ITTA/729/2014 of The Commissioner of Income-Tax-I, Vs SriKuldeep Singh Bagga on 31 December 2014

1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the order of the Tribunal is not perverse ?

2.

Whether in the given facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in deletingthe addition made under Section 69C of the IncomeTax Act, when the assessee could not satisfactorilyexplain the sources of investments ignoring theprinciples laid down by the Apex Court’s decision inthe case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (214 ITR 80) (SC) ?the addition made under Section 69C of the IncomeTax Act, when the assessee could not satisfactorilyexplain the sources of investments ignoring theprinciples laid down by the Apex Court’s decision inthe case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (214 ITR 80) (SC) ?

Reading the first question and after going through the portion ofthe judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, we are of the view thatthe findings of the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse asthe learned Tribunal has specifically recorded as follows:

“That the materials like Bankers Letters, Certificates and the ExportInvoices, Bank Statement of Account and the Audited Books of Account both for thepurpose of Statutory Tax Audit and Audit Report for the purpose of claim fordeduction under Section 80 HHC which are all filed before the Income TaxAuthorities prior to the Search Operations on the group by the I.T. Department on3.1.2002 and the Returns of Income were all accepted and the department has togive credence to this records and facts, but not to the statement given by the minorInvoices, Bank Statement of Account and the Audited Books of Account both for thepurpose of Statutory Tax Audit and Audit Report for the purpose of claim fordeduction under Section 80 HHC which are all filed before the Income TaxAuthorities prior to the Search Operations on the group by the I.T. Department on3.1.2002 and the Returns of Income were all accepted and the department has togive 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 onmaterial.

Therefore, it cannot be said to be perverse. Adversity in ourview can be presumed when there is no material at all. Adequacy,sufficiency and genuineness of the documents cannot be subjected toscrutiny under this jurisdiction.

In so far as the second question is concerned, the provision ofSection 69-C of the Income Tax Act has been applied by the Tribunal appreciating the facts correctly. Hence, we need not re-appreciate thefacts.

Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has reached theconclusion based on the fact finding. We do not find any element oflaw in this appeal.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shallalso stand closed. No costs.

_________________

K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

Date: 31stDecember, 2014Pnb/gbs

_________________

SANJAY KUMAR, J