THE ITO, WARD - 2(1), Vijayawada V. Sri Muppalla Srinadha Rao, Vijayawada

ITA 217/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6388 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S ARAVINDAKSHAN
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 69C; 142(1); 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 217 / VIZ /201 3 (ASST. YEAR : 20 06 - 07 ) ITO, WARD - 2(4), VIJAYAWADA. V . SRI MUPPALLA SRINADHA RAO, D.NO. 26 - 3 - 163, UPSTAIRS, NRP ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA - 3 . PAN NO. AFRPM 7079 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NO.92/VIZ/2013 ( ITA NO. 217 / VIZ /201 3) (ASST. YEAR : 20 06 - 07 ) SRI MUPPALLA SRINADHA RAO, D.NO. 26 - 3 - 163, UPSTAIRS, NRP ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA - 3. V . ITO, WARD - 2(4), VIJAYAWADA. PAN NO. AFRPM 7079 R (APP LICANT ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI ADV OCATE . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI R.S. ARAVINDAKSH A N SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 24 / 0 3 /201 7 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 / 0 3 /201 7 . O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 2 ITA NO. 217/VIZ/2013 C.O.NO. 92/VIZ/2013 (SRI MUPPALLA SRINADHA RAO) TAX (APPEALS) , VIJAYAWADA , DATED 18/01/2013 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 . ITA NO. 217/VIZ/2013 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FILM DISTRIBUTION IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. BHARATHI PICTURES , FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ON 30/10/2006 , DECLARING A LOSS OF 1,80,7 1 6/ - . A SURVEY OPERATION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21/01/2008 . DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND IN THE NATURE OF LOOSE SLIPS AND AGREEMENTS WITH THE EXHIBITORS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FUTURE FILM ALLARIPIDUGU FOR KRISHNA AND GUNTUR DISTRICTS, WHICH STATES THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS OF THE FUTURE FILM FOR KRISHNA AND GUNTUR DISTRICTS FOR AN AMOUNT OF 1 , 8 5,0 0, 0 00/ - , WHICH WAS PAID IN THE FORM OF CASH, DEMAND DRAFTS AND CHEQUES. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT HE HAD PURCHASE D DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS FOR AN AMOUNT OF 1,01,29,747 / - , BUT NOT FOR 1,85,00,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT PRODUCER OF THE FILM M/S. P.B. ARTS, HYDERABAD REPRESENTED BY SRI M.R.V. PRASAD HAD SENT T WO AGREEMENTS, WHILE TALKS OF PURCHASE OF DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS OF THE FILM 3 ITA NO. 217/VIZ/2013 C.O.NO. 92/VIZ/2013 (SRI MUPPALLA SRINADHA RAO) FOR KRISHNA AND GUNTUR DISTRICTS, ARE IN PROGRESS , H OWEVER, HE HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE PRICE OFFERED BY THE PRODUCER AND IT WAS FINALLY AGREED FOR 1,01,29,747/ - . 3 . CONSEQUENT TO THE SURVEY , CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. NOTICE S UNDER SECTION 143(2) & 142(1) WERE ISSUED. I N RESPONSE TO NOTICES, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DETAILS CALLED FOR . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT AS PER THE IMPOUND ING MATERIAL AT PAGE NO. 16 OF BUNDLE NO .20, SRI M.R.V. PRASAD HAS ACKNOWLEDGE D THE RECEIPT OF A SUM OF 83,70,000/ - IN CASH, 76,30,000/ - BY DDS ON 04/10/2005 . SIMILARLY, AS PER PAGE NO.6 OF BUNDL E NO.20, THE PRODUCER ACKNOWLEDGE D 25,00,000/ - AS RECEIVED THROU G H BANK CHEQUES. THUS, THE TOTAL COST OF DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS OF THE FU TURE FILM HAS BEEN AGREED FOR 1,85,00,000/ - AS AGAINST THIS, ASSESSEE RECORDED COST OF PURCHASE OF DISTRIBUTION RIGHT S AT 1,01,29,747/ - . THEREFORE, ISSUED A SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY DIFFERENCE SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 4 . IN RESPONSE TO THE S H OW - CAUSE NOTICE , ASSESSEE VIDE HIS REPLY DATED 24/11/2008 SUBMITTED THAT THE DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS OF FUTURE FILM ALLARIPIDUGU HAS BEEN PURCHASED FOR 1,01,29,747/ - , BUT NOT FOR 1,85,00,000/ - AS STATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER . THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHILE TALKS FOR PURCHASE OF DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS FOR KRISHNA 