IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES : BENCH A HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE ) BEFORE SHRI S ATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO S . 1071 & 1072 /HYD./201 3 A.Y. : 20 06 - 07 & 20 07 - 08 SRI SYED ANEESUDDIN VS. ITO, WARD 7(1) HYDERABAD HYDERABAD PAN: AAOPU 6624 Q (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE: SRI P.C. YADAV, ADV. FOR REVENUE: SRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 18 /01/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 /01/2021 O R D E R PER BENCH TH ESE ASSESSEES TWO APPEALS FOR A.Y. 20 06 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 ARISE FROM COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - VI, HYDERABADS ORDERS DATED 18.04.2013 IN CA SE NO.0527/2011 - 12/CIT(A) - VI AND CASE NO. 0553/2010 - 11/CIT(A) - VI RESPECTIVELY , INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILES PERUSED. 2. COMING TO ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND CHALLENGING UNEXPLAINED INCOME ADDITION OF RS.7,63,125/ - MADE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND UPHELD IN CIT(A)S ORDER, WE NOTICE THAT WITH THE ABLE ASSISTANCE OF BOTH THE LEARNED R EPRESENTATIVES THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAD DULY ACCEPTED ASSESSEES REVISED RETURN DECLARING PROFIT RATE OF 8% (NP) ON THE VERY SUM AS PER PAGE 27 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THAT BEING THE CASE, WE H O LD THIS AS AN ITA NOS. 1071 & 1072 /HYD/1 3 AYS: 20 06 - 07 & 20 07 - 08 SRI SYED ANEESUDDIN 2 INSTANCE OF DOUBLE ADDITION OF THE VERY SUM I.E. QUA GROSS RECEIPT AS WELL AS PROFIT ELEMENT MADE IN BOTH THE LOWER PROCEEDINGS . WE,THEREFORE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. TH E ASSESSEES FORMER APPEAL IN ITA 1071/HYD/13 IS A LLOWED . 3. NEXT COMES ASSESSEES LA T TER APPEAL ITA 1072/HYD/13 SEEKING DELET ION OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME ADDITION OF RS.18,63,500/ - MADE IN BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES PROCEEDINGS. WE FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN THE INSTANT LA T TER ADDITION AS WELL . THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2010 IN PARA 6 MAKES IT SUFFICIE NTLY CLEAR THAT THIS SUM REPRESENTED PART OF THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.44,67,500/ - AS AGAINST THAT DECLARED OF RS.26,04,000/ - IN RESPECT OF THE 5 FLATS BEARING NUMBERS 102, 104 502, 503 AND 504 ADMEASURING 4980 SQ. FT. OLD IN THE RELEVANT PRE VIOUS YEAR . WE THUS CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD HIMSELF ACCEPTED SOURCE AS WELL AS IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CORRECTNESS OF THE SUM AND THEREFORE; THE SAME COULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. MR. PANDEY AT THIS STAGE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED IT IS AT THE BEST ERRONEOUS QUOTING OF RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISION AT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS END. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE INSTANT TECHNICAL PLEA AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ONLY IN VOKED SECTION 68 BY MISTAKE BUT ALSO HE HAS TREATED THE IMPUGNED SUM AS UNEXPLAI NED. WE THUS DELETE THE IMPUGNED UNEXPLAINED INCOME ADDITION AS WELL. THE A SSESSEES LATTER APPEAL ITA 1072/HYD/13 IS ALSO ALLOWED . THESE TWO ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JANUARY , 2021. SD/ - SD/ - (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: THE 20 TH JANUARY, 2021. * GMV ITA NOS. 1071 & 1072 /HYD/1 3 AYS: 20 06 - 07 & 20 07 - 08 SRI SYED ANEESUDDIN 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI SYED ANEESUDDIN, C/O M.M. FIRDOS, ADVOCATE, 11 - 3 - 942, 1 ST FLOOR, NEW MALLEPALLY, HYDERABAD. 2. ITO, WARD 7(1), HYDERABAD. 3. ACIT, RANGE 7, HYDERABAD 4. CIT(A) - VI , HYDERABAD. 5. PR.CIT - 6 , HYDERABAD 6. DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 7. GUARD FILE.