Sri A.L. Udayshanker, Secunderabad V. ACIT,Central Circle - 5, Hyderabad

ITA 313/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7705 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVAS
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Search and seizure; Fair market value; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.313/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 MR. AL. UDAYSHANKER SECUNDERABAD. PANACCPA8962H VS. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5 HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. V. SRINIVAS FOR REVENUE : MR. RAJAT MITRA DATE OF HEARING : 04.12.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.12.2014 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD DATED 9 TH DECEMBER, 2013. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING TWO MATERIAL GROU NDS : 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SUM OF RS. 20 LAKHS RECEIVED IN ADVANCE FOR THE SALE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY M/S. A.L. SUDERSHAN CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD., IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2007-08 THOUGH THE AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED IN THE YEAR RELEVANT FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DIRECTOR OF M/S. VIJAY BALAJI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WHICH IS A SISTER CONCERN OF M/S. BHOORATHNAM GROUP. SEARCH AN D 2 ITA.NO.313/HYD/2014 MR. A.L. UDAYSHANKER, SECUNDERABAD. SEIZURE OPERATIONS UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE I.T. AC T WERE CONDUCTED ON 30 TH AUGUST, 2007 IN THE GROUP CASES AND ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND ASSESSMENTS U NDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A WERE COMPLETE D. DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS, AN AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 14.11.2005 IN RESPECT OF 1847 SQ. YARDS OF LAND FOR SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,20,00,000 WAS FOUND AND SEIZE D AS A/SLSCCL/PO/5 AND ASSESSEE WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE SAID SALE AGREEMENT. IT WAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS REC EIVED AS ADVANCE OF RS. 20 LAKHS BY WAY OF CHEQUE AND RS. 20 LAKHS BY WAY OF CASH. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS AGR EEMENT WAS CANCELLED AND ASSESSEE HAS PAID SUM OF RS. 20 LAKHS BY CHEQUE TO MR. GOUTAM CHAND, AGREEMENT HOLDER AND CA SH WAS ALSO RETURNED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SA ID PLOT HELD BY M/S. A.L. SUDHARSHAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., IN W HICH ASSESSEE HAS HITHERTO WAS A DIRECTOR/SHARE HOLDER, SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD TO DIFFERENT PARTIES ON 20.06.200 6 BEARING DOCUMENT NO. 929/06 IN FAVOUR OF MR. S.R. REDDY AND ANOTHER SALE DEED DATED 06.05.2006 BEARING DOCUMENT NO. 928 /2006 IN FAVOUR OF MR. S. MALLA REDDY. IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE SALE WAS TO A DIFFERENT PARTY AND CONSIDERATION SHOWN WA S ALSO DIFFERENT I.E., RS. 60 LAKHS. HOWEVER, CONSEQUENT T O THE SEARCH, AS NOTED BY A.O. IN THE ORDER OF M/S. A.L. SUDHARSH AN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., IN A JOINT MEETING, IT WAS D ECIDED THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE LESS THAN THAT OF FIRST PROPOSAL I.E., AMOUNT OF RS.1,20,00,0 00. IT WAS ALSO CONSIDERED THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 20 LAKHS FOUND T O HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THIS TRANSACTION SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN A.Y. 2007-08 AND BALANCE AMOUNT O F RS.1 CRORE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF SAID ASSESSEE COMPANY M/S. A.L. SUDHARSHAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., ACCORD INGLY, 3 ITA.NO.313/HYD/2014 MR. A.L. UDAYSHANKER, SECUNDERABAD. ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED BRINGING TO TAX AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE IN THE HANDS OF THE SAID COMPANY AND RS. 20 L AKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE SAM E STATING THAT THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE WAS ENTERED IN EARLIER YEAR ON 14.11.2005 RELEVANT FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND SINCE THAT AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY WAY OF CHEQUE WAS RETURNED BY WAY OF CHEQUE AND CASH WAS RETURNED TO THE SAID PARTY. ON THE PRETEXT THAT SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT EVID ENCED, THE A.O. TREATED THE RECEIPT OF RS. 20 LAKHS AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THAT PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF WHICH, AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED W AS HELD BY A L SUDARSHAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., AND THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SALE AGREEMENT DATED 14.11.2005 UNDE R WHICH THE AMOUNT RECEIVED HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY CANCELLED , AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ENT IRE ADVANCE AMOUNT WAS RETURNED TO THE AGREEMENT HOLDER . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS LATER SOLD BY THE SAI D COMPANY TO A NEW BUYER AND THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THER E HAS BEEN DULY ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF COMPANY FOR A.Y. 2007 -08. FOR THE ABOVE MENTONED REASONS, ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT RS . 20 LAKHS MADE BY A.O. BE DELETED. LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DID NOT AGREE AND CONFIRMED THE AMOUNT BY STATING AS UNDER : 08.0. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS. IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COMPANY M/S. A.L. SUDHARSHAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DISCUSSION IN THE JOINT MEETING WITH THE INVESTIGATION WING, HAS HELD THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE LESS THAN THAT OF FIRST PROPOSAL AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.1. 2 CRORE SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE AN AMOUNT OF 4 ITA.NO.313/HYD/2014 MR. A.L. UDAYSHANKER, SECUNDERABAD. RS.20 LAKH WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY SRI A.L. UDAYSHANKAR I.E, THE ASSESSEE, AGAINST THIS TRANSACTION AND THE SAME WAS BROUGHT TO TAX IN HIS HANDS AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.L CRORE WAS ADOPTED AS RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS ON ACCOUNT OF THE SUBSEQUENT SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO SRI S. RAMA CHANDRA REDDY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. L CRORE IN THE HANDS OF M/S. A .L. SUDHARSHAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF T HE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT DEED, THE RELEVANT PART OF THE TRIBUNAL'S DECISION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS A VALID AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE DATED 14.11.2005 AND THIS AGREEMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE U/S. 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961ON 30.08.2007 REFLECTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.120 LAKHS. CONTRARY TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A PLEA BEFORE US THAT THE SAID BOWENPALLY PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO ONE MR. C.REDDY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.60 LAKH. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PLACE BEFORE US ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CANCELLATION OF ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AND ALSO HE IS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH ONE MR. C. REDDY WITHOUT CANCELLING THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED BEFORE US THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ENTERING INTO THE FIRST SALE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK TO THE CONCERNED PARTY BUT WE ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THIS AGREEMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO CANCELLATION OF SALE AGREEMENT. BEING SO, THE APPARENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS REAL UNLESS IT IS PROVED OTHERWISE. FOR THIS PURPOSE WE RELY ON THE JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO (131 ITR 597) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 'ONE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE CONSIDERATION ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN WHAT IS DECLARED OR DISCLOSED BY HIM, THE REVENUE IS NOT REQUIRED TO SHOW WHAT IS THE PRECISE EXTENT 5 ITA.NO.313/HYD/2014 MR. A.L. UDAYSHANKER, SECUNDERABAD. OF THE UNDERSTATEMENT, OR, IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS THE CONSIDERATION ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THAT WOULD IN MOST CASES BE DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO SHOW, AND, HENCE, SUBSECTION (2) RELIEVES THE REVENUE OF ALL BURDEN OF PROOF REGARDING THE EXTENT OF UNDERSTATEMENT OR CONCEALMENT. IT DOES NOT CREATE ANY FICTIONAL RECEIPT. IT DOES NOT DEEM AS RECEIPT SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT IN FACT RECEIVED. IT MERELY PROVIDES A STATUTORY BEST JUDGEMENT ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSIDERATION ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BRINGS TO TAX CAPITAL GAINS ON THE FOOTING THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET REPRESENTS THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGAINST THE CONSIDERATION UNTRULY DECLARED OR DISCLOSED BY HIM'. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LAST. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 08.1. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED ONLY RS. L CRORE FROM OUT OF THE RS. 1.2 CRORES WHICH WAS THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION AS PER THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT DEED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAP ITAL GAINS AND DID NOT CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF BALANCE RS . 20 LAKH RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PE R THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT NEEDS TO BE TAXED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS, AND AS PER THE AGREEMENT OF SALE, THE ASSESSEE WAS AUTHORISED TO RECEIVE THE SA LE CONSIDERATION IN HIS NAME AND SINCE HE HIMSELF HAD ADMITTED THAT HE RECEIVED RS.20 LAKH IN CASH, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 4. LD. COUNSEL REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AND REFERRED TO THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ORIGINALLY EN TERED AND BANK STATEMENT, IN RESPECT OF CANCELLATION OF AGREE MENT AS ENDORSED BY A.O. IN THE ORDER, REPAYING ON 12 TH MAY, 2006 AND FURTHER FRESH SALE DEEDS AS NOTED ABOVE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT WHATEVER AMOUNT OF RS.40 LAKHS RECEIVED EARLIE R AS PER THE SALE AGREEMENT WAS IN FACT, RETURNED AT THE TIM E OF 6 ITA.NO.313/HYD/2014 MR. A.L. UDAYSHANKER, SECUNDERABAD. CANCELLATION AND THIS AMOUNT NEVER PERTAINED TO ASS ESSEE, BUT PERTAINS TO THE SAID ALSC CO. P. LTD. LD. COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE AGREEMENT OF SALE AT PAGE 3 WHEREIN IT WAS CLEA RLY STATED THAT ALL THE VENDORS 1 TO 5 AND 7 AUTHORIZED MR. A. L. UDAY SHANKER (VENDOR-6) TO RECEIVE SALE CONSIDERATION IN HIS NAME. THUS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH ALL THE VEN DORS BEING PARTNERS OF THE ERSTWHILE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S. ALS & CO. UNDER THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DATED 10 TH APRIL, 1982, ALLOWED THE SAME TO BE RECEIVED BY ONE OF THE PARTNER OF AL S CO., THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS RECEIVED IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REVISED SALE D EEDS, THERE IS NO SUCH AUTHORIZATION TO MR. A.L. UDAY SHANKER TO R ECEIVE MONEY AND ACCORDINGLY, IF THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED, IF ANY PERTAINS TO THE SAID COMPANY BUT NOT TO ASSESSE E. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCE AMOUNT WAS RECEI VED ON 14.11.2005 AND THE SAME CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE H ANDS OF ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2007-08 JUST BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. 5. LEARNED D.R. FURTHER REFERRED TO THE FACTS ADMI TTED BY A.O. IN THE ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS DECI DED THAT ONLY RS. 1 CRORE WOULD BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF ASS ESSEE COMPANY AND THE BALANCE RS. 20 LAKHS WILL BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUAL. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE DETAILS PLACED ON RECOR D. IT IS A FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT ON 14.11.2005 FOR SALE OF IMPUGNED LAND FOR A CONSIDER ATION OF RS. 1,20,00,000. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT AGREEMENT WAS C ANCELLED AND AMOUNTS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED WERE RETURNED. THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT CHEQUE PAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH B ANK 7 ITA.NO.313/HYD/2014 MR. A.L. UDAYSHANKER, SECUNDERABAD. ONLY. BE THAT AS IT MAY, ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY TO THE THIRD PERSONS FOR A LESSER CONSIDERATION. EVEN THOUGH, THERE SEEMS TO BE SAME AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEPARTMENT AND ASSESSEE, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO APPRECIATE TH E SAME IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY WRITTEN AGREEMENT PLACED ON RECORD, WHY WHEN THE PROPERTY PERTAINING TO COMPANY WAS SOLD FOR RS.1,20,00,000 OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOLD FOR RS.1, 20,00,000, AN AMOUNT OF ONLY RS. 1 CRORE WAS ASSESSED IN THE H ANDS OF SAID COMPANY AND RS. 20 LAKHS WAS ASSESSED IN THE H ANDS OF ASSESSEE.. HAD THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,20,00,000 ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF SAID COMPANY, THE SAME WOULD HAVE A LSO GOT CONFIRMED AS PER THE ORDERS OF ITAT. AS ONLY RS. 1 CRORE WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF COMPANY, THE AMOUNT TO THA T EXTENT WAS ONLY CONFIRMED. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE BAL ANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 20 LAKHS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. IT IS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED HOW EVEN IF RS. 20 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED THE SAME IS TAXABLE AS INCOME. IF IT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS CA PITAL GAINS, AMOUNT THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL GAI N AS ASSESSEE DOES NOT OWN THAT ASSET. IT CANNOT BE CONS IDERED AS BUSINESS INCOME AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BUSIN ESS OF TRADING. JUST BECAUSE PARTNERS IN THE ERSTWHILE FIR M AUTHORIZED HIM TO RECEIVE AMOUNT OF RS. 40 LAKHS, ON BEHALF OF OTHER VENDORS IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF ASSESS EE, AS HE HAS NO RIGHT TO RECEIVE AMOUNT OF RS. 20 LAKHS IN H IS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. LOOKING AT ANY ANGLE, WE ARE UNABLE TO UN DERSTAND HOW THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20 LAKHS, SUPPOSED TO HAVE BE EN CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IN THE H ANDS OF FIRM/COMPANY CAN BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF INDIVI DUAL. EVEN IF THERE IS AN AGREEMENT TO THAT EXTENT AS NOT ED BY A.O. AS 8 ITA.NO.313/HYD/2014 MR. A.L. UDAYSHANKER, SECUNDERABAD. SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF A.O. THE FACTS RECORDED BY A .O. IN HIS ORDER IS AS UNDER : AS PER SEIZED ANNEXURE A/ALSCCL/PO/5, AN AGREEMENT DATED 14.11.2005 WAS FOUND IN RESPECT OF SALE OF 84 7 SQ. YDS OF LAND FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,20,00, 000/-. WHEN QUESTIONED ABOUT THE SALE RECEIPTS, THE ASSESS EE HAS STATED THAT HE RECEIVED RS.20,00,000/- BY CHEQU E AND RS.20,00,000/- AS CASH. THIS FACT IS EVIDENT FR OM THE APPRAISAL REPORT. SUBSEQUENTLY, AS THE AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED, THE ASSESSEE REPAID A SUM OF RS.20,00,000/- BY CHEQUE T O SRI GAUTAMCHAND AND CONFIRMATION TO THIS EFFECT IS OBTA INED FROM ICICI BANK AND PLACED ON RECORD. BUT THE CASH COMPONENT OF RS.20,00,000/- WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR I N REGULAR BOOKS RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2007-08 AND IS TREAT ED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED. 7. THUS, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, RECEIPT OF RS. 20 LAKHS AS ON 14.11.2005 PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2006-07 AND NOT TO A.Y. 2007-08. IN CASE, ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH E VIDENCE OF RETURN OF CASH THAT CAN ONLY GO AGAINST ASSESSEE TO CERTAIN EXTENT, BUT AMOUNT RECEIVED AS ON 14.11.2005 CANNOT BE THE INCOME IN A.Y. 2007-08, JUST BECAUSE CASH COMPONENT WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR AS NOTED BY A.O. LOOKING AT ANY WAY, AMOUNT OF RS. 20 LAKHS CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS (A) HE IS NOT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY (B) HE WAS NOT TRADING IN THE SAID PROPERTY (C) IT IS NOT RECEIVED IN THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD T HE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES. ALLOWING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASS ESSEE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 20 LAKHS MADE IN THE HAN DS OF ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9 ITA.NO.313/HYD/2014 MR. A.L. UDAYSHANKER, SECUNDERABAD. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.12.2014. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 29 TH DECEMBER, 2014 VBP/- COPY TO 1. MR. SRI A.L. UDAYSHANKER, H.NO.1-4-879/90/1, NEW BAKARAM, SECUNDERABAD. 2. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD 4. CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD.