TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1019
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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). viii) Unexplained Investment in Land at Road No.40, Jubilee Hills-69 (difference amount of sale deed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l 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 dated 3.8.2016 to M/s. Incredible India Projects (P) Ltd for a consideration of Rs. 20.00 lakhs @ Rs. 5.0 lakh per acre. However, while submitting information in the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 the assessee Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unaccounted sale proceeds r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 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 ver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned 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, 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 Pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 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 below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the capital account of the assessee has been increased by Rs. 1,37,61,200/-. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has filed necessary evidence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 dated 26.11.2019 submitted that the land transferred by the assessee originally to Aishwarya Infra Developers by way of sale agreement and subsequent development agreement with JVG Structures (P) Ltd is an agricu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffered 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, 1961. Therefore, rejected the arguments of the assessee and sustained the additions made by the AO. 27. The ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CA submitted that the ld. CIT (A) is erred in not app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal 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 do not subscribe the reasons given by the Assessing Officer for the simple reason that first of all, the transfer of property has not taken place in terms of section 2(47) r.w.s. 53A of transfer of property Act 1882. The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 erred in confirming addition made by the Assessing Officer towards the advance received from M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers as income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(ix) of the I.T. Act, 1961, even though having observed that the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 that the land in consideration is an agricultural land, which is situated at Bommalapally Village which is more than 2 kms from Bhongir Municipality and thus, the consideration received from sale of said land cannot be assessed under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmission 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, by taking into relevant facts upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards computation of capital gain and further enhanced the assessment by taking into the fair market value of the property as per document No.5437/2017 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al 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 provisions of section 45(5A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 41. The provisions of section 45(5A) of the Act deal with computation of capital gain under specified agreement. As per the said provisions, where the capital gain arises to the assessee being an indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earing 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 was Rs. 4,20,38,000/-. Thus, there is a difference of Rs. 1,20,38,000/-. Therefore, the AO called upon the assessee to explain the source for purchase of property and also explain the difference between consideration and guideline value of the property a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation 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 on or after 1.4.2017, any immovable property for a consideration, the stamp duty value of the said property has exceeded such consideration, if the amount of such excess is more than Rs. 50000 or equal to 5% of the consideration, then such difference shall be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 crores and also sum of Rs. 78.00 lakhs were paid. The assessee could not explain the source for balance amount of Rs. 78.00 lakhs although he is able to furnish evidence towards consideration as per registered document. The learned CIT (A), after considering the relevan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted 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 erred in sustaining the addition towards the cash found during the course of search for Rs. 28,06,200/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee is having sufficient income to explain the source for the cash found during the source of search. The learned Counsel for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 before the date of search. Therefore, by taking into account the overall facts of the case, we direct the Assessing Officer to accept the explanation of the assessee with regard to the source for cash found during the course of search to the extent of Rs. 20.00 lakhs. In other words, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.2007 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 with necessary evidence. The learned DR further submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in accepting the explanation of the assessee that the cash deposits are made from loan received from his society is already included in the surplus income declared in ITR Form, even though the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 no unsecured loan as claimed by the assessee. The learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant revised statement of affairs and the balance sheet for the financial year 2017-18 observed that there is no unsecured loan appearing in the revised balance sheet and further the appellant proved that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.700/Hyd/2022 for the A.Y 2018-19 is dismissed. ITA No.311/Hyd/2022 - A.Y 2013-14(Shr. N. Raja Babu) 71. The only issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.5 of assessee's appeal is additions towards the disallowance of interest paid on housin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ards 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 borrowed from UCO and SBI Bank. The appellant has availed loans from UCO and SBI Banks and the funds have been given to the Societies for the purpose of the activities of the Societies. The cash deposits found in Bank Account is nothing, but amount received from society towards repayment of loan given by the appellant. