DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. H.Suresh, Hyderabad

ITA 125/Hyd/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6082 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2021
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Period of limitation; Source of fund; Time period of passing order; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C; 43; 13; 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 125/HYD/2015 2008-09 THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD SRI H.SURESH, HYDERABAD [PAN: BACPS7997H] 181/HYD/2015 2008-09 SRI H.SURESH, HYDERABAD [PAN: BACPS7997H] THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD FOR REVENUE : SHRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR, DR FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI SAMUEL NAGADESI, AR DATE OF HEARING : 04-05-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-09-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : THESE REVENUES AND ASSESSEES CROSS-APPEALS FOR AY.2008-09 ARISE AGAINST THE CIT(A)-II, HYDERABADS O RDER(S) DATED 11-11-2014, IN CASE NO.0270 / CIT(A)-II, HYD / 2014-15, INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 [IN SHORT, THE ACT]; RESPECTIVELY. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILES PERUSED. 2. IT TRANSPIRES AT THE OUTSET THAT THE REVENUES AND ASSESSEES IDENTICAL SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE CHALLE NGES CORRECTNESS OF THE CIT(A)S ACTION RESTRICTING ADDITION AL INCOME ITA NOS. 125/HYD/2015 & 181/HYD/2015 :- 2 -: OF RS.2,90,00,000/- TO CASH COMPONENT OF RS.75 LAKHS ALONGWITH SRO VALUE OF PLOT AND LAND, AMOUNTING TO RS.68,75,000/-; RESPECTIVELY TOTALLING TO RS.1,43,75,0 00/-. RELEVANT FACTS INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT LIS ARE INDEED VERY BRIEF. THIS ASSESSEE WAS ADMITTEDLY ONE OF THE DIRECTORS IN A COMPANY M/S.SWADESH VILLAS PVT. LTD. INCORPORATED ON 19-04- 2006 ALONG WITH MANY OTHER CO-DIRECTORS INCLUDING ONE SHRI R.SREENIVASULU. BOTH THESE PERSONS WERE ALSO PARTNERS IN A PARTNERSHIP FIRM IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S.SREE PR OJECTS. BOTH THE FOREGOING CONCERNS HAD BEEN CARRYING OUT REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY. THE DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED A SURVE Y ACTION ON 26-06-2008 IN THE FOREGOING TWIN ENTITIES B USINESS PREMISES. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS GOT RECORDED HIS SEC TION 131 STATEMENT THEREFORE ON 02-07-2008 OFFERING TO ADMIT AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.2,90,00,000/- ALREADY COMPRI SING OF CASH AMOUNT OF RS.11,11,946/- ALONG WITH A PLOT OF 850 0 SQ.YDS., AND LAND OF 1 ACRE 6 GUNTAS IN GUDUR VILLAG E, NAGULAPALLY VILLAGE, MAHABOOBNAGAR DISTRICT; RESPECTIV ELY. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY THAT THIS ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED NIL INCOME IN H IS RETURN DT.26-09-2008. HE THEREFORE WENT BY THE ASSESSE ES FOREGOING ADMISSION U/S.131 OF THE ACT TO MAKE THE IMPU GNED ADDITIONAL INCOME ADDITION OF RS.2.90 CRORES. THE CI T(A) HAS GRANTED PART RELIEF TO HIM AS UNDER: FOR AY.2008-09 THE ASSESSEE FILED NIL RETURN OF IN COME ON 26.09.2008 WHEREIN HE ADMITTED GROSS INCOME OF RS.9 6,466/- AND CLAIMED CHAPTER-VIA DEDUCTION OF RS.1,00,000/- AND OFFERED TOTAL INCOME AS RS.NIL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW -CAUSE NOTICE ITA NOS. 125/HYD/2015 & 181/HYD/2015 :- 3 -: AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.2.90 CRORES BASED ON THE ST ATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON 02.07.2008. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS F ILED AGAINST SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.2,94,16,220/- AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. NIL. 4.1 THE APPELLANT MADE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: (A) THAT THE VALUES MENTIONED IN SETTLEMENT DEED IS IMMATERIAL AS THE LAND WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF G.O.MS. NO.111 DATED 08. 03.1996 AND G.O.MS. NO. 14046/11/2007 WHEREIN THE LAND IN CATCH MENT AREAS OF OSMANSAGAR WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER TO THE TWIN CITIES OF HYDERABAD ARE DECLARED ILLEGAL, NEWSPAPER ARTICL E DATED 07.03.2011 IS ENCLOSED WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT S EVERAL LAYOUTS WERE DECLARED ILLEGAL BY GOVERNMENT IN AND AROUND S HADNAGAR AREA WHICH INCLUDES LAYOUTS MADE BY M/S.SWADESH VILLAS P VT. LTD. COPIES OF G.OS. AND NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS ARE ENCLOSED. (B) THAT THE APPELLANT RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING: (I) CASH OF RS.11, 11 ,946/-. (II) 8500 SQUARE YARDS AT GUDUR VILLAGE KOTTUR MAND AL, MAHABOOBNAGAR DISTRICT I.E. PARIS GOLD VENTURE. (III) ONE ACRE AND SIX GUNTAS OF LAND AT COSMO CITY -II LAYOUT, NAGULAPALLY VILLAGE, FAROOQNAGAR MANDAI, MAHABOOBNA GAR DISTRICT. (C) THAT THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.2.9 CRORES IS MERE LY BASED ON STATEMENT GIVEN BY SRI R.SREENIVASULU WITHOUT ANY C ORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. (D) A CIVIL SUIT IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD CLAIMING AMOUNT OF RS.66,63,054/-. (E) AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR IN F.NO.286/2/2003 THE ACTION OF THE OFFICERS SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON COLLECTING THE EVIDEN CE RATHER THAN FORCING THE ASSESSEES TO CONFESS THE INCOME IN STAT EMENTS RECORDED. (F) IN STATEMENT RECORDED ON 02.07.2008 NOWHERE THE APPELLANT ADMITTED RECEIPT OF CASH EXCEPT FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS .11,11,964/ -. (G) POST-DATED CHEQUES WERE ISSUED FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.75,00,000/- WHICH WERE TAKEN BACK BY THE MEDIATORS. (H) FILING OF CIVIL SUIT AGAINST THE OTHER DIRECTOR S IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT RECEIVED. (I) THE LAND OF 1 ACRE 6 GUNTAS AT FAROOQNAGAR MAND AL AND 8500 SQUARE YARDS OF LAND AT PARIS GOLD VENTURE, GUDUR V ILLAGE WAS ITA NOS. 125/HYD/2015 & 181/HYD/2015 :- 4 -: REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAM ILY MEMBERS OR HIS NOMINEES. (J) THAT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES THE HON'BLE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SURVEY HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. I) ASHOK MANILAL THAKKAR VS.ACIT (2005) 279 ITR (AT) 1 43 II) S.KHADER KHAN SON (2008) 300 ITR 157 (MAD) (K) THAT THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WAS NOT HONOURE D BY THE FIRST PARTY (I.E., SRI R. SREENIVASULU, SRI SHAIK ABBAS, SRI T. SHASHI KUMAR AND SRI W. RAMANA RAO) AND THE MEDIATORS HAVE ENTER ED TO SETTLE THE DEAL WHICH RESULTED IN LODGING THE POLICE COMPLAINT IN PUNJAGUTTA POLICE STATION AND ALSO THE CIVIL CASE AGAINST THE OTHER DIRECTORS. (L) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY BELIEVED THE STATE MENT OF SRI R.SREENIVASULU WITHOUT VERIFYING THE SOURCE OF FUND S IN THE HANDS OF SRI R. SREENIVASULU AS TO HOW HE MOBILIZED SUCH HUG E AMOUNT OF CASH TO MAKE SETTLEMENT IN CASH FOR THE CHEQUES TAKEN BA CK. (M) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWED CLEAR BIAS IN REJECTING THE CREDIBLE AND COGENT EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELL ANT ABOUT THE NON RECEIPT OF THE PENDING SETTLEMENT OF CONSIDERAT ION IN LIEU OF CHEQUES TAKEN BACK, BUT ACCEPTING A MERE STATEMENT OF MR.R.SREENIVASULU, WHO COULD NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN BANK (WHEN HE HAS MADE PAYMENT IN CASH TO SETTLE THE AMO UNT IN LIEU OF CHEQUES ISSUED) THE CREDIBILITY OF WHICH IS HIGHLY DOUBTFUL EVEN UNDER THE TEST OF PREPONDERANCE OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES AN D AO WHO IS DUTY BOUND TO VERIFY THE SAME AS TO ITS NATURE AND SOURC E COMMITTED A CLEAR DERELICTION OF HIS DUTY WAS BIASED, ACTED MAL A FIDE COMMITTED MISFEASANCE AND NONFEASANCE IN PERFORMING HIS DUTIE S AS A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND PASSED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NT BASED ON SURMISES CONJECTURES AND BIAS, IS TO BE CANCELLED A ND NECESSARY RELIEF MAY BE ALLOWED IN APPEAL. (N) THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CORROBORATIVE OR DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 5.