Venkata prabhakar Rao Amancharla , Nellore V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Nellore

ITA 1669/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3853 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-09-2021
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 44AD; 143(3); 50C; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1669/HYD/2019 A.Y. 2014 - 15 VENKATA PRABHAKAR RAO AMANCHARLA, NELLORE. PAN: AGSPA 2284 N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, NELLORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY: SRI A.P. BABU, DR DATE OF HEARING: 30/09/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05 /10/2021 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), TIRUPATI IN APPEAL NO. 10221/2016 - 17/CIT(A)/TPT, DATED 03/09/2019 PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL A ND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: 1. THE LD. A.O. WAS NOT CONSIDERED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT WHILE ASSESSMENT AND ARRIVED AT WRONG OPINION THAT THERE IS A SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 2,39,223/ - IS NOT CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED. 2. WHILE DOING SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) THE LD. A.O. HAS MADE AN AMOUNT OF RS. 24,880/ - U/S 50C OF THE ACT IS NOT CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED. 2 3. THE LD. A.O. HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCES AND LETTERS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT IN RELATION T O THE CASH CREDIT IN THE NAME OF SRIKALAHASTI BHASKAR REDDY IS ALSO NOT CORRECT. 4. INSPITE OF THE EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, THE A.O. HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF CASH CREDITS APPEARED IN THE SAVIN GS BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANTS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIABLE. 5. THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM AQUA DERIVED BY THE APPELLANT WHILE DOING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO SET - ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TIRUPATI AND ALLOW THE APPEAL ACCORDINGLY. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15 ON 24/02/2015 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4,56,350/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRU TINY UNDER CASS. 4. DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. A.O. OBSERVED THAT: (I) DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD 29 PROPERTIES ALONG WITH THE BUILDER FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 97,30,400/ - WHILE THE COST OF ACQUISITION IS RS. 40,69,629/ - AND THE CAPITAL GAINS WORKED OUT TO RS.7,95,571/ - . ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT INTEREST PAID TOWARDS LOAN OBTAINED FOR PURCHASE OF SITE MUST BE ALLOWED AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT. NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY ADMITTED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.5,56,348/ - 3 THE LD. A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,39,223/ - (RS.7,95,571 RS. 5,56,348/ - ) UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. (II) FURTHER A S PER THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 49, 760/ - BETWEEN DOCUMENT VALUE AND THE GOVERNMENT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN CASE OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES . THE LD. AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 24,880/ - . (III) FURTHER A S PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS A CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.11,50,000/ - STANDING IN THE NAME OF SRI KALIKETI BHASKAR REDDY. IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS, THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED . THEREFORE , THE LD. A.O MADE ADDITION OF RS. 11,50,000/ - . (IV) DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CERTAIN DEPOSITS IN HIS SBI ACCOUNT (RS. 2,87,000/ - ) AND AXIS BANK ACCOUNT (RS.10,72,000/ - ).CONSIDERING THE DISCR EPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT VIS - - VIS BANK ACCOUNTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. A.O. BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX AGGREGATING TO RS. 13,59,000/ - UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. (V) DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT Y EAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/ - TOWARDS SALE OF 4 PRAWNS FROM M /S. ROHIT AQUA NEEDS , NELLORE , WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S. THEREFORE THE LD. A.O. ESTIMATED THE PROFIT EARNED OUT OF THE T RANSACTIONS @ 8% OF THE TURNOVER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 4,00,000/ - . 5. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. A.O. COMPLETED THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE ACT AND DETERMINED THE ASSESSED INCOME AT RS. 36,29 ,453/ - AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 4,56,350/ - . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. A.O., THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 6. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. A.O BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBS TANTIATE HIS CLAIM AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. A.O WITH PROPER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. BEFORE ME, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT THE ASSESSEES CASE. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER SHEET OF THE APPEAL, I FIND THAT ON VARIOUS OTHER OCCASIONS ALSO NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED ON THAT SOLE REASON. EVEN TODAY , ON THE DATE OF HEARING , NO O NE APPEARED BEFORE ME ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . ONLY AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER IS FILED CITING VAGUE REASONS. T HEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT 5 INTERESTED TO PURSUE HIS APPEAL. FURTHER H AVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ON EXAMINING THE ORDERS OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LD. A.O AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAD MADE THE ADDITION AND SUSTAINED THE SAME IN THE ABSENCE OF COGENT MATERIAL / DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT O F THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. EVEN NOW BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL , NEITHER THE ASSESSEE/ASSESSES COUNSEL WAS PRESENT TO ARGUE THE APPEAL NOR FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. A.O. IN THIS SITUATION, I DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE I N THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 05 TH OCTOBER, 2021. SD / - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 05 TH OCTOBER, 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) AMANCHARLA VENKATA PRABHAKAR RAO, 27 - 2 - 141, GOWDA HOSTEL CENTRE, BALAJI NAGAR, NELLORE TOWN, ANDHRA PRADESH 524002. 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5, 24 - 2 - 438, 1 ST FLOOR, DARGAMITTA, GT ROAD, NELLORE TOWN & CITY, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3) THE CIT(A), TIRUPATI. 4) THE PR. CIT, TIRUPATI. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE