Itta/723/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi v. M/S. K.k.maheshwari And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATEOF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENTTHE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.NO.723 OF 2014 DATED: 31-12-2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Hyderabad .. Appellant And M/s. K.K. Maheshwari and others .. Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.NO.723 OF 2014 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated24.05.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Hyderabad Bench “A”, Hyderabad, in relation to the assessmentyear 2003-04. The following substantial question of law is soughtto be raised. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in not holdingthat the entry of opening capital balance of Rs.2,16,03,252/-partakes the character of unexplained investment within thepurview of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 viewedin the context that the assessee did not admittedly file thereturns of income for the earlier years offering the saidincome ?” Perusal of para 7 of the order under appeal reflects thatthe Tribunal was not inclined to interfere in the matter, taking intoaccount the fact that the revenue authorities were themselves notclear as to the year in which the opening cash balance was to bebrought to tax and as the settled legal position was that the incomeof the relevant previous year alone was to be taxed in the relevantassessment year. The Tribunal therefore confirmed the order ofthe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) holding that merelybecause the assessee had not filed its returns of income for theearlier assessment years, it could not be brought to tax in the later assessment year. We see no reason to interfere with the findingsof the authorities below. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 31-12-2014 Svv