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION ON RECORD. THE COMPANY M/S.SWADESH VILLAS PVT. LTD. WAS FORMED ON 19.04.2006 WITH 6 DIRECTORS AND THE APPELLANT WAS ONE OF THE D IRECTORS WITH 9% SHARE HOLDING. DUE TO CERTAIN MISUNDERSTANDINGS 'AM ONGST THE DIRECTORS THE APPELLANT ALONGWITH SRI G.V. RAJASEKH AR WANTED TO COME OUT OF THE BUSINESS BY TRANSFERRING THEIR SHAR E TO THE COMPANY FOR AN AGREED AMOUNT OF CASH AND LAND. THE AMOUNT O F CASH AND LAND THAT FELL TO THE SHARE OF THE APPELLANT WAS - (A) CASH OF RS.75,00,000/- ITA NOS. 125/HYD/2015 & 181/HYD/2015 :- 5 -: (B) PLOT OF 8,500 SQUARE YARDS AT PARIS GOLD VENTURE, K OTTUR MANDAL, MAHABOOBNAGAR DISTRICT. (C) 1 ACRE 6 GUNTAS OF LAND AT COSMO CITY - II LAYOUT, NAGULAPALLY VILLAGE, FAROOQNAGAR MARIDAL, MAHABOOBNAGAR DISTRIC T. 5.2 THE PARIS GOLD VENTURE WAS DECLARED ILLEGAL BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AS THE VENTURE WAS LOCATED IN CATCHM ENT OF OSMANSAGAR LAKE. PLOTS OF 8,500 SQUARE YARDS WAS RE GISTERED IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANT OR HIS NOMINEES ON 14.02.2007 F OR AN AMOUNT OF RS.68,00,0001-. LAND OF 1 ACRE AND 6 GUNTAS WAS REG ISTERED IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLANT ON 15.12.2007 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 75,000/- 5.3 HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION ARE: (I) WHETHER THERE IS ANY TRANSFER OF SHARES BY THE APPE LLANT TO M/S.SWADESH VILLAS PVT. LTD.? (II) IF THERE IS A TRANSFER OF SHARES, WHAT IS THE SALE CONSIDERATION TO BE ADOPTED FOR COMPUTING THE CAPIT AL GAINS? 5.4 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 (47) DEFINED THE TE RM 'TRANSFER' READ AS UNDER : 'TRANSFER', IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUDE S,- (I) THE SALE, EXCHANGE OR RELINQUISHMENT OF THE AS SET; OR (II) THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN; OR (III) THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION THEREOF UNDER ANY L AW; OR (IV) IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSET IS CONVERTED BY THE OWNER THEREOF INTO, OR IS TREATED BY HIM AS, STOCK-IN-TRADE OF A BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM, SUCH CONVERSION OR TREATMENT ;] [OR] [(IVA) THE MATURITY OR REDEMPTION OF A ZERO CO UPON BOND; OR] [(V) ANY TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE ALLOWING OF THE POSSESSION OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED IN P ART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 (4 OF 1882) ; OR (VI) ANY TRANSACTION (WHETHER BY WAY OF BECOMING A MEMBER OF, OR ACQUIRING SHARES IN, A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, COMPAN Y OR OTHER ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS OR BY WAY OF ANY AGREEMENT O R ANY ARRANGEMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER) WHIC H HAS THE EFFECT OF TRANSFERRING, OR ENABLING THE ENJOYMENT OF, ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. [EXPLANATION 1].-FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-CLAUSES (V ) AND (VI), 'IMMOVABLE PROPERTY' SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (D) OF SECTION 269UA] ITA NOS. 125/HYD/2015 & 181/HYD/2015 :- 6 -: [EXPLANATION 2.-FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HE REBY CLARIFIED THAT 'TRANSFER' INCLUDES AND SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE ALW AYS INCLUDED DISPOSING OF OR PARTING WITH AN ASSET OR ANY INTERE ST THEREIN, OR CREATING ANY INTEREST IN ANY ASSET IN ANY MANNER WH ATSOEVER, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ABSOLUTELY OR CONDITIONALLY, VOLUNTA RILY OR INVOLUNTARILY, BY WAY OF AN AGREEMENT (WHETHER ENTERED INTO IN IND IA OR OUTSIDE INDIA) OR OTHERWISE, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH TRAN SFER OF RIGHTS HAS BEEN CHARACTERISED AS BEING EFFECTED OR DEPENDENT U PON OR FLOWING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A SHARE OR SHARES OF A COMPANY REGISTERED OR INCORPORATED OUTSIDE INDIA;]' FROM THE PRELIMINARY READING OF THE TERM 'TRANSFER' AS DEFINED IN THE ACT, THE APPELLANT IS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 2(47) (I), (VI) AND EXPLANATION 2. THEREFORE, HE RECEIVED CASH AND LAND IN LIEU OF THE TRANSFER OF SHARES J FOR SURRENDERING HIS INTEREST IN THE COMPANY. VIDE THE AGREEMENT DATED 10.12.2007 THERE WAS SETTLEMENT AMONG THE DIRECTORS BY WHICH THERE WAS AN UNDERSTANDING TO PA Y CASH OF RS.75,00,000/- AND LAND OF 8,500 SQ.YDS FOR SURREND ERING HIS INTEREST IN THE COMPANY. THEREFORE THE GAIN ON TRANSFER OF S HARES HAS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. 5.5 WITH REFERENCE TO CASH OF RS.75,00,000/- AN AMO UNT OF RS.11,11,946/- WAS ADMITTED AS RECEIVED BY THE APPE LLANT. THE APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.66,63,05 4/- IS YET TO BE RECEIVED, AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT O F THE APPELLANT RECORDED ON 02.07.2008 WHEREIN HE WAS ALLOWED TO CR OSS-EXAMINE SRI R. SREENIVASULU, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPEL LANT DID NOT HAVE MUCH DEFENCE EXCEPT MERELY DENYING THE CONTENTS OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT AI SP 103. IT APPEARS THAT AS AND WHEN THE CASH WAS PAID BY SRI R. SREENIVASULU, THE APPELLANT WAS RETURNING THE CHEQUES. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.75,00,000/- IS T O BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. WITH REFERENCE TO RELIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE C ASE OF KHADER KHAN SON (CITED SUPRA) IT IS PERTINENT TO ME NTION THAT SUBSTANTIAL OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE APPELLAN T TO CROSS- EXAMINE SRI R. SREENIVASULU AND FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE CROSS EXAMINATION N IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE APPELLANT FAIL ED IN HIS ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE CASH OVER AND ABOVE R S.11,11,946 1THOUGH MUCH OF THE DETAILS ARE NOT BROUGHT OUT IN ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVID ENCE IN THE FORM OF IMPOUNDED MATERIAL WHICH WAS USED AS BASIS FOR RECO RDING THE STATEMENT. 5.6 WITH REFERENCE TO THE VALUE OF THE LAND OF 8500 SQUARE YARDS, AND 1 ACRE 6 GUNTAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED T O ADOPT THE VALUE AS PER THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT AS THIS IS HIGHER TH AN THE SRO VALUE. ITA NOS. 125/HYD/2015 & 181/HYD/2015 :- 7 -: 5.7 THEREFORE, THE CAPITAL GAINS IS TO BE BROUGHT T O TAX FOR A.Y.2008-09 AND THE CONSIDERATION WILL BE, CASH OF RS.75,00,000 /- PLUS THE REGISTERED VALUE OF PLOTS & LAND I.E., RS.68,75,000 /- TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS.1,43,75,000/- 6. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS LEAVES BOTH THE PARTIES AGGRIEVED. 4. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL PLEADINGS AND FIND NO MERIT IN EITHER PARTIES IDENTIC AL GRIEVANCE(S). THIS IS FOR THE PRECISE REASON THAT THE R EVENUE CANNOT BE STATED TO AN AGGRIEVED PARTY ONCE THE CIT(A) H AS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GO BY THE STAMP PRICE OF THE TWIN IMMOVEABLE PROPERTIES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT/SETTLEMENT DEED DT.10-12-2007 WITH THE CO-DIRECTORS AS EVEN THE CORRESPONDING STATUTORY PRO VISION I.E., SECTION 50C ALSO ADOPTS THE VERY PRICE ONLY TO BE THE MAXIMUM SALE CONSIDERATION FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS . WE THUS DECLINE THE REVENUES INSTANT SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEV ANCE AS WELL AS THE MAIN APPEAL ITA NO.125/HYD/2015. 