Itta/307/2013 Of Srs And Sri Sai Ganesh Productions v. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.307 OF 2013 DATED:17.7.2013 Between: SRS & Sri Sai Ganesh ProductionsPlot No.45, Phase-IKamalapuri ColonyOpp. Great India Entertainment HyderabadRep. by its PartnerMr. Bellamkonda Suresh … Appellant And Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. NO.307 OF 2013 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal, dt.22.2.2013, and is sought to be admitted on thefollowing suggested questions of law: (A) “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in refusing to admitthe additional evidence that was very much critical inexplaining the amount found credited in the seized materialin the name of A. Mallikarjuna? (B)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in refusing to admitthe additional ground of appeal when all the relevant factsnecessary for adjudication of the additional ground arealready on record? (C)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that theassessing officer and the CIT(A) were justified in notaccepting the amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/- that was creditedin the name of A. Mallikarjuna in the seized material withoutdischarging the onus that stood upon them u/s.292C of theIncome Tax Act, 1961? (D)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that theCIT(A) did not err in considering the expenditure incurredonly upto 25[th] November, 2000, when the block periodextended upto 21[st] February, 2003? (E)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that theAssessing Officer and the CIT(A) are justified in bringing totax a sum of Rs.31,50,000/- towards sale ofCD/DVD/Satellite/Overseas rights and Rs.3,00,000/-towards sale of 16MM rights in the absence of any entriesfound in the seized material to show that the appellantactually received these amounts? (F)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) are justified incomputing the undisclosed income for the block period at apositive figure when as per the seized material theundisclosed income resulted in a loss? We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gonethrough the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. From the aforesaid questions of law, it is mainly sought to beconsidered whether the Tribunal is justified in refusing to admit theadditional evidence. We are of the view that it is the discretion of thelearned Tribunal either to allow additional evidence at second appellatestage or not. If the discretion is not exercised or such exercise ofdiscretion is not arbitrary, then this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot substitute its owndiscretion. Moreover, from the narration of the facts mentioned in theimpugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, the additionalevidence sought to be produced is not part of the seized material. It appears, the learned Tribunal has come to a fact finding oneach and every ground and correctly decided the matter. Therefore, wedo not find any reason to interfere with the fact finding as, according to us,no element of law is involved for consideration in this matter. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ ______________________ G. ROHINI, J 17.7.2013 bnr