HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 548 of 2014 Date: 08.08.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad.
… Appellant And Sri A. Girish Reddy, Hyderabad … Respondent This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 548 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeks to raise the following suggested questions of law in connection with the order dated 10.05.2013 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA.No.1095/Hyd/2012 relating to assessment year 2008-09.
“1. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO when the fact on record shows that the AO established lack of credit worthiness on the part of the creditor?
2. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the creditors had enough sources for the amount credited when the fact is that there was a huge gap between the date of withdrawal of cash and the subsequent deposit into the bank account?
3. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the unexplained credit in the hands of the assessee is not sustainable when the fact remains that out of the total advance of Rs.1.50 crores the assessee himself had admitted Rs.50 lakhs as undisclosed income during the course of search. Consequently, whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the part of the advance/credit is genuine when the other part is not genuine and admittedly undisclosed?
Sri J.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the Revenue, states that para 25.10 of the order of the Tribunal deals with the issue sought to be raised in this appeal.
Perusal of this paragraph reveals that the Tribunal did not independently adjudicate the matter but merely followed its decision in ITA.No.988/Hyd/2012. The order under appeal is a common order relating to both ITA.Nos.988/Hyd/2012 as well as ITA.No.1095/Hyd/2012, which is the subject matter of the appeal before us.
Paras 18 and 18.1 of the common order deal with ITA.No.988/Hyd/2012 and perusal thereof reflects that the Tribunal merely adverted to its earlier decision in ITA.No.1437/Hyd/2012 and basing thereon, it confirmed the deletion of the addition by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Sri J.V. Prasad, learned counsel, is unable to state as to whether any appeals have been preferred against the orders of the Tribunal in ITA.Nos.988/Hyd/2012 and 1437/Hyd/2012.
Unless the decisions of the Tribunal in those appeals are also tested, there is no possibility for the revenue to subject the present consequential decision of the Tribunal following the said earlier decisions. On this short ground, we are disinclined to entertain this appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 08.08.2014 ES