THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 729 of 2014 DATE: 31.12.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I Hyderabad.
… Appellant And Sri Kuldeep Singh Bagga, 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. 729 of 2014 Judgment: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 19.7.2013 in connection with the assessment year 2000-2001 on the following suggested questions of law:
1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is not perverse ?
2. Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in deleting the addition made under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, when the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the sources of investments ignoring the principles laid down by the Apex Court’s decision in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (214 ITR 80) (SC) ?
Reading the first question and after going through the portion of the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, we are of the view that the findings of the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse as the learned Tribunal has specifically recorded as follows:
“That the materials like Bankers Letters, Certificates and the Export Invoices, Bank Statement of Account and the Audited Books of Account both for the purpose of Statutory Tax Audit and Audit Report for the purpose of claim for deduction under Section 80 HHC which are all filed before the Income Tax Authorities prior to the Search Operations on the group by the I.T. Department on 3.1.2002 and the Returns of Income were all accepted and the department has to give credence to this records and facts, but not to the statement given by the minor share holding partner.”
It is clear from above findings that the same is based on material.
Therefore, it cannot be said to be perverse. Adversity in our view can be presumed when there is no material at all. Adequacy, sufficiency and genuineness of the documents cannot be subjected to scrutiny under this jurisdiction.
In so far as the second question is concerned, the provision of Section 69-C of the Income Tax Act has been applied by the Tribunal appreciating the facts correctly. Hence, we need not re-appreciate the facts.
Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has reached the conclusion based on the fact finding. We do not find any element of law in this appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 31st December, 2014 Pnb/gbs