THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No.693 of 2014
DATED:20.11.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad.
And Kuldeep Singh Bagga, Hyderabad.
… Appellant ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No.693 of 2014
Judgment : (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 14.10.2011 in relation to assessment years 1996-97 and 2001-02 on the following suggested questions of law:.
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Tribunal is not perverse ?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in deleting the addition of Rs.35,10,000/- being the amount credited to the capital account of the assessee ?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal is correct in deleting the addition of Rs.55,07,434/-under the head unexplained cash credit ?
We have heard Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the revenue and have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal carefully.
So far as the first question is concerned, we find that the learned Tribunal has rendered the decision after examining the books of accounts and other related documents. Therefore, there is no scope for any perversity.
As far as question No.2 is concerned, the learned Tribunal after examining the books of accounts and other related claims in relation to the assessment, found on fact as follows:
“Further, after elaborately discussing the issue in paras 23 to 28 of the impugned order, the CIT(A) concluded that without expressing any opinion as to whether the deposits are genuine or not, the genuineness of the deposits cannot be gone into in the block assessment proceedings, and accordingly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.”
The correct position of law has been followed by the learned Tribunal. The genuineness of the deposits cannot be gone into in the block assessment proceedings and it could have been gone into in the regular assessment proceedings because in the block assessment, only the books of accounts are to be examined and upon examination of books of accounts, if the transaction appears to be in consonance with the facts, then genuineness cannot be gone into. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has correctly upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
As far as the third question is concerned, it appears following the correct position of law, the learned Tribunal held that all the credits or deposits consisting of a sum of Rs.55,07,434/- were reflected in the regular returns of income filed by the assessee prior to the date of search. Therefore, this income could not be questioned in the block assessment and it could be done only in the regular assessment. The correct position of law has been applied. We, therefore, do not find any element of law for consideration and decision of this Court.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 20th November, 2014 Pnb SANJAY KUMAR, J