Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Sln Traders on 13 July, 2011
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, Ravi Malimath
(B? SR1 :i%i.\{."'--VsES:§:ACHALA, AD'\.f,,}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAMKA AT BANGA1,:jR%E..'_',1-'~.I:if é
DATED THIS THE 13m DAY OF' JULY 2Q:1~1.. jj«.. V Z
PRESENT _'T 'A A
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE? V, - * " E
THE HONBLE MR.J::s'r1cE:i__1i§i;*J:_
1.T.,A. Na'. .. ' ~ %
BETWEEN: \
1: THE e,:QMM:$a;31QNER. '<39 INCOMETAX.
CENTRAL (::RC'L..1a:»,_ % - '
CR. BUILDING, " "
QUEENS"Rf_G;a.D, '
BANf}ALOR1"._
«_ T151P::.I)g'pUTY CC)M.M.I«SSIONER OF' INCOME--~'I'AX,
.CE;NTRA_L CIRCLE --- 2(2),
' BUILDENG,
'BANGALQ'RE}i=
...APPEZLL--ANTS
AND:
M/S S L N TRADEZREEI
NO. 1235/A, 97" MAIN§
RMV EXTN , SADASHIVANAGAR.
BANGALQRE.
(BY SMT. NITYA FOR M/S K R PRASAE';<AI;fiJST;I 1
THIS ITA IS FILED UI\II)E'I¥IV..:'_"SE_E.TIt)IxI:"'2Se~}%, OF
I:I:A<:T, ISSI ARISING c:>UfI'vc:;_>E QEDEE I§A1_'ED ':3'.-IS2005
PASSED IN ITA NO. 'FOR THE
ASSESSMENT YEAR 199.6~£§'_'i;w. "9E.;xY'IIxI{:'i,:'£IAT THIS
HONBLE <:0IIE_T;IvIgI§;f:Si'SE ;=I?LEASEE«:i9€3-- VFSIIMULATE THE
SIIESTANTIAL €;;U §;'S'i;EO?I:§$ ©_I?.i_ THEREIN AND
ALLSW THE AP1P'EIé;LfiEI§Ip ORDER PASSED
BY THE IIIEEI; _I'I.'AWNC). 1335/BAN/2002
DATED 23.VV'i'2.'20QV5' ORDER PASSED BY
'THE APPELIu;}'£1jE;.V €:oIvIM'ISSI0NER CONFIRMING THE
C>RDER §PAS.SED "Sj;f"*II--IE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
1'V:'E.I\.?C{}I\!§IE1{Tz%}{I EENTRAI;"'EIRcEE~II2), BANGALORE? IN THE
II@_'EEfEST AND EQUITY
II*I'IIg:I*I;:2;"'ESI¢IIIxI<; ON ESE I~IESEII\IS 'EH13 §AYI
" 'A$__AE1£iAHI'.Iy1;:', DELIVERED THE FQLLOWING:
ee::é;ide:i::g'i_%§ie above said shubstantial question of
JUDGEMENT
Appeal filed by the Revenue has been adniittesi " é coneideration of foflowing substantial questienh '}avL?:A_:" I Whether the appeflate authe:j§tie.é"':;g§ere rieg'ru;?'t:.. holding and recording a finhfiifig. thief' Rs.18,CI0,000/»~ and trezifevd .333 income of the asseséevej--.u;j'dVe1:: of the Income Tax Ashby thgon the basis of admi;:si€j;;i"m9:de and the denial issuie4ei":}'>;»7i"Sh._ and Sri D.S. Kumar.» "Fz~ad._w;adVaneed these t~a1%e.1:1-- into aeecount and T2 eonsequergfiy 3,p'e:vei'se""finding came to be recorded?
V _ he"'r1:§'::€eria.1 facts leading up to: this appeal Eaw are :13 f'eHews:
5'?
2.;
The Aswsging Officer by Gréer cit. exercise of power under Se<:,143{.'3) R/W Sec. 14?"
