SRI V. JAGADEESWARA RAO vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/117/2005HC TelanganaHBHC01011191200519 December 2017Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,M.S.K.JAISWAL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal upheld the initiation of proceedings under Section 158BD as incriminating material was found from the father-in-law and forwarded to the AO. The Tribunal also confirmed the concurrent finding of lower authorities that the property was acquired jointly and not from HUF agricultural income.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 158BD based on material seized from the appellant's father-in-law. The appellant claimed that a property was acquired from the agricultural income of his HUF, but the appellate authorities found it was acquired jointly by the appellant and his wife.

What were the issues?

Whether proceedings under Section 158BD were justified and whether the property was acquired from HUF agricultural income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 158BD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL

I.T.T.A. No.117 of 2005

19.12.2017 Between:

V.Jagadeeswara Rao ..Appellant And

DCIT, Central Circle, Vijayawada

..Respondent

Counsel for the appellant: Mr.A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya for Mr.A.V.Krishna Kaundinya

Counsel for the respondent: Mrs.M.Kiranmayee,

standing counsel for the Income Tax Department

The Court made the following:

CVNR,J & MSKJ,J I.T.T.A.No.117 of 2005 19.12.2017

2 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)

The appellant-assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law in the present appeal. “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in upholding the initiation of proceedings u/Sec.158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the appellant?

2.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant that the agricultural income and subsequent acquisition of property out of the agricultural income belonged to the HUF of the appellant?”

2.

In connection with the first substantial question of law, the appellant-assessee raised the following ground before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). “The AO erred in issuing notice u/s 158BD when there is no incriminating material in the seized documents relatable to the appellant.”

In his order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the said ground by rendering a finding that a notice was issued to the appellant-assessee on the basis of the material seized from the premises of his father-in-law. The fact that incriminating material was seized from the father-in-law of the appellant-assessee is not disputed. The further fact that the father-in-law of the appellant-assessee forwarded all that material to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is also not in dispute. Therefore, the finding rendered by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the material does not give raise to any substantial question of law.

CVNR,J & MSKJ,J I.T.T.A.No.117 of 2005 19.12.2017

3 4. As regards the second substantial question of law, a perusal of the orders of both the appellate fora clearly shows that based on the material on record, they arrived at the concurrent finding that the house property was acquired by the appellant-assessee as well as his wife jointly and rejected the plea of the appellant-assessee that the same was acquired from out of the agricultural income belonging to Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). This finding is also based on appreciation of the material on record. Hence, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.

5.

The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

__________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL, J 19th December, 2017 GHN

More judgments on Section 158BD

All 209 judgments and leading authorities on Section 158BD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →