SHRI C RAMAKRISHNA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/71/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01022887201520 June 2022Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the findings of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer, First Appellate Authority, and ITAT against the assessee were concurrent. A previous judgment by the same court on related appeals had attained finality, confirming the transaction.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns loose sheets recovered during a search, which the revenue treated as the assessee's income. The assessee disputed the authenticity of these documents and the signatures on them.

What were the issues?

Whether loose sheets recovered during a search can be relied upon to treat amounts as the assessee's income, especially when disputed. Whether previous court findings on similar transactions have attained finality.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

I.T.A NO.71 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

SHRI. C. RAMAKRISHNA AGED MAJOR NO.827, 7TH CROSS 1ST MAIN ROAD BSK 3RD PHASE 3RD BLOCK, 3RD PHASE BENGALURU - 560 085

…APPELLANT

(BY SHRI. M.V.SESHACHALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME-TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1)

C.R. BUILDING

QUEENS ROAD

BENGALURU - 560 085.

2.

THE COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE

C.R. BUILDING

QUEENS ROAD

BENGALURU - 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:31.10.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.554/BANG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND ETC.,

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been admitted to consider the following questions of law; "1. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that in respect of assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09, entries made in the loose sheet recovered in the search of M/s. Mookambika Promoters and marked as A/1/MKP cannot be relied on to treat it as the income of the assessee and consequently recorded a perverse finding?

2.

Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in confirming the order of the assessment that the amount of Rs.1,56,78,000/- principal sum and Rs.16,79,500/- interest component should be treated as income of the assessee when this is denied by the assessee and Sri. Chandrashekar and the existence of A/1/MKP is disputed together with the signature of the assessee and consequently, recorded a perverse finding?"

2.

Heard Shri M.V.Seshachala, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant and

3 Shri M.Dilip, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

3.

Shri Seshachala, learned Senior Advocate mainly contended that the documents seized during the course of search and seizure proceedings and marked as A/1/MKP from the assessee reflected the amount collected on behalf of the co-operative societies and the said amount is not an income in the hands of the assessee.

4.

Shri Dilip for the revenue submitted that the contents of the documents with regard to payment of Rs.15,00,000/- has been admitted by the Assessee. Further in ITA No.347/2015 c/w 348/2015 decided on April 5, 2016, in Para 8 of that order, this Court has recorded a finding of fact that for the Assessment Year 2009-10, the transaction for payment was confirmed and this finding has attained finality. Therefore, this appeal does not merit consideration.

4 5. To a pointed question of this Court, with regard to the above finding recorded by this Court, Shri Seshachala, in his usual fairness, did not deny that the judgment in ITA No.347/2016 and connected case, has attained finality. In view of the admitted facts, the Assessing Officer, the First Appellate Authority and ITAT1 having concurrently recorded findings of the fact against the assessee, the question of law framed in this appeal are answered in favour of the revenue and this appeal is dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →