AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1019
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3- 14, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common and interlinked, these appeals filed by the different assessee's as well as the Revenue are being heard together and are being dispose off by this consolidated order. 2. All six assessee's have more or less raised common grounds of appeal in their respective memorandum of appeals filed for all the A.Ys. From the grounds of appeal filed by the different assessee's, we have identified the following issues to be adjudicated: i) Unaccounted Sale Proceeds received from Incredible India Projects (P) Ltd (Agriculture Land). ii) Undisclosed income from Aishwarya Infra Developers iii) Addition in respect of increase in capital account as per balance sheet. iv) Unaccounted sale proceeds received from JVJ Structures (P) Ltd (Joint Development Agreement). v) Long-Term Capital Gain (sold to JVG Structures (P) Ltd - Dev Agreement 5437/2017 (agriculture land). vi) Section 56(2)(x) on the above (i.e. Excess of SD value over sale consideration). vii) Section 56(2)(vii)(b) on the above (i.e. Excess of SD value over sale consideration). v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P) Ltd for sale of land, the addition towards the undisclosed advance received from Aishwarya Infra Developers and addition in respect of unproved increase in capital account. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority and the learned CIT (A), for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 29.8.2022, has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, where the learned CIT (A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unaccounted sale proceeds received from sale of land, undisclosed advance received from Aishwarya Infra Developers and addition towards increase in capital account. 6. Aggrieved by such order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos. 3(a) to 3(c) of assessee's appeal is additions towards unaccounted sale proceeds received from M/s Incredible India Projects (P) Ltd towards sale of land. The fact with regard to the impugned dispute are that during the financial year relevant to A.Y 2017-18, the assessee has sold a land admeasuring 4 acres at Raigiri Village through the registered Sale Deed No.8709/2016 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts observed that as per provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a), if any land situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or a Cantonment Board and which has a population of more than 10,000, but less than 1,00,000, then the said land will be treated as capital asset. Since the land, in question, is situated within 2 kms from the nearest Municipality and is also covered by the HMDA Notification dated 25.08.2008, the impugned land sold by the assessee is falls under the definition of capital asset as defined u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned CIT (A) further held that the Assessing Officer has also brought out clear fact that there is no agricultural activity carried out by the assessee on the land and further the revenue record is not a conclusive proof of the fact that the land is an agricultural land in the absence of evidence that the land is put to agricultural use. Therefore, rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee and upheld the addition made towards computation of capital gain from sale of land. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 11. The learned Counsel for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or a Cantonment Board which has a population of not less than 10,000 or in any area within the distance measured aerially not being more than 2 kms from the local limitation of any Municipality or Cantonment Board and which has a population of more than 10,000 but not exceeding 1,00,000. In other words, any land situated within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or in any area within such distance as specified by the Govt. is treated as capital asset. If any land is situated outside the limits of local Municipality, then such land is treated as agricultural land. Although lot many discussions have been taken place in respect of nature of the land on the basis of carrying out of agricultural operations, the Courts/Tribunals in their decisions have taken a view that once the land is classified as an agricultural land in the revenue record, then merely for not carrying out agricultural operations, the said land cannot be treated as non-agricultural land. In other words, for not carrying agricultural operations, any land cannot be treated as non-agricultural land, if such land is classified as agricultural land as p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der: "If the land is situated outside 2 kms of the local municipality limit and population of such municipality is more than 10,000 and less than 1,00,000, then that land will be defined as agricultural land. From the certificates issued by Tehsildar, Bhiongir Mundal, it can be seen that in the present case, the lands in question are situated at a distance of more than 2 kms from the Bhongir Municipality and the population of Bhongir village as per population census 2011 is 53,339. Further the AR produced a certificate from Commissioner, Bhongir Municipality vide ROC No.GU13412021 dated 19,01.2021 stating that the land possessed by the appellant vide Survey umbers 758, 765, 766, 775,795 & 796 have been recently merged into Municipality vide G.O.No.93, dated 18.04.2018 & Gazette No.11, dated 30.03.2018. In other words, the land of the appellant was not within the municipal limits during the current year but was merged into municipality vide G.O.No.93, dated 18.04.2018 & Gazette No.11, dated 30.03.2018. Therefore, the land is to be treated as an agricultural land and not as a capital asset; hence no capital gain will arise from sale of such agricultural lands. Accordingly, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for an amount of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- and the same has been credited to his capital account. The remaining amount of Rs. 2,61,200/- is out of his current year income. The Assessing Officer made an addition towards increase in capital account on the ground that the assessee could not file any evidences to prove the source for increase in capital account. 19. On appeal, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer, 20. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the source for increase in capital account is out of sale proceeds of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- received from sale of agricultural land and balance amount is out of current year income. The Assessing Officer made additions without appreciating the relevant evidence filed by the assessee. 21. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that the assessee could not file any evidence to prove the source for increase in capital. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) has rightly sustained the addition and their order should be upheld. 22. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment had also found, and seized cash receipts signed by all the sellers in the presence of witnesses. The incriminating documents found during the course of survey were confronted with Mr. M. Durga Prasad M.D of M/s Aishwarya Infra Developers. Under sworn statement recorded u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 24.03.2018, he has admitted that Rs. 5.18 crores in cash have been paid to Shri Ramesh Babu and others. He further stated that M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers was not able to arrange the total consideration to be paid to the sellers and therefore, he has approached M/s JVG Structures (P) Ltd to invest remaining amount in the land and accordingly a final development agreement cum GPA was executed vide document No.5437/2017. 24. During the course of assessement proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that although the appellant has sold land admeasuring 29 acres and 15 guntas to M/s. JVG Structures (P) Ltd by way of development agreement cum GPA, but no capital gain was admitted. Therefore, called upon the assessee to explain as to why the additions should not be made in respect of cash received from M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers. The assessee in response vide letter da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....res Ltd for development of land and accordingly the development agreement cum GPA was executed in favour of M/s JVG Structures Ltd. Since the appellant has only received advance from the transaction, he has not offered any capital gain. 26. The CIT (A) after considering the relevant facts and also, by following certain judicial precedents, held that the lands transferred by the appellant and other co-owners by way of agreement to sale dated 14/09/2016 is not an agricultural land but a capital asset as defined u/s 2(14) of the Act. Further, the appellant has not carried out any agricultural operations to say that said land is agricultural land. Therefore, rejected the arguments of the assessee. As regards assessment of advance received from M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers, it is a matter on record that the appellant and other co-owners have received a sum of Rs. 5,18,00,000/- in pursuant to the said agreement and on cancellation of the agreement, the advance received from the Developers has not been repaid. Therefore, the amount retained by the assessee on cancellation of the agreement partakes the nature of income within the meaning of section 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipartite agreement was entered into with the appellant, M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers and M/s. JVG Structures (P) Ltd and accordingly a final development agreement cum GPA was executed in the year 2017. As per the recital of development agreement cum GPA, the share of each landowner has been specified and also cash received towards advance from the developers was also specified. The Assessing Officer on the basis of above sale agreement cum development agreement coupled with GPA opined that the amount received by M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers is assessable as per the provisions of section 56(2)(ix) of the I.T. Act, 1961, because the assessee has received advance in the course of negotiation of a transfer of a capital asset and such transfer is cancelled and advance is forfeited because, negotiations do not result any transfer of capital asset. 30. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to make addition u/s 56(2)(ix) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the reasons given by the learned CIT (A) to confirm addition made by the Assessing Officer in the light of various averments made by the learned Counsel for the assessee and we ourselves ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated as advance paid to landlord in pursuant to development agreement cum GPA. Therefore, the provisions of section 56(2)(ix) cannot be invoked. 31. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the impugned land given by the appellant for joint development to M/s. JVG Structures (P) Ltd is an agricultural land and is situated beyond 2 kms from local Bhongir Municipality which is evident from the certificate issued by the Tehsildar and confirmed by the Commissioner of Bhongir Municipality. This fact has been accepted by the learned CIT (A) in his order dated 30.09.2022 in the case of Raja Babu for A.Y 2018-19. Therefore, when advance is received towards sale of agricultural land, then same cannot be treated as forfeiter of advance in terms of section 56(2)(ix) of the I.T. Act, 1961 because the said provision is applicable only to a capital asset but not to agricultural land. Therefore, on this count also, the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards the advance received from the developers as income of the assessee cannot be sustained. 32. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sale proceeds received from JGV Structures (P) Ltd and consequent enhancement of assessment by the learned CIT (A). The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that the assessee along with M/s. Aurora Educational Society, Mr. N. Raja Babu, Mrs. N Yashoda, Mrs. N Sulochana and M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers had entered into a development agreement cum GPA with M/s JGV Structures Pvt. Ltd vide document No.5437/2017 dated 30.06.2017. As per the JD agreement, the vendors have intention to develop the land admeasuring 30 acres 15 guntas at Sy No.711, 720, 721 and 724 into residential plots and accordingly applied for layout approval from HMDA on 25.11.2016 and the same has been approved on 30.04.2017. The present market value of the said land as per the registered JDA was at Rs. 14,70,15,000/-@ Rs. 48,40,000/- per acre. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has not offered any capital gain on the said transaction. Therefore, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain as to why the capital gain arises in pursuant to the JDA cum GPA on 30.06.2017 shall not be assessed under the head capital gain. The assessee, vide his reply dated 26.11.2019 had submitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or part of the project is issued by the competent authority. Since the developer has not obtained a completion certificate, capital gain is not chargeable for the impugned A.Y. 37. The learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant submission of the assessee and also taken note of the relevant facts including the market value of the property as per the registered JDA-cum-GPA dated 30.06.2017 and cash consideration claimed to have been paid by the Developers amounting to Rs. 95.00 lakhs as per their statement recorded u/s 132(4), observed that the impugned land transferred by the appellant through JDA-cum-GPA is a capital asset as per section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, because the said land is situated within 2 kms from Bhongir Municipality and also intended to be used for commercial purposes. The learned CIT (A) further observed that the assessee never used the land for agricultural operations and further before its transfer applied for layout plan from the competent authority to convert the land into residential plots and from the above it is undisputedly clear that the land held by the assessee is not meant for agricultural operations but for commercial exploitation. Therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....JDA on 30.06.2017 with M/s. JVG Structures (P) Ltd for development of 30.17 acres of land. As per the JDA with the Developer, the appellant has handed over the possession of the land for the limited purpose of development of land into residential plots after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned revenue authorities. The appellant had also applied for conversion of land into residential plots to HMDA on 25.11.2016 and the HMDA has given permission to develop the land into residential plots vide letter dated 13.04.2017. From the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer, it is undisputedly clear that the appellant along with the co-owners had entered into only JDA with the Builders for development of the property in the impugned A.Y. Further, as per the approval given by the HMDA, the authority has given permission to developer to convert the land into residential plots and develop, but it does not say the project is complete in all respects and the completion certificate has been issued on 13.04.2017. