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.407 OF 2014 DATED:09.7.2014 Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-V I.T. Towers, A.C. Guards Hyderabad … Appellant And Sri Rajiv Kumar Mittal Prop. M/s. Sri Bhagawathi Oil Industries Rampur Road Adilabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.407 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 in I.T.A. No.166/Hyd/2011, dt.6.11.2013, in relation to assessment year 2006-2008, on the following suggested question of law:
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in upholding the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the transaction of sale of stripes by the respondent-assessee as a genuine transaction by deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer under the head of ‘income from other sources’, when the said transaction was not genuine and liable to be added as income from other sources as held by the Assessing Officer?”
The issue was whether the transaction took place between the assessee and third party was genuine. The laws consistently say that initial burden to establish genuineness of the transaction lies on the assessee first. If the assessee discharges his/its onus, then the burden shifts to the Revenue to produce cogent material disproving the evidence adduced by the assessee. The learned Tribunal has taken note of the judgments on the issue, including an unreported one of High Court of Jharkhand, in Arun Kumar Agarwal (HUF) & Others, dt.13.7.2012 in Tax Appeal No.4 of 2011, and also of Madras High
[1]
Court in the case of C.I.T. v. Gobi Textiles Ltd.
stated the legal position as quoted by us above.
wherein it has been Here, on fact, the learned Tribunal found the assessee has discharged initial burden lies on it. We, therefore, do not find any element of law to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 09.7.2014 bnr
[1] 294 ITR 663