This Appeal Is Filed Under Section 260A Ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, Praying To A) Formulatethe Substantial Question Of Law Stated Above. B)Allow The Appeal And v. Sri. Murugesh R Nirani2/6

Date of judgment 30.01.2017 ITA NO.100151/2015 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCHDATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF JANUARY 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR INCOME TAX APPEAL No.100151/2015 BETWEEN: 1.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXDR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROADBELAGAVIDR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROADBELAGAVI 2.ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLEPANAJIPANAJI (BY SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ, ADV.) ... APPELLANTS AND: 1.SRI.MURUGESH R NIRANI A-916, BASAVA NAGAR MUDHOL BAGALKOT PAN NO.AALPN 3890 L ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.R. KAMBIYAVAR & ASHOK A KULKARNI, ADVS.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OFTHE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO A) FORMULATETHE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED ABOVE. B)ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDERSPASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, Date of judgment 30.01.2017 ITA NO.100151/2015 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI IN ITA NO.191/PNJ/2014, DATED24.03.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ANDCONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISSTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,PANAJI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THISDAY, Dr.VINEET KOTHARI. J,DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING:JUDGMENT Mr. Y.V. Raviraj, Adv. for the appellantsMr. H.R. Kambiyavar and Ashok A Kulkarni, Advs. forrespondent 1.The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short, ‘the Act’),aggrieved by the order passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji(for short, ‘theTribunal) in ITA No.191/PNJ/2014, on the ground that the investment made by the assessee of Rs.75,00,000/-for purchase of cement factory in the auction held bythe KSIDC was unexplained investment under Section69 of the Act and the Tribunal had wrongly deleted theaddition of the unexplained investment which was liableto be assessed in the hands of the appellant/assessee,as taxable income. Date of judgment 30.01.2017 ITA NO.100151/2015 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Sri. Murugesh R Nirani 2.The relevant portion of the findings of the Tribunalat Paras 6 and 7 of the order are extracted as under: “6. We have heard the rival contentions of the boththe parties. Looking into the facts and circumstancesof the case, we find that the assessee has adducedthe evidence before the Ld.CIT(A) that he has takenthis amount by DD on Basaveswhar CooperativeBank Ltd. In favour of the cement company forpurchasing it. During the remand proceedings, theassessee has explained the source of thisinvestment before Assessing Officer, we reproducedthe same hereinunder:- “on the basis of the seized materialmarked as A/MRN, the investment made inpurchase of DD is worked out to Rs.74 Lakh.As per assessee’s explanation land buildingand machineries were bought in auctionorganized by KSIDC for Rs.75 Lakhs. Duringthe course of assessment proceedings andalso during the search and post searchproceedings no complete details are furnishedand therefore, addition of Rs.75 Lakh wasmade. In the submissions made before theHon’ble Ld. CIT(A) assessee has stated that Date of judgment 30.01.2017 ITA NO.100151/2015 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Sri. Murugesh R Nirani 4/6 “on the basis of the seized materialmarked as A/MRN, the investment made inpurchase of DD is worked out to Rs.74 Lakh.As per assessee’s explanation land buildingand machineries were bought in auctionorganized by KSIDC for Rs.75 Lakhs. Duringthe course of assessment proceedings andalso during the search and post searchproceedings no complete details are furnishedand therefore, addition of Rs.75 Lakh wasmade. In the submissions made before theHon’ble Ld. CIT(A) assessee has stated that Date of judgment 30.01.2017 ITA NO.100151/2015 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Sri. Murugesh R Nirani 4/6 Mr. Sangamesh Nirani had savings Bankaccount with Basveshwar Sahakari BankMudhol and payments were made from thesaid bank accounts. Money was collected forthe purpose of issue of shares and since tecompany M/s. Nirani Cements Ltd. was in theformation stage, the mat collected wasdeposited in Sangamesh Nirani, according towhich cash was deposited from time to timein lakhs and the same is withdrawn on9.5.2003 and 10.05.2003. The assessee hasalso filed copy of IT return for the AY 2005-06in the case of Nirani Cements Pvt. Ltd. anddetails of share capital and unsecured loanswhich works out to Rs.75 Lakhs. The returnof income is filed on 31.03.2006, theverification of the return is done by ShriMurgesh Nirani on 28.02.2006. Theassessment under Section 153A wasconcluded on 21.03.2006, in that case, it isnot know why the relevant details readilyavailable with the assessee, could not placedbefore the AO. Therefore, the Aos action intreating the unexplained investment of Rs.75Lakhs in the hands of the assessee in the Date of judgment 30.01.2017 ITA NO.100151/2015 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Sri. Murugesh R Nirani absence of details appears to be proper.However, the issue may be decided on factsand on merits of the case”.” 3.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal hasrelied upon the observation of the Assessing Officerhimself, during the remand proceedings that he hasverified the investments made for the purchase ofcement unit, namely cash deposits in the bank accountof M/s. Nirani Cements Ltd., share capital andloan etc.Therefore, the explanation furnished by the assessee forthe purchase of the cement unit from KSIDC in openauction was through bank account. The AssessingOfficer, however, treated the same as unexplainedinvestment and added the same to the income, only onthe ground that if the assessee had placed plausibleexplanation available with him, there was no reason notto produce the same at earlier stage. Date of judgment 30.01.2017 ITA NO.100151/2015 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Sri. Murugesh R Nirani 6/6 4.We are satisfied that even in the remand proceedings, if the assessee has produced the relevantevidence and there is no adverse finding against theassessee by the learned Assessing Officer in this regard,these finding of facts returned and recorded by theTribunal cannot be said to be perverse in any mannerand the same appear to be proper and cogent findingbased on the relevant material and evidence andtherefore no substantial question of law arises forconsideration by this Court. 5.The appeal filed by the Revenue therefore deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same isdismissed. No costs.dismissed. No costs. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE