Itta/99/2021 Of Kishan Kothwal v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEI\,IBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANANDTHE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 99 OF 2021 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961,against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ['B']Hyderabad in ITA No.2B9lHl2020 for assessment year 2017-18 daled 2810612021preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-7Hyderabad, Appeal No. 0 1 69/ClT(A)-7l20 1 9-20 dated 27 101 I 2020 preferred against theOrder of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1,Siddipet, PAN/ dated 2411012019 Between: Kishan Kothwal, 10-4-466, Nasarpura, Siddipet, Medak, Telangana- 502103. ...APPELLANT AND lncome Tax Officer, Ward- 1 , Siddipet, Medak. .,.RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation ofthe order in lrA No. 2$9l\l2o2o (Assessment Year 2017-18) (on the file of lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench'B' Hyderabad) For the Appellant : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA, Advocate For the Respondent : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER HONOL RABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYI\.NANDHONOUR.BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADIIAVI T)EVI I.T.T.A.No.99 OF 2021 QEDE& [fpn, ][fro ][n't ][te ][Sri ][Justice ][t}jjal ][Bhuyanl] Heard Mr. [y'ijay ]Kumar Punna, learned counsel for the appellant 2. This appeal ras been prefened by the assessee, [as ]the appellant,under Section 26C { of the Income [Tax ]Act, [1961 ][(briefly ]['the ][Act']hereinafter) agains the order dated 28.06.2021 [passed ][by tlte ][Income]Tax Appellate Tril unal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', [Hyderabad (Tribunal)]in LT.A.No.28 [glH.2020 ]for the assessment [year ][2017 ][-18.] 3. The issue in 'olved in the present appeal is confirmation [of ][the]addition made by t re Assessing Officer [to ][the income ][oltht: ][assessee]under Section 69-A ofthe Act 4. In the proc:edings for the assessment [year ][2017-18, ][the]Assessing Officer bund cash deposits [in ][the ][bank ][account ][of ][the]assessee aggregatin 3 to Rs.13,16,304.00. [Assessee ][submitted that ][he]has deposited only {s.10 [lakhs ][during ][the demonetization period ][and]not Rs.13,16,304.0 ). [Verifrcation ][of ][the bank ][account ][statement]showed the deposit [of ][cash ][of ][Rs.10 lakhs ][on ][12.11.20 ][l6 ][in ][addition]to certain other deoosits [in ][tranches. ][Regarding cash deposit ][of]to [the ][assessee, ][the ][same ][was ][out ][of]Rs.10 lakhs, acco'ding 1/3'd salary savings [from ][his ][salary ][since ][2006 ][and ][also ][1/3"r savings] of his son [since ][2011. ][This ][explanation ][was ][not ][accepted ][by ][the]Officer [on the ][ground ][that ][it ][was ][difficult to ][believe ][that]Assessing such savings [were ][kept ][at home ][over ][so ][many ][years' In ][addition' ][a]furthersumofRs.2.T5lakhswasalsofoundtobeunexplained.Therefore, the [Assessing ][Officer ][added ][a sum ][of ][Rs'12,75'000'00 to]the retumed income [of ][the ][assessee ][as ][unexplained ][deposits ][in ][bank]account, considering [the ][same ][as income ][under ][Section ][69A ][of ][the]Act. of his son [since ][2011. ][This ][explanation ][was ][not ][accepted ][by ][the]Officer [on the ][ground ][that ][it ][was ][difficult to ][believe ][that]Assessing such savings [were ][kept ][at home ][over ][so ][many ][years' In ][addition' ][a]furthersumofRs.2.T5lakhswasalsofoundtobeunexplained.Therefore, the [Assessing ][Officer ][added ][a sum ][of ][Rs'12,75'000'00 to]the retumed income [of ][the ][assessee ][as ][unexplained ][deposits ][in ][bank]account, considering [the ][same ][as income ][under ][Section ][69A ][of ][the]Act. 5. In appeal before the [Commissioner ][of ][Income ][Tax (Appeals)-7']Hyderabad [(for ]short, ['CIT ][(A)' ][hereinafter), the Appellate ][Authority]recorded the statement of [the ][assessee ][under ][Section ][13 ] [of ][the ][Act ][in]the presence of his [authorized ][representative. ][It ][was noted ][that]assesssee is a State [Government employee and ][he was required ][to]inform the State Government [in ][the ][event ][of ][making ][any ][investment]in speculative transaction. [While ][granting ][relief ][to ][the ][extent ][of]Rs.2.75 lakhs, which [was ][stated ][to ][be on account ][of withdrawal ][from]his GPF, the first [Appellate ][Authority ][confirmed ][the ][addition ][of]Rs.l0 lakhs made by [the ][Assessing ][Officer'] 6In further appeal [before ][the ][Tribunal, Tribunal ][held ][as ][follows:] "We have considered the rival submissions [and]perused the material on record as [well as gone through ][the]orders of revenue authorities. [The CIT(A) demonstrated ][in]his order that the assessee [does not have sufficient money]to pay monthly chit [installments ][by way ][of ][recording ][hls]statement u/s 131 of the [Act ][and ][examining ][the ][bank]statements, further observed that [no ][documentary] evide rce was filed by the assessee to est,ablishgenur reness of the chit fund claim. Further, the CIT (h)obser /ed that being govt. employee, the assessee is notpermi ted to enter in chit fund. Even before us, the ld AtLof th( assessee failed to establish that the amount cfRs.10 00,0001 received from chit fund and thr-'submi ;sions in the written submissions are general andvogue which are not supported to the case of theasses ee. The CIT (A) examined the bank statement ofthe as iessee and after observing the monthly expenditur€)of the lssessee and nature of transactions carried out b),the as;essee, he has rightly sustained the addition nrad€,by the AO. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in theorder cf the CIT (A) in confirming the addition olRs.10, 10,000/- made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act andtherefc'e, upholding the order of the CIT(A), we dis,nissthe grc rnd raised by the assessee on this issue". 7 . On due conr ideration, we do not find any error or in firnrity inthe view taken by t re Tribunal. Besides, there is concurrent tinding offact. No question cf law arises from the said order of the Trirunal,not to speak ol any iubstantial question of law. 8. Learned cou rsel for the appellant relied upon the bllorvingdecisions: (i) COMN IISSIONER of INCOME TAx,HYDE{ABADv. TILAK RAJ KUMAR [(2015)]56 ["axmann;com ]36 [(Andhra ]Pradesh [and]Telang rna). HAWX INS v. POWELLS TILLERY STEAM(ii) coAL IOMPANY LIMITED [(988 ][KING',S] BENC] TDMSION 1911). I To g.InsofarthedecisionofthiscourtinTilakRajKumar(supra)isconcerned, [we ][find ][that ][it ][was a ][case ][of ][sale ][transaction ][of ][diamonds]under Section 68 of [the ][Act. ][The ][parameters ][for ][making ][addition]under Section 68 ofthe [Act ][and ][under Section ][69A ][ofthe ][Act, ][though]to [be similar, ][however, ][is ][not ][so; therefore, ][addition ][of]may appear cash credit under [Section ][68 ][0f ][the ][Act ][would ][stand ][on ][a ][different]The [principles governing ][cash ][credit under Section ][68 ][of ][the]pedestai. Act cannot be [extended ][to ][unexplained ][investments ][under ][Section]69A of the Act. HAWX INS v. POWELLS TILLERY STEAM(ii) coAL IOMPANY LIMITED [(988 ][KING',S] BENC] TDMSION 1911). I To g.InsofarthedecisionofthiscourtinTilakRajKumar(supra)isconcerned, [we ][find ][that ][it ][was a ][case ][of ][sale ][transaction ][of ][diamonds]under Section 68 of [the ][Act. ][The ][parameters ][for ][making ][addition]under Section 68 ofthe [Act ][and ][under Section ][69A ][ofthe ][Act, ][though]to [be similar, ][however, ][is ][not ][so; therefore, ][addition ][of]may appear cash credit under [Section ][68 ][0f ][the ][Act ][would ][stand ][on ][a ][different]The [principles governing ][cash ][credit under Section ][68 ][of ][the]pedestai. Act cannot be [extended ][to ][unexplained ][investments ][under ][Section]69A of the Act. 10.Insofar the English [decision ][is ][concerned, ][the ][facts ][are ][totally]different, the [same ][arising ][out ][of ][benefits received ][under ][the]Workmen's Compensation [Act. ][The ][said decision ][is ][not ][at ][all]applicable to the [facts ][atld ][circutlstances of ][the ][present ][case'] I I . Consequently, [tl.re ][appeal is ][dismissed'] 12.Miscellaneous applications, [il ][any ][pending, shall ][stand ][closed'] 1 3. No cttsts. Sd/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVIJOINT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//Q'tSECTION OFFICER 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ['B' ]Bench, Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax [(Appeals)-7, ]3'o Floor, l.T.Towers, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad, Telangana-500 004 The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-'l , Siddipet, lr/edak District. One CC to Sri Vijay Kumar Punna, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies E 6.One Spare CopyKjKj X!{k HIGH COURT DATED:O311212021 JUDGMENTITTA.No.99 of 2021 DISMISSING THE ITTA WI THOUT [COSTS.] 1i\[e][ ST]'-.{ .\ts [lluztu ];