Itta/548/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. Sri A.girish Reddy

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 548 of 2014 Date: 08.08.2014 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central),Hyderabad. … Appellant And Sri A. Girish Reddy,Hyderabad … 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. 548 of 2014 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, seeks to raise the following suggested questions of law inconnection with the order dated 10.05.2013 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA.No.1095/Hyd/2012 relating to assessment year 2008-09. “1. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case,ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO when thefact on record shows that the AO established lack of creditworthiness on the part of the creditor? 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the creditorshad enough sources for the amount credited when the factis that there was a huge gap between the date of withdrawal ofcash and the subsequent deposit into the bank account? 3. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the unexplainedcredit in the hands of the assessee is not sustainable when thefact remains that out of the total advance of Rs.1.50 crores theassessee himself had admitted Rs.50 lakhs as undisclosedincome during the course of search. Consequently, whetherthe ITAT was justified in holding that the part of the advance/creditis genuine when the other part is not genuine and admittedlyundisclosed? Sri J.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the Revenue, states thatpara 25.10 of the order of the Tribunal deals with the issue sought to beraised in this appeal. Perusal of this paragraph reveals that the Tribunal did notindependently adjudicate the matter but merely followed its decision in ITA.No.988/Hyd/2012. The order under appeal is a common orderrelating to both ITA.Nos.988/Hyd/2012 as well as ITA.No.1095/Hyd/2012,which is the subject matter of the appeal before us. Paras 18 and 18.1 of the common order deal withITA.No.988/Hyd/2012 and perusal thereof reflects that the Tribunalmerely adverted to its earlier decision in ITA.No.1437/Hyd/2012 andbasing thereon, it confirmed the deletion of the addition by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Sri J.V. Prasad, learned counsel, is unable to state as to whetherany appeals have been preferred against the orders of the Tribunal inITA.Nos.988/Hyd/2012 and 1437/Hyd/2012. Unless the decisions of the Tribunal in those appeals are alsotested, there is no possibility for the revenue to subject the presentconsequential decision of the Tribunal following the said earlierdecisions. On this short ground, we are disinclined to entertain thisappeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J