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 from M/s. Aurora Educational Society which clearly shows that the loan given by the appellant to the society and subsequent repayment of loan. Although the appellant has filed all evidence, the learned CIT (A) simply rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 has given the said loan to the society for the objectives and further the society has repaid the loan to the appellant in cash and the same has been deposited into loan account to repay the loan borrowed from the Banks. Therefore, we must consider that the assessee is able to explain the source for the cash deposits into UCO B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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. 85. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the consideration of Rs. 27,14,000/- as per the registered sale deed dated 12.2.2016 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a), the land is a capital asset and the profit derived from sale of land is assessable for capital gain. Therefore, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 33,75,000/- as income from capital gain towards sale of land. 93. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 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 has carried out agricultural operations and also declared agricultural income in the return of income filed in the earlier A.Ys. Be that as it may be, merely because the agricultural operation was not carried out in land which is otherwise an agricultural land as per revenue record and is also situated beyond the specified limit cannot be treated as capital asset, as lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 that the impugned land sold by the assessee is an agricultural land and is situated beyond 2 kms from the local limitation of Bhongir Municipality and thus cannot be treated as capital asset. The Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) without appreciating the relevant facts simply made additions towards capital gain from sale of land. Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) on thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 cum GPA with JVG Structures (P) Ltd. 103. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground No 7(a) to 7(c) of assessee's appeal is addition made t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore 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/- and out of which Rs. 14,17,000/- was paid by cheques. The balance amount of Rs. 29,60,500/- was paid by cash. Therefore, confirmed addition of Rs. 29,60,500/-. 106. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition on the basis of unsigned sale receipt which does not contain signature of the recipient and also of the witnesses. Further, the Assessing Officer has not pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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. 43 to 48 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this, appeal as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we are of the consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 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 submissions of the assessee and also taken note of various evidences including the MOU between the society and the members, resolution passed in their meeting, observed that the MOU between the parties is not a registered document and is only an understanding between the society and members. All the Trustees are family members who are vendees of the property. Therefore, the evidentiary value of the MOU is not reliable. Therefore, rejected the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. Therefore, the ld CIT(A) has rightly sustained the addition and their order should be upheld. 116. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. A document called supplementary agreement dated 31.12.2016 was found and seized during the course of search and as per the said agreement, the agreed consideration for purchase of the property at Road No.41, Jubilee Hills was R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....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 Road No.40, Jubilee Hills, amounting to Rs. 13.00 lakhs. 119. 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 muta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 recorded from the assessee during the course of search sustained the addition and their order should be upheld. 125. 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 appellant has disclosed more than Rs. 80.00 lakhs income for the last 3 A.Ys including for the impugned A.Y. The appellant had also filed the revised cash flow stateme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ideration 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 has been filed to substantiate the claim of the source for cash deposit into bank account. 128. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee submitted that he has earned total income of Rs. 48,40,600/- for the A.Y 2018-19 and the income declared for the year is sufficient to explain source for cash deposit into bank account. The learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant submission of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....secured 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 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. 2,92,50,000/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 133. 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 cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 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 there is no unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 2,92,50,000/- claimed by the Assessing Officer. Although the appellant himself has shown unsecured loan of Rs. 2,92,50,000/- in the statement of affairs filed during the assessment 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 s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 exceeds the credit in bank account to the extent of Rs. 18.00 lakhs. In our considered view, when the appellant is having sufficient income in excess of credits found in the bank account, then credits in bank account can be very well explained out of income declared in ITR. Therefore, the AO is erred in making separate addition. The learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 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 from sale deed executed for transfer of land. Further, mutation proceedings of Govt.is only for the purpose of ownership and possession of land, but it does not create right and title in the land. The mutation effect will take place only when land is registered in the name of the owner. Therefore, when land is owned by the assessee, the question of mutation recorded in the name of Ravi Rishi Educational Society does not arise. Since the appellant has transferred the land by registered sale deed dated 19.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee 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. Although the sale deed was executed by the appellant, but said sale deed has been executed in her capacity as a trustee of the education society and the entire sale consideration has been received by the society which is evident from the ledger account in the books of account of the Ravi Roshi Educational Society for all the 3 A.Ys. Once the society has sold the land and also received the consideration, the question of assessee offering capital gain on transfer of said land does not arise. The Assessing Officer and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailable 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 of sale agreement alone it cannot be held that M/s. Ravi Rishi Educational Society is not the owner of the land more particularly when other evidences like mutation recorded is in the name of the Society and further the society has received full consideration towards sale of land. Further, the society has also accounted purchase of land in their books of account right from A.Y 2007-08 onwards and also paid consideration to the assessee in the year of purchase i.e. 2007 and 2010. From the evidences filed by the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome 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 assessee, the assessee has received only family pension of Rs. 1,20,000/- for the impugned A.Y. Therefore, he submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted. 158. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee could not substantiate her claim with the relevant evidences including the relevant bank statement to prove that she has received only family pension of Rs. 1,20,000/- for the current A.Y. Therefore, the Assessing Officer and learned CIT (A) has rightly made addition towards the differe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arya 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 assessee u/s 56(2)(ix) of the I.T. Act, 1961 having observed that the impugned land is an agricultural land in the case of another co-owner while deciding the appeal for the A.Y 2018-19. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made towards undisclosed advance received from M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers u/s 56(2)(ix) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 162. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 593/Hyd/2022 is partly allowed. ITA No.618/Hyd/202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ention 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 given by the Assessing Officer to make additions and relevant findings of the learned CIT (A) to enhance the assessment in terms of section 251(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in respect of the alleged consideration received towards transfer of land in pursuant to JDA-cum-GPA on 30.06.2017. Admittedly, the appellant had entered into 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pletion 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 by the Assessing Officer and further enhanced the assessment on the very same issue. Thus, 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. 171. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.7(a) to 7(c) of assessee's appeal is addition of Rs. 49,07,168/- under the head "Capital Gain" in respect of sale of land to JVG Structures (P) Ltd. The learned Counsel for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lained 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 the learned CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards differential consideration of Rs. 13.00 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. 178. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.618/Hyd/2022 is partly allowed. ITA No.592/Hyd/2022 - A.Y 2017-18 Smt. N. Sulochana 179. The only solitary issue that came up for our consideration from Ground 2(a) to 2(d) of assessee's appeal is addition of Rs. 90,80,540/- towards undisclosed advanced from M/s Aishwarya Infra Developers. 180. We have heard both parties, perused mate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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 dismissed as not pressed. 185. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos 6(a) to 6(b) of assessee's appeal is addition of Rs. 24,07,600/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961 towards excess consideration sale deed value and guideline value as per the registered sale deed. 186. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 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 the learned CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards differential consideration of Rs. 13.00 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. 194. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.8 of assessee's appeal is additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 of Rs. 1,25,70,000 u/s 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 197. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has not paid balance consideration of Rs. 1.00 crore till today because of pending dispute in the Hon'ble High Court. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that when the title in the property is in dispute, the question of making payment as per sale deed does not arise. Therefore, requested to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards consideration paid for purchase of property and also, the addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation 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 AO for fresh consideration, the consequential addition towards difference amount u/s 56(2)(x) also needs to go back to AO. Thus, we set this issue also to the file of the AO and direct the AO to consider the issue afresh in light of our findings given herein above. 200. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.594/Hyd/2022 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.332/Hyd/2022 - A.Y 2016-17 Anudeep Nimmatoori 201. The only issue that came up for our consideration from Ground 5(a) and 5(b) of assessee's appeal is the addition of Rs. 2,90,000/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961 towards excess of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er 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 denial of the fact that there is a difference between the guidelines value and sale consideration. Since there is a difference between the guidelines value and sale consideration, the excess consideration should be treated as income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error in the order of the learned CIT (A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,90,000/-made by the Assessing Officer and thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the learned CIT (A) and reject the grounds taken by the assessee. 207 In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.33....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usiness 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 learned CIT (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards credits found in ICICI Bank of Rs. 2,41,500/-. 214. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.475/Hyd/2022 is allowed. ITA No.476/Hyd/2022 - A.Y 2018-19, Anudeep Nimmatoori 215. The first that came up for our consideration from Ground No.4(a) of assessee's appeal is addition of Rs. 24,07,600/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961 towards excess consideration as per sale deed and guideline value of the property as on the date of registration. 216. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the a....