ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad V. Syed Imranuddin, Hyderabad

ITA 436/Hyd/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5927 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income

Judgement Text

ITA No 446 Capgemini Technology Services India Pvt Ltd Page 1 of 25 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member S.No Appeal in ITA No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 ACIT, Central Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Syed Zeeshanuddin Hyderabad PAN:BQGPS0128A 2018- 19 2 3 436/Hyd/2022 & 437/Hyd/2022 -do- Syed Imranuddin Hyderabad PAN:AAJPI6494F 2017- 18 & 2018- 19 4 442/Hyd/2022 -do- Syed Irfanuddin Hyderabad PAN:AAPPI4693A 2018- 19 िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/07/2024 आदेश/ORDER Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the separate, but identical orders of the learned CIT (A) - 12 Hyderabad, all dated 15-06-2022 and pertains to A.Ys 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. Since facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. The ITA No 446 Capgemini Technology Services India Pvt Ltd Page 2 of 25 Revenue has more or less raised common grounds in all the 4 appeals and therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.432/Hyd/2022 in the case of Syed Zeeshanuddin are reproduced as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred both in law and on facts of the case in granting relief to the assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, whether the learned CIT(Appeals) is correct in treating the additional income of Rs. 9,98,70,000/- as business income when the same was admitted by the assessee as his share of the undisclosed income of Rs. 44.44 Cr which was admitted. towards on money payments made for acquiring lands and unexplained loans introduced into the books of M/s. WIIZ Realtors LLP, by the key person and father of the assessee Sri Syed Hameeduddin u/s 132(4) of the Act on 16.07.2018 and confirmed in the affidavit filed on 09.08.2018? 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, whether the ld. CIT(Appeals) is Correct in treating the additional income of Rs. 9,98,70,000/- as business income when in the ITR or during assessment and appellate proceedings the assessee has not explained the method and the manner of earning such income ? 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in directing to treat the additional income of Rs. 9,98,70,000/- as business income merely because the AO had not quoted the relevant section relating to the deeming provisions under chapter VI of the Income Tax Act. 1961. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in law in d1recting to treat the amount of Rs. 2 Cr as business income when the same was admitted by the assessee as additional income in the ITR towards unexplained investment made in cash by M/s. WIIZ Realtors LLP, in which assessee is a partner, for purchasing 8 acres of land at survey no. 76,77 and 78, Mamidipally Village, Saroornagar Mandal, RR District as evidenced by page no. 171 of seized material marked as Annexure A/SO- 2/0FF/01.