Smt G Trishula Devi, Hyderabad V. ITO., Ward-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1613/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87302 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1613/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. G. TRISHULA DEVI, HYDERABAD PAN ABTPG 7930 K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJAT MITRA DATE OF HEARING 04-02-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13-02-2015 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THE AFORESAID APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST ORDER DATED 30/06/2014 OF LD. CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD PERTAIN ING TO AY 2009- 10. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING FOR CONSIDERATION IS IN R ELATION TO ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 25,30,336 AS UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPU TE ARE, ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION SHE F ILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 31/07/2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 8,12,650. DURING THE RELEVANT FY, ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THREE OTHER PE RSONS ENTERED INTO A REGISTERED SALE DEED VIDE SALE DEED NO. 340 DATED 21/01/2009 WITH A NUMBER OF COMPANIES, INCLUDING M/S MAYTAS PROPERT IES LTD., FOR PURCHASING A PROPERTY CONSISTING OF SEMI-FINISHED H OUSE WITH PLINTH AREA OF 3364 SQ.FT. ON A PLOT OF 467 SQ.YDS. IN PL OT NO. 125, HILL 2 ITA NO. 1613/HYD/2014 SMT. G. TRISHULA DEVI COUNTRY SITUATED IN SURVEY NOS. 192P TO 198P, 201P AND 282P OF BACHUPALLY VILLAGE, QUTUBULLAPUR MANDAL, R.R. DISTR ICT FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 53,01,628. ON THE VERY SAME DA Y, ASSESSEE AND OTHER COOWNERS ALSO ENTERED INTO A SEPARATE AGREEME NT REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. 341 DATED 21/01/2009 WITH M/S MAYTAS P ROPERTIES LTD. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SEMI-FINISHED HOUSE WITH PL INTH AREA OF 3364 SQ.FT. FOR AN AGREED CONSIDERATION OF RS. 56,84,654 . THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT ALSO PROVIDED THE FINISHED PROPERTY WILL HAVE TO BE HANDED OVER TO ASSESSEE AND OTHER COOWNERS BY 31/01/2009. ON EXAMINING THESE FACTS, AO CALLED UPON ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE PROPERTY. AFTER VERIFYING THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE, IT WAS NOTICED BY AO THAT TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY ASSESSEE AND OTHER THREE PERSONS WAS T O THE TUNE OF RS. 1,21,21,323. AO TAKING THE AFORESAID TOTAL INVE STMENT INTO CONSIDERATION, COMPUTED ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE TOT AL INVESTMENT AT RS. 30,30,336, THE SOURCE OF WHICH, ASSESSEE WAS CA LLED UPON TO EXPLAIN. AS NOTED BY AO, ASSESSEE COULD PROVE THE S OURCE OF INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5 LAKH BEING OUTGOI NG FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, AS NOTED BY AO, ASSESSEE COULD NO T EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 25,30 ,336. AO, THEREFORE, TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT OF ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO HER INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED AY. BEING AGGRIEVED OF SUCH ADDITION, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THOUGH, ASSESSEE FURNISHE D THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND ON THE BASI S OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE, LD. CIT(A) ALSO CALLED FOR A REMA ND REPORT FORM AO. ULTIMATELY, HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE A DDITION BY OBSERVING THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN WIT H CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE BY HER. 3 ITA NO. 1613/HYD/2014 SMT. G. TRISHULA DEVI 5. LD. AR REFERRING TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSE SSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A), SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 1,21,21,323 WAS NOT ONLY EXPLAINED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDING BEFORE AO, BUT, SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. LD. AR SUB MITTED, THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS HAVE OBTAI NED A HOUSING LOAN FROM SBI FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS, 98,49,852 WAS T OTALLY IGNORED BOTH BY AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A). IN THIS CONTEXT, LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE SANCTION LETTER DATED 28 TH APRIL, 2006 OF SBI GRANTING TERM LOAN OF RS. 99 LAKH. LD. AR ALSO REFERRED TO THE ACCOUNTS STATEMENT OF M/S MAYTAS PROPERTIES LTD TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT EVERY SINGLE PAYM ENT MADE TO M/S MAYTAS PROPERTIES LTD. WAS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CH EQUE AND FROM EXPLAINABLE SOURCES. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE ON MERE PRESUMPTIONS AND S URMISES AND TREAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE TO BE FROM UN EXPLAINED SOURCES. 6. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR BY AO, HENCE, IN ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING E VIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, AO TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 25,30,336 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECO RD, AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS RS . 1,21,21,323. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE AFORESAID INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY FOUR PERSONS INCLUDING ASSESSEE. AS FAR AS SOURCE OF INV ESTMENT IS CONCERNED, AO HAS OBSERVED THAT OUT OF ASSESSEES S HARE OF RS. 30,30,336, ONLY RS. 5 LAKH IS EXPLAINED. HOWEVER, O N GOING THROUGH THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT ASS ESSEE IN COURSE OF 4 ITA NO. 1613/HYD/2014 SMT. G. TRISHULA DEVI PROCEEDING BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDING BEFORE AO HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AS UNDER: I) PAID BY THE ASSESSEE RS. 5,00,000 II) OTHER JOINT OWNERS RS.17,71,471 III) SBI HOUSING LOAN IN JOINT NAME RS.98,49,852 RS.1,21,21,323 ============ THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS H AVE AVAILED LOAN OF RS. 98,49,852 FROM SBI IS PROVED NOT ONLY FROM T HE SANCTION LETTER DATED 28/04/06 OF SBI, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 9 OF PAPER BOOK, BUT FINAL ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF M/S MAYTAS PRO PERTIES LTD. AT PAGE 12 OF PAPER BOOK ALSO CLEARLY PROVES THIS FACT . IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT MADE TO M/S MAYTAS PROPERTI ES LTD. TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY IS, THOUGH CHEQUES. TH OUGH, THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO SANCTION OF LOAN TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 9 8,49,852 WAS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE AO, BUT, FOR SOME STRA NGE REASONS THEY HAVE TOTALLY IGNORED THAT FACT. AS CAN BE SEEN, IF HOUSING LOAN TAKEN FROM SBI IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THEN, THE ENT IRE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT STAND EXPLAINED. IN THE AFORESAID VIEW O F THE MATTER, IN OUR OPINION, THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 25,30,336 IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS, HENCE, DESERVES TO BE DELETED. WE DIRECT AO, TO DO SO. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/02/2015. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 5 ITA NO. 1613/HYD/2014 SMT. G. TRISHULA DEVI KV COPY TO:- 1) SMT. G. TRISHULA DEVI, C/O A.V. RAGHURAM, ADVOCA TE, 610, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERGAB, HYDERABAD - 5 00 020. 2) ITO,WARD 5(1), HYDERABAD 3) CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD 4) CIT-IV, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.