Chiluvuri SRK Raju, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 415/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2334 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L R AMJI RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: B SHANTI KUMAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Salary income
• Section: 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 415/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHRI CHILUVURI SRK RAJU, HYDERABAD. PAN AGMPC9469K VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B. SHANTI KUMAR REVENUE BY : SHRI L. RAMJI RAO DATE OF HEARING : 11-07-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-07-2017 ORDER PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, A.M: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28.03.2016 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-1, HYDERABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED TWO GROUNDS AND THEY ARE RELATED TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,79,100/-. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING INCOME FROM SALARY AND DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,64,850/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 31,93,100/- IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT, MAINTAINED WITH ICICI BANK. THE A.O ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT 2 ITA NO. 415/HYD/2016 SHRI CH.S.R.K. RAJU, HYDERABAD. AND THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE CASH BOOK EXPLAINING THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS. FROM THE CASH BOOK PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO FOUND THAT A SUM OF RS. 14,79,100/- WAS SHOWN AS OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01/04/2010 FOR WHICH THE SOURCE REQUIRED TO BE EXPLAINED. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE WAS OUT OF THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT ATHREYAPURAM VILLAGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SOLD FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 12 LAKHS PER ACRE, BUT REGISTERED AT RS. 2.04 LAKHS AS PER THE PREVAILING RATE OF SUB REGISTRAR VALUE IN THE AREA. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO HIS FRIENDS & RELATIVES AND THE SAME WAS COLLECTED AND DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE FILED AGREEMENT DATED 08-08-2009 FOR SALE OF LAND FOR RS. 12 LAKHS AND COPIES OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE SHOWING THE TRANSFER OF LAND. THE SALE AGREEMENT WAS ON A PLAIN PAPER AND UNREGISTERED. THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE WAS AT RS. 1,54,000/- AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 12.00 LAKHS AS PER THE AGREEMENT. THEREFORE, THE A.O MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,79,100/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER IN PARA NOS. 7,8 & 9 ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY. 3 ITA NO. 415/HYD/2016 SHRI CH.S.R.K. RAJU, HYDERABAD. 7. BEFORE ME THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE SAME DOCUMENTS I.E. ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE, AGREEMENT OF SALE (IN TELUGU LANGUAGE). THE APPLICANT RELIED ON THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF LALCHAND VS. KASTURI LAL, WHERE IN IT IS HELD THAT IT IS A RECEIPT OF EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF MONEY AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17(1(B) AND (C) OF THE REGISTRATION ACT WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE DOCUMENT SO AS TO REQUIRE IT TO BE COMPULSORILY REGISTERED. THE HIGH COURT WAS THEREFORE, RIGHT IN RELYING UPON THE DOCUMENT THOUGH IT WAS NOT REGISTERED. 8. THE ARGUMENT OF ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS RECEIVED MONEY OF RS. 12,00,000/- BY SALE OF LAND DOES NOT HAVE ANY STANDING. THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE ME, AT THE SAME DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. TRANSFER DEED OF SALE OF LAND IS A LEGAL TRANSACTION AND NOT A WORD OF MOUTH. IF THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE LAND HE SHOULD HAND REGISTER DEED FOR THE SALE. NO FURTHER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THE CONTENTION HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE ME. THE CASE LAW REFERRED BY THE APPLICANT REFERS TO EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT NOT SALE OF PROPERTY. HENCE, THE CASE LAW DOES NOT APPLY IN THE APPLICANT IN THE PRESENT CASE. 9. THE REFERRED CASE IS REGARDING REGISTRATION ACT, 1908, THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE WAS REGARDING WHETHER EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT IS ENOUGH IN A TRANSACTION. NOT PARTICULARLY REFERRED AS IN A LEGAL SALE OF TRANSACTION. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. LD AR APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT AS ON 01-04-2010, THERE WAS A CASH BALANCE OF RS. 14,79,100/- AS PER THE CASH BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A SUM OF RS. 12 LAKHS ADMEASURING 1.02 ACRES SITUATED IN ATHREYAPURM IN THE YEAR 2009-10 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE SALE PROCEEDS, WHICH WAS GIVEN TO HIS FRIENDS AND RELATIVES AND SUBSEQUENTLY COLLECTED THE AMOUNTS AND DEPOSITED INTO HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. LD. AR PRODUCED AN UNREGISTERED COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 08-08-2009, WHICH WAS WRITTEN ON A PLAIN PAPER, SIGNED BY SHRI CH.S.R.K. RAJU BUT NOT SIGNED BY THE PURCHASER. HE 4 ITA NO. 415/HYD/2016 SHRI CH.S.R.K. RAJU, HYDERABAD. FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE SAID LAND AND REGISTERED BY TWO SALE DEEDS. THE FIRST SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED ON 10-06-2009 FOR A SUM OF RS. 50,000/- AND THE LAND SOLD IN SURVEY NO. 166/11 WAS ADMEASURING 0.25 ACRES. THE SECOND SALE DEED WAS FOR RS. 1,54,000/-, DATED 09-11-09 FOR A SALE OF PROPERTY OF 0.77 ACRES IN SURVEY NOS. 166/13 AND 166/11. THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THOUGH THE DOCUMENTS WERE REGISTERED FOR RS. 2.04 LAKHS, THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 12 LAKHS AND THE SAME IS EVIDENCED BY SALE AGREEMENT. THEREFORE, THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT SALE CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AT RS. 12 LAKHS BUT NOT AT RS. 2.04 LAKHS AS EVIDENCED BY THE SALE AGREEMENT. THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LALCHAND VS. KASTURI LAL IN 1988 STPL (LE) 14027 (SC), WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE DOCUMENT SHOWS THAT IT IS A RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF MONEY AND IT IS ALSO HELD THAT IT DOES NOT REQUIRED TO BE COMPULSORILY REGISTERED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2 LAKHS, WHICH IS EVIDENCED BY THE REGISTERED SALE DEED AND THE SAME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION BUT NOT THE SALE AGREEMENT. THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE FIRST SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED ON 10-06- 2009 FOR A SUM OF RS. 50,000/- FOR THE LAND SITUATED AT ATHREYAPURAM ON 16-06-2011 ADMEASURING 0.25 ACRES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF THE SAME LAND ON 08-08-2009, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE REGISTRATION OF THE LAND. NORMALLY, THE AGREEMENT WILL BE 5 ITA NO. 415/HYD/2016 SHRI CH.S.R.K. RAJU, HYDERABAD. PRECEDING TO THE REGISTRATION BUT DOES NOT SUCCEED THE REGISTRATION. THE AGREEMENT WAS ON PLAIN PAPER AND SIGNED ONLY BY THE SELLER OF THE LAND VIZ., SHRI CH.S.R.K RAJU, AND DID NOT BEAR SIGNATURE OF THE PURCHASER. AGREEMENT SHOULD BE ENTERED IN TO BY BOTH THE PARTIES BUT NOT BY SINGLE PARTY. THEREFORE, THE AGREEMENT PRODUCED BY THE LD. AR IS AN AFTER THOUGHT ANDNOTHING BUT A SELF-SERVING STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH DID NOT BEAR THE SIGNATURE OF THE PURCHASER AND HENCE, IT IS NOT A VALID EVIDENCE. THE LD. DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF LALCHAND (SUPRA) RELIED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND ARGUED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED THE JUDGMENT ON 16-02-1988 AND DECIDED THAT IT IS NOT COMPULSORY FOR REGISTRATION OF THE RECEIPTS FOR PAYMENT AS PER REGISTRATION ACT, 1908, AS PER SECTION 17(1)(B) AND 17(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, REGISTRATION ACT WAS AMENDED W.E.F 01.04.1999 BY ANDHRA PRADESH GOVERNMENT, MAKING COMPULSORY FOR ANY DOCUMENT EXCEEDING THE VALUE OF RS. 100/-IN CASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE LD. AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS RECEIVED THE HIGHER AMOUNT AND REGISTERED THE DOCUMENT FOR THE LOWER AMOUNT, FOR REDUCING THE STAMP DUTIES AND OTHER TAXES FOR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND CLAIMING TO GET THE BENEFIT FROM THE INCOME TAX BY TAKING SAID AMOUNT AS SOURCE, SINCE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DOES NOT ATTRACT THE INCOME TAX AMOUNTS TO SUB- STANDARD MORALITY AND DOUBLE STANDARD. SUCH, ARGUMENT IS 6 ITA NO. 415/HYD/2016 SHRI CH.S.R.K. RAJU, HYDERABAD. NOT ACCEPTABLE AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COIMBATORE SPINNING & WEAVING CO. LTD REPORTED IN 95 ITR 375. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT ATHREYHAPURAM IN SURVEY NO. 166/11 ADMEASURING 0.25 FOR A SUM OF RS. 50,000/- BY SALE DEED DATED 10-06-2009, WHICH WAS REGISTERED IN THE O/O THE SUB-REGISTRAR, ATHREYAPURAM. THE DOCUMENT WAS SIGNED BY ASSESSEE AND DULY REGISTERED AND THE STAMP DUTY WAS PAID FOR RS. 50,000/- WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE SUB- REGISTRAR. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SOLD 0.77 ACRES OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT ATHREYAPURAM IN SURVEY NO. 166/13 WET LAND 0.50 ACRES FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.00 LAKH AND SURVEY NO. 166/11 WET LAND ADMEASURING 0.27 ACRES FOR A SUM OF RS. 54,000/- AND REGISTERED WITH THE SUB-REGISTRAR. AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 2.04 LAKHS FOR A SALE OF 1.02 ACRES OF LAND SITUATED AT ATHREYAPURAM. THE SAID LAND WAS DULY REGISTERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND STAMP DUTY WAS PAID FOR RS. 2.04 LAKHS. NO OTHER EVIDENCE, EXCEPT A COPY OF AGREEMENT WRITTEN ON PLAIN PAPER, DATED 08-08-2009, WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE EVIDENCING FOR SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 12.00 LAKH. THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WAS ON A PLAIN PAPER AND IT WAS NOT REGISTERED AND SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT NOT SIGNED BY THE SECOND PARTY (PURCHASER). THE AGREEMENT WAS SAID TO BE FOR SALE OF LAND AT ATHREYAPURAM IN SURVEY NO. 166/11, THE SAID LAND WAS ALREADY SOLD ON 10-06-2009 AND HENCE, NO FURTHER 7 ITA NO. 415/HYD/2016 SHRI CH.S.R.K. RAJU, HYDERABAD. AGREEMENT IS NECESSARY. THE COPY OF SALE AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THERE WAS NO SIGNATURE OF THE BUYER (SECOND PARTY). FOR VALID AGREEMENT CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES IS NECESSARY AND WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE SECOND PARTY THE AGREEMENT IS INVALID AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AND THE DOCUMENT WAS NEITHER DULY REGISTERED NOR EVEN WRITTEN ON STAMPED PAPER. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SALE AGREEMENT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE SAID DOCUMENT IS A SELF-SERVING DOCUMENT TO EVADE THE INCOME TAX AS RIGHTLY ARGUED BY THE LD. DR. FURTHER ANY AGREEMENT OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF A.P. GOVERNMENT. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE HERE UNDER SEC. 17(1) CLAUSE (G) OF THE REGISTRATION ACT, 1988. 17. DOCUMENTS OF WHICH REGISTRATION IS COMPULSORY.(L) THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REGISTERED, IF THE PROPERTY TO WHICH THEY RELATE IS SITUATE IN A DISTRICT IN WHICH, AND IF THEY HAVE BEEN EXECUTED ON OR AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH, ACT NO. XVI OF 1864, OR THE INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT, 1866, OR THE INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT, 1871, OR THE INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT, 1877, OR THIS ACT CAME OR COMES INTO FORCE, NAMELY: (G) AGREEMENT OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF HE VALUE OF ONE HUNDRED RUPEES AND UPWARDS]; ** [ INSERTED BY A.P. AMENDMENT ACT 4 OF 1999 W.E.F .1-4-1999 ROVIDED THAT THE STATE GOVERNEMNT MAY, BY ORDER PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICEAL GAZATTE EXEMPT FROM THE OPERATION OF THIS SUB-SECTION ANY LEASES EXECUTED IN ANY DISTRICT, OR PART OF A DISTRICT, THE TERMS GRANTED BY WHICH DO NOT EXCEED FIVE YEARS AND THE ANNUAL RENT RESERVED BY WHICH DO NOT EXCEED FIFTY RUPEES. {(1A) THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINING CONTRACTS TO TRANSFER FOR CONSIDERATION, ANY MOVABLE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 (4 OF 1882) SHALL BE REGISTERED IF THEY HAVE BEEN EXECUTED ON OR AFTER T HE COMMENCEMENT OF THE REGISTRATION AND THE RELATED LAWS (AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 AND IF SUCH DOCUMENTS ARE NOT REGISTERED ON OR AFTER SUCH COMMENCEMENT, THEN, THEY SHALL HAVE NO EFFECT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SAID SECTION 53A} 8 ITA NO. 415/HYD/2016 SHRI CH.S.R.K. RAJU, HYDERABAD. 8. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AGREEMENT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REGISTERED AND HENCE, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SAME AS VALID EVIDENCE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 2.04 LAKHS TOWARDS SALE OF LAND AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. ONCE THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS REGISTERED, THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE REGISTERED SALE DOCUMENT IS CONSIDERED TO BE THE FINAL CONSIDERATION, SINCE THE STAMP DUTY AND OTHER TAXES FOR TRANSFER OF PROPERTY WAS PAID AS PER THE CONSIDERATION RECORDED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS RECEIVED RS.12 LAKHS, BUT REGISTERED THE DOCUMENT ONLY FOR RS. 2.04 LAKHS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ARGUMENT AND SUCH DOUBLE STANDARDS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COIMBATORE SPINNING & WEAVING CO. LTD (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR. FURTHER, THE LD. AR DID NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE BUYER HAS PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS. 12 LAKHS AND ADMITTED THE SAID AMOUNT IN HIS (BUYER) RETURN OF INCOME FURTHER HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN [2010] 195 TAXMAN 273 (PUNJ. & HAR.) PARAMJIT SINGH .V.INCOME-TAX OFFICER ON SIMILAR FACTS HELD THAT IT IS A WELL-KNOWN PRINCIPLE THAT NO ORAL EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE ONCE THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. SECTIONS 91 AND 92 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 INCORPORATE THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLE. ACCORDING TO SECTION 91, WHEN TERMS OF A CONTRACT, GRANTS OR OTHER DISPOSITIONS OF PROPERTY HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO THE FORM OF DOCUMENTS, THEN NO EVIDENCE IS PERMISSIBLE TO BE GIVEN IN PROOF OF ANY SUCH TERMS OF SUCH GRANT OR DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY EXCEPT THE DOCUMENT ITSELF OR THE SECONDARY EVIDENCE THEREOF. ACCORDING TO SECTION 92, ONCE THE DOCUMENT IS TENDERED IN EVIDENCE AND PROVED AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 91, THEN NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ORAL AGREEMENT OR STATEMENT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO ANY SUCH INSTRUMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONTRADICTING, VARYING, ADDING TO OR SUBTRACTING FROM ITS TERMS. THEREFORE, IT FOLLOWS THAT NO ORAL AGREEMENT CONTRADICTING/VARYING THE TERMS OF A DOCUMENT CAN BE OFFERED. ONCE THE AFORESAID PRINCIPAL IS CLEAR, THEN IN THE INSTANT CASE, OSTENSIBLE SALE CONSIDERATIONDISCLOSED IN THE SALE DEED HAD TO BE ACCEPTED AND IT COULD NOT BE CONTRADICTED BY ADDUCING ANY ORAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY IN REACHING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE 9 ITA NO. 415/HYD/2016 SHRI CH.S.R.K. RAJU, HYDERABAD. REGISTERED SALE DEED WAS RECEIVED BY THE VENDORS AND DESERVED TO BE ADDED TO THE GROSS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. [PARA 4]. 9. IN THE INSTANT CASE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED WITH ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE WHICH IS A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF SALE CONSIDERATION AND SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION CITED (SUPRA) AND NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED BY THE LD. A.R. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ONLY RS. 2.04 LAKHS BUT NOT RS. 12.00 LAKHS. THE SOURCE OF CASH BALANCE AS ON 01-04-2010 AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,79,100/- REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH JULY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 13 TH JULY, 2017. KRK 1 SHRI CH.SRK RAJU C/O B. SHANTHI KUMAR, ADV, 111/ TARAMANDAL COMPLEX, 5-9-13, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. 500004. 2 ITO, WARD NO. 12(1), HYDERABAD. 3 CIT(A)-1, HYDERABAD. 4 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, HYDERABAD. 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE