HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No.444 OF 2014
DATED: 24.07.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Income-tax-IV, Hyderabad … Appellant And S.B. Steel Industries … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No.444 of 2014
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This appeal is sought to be filed against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 13.11.2013 passed in I.T.A.No.264/Hyderabad/2011 in relation to the assessment year 2006-07 on the following suggested questions of law.
1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made on account of cash deposits in bank accounts, without appreciating that the assessee has failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the debtor from whom the assessee has recovered the debts and the genuineness of the transactions?
2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,75,97,214/- made on account of cash deposits in assessee’s bank accounts based on the self-serving evidence produced by the assessee?
We have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal and the material available on record.
It appears to us that crux of the question in this matter is whether the amount of Rs.2,75,97,214/- received and deposited into the bank account by the assessee is unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The learned Tribunal on fact found that it is not a receipt of cash credit and it is an outstanding trade receipt recovered from time to time by the assessee from the sundry debtors. The learned Tribunal has examined the books of accounts not only in relation to the relevant assessment years but also in relation to the previous assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. The learned Tribunal on fact found that it is not the cash credit. It found further that Revenue could not bring any material to disprove explanation furnished by the assessee. Hence, shifting of burden does not arise.
We therefore, dismiss this appeal having found no element of law involved in this appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
24th JULY, 2014.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J kvni