Ita/35/2009 Of Sri T Krishnamurthy Naidu v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREDATED THIS THE 27[th]DAY OF OCTOBER 2014 PRESENT THER HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND THR HON’BLE MR JUSTICBK B. MANOHARITA NO.35/2009 BRHITWEB SRI T KRISHNAMURTHY NAIDU|PROP: M/S SRI SAI KRISHNA|KNGINKEERING WORKSAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSSON OF SRI T RAGHUNATHA NAIDUNO.25, 1[A]CROSs, J C ROADLALBAGH ROADBANGALORE — 560027. |APPELLANT (BY SRI S PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) AND: THER INCOME -TAX OFFICEWARD-1(4), BANGALORE. ~ RESPONDENT (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-AOF INCOME TAX ACT, F1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER)DATED PASSED IN ITA NO.202/BNG/2008, FOR THEASSHSSMENTYRAR2004-2005|PRAYINGTOFORMULATE THE SUBSTANITAL QUESTIONS OF LAW.STATED THEREIN AND TO ALLOW THE APPBAL AND| SET ASIDB THR ORDER PASSBD BY THR ITAT|BANGALORE IN ITA NO.262/BNG/2008. THIS APPBAL COMING ON FOR HBARING THISDAY, N KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The assessee has preferred this appeal challengingthe findings recorded by the three authorities that theexplanation rendered to explain the undisclosed sourceof investment in business is not acceptable and bringinginto tax the amount under Section 69A of the Income§Tax Act, 1961. 2. The appeal was admitted to consider thefollowing substantial questions of law at the time ofadmission on 08.04.2009: 1. Whether in law, the provisions of section69A of the Act were applicable to the’appellant’s case and the addition of Rs.5lakhs as confirmed by the Tribunal wassustainable? 2. Whether in law, the appellant is said to'have discharged the onus of proving thesource of investment when the appellant’s|mother confirmed the gifts made to her son-the appellant, and the veracity of herstatement having not been disproved by theassessing officer? 3. Whether in law, on mere surmises andsuspicion the Tribunal could sustain the|addition when the appellant had adducedevidence which has not been controverted byany authorities below under the Act?” 3. Learned counsel for the parties have beenheard. 4. The undisputed facts which emerge from thematerial on record is that the assessee’s father died in)January 2002 living behind his widow 1.e., the mother ofthe assessee and the assessee himself. The widow|inherited 6 acres and 20 guntas of agricultural land andshe was also owning 2.607 acres of land in her name. Allthese lands are situated in Chittor in Andhra Pradesh.The case of the assessee was that his mother was)cultivating the land and growing paddy, sugarcane,esround nut and pulses in these lands. It is from theaforesaid crops, she had saved Rs.5.00 lakhs cash andhad kept in the house. That amount was given to himby way of gift which he invested as capital in hisbusiness. The three authorities have concurrently held the mother was aged about 69 years on the date ofdeath of her husband. Till the death of her husband,the land belonged to her husband, so any incomederived there from rightfully belonged to the husband.There is no material on record to show the income§derived from the lands which was in the hands of the!assessee. If in January 2002, the mother became theowner of 6 acres 20 guntas of agricultural land and sheowned 2.607 acres in her own name, when she is said tohave paid the said amount on 10.04.2003 and15.06.2003, roughly one year after the death of herhusband, it is difficult to believe the case of the.assessee that she had Rs.5.00 lakhs cash kept in thehouse being the income derived from the said land.Therefore, on appreciation of entire evidence on record,three fact finding authorities have carefully held thatthe assessee has failed to prove the said income ofRs.o.00 lakhs in the hands of his mother and paymentof that by way of gift to him. The question whether themother had Rs.5.00 lakhs on the day she is said to havesifted to the son, is purely a question of fact. When three fact finding authorities on the basis of legalevidence have held that the said fact is not proved, nosubstantial question of law as framed by this Court atthe time of admission arises for consideration at the’hands oft this Court. Oo. We do not find any error in the findingsrecorded by the three authorities. Therefore, we do notsee any merit in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed.Question of answering the substantial question of lawdo not arise. Brn od/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE.