Celestial Avenues P. Ltd, Secunderabad v. ACIT, Hyderabad

ITA 1406/HYD/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2012 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 140622514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AACCC7999R
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1406/HYD/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s)
Appellant Celestial Avenues P. Ltd, Secunderabad
Respondent ACIT, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 10-02-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 19-04-2011
Next Hearing Date 19-04-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 10-11-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH HYDERABAD BEFORE CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1406/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 M/S CELESTIAL AVENUES P LTD. HYDERABAD (PAN AACCC7999R) VS THE ACIT CIRCLE 3 HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.D. GOYAL DATE OF HEARING : 15.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.2.2012 ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JM . THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) VII HYDERABAD DATED 10 .9.2010 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE THE FIRST GROUND REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153C HAS NO T BEEN PRESSED. HENCE THE FIRST GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE NEXT ISSUE ON APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 130 62 000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENT U/S 69B 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PURCHASED TWO PIECES OF LAND MEASURING AC.3.00 GUNT AS AND AC. 3.37 GUNTAS AT GANDIGUDA VILLAGE SHAMSHABAD MANDAL RANGA REDDY DIST. FROM SRI.Y.PARTHASARATHY AND SMT. VARAL AXMI ITA NO.1406/H/2010 M/S CELESTRIAL AVENUES P LTD. HYDERABAD 2 RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT SRI Y.PARTHASAR ATHY WAS PAID RS 20 00 000/- FOR AC. 3 GUNTAS AND SMT. VARALAXMI WAS PAID RS 22 50 000 TO AC. 3.37 GUNTAS. IT IS ALSO SUBMITT ED THAT SRI.P. RAJESH KUMAR JAIN WAS GENERAL MANAGER WHO ALSO REPR ESENTED AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF ABOVE TWO PIECES OF LAN D WHICH IS AS PER THE SALE DEED DT. 19.6.2006. THE ABOVE BOTH PIE CES OF LAND ARE AT SAME LOCATION AND SURVEY NUMBERS AND ARE ALS O ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DISCLOSED F ULL PURCHASE COST OF THE ABOVE PIECES OF LAND WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE PURCHASE COST OF THE ABOVE TW O PIECES OF LAND AT RS. 75 00 000 AND RS 98 12 500 AND THE DIFF ERENCE OF THE ADMITTED COST AND THE UNDISCLOSED COST WORKED OUT B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AT RS 1 30 62 000 WHICH WAS TA KEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE IT ACT. 5. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS CAN BE CULLED OUT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS AS UNDER: DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE CA SE OF M/S CSK REALTORS LTD CONDUCTED ON 24.8.2006 COPIES OF SALE DOCUMENTS ENTERED INTO BY THE COMPANY FOR PURC HASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS WERE FOUND. IN THE MATERIAL SEIZED IN THE CSK REALTORS GROUP OF CASES THERE IS A COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 29.6.2006 WHICH SHOWS THAT THE COMPANY H AS PURCHASED LAND FROM SRI Y. PARTHASARATHT ADMEASURIN G AC. 3.00 GUNTAS AT GANDIGUDA VILLAGE SHAMSHABAD MANDAL RANGA REDDY DISTRICT FOR RS 20 00 000/- THERE IS AN OTHER COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 19.6.2006 WHICH SHOWS THAT THE COMPANY HAS PURCHASED ANOTHER LAND FROM SMT. S. VARALAKSHMI ADMEASURING AC. 3.37 GUNTAS AT GANDIGUD A VILLAGE