Itta/110/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Sri Atluri Subba Rao

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.110 OF 2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-IIIIT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad. ..... Appellant AND Sri Atluri Subba Rao, .....Respondent The Court made the following : JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.This appeal is sought to be admitted on the followingsuggested questions of law in relation to the assessmentyear 2005-2006. a. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in lawin upholding the finding that there is no unexplainedinvestment by the Respondent – Assessee, when theRespondent – Assessee is a purchaser under theagreement of sale-cum-irrevocable Power of Attorneyand failed to provide sufficient evidence for the saidunexplained investment? b. In the facts and circumstances of the case,whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in lawin holding that the provision of Section 50C of the Acthas no applicability to the facts of the case, when theRespondent – Assessee, being the purchaser underan agreement of sale-cum-irrevocable Power ofAttorney, sold the property for a lesser value than themarket value? c.Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is justified inlaw in upholding the deletion of unexplainedinvestment and subject Short Term Capital gainwithout due appreciation of material facts stated inthe assessment order? Having heard the learned counsel for the appellantand having gone through the impugned judgment and order,we are of the view that no element of law point is involved inthis matter, as the learned Tribunal has decided the matterappreciating on facts. We appropriately quote the relevantfact-finding of the learned Tribunal: “…With regard to the addition of Rs.30 lakhs,there is a confirmation letter from Sri P.V.RamanaReddy to the effect that he has made the said paymentof Rs.30.00 lakhs to Ms. PHPL. In turn, M/s. PHPL hasmade payment to M/s. SEL. This payment of Rs.30lkahs is also reflected in the books of account of M/s.PHPL as the payment was made by Sri P.V.R.Reddy toM/s. SEL. In the confirmation letter, it has beenmentioned that this payment is for the purpose ofpurchase consideration of the impugned property. Thisbeing so, there cannot be any doubt that the paymenthas been routed through Sri P.V.Ramana Reddy onbehalf of M/s. PHPL to M/s. SEL for purchae of theimpugned property. If Shri P.V. Ramana Reddy has no sufficient source for making this payment or M/s. PHPLhas no sources, the same has to be considered asunexplained investment in their hands and at anystretch of imagination, it cannot be considered asunexplained investment as the assessee is neitherpurchase of the property nor the seller of the propertyand he is only having irrevocable Power of Attorney forthe purpose of facilitating sales transactions which isevident from four sale deeds being Documents Nos.1806 to 1809 of 2005 all dated 20.8.2005…” Therefore, Section 50C of the Act has noapplication. We do not find any substantial questionsof law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, we dismissthe appeal. No order as to costs. ______________________ Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. June 26, 2013MAS __________ G.Rohini, J.