M/S RAMANASHREE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF AUGUST 2013

PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA.No.254/2011

Between: M/s.Ramanashree Housing Development Company Pvt. Ltd., No.16/1, ‘Ramanashree House’, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road Bangalore-25.

Appellant

(By Sri. N. Manohar, Advocate)

And:

1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, C.R.Buildings, Queens Road, Bangalore.

2.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-4, Bangalore, C.R.Building, Queens Road Bangalore.

Respondents

(By Sri.E. Sanmathi Indrakumar, Advocate)

2 This ITA is filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act,1961 arising out of Order dated 28-01-2011 passed in ITA.No.745/Bang/2002, for the Assessment Year 1988-89, to formulate the substantial questionsof law stated therein etc. This ITA. coming on for further orders this day, DILIP B.BHOSALE, J, made the following:- PC:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

II. Whether the vouchers found in the course of search are considered to be unaccounted investment by the Assessee or in lieu of Bank guarantee for timely completion of work?”

The questions of law raised in the present appeal, in our opinion, are not the substantial questions of law but they are the questions of fact. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant even across the Bar could not or did not raise any substantial questions of law as

3 contemplated under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant endeavoured to demonstrate on the basis of the materials on record as to how the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below are wrong. After having perused the order passed by the appellate Tribunal, in our opinion, the contentions urged by learned counsel for the appellant on facts deserve to be rejected out right for the reasons recorded therein, in particular, the concluding paragraph of the impugned order. The principal contention urged before us is that the vouchers found in the premises were prepared in lieu of a Bank guarantee has also been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. The concluding paragraph of the impugned order reads thus:-

“In an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the issue as deliberated upon in the fore-going paragraphs and primarily the assessee had failed to come up with any plausible documentary evidence to

4 suggest that it had in fact obtained the cash vouchers in lieu of bank guarantees and also it had not explained the source of the sum of Rs.15,72,000/- which have been paid on different dates as recorded in the impugned order of the Ld.CIT (A) whichisunder consideration, we are of the considered view that it was quite evident that such payments were in the nature of cash transactions with its labour contractor outside its books of account. As highlighted by the Ld. D R during the course of hearing, it was not the assessee’s claim that Rs.15 lakhs was part of Rs.30 lakhs which was paid to the sub- contractor. The assessee had also failed to come up with any credible evidence to explain the corresponding Source of income to incur such payments and the same had not also been recorded in its books of account. We are, therefore, of the firm view that the assessee’s case falls within the domain of the provisions of s.69C of the Act and, thus, the AO was justified in assessing the said sum of

5 Rs.15,72,000/- in the hands of the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.”

In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

*alb/-.