Itta/352/2019 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 v. Sabbineni Surendra

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ATHYDERABAD, WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HON'BLE SRt JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY NCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 352 OF 2019 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 2604 of [the ][lncome Tax ][Act,]1961 arising out of the order of the lncome [Tax ][Appellate Tribunal, ][Hyderabad]Bench ' B ' Hyderabad in l.T.A. No.599/Hyd/20'16, for [assessment ][Year ][20'12-13]dated:13-03-2019 [preferred ]against the Order of [the ][Commissioner ][of ][lncome Tax](Appeals)-12, Hyderabad Appeal No.012412014-15, dated:18-12-2015, [preferred]against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of [lncome-Tax, Central Circle- ][4,]Hyderabad PAN/GlR No. dated [31-O3-2O14.] Between: Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax 1,7rh Floor, [A-Block, ][Income ][Tax ][Towers,]A.C.Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004. ...Appellant AND Sabbineni Surendra, No.5121R, Road No.29, Jubilee [Hills, ][Hyderabad]Telangana State. [PAN No: ]. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.V. [PRASAD, ] [appearing]for SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA, SC [lT DEPARTMENT] Counsel forthe Respondent: [None ][Appeared]The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT ?. :rl THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE [P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HON'BLE I.T.T.A. No. 352 ol 2Ol9 JUDG [ (per ][Hon'ble ][Si ][Justice ][P.SAM ][KOSHY)] Heard Sri J.V. Prasad, [learned Standing ][Counsel]appearing [for the appellant. ][Perused ][the ][record.] 2. This appeal under Section 260-A [of the ][Income ][Tax ][Act,]has [been preferred ][by ][the ][Revenue ][against ][the ][order,]1961, dt. 13.03.2019 [passed ][by the ][Income ][Tax ][Appellate ][Tribunal,]Hyderabad [Bench ]['B', ][Hyderabad, ][(for ][short ]["the Tribunal) ][in]I.T.A.No.599/Hyd/2016 [for the ][Assessment Year ][2012-13'] 3. The challenge primarily is to the [so ][called ][unexplained]jewellery of Rs.5,25,86,550/- found during [the ][course of ][search.]However, upon [going ][through the ][impugned ][order of ][the ][ITAT,]which has [affirmed the order ][of CIT ][(Appeals), we ][lind ][that ][there]is a concurrent [finding ][of ][fact ][given by ][the two authorities ][in ][the]said issue. [The CIT ][(Appeals) ][at ][the ][first ][instance ][in ][paragraph]No.5.5 has [extensively ][dealt ][with the ][said issue ][and ][reached to]the conclusion that the finding [given ][by the ][assessing ][authority]is not [justified, ]particularly, when the [returns ][of the ][previous]years reflect the investment made in gold and [jewellery ]by [the] assessee periodically. And in the process, the assessing officerwas not fair to bring all the investments in the hands of theassessee at one go in the year of search, which has also beendiscussed by the ITAT while deciding the appeal against theRevenue. 4. In rriew of the said facts, we are of the considered opinionthat since there is a concurrent finding of fact by the CIT(Appeals) as also by the ITAT, we do not find any question of law,much less a substantial question of law for entertaining theinstant appeal and the appeal fajls. Accordingly, the appeal isrejected. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,shall stand closed SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAOJOINT REGIS,trRAR/,//(/SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, [Hyderabad ][Bench ][' ] [' ][Hyderabad.] 2. The Commissioner of lncome [Tax (Appeals)-12' ][Hyderabad.] 3. The Deputy Commissioher of [lncome-Tax, Central ][Circle- ][4, ][Hyderabad.] 4. One CC to SRI B. NARASIMHA [SARMA, ] [lT ] IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies \ -\"" kam re --l I HIGH COURT PSK, J &LNA, J DATED:01 111t2023 JUDGMENTITTA.No.3i2 of 2O1g THE APPEALIS REJECTED a\\ 'll1r\e [STAf]F(qJo1 5 [0Et ][20?3]c)*+.f .,:, .) /-1c