Sri Devaraj Moorjani v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad And Another

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN ITTA NOS.50 AND 51 OF 2009 13-11-2009 BETWEEN; Sri Devaraj Moorjani ...Petitioner vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN ITTA NOS.50 AND 51 OF 2009 ORAL COMMON ORDER: (Per RR,J) ITTA Nos.50 and 51 of 2009 are preferred against the common ordein I.T.(SS) Nos.11 and 14/Hyd/2007 dated 27.02.2009, to the extent thIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Bench-B), Hyderbad upheld the ordepassed by the C.I.T.(Appeals). These appeals, preferred under Sectio260-A of the Income Tax Act,1961, (for short “the Act”), can be entertaineby the High Court only on its being satisfied that the case involves substantial question of law. Sri Pilli Nagaraj, learned counsel for the appellant in both the appealswould submit that, for the block periods 1988-89 to 1998-1999, all sifamily members of the appellant together were held liable to paRs.1,69,18,191/-. He would submit that the main ground on which th Tribunal had rejected their appeals was that on money payments, over anabove the sale consideration disclosed in the sale deed, were uneartheduring the course of search operations and that this fact was not discloseto the Department by the assessee in the income tax returns filed earlieLearned counsel would submit that except for the confessional statemenof Sri Devraj Moorjani no independent evidence was gathered, such aexamination of vendors etc., to ascertain whether any on money paymenwas made over and above the sale consideration. In the order, under appeal, the Tribunal has referred to the fact thawhen Sri Devraj Moorjani was examined, on the basis of incriminatinmaterial found during the course of search operations, he had admittethat there was an on money payment of Rs.12 lakhs for purchase of thproperty and that this was further confirmed by Sri Shamraj Moorjani. Witregards the CBDT Circular relied upon on behalf of the assessee, thTribunal observed that, while these instructions required the officers tconcentrate on collecting material evidence during the course of searcoperations rather than compelling the assessee to make a confession, thpresent case was not a mere confession or admission made by thassessee and when the Department sought clarification, on the basis oincriminating material, both Sri Devraj Moorjani and Shamraj Moorjani haclarified that they had made on money payments to the extent of Rs.1lakhs. The Tribunal further held that this statement was based on thincriminating material found during the course of search operation and thathe lower authorities had rightly made the addition of Rs.12 lakhs irespect of the property at Aushapur village. With regards the property at Krishna Nagar Colony, YousufgudaHyderabad, the Tribunal records that, on examination during the course osearch operation and on the basis of the incriminating material founduring the course of search operation, Sri Devraj Moorjani and ShamraMoorjani had admitted that there was on money payment of Rs.25 lakhs fopurchasing the property at Krishna Nagar Colony and, since thiadmission was made on the basis of the material found during the coursof search operation, there was no merit in their contention. The Tribunafurther observed that the lower authorities had rightly made the addition irespect of Krishna Nagar Colony Property to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs. With regards the property at Krishna Nagar Colony, YousufgudaHyderabad, the Tribunal records that, on examination during the course osearch operation and on the basis of the incriminating material founduring the course of search operation, Sri Devraj Moorjani and ShamraMoorjani had admitted that there was on money payment of Rs.25 lakhs fopurchasing the property at Krishna Nagar Colony and, since thiadmission was made on the basis of the material found during the coursof search operation, there was no merit in their contention. The Tribunafurther observed that the lower authorities had rightly made the addition irespect of Krishna Nagar Colony Property to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs. The appellants in both these appeals, in effect, seek re-appreciation othe evidence on record. A substantial question of law arises only when thfindings recorded by the authorities/tribunal are perverse. Where on thsame facts if two conclusions are possible and, even if this Court were othe view that the conclusion suggested by the assessee was morattractive, it would, nonetheless, refrain from interference inasmuch aappreciation of facts is within the exclusive jurisdiction of thauthority/Tribunal, and not the High Court in an appeal under Section 260A of the Act. It is only on a substantial question of law, and if the findingrecorded by the Tribunal are perverse, would the High Court interfere. We are satisfied that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer fromperversity or any other infirmity warranting interference. Both thesappeals are, accordingly, dismissed. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 13[th] NOVEMBER 2009 TSNR