Itta/444/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. S.b.steel Industries

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.444 OF 2014 DATED: 24.07.2014 Between: The Commissioner of Income-tax-IV, Hyderabad … Appellant And S.B. Steel Industries … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.444of2014 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be filed against the judgmentand order of the learned Tribunal dated 13.11.2013 passedin I.T.A.No.264/Hyderabad/2011 in relation to theassessment year 2006-07 on the following suggestedquestions of law. 1.Whether, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in deleting theaddition made on account of cash deposits inbank accounts, without appreciating that theassessee has failed to establish the identity andcreditworthiness of the debtor from whom theassessee has recovered the debts and thegenuineness of the transactions? 2.Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in deleting theaddition of Rs.2,75,97,214/- made on account ofcash deposits in assessee’s bank accounts basedon the self-serving evidence produced by theassessee? We have gone through the impugned judgment andorder of the learned Tribunal and the material available onrecord. It appears to us that crux of the question in this matteris whether the amount of Rs.2,75,97,214/- received anddeposited into the bank account by the assessee isunexplained cash credit within the meaning of Section 68 ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961. The learned Tribunal on factfound that it is not a receipt of cash credit and it is anoutstanding trade receipt recovered from time to time by theassessee from the sundry debtors. The learned Tribunalhas examined the books of accounts not only in relation tothe relevant assessment years but also in relation to theprevious assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. The learned Tribunal onfact found that it is not the cash credit. It found further thatRevenue could not bring any material to disproveexplanation furnished by the assessee. Hence, shifting ofburden does not arise. We therefore, dismiss this appeal having found noelement of law involved in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as tocosts. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 24[th] JULY, 2014. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J kvni