Ita/100028/2015 Of Govardhan K. Oza v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DATED THIS THE 27[th]DAY OF JUNE 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE A. S. BOPANNA ANI THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY INCOME TAX APPEAL No.100028 OF 2015 BETWEEN" GOVARDHAN K. OZA,SANT SENA ROAD,PAN: ,BBELAGAVI _. APPBLLANT (By Sri. H R KAMBIYAVAR ADV.) AND: 1.THR COMMISSIONBR OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS),INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BELAGAV I 2.THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD 2 (1), BELAGAVI.WARD 2 (1), BELAGAVI. — RBSPONDEBNTS (By Sri. Y V RAVIRAJ ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED U/S.2600A OF THE INCOMETAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO; (a)FORMULATETHESUBSTANTIALQUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE;QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE; (b) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET - ASIDETHR ORDBR OF THR [INCOME-TAAPPELLATE TRIBUNALDATHD28.11.2014BEARINGITANO.332/PNJ/2013KFORTHEASSHSSMBNT YBAR: JOOOIO-201THR ORDBR OF THR [INCOME-TAAPPELLATE TRIBUNALDATHD28.11.2014BEARINGITANO.332/PNJ/2013KFORTHEASSHSSMBNT YBAR: JOOOIO-201 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FORADMISSIONTHISDAY, A.S.BOPANNA J.,DBLIVBRED THER FOLLOWING JU DBiGMENT The appellant assessee is before this Courtassailing the order dated 28[th]November 2014 passed by theIncomeTax|AppellateTribunalin.ITANo.332/PNJ/2013. 2.The issue involved in this appeal pertains tol the Assessment year 2009-2010. Since the deduction)as claimed by the appellant has not been considered bythe first appellate authority, the appellant was beforethe Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal through) the order dated 28[th]November 2014 has partiallyallowed the appeal filed by the appellant herein andrejected other contentions. It is in that light, theappellant is before this Court. 3.The learned counsel for the appellant whileseeking consideration of the appeal would urge that theentries of the deposits and withdrawals in the bankpassbook by the Appellate Tribunal should have beenonly with reference to the peak amount as ‘unexplainedmoney as provided under Section 69A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961. In that hght, it is contended that thesame would raise a question of law for considerationand the appeal be admitted and be considered. 4In the light of the contentions put forth, wehave perused the order impugned in relation to thenature of consideration that was made by the Tribunal.The grounds that had been raised by the appellantbefore the Tribunal is with regard to the first appellate 4 authorityholdingtheentirecashdeposit:9|19,57,370/- as unexplained investment and also withregard to the confirmation of additional=9,90,000 /which according to the appellant was not appropriatelydone by the first appellate authority. The Tribunalwhile taking into consideration this aspect of thematter, on reference to the documents available, hastaken note of the cash withdrawal to the extent ofZ1,35,000/- on O2[7=]April 2008 and 29[th]March 2008.In that view, the relief to such extent insofar as cashdeposits out of|19,57,3/70/- was accepted and for thbalance it was held that no source was explained by theappellant. 5.Further, the benefit relating to the interest asreceived and in that regard the benefit of||09,90,000 was granted by accepting the second ground which hadbeen raised before it. Therefore, in that background, aperusal of the appeal papers would indicate that insofar as the explanation that was sought to be put forth withregard to the cash deposits and the benefit claimedtowards the interest, the Tribunal has considered theavailable records and on rendering a factual finding, haspartially granted the benefit. 6.In the absence of any other document placedbefore us, a different conclusion on facts, in any event,cannot be reached by us. Therefore, neither the factfinding as recorded by the Tribunal calls for interferencein this appeal nor does the appeal raise any question oflaw tor consideration. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of meritstands disposed of. Sd/-JUDGE RK/- Sd/-JUDGE