5. THE FINAL OUTCOME COLD BE NO DIFFERENT IN THE ASSE SSEES CROSS-APPEAL ITA NO.181/HYD/2015 AS WELL. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT DEED DT.10-12- 2007 IN ISSUE WHEREIN HE HAD AGREED TO RECEIVE CASH AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE BY WAY OF TWELVE CHEQUES ALONGWITH THE T WIN IMMOVEABLE PROPERTIES (SUPRA). THIS ASSESSEE HAS HIM SELF ACCEPTED VERY FAIRLY THAT HE HAD INDEED RECEIVED THE T WIN LAND PARCELS IN THE SETTLEMENT DEED. HIS ONLY GRIEVANCE IS REGARDING THE CASH COMPONENT OF RS.75 LAKHS ONLY. LEARNED COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS BASED ON A MERE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.131 OF THE ITA NOS. 125/HYD/2015 & 181/HYD/2015 :- 8 -: ACT WHICH CARRIES NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE IN ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATION. HE SOUGHT TO BUTTRESS THE POINT THAT EVEN A SEARCH OR SURVEY STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) AND 13 3 OF THE ACT; RESPECTIVELY, HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE AS PER THE C BDTS CIRCULARS DT.10-03-2003 AND 18-12-2014. ALL THESE AR GUMENTS DULY STAND SUBMITTED IN THE RECORDS SINCE THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD DULY BROUGHT THE OTHER CO-DIRECTOR SRI SREENIVASULU (SUPRA) FOR THEIR MUTUAL CROSS-EXAMINATIO N (SUPRA). IT IS EVIDENT THEREFROM THAT THIS TAXPAYERS HAD SURRENDERED CHEQUES IN LIEU OF CASH PAYMENT. AND ALS O THAT THE CORRESPONDING CASH RECEIPT(S) AND THE TWIN SETTLEME NT ACKNOWLEDGMENT(S) DT.14 TH MARCH AND 11 TH APRIL, 2008 (PAGES 32 & 33) DULY CONTAINED HIS SIGNATURES. COUPLED WI TH THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY ADMITTED DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION TH AT HAD HAD INDEED ISSUED THE SAID RECEIPTS AS WELL AS CORRE SPONDING ACKNOWLEDGMENT; AS THE CASE MAY BE. WE CONCLUDE IN TH ESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.75 LAKHS MADE IN ASSESSEES HANDS IS LIABLE TO BE AFFIR MED. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSEES CROSS APPEAL IT A NO.181/HYD/2015 IS ALSO REJECTED THEREFORE. 6. WE LASTLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ALTHOUGH THE INSTANT LIS IS BEING DECIDED AFTER A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF HEARING AS PER RULE 34(5) OF THE IT(AT) RULES 1963, THE SAME HOWEVER, DOES NOT APPLY IN THE COVID LOCKDOWN SITUATI ON AS PER HON'BLE APEX COURTS RECENT DIRECTIONS DATED 27-04-2021 IN M.A.NO.665/2021 IN SM(W)C NO.3/2020 IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION MAKING IT CLEAR THAT IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE LIMITATION PERIOD (INCLUDING THAT PRESCRIBED FOR INS TITUTION ITA NOS. 125/HYD/2015 & 181/HYD/2015 :- 9 -: AS WELL AS TERMINATION) SHALL STAND EXCLUDED FROM 14 TH OF MARCH, 2021 TILL FURTHER ORDERS IN ABOVE TERMS. 7. THESE REVENUES AND ASSESSEES CROSS-APPEALS ITA NOS.125/HYD/2015 & 181/HYD/2015 ARE DISMISSED IN AB OVE TERMS. A COPY OF THIS COMMON ORDER BE PLACED IN THE R ESPECTIVE CASE FILES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 SD/- SD/- ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( S.S. GODAR A ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 13-09-2021 TNMM ITA NOS. 125/HYD/2015 & 181/HYD/2015 :- 10 -: COPY TO : 1.THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD. 2.THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD. 3.SRI H.SURESH, C/O.SAMUEL NAGADESI, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, 408, SRI RAMAKRISHNA TOWERS, BESIDE IMA GE HOSPITALS, AMEER PET, HYDERABAD. 4.CIT(APPEALS)-II, HYDERABAD. 5.THE CIT-III, HYDERABAD. 6.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 7.GUARD FILE.