Itta/485/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Iii v. K.vasundhara

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OFOCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A. No.485 OF 2013 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax-III,IT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad ..... Petitioner AND K.Vasundhara .....Respondent The Court made the following : JUDTGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be admitted in relation tothe assessment year 2007-2008 on the followingsuggested questions of law: a.In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct inlaw in holding that the additional income ofRs.1.00 crore admitted by the respondent-assessee has to be telescoped into openingstock for the subject assessment year, ignoringthe fact that the statutory auditor report itself didnot reveal any such increase in the openingstock for the assessment year 2007-2008? b.In the facts and circumstances of the case,whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct inlaw in holding that the additional income admittedby the respondent-assessee is to be telescopedinto opening stock, when the respondent-assessee failed to explain the differencebetween the closing stock and opening stock,the physical stock inventorised during thesurvey and other material on record do notjustify the claim and submission of theRespondent - Assessee? We have heard Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learnedcounsel for the appellant and gone through theimpugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.We are of the view that the learned Tribunal hascorrectly upheld the decision of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals), who has decided this matter onfact. Learned Tribunal, on fact, has held as under: “…it is clear that the assessee had investedthe additional income of Rs.1.00 crore in stock-in-trade of the business. It is also a fact that in thereturn of income filed for the assessment year 2006-2007, the assessee had computed the businessincome separately and the additional income ofRs.1.00 crore though was from the business wasshown as income from other sources. Theassessee’s explanation that this was due to the factthat regular profits for business for the assessment year 2006-2007 was arrived at on the basis ofentries made in the accounts maintained under tallypackage is acceptable….” In view of the fact-finding stated above, we do notfind any element of law involved in this appeal.Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. No order as tocosts. ______________________ Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. October 22, 2013MAS _____________ K.C. Bhanu, J.