Itta/339/2011 Of Smt. P.jayashree v. The Dy. Commissionesr Of Income Tax

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA I.T.T.A.No. 339 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) This appeal by the assessee under Section 260-A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for shrot ‘the Act’) arises out of an order ofthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for shot ‘the Tribunal’) dt.28.1.2011 in ITA.No. 956/Hyd/2010 dismissing the appeal against theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dt. 21.5.2010, pertaining to the assessment year 2003-04. The assessee is in the trade of Bamboo and casurinaballies. During the relevant assessment year, she claims to havereceived advances for casurina ballies and deposited these amountsin fixed deposits. As the purchaser did not approve the quality ofcasurina ballies after field visit, the agreement between the partieswas cancelled and the advances received by the assessee returnedto the respective parties. On this basis, the assessee claims thatthe amounts received are advances in the course of trading activityand therefore the amounts cannot be treated as the income of theappellant. As no returns was filed by the for the assessment year2003-04, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued inNovember, 2004 calling for returns of income. There being no reply,another notice was issued on 27.5.2005 calling for the detailsregarding bank accounts held by the assessee appellant along withinterest income, if any, derived and details of total income from allthe sources earned during the previous year relevant to theassessment year in question. As there was no compliance from theappellant, information received from the CIB regarding theappellant’s deposits with banks was communicated by the AdditionalCommissioner of Income Tax, Range-5, Hyderabad stating that the assessee had invested Rs. 15,77,000/- on 3.4.2002 and Rs.24,00,000/- on 21.5.2002 as fixed deposits with a nationalized bankduring the relevant assessment year. The assessee filed her returnson 14.12.2005 declaring an income of Rs. 1,32,881/- including Rs.1,27,949/- from the business and Rs. 4,932/- from other sources. Eventually, an assessment order was passed treating the amountsinvested in fixed deposit as the income during the relevantassessment year (by addition under Section 69 of the Act). Aggrieved an unsuccessful appeal to the Commissioner of Appealsfollowed another to the ITAT. The Tribunal in concurring with theconclusions recorded by the assessing and the appellate authoritiesheld that since the summons issued by assessing officer to thepersons who are said to have advanced money were returnedunserved; he made efforts to examine those persons throughdepartmental officers and found no such persons were found and theassessee could not also produce them before the assessing officer,the agreement and the transactions asserted are not genuine andaccordingly treated the amounts invested in the fixed deposit asunexplained income of the assessee during the relevant assessmentyear. Sri.Vasanth Kumar, the learned Counsel for the appellantwould strenuously contend that the methodology adopted by theassessing officer to verify the genuineness of the transactions is nota fair process since it is not practicable for an assessee such as theappellant herein to assume that identity of the persons whoadvanced amounts to her in course of business would be verified toascertain genuineness of such persons so as to establish the samein case of a scrutiny. It is however fairly conceded by the learnedCounsel for the appellant that there is no precedential authority forthe proposition propounded by him. In the facts and circumstances, this court discerns nosubstantial question of law arising for consideration, warrantinginterference under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal is without merits and is accordingly dismissed at the stage ofadmission. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ RAGHURAM, J GODA _______________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J29.09.2011.KRB. In the facts and circumstances, this court discerns nosubstantial question of law arising for consideration, warrantinginterference under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal is without merits and is accordingly dismissed at the stage ofadmission. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ RAGHURAM, J GODA _______________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J29.09.2011.KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA I.T.T.A.No. 339 of 2011.ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Dt. 29.09.2011.