Itta/622/2013 Of Mir Anwaruddin v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.622 of 2013 Date: 13.02.2014 Between: Mir Anwaruddin .....Appellant AND The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Hyderabad. ...Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.622 of 2013 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta ) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted againstthe judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 24[th] January2013 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09 on the followingsuggested questions of law: (1) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legallycorrect in holding that the assessee has not explainedthe sources of investment in jewellery though theissue before the Appellate Tribunal was whethertelescoping of addition made on some other issuecould be made or not? (2) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct innot appreciating the legal provision that once there isno evidence of time of investment, telescoping ofaddition treated as income could be considered asavailable for making such investment? We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant andgone through the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal on fact found as follows: “Assessee has not furnished evidenceregarding sources for investment in these impugnedassets. Further, addition made on account of thediscrepancy in the investment in jewellery has beenreduced or deleted in above paras. Therefore, in theabsence of evidence of source of acquisition ofassets, we set aside the order of the CIT (A) inrestricting the addition to Rs.4,46,652/- as against theaddition of Rs.24,84,153/- made by the AssessingOfficer on account of unaccounted investment in jewellery for Assessment Year 2008-09 and confirmthe order of the Assessing Officer on this issue. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the revenue isallowed.” Mr.K.Vasanth Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant, hasheavily relied on the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), which are quoted hereunder: “The assessee’s plea that the income earnedfrom Lukhmies which was brought to tax nowamounting to Rs.30,37,500/- is to be telescoped. Considering this argument and also keeping in viewthe addition sustained by me under the headsLukhmies, I feel it would be reasonable to allowrelief. Out of the addition sustained by me ofRs.30,37,500/- towards income earned from sale ofLukhmies, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towardsdrawings needs to be considered towards personalexpenses over the years. Thus, the balance ofRs.20,37,500/- (Rs.30,37,500/- – Rs.10,00,000/-)being additional income brought to tax as incomeearned from Lukhmies, is to be considered fortelescoping. If this amount is telescoped, there willbe addition of Rs.4,46,653/- (Rs.24,84,152/- -Rs.20,37,500/-) to be made on account ofunexplained jewellery. In view of this, the additionmade of Rs.24,84,153/- made by the AssessingOfficer is directed to be substituted withRs.4,46,652/- for the Assessment Year 2008-09.” We are of the view that the findings of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) are absolutely without any evidence. Whenno evidence is forthcoming, we fail to understand how theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted such relief. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interferewith the Judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 13.02.2014 Gsn