ITO, Ward-4(4), Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. Padma Jain, Hyd, Hyderabad

CO 61/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3798 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SURESH BABU
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. NO.978/HYD/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4), HYDERABAD. VS. SMT. BHAGWATI DEVI, H.NO. 3 - 5 - 805, FLAT NO. 502, SUKH SAGAR APARTMENTS, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. PAN: ACGPD 0241 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA. NO.979/HYD/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 2008 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4), HYDERABAD. VS. SMT. PADMA DEVI, H.NO. 3 - 5 - 805, FLAT NO.502, SUKH SAGAR APARTMENTS, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. PAN: ACGPD 0241 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.60/HYD/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 ) SMT. BHAGWATI DEVI, H.NO. 3 - 5 - 805, FLAT NO.502, SUKH SAGAR APARTMENTS, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. PAN: ACGPD 0241 E VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.61/HYD/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 2008 ) SMT. PADMA DEVI, H.NO. 3 - 5 - 805, FLAT NO.502, SUKH SAGAR APARTMENTS, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. PAN: ACGPD 0241 E VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE: SHRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO FOR REVENUE : SHRI B. SURESH BABU, DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 7 .05.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 .05.2018 2 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN , VP. THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD. SMT. BHAGWATI DEVI AND SMT. PADMA DEVI ARE THE ASSESSEES HEREIN , WHEREIN ADDITION S WERE MADE TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BUT THE SAME WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THE REVENUE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ; BOTH THE ASSESSEES FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS, SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 2. DUE TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPE RATION CONDUCTED ON KEDIA GROUP CASES, NOTICES U/S 153 C WERE ISSUED ON BOTH THE ASSESSEES HEREIN, BASED ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, SMT. PADMA DEVI DECLARED TOTAL INCOME RS. 3,30,790/ - WHEREAS SMT. BHAGWATI DEVI DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,70,610/ - . 3. THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED REFERRED TO A LEGAL NOTICE DATED 25.11.2006 , ISSUED BY ONE MR. VENKATESH DESHPANDA, ADVOCATE UNDER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF HIS CLIENTS VIZ., SHRI MAHAVIR CHAND JAIN AND SMT. PADMA DEVI. AS PER THE FACTS STATED IN THE LEGAL NOTICE, SMT. PADMA DEVI AND ANOTHER PERSON HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 08.05.2006 WITH SMT. SHARADA DEVI KEDIA AND TWO OTHERS FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ADMEASURING 10 ACRES AND 18 GUNTAS F OR A TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2,92,60,000/ - . IN OTHERWORDS, PER ACRE COST WORKS OUT TO RS. 28 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE , SMT. PADMA DEVI , AND SHRI MAHAVIR CHAND JAIN MADE PAYMENTS AGGREGATING TO RS. 1.25 CRS, PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT OF SALE . T HE LEGAL NOTICE (CAUTION NOTICE) GOT PUBLISHED IN HINDI MILAP DAILY CAUTIONING THE GENERAL PUBLIC NOT TO TRANSACT IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AGREED TO BE SOLD TO HIS CLIENTS BY SMT. SHARADA DEVI KEDIA AND OTHERS. 3 4. BASED ON THE AFOREMENTIONED INFORMATION , THE ASSESSING O FFICER CALL ED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 1.25 CRS. SMT. PADMA DEVI STATED THAT SHE HAD NOT PURCHASED THE SAID LAND FROM SMT. SHARADA DEVI AND OTHERS. SHE DENIED HAVING ISSUED ANY LEGAL NOTICE THROUGH SHRI VENKATESH DESHPANDE. 5. IN CASE OF SMT. BHAG WATI DEVI, IT WAS STATED THAT SHE PURCHASED ONLY 5 ACRES OF LAND FOR A TOTAL SUM OF RS. 28 LAKHS. A.O. SUMMONED SHRI VENKATESH DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE ON 25.11.2006 WHEREIN HE HAS STATED THAT THE SAID LEGAL NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY HIM ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENTS . HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE HAD ISSUED A REJOINDER DATED 06.12.2006 ON RECEIPT OF REPLY NOTICE DATED 01.12.2006 FROM SHRI AKELLA SRINIVASA RAO, ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF SMT. SHARADA DEVI AND OTHERS. SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ISSUED TO SHRI MAHAVIR CHAND JAIN, FOR EXAMINING THE TRANSACTION, COULD NOT BE SERVED. THEREFORE, THE A.O. CONCLUDED THAT SHRI MAHAVIR CHAND J AIN IS A BINAMI IN THE TRANSACTION AND HIS NAME WAS USED ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF WRITING ON THE DOCUMENT AND HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.25 CRS WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, SMT. PADMA DEVI, ONLY. A.O REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE AMO UNT SHOWN IN THE DOCUMENT AS THE CORRECT AMOUNT AND THEREFORE , THE BALANCE WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED ADVANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME RETURNED. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.25 CRS WAS PAID BY TH E ASSESSEE, SMT. PADMA DEVI. 6. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF SMT. BHAGWATI DEVI, THE A.O. CONCLUDED THAT THE AMOUNT STATED IN THE LEGAL NOTICE IS THE CORRECT AMOUNT PAID BY HER AND ACCORDINGLY DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. ASSESSEES PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREAFTER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH PASSED SEPARATE ORDERS IN CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES VIZ., (I) ORDER DATED 10.08.2012 (ITA NO. 1759 & 1669/HYD/2011 ) IN THE CASE OF SMT. PADMA 4 DEVI AND (II) ORDER DATED 07.12.2012 (ITA NO. 214/HYD/2011 ) IN THE CASE OF SMT. BHAGWATI DEVI, AND SET ASIDE BOTH THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO THE A.O. TO RE - DETERMINE THE ISSUE AFTER MAKING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES AND GATHERING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE LEGAL NOTICE WAS ISSUED AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEES HEREIN. WHILE PASSING THE ORDERS U/S 143(3) READ WITH 254 OF THE ACT, THE A.O AGAIN REPEATED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT C OOPERATED PROPERLY. THUS, ASSESSEES PREFERRED APPEAL S BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 7. IN THE CASE OF SMT. PADMA DEVI, THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN GREAT DETAIL AND OBSERVED THAT DESPITE SPECIFIC DIRECTION BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE A.O. HAS NOT PROPER LY MADE THE INVESTIGATION. IN THIS REGARD, HE ELABORATED BY STATING THAT THOUGH SHRI VENKATESH DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE HAS ISSUED A LEGAL NOTICE, HE DID NOT MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN HAS REQUESTED HIM TO ISSUE A LEGAL NOTICE. HE MERELY STATED THAT THE LEGAL NOTICE WAS ISSUED BECAUSE SOME PERSONS CAME TO THE OFFICE WITH THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND REQUESTED THE COUNSEL TO ISSUE A NOTICE. EVEN DURING CROSS - EXAMINATION SHRI VENKATESH DESHPANDE AGREED THAT HE HAS NOT SEEN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT OF SALE AND DENIED HAVING MET SHRI MAHAVIR CHAND JAIN AND SMT. PADMA DEVI. CIT (A) ALSO EMPHASISED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALL ALONG DENIED THE TRANSACTION AND THERE IS NO PROOF OF PASSING ON THE MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THE OTHER PARTY. SINCE THERE CANNOT BE ANY TRANSACTIO N WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF SMT. PADMA DEVI. IN THIS REGARD, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY. BEFORE ME, NO FURTHER ADDITION AL EVIDENCE WERE SUBMITTED REGARDING THE ISSUE BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAS DONE EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION. HOWEVER, SOME OF THE VITAL AND CONNECTING ISSUES WERE NOT EXPLAINED. MANY QUESTIONS ARE NOT ANSWERED. THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS. A. THE GEN UINENESS OF THE LEGAL NOTICE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF LETTER OF ITS AUTHOR SHRI VENKATESH DESHPANDE, 5 ADVOCATE DT. 24.12.2009, WHEREIN THE SAID ADVOCATE STATED AS FOLLOWS: ..I WISH TO STATE THAT THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 25. 11.2006 IS ISSUED BY ME. I FURTHER WISH TO STATE THAT SOME PERSONS CAME TO MY OFFICE WITH THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND REQUESTED ME TO ISSUE NOTICE TO THE ADDRESSES MENTIONED THEREIN AND UPON VERIFYING THE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED TO ME AT THE POINT OF TIME, I HAVE ISSUED A LEGAL NOTICE DT. 25.11.2006. WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ASKED HIM TO ISSUE LEGAL NOTICE. B. AT THE SPECIFIC REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, SHE WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE THE ADVOCATE, SHRI VENKATESH DESHPANDE, ON 24.02.2011. SHRI R.B. KABRA, CA, AND AR OF THE ASSESSEE CROSS - EXAMINED SHRI VENKATESH DESHPANDE. DURING THE CROSS - EXAMINATION, SHRI VENKATESH DESHPANDE WHILE STATING THAT, A. HE HAS NOT SEEN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT OF SALE BUT HAS CONFIRMED HAVING SEEN THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT O F SALE. B. WHILE DENYING HAVING MET SHRI MAHAVIR CHAND JAIN & SMT. PADMA DEVI, HE HAS CONFIRMED THAT SOME PERSONS APPROACHED HIM WITH THE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND REQUESTED HIM TO ISSUE LEGAL NOTICE TO KEDIA FAMILY. C. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT I S NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE, SMT. PADMA DEVI, VIDE HER LETTER DATED 19.11.2009. A. DENIED HAVING PAID THE SUM OF RS. 1,25,00,000/ - TO KEDIA FAMILY. B. SHE ALSO STATED THAT SHE HAS NOT INSTRUCTED ANYBODY TO ISSUE LEGAL NOTICE TO KEDIA FAMILY. C. FURTHER, SHE HAS STATED THAT SHE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CAUTION NOTICE IN HINDI MILAP. D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO POINTED BOTH IN THE CAUTION NOTICE PUBLISHED IN HINDI MILAP DAILY AND IN THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED BY SHRI VENKATESH DESHPANDE, THE NAME OF ONE SH RI MAHAVIR CHAND JAIN S/O. LATE PARASMAL JAIN R/O. B - 12, ANKUR, SHASTRI NAGAR COLONY, JODHPUR IS APPEARING ALONG WITH THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, SMT. PADMA DEVI. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE EXISTENCE OR OTHERWISE OF SHRI MAHAVIR CHAND JAIN, SHRI AMARDEEP RAT HORE, INCOME TAX INSPECTOR WORKING UNDER THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (3), JODHPUR HAS BEEN DEPUTED TO VISIT THE PREMISES BEARING NO.B - 12, ANKUR, SHASTRI NAGAR COLONY, JODHPUR AND ENQUIRE ABOUT SHRI MAHAVIR CHAND JAIN. THE INSPECTOR VISITED THE PREMISES AND CON TACT ED ITS OWNER ONE SHRI B.R. BHANDARI, WHO STATED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THE SAID PROPERTY IN 1972 AND STILL HE IS THE OWNER. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE NEVER RENTED THIS PROPERTY TO THE PERSON NAMED SHRI MAHAVIR CHAND JAIN, S/O. LATE PARASMAL JAI N AND NO SUCH PERSON IS EVER KNOWN TO HIM. FURTHER, THE LOCAL ENQUIRIES CAUSED BY THE INSPECTOR REVEALED THAT NO SUCH PERSON HAVE EVER RESIDED AT THE PREMISES BEARING NO. B - 12, ANKUR, SHASTRI NAGAR COLONY, JODHPUR. THUS, THE EXISTENCE OF SRI MAHAVIR CHAN D JAIN S/O. LATE PARASMAL JAIN, R/O B - 12, ANKUR, SHASTRI NAGAR COLONY, JODHPUR PROVED FICTITIOUS. 6 7. THERE IS NO DOUBT THE LEGAL NOTICE AS IT OWN IS TRUE DOCUMENT, BUT THE ISSUE AS TO WHO AND WHICH TRANSACTION HAS BEEN REFERRED HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT OUT. THE PERSON CONCERNED ALONGWITH THE APPELLANT HAS PROVED TO BE FICTITIOUS PERSON. THE WHOLE TRANSACTION DENIED BY THE APPELLANT, COULD NOT BE ALSO, PROVED IN TERMS OF MONEY TRANSACTION OR SALE TRANSACTION. NO TRANSACTION CAN BE COMPLETE D WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT SHOW ANY FINANCIAL MOVEMENTS IN THIS CASE. SECONDLY, THE MAIN ISSUE IS THE EXISTENCE OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENT OR AUTHENTICATED DOCUMENTS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DEPENDED UPON TWO GROUNDS, ONE THE LEGAL NOTICE AND THE NEWSPAPER DOCUMENT. THE ISSUER (PADMA DEVI) AND THE RECIPIENT (BHAGWATI DEVI) N OT HAVE DENIED TO THE SALE OF LAND. ONLY CALLING IT A BENAMI TRANSACTION , WITHOUT EVIDENCE, FALLS FLAT. WITH GAPS IN THE TRANSACTION NETWORK, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF THE WHOLE TRANSACTION. HENCE IS SUCH BACKGROUND, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS QUESTIONABLE. SINCE THE TRANSACTION IS NOT PROVED, I ACCEPT THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION AND ALLOW THE APPEAL. 8. IN THE CASE OF SMT. BHAGWATI D EVI ALSO THE FACTS BEING IDENTICAL I.E., THE ADDITION HAVING BEEN MADE PURELY BASED UPON THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED BY SHRI VENKATESH DESHPANDE, WHICH IS IN SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE TRANSACTION , PARTICULARLY PAYMENT OF EXCESS AMOUNT. LD. CIT(A) SET - ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE A.O. AS WELL AS CIT (A) AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 9. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: IN THE CASE OF SMT. PADMA DEVI: THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 1,25,00,000/ - . IN THE CASE OF SMT. BHAGWATI DEVI: THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,17,50,00 0/ - . 10. BY WAY OF ABUNDANT CAUTION, THE ASSESSEES HEREIN FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS WHEREIN IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE A.O. ERRED IN NOT RECORDING THE MANDATORY SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT BEFORE THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT AND THERE IS N O INCRIMINATING MATERIAL 7 BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE NEITHER A PARTY TO THE ALLEGED SALE AGREEMENT DATED 08.05.2016 NOR ARE THE PARTIES TO THE ALLEGED LEGAL NOTICE DATE D 25.11.2006 AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF TO SHOW THAT THE MONEY WAS PAID BY SMT. PADMA DEVI AND SMT. BHAGWATI DEVI, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AS WELL AS THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THESE APPEALS AND ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. AS NOTICED FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT (ITA NO S. 1759 & 1669/HYD/2011, DATED 10.08.2012) THERE IS A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENTS AND NEXUS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEES AND THE LEGAL NOTICE. IN OTHERWORDS, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ILLEGAL NOTICE. IN THE CASE OF SMT. PADMA DEVI, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL READS AS UNDER: 12. THUS, THE DEPARTMENT IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO GATHER SOME MORE EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE WITH THE CONTENTS OF THE LEGAL NOTICE IN QUESTION, SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENTS AND THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID LEGAL NOTICE. EVEN THOUGH THE SAID LEGAL NOTI CE, THOUGH GIVES RISE TO INFERENCES AS TO THE RIGHTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ANOTHER IN RESPECT OF AN ACTIONABLE CLAIM, THAT ITSELF IS NOT ENOUGH TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION, M ORE PARTICULARLY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS DENYING THE SAME. THE DEPARTMENT, BASED ON SUCH LEGAL NOTICE, SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES IN RELATION TO HE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION AND WITH THE OWNERS TO WHOM THE NOTICES IN QUESTION WERE SENT. IT IS STRANGE THAT THE ADVOCATE CLAIMS THAT SOME PERSONS APPROACHED HIM WITH A REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE LEGAL NOTICE IN QUESTION, AND HE ACTED ACCORDINGLY AS PER THEIR REQUEST, WITHOUT VERIFYING THEIR CREDENTIALS OR EVEN BONA FIDES OF THE PERSONS WHOM THE Y CLAIM TO REPRESENT. THE ADVOCATE MUST AFFIRM THE DOCUMENTS SEEN BY HIM BEFORE THE ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED LEGAL NOTICE. 13. CONSIDERING TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH A 8 DIRECTION TO REDETERMINE THE ISSUE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCU SSION, AFTER MAKING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES AND GATHERING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE PROPERTIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE LEGAL NOTICE IN QUESTION WAS ISSUED, AND ALSO AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ADVOCATE IN QUE STION ABOUT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH NOTICE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN, AND THE NEXUS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SAID NOTICE. IT IS NOT KNOWN IF THE INCOME - TAX INSPECTOR IS ALREADY PUT INTO ACTI ON TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF SHRI JAIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL REDETERMINE THE ISSUE THEREAFTER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. BHAGWATI DEVI, THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. IN OTHERWORDS, BURDEN IS C A ST UPON THE REVENUE TO MAKE INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES AND TO GATHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO THE TRANSAC TIONS IN THE PROPERTIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE LEGAL NOTICE WAS ISSUED. DESPITE SPECIFIC DIRECTION, THE REVENUE COULD NOT OBTAIN ANY F OOL PROOF INFORMATION TO SHOW THAT THE MONEY ACTUALLY PASSED ON FROM THE ASSESSEES TO THE OTHER PARTY. IN THE CASE O F SMT. PADMA DEVI, SHE DENIED HAVING ANY TRANSACTION WITH SMT. SHARADA DEVI KEDIA, WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF SMT. BHAGWATI DEVI, SHE CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT SHE PURCHASED THE LAND FOR SUM OF RS. 28 LAKHS ONLY AND THERE IS NO PROOF TO SUGGEST THAT SHE HAS PA ID EXCESS AMOUNT OR THE OTHER PARTY HAS PAID EXCESS AMOUNT. WE NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES TO GATHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITI ON COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN BOTH THE CASES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. SINCE WE ARE CONFIRMING THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE CROSS OBJECTIONS PARTICULARLY SINCE THEY ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION. 9 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 TH MAY, 2018. SD/ - SD/ - (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED: 07 TH MAY, 2018. OKK, SR.PS COPY TO 1. SMT. BHAGWATI DEVI, SMT. PADMA DEVI, H.NO.3 - 5 - 805, FLAT NO.502, SUKH SAGAR APARTMENTS, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. 2. ITO, WARD - 4(4), R.NO. 746, 7 TH FLOOR, D BLOCK, I.T. TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (A) - 1, HYDERABAD. 4. PR. CIT - 1, HYDERABAD. 5. DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE