Itta/17/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Vi v. Sri Premchand Kothari

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.17 of 2015 DATED:20.03.2015 Between:Commissioner of Income Tax-VI,Hyderabad. And … Appellant Sri Premchand Kothari,Hyderabad. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.17 of 2015 Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted againstthe judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 30.11.2006 inrelation to the assessment year 1996-07 on the followingsuggested questions of law. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified is givingcredit of cash withdrawal made on 22.2.1996, whilecomputing the peak credit on 22.2.1996, in the face ofthe circumstance that the peak credit of Rs.4,30,642/-found on 22.2.1996 represents cheques presented forcollection on the preceding day ? 2. Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribunal thatcomputation of peak credit depends upon the businessactivity and the nature of the business is sustainable inlaw?computation of peak credit depends upon the businessactivity and the nature of the business is sustainable inlaw? 3. Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribunal thatthe entries found in the bank account cannot be takenin chronological order is perverse ? We have read the relevant portion of the judgment of thelearned Tribunal and we notice that the learned Tribunal, on fact,found as follows: “We have to consider the business activity andthe nature of business and determine the peak credit onthe basis of the credits found in the bank statement. By taking into consideration the business of chequediscounting and the withdrawals of Rs.1,80,000/-, in ouropinion, the above said withdrawals have to be reducedwhile determining the peak credit.” In view of the aforesaid fact finding, the learned Tribunal hasmodified the order slightly. No element of law has been involvedfor decision by us. Although, a vague ground of perversity hasbeen raised, no particulars of perversity in any way, ofappreciation of fact has been recorded by the learned Tribunal, inthe absence of which, we do not find how the element of perversitycan be imagined. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications shall also standclosed. No order as to costs. __________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 20[th] March, 2015 Pnb