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. 564 of 2014 Date: 08.08.2014 Between:
Shanta Sriram Constructions Pvt., Limited, Hyderabad.
… Appellant And Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), 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. 564 of 2014
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 07.03.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, Hyderabad, in ITA.No.330/Hyd/2013 in relation to assessment year 2009-10 on the following suggested questions of law.
“A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal erred in confirming the addition of Rs.91,26,000/- towards alleged unexplained payment by placing reliance on an invalid advance receipt issued by the recipients without signatures of the witnesses in preference to the sworn depositions of both the parties to the transaction denying the transaction?
B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income tax department can be said to have discharged the burden of proof within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when they have not chosen to make further enquires subsequent to denial of the transaction by both the parties to the transaction?
C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal is justified in applying the principle of ‘preponderance of probability’ against the appellant ignoring the fact that it was not profitable to the appellant to hide a transaction of payment that would be otherwise allowable as an expenditure for computing the total income and reduce the tax incidence of the appellant?
Perusal of the order under appeal reflects that the issue raised related to an unexplained cash receipt. The finding recorded by the authorities below as well as the Tribunal was that this cash receipt was not adequately explained by the assessee, whereby it could be overlooked and their depositions to the contrary could have been acted upon. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises in this appeal as the basis of the order under appeal was a pure finding of fact.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 08.08.2014 ES