Ram Reddy Salla, Hyderabad, Secunderabad v. ITO, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 911/HYD/2017 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 91122514 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN AITPS2464F
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 911/HYD/2017
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant Ram Reddy Salla, Hyderabad, Secunderabad
Respondent ITO, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2017
Last Hearing Date 15-11-2017
First Hearing Date 15-11-2017
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 25-05-2017
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B (SMC) HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 911/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SALLA RAM REDDY HYDERABAD [PAN: AITPS2464F] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(4) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI K.K. GUPTA AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI K.J. RAO DR DATE OF HEARING : 16-11-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-11-2017 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-9 HYDERABAD DATED 03-03-2017 FOR THE AY. 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 00 000/- IS NOT CORRECT ON THE FACTS AS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS ADVANCE WAS WITNESSED BY AN AGRE EMENT AND THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MADE HIM NOT TO TRANSFER THE AGREED PLOT OF LAND. 2. ON THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY ARISE DU RING THE COURSE OF APPEAL THE APPELLANT PREFERS THIS APPEAL. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY. 2009-10 ON 19-01-2010 DECLARING TOTAL INC OME OF RS. 6 86 582/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT IS O BSERVED THAT ASSESSEE MADE CASH DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 47 7 0 000/- IN HIS ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK JUBILEE HILLS HYDERABAD . WHEN I.T.A. NO. 911/HYD/2017 :- 2 - : QUESTIONED ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF CASH DE POSITS TO BE FROM ADVANCE RECEIVED AGAINST AGREEMENT OF SALE OF P LOT AND ALSO CASH WITHDRAWALS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION ASSESS EE SUBMITTED CASH BOOK AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. HOWEVER WITH REGA RD TO ADVANCE OF RS. 10 LAKHS SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST AGREEMENT SALE THE SOURCES COULD NOT BE PROPERLY EXPL AINED. IT WAS STATED THAT THE PURCHASER IS AGRICULTURIST OWNING 5. 2 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HE IN TURN HAS SHOWN THE SOUR CE FOR ADVANCE OF RS. 10 LAKHS TO BE ADVANCED FROM ANOTHER PERSON. AS THE EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO GENUINENESS AND CREDITWO RTHINESS WAS NOT SATISFACTORY ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ADDED BA CK RS. 10 00 000/-. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING S IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI P. VENKAT RAM REDDY WHO IS AN AGRIC ULTURIST FROM KURNOOL GAVE CASH ADVANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 10 0 0 000/-. HOWEVER AS THE SALE DID NOT GO THROUGH THE AMOUNT WAS LATER RETURNED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF AGREEMENT OF SALE. WHEN FURTHER QUESTIONED IT WAS STATE D THAT THE SAID LAND WAS ULTIMATELY ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT A ND AS THE ASSESSEE WAS OCCUPANT OF SAID LAND COMPENSATION WAS AWARDED BY GOVERNMENT TO HIM. ASSESSEE FURNISHED A COPY OF LAND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS. 5. LD.CIT(A) HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS BY STATIN G AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE A ND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE EVIDENCE FILED. FROM THE AGREEMENT OF S ALE IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO SELL 200 SQ.YD IN SURVEY NO. 49 FOR WHICH HE WAS PAID RS. 10 LAKHS IN CASH. HOWEVER THE FOLLOWING DISCRE PANCIES WERE NOTICED IN THE AGREEMENT. I.T.A. NO. 911/HYD/2017 :- 3 - : A) THE COPY OF AGREEMENT OF SALE IS SIGNED BY ONLY ONE WITNESS WHOSE NAME AND ADDRESS IS NOT MENTIONED. B) THE SIGNATURE OF THE PURCHASER IS ALSO NOT SUPPO RTED BY NAME AND ADDRESS. C) THE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO ON 18.03.2009 WHE REAS THE ADVANCE WAS PAID ON 07.04.2008. IT COULD NOT BE EXP LAINED AS TO WHY THERE IS A DELAY OF ONE YEAR BETWEEN ADVANCE PA YMENT AND ENTERING OF AGREEMENT. D) IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE STAMP PAPER OF AG REEMENT WAS PURCHASED ON 26.02.2005 I.E FOUR YEARS BEFORE THE D ATE OF AGREEMENT. E) IT WAS STATED BY ASSESSEE THAT THE SALE OF LAND ULTIMATELY COULD NOT MATERIALIZE AS THE SAID LAND WAS LATER ACQUIRED BY GOVT. TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THE LAND ACQUISITION ORDER WAS ALSO EXAMINED. FROM THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCEE DINGS DT. 18.04.2015 IT IS OBSERVED THAT 37 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SURVEY NO. 81 WAS ACQUIRED BY GOVT. FOR WHICH ASSESSEE RECEIVED COMPENSATION. ASS ESSEE CLAIMS THAT THIS IS THE SAME LAND FOR WHICH AGREEMENT OF SALE W AS ENTERED INTO. HOWEVER AS ALREADY SEEN THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN SUR VEY NUMBER AND ALSO THE EXTENT OF LAND. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMI SSION BECAUSE THE SUBJECT LAND WAS IN DISPUTE AND WAS FINALLY ACQUIR ED BY GOVERNMENT AND HENCE THE SALE DID NOT MATERIALIZE IS FACTUALLY INC ORRECT. IT IS ALSO NOT PROVED WHETHER ASSESSEE OWNED ANY LAND IN SURVEY NO . 49 WHICH WAS SUPPOSEDLY AGREED TO BE SOLD. FURTHER IT IS ALSO N OT UNDERSTOOD AS TO WHY A PERSON WOULD PAY ADVANCE OF 10 LAKHS AND WAIT FOR ONE YEAR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCREPANCI ES AND INCONSISTENCIES THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS ARE HELD TO BE FAR FROM TRUTH AND HENCE ARE DISMISSED AS WITHOUT MERITS. THEREFORE I UPHOLD TH E DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SOURCES OF RS. 10 LAKHS REMAIN UNEXPLAINED AND CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE. 6. LD. COUNSEL REFERRING TO THE AGREEMENT AND THE NOT IFICATION OF THE GOVT. OF AP SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF 200 SQ. YDS OF PLOT OUT OF 1 000 TO BE RECEIVED FROM STATE GOVERNMENT. HE PLACED ON RECORD THE PAPER BO OK CONTAINING THE PAHANIS ETC. FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES . I.T.A. NO. 911/HYD/2017 :- 4 - : 7. LD.DR HOWEVER RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO/CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS FILED DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IT IS A F ACT THAT OUT OF RS. 47.7 LAKHS DEPOSITED BY ASSESSEE ONLY RS. 10 LA KHS WAS CONSIDERED BY AO TO BE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND LD.CIT(A) GAVE REASONS WHY THE DOCUMENT DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE CON TENTION OF ASSESSEE. BEFORE ME ALSO NO FURTHER EVIDENCE CO ULD BE FILED. THE PAHANIS OF UPPAL LAND GIVES A DIFFERENT SURVEY NUMBE R AND THE NAME OF THE OWNER IS STATED AS SALLA VEERA REDDY C HANDRA REDDY BUT NOT ASSESSEE NAME OR HIS FATHERS NAME BEIN G S.R. REDDY. UNLESS THE EXISTENCE OF 1000 SQ. YDS. OF PL OT IS PROVED THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF 200 SQ. YDS. OUT OF THAT CANNOT B E ACCEPTED. AS ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND AS THE DISCREPANCIES/DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT BY LD.CIT(A) W ERE NOT CLARIFIED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES CANNOT BE INTERFE RED. THEREFORE ASSESSEE CONTENTIONS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE GROUNDS A RE REJECTED. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER 2017 SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED 30 TH NOVEMBER 2017 TNMM I.T.A. NO. 911/HYD/2017 :- 5 - : COPY TO : 1. SALLA RAM REDDY C/O. K.K. GUPTA FCA CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT 3464 DUNDOO VIHAR R.P. ROAD SECUNDERABAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(4) HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-9 HYDERABAD. 4. PR.CIT-6 HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.