Krishna Bai, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 238/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2976 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-04-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 238/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 KRISHNA BAI, HYDERABAD PAN ABYPB1563G VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(2), HYDERABAD. (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BHUPESH KUMAR DAND REVENUE BY : SMT. B. VISHNU PRIYA DATE OF HEARING 24/04/2018 DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT 23/05/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2014 OF CIT(A) 2, HYDERABAD FOR AY 20 09-10. 2. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF ONE DAY IN FIL ING THE APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT WHEREIN IT WAS AFFIRMED THAT INADVERTENTLY SHE CONSIDERED THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF APPELLATE ORDER AS 9 TH JANUARY, 2015 AS AGAINST 8 TH JANUARY, 2015, DUE TO WHICH, ONE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, W E CONDONE THE SAID DELAY OF 1 DAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATIO N. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE, THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2009-10 ON 28/07/2009 ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,72,170/- AND FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/07/2009 BY ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,93,530/-. THE AO COMPLETED THE 2 ITA NO. 238/HYD/15 KRISHNA BAI ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 21/11/2011 BY DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 90,53,741/- BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS INCL UDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT A ND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A), WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTE R IN THIS APPEAL. 4. THE FACTS RELATING TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ARE , THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE BOOKS OF M/S ROYAL HOME CONSTRUCTIONS, SITU ATED AT ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD, REVEALED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD PAID ADVANCE OF RS. 21,00,000/- ON 12/12/2008 FOR THE PU RCHASE OF FLATS BUT THE SCRUTINY OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NO SUCH WITHDRAWALS. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED THAT THE PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEED AS PER THE DOCUMENT NO. 7882/2008 DATED 24/10/ 2008 REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CASH OF RS. 16,90,00 0/- OUT OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,08,90,000/- AND OUT OF WHICH ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6,90,000/- AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 10,00,000/- MAY BE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE AO HELD THAT OU T OF THE ABOVE ADVANCE OF RS. 21,00,000/-, ASSESSEE HAD ONLY OF RS . 10,00,000/- AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 11,00,000/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES AS IT WAS EVIDE NT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED ONLY RS. 1,00,00,000/- FOR EXE MPTION AND ALSO CERTIFIED THAT INVESTMENT IN FLAT AT RS. 1,00,00,00 0/- IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN ITSELF WHILE ARRIVING CAPITAL GAINS. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A) AND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: ' THE ASSESSEE PAID ADVANCE OF RS. 11,00,000/- TO M /S. ROYAL HOME CONSTRUCTIONS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF FLAT. THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD PAID AN ADVANCE OF RS.21,00,000/- AND NOT RS. 11,00,000/ - AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS SUM HE HAS ARRIVED AT ON THE PERUSAL OF THE SO CALLED LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. ROYAL HOME CONSTRUCTIONS. COPIES OF REGISTERED AGREEMENT OF SALE AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT EVIDEN CING THE ABOVE ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THIS INFORMATION COLLE CTED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FURNISHED TO THE A SSESSEE AND 3 ITA NO. 238/HYD/15 KRISHNA BAI AS SUCH THIS CANNOT BE MADE THE BASIS OF ADDITION A S IT AMOUNTS TO DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE. FURTHERMORE, DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCE WOULD ALSO REVEAL THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE PRAYS THAT THIS ADDITION MA Y KINDLY BE DELETED.' 