TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act of Rs. 1,05,96,934/- following the order of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of the Mr. Lijngaiah Amidyala for AY 2019-20 in ITA No. 702/Hyd/2022, dated 26.04.2023 which has not been accepted by the department. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add any other grounds which may be necessary." The assessee company, on the other hand, has supported the CIT(A) order by raising the following cross-objections: "1. The Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad has justified in allowing the appeal of the Assessee on merits. 2. The Ld. AO erred on the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the additions and allowed the Appeal of the Appellant after fairly considering the facts and submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Ld. AO has failed in appreciating the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the addition made based on a dumb document seized. 4. The Ld. AO has erred in considering the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Amidyala Lingaiah ITA. 702/Hyd/2022. 5. The Appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otal Plot No.6, Survey No.313 & 316, admeasuring 244.16 Sq. yards, present situated at Ward No.11, Block No.1. Kanteshwar, Nizamabad. registered vide sale deed no.9949/2018 dated 26.09.2018. Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah. 52,000/- 1,26,96,320/- 85,06,534/- 13,83,550/- 71,22.984/- 85,06,534 Plot No.Nil, bearing part of land comprised in Survey No.312 of Kanteshwar Shivar, Mandal, S. Madhukar Reddy & S. Prakash Reddy. 52,000/- 31,20,000/- 20.90.400/- 2,00,000/- 18.90,400/- 20,90.400/- Nizamabad District, in Ward No.11, Block No.1, situated at Kanteshwar, Nizamabad admeasuring 60 Sq. yards, registered vide sale deed no.3928/2019 dated 08.03.2019. TOTAL 1,05,96,934/- The AO, based on the aforesaid facts, called upon the assessee firm to explain as to why the purchase consideration of Rs. 1,05,96,934/- (supra) paid by him for purchasing the aforementioned properties may not be considered as unexplained investments....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....suring 60 Sq. yards at Survey No.312 of Kanteshwar Shivar, Mandal Nizamabad District vide sale deed No.3928/2019, dated 08/03/2019 from Shri S Madhukar Reddy and Shri S Prakash Reddy. The AO, based on his conviction that the said land falling in the vicinity of the land purchased by the assessee from Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra) would also have been purchased at the same rate of Rs. 52,000/-per Sq. yard, determined the assessee's investment at Rs. 20,90,400/-. The AO, based on his aforesaid deliberations, concluded that the assessee firm had, during the subject year, made a total investment of Rs. 1,05,96,934/- towards the purchase of the aforementioned properties. Thereafter, the AO, vide his order dated 19/03/2024 under Section 153C of the Act, determined the total income of the assessee firm at Rs. 1,05,97,934/-. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 9. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) observed that the AO, except for relying on the contents of the seized document, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, had failed to place on record any supporting evidence which would reveal that any on-money was paid by the assessee firm for purchasing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered sale deed was paid by the assesee firm for purchasing the subject property, i.e., 244.16 sq yds from Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra); and (ii) that the addition made based on the contents of the same seized document, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01 was vacated by the CIT(A) while disposing the appeal in the case of Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra), which order had thereafter been approved by the Tribunal vide its order passed in the case of ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sri Lingaiah Amidyala in ITA No.702/Hyd/2022, dated 26/04/2023, vacated the addition made by the AO. 12. Also, we find that the CIT(A) taking cognizance of the fact that the AO had failed to place on record any independent material which would support the payment of any on-money for purchase of the second property, viz., land at Survey No.312 of Kanteshwar Shivar, Mandal Nizamabad District, vide sale deed No.3928/2019, dated 08/03/2019 from Shri S Madhukar Reddy and Shri S Prakash Reddy, vacated the impugned addition that was made by the AO. 13. The Revenue, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 14. We have heard the Learned Authorized Rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Ld. Sr-DR submitted that as a perusal of the contents of the seized document, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01 proved to the hilt the factum of on-money paid by the assessee firm for purchasing the subject property, therefore, the AO had rightly made the addition by acting upon the same, which, however had wrongly been vacated by the CIT(A). 16. Per contra, Shri C. Maheswar Reddy, CA, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, "Ld. AR") for the assessee firm vehemently objected to the contentions advanced by the Ld. Sr-DR. It was submitted that the CIT(A) had rightly vacated the addition, inter alia, for the reason that the AO, except for relying upon the unsubstantiated contents of the seized document, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, had failed to place on record any independent material which would irrefutably evidence the payment of on-money by the assessee firm for purchasing the subject property. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) after taking cognizance of the fact that the addition made in the hands of Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra), i.e., the seller, which in turn was based on the contents of the aforesaid seized document, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....observed herein above, the aforesaid addition made by the AO in the case of Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra) has been vacated by the CIT(A), which order had thereafter been upheld by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No. 702/Hyd/2022, dated 26/04/2023. We concur with the view taken by the CIT(A) in the present case before us that the AO, except for relying upon the unsubstantiated contents of the seized document, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, has failed to place on record any documentary evidence which would irrefutably substantiate his view that the assessee firm had paid on-money for purchasing the subject property. At this stage, we are reminded of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Paramjit Singh vs. ITO [2010] 195 Taxman 273 (Punjab & Haryana), wherein it has been held that the contents of a registered sale deed cannot be dislodged on the basis of oral or hearsay evidence. The Hon'ble High Court, while concluding as herein above, had drawn support from Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observation of the Hon'ble High Court, as under: "Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid principle. According to Section 91 of the Act when terms of a contracts, grants or other dispositions of property has been reduced to the form of a documents then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grant or disposition of the property except the document itself or the secondary evidence thereof. According to Section 92 of the 1872 Act once the document is tendered in evidence and proved as per the requirements of Section 91 then no evidence of any oral agreement or statement would be admissible as between the parties to any such instrument for the purposes of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from its terms. According to illustration 'b' to Section 92 if there is absolute agreement in writing between the parties where one has to pay the other a principal sum by specified date then the oral agreement that the money was not to be paid till the specified date cannot be proved. Therefore, it follows that no oral agreement contradicting/ varying the terms of a document could be offered. Once the aforesaid principal is clear then ostensible sale consideration disclosed in the sale deed dated 24.9.2002 (A.7) has to be accep....