Itta/491/2010 Of Shri Kalyanam Bhaskara Rao v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN INCOME TAX TTRIBUNAL APPEAL No.491 of 2010 August 30, 2010 Between: Shri Kalyanam Bhaskara Rao, Hyderabad … Appellant And The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle – 5, Hyderabad. ... Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANINCOME TAX TTRIBUNAL APPEAL No.491 of 2010 JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Tribunal,Hyderabad Bench ‘B’, in I.T. (SS) No.81/Hyd/05 dated 31.7.2009, thepresent appeal is filed under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act,1961. The only contention urged before us in this appeal, relates to thesum of Rs.1,75,000/-, which was brought to tax as unexplained cashfound with the belongings of the asessee. Sri A.V. Krishna Koundinya,learned Counsel for the appellant, would draw attention of this Court tothe grounds of appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), wherein the contention of the assessee was that his wife hadinitially entered into a loan agreement for purchasing a Tata Indica Car;the agreement was terminated on 22.9.1999 after receiving back the carbooking advance of Rs.2,66,241/- and by paying interest thereon atRs.8,855/-; thereafter the car was delivered on 29.5.2000 on payment ofRs.3,26,263.21; the assessee had borrowed money from privatesources for the car purchased by his wife; later a loan of Rs.1,75,000/-was taken from the State Bank of India, Balkampet Branch, Hyderabadon 29.5.2000, which was credited to the appellant’s wife’s accountNo.32828 of the said Bank; the said sum of Rs.1,75,000/- waswithdrawn on the same day and held as cash balance with the appellanton the date of search; and the loan of Rs.1,75,000/- was taken from theBank with an intention to repay the loans taken on 22.9.1999 forbooking the Tata Indica Car. In his order in I.T.A.No.202/ CC-5/CIT(A)-IV/2004-2005, the CIT(Appeals) rejected the contention of the assessee that Rs.1,75,000/-was withdrawn from the Bank to be utilized for purchase of Tata IndicaCar, and held that it was not probable that the cash found in thebelongings of the appellant on 11.6.2000, while he was travelling fromSrikakulam to Hyderabad, related to this withdrawal. The CIT (Appeals)did not accept the appellant’s explanation regarding the unaccountedcash of Rs.1,75,000/-. This finding of the CIT (Appeals) was confirmedby the Tribunal in the order under appeal before us wherein it was heldthat the cash of Rs.1,75,000/- found with the assessee, at the time of thesearch of his belongings at Visakhapatnam Railway station, was hisundisclosed income. Considering the totality of the facts andcircumstances, and in the light of the explanation offered by theassessee, the Tribunal held that the order under appeal did not necessitate interference since there was no infirmity in the said order. necessitate interference since there was no infirmity in the said order. The appellant before us was, at the time of search, an AssistantCommissioner of Prohibition & Excise at Srikakulam. The sum ofRs.1,75,000/- was withdrawn from a Bank at Hyderabad, and the loansaid to have been taken was also from the State Bank of India,Balkampet Branch at Hyderabad. The cash found in the belongings ofthe assessee was not when he was traveling from Hyderabad toSrikakulam but when he was traveling from Srikakulam to Hyderabad. The cash was found when his belongings were searched atVisakhapatnam Railway station. The explanation of the assessee thatthe amount was taken to repay the loan with the same Bank is notconvincing. It is difficult to believe that a person would carry cash all theway from Hyderabad to Srikakulam, and then bring it back to Hyderabadfor repaying the loan, more so when the person concerned is a SeniorOfficial in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excisewith the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The finding of fact recorded bythe CIT (Appeals), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, do notwarrant interference. No question of law arises for consideration in theappeal filed before us under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)