DCIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. G. Samyuktha Reddy, Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 356/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2498 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-02-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KOMALI KRISHNA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift
• Section: 147; 69; 148

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.356/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD. VS. SMT. G. SAMYUKTHA REDDY, HYDERABAD. PAN ACWPG9830A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SMT. KOMALI KRISHNA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.C. DEVDAS DATE OF HEARING : 07-02-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-02-2018 ORDER PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2009-10, IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW. 2. WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE STATEMENT OF SRI G. SIVA KUMAR REDDY (HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE). 3. WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CSE, THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING THE SOURCES OF DONOR (SMT. G. SULOCHANAMMA, MOTHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE) WHICH IS AN AFTER- THOUGHT. 4. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2 ITA NO. 356/HYD/2017 SMT. G. SAMYUKTHA REDDY, HYDERABAD. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2009-10 ON 24-11-2009 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,49,063/- UNDER THE HEADS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE IT ACT ON 07-03-2010. SUBSEQUENTLY, FOR THE REASON THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 08-05-2013. VIDE LETTER DATED 14.05.2013, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER REQUESTING THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 24.11.2009 MAY BE TREATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE A.O COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 3. THE A.O OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A VILLA PLOT ADMEASURING 1271 SQ.YRDS BEARING NO. PLOT A15 IN INTEGRATED TOWNSHIP AT GACHIBOWLI BY M/S. EMMAR HILLS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD ON 20.02.2009 FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 63,55,000/-. HE OBSERVED THAT THE CBI HAS CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE AFFAIRS OF M/S EMMAR HILLS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. AND CONNECTED GROUP OF CASES AND ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS, SHRI. T. RANGA RAO, HAD STATED THAT THE 3 ITA NO. 356/HYD/2017 SMT. G. SAMYUKTHA REDDY, HYDERABAD. CONSIDERATION FOR THE PLOT WAS RECEIVED IN CASH ALSO OF EQUAL AMOUNT PAID IN CHEQUES. THEREFORE, THE A.O WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID RS. 63,55,000/- IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE THE OFFICIAL PRICE OF RS. 60,37,250/- PAID BY WAY OF CHEQUE. A STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FROM THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE MR. SIVA KUMAR REDDY BY THE CBI, WHEREIN HE CONFESSED THAT HE HAD PAID ON MONEY TO SHRI T. RANGA RAO. THE A.O THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR THE CASH PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH PAYMENTS ARE OUT OF THE GIFTS RECEIVED FROM HER MOTHER-IN-LAW, SMT. G. SULOCHANAMMA, ON VARIOUS DATES. THE A.O, HOWEVER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND OBSERVED THAT THE CASH GIFTS OF RS. 55.80 LAKHS ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS DATES DURING THE F.Y 2007-08 WERE WITHOUT ANY OCCASION AND SIMILARLY CASH GIFTS RECEIVED DURING THE F.Y 2008-09 ARE ALSO WITHOUT ANY OCCASION. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT ASSESSEES EXPLANATION OF CASH GIFTS IS AN AFTER- THOUGHT TO AVOID INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. HE HELD THAT THE LEDGER COPIES SHOWING WITHDRAWALS OF CASH FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT ALSO CANNOT BE RELIED UPON, BECAUSE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO 4 ITA NO. 356/HYD/2017 SMT. G. SAMYUKTHA REDDY, HYDERABAD. AUDIT. THEREFORE, HE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND HELD THAT THE ON MONEY PAYMENT OF RS. 63,55,000/- IS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT, HE ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT IT TO TAX. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE. IT WAS STATED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED CASH GIFTS FROM HER MOTHER-IN-LAW ON VARIOUS DATES AND SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O ON THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS. THE A.O SUBMITTED HIS REPORT REITERATING HIS FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HIS REPLY DENYING THE FINDINGS IN THE REMAND REPORT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND, SHRI T. SIVA KUMAR REDDY HAD WRONGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE DRAWN FROM CANARA BANK WHEN IN FACT THESE AMOUNTS WERE DRAWN FROM THE AXIS BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT. SULOCHANAMMA. THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ASSESEES CONTENTIONS THAT SMT. SULOCHANAMMA HAS SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE SOURCES FOR THE EXCESS PAYMENT OF RS. 63.55 LAKHS. 5 ITA NO. 356/HYD/2017 SMT. G. SAMYUKTHA REDDY, HYDERABAD. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED. AGAINST THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A.O AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS BLINDLY ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS IN THE REPLY TO THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS WERE FROM THE UTI BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT. SULOCHANAMMA WITHOUT EVEN CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O FOR VERIFICATION OF SUCH STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF SMT. SULOCHANAMMA FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT IS OF UTI BANK. HE, THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ISSUES BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O FOR VERIFICATION OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT. SULOCHANAMMA. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANT DETAILS INCLUDING THE BANK STATEMENT OF SMT. G. SULOCHANAMMA IN THE CANARA BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO UTI BANK ACCOUNT WHICH HAS SINCE 6 ITA NO. 356/HYD/2017 SMT. G. SAMYUKTHA REDDY, HYDERABAD. BECOME AXIS BANK, WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE A.O. AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR A REMAND TO THE A.O AGAIN. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF SMT. SULOCHANAMMA AND THE DETAILS OF THE CASH GIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE NO. 102 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE CASH FOR THIS PURPOSE IS DRAWN FROM HER UTI, NOW AXIS BANK ACCOUNT. WE FIND THAT THE COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OF UTI, NOW AXIS BANK ARE FILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CASH GIFTS WERE GIVEN BY SMT. SULOCHANAMMA TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT INITIALLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE CASH GIFTS ARE FROM CANARA BANK, BUT BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS FROM AXIS BANK. SMT. SULOCHANAMMA IS PROVED TO BE A PERSON WITH MEANS, AND THE CLAIM THAT SHE HAS GIFTED THE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROVED. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). 7 ITA NO. 356/HYD/2017 SMT. G. SAMYUKTHA REDDY, HYDERABAD. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2018 KRK 1 SMT. G. SAMYUKTHA REDDY, D.NO. 6-3-890, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 2 DY CIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD. 3 CIT(A)-2, HYDERABAD 4 ADDL.CIT-2, HYDERABAD. 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE