ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD vs. NARAHARI GANTA, HYDERABAD

Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the Assessing Officer’s action making section 68 unexplained cash credit in capital of Rs.2,10,25,500 to the extent of Rs.20.75 lakhs, we note that lower appellate discussion to this effect read as under :

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s foregoing arguments and find no merit therein. This is for the reason that it has not come on record that Sri T. Ramana Rao had in fact brought in plant and machinery for the assessee forming suspect matter addition amounting to Rs.1,30,25,500 which is not only covered of section 68 addition but also there can hardly be any dispute that the corresponding fixed assets have been held eligible for the corresponding depreciation claim. We thus conclude that the Revenue’s instant mutually contradictory approach does not deserve to be accepted.

The factual position found is no different regarding the remaining parties i.e. Sri Thata Naga Raju, Sri P. Srinivas Rao, Sri T. Ramana Rao, Sri Joaquim Dsouza and Sri Kamisetty Subramanyam who had duly proved the corresponding sum having come through banking channel and duly along with their respective confirmations, income tax returns, computation and annual account; as the case may be. We thus decline the Revenue’s arguments alleging violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1963 as well; as the case file nowhere indicates such an admission of additional evidence. No other ground has been pressed before us. 4. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.