THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.530 of 2010 July 28, 2011 Between: Smt.Narra Rajani, Venkayalapadu, Edlapadu, Guntur District … Appellant And Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Guntur ... Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.530 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao) The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is by the unsuccessful assessee who lost her case before the assessing officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appellant is the proprietrix of M/s.Sri Satya Sai Fly Ash Brick Industries. She filed her return, for the assessment year 2005-06, declaring her income as Rs.1,04,950/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny, and a notice was issued to her with regard to an amount of Rs.12,15,125/- shown as fresh/opening capital. She was asked to produce the details. Her authorized representative appeared, and placed justification for the unexplained opening capital. Records were not produced. A notice dated 17.12.2007 was issued calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the assessment should not be completed by making additions to the return of income in so far as capital is concerned. In response, the appellant’s authorized representative filed explanation. Not being satisfied with the same, the assessing officer made addition towards unexplained income of Rs.12,15,125/-, disallowed the claim to the extent of Rs.2,53,671/- and, accordingly, computed the tax. The Appellate Commissioner, however, agreed with the assessee in so far as Rs.3,95,000/- is concerned, (which was accepted as the opening capital from explained sources), restricted disallowance of the business income and, accordingly, partly allowed the appeal. Not satisfied with the same, the appellant went in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench. The same having been dismissed by the impugned order, the appellant is before this Court. Placing reliance on CIT, Ernakulam v P.K.Noorjahan[1] the Counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that she had properly explained the sources of the opening capital; and the assessing officer as well as Appellate Commissioner failed to consider the explanation of the appellant properly. There is no dispute that the appellant has shown Rs.12,15,125/- as the opening capital in the return filed showing her income from business. In such an event, the entire burden is on her to explain the sources of the amount invested as opening capital. Though the appellant claimed that she had received Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of her marriage from her parents, and that she owns agricultural land from which she used to earn Rs.10,000/- to Rs.14,000/- per annum since 1994-95, no evidence whatsoever was placed before the assessing officer. Therefore the assessing officer, as well as the Appellate Commissioner, drew appropriate inference which cannot be treated as perverse. In the absence of any proof in support of her claim, that she had received gifts, and interest by rotation of the gift amount, it was proper for the assessing officer to treat the investment made towards opening capital as an unexplained source of income. The issue involved is one of fact, and no question of law is involved in this case. The Income Tax Tribunal Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) July 28, 2011 YS [1] (1997) 11 SCC 198