Govardhan K. Oza v. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Belagavi / The Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Belagavi
[Citation -2017-LL-0627-7]

Citation 2017-LL-0627-7
Appellant Name Govardhan K. Oza
Respondent Name The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Belagavi / The Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Belagavi
Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 27/06/2017
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags unexplained investment • unexplained money • cash deposit • peak credit • source of investment
Bot Summary: Since the deduction as claimed by the appellant has not been considered by the first appellate authority, the appellant was before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal through 3 the order dated 28th November 2014 has partially allowed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and rejected other contentions. The learned counsel for the appellant while seeking consideration of the appeal would urge that the entries of the deposits and withdrawals in the bank passbook by the Appellate Tribunal should have been only with reference to the peak amount as unexplained money as provided under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the light of the contentions put forth, we have perused the order impugned in relation to the nature of consideration that was made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal while taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, on reference to the documents available, has taken note of the cash withdrawal to the extent of 1,35,000/- on 02nd April 2008 and 29th March 2008. Neither the fact finding as recorded by the Tribunal calls for interference in this appeal nor does the appeal raise any question of law for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit stands disposed of.


IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS 27th DAY OF JUNE 2017 PRESENT HON BLE Mr. JUSTICE A. S. BOPANNA AND HON BLE Dr. JUSTICE H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY INCOME TAX APPEAL No.100028 OF 2015 BETWEEN: GOVARDHAN K. OZA, SANT SENA ROAD, PAN: AAGP06449R, BELAGAVI. ... APPELLANT (By Sri. H R KAMBIYAVAR ADV.) AND: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BELAGAVI. 2. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), BELAGAVI. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Y V RAVIRAJ ADV.) 2 THIS ITA IS FILED U/S.260A OF INCOME- TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO: (a) FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE; (b) ALLOW APPEAL AND SET - ASIDE ORDER OF INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 28.11.2014 BEARING ITA NO.332/PNJ/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, A.S.BOPANNA J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT appellant assessee is before this Court assailing order dated 28th November 2014 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.332/PNJ/2013. 2. issue involved in this appeal pertains to Assessment year 2009-2010. Since deduction as claimed by appellant has not been considered by first appellate authority, appellant was before Appellate Tribunal. Appellate Tribunal through 3 order dated 28th November 2014 has partially allowed appeal filed by appellant herein and rejected other contentions. It is in that light, appellant is before this Court. 3. learned counsel for appellant while seeking consideration of appeal would urge that entries of deposits and withdrawals in bank passbook by Appellate Tribunal should have been only with reference to peak amount as unexplained money as provided under Section 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961. In that light, it is contended that same would raise question of law for consideration and appeal be admitted and be considered. 4. In light of contentions put forth, we have perused order impugned in relation to nature of consideration that was made by Tribunal. grounds that had been raised by appellant before Tribunal is with regard to first appellate 4 authority holding entire cash deposit of `19,57,370/- as unexplained investment and also with regard to confirmation of additional `5,90,000/- which according to appellant was not appropriately done by first appellate authority. Tribunal while taking into consideration this aspect of matter, on reference to documents available, has taken note of cash withdrawal to extent of `1,35,000/- on 02nd April 2008 and 29th March 2008. In that view, relief to such extent insofar as cash deposits out of `19,57,370/- was accepted and for balance it was held that no source was explained by appellant. 5. Further, benefit relating to interest as received and in that regard benefit of `5,90,000/- was granted by accepting second ground which had been raised before it. Therefore, in that background, perusal of appeal papers would indicate that insofar 5 as explanation that was sought to be put forth with regard to cash deposits and benefit claimed towards interest, Tribunal has considered available records and on rendering factual finding, has partially granted benefit. 6. In absence of any other document placed before us, different conclusion on facts, in any event, cannot be reached by us. Therefore, neither fact finding as recorded by Tribunal calls for interference in this appeal nor does appeal raise any question of law for consideration. Accordingly, appeal being devoid of merit stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RK/- Govardhan K. Oza v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Belagavi / Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Belagavi
Report Error