TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 1111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operty. She did not file her original return for the assessment year 2003-04 but in response to a notice issued under Section 153-C of the Act, she filed a return on 23- 09-2009 admitting a taxable income of Rs. 4,52,752/-. A notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued to her along with a questionnaire and her authorized representative appeared and furnished information. 3. It appears that the respondent had purchased a property bearing plot No.304-O, plot No,78, Jubilee Hills from Smt. K.Rajani Kumari, wife of C.Radha Krishna Kumar under a registered sale deed dt.21.8.2006 which disclosed a consideration of only Rs. 65.00 lakhs. 4. A search and seizure action was conducted on the premises of Sri C.Radha Krishna Kumar on 25-10-2007....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt; that the vendor by filing a return had accepted Rs. 1.40 crores as the consideration for the transaction; that in real estate transaction, cash payments are normally made over and above the consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed ; therefore the sum of Rs. 1.00 crore is treated as unaccounted investment in the purchase of property and the same is liable to tax under Section 69 of the Act in the hands of the respondent. 8. Challenging the same, the respondent filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Hyderabad. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 15-10-2010 following the same reasoning given by the assessing officer. He also held that since part of the entries mentioned in the diary (the cheque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e transaction was negotiated by her brothers. It held that there was no document or material to show that the respondent actually paid Rs. 1.65 crores for the purchase of the property and the Revenue had drawn inferences based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises. 11. Challenging the same, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 12. Heard Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 13. Sri Sarma contended that the Tribunal erred in passing the impugned order; that the assessing officer had rightly come to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 1.00 crore was paid in cash by the respondent in addition to Rs. 65.00 lakhs paid by cheque in the above transaction and rightly added the sum of Rs. 1.00 crore as unaccounted ....