Itta/50/2003 Of Commr Of Income Tax Ap-Ii Hyd v. Anand Kumar Agrwal

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A No. 50 OF 2003 27-08-2014 BETWEEN Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad …Appellant And Anand Kumar Agarwal …..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A No. 50 OF 2003 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) This appeal by the Revenue is filed against the order dated27-12-2001 passed by the Hyderabad Bench ‘A’ of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal in I.T(S.S)A No. 206/Hyd/1997 (for short ‘theTribunal’). The respondent is an assessee under the Income Tax Act,1961. His premises were searched on 09-01-1996. On thatoccasion, he accepted that there exists undisclosed income to thetune of Rs.24,11,649/-. The same was accepted by thedepartment also. The assessing officer however took the view that a sum of Rs.13,88,436/- over and above what was disclosedor declared by the respondent must be added. Accordingly, hepassed an order of assessment. Aggrieved by that, therespondent filed appeal before the Tribunal. The contention of therespondent was that the amount sought to be added i.e.,Rs.13,88,436/- is part of what was accepted by him. The Tribunalaccepted the contention and allowed the appeal. Heard Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Senior Counsel for theappellant. The proceedings are the result of a search conducted on 09-01-1996. This is one of the rare cases where an assessee cameforward accepting that there existed undisclosed income ofRs.24,11,649/-. The assessing officer accepted the same. Overand above that, he sought to add Rs. 13,88,436/- to the income.There would have been justification for the assessing officer toadd that amount in case there existed adequate proof to show thatsaid amount does not form part of Rs.24,11,649/- accepted by therespondent. Further, it is not a case where an amount ofRs.13,88,436/- was recovered in cash form or it was referable toany specific transaction. The figure is nothing but the projectionsor imaginations or extensions of some other transactions. TheTribunal held, and in our view, correctly that the assessing officercould have made such additions if only there existed adequateproof that the said amount does not form part of what wasaccepted by the assessee. We do not find any basis to interferewith the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 27-08-2014ks ___________________________L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J ____________________________CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J