 crores and not Rs.4.9 crores as claimed by them. 7. appeal filed by assessee/appellant was partly allowed by CIT (Appeals). assessee as well as Department filed appeals before I.T.A.T. I.T.A.T. allowed appeal of Department and dismissed appeal of assessee. Therefore, assessee is before us in these two appeals. 8. main ground of attack to order of Tribunal is that paper-book filed by appellant containing depositions of all 3 VRS,J & JUD,J ITTA Nos.54 & 55 of 2017 those seven persons, from whom appellant received money, was not at all considered by Tribunal. Drawing our attention to depositions of those seven witnesses, it is contended by Mr. A.V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel for appellant, that instead of looking at oral evidence, in light of documents produced by those seven witnesses, authorities including Tribunal extracted few portions convenient to conclusions eventually reached and that, therefore, order of Tribunal was perverse. 9. We have carefully considered above submissions. 10. In Paragraph Nos.11 and 14 of impugned order, Tribunal has analyzed oral evidence of those seven persons. Tribunal found it hard to believe that all those seven persons at about same time received sale proceeds and invested same in cash with appellant. Therefore, it was question of appreciation of evidence, and no question of law arises for our consideration under Section 260A. Hence, both appeals are dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in appeals shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J J. UMA DEVI, J. 13th April, 2017 cbs 4 VRS,J & JUD,J ITTA Nos.54 & 55 of 2017 HON BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI I.T.T.A.Nos. 54 and 55 of 2017 (dismissed) 13th April, 2017 cbs M. Bala Narasimha Reddy v. Income-tax Officer, Hyderabad
Report Error