5.1 THE CIT(A) REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR EX AMINATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS STATED AS UNDER: 'IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT SHE HAD PAID ONLY RS. 1,00,00,000/- AS PURCHASE CONSIDERATION TOWARDS PUR CHASE OF TWO FLATS TO M/S. ROYAL HOME CONSTRUCTIONS. AS PER THE LEDGER EXTRACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID AMOUNTS TOTALLING TO RS. 1,10,00,000/- AND DIFFERENCE OF RS. 10,00,000/- WAS PAID BY WAY OF CASH. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN SO URCES FOR THIS AMOUNT THE SAME HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME R ETURNED. IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAID ADDITION THE LEDGER EXT RACT OF M/S. ROYAL HOME CONSTRUCTIONS AS AVAILABLE ON RECORD HAS ALSO BEEN FORWARDED. HOWEVER, M/S. ROYAL HOMES CONSTRUCTIONS VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 01-10-2013 SUBMITTED IN THIS OFFICE ON 18-10-2013 STATED THAT THE EXACT CONSIDERATION PAID BY SMT. KR ISHNA BAI IS RS.1,10,00,000/-. THEY FURTHER ENCLOSED THE COPY OF THE REGISTERED AGREEMENT OF SALE VIDE DOC NO.3213/08 DA TED 17-12- 2008 WHEREIN THE VALUE MENTIONED IS RS.60,00,000/- AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT DATED 17-12-2008 WHEREIN THE VALUE MENTIONED IS RS.51,00,000/-. THUS, THE TOTAL CONSID ERATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMES TO RS.1,11,00,000/-. THE COPI ES OF BOTH REGISTERED AGREEMENT OF SALE AND CONSTRUCTION AGREE MENT ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR PERUSAL. SINCE THE EVIDE NCE GATHERED IS AGAINST THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME MAY ALSO BE CONSIDERED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO MAY BE CONFIRMED. 5.2 THE ADDL. CIT WHILE FORWARDING THE REMAND REPO RT OF THE AO MADE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WHICH HAS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'THE COMMENTS OF THE UNDERSIGNED IN THE CASE OF SMT . KRISHNA BAI, A.Y 2009-10 ARE GIVEN AS UNDER: IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAS SUBMITTED A REPORT IN CONT INUATION TO THE REMAND REPORT DATED 03-10-2013 SUBMITTED EARLIE R. THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION WAS THAT SHE HAD PAID PURCHAS E CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,00,00,000/- ONLY TO M/S. ROYA L HOME CONSTRUCTIONS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF TWO FIATS, WHEREA S, THE COPIES OF LEDGER EXTRACTS SHOWED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,10,00,000/- WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, T HE 4 ITA NO. 238/HYD/15 KRISHNA BAI ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCES FOR THE PAYMENT MADE IN CASH OF RS.10,00,000/-, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME ADMITTED. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO OBSE RVED FROM THE LETTER DATED 01-10-2013 ALONG WITH THE COPIES OF TH E SALE DEED AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FURNISHED BY M/S. ROYAL HOME CONSTRUCTIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWED T HAT THE TOTAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,11,00,000/- (RS.60,00,000 + 51,00,000). THIS C LEARLY GOES TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.11,00,000/- WAS IN FA CT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE NO PROPER SOURCES WERE F URNISHED AND AS SUCH THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO MAY BE CONFIRMED. 5.3 FROM THE ABOVE, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT DATED 17-12-2008 WHEREIN THE CASH PAYMENT WAS SHOWN AT RS. 11,00,000/- AS AGAINS T THE FIGURE OF RS.21,00,000/- FOUND IN THE COPY OF THE SAME CONSTR UCTION AGREEMENT DATED 17-12-2008 OBTAINED BY THE AO FROM M/S. ROYAI HOME CONSTRUCTIONS, THE VENDOR. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE ASSESSEES SON SRI VIJAY KUMAR, WHO RE PRESENTED THE ASSESSEE SMT. KRISNA BAI AND SRI P. NITIN, MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S. ROYAL HOMES CONSTRUCTIONS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S REPORT IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER. 