4 ITA NO. 217/VIZ/2013 C.O.NO. 92/VIZ/2013 (SRI MUPPALLA SRINADHA RAO) & GUNTUR DISTRICTS WERE IN PROGRESS, PRODUCER OF THE FILM M/S. P.B. ARTS HAS SENT A DRAFT AGREEMENT FOR 1,85,00,000/ - , HOWEVER, HE DID NOT AGR E ED TO PAY THE AMOUNT OF 1,85,00,000/ - AND FINALLY AGREED TO PURCHASE THE FILM FOR A PRICE OF 1,01,29,747/ - , WHICH WAS PAID IN THE FORM OF 21,86,951/ - BY CHEQUE AND 79,42,796/ - BY DDS . THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT M/S.P.B. ARTS HAS WRITTEN A LETTER DATED 12/02/2008 AND CONFIRMED THE PRICE PAID FOR PURCHASE OF THE FILM, WHEREIN THEY HAVE CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THEY RECEIVED CONSIDERATION OF 1,01,29,747/ - . THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LETTER STATED TO BE WRITTEN BY M/S.P.B.ARTS ADDRESSED TO SRI V. RAMA KRISHNA HAS SIGNED BY N.R.K. ANAND WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IN HIS PREMISES , WAS MISTAKENLY WRITTEN BY THE PRODUCER , HENCE , ASSESSEE IGNORED THAT LETTER . THEREFORE, NO CREDENCE CAN BE GIVEN TO THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE PERSON, WHO IS NEITHER PROPRIETOR OF THE FIRM NOR ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRANSACTION. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND AND IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE PAYMENTS OF CASH OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF FUTURE FILM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER HELD THAT DEPARTMENT H AS GATHERED EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF LETTER AND ALSO AGREEMENTS, WHICH CLEARLY SHO WS THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE FIL M FOR 1,85,00,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF REBUTTING THE EVIDENCE PUT - FORTH BY THE DEPARTMENT, 5 ITA NO. 217/VIZ/2013 C.O.NO. 92/VIZ/2013 (SRI MUPPALLA SRINADHA RAO) FURNISHED A L E TTER FROM THE PRODUCER , WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDEN CE IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASE PRICE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRING TO THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL AT PAGE NO. 1 6 OF BUNDLE NO. 20, TWO AGR EEMENTS ENTERED BY THE PRODUCER - SRI M.R.V. PRASAD , CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID ON MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION RECORD ED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND T HEREFORE, MADE ADDITIONS OF 83,70,253/ - AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 6 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS OF FUTURE FILM ALLARI PIDUGU FROM M/S. P.B. ARTS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 1,01,29,747/ - WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE CONSIDERATION OF 1,85,00,000/ - , THEREBY MADE AN ADDITION OF 83,70,253/ - AS ON MONEY PAYMENT PAID OVER AND ABOVE THE AGREED CONSIDERATION RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , BASED ON CERTAIN SLIPS FOUND IN SURVEY OPERATIONS WHICH ARE NOT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LETTER STATED TO BE WRITTEN BY THE PRODUCER M/S.P.B.ARTS ADDRESSED TO SRI V.RAMA KRISHNA , IS N EITHER BELONGS TO M/S. BHARATI PICTURES NOR RELATED TO THE BUSINESS WITH M/S. P.B. ARTS, T HEREFORE, CREDENCE CA N NOT BE GIVEN TO THE LETTER TO MAKE ADDITIONS. 6 ITA NO. 217/VIZ/2013 C.O.NO. 92/VIZ/2013 (SRI MUPPALLA SRINADHA RAO) 7 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HE LD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NEITHER ESTABLISH ANY FINANCIAL CONNECTIONS/ TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN SRI V.RAMA KRISHNA AND THE ASSESSEE AND THE PRODUCER NOR THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 1 ,85, 00, 0 00/ - . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FURTHER HELD TH A T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBTAINED AN INFORMATION FROM THE PRODUCER , WHEREIN HE HAD CONFIRMED THAT DISTRIBUTION RIGHT S OF FUTURE FILM OF ALLARIPIDUGU FOR KRISHNA & GUNTUR DISTRICTS HA VE BEEN SOLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 1,01,29,747/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER , WITHOUT ANY EVIDEN CE TO JUSTIFY THE ON MONEY PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION IN CASH , MADE ADDITIONS OF 83,70,253/ - UNDER SECTION 69C AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE, TH ER E FORE, DIRECT ED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL . 8 . THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO H A VE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF 83,70,253/ - TOWARDS COST OF RIGHTS PURCHASED FOR FUTURE FILM ALLARIPIDUGU , AS THE SAME W AS INCURRED IN CASH AND THE EXPENDITURE WAS NEITHER RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE NOR BY THE PRODUCER. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , IGNORING THE EVIDENCE S FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS AT PAGE 6 OF BUNDLE NO. 20 CLEARLY INDICATE THE PAYMENT OF MONEY IN CASH AND 7 ITA NO. 217/VIZ/2013 C.O.NO. 92/VIZ/2013 (SRI MUPPALLA SRINADHA RAO) CHEQUE, TOTALLING TO 1,85,00,000 / - WHICH WAS WRITTEN IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE PRODUCER ON HIS LETTERHEAD . A LETTER SEIZED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WRITTEN BY THE PRODUCER TO SRI V.RAMA KRISHNA , IS ALSO CONFIRMED THE PAYMENT OF 1,85,00,000/ - . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IGNORING ALL THE EVIDENCES, DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS INCORRECT. 9. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITIONS TOWARDS ON MONEY , BASED ON CERTAIN LOOSE SLIPS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY , IGNORING THE FACT THAT BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE DENIED RECEIVED AN Y MONEY IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS OF FUTURE FILM. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AGREEMENTS STATED TO BE ENTERED WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS OF KRISHNA & GUNTUR DISTRICTS IS ONLY A DRAFT AGREEMENT SENT BY THE PRODUCER WHEN TALKS ARE IN PROGRESS. THE ASSESSEE , IN HIS STATE MENT MADE DURING THE SURVEY OPE RATION , CATEGORICALLY DENIED HAVING PAID ANY ON MO N E Y AND, HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 6 9C SOLELY BASED ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS , RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S. KHADER KHAN SON (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) AND HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DHINGRA METAL WORKS (2010) 328 ITR 384 . 8 ITA NO. 217/VIZ/2013 C.O.NO. 92/VIZ/2013 (SRI MUPPALLA SRINADHA RAO) 10 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD . THE FACTUAL MATRIX WHICH LEADS TO THE ADDITION ARE TH A T DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND, WHICH REVEALS THAT ASSESSEE HAS AGR E ED TO PURCHASE DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS OF FUTURE FILM FOR KRISHNA & GUNTUR DISTRICTS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 1,85,00,000/ - , WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE RECORDED PURCHASE PRICE OF 1,01,29,747/ - IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS OF 83,70,253/ - UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT, AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURV EY, WHICH WAS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY TWO AGREEMENTS STATED TO BE ENTERED WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 65 LAKHS AND 1,20, 00, 000/ - . IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS OF THE FUTURE FILM FOR KRISHNA & GUNTUR DISTRICTS HA VE BEEN PURCHASED FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 1,01,29,747/ - , BUT NOT FOR 1,85,00,000/ - , AS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS SOLELY BASED ON A LOOSE SLIP IN THE FORM OF LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE PRODUCER OF THE FILM M/S. P.B. ARTS TO ONE SRI V.RAMA KRISHNA , WHICH STATES THAT FILM HAS BEEN PURCHASE D FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 1,85,00,000/ - AND THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN CASH FOR 83 ,70, 00/ - , 76,30,000/ - BY DDS AND 25, 00, 000/ - BY WAY OF CHEQUES . B UT , THE FACT REMAINS TH A T THE DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ADDITIONS ARE NEITHER ADDRESSED TO THE 9 ITA NO. 217/VIZ/2013 C.O.NO. 92/VIZ/2013 (SRI MUPPALLA SRINADHA RAO) ASSESSEE NOR RELATED TO THE TRANSACTION S WITH THE PRODUCER FOR DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS OF THE FUTURE FILM. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRED IN REL YING UPON THE DOCUMENT, WHICH IS NOT AT ALL BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE , WHILE MAKING ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 11 . HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITIONS SOLELY BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY W ITHOUT THERE BEING ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ON MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF FUTURE FILM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER , R EFERRING TO THE IMPOUNDED DOC U MENT AT PAGE 16 OF BUNDLE NO.20 AND PAGE 6 OF BUNDLE NO.20 , STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID CASH AS WELL AS DEMAND DRAFTS , WHICH AMOUNTS TO 1,85,00,000/ - , WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS RECORDED PURCHASE PRICE AT 1,01,29,747/ - . WE FIND THAT THOUGH , THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED ASSESSEE HAS PAID ON MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, FAILS TO ESTABLISH ANY FINANCIAL CONNECTIONS/TRANSACTION S BETWEEN SHRI V.RAMAKRISHNA AND THE ASSESSEE AND THE PRODUCER AND ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THE PAYMENT OF 1,85,00,000/ - FOR PURCHASE OF DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS WITH ANY EVIDENCE , OTHER THAN LOOSE SLIPS DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY . THE AGREEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED TO BE ENT E RED WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR KRISHNA & GUNTUR DISTRICTS ARE NOT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE , IN HIS STATEMENT , CATEGORICALLY S TATED THAT THE 10 ITA NO. 217/VIZ/2013 C.O.NO. 92/VIZ/2013 (SRI MUPPALLA SRINADHA RAO) AGREEMENTS , WHICH WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ARE ONLY DRAFT AGREEMENTS SENT BY THE PRODUCER WHILE TALKS ARE IN PROGRESS FOR DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS. WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT MERELY BASED ON THE STATEMENT, WHICH WAS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, SUCH ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE UNLESS SUCH ADDITION IS SUPPORTED BY SOME CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE PRIC E PAID FOR DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS, ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY . 12. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY , IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED , CATEGORICALLY STATED TH A T HE HAS P A ID 1,01,29,747/ - , BUT NOT 1,85,00,000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ON MONEY IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , WHICH WAS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY THE DEPOSITION OF PRODUCER IN THE FORM OF LETTER, WHEREIN HE HAD CONFIRMED RECEIPT OF 1,01,29,747/ - ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT , AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE , TOWARDS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PURCHASE PRICE FOUND IN LOOSE SLIPS AND AMOUNT RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT FACTS , HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS), 11 ITA NO. 217/VIZ/2013 C.O.NO. 92/VIZ/2013 (SRI MUPPALLA SRINADHA RAO) HENCE, WE INCLINE TO UPH O LD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R E VENUE . C.O.NO.92/VIZ/2013 1 3 . ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS O BJECTION IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, WE DISMISS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 1 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY TH E R E V E NUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TH IS 3 1 S T DAY OF MARCH , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( V. DURGA RAO ) ( G. MANJUNATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 3 1 S T MARCH , 201 7 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE - SRI MUPPALLA SRINADHA RAO, D.NO. 26 - 3 - 163, UPSTAIRS, NRP ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA - 3. 2 . THE REVENUE - ITO, WARD - 2(4), VIJAYAWADA. 3 . THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA . 4 . THE CIT(A) , VIJAYAWADA. 5 . THE D.R . , VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., VISAKHAPATNAM . 12 ITA NO. 217/VIZ/2013 C.O.NO. 92/VIZ/2013 (SRI MUPPALLA SRINADHA RAO)