TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lated parties and with respect to the same issue, they are taken up for hearing together for the sake of convenience and disposed off by this common order. 2. Both the parties have raised several identical grounds in their respective appeals however, the cruxes of the issues are that:- (i) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the order of the Ld. AO who had made addition of Rs. 13,94,817/- and Rs. 11,11,100/- being the aggregate amount deposited in the individual bank accounts maintained by the assessees in ING Vysya Bank respectively for the relevant FY 2006-07 by treating it as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act. (ii) The assessee Sri Bommineni Sunil Kumar in ITA No. 1065/H/2018 has raised another ground stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the return of income. Both the assessees carried the matter before the Ld. CIT (A) with respect to the addition made U/s. 69 and 69C of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO by agreeing with his views, aggrieved by which both the assessees are now in appeal before us. 4. Ground No.1: Addition towards Unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act in the case of both the assesses:- 5. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed in both the cases of the assessees that they had deposited cash in their individual bank accounts maintained with ING Vysya Bank aggregating to Rs. 13,79,000/- and Rs. 13,83,100/- respectively during the relevant FY. It was further observed that both the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Sub-registrar, Gagwal vide Doc No.14430/06. The assessees further clarified that the final payment of Rs. 18 lakhs was received and deposited equally in the bank accounts of both the assessees ING Vysya Bank accounts on 8/12/2007. However, both the assessees failed to produce the agreement entered between them and the vendor on 7/11/2001 to explain the source for the receipt of Rs. 27 lakhs. During the course of Remand proceedings it was further observed by the Ld.AO that in the sale document the sale consideration was mentioned as Rs. 6 lakhs only. Therefore, the Ld. AO had opined that at the most relief can be granted to the assessees only for Rs. 3 lakh each. However after considering the remand report the Ld. CIT (A) refused to grant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... purposes, with two different values, they are best known to the appellant. Also, in the absence of proof of a cash receipt, in accordance with the sale agreement, and lack of witness, the sale agreement does not have any value. Basically, there is no authenticity about the sale agreement. 11.2. Another aspect is about the sum of Rs. 6 lakhs which is mentioned in the registered sale deed. The fact of existence of bank account was hidden when return was filed. In the assessment proceedings, nothing prevented the appellant from explaining the source of deposit to the extent of Rs. 6 lakhs, which is as per the registered sale deed, if this amount was actually deposited in the bank account. 11.3. It is only later that the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2/2006 registered as Doc No. 14430 for sale of the 3 Acres of land for Rs. 6 lakhs (paper book page no. 17 to 23). On perusing the above documents, it is apparent that both the assessees were related parties and had sold their agricultural land. They had also explained that they had received on-money on the transaction. Thus, the entire sale of the property was for a sale consideration of Rs. 27 lakhs. From the above documents it is also apparent that the particulars such as names and address of the buyers of the property are available. In real estate transactions it is quite common for the buyers to disclose the value of the property at a lesser rate in order to avoid registration charges especially in rural areas. When all the details ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bommineni respectively towards unexplained investment invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act. Accordingly, this ground raised by both the assessees is allowed in their favour. 7. Ground No.2: Addition towards unexplained expenditure U/s. 69C of the Act in the case Sri Sunil Kumar Bommineni: 8. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by the ld. AO that the assessee had earned gross commission from Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd amounting to Rs. 4,64,458/- which was credited to his bank account. It was further observed that the assessee had claimed expenditure of Rs. 1,45,890/- towards bonus, telephone conveyance expenses and bad debts. On further perusal of the accounts it was revealed ....