'IN THE SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED, THE MANAGING PART NER OF FIRM M/S. ROYAL HOMES CONSTRUCTIONS HAS DEPOSED THAT THE ASSESSEE SMT. KRISHNA BAI WAS ONE OF THEIR CUSTOMER WHO PURCHASED FLAT NOS.504 & 507 CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF 'SIGNATURE' AT HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD AND HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 17-12-2008 WITH SMT. KRISHNA BAI FOR PURCHASE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FLA TS 505 & 507 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.60,00,000/- AND ALSO ENTERED INTO A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT ON 17-12-2008 FOR A SUM OF RS.51,00,000/- FOR COMPLETING THE SEMI-FINISHED FLA T WITH ALL AMENITIES. THE MANAGING PARTNER OF FIRM HAS CONFIRM ED THAT THEY RECEIVED CONSIDERATION OF RS.60,00,000/- FOR PURCHA SE OF SEMI- FINISHED FLATS AND ALSO CONFIRMED THAT FOR THE CONS TRUCTION PURPOSE THE FIRM HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 30,0 0,000/- THROUGH CHEQUES DATED 17-12-2008 AND RS.21,00,000/- IN CASH ON 12-12-2008 FROM SMT. KRISHNA BAI . IN RESPONSE TO A SPECIFIC QUESTION IN THE SWORN STA TEMENT ABOUT THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE SMT. KRISHNA B AI AND THE FIRM M/S. ROYAL HOMES CONSTRUCTIONS ABOUT THE P AYMENTS MADE IN CASH AS TO WHETHER IT WAS RS.11,00,000/- AS MENTIONED BY SMT. KRISHNA BAI OR THE AMOUNT OF RS.21,00,000/- AS 5 ITA NO. 238/HYD/15 KRISHNA BAI CONFIRMED BY THE FIRM, THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE FIRM HAS CLEARLY SPECIFIED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT F URNISHED BY HIM WHEREIN AN AMOUNT OF RS.21,00,000/- MENTIONED A S PAID IN CASH IS CORRECT AND DENIED THE COPY OF THE CONSTRUC TION AGREEMENT FILED BY SMT. KRISHNA BAI MENTIONING RS.1 1,00,000/- AS PAID IN CASH. IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT INITIALLY THE CUSTOMER INSISTED FOR THE PRICE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SEMI FIN ISHED FLATS AT RS.41,00,000/-, WHERE AS WE HAVE BARGAINED THAT THE PRICE OF RS.51,00,000/- WAS FEASIBLE. IN THIS SITUATION THE SECOND PAGE OF THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WHEREIN THE DETAILS O F AMOUNTS FOR CONSTRUCTION WAS MENTIONED, WERE SIGNED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. BUT IT WAS STATED THAT FINALLY THE PRICE O F RS.51,00,000/- HAS BEEN MATERIALISED AND THE CUSTOMER SMT. KRISHNA BAI HAS PAID RS.30,00,000/- THROUGH CHEQUES AND RS.21,00,00 0/- IN CASH, WHICH WAS DULY REFLECTED IN OUR BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS. IN THIS REGARD, A COPY OF THE LEDGER EXTRACT OF SMT. KRISHN A BAI IN THE FIRMS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS SUBMITTED AND IT HAS BEE N STATED THAT THE FIRM HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.21,00,00 0/- IN CASH WHICH WAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OF THE FIRM AND TAXES WERE PAID ACCORDINGLY ON THE INCOME COMPUTED. IN THE SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE SMT. KRISH NA BAI'S SON, HE HAS STATED THAT HE IS PRODUCING THE ORIGINA L DOCUMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT ENTERED WITH M/S. ROYAL HOMES CONSTRUCTIONS. WHEN THE TWO COPIES OF THE AGREEMENT WERE SHOWN TO SMT. KRISHNA BAI'S SON AND ASKED TO CONFIR M THE CONTENTS IN THE TWO AGREEMENTS AND ALSO CONFIRM THE AMOUNT MENTIONED ALONG WITH THE SIGNATURES MADE THEREIN, H E HAS STATED THAT HIS MOTHER HAS PAID ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.11,00,000/- IN CASH AS PER THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IN THEIR POSSESSION. ABOUT CONFIRMATION OF THE SIGNATURES ME NTIONED IN THE COPY OF THE CONSTRUCTION FILED BY THE FIRM M/S. ROYAL HOMES CONSTRUCTIONS, HE HAS STATED THAT AS THE COPY OF TH E CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FURNISHED BY THE FIRM M/S. R OYAL HOMES CONSTRUCTIONS IS A XEROX COPY AND NOT ORIGINAL, HE CANNOT CONFIRM THE SIGNATURES MADE IN THE SAID CONSTRUCTIO N AGREEMENT. HE HAS REITERATED THAT HIS MOTHER HAS PA ID AN AMOUNT OF RS.11,00,000/- ONLY IN CASH TO THE BUILDE R M/S. ROYAL HOMES CONSTRUCTIONS. HOWEVER, IT IS TO SUBMIT THAT WHEN BOTH OF THE PART IES WERE ASKED AS TO WHETHER THEY REQUIRE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE OTHER PARTY, THEY HAVE NOT INSISTED FOR THE SAME AND ONLY CONFINED TO THEIR OWN STATEMENTS. 