Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sri Suresh C Angadi on 24 March, 2011
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, H.N.Nagamohan Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA " CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Dated this the 24"" Day of March. V Present THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'FI_CE K;1,.Iv1ANJ.U':N;Aif_}i . THE HON'BLE MR;q_t3~sT1«f:E§H,;"N.,m;§GAMoHAN DAS Income I_r_1_éCon§+.'e _Tax Appeal ye. 1.'I'.A._No. 7és9L;§Qgz ' BETLKEEN: "' V 1. The C'QmmiSs;i_<5h:e'r Income Téi:<:.._' . _ ._ Khimjibhoi [email protected]'erCi'a1 Complex, V. C_ Op_p"}.C:i_Vil VHospi"La1_,.... v 'Be1VgaL1"1'*i'5_9~O_.OO 1. 2 .=.'I_'}1 e C'o1"nmissioner of I.r;.cO'rr1e Téxxj, Circle 1, Belgaufnl -. H {By Sr.1";V-Y.V.Raviraj, Advocate) ~-Sri. Suresh C. Angadi and Sri. Anand Mahajan a AOP, M/s. Sri. Laxmi C()mp1€Xf Z+g12bo7 '79O/2007 ...Appe11antiS Ix) Sadashivnagar, Belgaum. ...Respond.ecm_f._V (By Sri. Ashok A Kulkarni, Advocate for M/S. KR. Prasad) This appeal is filed under-'S'e'cti.on; 26.O_A'A_ of'-t.he'g Income Tax Act, praying to f<:)1i_mulactAe} theAsubs'ia-:1ti'a;1aA question of law and allow the appeaI3ah'd set asi.de'~ the "c;--y_r.'d.erVW passed by the ITAT, Bangalore Bench i.*a1""!:VT.V (SSf A _ A. No.03/PANJ/2002 dated 25.5.--L?_O'Q_7 andAconfirm°~Iché''''<')'fder ' passed by the Assessing AL1th<)rify..'etc., I.T.A. No. 790(i2007 BETWPZENZ 1. The Commj.sSic«oVfjer Income Ta;<.,_. A _ V Khimjibhoii Cogfijnefcial"C:o1hp1Aex;.: Opp. Civ\(i_l_H'O$f5ital,_ A V' A } Be1gaujh-59OQ.Q1. A 2. The A.ss't._ C(>mIIi'ie«sVsio_1i'er'gt.f Income Tax, CirC'1e--"1.," . ' Belgaum. ' A ' ' ._ ...Appe11ant$ (By Y.V.Ravi__rVaj, Advocate) I Cf:-.A._'hgadi and Sn. "Aha1'1d-V'cjMa'hajan ~ AOP, M/s..__ Srjl; 'Laxmi Complex. 'A Sadashivn agar. ' '"B_e1gaum. ...Respondent
Ashok A Kulkarni, Advocate for M;/s. KR. Prasad) W Assessing Ojficer through withinfa of ]5 days 57 persons allegedly T' cash of 320,000/"'-»--..«ealch "ire. Assessee?
3. We heard argurnents._ on bothA"svid~eil*:.'and'*. perused the entire appeal
4. On 22.9.1998, theelllrevenue. madea search on the premises of assessee' and ,foun.dga" Slip specifying that certain arinountsggi are"..depio.s'ited in the account of one B.N.Agadli««..at-~Vysyai-..__Bank.'[Tl:erefore, the revenue brOLlgl3E~---w,.f.l'llS,. ¢le,{>()s'it'=_for""assessrnent. Both the Conimi--ssi'oner and the Appellate Tribunal concurrenflyi held t'hat__tI'ne revenue has failed to prove that};.mvei'depo'sit~in_'_the name of B.N.Agadi is the money 'bVelQng.iVng*i;o"vthe assessee. This concurrent finding c"an'riot befa oguestion of law. Further, it is seen from the record "that even according to the revenue, the bank 'lanager stated that he identified and introduced to '@p'en' an account in their bank by B.N./Xgadi. This X concurrent finding by the Commissioner ii the Appellate Tribunal. Therefoi*e';~--we iii. the orders of both the autho1'ities we answer the 2"" substai'it_ie'il..Vquestion.oi:'lemi"""agéii1ist" the revenue.
6. For the st_at'ed_ Ve1vll'3~o.ve, the appeal is hereby dismissed. " vi IN I. T.A. No. 7s;=i9_/_20ci;i*"" -- .. 1:
7. _ diré«'ctediiiiieigainst the order dated Income Tax Appellate Ti*il)ui'ial,--_ No.5/2002.
8.ii admitting the appeal franied the ifoil1'o_\i\i*i!rig«substantial questions of law. .. , 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct ~ "Jdeleting the addition of ?4,93,597/- i"i_v..__co;.nfirmied by the Commissioner of Income tax lg/Al) as investment out of undisclosed income "ibased on estimation of income as provided under Section 158 BC?
2. Whether the Tribunal was Correct in deleting the addition towards undisclosed income made by the Appellate Authority on the basis of cogent evidence which is flhf permissible under Chapter iiliiconie ll Tax Act?
9. The Revenue cor_iducitedil*a searchl onil; premises of respondent--assesse_e' and 22--9~l999 and foui'1d"":ta estimation specifying the court building. As per this 'be:i?20,46,000/~. It is also xitas incomplete. The assessee of account that he has spent towards construction. In the4§circ.umstan_cels, the revenue also got valued the piconstruction"«already made and according to them the was at ?25,76,000/--. Therefore, theil"ass--essing officer made an addition of ?3,9l,OOO/-- aiforithelassessment year 199899 and equal amount for
-- theiassessment year 199942000.
10. Aggrieved by this addition by the assessing officer, the respondent--assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner for appeals and the same came to be /1*"
:9:
12. In the circumstances, the appellate Tribunal is right in deleting the additions made by the officer and the Commissioner of appeals. \_/\.~'e ~ the substantial questions of lawmfrbameciiéboife agaiiist V .1"
the revenue. Accordingly, thef"a~pipeia dismissed.
iiiuaes is