TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected for complete scrutiny as per the CBDT Guidelines. Accordingly, the notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28/09/2018. Thereafter, upon change in incumbent, a letter along with notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 17/09/2019 was also issued calling for certain information. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed the submissions through e-proceedings as called for from time to time. A survey operation U/s. 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 11/10/2017 consequent to the search and seizure operation in the case of M/s. DRK Reddy Educational Society, Visakhapatnam. During the search operation, it was unearthed that the assessee firm has purchased Acres 2.515 cents of land in Anandapuram during the period January, 2017 & March, 2017 for a total consideration of Rs. 5,45,88,000/- as per SRO value. During the course of survey, the Managing Partner of the firm Shri Grandhi Ramjee was asked to explain the cash payment made over and above the SRO value for acquiring the said land. In his sworn in statement, the Managing Partner admitted that the assessee-firm has paid Rs. 4,65,27,000/- in cash over and above the sale consideration mentioned in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. CIT(A). 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and on perusal of the material available before him, granted relief to the assessee and partly allowed the assessee's appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A)-1, Visakhapatnam is erroneous on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in treating the cash payments of Rs. 4,65,27,000/- as 'unaccounted but explained', especially when the unaccounted receipts from the demonetization period were to be treated as 'unexplained' as it had been preceded by IDS and then succeeded by PMGKY schemes. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing the taxation of the aforesaid 'unexplained' amount of Rs. 4,65,27,000/- at normal tax rate instead of the tax rate applicable U/s. 115BBE of the Act, since the same is not warranted on facts of the case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act are applicable for AY 2017-18 itself as intended in the statement of the object and reasons of the bi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. DR further submitted that without appreciating these facts, the Ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee and therefore, the Ld. DR pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and that of the Ld. AO be sustained. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. AR heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the submissions made before the First Appellate Authority and strongly argued in support of the same. The Ld. AR argued that as per the sworn statement recorded the assessee has explained the sources of cash as the business receipts of M/s. Tirumala Steel Enterprises generated out of the books of account. The Ld. AR vehemently argued that the source is therefore explained. The Ld. AR further argued that no material evidence was brought on record by the Ld. AO to prove that it is not a business income. Since the source is explained, the Ld. AO has erred in making the addition U/s. 68 of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that since the provisions of section 68 and 69 cannot be invoked, invoking the provisions of section 115BBE is not valid in law. The Ld. AR also submitted that the Revenue has not raised any ground regarding telescoping benefit while filing the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of the Ld. AR that the Ld. AO has not brought any material evidence to prove that it is not the business income of the assessee. Even before us, the Revenue has not produced any records supporting the claim of the Ld. AO. Further, we find that the Ld. AO has also failed to examine how the assessee generated the cash deposit outside the books of account. No documentary evidence was also gathered by the Revenue with respect to the excess stock as contended by the Ld. AO. Further, from the sworn statement of Sri Grandhi Ramjee, in response to Q. No. 15, he had admitted that an amount of Rs. 4,65,27,000/- was generated by the assessee firm outside the books of account during the FY 2016-17. Further, in response to Q. No. 16, he has also admitted that the assessee-firm has offered Rs. 1 Cr under IDS scheme in the name of the assessee-firm and partners and has requested to give the telescoping benefit to pay the tax on the balance amount of Rs. 3,65,27,000/-. For the sake of reference, we hereby extract below the Q. No. 15 and 16 and their answers from the sworn statement of Sri Grandhi Ramjee: "Q. 15. Please give the source of cash of Rs. 4,65,27,000/- paid to Sri Dwarampudi Satyan....