5.4 THE CIT(A) PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO EX PLAIN THE CASE ON THE 6 ITA NO. 238/HYD/15 KRISHNA BAI REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IN HE R REPLY FILED ON 15- 12-2014. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'I AM RECEIPT OF A COPY OF REMAND REPORT OF ASSESSI NG OFFICER, RANGE-8(2), HYDERABAD, FORWARDED BY JOINT COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX RANGE TO THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, HYDERABA D. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SAME, I SUBMIT AS HERE UNDE R: AT THE OUTSET I DENY HAVING PAID RS.21,00,000/- (IN WORDS TWENTY LAKHS) IN CASH TO M/S. ROYAL HOME CONSTRUCTI ONS. HOWEVER I CONFIRM THAT L HAVE PAID A SUM OF RS.11,0 0,000/- (IN WORDS ELEVEN LAKHS) ONLY IN CASH TO M/S. ROYAL HOME CONSTRUCTIONS. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE I HAVE NOT EXECUTED TWO DOCUMENTS/AGREEMENTS ONE FOR RS. 21,00,000/- AND ON E FOR RS.11,00,000/- AS STATED IN THE REMAND REPORT. I AM IN POSSESSING OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY ME FOR RS.1 1,00,000/- WHICH HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED BY M/S ROYAL HOME CONST RUCTIONS. HYPOTHETICALLY ARGUING TO THE PROPOSITION MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ONLY CHEQUES WILL BE MENTION ED IN REAL ESTATE AGREEMENTS, THE VERY FACT THAT RS.11,00,000/ - PAID IN CASH IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE AGREEMENT ITSELF PROV ES THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGREEMENT. EVEN FOR A MINUTE IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT TWO SET OF DOCUMENTS ARE MADE OUT OF O NE FOR RS.21,00,000/- AND OTHER FOR RS.11,00,000/- THE AGR EEMENT WHICH IS ADVANTAGE TO PARTY WILL BE DEFINITELY WITH THE SAID PARTY. HENCE IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHEN M/S ROYAL HOME CONS TRUCTIONS IS STATING THAT IT HAS RECEIVED RS.21,00,000/- IN C ASH THEY SHOULD BE DEFINITELY IN THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, WHICH THEY ARE DENYING. THUS IT PROVES THAT WHAT TH EY HAVE STATED IS NOT CORRECT. MERELY BY ACCOUNTING A SUM O F RS.21,00,000/- AGAINST MY NAME, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENC E DEFIES LOGIC AND APPEARS TO COVER UP THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOU NT IN THEIR KITTY. IT MIGHT BE ALSO POSSIBLE THAT SUM RECEIVED FROM OTHER FLAT BUYERS MAY HAVE BEEN CREDITED AGAINST MY NAME, WHIC H IS NOT CORRECT. HENCE I OBJECT TO THE ABOVE THEORY AND ONCE AGAIN S TATE THAT I HAVE PAID ONLY A SUM OF RS.11,00,000/- IN CASH TO M /S. ROYAL HOME CONSTRUCTIONS FOR WHICH I HAVE DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE. IN LIGHT OF MY ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND THE FACT THAT I HAVE INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE IN FORM OF ORIGINAL AGREEMENT , I REQUEST YOUR GOOD SELVES TO CONSIDER THE ABOVE AND DELETE T HE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER EVEN ON THIS COUNT.' 7 ITA NO. 238/HYD/15 KRISHNA BAI 5.5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN THE AGREEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEPARTME NT THE AMOUNT OF CASH PAYMENT WAS MENTIONED AS RS. 11,00,000/- WHERE AS IN THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT, OBTAINED FROM THE VENDOR, THE CAS H AMOUNT OF CASH PAYMENT WAS MENTIONED AS RS.21,00,000/-. FURTHER, H E OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT THE CASH PAID WAS ONLY RS. 11,00,000/-. THE VENDOR HAS ACCOUNTED THE AMOUNT OF RS.21,00,000/- IN HIS BOOKS AND OFFERED IT FOR TAXATION. THE ASSES SEE'S SON WHO REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DECLINED TO CROSS EXAMINE THE VENDOR. THE RELUCTANCE OF THE ASS ESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE VENDOR IS A CLEAR INDICATION OF THE INC ORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID ONLY R S. 11,00,000/- IN CASH. