Sri G.Seenu Babu(Individual), Hyderabad V. ITO, Hyderabad

ITA 1128/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53595 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURESH BATINI
• Assessee Lawyers: K V CHALAMAIAH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1128/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 SHRI G.,SEENU BABU (INDL), HYDERABAD ( PAN AKOPB 4875 C ) V/S. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.V.CHALAMAIAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SURESH BATINI O R D E R PER G.C.GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS). 2. GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE AS U NDER- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN LAW AND ON F ACTS WHILE SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.1 LAC AS UNEXPLAINED INVE STMENT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S WHILE SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.4,98,250 TOWARDS UNEXPLAI NED EXPENDITURE ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY INCLUDING THE EXPENDITURE ON STAMP DUT Y ETC. FROM THE ITA NO.1128/H/2010 SHRI G.,SEENU BABU (INDL), HYDERABAD 2 WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 7 LAKHS MADE BY IT FROM HIS NRI ACCOUNT WITH IDBI BANK, AMEERPET BRANCH, HYDERABAD IN THE MONTH OF DE CEMBER, 2005. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TIME GAP BETWEEN THE WITHDRA WAL FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT AND INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WAS ONLY ABOUT SIX MONTHS AND NO ADVERSE VIEW SHOU LD BE TAKEN FOR SUCH A SMALL GAP. HE SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF R S. 2 LAKHS WAS GIVEN BY THE NRI-ASSESSEE TO HIS RELATIVE FOR TEMP ORARY ADJUSTMENT TO MEET THEIR REQUIREMENT, AND THE MONEY WAS RECEIV ED BACK AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY. HE SUBMITTED THAT A CONFIRMATION FOR THE SUM OF RS.2 LAKHS WAS GIVEN BY THE MATERNA L UNCLE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI S. SAMBAIAH. 4. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS OPPOS ED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS AN INORDINATE TIME GAP OF ABOUT ONE Y EAR BETWEEN THE DATE OF WITHDRAWAL OF THE MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE FOR M HIS NRI ACCOUNT WITH IDBI BANK OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH HAS TAKEN PLACE ON 28.10.2006. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS EXPLANATION THAT THE SUM IN QUESTION WAS GIV EN TO HIS RELATIVES AS A TEMPORARY LOAN AND THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BACK AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY. HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE CONFIRMATION BY MATERNAL U NCLE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A SELF-SERVING EVIDENCE AND THE P AYMENT AND RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCE. HE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). ITA NO.1128/H/2010 SHRI G.,SEENU BABU (INDL), HYDERABAD 3 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREF ULLY AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AN IMMOVABLE P ROPERTY AT S.R.NAGAR, VIDE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO.2977 OF 2006 ON 28.10.2006, BY TAKING A LOAN OF RS.50 LAKHS FROM ID BI BANK, AMERPET. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE IN VESTMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS IN THE PROPERTY AT S.R. NAGAR WAS IN FACT OUT OF LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FORM IDBI BANK LTD. AND ALSO RS.1.5 LA KHS WAS PAID FROM THE ICICI BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR INVESTMENT OF RS. 1-LAKH IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BESIDES SOURCE FOR EXPENDITURE OF RS.4.98,250 TOWAR DS STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINE D THAT HE HAS WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS.7 LAKHS IN DECEMBER, 2005 FRO M HIS NRI ACCOUNT WITH IDBI BANK WITH AMEERPET BRANCH, AND TH IS AMOUNT WAS IN FACT GIVEN TO RELATIVES FOR TEMPORARY ADJUSTMEN T TO MEET THEIR REQUIREMENT, BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BACK AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY. OUT OF T HIS WITHDRAWAL OF RS.7 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS. 1 LAKH TO WARDS PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY IN S.R. NAGAR AND HAS SPENT RS.4,98,25 0 TOWARDS STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES, ETC WITH REGARD TO T HE TRANSFER OF THE SAID PROPERTY. WE FIND THAT THE TIME GAP BETWEEN TH E WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE IDBI BANK AND THE INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WAS OF ABOUT TEN MONTHS ONLY, WHICH COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE INORDINATE OR UNUSUAL . IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SOME I NVESTMENT OTHER THAN IN THE PROPERTY AT S.R.NAGAR, OUT OF THE SAID WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 7 LAKHS FROM THE NRI ACCOUNT WITH IDBI BANK. T HE CONFIRMATION ITA NO.1128/H/2010 SHRI G.,SEENU BABU (INDL), HYDERABAD 4 GIVEN BY THE MATERNAL UNCLE OF THE ASSESSEE REGARD ING THE AMOUNT OF RS.2 LAKHS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE AND GIVEN BAC K TO HIM, COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE CIT(A) WITH ANY CONVINCING REASONS. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS. 7 LAKHS FROM HIS NRI ACCOUNT WITH IDBI BANK IN DECEMBER, 2005 IS NOT IN DISPUTE. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE , WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.1- LAKH IN THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUEST ION AND ALSO HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,98,250 TOWARDS STAMP DUTY, REGISTRATION CHARGES ETC. AND NO CASE OF ADDI TION OF THESE AMOUNTS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COULD BE MAD E OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE DEL ETED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. I. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9.9.2011 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ( G.C. G UPTA) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER V ICE PRESIDENT DATED 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . SHRI G.,SEENU BABU (INDL), H.NO.8 - 3 - 319/8/10, FLAT NO.203, K.K. TOWERS, YOUSUFGUDA, HYDERABAD 2. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) - III HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX II HYDERABAD 5. THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S