inceme Tax Ref, heid that the regpect sf Thimmegowda Rs.8,OG,O{)C1/ ~ assessable far f:h1§:ésVs_essfi1»3:f1"iV yfééaf 98 and Rs.16§(}O,()O8/- agfiessgb-1&1"'§:':1*"--»tj1e 21é$$v§$S}'iE1€nt year 1996-9? and undiscuIé§<;'<1"'€:"§§;§ii*tu by Sri Shreyas Kumar net been satisfactoriiy fhifigfiaegowda and Kumar de1fi1'é€i """'J'5'r5ieref<3re, added the Vundisc10se:ci_<ir'<_3difi: years 199€:'a~9'? and 19§,V3'_?'_v~98'. "'-. vfieirg-gAA'-giggfiexred by the same, the :_'éLé,::t?:ss<~ié E:-1,ez:i~. A appéai""'before the Cemmissianer of Bangalore in ITA N0.1C}3/CC-
L (2) /C:%:f{A)-Kzi'/@2193 and the appellate authority by "*T -Ti,";'3:ffi's3if dif .,i3'?'.2C}02 heid {ha}: the assesses had his onus of furnishing deiaiis and seumes sf '}:?V§§:..§3.:1€1 the credit ahgxazzz in the name sf Sri D.Sg .mIa..... ....a.M V.ReVenu.e: arnd deexnfirrned the order passed by the appdelied-ep« dismissed the appeai. Being eg;grieve'd 'tine same, this appeal is filed by the and the appeal has been adrniiied for Kumar, is liable to be deieted and so far as . shown in the name of Thimn1egexvde,AA'Vthe a_sé;ese?:'€'Vdi:i.AV not challenge the same and accepted,ferfaddriinnd pf in said credit. Accordingly, the appeal wee.;sdir>We=.:?f'
3. Being aggriexyze-die" Revenue preferred appeal before the Kneading. Appellate Tribune} (herein:afte;r':~called! Sfer brevity) contending fact that both Thirnrnegowda 'Knniareeehed appeared before the Assessing" Offieef-erndvééévddefried the transaction. the assessee ha:§,__ rn;se1*_aEv}3r' .}f';s=.i1ed te prove the said frensae,tipn'e'~The Tri..b:1v,v1_na} rejected the contention of the i..:w"::{«& -5- Consideration of the above said substantial qtzestieri'-ef~.V'"".,A Eaw.
4. We have heard the appearing for the appellants ax1_ dr...the Ai'ear:1e<§ipv.Ve<;%_1_;meeT::
appearing for the respendent.
5. The 1e:3{rn_ed for the appellants hae passed by the authority and the Tribunal ._wher1 Thimmegowda and D8. Kumaf 'had and denied the transact§ei:,a.. DD "wQi.i1d not assume any significance.
" "asseseee had failed to explain the said eas}:_e*:*e{iit'.» :""§5v%fié1'€f0Y€, addition ef the cash Credit was A"" ;'ustified__ as_.~er:iiei9ed by the Assessing Qffieer. The firet. " 'T.-Ti;'fa.§5p»eHate .'a;A/iihoriiyr was :10: justified in deieting the A a§:e§s::,:§eéee ereeiit in respect of 213 Kumar and the If/£2:
§ / , K a:
Q// '/ 'e Tribunal was also not jusstified in deieting undisclosed credit in respect of both the pereosjlez Kumar and Thimmegewda, He "
statement of 13.3. Kumar.
6. Learned eouneel VAV.-fijpearieg .' "E01: the respondent submitted appellate euthority for de1et:_1fig.__ name of I18. Kumar. the was also justified in__' 'in the name of Thimmegoiedeg .A explanation had been offered by Cirawn in fax/*ou1' of Thimmegowda aeei Kurear. Wherefore, the finding A~s.ubsteeee:ia1 question of law has to be answesed Reverme.
$3 3 the '1'ri1:3una1 for deleting the undisclosed credit added by Assessing Officer, is clearly perverse and arbitra:f3;.V§3:~;_"e~.V_ they have proceeded only on the basis that DDEQ . produced. The aseessee has diee}3.a.r_ged Therefore, the credit has been satié;fae:§e1*iTIy "e:><: p1._e;ine<7}e;---. {*1.;:
which is clearly perverse Thimmegewda and D8.
before the Tribuna} that :any financial transaction, Eaken mm account in the baeis for the
-"L;':'1d.:sEee10sed credit in the name of Kumar. Wherefore, the order p;1_eseei"'<.. bye:f;}1eA~--,_»e:pf§e11ate authority and the gigyeting'§i11'e---utzdisclesed credit added by the "in respect cf Thinimegowda and BS. _Kum;»f:3_j', is pe:\é':e1*Se arm} unsustainable in the eye ef iaw. __ Aeeegjéiinglyg we anewer the eubsiantial queetion 0? 2r7:_ feveur ef the Revenue end pass the feilewingz %,.
E £ 1%.
a '£5173.
«IO-
ORDER Appeai is aflowsd. The G§§i€1f_'paS§:'i.€VCE"_ '4 Tribunal dismissing the appeal and ééonfirming._the":;r€iié:*._ Tr ' passed by the Commissioner "~E.;j1corrie Tax VI, Bangalore cit. 1'7.O'7;,2OO2, _i.s A'sr::t'x.ssidé":m§;E"§§rd€r passed by the Assessifig 2;8;.Q.'3'2002., is restored.