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY HOLDING THAT THERE WAS N O REASON TO AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE C ASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- TOWARDS U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) - II FAILED T O APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ONLY PAID RS 11,00,000/- IN CASH TO M/S ROYAL HOME CONSTRUCTIONS AND HAS UPHELD THE ASSESSING OFF ICERS CONTENTION THAT SINCE THE VENDOR HAS ACCOUNTED RS 2 1,00,000/- IN HIS BOOKS, THE APPELLANT HAS PAID RS 21,00,000/- 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CONTENTION BY INV OKING PROVISIONS OF SEC 50C WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ACTUAL LAND BEING SOLD WAS TO THE EXTENT OF 495 SQ. YARDS AS AGAINST THE DOCUMENTED AREA OF 605.55 SQ. YARDS ON ACCOUNT OF ROAD WIDENING. 4. ANY OTHER GROUND/S THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 8 ITA NO. 238/HYD/15 KRISHNA BAI 7. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN INTERESTING OBSERVATION THAT NO BODY KEEP THE EVIDENCE FOR CASH AND THE ASSESSEE IS TAKING ADVANT AGE OF THAT. ACTUALLY IT IS VICE - VERSA. IF THE PERSON IS ACCOU NTING SUCH CASH ENTRY DEFINITELY HE WILL BE KEEPING CASH RECEIPT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO SUCH RECEIPTS ARE IN EXISTENCE. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE H AS GOT THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY MEN TIONED THAT ONLY A SUM OF RS.11 LACS HAS BEEN PAID IN CASH. THE SAID A GREEMENT IS DULY AUTHENTICATED BY ALL THE SIGNATORIES TO IT. THE AGR EEMENT RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN ALLEGEDLY A SUM OF RS .21,00,000/- IS STATED TO BE PAID IN CASH IS ONLY A XEROX COPY WHOS E AUTHENTICITY CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED. JUST BECAUSE, M/S. ROYAL HOM E CONSTRUCTIONS HAS ACCOUNTED A SUM OF RS.21 LACS IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT IN ITS BOOKS UNILATERALLY THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FO R ADDITION WITHOUT ESTABLISHING OTHERWISE. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT IT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION HEREIN THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA - 8 OF HI S ORDER HAS CATEGORICALLY COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSE E MAY BE HAVING ONLY RS.10,00,000/- IN CASH AND HAD COME TO A CONCL USION THAT DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.10,00,000/- I.E. 2100000- 1100000 HAS BEEN PAID OUT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. HE, THEREFORE, PRA YED THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 8. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 9 CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE US IS, THE ASSESSEE H AS ENTERED INTO CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH M/S ROYAL HOME CONSTRUC TIONS AND CLAIMS TO HAVE PAID RS. 11,00,000 IN CASH, WHICH RE CORDED IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT IN ITS POSSESSION. WHEREAS THE C ONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RECORDED THE RECEIPTS AS RS. 21,00,000/- R ECEIVED FROM ASSESSEE BY SUBMITTING A COPY OF THE CONSTRUCTION A GREEMENT AND LEDGER IN WHICH IT HAD RECORDED AS RECEIPT OF RS. 2 1,00,000/-. ON 9 ITA NO. 238/HYD/15 KRISHNA BAI EXAMINATION OF BOTH THE AGREEMENTS, WE NOTICED THAT THE ALIGNMENT OF THE SIGNATURES OF CONSENTING PARTIES ARE NOT SAME I N BOTH THE AGREEMENTS EVEN THOUGH THE SERIAL NUMBERS OF THE AG REEMENTS ARE SAME I.E. N146995. WE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE SECON D PAGE OF THE AGREEMENT, WHICH IS SUPPLEMENT SHEET, THE CONTENTS OF THE CLAUSES ARE NOT SAME IN BOTH THE COPIES. COPY OF BOTH AGREE MENTS ARE PART OF THIS ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE. BUT, WE NOTICED THAT ASSE SSEE HAS SIGNED IN BOTH THE AGREEMENTS, IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONSENTED TO BOTH THE AGREEMENTS. FURTHER, THE CONSTRUCTION COMP ANY HAS RECORDED THE CASH RECEIPTS IN THEIR BOOKS, WHEN THEY RECEIVE D THE PAYMENT IN ONE TRANSACTION. THERE IS NO NECESSITY ON THE PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TO MODIFY THE SAME, WHERE THERE IS NO INTER EST. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEP TED AND WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDIN GLY, GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MAY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHM AN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 23 RD MAY, 2018 KV COPY TO:- 1) SMT. KRISHNA BAI, 21-7-621, CHELAPURA, HYD. 2) ITO, WARD 8(2), HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A) 2, HYDERABAD. 4) CIT - 2, HYD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 6) GUARD FILE