Itta/518/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-V v. Chandrasekhar Nangunri

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.518 of 2013 DATED:30.10.2013 Between:The Commissioner of Income Tax-V,Hyderabad. … Appellant And Sri Chandrasekhar Nangunri,Secunderabad. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.518 of 2013 Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal of Hyderabad Bench-B, Hyderabad dated 27.6.2013 andsought to be admitted on the following suggested question of law. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’bleTribunal (ITAT) was correct in law in deleting the addition of un-explained investment made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act,1961 and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), when the Respondent-assessee failed to discharge itsonus as to the sources of the said un-explained investments andmaterial on record to sustain the addition as per the findings of thelearned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ? We have heard Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for theappellant and have gone through the impugned judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal. It appears that the learned Tribunal has upset thefinding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who disbelievedthe explanation given by the assessee as to availability of surplus fundsin the bank account. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion thatsuch a finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is based onsurmises and presumption. This is absolutely the fact finding of thelearned Tribunal arrived at after appreciating the facts. There is noallegation in the appeal that the aforesaid fact finding of the learned Tribunal is absurd or perverse. In the absence of such allegation, wehave to accept the finding of the learned Tribunal without any demur. It is settled position of law, as has been correctly recorded bythe learned Tribunal that surmises and conjectures cannot take the placeof evidence. It was also found by the learned Tribunal that there was noevidence or material available before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), who disbelieved the explanation offered by the assessee. In view of the aforesaid fact finding recorded by the learnedTribunal, we think that there is no element of law involved in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 30.10.2013 PNB