The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji v Prakash Kittur 12-TXA16-17.doc Amrut IN HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO.16 OF 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Appellant Panaji Versus Prakash Kittur Respondent Ms S Linhares, Advocate for Appellant. Shri N Sardessai, Senior Advocate with Ms G Kamat, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM: G.S. PATEL & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ DATED: 20th September 2017 PC:- 1. We are unable to discern any substantial question of law among those proposed in paragraph 6: (A) Whether Hon ble ITAT was right in allowing relief on estimation basis as assessee could not produce any documents which has evidentiary value against investment made and allowing further relief of Rs.10,43,000/- to assessee relying on hypothetical presentation of cash balance of assesee. (B) Hon ble ITAT while allowing expenditure on construction and land cost of Rs.1,51,82,300/- has overlooked fact that no supporting evidence in respect of expenses has been furnished by assessee. Page 1 of 4 20th September 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji v Prakash Kittur 12-TXA16-17.doc (C) Hon ble ITAT has erred in allowing relief on estimate base whereas assessee has not maintained proper books of accounts and assessee is not able to prove that payment made are exclusively for expenses only. In absence of documentary evidence addition made by ld. AO ought to have been confirmed by Hon ble ITAT. 2. For reasons we will briefly indicate we do not believe that any of these could legitimately be considered questions of law let alone substantial ones. 3. assessee, father of present Respondent, was real estate agent. appeal is directed against order dated 9th August 2016 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji bench. This was in respect of two Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. It seems that search and seizure was conducted on 16th April 2010 under Section 132(1) of Income Tax Act. Some material was found relating to assessee and this, according to Revenue showed nexus between assessee and his son, present Respondent. 4. notice under Section 153C of Income Tax Act dated 21st November 2012 was issued and served. assessee, Venkaraddi Kittur filed nil return. Notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) dated 18th February 2013 followed. assessee appeared. Several hearings were held. Assessing Officer by his order dated 30th March 2013 made additions for unexplained investments under Section 69 to extent of Rs.25,43,300/- and added sale proceeds of land and building of Rs.1,70,00,000/-. Page 2 of 4 20th September 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji v Prakash Kittur 12-TXA16-17.doc assessee appealed. Commissioner of Income Tax on 23rd February 2016 allowed appeal in part. Aggrieved, Revenue appealed to ITAT, which dismissed Revenue s appeal on 9th August 2016. This is order impugned. 5. We have considered impugned order which is from page 33 onwards. What was before ITAT was appeal of Revenue and cross appeal by assessee. Revenue challenged action of CIT in reducing addition made by AO on account of unexplained investments and this resulted in assessee relief of Rs.15,00,000/-. bench noted that while in search and seizure, it was found that assessee had purchased property of about 1780 square metres at Calangute for total consideration of Rs.25,43,000/- but without maintaining proper accounts, Commissioner took into account that assessee was employee of Government of Karnataka from 1954 to 1993 and received retirement and pensionary benefits thereafter. This Commissioner estimated availed funds likely to have been available with assessee as result of Rs.15,00,000/-. In appeal Revenue said there was no proof. Bench found that Commissioner had followed well-settled principles. In regard to non-proving of expenditure, Commissioner found that all transactions were banked. ITAT held that Revenue in appeal was unable to dislodge findings that so-called assets in hands of assessee were agricultural land and not capital assets. It also found that there were known sources of income and these were for specific purposes where assessee had functioned as contractor or mediator on behalf of or at request of two commercial entities. Having taken into account actual status of Page 3 of 4 20th September 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji v Prakash Kittur 12-TXA16-17.doc accounts, records, bills and vouchers, ITAT came to conclusion that appeal of Revenue called for no interference. 6. We are unable to see any infirmity in order of ITAT and certainly we are unable to see how it raises any question of law at all. This is not matter of complete misappreciation of records or evidence. Commissioner in appeal before him took view. ITAT held that view to be plausible. It noted no perversity. We find no perversity either in order of ITAT. Certainly it cannot be said that on these facts it was not possible for any body, authority or Tribunal to come to conclusion to which ITAT did. 7. appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI J. G. S. PATEL J. Page 4 of 4 20th September 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Panaji v. Prakash Kittur