Itta/693/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Kuldeep Singh Bagga

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.693 of 2014 DATED:20.11.2014 Between:The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Hyderabad.And … Appellant Kuldeep Singh Bagga,Hyderabad. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.693 of 2014 Judgment :(per the 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 14.10.2011 inrelation to assessment years 1996-97 and 2001-02 on thefollowing suggested questions of law:. 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the order of the Tribunal is not perverse ? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal is correct in deleting the addition of Rs.35,10,000/- being the amount credited to the capital account of the assessee ? 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecasecase and in law the Tribunal is correct in deleting the addition of Rs.55,07,434/-under the head unexplained cash credit ? We have heard Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the revenueand have gone through the impugned judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal carefully. So far as the first question is concerned, we find that thelearned Tribunal has rendered the decision after examining thebooks of accounts and other related documents. Therefore, there is no scope for any perversity. As far as question No.2 is concerned, the learned Tribunalafter examining the books of accounts and other related claims inrelation to the assessment, found on fact as follows: “Further, after elaborately discussing the issue in paras23 to 28 of the impugned order, the CIT(A) concluded thatwithout expressing any opinion as to whether the deposits aregenuine or not, the genuineness of the deposits cannot begone into in the block assessment proceedings, andaccordingly deleted the addition made by the AssessingOfficer.” The correct position of law has been followed by the learnedTribunal. The genuineness of the deposits cannot be gone into inthe block assessment proceedings and it could have been goneinto in the regular assessment proceedings because in the blockassessment, only the books of accounts are to be examined andupon examination of books of accounts, if the transaction appearsto be in consonance with the facts, then genuineness cannot begone into. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has correctly upheld thedecision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). As far as the third question is concerned, it appearsfollowing the correct position of law, the learned Tribunal held thatall the credits or deposits consisting of a sum of Rs.55,07,434/-were reflected in the regular returns of income filed by theassessee prior to the date of search. Therefore, this income couldnot be questioned in the block assessment and it could be doneonly in the regular assessment. The correct position of law hasbeen applied. We, therefore, do not find any element of law forconsideration and decision of this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 20[th] November, 2014 Pnb