HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A No. 50 OF 2003 27-08-2014 BETWEEN Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad …Appellant And Anand Kumar Agarwal …..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A No. 50 OF 2003
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
This appeal by the Revenue is filed against the order dated 27-12-2001 passed by the Hyderabad Bench ‘A’ of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T(S.S)A No. 206/Hyd/1997 (for short ‘the Tribunal’).
The respondent is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. His premises were searched on 09-01-1996. On that occasion, he accepted that there exists undisclosed income to the tune of Rs.24,11,649/-. The same was accepted by the department also. The assessing officer however took the view that a sum of Rs.13,88,436/- over and above what was disclosed or declared by the respondent must be added. Accordingly, he passed an order of assessment. Aggrieved by that, the respondent filed appeal before the Tribunal. The contention of the respondent was that the amount sought to be added i.e., Rs.13,88,436/- is part of what was accepted by him. The Tribunal accepted the contention and allowed the appeal.
Heard Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.
The proceedings are the result of a search conducted on 09- 01-1996. This is one of the rare cases where an assessee came forward accepting that there existed undisclosed income of Rs.24,11,649/-. The assessing officer accepted the same. Over and above that, he sought to add Rs. 13,88,436/- to the income. There would have been justification for the assessing officer to add that amount in case there existed adequate proof to show that said amount does not form part of Rs.24,11,649/- accepted by the respondent. Further, it is not a case where an amount of Rs.13,88,436/- was recovered in cash form or it was referable to any specific transaction. The figure is nothing but the projections or imaginations or extensions of some other transactions. The Tribunal held, and in our view, correctly that the assessing officer could have made such additions if only there existed adequate proof that the said amount does not form part of what was accepted by the assessee. We do not find any basis to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 27-08-2014 ks