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the taxability of capital gain in pursuant to JDA entered on 30.06.2017 in light of above facts with reference to the provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... came up for our consideration from Ground No.6(a) to 6(c) of assessee's appeal is addition of Rs. 23,89,016/- towards Long-Term Capital Gain from transfer of property to JVG Structures (P) Ltd. The learned Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that the assessee does not wish to press the grounds taken challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards computation of Long-Term Capital Gain from sale of property to M/s JVG Structures (P) Ltd. Therefore, grounds 6(a) to 6(c) of assessee's appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 43. The next issue that came up for our consideration grom Ground No.7 of assesse's appeal is towards the addition of Rs. 24,07,600/- being 1/5th share of appellant out of excess consideration of Rs. 1,20,38,000/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 44. The fact with regard to the impugned disputes are that the appellant along with Shri N Raja Babu, Smt. N. Sulochana, Smt. N. Yashoda and Shri Anudeep Aurora together have purchased 1000 sq. yard of land at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, vide document No.5815/2017 on 19/08/2017 for a consideration of Rs. 3.0 crores. The market value of the property as on the date of registration wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te with regard to the fact that there is a difference between stamp duty value and consideration as per registered document. Although the assessee claims to have entered into agreement in the year 2007 but the said agreement was unsigned and further consideration claims to have been paid by cash. Therefore, the evidentiary value of said agreement is in doubt. The Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly made the addition towards the difference in stamp duty value and consideration in terms of section 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore, their orders should be upheld. 48. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the consideration as per the registered document No.5815/2017 dated 19.08.2017 is at Rs. 3.00 crores, whereas the fair market value of the property as on the date of registration is at Rs. 4,20,38,000/-. Thus, there is a difference of Rs. 1,20,38,000/-. As per the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Officer has made the addition of Rs. 94,66,666/- in the hands of the assessee. 50. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) deleted the consideration paid through cheques as per registered sale deed dated 19.7.2017 amounting to Rs. 81,66,666/- being 1/6th share of the assessee, however, sustained sum of Rs. 13.00 lakhs being 1/6th share of the appellant's consideration paid in cash as per sale agreement dated 5.5.2017. 51. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 13.00 lakhs without appreciating the fact that the agreement of sale was in the name of Shri Raja Babu Nimmatoori and the assessee is not a part to the agreement of sale. Further, Shri Raja Babu has paid consideration of Rs. 78.00 lakhs from his account and also recorded in the books of account maintained by him. Therefore, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) erred in making addition in the hands of the assessee for Rs. 13.00 lakhs being 1/6th share of the assessee. 52. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that as per agreement of sale dated 5.5.2017, consideration was agreed at Rs. 5.68 cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... course of search. During the course of search proceedings in the residential premises of the assessee, cash of Rs. 28,06,200/- was found. The assessee was called upon to explain the source of the cash found during the course of the search. In response, the assessee submitted that the cash found during the course of search is out of his declared income of A.Y 2016-17 to 2018-19. The assessee further contended that he has declared more than Rs. 80.00 lakhs income for the A.Y 2016-17 to 2018-19 and out of the declared income, cash found during the course of search is explained. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee could not explain the source for cash found during the course of search. Therefore, by taking note of relevant statement recorded during the course of search and also the explanation given by the assessee made addition of Rs. 28,06,200/- u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 as unexplained money etc., 55. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 56. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) is e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found during the course of search appears to be reasonable and bona-fide. But the fact remains that, at the time of search while recording the statement, the assessee gave a different version to explain the cash found during the course of search. From the explanation furnished by the assessee, it appears that the assessee claims to have received cash from his society for the purpose of some expenditure. Since there are contradictory explanation, one at the stage of search proceedings and another at the stage of assessment proceedings, it is difficult to accept the explanation of the assessee with regard to the source of cash found during the course of search. At the same time, it is also difficult to reject the explanation of the assessee in light of income declared by the assessee for the last 3 A.Ys. Since the appellant is not required to maintain regular cash book for his income and further as per the revised balance sheet as on 31.3.2017, sufficient cash balance is available to explain cash found during the course of search, in our considered view, a reasonable amount of cash found during the course of search can be attributable to cash in hand available with the assessee befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee and also taken note of the fact that the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposits is out of amount received from Society deleted the addition by holding that the appellant has granted a loan of Rs. 4,45,00,000 to M/s. Aurora Educational Society on 14.02.2007 and the Society has returned a sum of Rs. 2,07,000/- in the financial year relevant to A.Y 2018-19 which is the source for cash deposits. The learned CIT (A) further held that the appellant had also shown income from business and house property of Rs. 53,30,800/- for the A.Y 2018-19 which exceeds the cash deposit amount of Rs. 2,07,000/- into bank account. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposits is subsumed in the income declared for the relevant A.Y and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of telescoping of the unexplained cash credit. Thus, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 62. The learned CIT(DR) Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi submitted that the learned CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made towards cash deposits u/s 69A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not explain the source for cash deposits wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the amount of Rs. 2,43,50,000/- should not be treated as unexplained credit in the books of account and added to his returned income. The assessee vide letter dated 10.12.2019 stated that the amount of Rs. 2,43,50,000/- was advance received for sale of their house property located at Chikadapally and further claimed that the amount is not in the nature of income and is only an advance received. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation submitted by the assessee and according to the Assessing Officer, the appellant could not file any evidences including any agreement of sale to prove the claim of advance received for sale of property. Therefore, made addition of Rs. 2,43,50,000/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 66. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the appellant submitted a revised statement of affairs, balance sheet and capital account for the year ending 31.3.2018 and claimed that while filing the balance sheet at the time of assessement proceedings, a clerical mistake was made towards various liabilities shown in the books of account as unsecured loan, but in fact there is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.2018. As per the revised statement of affairs filed by the assessee, there is no difference in assets shown in either of the balance sheet, whereas there is a change in capital account and loan and liabilities. On perusal of the statement of affairs, we find that there is no unsecured loan as claimed by the Assessing Officer but there is a credit under loan liability from UCO Bank. From the details filed by the assessee, it appears that there is no unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 2,43,50,000/- as claimed by the Assessing Officer. Although the appellant himself has shown unsecured loan of Rs. 2,43,50,000/- in the statement of affairs filed during the assessement proceedings but fact remains that the assessee has explained the mistake committed while preparing the earlier financial statements and as per explanation furnished by the assessee, there was an error and the same has been rectified by filing the correct financial statements. The learned CIT (A), after considering the relevant evidence has rightly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the learned CIT (A) and reject the grounds taken by the Revenue. 70. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 29.8.2022 partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee where the learned CIT (A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unaccounted sale proceeds received from sale of land, addition towards increase in capital account and addition towards unexplained cash deposits and also addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 74. The first issue that came up for our consideration from grounds No.3(a) to 3(i) of assessee's appeal is the additions made towards unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 4,25,15,000/- u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that during the financial year 2015-16 relevant to A.Y 2016- 17, the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 3,99,00,000 in UCO Bank and Rs. 26,15,000/- in SBI Bank Account. The Assessing Officer listed out the bank accounts maintained by the assessee with UCO and SBI bank in Para 6.1 of his assessment order. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credit into bank accounts. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 09.12.2019 submitted that the above bank accounts are loan accounts borr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 4.0 crores to the Aurora Educational Society. No year-wise loan account of the society has been produced. No proof has been filed to prove that the interest, if any, has been paid. Therefore, opined that the assessee could not be able to explain the source for cash deposits into the bank account and thus, rejected the explanation offered by the assessee and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 76. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions made u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 for Rs. 4,25,15,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has borrowed loan of Rs. 5.00 crores from UCO Bank on 23.3.2009 and that the entire amount has been given to Church Educational Society for the objectives of the society. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee has filed all evidence including the relevant loan statement, ledger copies of the Church Educational Society and also certificate from the Society stating that the same has been transferred and utilized by the society. The appellant has also filed a loan account statement giving detailed account statement of loan fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant through cheque and cash. This is further supported by the ledger account copy of the appellant in the books of Church Educational Society where the opening balance of loan account as on 1.4.2015 was at Rs. 3,33,79,828/-. We further note that Aurora Education Society has further stated that it has repaid a sum of Rs. 3,45,32,000/- starting from 31.10,2015 to 21.11.2015 to the appellant towards full and final settlement of loan account with UCO Bank and the Society further stated that the source for repayment of loan is out of cash received from Incredible India Projects (P) Ltd. Similarly, the appellant has availed a loan of Rs. 50.00 lakhs from UCO bank on 16.12.2006 and the same has been transferred to Aurora Educational Society on 16.12.2006 itself. This is evident from the acknowledgement of debt by Aurora Educational Society. This is further strengthened by the ledger account of the appellant in the books of Aurora Educational Society where the society has repaid the loan in cash to the appellant for the financial year 2015-16 relevant to A.Y 2016-17. From the details filed by the assessee, it is undisputedly proved that the assessee has borrowed loan from UCO Bank and ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn of income filed by the assessee that there is increase in his capital account to Rs. 4,58,87,868/- when compared to closing capital account balance for the immediately preceding financial year at Rs. 95,24,046/-. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source for the increase in capital account of Rs. 3,63,63,822/-. The assessee was called upon to explain the source for the increase in capital accounts. The assessee neither responded nor filed any details. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,63,63,822/- towards increase in capital account on the grounds that the assessee could not file any evidence to prove the source for increase in capital account. 82. On appeal, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer, 83. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the source for increase in capital account is out of sale proceeds of Rs. 3,41,04,000/- received from sale of agricultural land and balance amount is out of current year income. The Assessing Officer made additions without appreciating the relevant evidence filed by the assessee. 84. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1961. 87. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 88. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in sustaining the addition without appreciating the fact that the property belongs to the society because of an internal memorandum of understanding between the members of the Society. The Society has explained the source in the books of account of the society, and thus, the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. He further submitted that the property purchased is very old and the same is located nearby the slum area and therefore, based on the guidelines value, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. 89. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is a clear difference between the consideration and the guideline value and thus, the difference has been rightly brought to tax u/s 56(20(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore, the order of the learned CIT (A) should be upheld. 90. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities belo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ducational Society, M/s. Taraka Educational Society and M/s. Karshak Vidy7a Parishad, the assessee has admitted sale proceeds at Rs. 33,75,000/- per acre for sale of 4 acres of agricultural land to M/s. Incredible India Projects (P) Ltd. The assessee has not admitted any capital gain in respect of sale of land in the return of income filed for the A.Y 2017-18. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain as to why the additions should not be made in respect of consideration received from sale of land. The assessee, vide his reply dated 10.12.2019 has submitted that the land admeasuring 4 acres situated at Raigiri Village is an agricultural land and is situated more than 2 kms from local Bhongir Municipality. Therefore, the question of computing capital gain from sale of land does not arise. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to the Assessing Officer, although the land, in question, was situated beyond 2 kms from Bhongir Municipality but it is situated within the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority notified by the Govt. of A.P vide GO No.570 dated 25.08.2018 and hence, as per the provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns, any land cannot be treated as nonagricultural land, if such land is classified as agricultural land as per revenue record and is capable of carrying out agricultural operations. Therefore, in order to decide whether particular land is an agricultural land or a capital asset, it is very important to see the relevant revenue record and the distance of said land from the local limits of a Municipality. 14. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the land, in question, was situated beyond 2 kms from Bhongir Municipality. This fact is further strengthened by the certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Bhongir Mandal and as per the said certificate, the population as per 2011 census of Bhongir Mandal is 53,339 and further the area in which the said land was situated was recently merged into Bhongir Mandal vide GO 93 dated 18.04.2018 and Gazette Notification No.11 dated 30.03.2008. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the impugned land sold by the assessee is situated beyond the specified limit of the local Municipality and thus cannot be treated as capital asset. Further, the appellant has also placed necessary evidence to prove that he ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al land and not as a capital asset; hence no capital gain will arise from sale of such agricultural lands. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 1,99,12,500/- is directed to be deleted. Since the increase in capital account during AY 2018-19 is also a result of sale proceeds received from Incredible India Projects Put. Ltd. to the extent of Rs. 1,95,47,729/- and is consequential to the above ground, the addition of Rs. 7,95,47,729/- is also directed to be deleted. However, since the above certificates from Tehsildar & Commissioner, Bhongir Municipality were not produced before the AO, the AO is directed to verify the sane before according relief to the assessee". 16. We further note that the Assessing Officer while passing the order giving effect to the order passed by the learned CIT (A) and as per the directions of the learned CIT (A) verified the relevant evidence filed by the assessee to treat the status of land as an agricultural land and after verifying the details has accepted the claim of the assessee that the land sold is an agricultural land. 17. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Year 2017-18. The facts and issue is identical. The reasons given by us in proceeding paragraphs No. 23 to 32 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this, appeal as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we direct the AO to delete addition made towards undisclosed advance received from M/s Aishwarya Developers amounting to Rs. 79,35,760/- u/s 56(2)(ix) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 100. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.590/Hyd/2022 is allowed. ITA No.621/Hyd/2022 - A.Y 2018-19 Shri N Raja Babu 101. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No 6(a) to 6(d) of assessee's appeal is addition towards unaccounted sale proceeds received from JVG Structures (P) Ltd in pursuant to joint development agreement cum GPA for Rs. 2,17,58,220/-. 102. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We, find that an identical issue has been considered by us in the case of Sri. Ramesh Babu Nimmatoori, in ITA No 619/Hyd/2022 for Asst. Year 2018-19. But for figures, the facts and issue is identical. The reasons given by us in proceeding paragraphs No. 35 to 41 shall mutatis mutandis ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- and received part of consideration in cash. Further, the cheque payments referred to in the receipt is also matched with the sale deed, therefore, opined that the assessee has paid consideration in excess of what was stated in the sale deed and thus, made addition of Rs. 43,77,500/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 105. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee submitted that there is no evidence other than the document being sale receipt to allege that the assessee had paid excess consideration as per the said sale receipt. The Assessing Officer has also not cross examined the document with the assessee and also not provided the appellant an opportunity to cross examine the parties. Unless there is a proof to say that the appellant has paid excess amount, no addition can be made on the basis of unsigned receipt. The learned CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taken note of relevant facts observed that as per the cash receipt, the vendors have signed and stated that they have received total consideration of Rs. 43,77,500/- a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent and also not provided for cross examination of the vendors, in our considered view when the document found during the course of search clearly shows the signature of the vendors and further the contents also matched with the registered sale deed, then the question of providing cross examination of the vendors does not arise. We therefore, are of the view that the assessee could not explain the source for excess consideration paid over and above the consideration as per the registered sale document and thus, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) are rightly sustained the addition towards the consideration paid for purchase of property as per cash receipt for Rs. 29,60,500/-. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the learned CIT (A) and reject the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee. 109. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.9 of assessee's appeal is the addition made towards differential value of consideration paid for purchase of property as per registered sale deed and guideline value of the property as on the date of registered sale deed for an amount of Rs. 24,07,600/-. 110. We have heard both the parties, perused the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m that the land was purchased by the society, but no evidence has been filed to prove that the property was purchased by the society and consideration was also paid from the books of account of the society. No cash flow and fund flow statement or the bank statement or cash book etc., have been submitted. Therefore, opined that the assessee could not be able to explain the source for purchase of property and accordingly made addition of Rs. 3,85,66,666/- being 1/3rd share of the assessee u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 112. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee reiterated his argument and submitted that the property was purchased by M/s Church Educational Society in the name of the members and also resolution was passed on 9.3.2018. There is a memorandum of understanding between the members and the society by virtue of said resolution and registered MOU, it was agreed that the land was purchased by the society, however, because of certain restrictions; the property has been finally registered in the names of the members. The learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant submiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he present A.Ys. Assuming for a moment, the appellant have paid excess consideration of Rs. 1.57 crores as per the said agreement, the source for investment needs to be explained for A.Y 2017-18, but not for the A.Y 2018-19. Therefore, based on the said agreement the additions cannot be made. He further submitted that as per the final sale deed, the consideration was shown at Rs. 10.00 crores and the same has been accepted by the stamp duty authorities. When there is no difference between the guideline value and consideration as per document, it cannot be alleged that the assessee has paid excess consideration in absence of any evidences. The learned CIT (A) without considering the relevant facts simply sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 52,33,333/- and the same needs to be deleted. 115. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that there is difference between the supplementary agreement dated 31.12.2016 and registered document dated 19.3.2018. The assessee could not explain the source for differential consideration of Rs. 1.57 crores. Therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pies of bank statement of Shri N Raja Babu and others and claimed that even the balance consideration of Rs. 1.57 crores have been paid through proper banking channels and accounted in the books of account for the relevant A.Y and copies of bank statement of Shri N. Raja Babu was available in pages 408 to 410 of the paper book filed by the assessee. From the details filed by the assessee, it appears that even the additional consideration of Rs. 1.57 crores has been paid through proper banking channels and once it is proved that the payments are gone from bank accounts, it appears that the source for the said payment is already explained by the appellant. Therefore, on this count also the additions sustained by the learned CIT (A) cannot be upheld. Therefore, for the above reasons, we reverse the findings of the learned CIT (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions sustained by the learned CIT (A) for Rs. 52,33,333/- towards extra consideration alleged to have been paid for purchase of the property. 118.. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.11 of assessee's appeal is addition towards unexplained investment in purchase of land at Roa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... during the course of search for Rs. 8,10,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee is having sufficient income to explain the source for the cash found during the course of search. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that as per cash book, cash balance as on 31.3.2017 as per the revised balance sheet filed before the learned CIT (A), Rs. 42,35,300/-. If we consider the cash in hand available on 31.3.2017, the cash found during the course of search is stands explained. The learned CIT (A) without considering the relevant facts sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 124. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the learned CIT (A) submitted that although the appellant claims to have sufficient cash in hand to explain cash found during the course of search, but on perusal of the details filed by the assessee, it is noticed that the assessee could not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate its claim. Therefore, merely stating that the source for cash is from past saving and accumulation is not sufficient. Therefore, the CIT(A), by considering the reasons given by the Assessing Officer in light of statement r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e source for cash found during the course of search to the extent of Rs. 5.00 lakhs. In other words, the assessee gets relief to the extent of Rs. 5.00 lakhs out of additions made by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 8,10,000/-. The balance amount of Rs. 3,10,000/- is hereby confirmed. 126. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.621/Hyd/2022 is partly allowed. ITA No.701/Hyd/2022 - A.Y 2018-19 (Revenue) 127. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.2 of Revenue's appeal is deletion of addition towards unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 18,37,500/- u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer noticed that as per bank statement of the assessee, the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 16,33,500/- into SBI Bank Account and Rs. 2,04,000/- into UCO Bank Account. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source for cash deposits and in response to which the assessee submitted that, the above cash deposit is out of amount received from sale of land to Incredible India Projects (P) Ltd. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and according to the Assessing Officer, no documentary evidence ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. The finding of the facts recorded by the learned CIT (A) is not controverted with any evidences. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the learned CIT (A) and reject the grounds taken by the Revenue. 132. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Grounds No.4 of the Revenue's appeal is addition towards unsecured loan of Rs. 2,92,50,000/-. During the course of assessement proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the appellant has shown unsecured loan of Rs. 2,92,50,000/-, however, could not provided any details of the loans. A showcause notice dated 19.11.2019 was issued to the to the assessee and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the amount of Rs. 2,92,50,000/- should not be treated as unexplained credit in the books of account and added to his returned income. The assessee vide letter dated 10.12.2019 stated that the amount of Rs. 2,92,50,000/- was advance received for sale of their house property located at Chikadapally and further claimed that the amount is not in the nature of income and is only an advance received. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation submitted by the assessee and according to the Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the financial year 2017-18 and corrected earlier errors committed while filing the financial statements. The assessee had also explained that there is no unsecured loan as claimed in the balance sheet filed before the Assessing Officer. The learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant facts deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and their order should be upheld. 136. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. As per the statement of affairs filed during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has shown unsecured loan. In the revised statement of affairs filed before the learned CIT (A) for the year ending 31.3.2018, there is no unsecured loan. As per the original and revised statement of affairs filed by the assessee, there is no difference in assets shown in both the balance sheet, whereas there is a change in capital account and loan and liabilities. On perusal of the statement of affairs, we find that there is no unsecured loan as claimed by the Assessing Officer but there is a credit under loan liability from UCO Bank. From the details filed by the assessee, it appears that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow statement or books of account to explain credits in bank account. 140. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the income declared by the assessee covers credits found in bank account and therefore, the learned CIT (A) by taking note of relevant facts has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and their order should be upheld. 141. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the reasons given by the learned CIT (A) to delete the addition made towards credits found in bank account amounting to Rs. 18.00 lakhs. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that all credits in Bank Accounts are through cheques or bank transfers and there are no cash deposits. The assessee explained that the said credits relates to the amount received towards sale of property. The appellant further claims that he has declared income from business and profession of Rs. 50,40,600/- and income from house property of Rs. 7,36,000/- in the ITR filed for A.Y 2018-19 and if we consider the total income declared by the assessee of Rs. 57,76,600/-, which exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,41,57,000/-. As per the return of income filed for the A.Y 2016-17, the assessee has not admitted any capital gain on sale of land. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the capital gain derived from sale of land shall not be computed. