Itta/8/2006 Of V. Sunanda v. The Income Tax Officer

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAHANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAMI.T.T.A. No. 8 of 2006 ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram) The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against theorders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITANo.474/Hyd/2002 dated 15.12.2003, for the Assessment Year1997-98. Two questions of law have been raised in thepresent appeal purporting to arise from the orders of theTribunal. The questions read as under: “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalis correct in holding that lands do not belongto the Appellant since they were registered inher name only in the year 1998 ignoring theprovisions of Section 5A of the A.P. Recordof Rights in land and Pattadar Pass BooksAct, 1971? Whether the Order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal is not perverse, as it hasdoubted official records – sale deeds andPahanis, without any evidence, while entirelyignoring the evidence in the form ofstatements of Kauldars, and theirdepositions before the Income TaxAuthorities.” 2. Heard Ms. K. Prabhavathi, learned counsel appearingon behalf of Mr. S. Ravi, learned counsel for theappellant/Assessee, and Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned StandingCounsel for the Revenue. 3. After an elaborate enquiry into the matter, the Tribunal,as a matter of fact, found that the agricultural lands over whichthe appellant claim right, came to be registered in the name ofthe appellant only in the year 1998. Basing on the swornstatements made by Raji Reddy s/o Lachi Reddy, theAssessing authority came to the conclusion that they were theowners only in the year 1998. The appellant got executed thesale deed in his favour. By making reference to variouscontradictions, particularly in the statements of the allegedlessees, husband of the assessee and the discrepancies inthe pahanies obtained by the assessing officer and thepahanies filed by the assessee, the Tribunal gave a findingthat the lands in issue from where the assessee is alleged tohave derived the agricultural income during 1997-98, 1998-99were not believable. The Tribunal has recorded a finding offact confirming the findings of the authorities below that therewas no agricultural income during the relevant assessmentyears and, as a matter of fact, the assessee though wasresiding in Karimnagar came to file returns in Hyderabad. There are also other findings which were given wherein theTribunal came to the categorical conclusions that the lands inissue do not belong to the appellant and thus, there was noerror in not treating the agricultural income which was returnedby the assessee as agricultural income for the purpose ofassessment. It is also brought to the notice of this Court bythe assesses counsel that W.P.No.7016 of 2004 and I.T.T.ANo.453 of 2005 filed by the assessee came to be dismissedby orders dated 09.03.2006 refusing to interfere with the levy of interest as well as confirming of finding as pure questions offact. 4. In that view of the matter, we see no ground to interferewith the orders of the Tribunal as there is no question of law assuch, much less substantial question of law, sought to beraised in this appeal. 5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shallstand closed. ____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 8[th] July, 2015 ksm ____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM ksm I.T.T.A. No. 8 of 2006 8[th] July, 2015