Itta/489/2014 Of Commissionre Of Income Tax-Ii v. Sri S.narayan Reddy

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR 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 M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A. NO.489 OF 2014 DATED:30.7.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-III.T. TowersA.C. GuardsHyderabad … Appellant And S. Narayan Reddy … Responden THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO I.T.T.A. NO.489 OF 2014 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal, dated 29.11.2013, on the following suggestedquestions of law: i.In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether theTribunal is correct in law in upholding the deletion of additionmade by the Assessing Officer of unexplained investment ofRs.32.00 crores, without considering the corroborative materialon record including the sworn statements of the recipients,seized cash receipt letter, supporting bank statement and othermaterial on record? ii. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, theTribunal is correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs.68.31crores, without assigning any reason and by failing to appreciatethe fact that the assessee received Ac.10.13 gt. of land for aconsideration of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of reward in kind in lieu ofcommission for the services rendered by the assessee and thethree others in facilitating the final transfer of the lands to M/s.DLF, when the market value is Rs.12.5 crores per acre? We have heard Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Counsel for theappellant/Revenue, and gone through the impugned judgment and orderof the learned Tribunal. Both the questions suggested are absolutelyrelating to appreciation of fact and there is no question of law at all. Sofar as first point is concerned, the learned Tribunal has found that theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition havingfound no evidence worth for the same. Second point is similarlydepending upon appreciation of fact by the Tribunal and we find noreason to interfere with the finding on the issue. Hence, we dismiss the appeal. There will be no order as to costs. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _______________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 30.7.2014 bnr