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 26.11.2018 submitted that the impugned agricultural land sold to M/s. WIIZ Realtors LLP in Survey Nos 130, 131, 136 and 140 belongs to M/s Ravi Rishi Education Society and the consideration for sale of land has been received by Rishi Education Society and accounted in their books of account. Although, the appellant is a party to the sale deed, but the property has already been transferred in the name of Ravi Rishi Education Society vide proceedings of the Revenue Division Officer dated 19.06.2018 (copy of sale agreement and Mutation Proceedings for land) and thus, the question of admission of capital gain in the hands of the assessee does not arise. The Assessing Officer however, was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to the Assessing Officer, the land is owned by the appellant, which is evident ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utation proceedings were also not acted upon and the appellant continued to be the owner of the land. The appellant had also sold the land in her individual capacity to M/s. WIIZ Realtors LLP by way of 2 sale deed dated 19.10.2015 and also received consideration. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that Ravi Rishi Educational Society is actually owner of the land and further consideration has been received by Ravi Rishi Educational Society cannot be accepted. Therefore, rejected the argument of the assessee and upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards computation of capital gain from sale of land. 147. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 148. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the copy of agreement of sale dated 8.1.2007 and 15.12.2010 and relevant mutation proceedings dated 19.06.2008 submitted that the land has been sold to Ravi Rishi Educational Society and also revenue record has been changed in the name of the society. The society has paid full consideration for purchase of property in the year 2007 and 2010. The proper was accounted in the books of account of the society. Altho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n society. Further, the entire sale consideration received for sale of land is directly paid to M/s. Ravi Rishi Educational Society which is evident from the books of account maintained by the Society. The copies of agreement of sale dated 8.1.2007 and 15.12.2010 is available in Page Nos.559 to 564 of the paper book filed by the assessee. The ledger account of the buyer M/s. WIIZ Realtors LLP in the books of account of the Ravi Rishi Educational Society for the financial year 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2019-20 is also available in page Nos 565 to 569 of the paper book filed by the assessee. From the above evidence, there is no dispute whatsoever with regard to the fact that the real owner of the impugned land sold to WIIZ Realtors LLP is M/s. Ravi Rishi Educational Society. Since the society has sold the land and received the sale consideration and also accounted in their books of account, the liability towards capital gain on transfer of said land cannot be fastened in the hands of the assessee merely because, the assessee is signatory to the sale deed. In so far as the findings of the ld. CIT(A) with regard to registration of sale agreement, in our considered view, for non-registration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer called upon the assessee to explain the reduction of income from family pension. In her reply dated 9.12.2018, the assessee has submitted that for earlier A.Ys, she has received family pension arrears amounting to Rs. 6,60,000/-. The Assessing Officer however, was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee could not submit any evidences including relevant bank account statement to support her argument. Therefore, the difference between the family pension income offered for earlier A.Y and family pension income offered for the current A.Y of Rs. 5,40,000/- has been added back to the total income of the assessee. 155. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 156. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 157. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,40,000/- by not accepting the argument of the assessee that she has not earned family pension of Rs. 5,40,000/- without even considering the fact that as per the bank statement of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee's appeal is addition towards undisclosed income received from M/s Aishwarya Infra Developers amounting to Rs. 1,62,70,380/- 161. We have heard both parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that an identical issue has been considered by us, in the case of Sri. Ramesh Babu Nimmatoori, ITA No. 591/Hyd/2022 for Asst. Year 2017-18. But for figures, the facts and issue are identical. The assessee is one of the co-owners of Property which has been initially sold to M/s Aishwarya Infra Developers and subsequently, converted into Joint Development Agreement cum General Power Attorney with M/s JVG Structures Pvt. Ltd. We have examined facts, considered arguments of both sides and given our findings on the issue in ITA. No. 591/Hyd/2022 for Asst. Year 2017-18 in the case of Sri. Ramesh Babu Nimmatoori. The reasons given by us in the preceding paragraphs No. 23 to 32 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal, as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, with we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer is erred in making addition towards the advance received from M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers as income of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icate is issued by the competent authority, but not in the year in which the JDA is entered. Since the appellant only entered into JDA for the impugned A.Y and the project is not completed in all respect and further the developer has not obtained completion certificate from the competent authority, the question of computation of capital gain for the impugned A.Y does not arise. 168. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer clearly indicate the intention of the assessee to commercially exploit the land by entering into JDA on 30.06.2017. The appellant had also obtained plan sanction from the competent authority on 13.04.2017. Since the land in question is converted into residential plots, capital gain will arise from the transfer of said non-agricultural land and thus, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) have rightly computed the capital gain, and their order should be upheld. 169. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the relevant reasons gi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of section 45(5A) of the act, it is undoubtedly clear that the capital gain, if any, is chargeable to tax in terms of specified agreement shall be levied for the previous year in which certificate of completion is issued by the competent authority. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Developer has not completed the project in all respects and has not obtained completion certificate from the competent authority. In fact, it was not a case of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) that the assessee has obtained completion certificate and even after obtaining completion certificate, capital gain was not offered to tax. Unless the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) proves that the conditions prescribed u/s 45(5A) of the Act is specified, the question of computation of capital gain for the impugned A.Y is incorrect. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer is completely erred in making addition towards capital gain in pursuant to the JDA dated 30.06.2017, contrary to the provisions of section 45(5A) of the Act. The learned CIT (A) without appreciating the relevant facts simply sustained the addition made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2018-19. The facts and issue are identical. The reasons given by us in proceeding paragraphs No. 111 to 117 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal, as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, for the above reasons, we reverse the findings of the learned CIT (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions sustained by the learned CIT (A) for Rs. 52,33,333/- towards extra consideration alleged to have been paid for purchase of the property. 176. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Gr. No. 10 of assessee appeal is addition towards unexplained investment in purchase of property at Road No. 40, Jubilee Hills, u/s 69 of the Act, for Rs. 13,00,000/-. 177. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We, find that an identical issue has been considered by us, in the case of Sri. Ramesh Babu Nimmatoori, in ITA No 619/Hyd/2022 for Asst. Year 2018-19. The facts and issue is identical. The reasons given by us in proceeding paragraphs No. 49 to 53 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this, appeal as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we are inclined to reverse the findings of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,45,535/-. 183. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that an identical issue has been considered by us, in the case of Sri. Ramesh Babu Nimmatoori, in ITA No 619/Hyd/2022 for Asst. Year 2018-19. But for figures, the facts and issue are identical. The reasons given by us in proceeding paragraphs No. 35 to 41 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal, as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards computation of capital gain in terms of development agreement with JVG Structures (P) Ltd for Rs. 2,48,45,535/-. 184. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.5(a) to 5(c) of assessee's appeal is addition of Rs. 27,27,998/- towards Long-Term Capital Gain derived from sale of property to JVG Structures (P) Ltd. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee does not wish to press the grounds challenging the addition made towards Long-Term Capital Gain. Thus, the grounds of appeal 5(a) to 5(c) of assessee's appeal is di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvestment in property purchased at Road No.41, Jubilee Hills. 191. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that an identical issue has been considered by us, in the case of Sri. Raja Babu Nimmatoori, in ITA No 621/Hyd/2022 for Asst. Year 2018-19. The facts and issue are identical. The reasons given by us in proceeding paragraphs No. 111 to 117 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal, as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, for the above reasons, we reverse the findings of the learned CIT (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions sustained by the learned CIT (A) for Rs. 52,33,333/- towards extra consideration alleged to have been paid for purchase of the property. 192. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Grounds 7(a) and 7(b) of assessee's appeal is addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- lakhs towards unexplained investment in purchase of property at Road No.40, Jubilee Hills. 193. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We, find that an identical issue has been c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... source for payment of Rs. 20.00 lakhs being Rs. 18.00 lakhs paid through RTGS and Rs. 2.00 lakhs paid at the time of registration. Therefore, deleted the addition made to the extent of Rs. 20.00 lakhs. As regards the balance consideration of Rs. 1.00 crore, the learned CIT (A) observed that although the appellant claims to have not paid the balance consideration because of pending litigation before the Hon'ble Telangana High Court, but fact remains that the AR refers to the litigation pending since 2002, that means the assessee is aware of the litigation at the time of purchase of the property. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that it has not paid balance of Rs. 1.00 crore because of pending litigation cannot be accepted. Thus, directed the Assessing Officer to sustain the addition of Rs. 1.00 crore. The learned CIT (A) also sustained the addition made u/s 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that there is a difference between the consideration as per the sale deed and SRO value of the property and thus, the difference between the consideration and SRO value to be treated as income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thus, sustained the addition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in respect of title and interest in the property before the Court of Law. When there is a dispute in the property and pending litigation, unless the litigation is resolved in the Court of law, the title and interest in the property will not be passed on to the buyer. If we go by the above fact, it appears that the argument of the assessee that he has not paid the balance consideration appears to be reasonable. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the mater needs to be examined by the Assessing Officer in the light of argument of the assessee that, he has not paid balance consideration because of pending litigation in High Court in light of relevant evidence that may be filed by the assessee including copy of petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court. Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) on this issue and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer to reexamine the case of the assessee in light of evidence that may be filed by the assessee to justify her claim. In so far as application of provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act, and addition of Rs. 1,25,70,000/-, when the main issue is set aside to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no dispute with regard to the fact that consideration paid for purchase of property as per the registered sale deed dated 12.2.2016 of Rs. 27,14,000/- has been explained out of amount received from Aurora Educational Society which is evident from the recitals of the sale deed where the money has been directly paid by the society to the seller Smt. Swaroopa Reddy and duly accounted for in the books of account of the Society. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) has rightly held that the addition made to the extent of Rs. 13,57,000/- as per the registered sale deed cannot be sustained. In so far as the differential amount of consideration as per sale deed and guidelines value, the consideration as per the registered sale deed was at Rs. 27,14,000/- whereas the guideline value of the property as on the date of registration was Rs. 32,94,000/-. Thus, there is an excess amount of Rs. 5,18,000/- when compared to the guidelines value and the same falls under the provisions of 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Although, the appellant claims to have not paid any excess amount and the amount stated in the registered sale deed is the correct fair market value of the property, but there is no de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the relevant facts, has rightly sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer and their order should be upheld. 213. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that all credits found in the bank account of the assessee are not income. There may be credits pertaining to various transactions. Unless the Assessing Officer proves that the credits in the bank account are income of the assessee, addition cannot be made. In the present case, it was the argument of the assessee that he has disclosed total income of Rs. 25,35,600/- under the head income from business for the A.Y 2017-18 and said income includes credits found in ICICI Bank to the extent of Rs. 2,41,500/-. In our considered opinion, when the appellant has disclosed income from business of Rs. 25,35,600/-, then the credits found in the bank account to the tune of Rs. 2,41,500/- would subsume in the income declared by the assessee. The Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A), without appreciating the relevant facts, made separate additions on the basis of credits found in the bank account. Thus, we set aside the order of the....