SHAMSHABAD MANDAL RANGA REDDY DISTRICT FO R RS. 22 50 000/- ITA NO.1406/H/2010 M/S CELESTRIAL AVENUES P LTD. HYDERABAD 3 6. THE AO FOUND SOME SIMILARITIES IN THE ABOVE TWO SALE DEEDS AS UNDER: I. BOTH THE ABOVE SALE DEEDS HAVE BEEN ENTERED ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 19.6.2006 II. THE COMPANY HAS BEEN REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MAN AGER SRI. P. RAJESH KUMAR JAIN AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF BOTH THE SALE DEEDS. III. THE GENERAL MANAGER HAS NOT SIGNED ON BOTH THE SALE DEEDS IV. BOTH THE LANDS ARE LOCATED IN GANDIGUDA VILLAGE SHAMSHABAD MANDAL RANGA REDDY DISTRICT. V. BOTH THE LANDS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED @ RS.5 70 000 PE R ACRE. 6.1. ALONG WITH THE COPIES OF THE TWO SALE DEEDS A NOTHER COPY OF THE SALE DEED WAS FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE SAME ANNE XURE A/CSK/10 AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF M/S C SK REALTORS LTD. THIS COPY OF SALE DOCUMENT ENTERED INTO BY TH E COMPANY M/S BHAGYANAGAR METALS LTD IS FOR PURCHASE OF AGRIC ULTURAL LANDS ADMEASURING AC. 6.22 GUNTAS AT GANDIGUDA VILLAGE SHAMSHABAD MANDAL RANGA REDDY DISTRICT HAS ALSO BE EN FOUND. THIS SALE DEED HAS STRIKING SIMILARITIES WIT H THE SALE DEEDS DISCUSSED EARLIER BUT SHOWS THAT LAND ADMEAS URING AC. 6.22 GUNTAS IS PURCHASED FOR A TOTAL SALE CONSIDERA TION OF RS 1 63 75 000/. IT IS IN RESPECT OF LAND AT THE SAME VILLAGE IN THE SAME SURVEY NUMBERS AND HAS BEEN REPRESENTED BY THE SAME GENERAL MANAGER P. RAJESH KUMAR JAIN. THE ONLY DIF FERENCE IS THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN MADE ON 30.6.2006 AND THE PU RCHASE HAS BEEN MADE @ RS 25 00 000 PER ACRE. 7. THE COMPANY M/S BHAGYANAGAR METALS LTD IS HAVIN G ITS OFFICE AT THE SAME PLACE I.E. 2 ND FLOOR SURYA TOWERS S.P. ROAD SECUNDERABAD AND BELONGS TO THE SAME GROUP OF COMPA NIES. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES STATED ABOVE IT WAS SEEN THAT THE SALE DEEDS ENTERED BY THE COMPANY @ RS 5 71 000 PER ACRE APPEA RS TO BE PRIMA FACIE GROSSLY UNDER VALUED AND THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE ITA NO.1406/H/2010 M/S CELESTRIAL AVENUES P LTD. HYDERABAD 4 ASSESSEE WAS CALLED IN THIS REGARD. IT WAS EXPLAIN ED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT LAND ADMEASURING AC. 3.00 GUNTAS IS O N THE REAR SIDE AND LAND ADMEASURING AC. 3.37 GUNTAS IS FAR AW AY FROM THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 7. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT LANDS BOUGHT BY THE COMPANY WERE ON A ROUGH TERRAIN WITH UNEVEN PATH. F URTHER IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT TO MAKE A SQUARE LAND AND INCREA SE PROFITABILITY THE OTHER LAND WAS PURCHASED @ 25 LAK HS PER ACRE AS THE SELLER OF THE LAND CAME TO KNOW THAT ADJACEN T PIECE OF LANDS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED. 8. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO. FROM THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON THE DOCUMENTS SEIZE D IT IS SEEN THAT ALL THE LANDS ARE IN THE SAME VILLAGE AND ARE LOCATED IN THE SAME SURVEY NOS. I.E. 40 41 AND 42/1 ADJACENT TO EA CH OTHER. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND ADMEAS URING AC. 3.00 GUNTAS IS LOCATED ON THE REAR SIDE WAS NOT FOU ND TO BE CORRECT BY AO AS IT IS LOCATED RIGHT ALONG SIDE THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY. FURTHER THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT SELLER OF LAND TO M/S BHAGYANAGAR METALS LTD CAME T O KNOW ABOUT THE ADJACENT LAND PURCHASED BY THE COMPANY AN D HAS DEMANDED A PRICE OF RS 25 LAKHS PER ACRE IS SEEN T O BE NOT CORRECT BY THE AO. 9. IN THE SALE DEED MADE ON 19.6.2006 FOR LAND ADM EASURING AC 3.37 GUNTAS WHICH WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PURCHAS ED @ RS 5 70 000 PER ACRE SHRI MADHU VENKATESHWAR HAS SIGN ED AS WITNESS NO.2. SRI MADHU VENKATESHWAR IS THE OWNER O F THE LAND ADMEASURING AC.6.22 GUNTAS WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY M /S BHAGYANAGAR METALS LTD @ RS 25 00 000 PER ACRE. FR OM THE ABOVE IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE SELLER OF LAND TO M/ S BHAGYANAGAR METALS LTD WHO WAS A WITNESS TO EARLIER SALE DEED H AD PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE COMPANY @ RS 5 70 000. FURTHER DURING THE PERIOD THERE WAS TREMENDOUS INCR EASE IN ITA NO.1406/H/2010 M/S CELESTRIAL AVENUES P LTD. HYDERABAD 5 LAND PRICES IN AN AROUND SHAMSHABAD AREA AS THE NEW INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WAS COMING UP THERE. THE MAR KET VALUE OF LAND DURING THE ABOVE PERIOD WAS AROUND RS 25 LAKHS PER ACRE WHICH IS THE VALUE AT WHICH THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY M/S BHAGYANAGAR METALS LTD A GROUP CONCERN. ON THE BAS IS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES EXPLAINED ABOVE AO CONCLUDED THAT A REASONABLE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PURCHASED THE LAND FO R AN AMOUNT MORE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS AND DOCUMENTS. THE AO FURTHER HELD THAT T HE PURCHASE OF LAND IS EXACTLY THE SAME AREA BY A GROU P COMPANY WITH THE SAME GENERAL MANAGER AT A HIGHER RATE CLEA RLY BRINGS OUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS SUPPRESSION IN THE PURC HASE CONSIDERATION AND THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE AC TUAL CONSIDERATION PAID TO THE SELLERS ALSO THE RATE PER ACRE OF RS 25 00 000 IS THEREFORE ADOPTED TO WORK OUT THE ACTU AL SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TWO LAND. THE AO WORKED OUT THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS RS 75 00 000 AND RS 98 12 500 FOR THE TWO LANDS PURCHASED BY THE COMPANY AS AGAINST THE AMOUN T OF RS 20 00 000 AND RS 22 50 000 RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF EXCESS INVESTMENT OF RS 1 30 62 000 WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 11. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CONT ENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY RELIED UPON THE P URCHASE COST OF THE LAND BY M/S BHAGYANAGAR METALS LTD WHO HAVE BOUGHT THE LAND OF AC. 6.22 GUNTAS @ RS 25 00 000 PER ACRE. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT M/S BHAGYANAGAR METALS LTD HAD BOUGH T THE LAND ON 30.6.2006 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD BOUGHT TWO PIECES OF LAND WHICH ARE EXPLAINED IN THE PRECE DING PARAS ON 19.6.2006 WHICH IS A FEW DAYS BEFORE M/S BHAGYANAG AR METALS LTD HAD BOUGHT. SINCE IT WAS A BOOM PERIOD THE PRI CE OF THE LAND ITA NO.1406/H/2010 M/S CELESTRIAL AVENUES P LTD. HYDERABAD 6 WAS ESCALATED ON DAY TO DAY BASIS. THEREFORE THE L AND PURCHASED BY M/S BHAGYANAGAR METALS LTD FROM SRI MA DHU VENKATESHWAR WAS COSTLIER. HENCE THE SAME PRICE CAN NOT BE EQUATED WITH THE LAND PRICES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE F IRM. FURTHER IT IS ARGUED THAT THE AO HAD NO EVIDENCES WHATSOEVE R TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PAID SIMILAR COST AS PAID BY M/S BHAGYANAGAR METALS LTD. IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT SRI MADHU VENKATESHWAR WAS WITNESS AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE IF TWO PIECES OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CANNOT BE A REASON TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PAID SIMILAR PURCHASE PRICE AS IT PRESUMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE AR SHRI A.V. RAG HURAM THAT SRI MADHU VENKATESHWAR HAPPENED TO BE OWNER OF THE LAND WHICH WAS SOLD TO M/S BHAGYANAGAR METALS LTD AND HE ALSO HAPPENED TO BE WITNESS TO TWO PROPERTIES SOLD BY SR I. Y. PARTHASARATHY AND SMT. S. VARALAXMI TO THE APPELLAN T COMPANY. THEREFORE IT IS ARGUED THAT SINCE SRI MADHU VENKATE SHWAR HAS RECEIVED THE HIGHER VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR PROP ERTIES SOLD CANNOT BE THE REASON THAT THE OTHER SELLERS HAD REC EIVED SIMILAR SALE CONSIDERATION FROM THE APPELLANT COMPANY EVEN THOUGH THE LANDS SOLD ARE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDING IT IS ARGUED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS 1 30 62 000 TOWARDS THE RECEIPT OF HIGHER SALE CONSIDERATION H ENCE PLEADED THAT ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE D ELETED. 13. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AS UNDER: IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THE LANDS PURCHASED BY THE APP ELLANT COMPANY AS WELL AS M.S BHAGYANAGAR METALS LTD ARE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER. THE PURCHASES OF TWO LAND P IECES BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY ARE DATED 19.6.2006 BY DIFFER ENT SALE DEEDS. THE LAND BOUGHT BY M/S BHAGYANAGAR METALS L TD ALSO ITA NO.1406/H/2010 M/S CELESTRIAL AVENUES P LTD. HYDERABAD 7 ON 30.6.2006 WHICH IS NOT VERY FAR FROM 19.6.2006 W HEREIN THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAVE PURCHASED THE TWO LAND S ITES. WHEN THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PREVAILING AND A LL THE ABOVE THREE LAND SITES ARE LOCATED IN THE SAME SURV EY NUMBERS I.E. 40 41 & 42/1 WHICH ARE ADJACENT TO EA CH OTHER THE RATE DIFFERENCES CANNOT BE AS WIDE AS THE APPEL LANT IS SAID TO HAVE PAID FOR PROCURING TWO SITES AND COST PAID BY M/S BHAGYANAGAR METALS LTD. FURTHER IT COULD BE SEEN T HAT SRI MADHU VENKATESHWAR WHO IS THE OWNER OF THE THIRD SI TE WHICH WAS SOLD TO M/S BHAGYANAGAR METALS LTD HAD RE CEIVED RS 25 000 PER ACRE AND THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF R S. 163 75 000/- FOR AC. 6.22 GUNTAS THE APPELLANT COUL D NOT HAVE PURCHASED FOR A THROW AWAY PRICE OF RS 20 00 000 FO R AC. 3 GUNTAS AND RS 22 50 000 FOR AC. 3.37 GUNTAS. AS IT COULD BE SEEN THAT TIME GAP BETWEEN THE PURCH ASE OF LAND BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND M.S BHAGYANAGAR M ETALS LTD IS NOT A BIG TIME GAP SINCE THE SALE DEEDS GOT SIGNED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY ON 19.6.2006 WHEREAS M/S BHAGYANAGAR METALS LTD ON 30.6.2006 WHICH HAS BEEN OCCURRED EVEN BEFORE THE APPELLANT COMPANYS SIGNAT URE ON SALE DEED COULD DRY UP. THEREFORE TAKING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE AO IS JUSTIFIED TO C OMPUTE THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY OF AC. 3.00 GUNTAS AT RS. 75 00 000 AND THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF AC. 3.37 GUNTAS AT RS. 98 12 500 AGAINST THE ADMITTED COST. ACCORDINGLY RS 1 30 62 000 ADDED BY THE AO TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE IT ACT IS CON FIRMED. THEREFORE ALL THREE GROUNDS OF APPEALS ARE DISMISS ED. 14. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS ON APPEAL BEFORE US. 15. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MA TERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS ITA NO.1406/H/2010 M/S CELESTRIAL AVENUES P LTD. HYDERABAD 8 SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM PRODUCE D COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS THROUGH WHICH THE LAND PURCHASED HAS BEEN PLOTTED AND SOLD TO VARIOUS PERSONS. INDEX TO THE S AID DOCUMENTS FILED ITSELF LISTS OUT THE DOCUMENT NOS. ASSIGNED BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: S.N DOCUMENT NO. DATE OF DOCUME NT EXTENT (IN SQ.Y.) RATE PER SQ.YDS.) (RS.) SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY 1 8769/2006 13.7.20 06 240 150 PLOT NO.162 S.III AD.240 SURVEY NO.40&41 GRAND VILE GANDIGUDA VILLAGE GHANSIMIYAGUDA GRAM PANCHAYAT 2 10816/2006 13.9.20 06 240 150 PLOT NO.29 SEC.III AD.240 SURVEY NO.40&41 GRAND VILE GANDIGUDA VILLAGE GHANSIMIYAGUDA GRAM PANCHAYAT 3 10817/2006 13.9.20 06 240 150 PLOT NO.12 SEC.III 240 S.Y SURVEY 40&41 GRAND VILLE GANDIGUDA VILLAGE 4 11127/2006 18.9.20 06 240 150 PLOT NO.22 S.III SURVEY 40 & 41 240 S.Y. GRAND VILLE GANDIGUDA VILLAGE GHANSIMIYAGUDA GRAM PANCHAYAT 5 11761/2006 28.9.20 06 240 150 PLOT NO.22 S.III SURVEY 40 & 41 240 S.Y. GRAND VILLE GANDIGUDA VILLAGE GHANSIMIYAGUDA GRAM PANCHAYAT 6 12059/2006 7.10.20 06 240 150 PLOT NO.150 S.III 240 SQ.Y. SURVEY 40 & 41 240 S.Y. GRAND VILLE GANDIGUDA VILLAGE GHANSIMIYAGUDA GRAM PANCHAYAT 7 12441/2006 16.10.2 006 240 150 PLOT NO.37 240 S.Y. SURVEY 40 & 41 240 S.Y. GRAND VILLE GANDIGUDA VILLAGE GHANSIMIYAGUDA GRAM PANCHAYAT 8 12865/2006 26.10.2 006 240 150 PLOT NO.150 S.III 240 SQ.Y. SURVEY 40 & 41 240 S.Y. GRAND VILLE GANDIGUDA VILLAGE GHANSIMIYAGUDA GRAM PANCHAYAT 9 13500/2006 7.11.20 240 150 PLOT NO.145 S.III 250 ITA NO.1406/H/2010 M/S CELESTRIAL AVENUES P LTD. HYDERABAD 9 06 S.Y 167.2 SQ.M SURVEY 40 & 41 240 S.Y. GRAND VILLE GANDIGUDA VILLAGE GHANSIMIYAGUDA GRAM PANCHAYAT 10 13742/2006 13.11.2 006 240 150 PLOT NO.180 S.III 240 S.Y. SURVEY 40 & 41 240 S.Y. GRAND VILLE GANDIGUDA VILLAGE GHANSIMIYAGUDA GRAM PANCHAYAT 11 14287/2006 18.11.2 006 240 150 PLOT NO.8 S.III 240 S.Y. SURVEY 40 & 41 240 S.Y. GRAND VILLE GANDIGUDA VILLAGE GHANSIMIYAGUDA GRAM PANCHAYAT 12 13659/2006 10.11.2 006 240 150 PLOT NO.311 S.III 240 S.Y. SURVEY 40 & 41 240 S.Y. GRAND VILLE GANDIGUDA VILLAGE GHANSIMIYAGUDA GRAM PANCHAYAT 16. ACCORDING TO THE SAID INDEX AND THE DOCUME NTS PRODUCED BY AR PLOTS WERE SOLD BY VARIOUS PARTIES IN THE AB OVE CASES ADMEASURING 240 SQUARE YARDS EACH AT THE RATE OF R S.150 PER SQUARE YARD. THAT BEING SO ASSESSEE COULD NOT HA VE PURCHASED THE LAND IN QUESTION AT A RATE LESS THAN RS.150 PER SQUARE YARD AND THEREFORE THE PURCHASE PRICE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.44 50 000 FOR THE TOTAL EXTENT OF 6 ACRES AND 3 7 GUNTAS AS IT IS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS IT WORKS OUT TO LESS THA N THE PRICE AT WHICH PLOTS OF 240 SQUARE YARDS EACH HAVE BEEN SOLD BY VARIOUS PARTIES IN ABOVE DOCUMENTS. CONSIDERING TOTALITY O F FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THEREFORE WE ARE OF T HE OPINION THAT THE SALE PRICE OF THE PLOTS OF RS.150 PER SQUARE YA RD WOULD CLEARLY INDICATE THE PRICE AT WHICH THE PROPERTY CO ULD HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AS IT IS NATURAL THAT NO BUSINESSMAN WOU LD SELL AT A PRICE LESSER THAN THE PURCHASE PRICE THEREBY INCURR ING A LOSS. HENCE WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE RATE OF RS.150 PER SQUARE YARD AS PURCHASE COST OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE AND ARRIVE AT THE COST PRICE AT WHICH THE ASSESSEE BOUGHT WHICH WORKED OUT AT RS.7.26 LAKHS PER ACRE AND TOTALLY AR OUND ITA NO.1406/H/2010 M/S CELESTRIAL AVENUES P LTD. HYDERABAD 10 RS.50.28 LAKHS FOR 6 ACRES AND 37 GUNTAS AND REWOR K THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ACCORDINGLY. 16. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON: 10. 2.2012 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 10 TH FEBRUARY 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S CELESTRIAL AVENUES P LTD. 2 ND FLOOR SURYA TOWERS SP ROAD SECUNDERABAD 2. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3 HYDERABAD 3. THE CIT(A)-VII HYDERABAD 4. THE CIT HYDERABAD 5. THE DR ITAT HYDERABAD NP/