TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 407
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short "the Act". Latter A.Y. 2010-11 involves the assessee's and Revenue's cross appeal ITA Nos. 734/Hyd/2017 and 1038/Hyd/2017 directed against the very CIT(A)'s common order dated 28.03.2017 passed in appeal No. 0018/15-16/DCIT. Cir. 16(2)/CIT(A)-4/Hyd/16-17 in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We take up for former A.Y. 2008-09 involving assessee's appeal ITA No. 844/Hyd/2018. Learned Counsel is fair enough that he is not pressing for the assessee's first and foremost ground challenging validity of section 148/147 proceedings. Rejected accordingly. 3. We next advert to the assessee's latter substantive groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h was paid to M/s. Prestige Avenue Ltd. Inspite of several reminders issued, there is no response from the assessee company. Therefore, it is proposed to disallow the expenditure claimed in the computation of capital gains and accordingly a show cause letter was issued in this regard on 7.03.2015. The reply made by the assessee-company was carefully considered, since it had not furnished any details/information in support of the above expenditure of Rs. 3.60 crores, it is accordingly disallowed in the computation of capital gain." 7.2 In this regard, the appellant submitted as under: "Prestige Avenues Ltd. submitted the bills for payment of the works done by them in the appellant company. As per their bills, the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The impugned disallowance of Rs. 3.6 crores stand affirmed therefor. The assessee's appeal ITA No. 734/Hyd/2017 is rejected. 6. We now advert to the Revenue's appeal ITA 1038/Hyd/2017 raising its sole substantive ground that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting undisclosed income addition of Rs. 12.34 crores as under: "5.1 With regard to addition of undisclosed income amounting to Rs. 12.34 crores, the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed as under: "After the survey operation conducted u/s. 133A in the premises of M/s. Ocean Park Multitech Pvt. Ltd. on 19.03.2010, certain incriminating material was found and impounded. During the assessment proceedings on verif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essed income." 5.2 In this regard the appellant submitted as under: "The appellant company sold land admeasuring acres 4-20 guntas of land to M/s. R.G. Prime Spaces (P) Ltd. nominee of M/s. Radha Realty Corporation (P) Ltd. Consenting Party for a total Sale Consideration of Rs. 4,86,00,000.00 only evidenced by Agreement of Sale cum G.P.A. for the land situated at Kokapet(V), Rajendra Nagar (M), R.R. Dist. The Assessing Officer as per the seized material a document MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING as payment of Rs. 17 crores paid by the Radha Realty Corporation Ltd. paid the amount to the appellant which is not executed either by any party nor signed by any of them. The Assessing Officer by seeing this Un-Executed Memor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. Hence, the relevant ground raised by the appellant is allowed". 7. It is sufficiently clear that the CIT(A) has gone by the Assessing Officer's remand report dated 23/12/2017. A perusal of the said alleged remand report forming part of the Revenue's paper book indicates that the DCIT, Circle 16(2) had clarified before the CIT(A) that its office was not having the corresponding documents impounded during the course of survey. The CIT(A) termed the said alleged remand report to have supported the assessee's case which totally appears perverse conclusion therefore. 8. We next notice from assessee's as well as department's detailed paper books running into 180 and 25 pages; res....