Itta/176/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. A Audinarayana Reddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 176 of 2014 Date: 13.03.2014 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),Hyderabad. … Appellant And Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy,Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 176 of 2014 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 22.02.2013 in relation tothe assessment year 2008-09 on the following suggested questions of law: “1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition on accounto f unexplained donation of gold to Shri Shirdi Sansthan without appreciating that the assessee has failed to prove that thirdparties have contributed to such donation? 2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition on accounto f unexplained donation of gold to Shri Shiridi Sansthan withoutappreciating that the assessee has admitted voluntarilyRs.7,67,74,956 as additional income on account of donationsmade vide letter dated 26.04.2010? 3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition on accountof donations by placing reliance on the retraction statement filed bythe assessee vide letter dated 28.12.2010 without appreciatingthat the retraction made by the assessee after eight months waswithout any cogent reasons and evidence? We have heard Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant,and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learnedTribunal. It appears that the appeal is confined only to one issue, and thesaid issue has been dealt by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 37 of the judgment, which reads as follows: “In our opinion, the CIT(A) should have appreciated that all theincriminating evidences available in the seized documents wereconsidered by the DDIT (Inv.) in toto in course of post searchinvestigation in the hands of individual and also by the AssessingOfficer in course of assessment proceeding and undisclosed incomeresulting from these seized papers were to be considered in theassessment of the assessee leaving no room for any further additionin the hands of assessee on the basis of offer by the assessee, insuch circumstances there could be no undisclosed income in thehands of the assessee particularly on the basis of receipts relating todonation as the impugned receipt is not in the name of the presentassessee.” In paragraph 39, the learned Tribunal has held that the evidence brought on record is not enough to sustain the addition in the hands ofthe assessee. When the learned Tribunal has appreciated the evidence, whichis totally inadequate to sustain the addition, we cannot admit the appealfor re-appreciation of the evidence simply it is not permissible underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J