2011 (7) TMI 658 - HC - Income Tax

Income Tax - Source of Income - assessee had purchased mutual fund - assessee had made cash deposits in State Bank of Mysore (SBM) and Axis Bank respectively on various dates - assessee stated that the said deposits were made by sale of agricultural products through relatives - Assessing Officer completed the assessment and computed the total income by adding the unexplained cash deposit of Rs.deposited in SBM and Axis Bank respectively and bank interest received on the said undisclosed cash deposits - appeal was preferred by the assessee before the appellate authority - appellate authority called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer - satisfactorily explained by the assessee, set aside the disallowance made by the assessment Officer - appeal is preferred by the revenue - Decide that clear from the documents which are produced that source of income in respect of the cash deposits in question has been satisfactorily explained by the assessee is based upon the material on record and cannot be said to be perverse and arbitrary - Held aginst the appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Explanation of cash deposits made by the assessee in State Bank of Mysore and Axis Bank.
3. Appeal by revenue challenging the Tribunal's decision.
4. Determination of whether the finding of the Tribunal is perverse.

The High Court of Karnataka heard an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the Revenue's appeal regarding the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee had purchased mutual funds and made cash deposits in State Bank of Mysore (SBM) and Axis Bank. The Assessing Officer added the undisclosed cash deposits to the total income, but the appellate authority set aside the disallowance after the assessee explained the deposits were from agricultural income. The Tribunal upheld the appellate authority's decision, stating the cash deposits were satisfactorily explained. The main issue was whether the Tribunal's finding was perverse. The Court reviewed the documents and found the explanation provided by the assessee for the cash deposits was satisfactory, based on the material on record. Consequently, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal.

In this case, the primary issue revolved around the explanation provided by the assessee for cash deposits made in SBM and Axis Bank during the assessment year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer had added the undisclosed cash deposits to the total income, leading to an appeal by the assessee. The appellate authority, after considering the material presented and the explanation provided by the assessee, set aside the disallowance. The Tribunal, upon review, confirmed the appellate authority's decision, emphasizing that the cash deposits were satisfactorily explained as deriving from agricultural income. This chain of events led to the Revenue's appeal challenging the Tribunal's decision.

The critical question before the High Court was whether the finding of the Tribunal, affirming the Appellate Authority's decision, was perverse. Upon examination of the documents and the explanation provided by the assessee, the Court concluded that the concurrent findings of the appellate authority and the Tribunal were based on the material on record and not arbitrary. The Court determined that the explanation for the cash deposits was satisfactory, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by holding that no substantial question of law arose from the case.

In conclusion, the High Court of Karnataka upheld the decision of the Tribunal, confirming the explanation provided by the assessee for the cash deposits made in SBM and Axis Bank. The Court found no perversity in the Tribunal's finding and dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, stating that the explanation given by the assessee was satisfactory based on the material on record.