Itta/531/2013 Of Thecommissioner Of Income Tax (Central ) v. Rajapushpa Properties

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 531 of 2013 DATE: 31.10.2013 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),Hyderabad. … Appellant And Rajapushpa PropertiesHyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 531 of 2013 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, dated 18.05.2012, partially and confine to the following suggested questions of law. “(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the order of the Tribunal is not perverse and liable to be set aside? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in disregarding the declaration made by theassessee under Section 132(4) of the Income tAx Act, which was dulysupported by the material seized at the time of search in respect of the onmoney receipt on sale of flats? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the statement recorded u/s.132(4) would not solely form the basis for making addition of undisclosedturnover.? We have heard Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. We find the aforesaid issues have been dealt with and decided by thelearned Tribunal. In paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment, the learnedTribunal after considering the fact that the Assessing Officer has restored toestimation, came to the conclusion that estimation of 25% of the undisclosedturnover at Rs.250/- per square feet be treated as undisclosed income of theassessee instead of Rs.100/- per square feet being the net profit out of the on-money of Rs.250/- per square feet. Therefore, we are of the view that thisdiscretionary decision of the learned Tribunal should not be upset by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,unless it is found to be irrational and absurd. No allegations of irrationalabsolutely has been taken in this appeal. Hence, we find no element of lawin this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ Date: 31.10.2013ES ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J