K.V.Vijayaraghavan, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 455/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7916 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: T N SEETHARAMAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Capital asset
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 133A; 147; 69; 54; 10

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! ' . # , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICI AL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.455 & 456/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 & 2005-06) MR. K.V.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, NO.4, OLD NO.25, DR.NAIR ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-17. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE,(1), CHENNAI. PAN: ACLPV6440Q ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.T.N.SEETHARAMAN,ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 TH NOVEMBER,2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEV ED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, CHENNAI BOTH DATED 22.11.2013 IN ITA N OS.651 & 650 /2010-11/A-I PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W. S. 147 & 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 & 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE ISSUES IS AS FOLL OWS:- 2 ITA NOS.455 & 456/MDS/2014 ITA NO.455/MDS/2014 (A.Y.2004-05): THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT FOR RS.1,08,00,000/- BEING THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. ITA NO.456/MDS/2014 (A.Y. 2005-06): THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS.7,34,750/- UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE CAPACITY AS MANAGING DIRE CTOR OF M/S. AMBIKA APPALAM CO.PVT.LTD., FILED HIS RETURN O F INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 & 2005-06 ON 30.10 .2004 & 29.10.2005 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.6,17,310/- AND RS.1,17,976/- RESPECTIVELY. THERE WAS A SURVEY IN T HE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S.AMBIKA APPALAM CO. P.LTD., ON 7.8.2009, THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REOPENED FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 3 ITA NOS.455 & 456/MDS/2014 2004-05 & 2005-06 AND THE REASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETE D FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ON 30/12/2010. ITA NO.455/MDS/2014: GROUND : DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S.54F OF THE AC T:- 4. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD TWO SHOPS IN BRINDAVAN SOC IETY, THANE, MUMBAI FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.15,00,000/- AND A LSO SOLD THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY NO.114, USHMAN ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,08,00,000/-. THESE A MOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE CAPITAL GAINS SCHEME ACCOUNT IN A NATIONALIZED BANK AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. DURING THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 2004 TO MAY 2004, THE ASSESSEE WITH DREW THIS AMOUNT AND PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY PL OT NO.25, DR. NAIR ROAD, CHENNAI-600 017 AT A PURCHASE CONCES SION OF RS.1,17,53,000/- AND CLAIMED THE BENEFIT OF SECTIO N 54FOF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEMOLISHED THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING THAT WAS PURCHA SED AFTER OBTAINING DEMOLITION PERMISSION FROM THE CORPORATIO N OF CHENNAI DATED 28.09.2004. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE H AD OBTAINED PERMISSION ON 16.08.2005 FROM CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4 ITA NOS.455 & 456/MDS/2014 SHOPPING COMPLEX. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE ALSO E NTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHOPPING MALL WITH M/S. T.SUBBARAYALU & CO., VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 5.9. 2005. SINCE THE NEW ASSET PURCHASED WAS DEMOLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAD PROCEEDED TO CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIA L COMPLEX, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED T HE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54 TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF TH E LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5.2.2 THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS SHOW THAT THE APPELLA NT'S INTENTION WAS TO BUY AND DEMOLISH A OLD HOUSE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW SHOPPING COMPLEX, BUT NOT A RESIDEN TIAL ABODE. FURTHER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES. IT IS FURTHE R NOTICED FROM THE FINANCE ACT, 1982 PARA 20.2, WHILE INTRODU CING THE 54F PROVISIONS, IT IS STATED AS UNDER: 'WITH A VIEW TO ENCOURAGING HOUSE CONSTRUCTION , THE FINANCE ACT, 1982 HAS INSERTED A NEW SECTION 54F TO PROVIDE THAT WHERE ANY CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF ANY LONG-TERM ASSET, OTHER THA N A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, AND THE ASSESSEE PURCHASES WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE OR CONSTRUCTS WITHIN A PERI OD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE , THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER WILL BE TREATED IN A CONCESSIONAL MANNER 5.2.3 IN THE CASE OF K.M. NATARAJAN VS. ITO (1992) (41 ITD 226) (MAD), THE JURISDICTIONAL MADRAS HIGH COURT HA S HELD THAT CIRCULAR NO. 346 DATED 30.6.1982 OF THE CBDT EXPLAINS THAT THE EXEMPTION WAS GRANTED WITH A VIEW TO 5 ITA NOS.455 & 456/MDS/2014 ENCOURAGING HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AND OBVIOUSLY IT WAS NOT MEANT TO BE GIVEN TO A PERSON WHO ALREADY OWNED A HOUSE. 5.2.4 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. OILIP MANHAR PAREKH ( 2013) (31 TAXMANN. COM 386), THE IT AT MUMBAI BENCH D HAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESS ON ISSUES SIMILAR TO THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE REFERRED CASE, THE APPELLANT H AS PURCHASED A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITH THE SALE PRO CEEDS AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.54F ON SUCH NEW RESIDENTI AL HOUSE. THE SAID RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS DEMOLISHED WI THIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF PURCHASE. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE BENEFIT U/S.54F (3) , SINCE THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS 'TRANSFERRED' WITHIN THREE YE ARS FROM THE DATE OF PURCHASE. THE ITAT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDE R, '7.WE HAVE HEARD ID.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WHOSE MAIN CONTENTION WAS THAT SECTION 54F IS A BENEFICIAL PROVISION WHICH HAS TO BE CONSIDERED STRICTLY. THE OBJECT WAS TO ENCOURAGE ASSESSES TO UTILIZE FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WHEREAS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THOUGH RESIDENTIAL BUNGLOW WAS PURCHASED IT WAS DEMOLISHED WITHIN TWO YEARS WHICH DOES NOT SERVE THE PURPOSE.' IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE DEMOLITION OF HOUSE WOULD FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF TRANSFER. IT WAS HELD BY T HE TRIBUNAL AS UNDER: '13 ..... FROM THE READING OF THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF VANIA SILK MILLS (P) LTD V. CI T (1991) (191 ITR 647/59 TAXMAN 3 AS WELL AS LATER DECISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEELAMALAI AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD V. CIT (2003) 259 ITR 651/(2002) 125 TAXMAN 582 IT CAN BE SEEN THAT ANY EXTINGUISHMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ACT OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD AMOUNT TRANSFER AND THE ONLY EXCEPTION PROVIDED THEREIN WAS THE EXTINGUISHMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ACT OF GOD SUCH AS DESTRUCTION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN A FIRE, COMPLETE LOSS IN THE CASE OF SINKING OF A VESSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ETC. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE DEMOLIT ION OF THE BUILDING TOOK PLACE AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS NOT AN ACT OF GOD IN WHICH EVENT , 6 ITA NOS.455 & 456/MDS/2014 IT HAS TO BE SAID THAT DEMOLITION OF HOUSE WOULD FA LL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF 'TRANSFER' . IT WAS FURTHER HELD IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE BY M UMBAI ITAT THAT DEDUCTION U/S.54F IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHA SE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND SUCH HOUSE SHOULD BE REAL AND NOT SYMBOLIC. IN THIS CONTEXT IT IS HELD BY THE TRIBUNA L AS UNDER: 14. NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE GROUND, BY WAY OF CROSS OBJECTION, THAT SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER WOULD NOT EFFECT THE ELIGIBILITY TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE A CT BECAUSE THE DISALLOWANCE, IF ANY, CAN ONLY BE MADE IN THE YEAR OF TRANSFER, IF IT IS WITHIN THE PERIOD, BUT T HE FACT REMAINS THAT AT THAT TIME, WHEN PURCHASE OF HOUSE W AS MADE, THERE WAS A BUILDING IN EXISTENCE WHICH SATIS FIED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 54F OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION HERE THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. PR ADEEP KUMAR (2006) 153 TAXMAN 138, THE MADRAS HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT, .... CONSTRUCTION MUST BE REAL ONE. IT SHOULD NOT BE A SYMBOLIC CONSTRUCTION' DRAWING ANALOGY FROM THE AFORECITED DECISION, IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND SUC H HOUSE SHOULD BE REAL AND NOT SYMBOLIC. IF OLD HOUSE IS ONLY MEANT FOR DEMOLITION, IT MAY NOT SATISFY THE T EST OF PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, MORE PARTICULARLY WH EN IT WAS DEMOLISHED WITHIN TWO YEARS. THUS, IT MAY BE A SYMBOLIC PURCHASE OF BUNGALOW WHICH MAY NOT PASS TH E TEST OF 'PURCHASE' UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT OR IF IT IS TREATED AS PURCHASED, THEN DEMOLITION, BEING A VOLU NTARY ACT, MAY AMOUNT TO 'TRANSFER' AS PER THE DECISION O F THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GRACE COLLIS (2001) 24 8 ITR 323 (SC).' 5.2.5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT EVEN THOUGH THE SALE PROCEE DS OF THE CAPITAL GAINS WERE USED IN THE PURCHASE OF A RESIDE NTIAL BUILDING WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED, THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE EXEMPTION AVAILABLE UNDER 54F OF THE ACT SINCE THE SAME WAS DEMOLISHED WITHIN NO TIME AND SHOPPING COMPLEX OF SIX 7 ITA NOS.455 & 456/MDS/2014 FLOORS WAS CONSTRUCTED ON THAT SITE. THE DISALLOWAN CE MADE BY THE A.O IS IN ORDER. THE GROUND IS DISMISSED . 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COM PLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE HE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. THE LEARN ED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER RELIED IN THE DEC ISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE SHRI DILIP MANHAR PAREKH VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.6169/MDS/2013 DATED 15.04.2016, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT-21 V/S. MR.ABHAY AHUJA IN IT APPEAL (L) NO. 1583 OF 2012 DATED 24/01/2013, AND THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAY BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE ACIT V/S. DILIP MANHAR PAREKH IN ITA NO. 37/MUM/2012 DATED 30/01/20 13. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AND ALSO THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD.CIT (A) IN HIS ORDER. 8 ITA NOS.455 & 456/MDS/2014 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND CAR EFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE MOOT QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT IF HE DEMOLISHED THE NEW ASSET BEING THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PURCHASED BY HIM WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF PURCHASE IN VIOLATION TO SECTION 54F(3) OF THE ACT. THE PRIME ARGUMENT ADVA NCED BY THE LD.A.R BEFORE US IS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 54F(3) OF THE ACT ONLY PROVIDES THAT THE NEW ASSET SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT WI THIN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF PURCHASE AND DOES NOT SPECIFY A SITUATION WHERE THE NEW ASSET IS DEMOLISH ED. HE RELIED ON THE CASE LAWS CITED BY HIM SUPRA IN SUPPO RT OF HIS ARGUMENTS. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE HONBLE BENCH OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MANHAR PARIKH, CITED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HAD REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS (SUPRA) WHEREI N IT 9 ITA NOS.455 & 456/MDS/2014 WAS HELD THAT CONSTRUCTION MUST BE REAL ONE. IT SHOULD NOT BE A SYMBOLIC CONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, THE DECISION RELIED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IN FACT, SUPPORTS THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER. FURTHER, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE VANIA SILK MILLS PVT.LTD. VS. CIT, THE ISSUE WAS W ITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TO WARDS DESTRUCTION OF ITS MACHINERY DUE TO FIRE, WHEREIN T HE REVENUE HELD IT TO BE TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE ACT. IN THAT SITUATION, THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAD HELD THAT CAPITAL GAINS TAX WAS ATTRACTED UNDER SECTION 45 BY TRANSFER AND NOT MERELY BY EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHTS HOWSOEVER BROUGHT ABOUT . WHATEVER THE MODE BY WHICH THE TRANSFER WAS BROUGHT ABOUT, THE EXISTENCE OF THE ASSET DURING THE PROCESS OF TR ANSFER WAS A PRECONDITION: UNLESS THE ASSET EXISTED IN FACT TH ERE COULD NOT BE A TRANSFER OF IT. THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF A RI GHT OR RIGHTS SHOULD IN ANY CASE BE ON ACCOUNT OF ITS OR THEIR TR ANSFER IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45. IF I T WAS NOT AND WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE DESTRUCTION OR LOSS OF THE AS SET, IT WAS NOT A TRANSFER AND DID NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 45 10 ITA NOS.455 & 456/MDS/2014 WHICH RELATED TO TRANSFER AND NOT TO MERE EXTINGUIS HMENT OF A RIGHT. HENCE, AN EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHT NOT BROUGH T ABOUT BY TRANSFER WAS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 45. ON IDENTICAL SITUATION THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL MADRAS HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE NEELAMALAI AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT HAD FO LLOWED THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT. HOWE VER, IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, THE ISSUE IS WITH RESPE CT TO CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE PARLIAMENT IN ITS WISDOM HAD ENACTED SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IN THE FINANCE ACT, 1982 WITH A VIEW TO ENCOURAGE H OUSING CONSTRUCTION. THUS THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATION WAS NOT FOR DESTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BUT FOR PROMOTI NG THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING UNITS. IF THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54 IS EXTENDED WHERE THE NEW RESIDENTIAL BU ILDING IS DEMOLISHED WITHOUT CONSTRUCTING ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT, THE N THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS DEFEATED. FURTHER, AS RIGHTL Y POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E CIT VS. V.PRADEEP KUMAR & ANOTHER CITED SUPRA, IT HAS BEEN 11 ITA NOS.455 & 456/MDS/2014 CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT HE HAD ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED A NEW RESIDE NTIAL HOUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIO N 54F. SECTION 54F EMPHASIZES CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE CONSTRUCTION MUST BE A REAL ONE. IT SHOULD NOT BE A SYMBOLIC CONSTRUCTION. MERE CONSTRUCTION BY WAY OF EXTENSION OF THE OLD EXISTING HOUSE WOULD NOT MEAN CONSTRUCTI NG A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 54F . IN VIEW OF INTENTIONS OF THE ACT, DECISIONS OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) ON THIS ISSUE WHEREIN HE HAS HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F CANNOT BE GRAN TED SINCE HE HAS DEMOLISHED THE NEWLY ACQUIRED RESIDENT IAL HOUSE INSTANTLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX FLOORED SHOPPING COMPLEX. ITA NO.456/MDS/2014 (A.Y.2005-06): GROUND : UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE ACT O F RS.7,34,750/-. 12 ITA NOS.455 & 456/MDS/2014 8. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH M/S. ADITYA CONSTRUCTION ON 14.01.2013 FOR PURCHASE OF A FLAT AT ARCOT ROAD AND PAID RS.17,56,000/-. THE ABOVE TRANS ACTION WAS DECLARED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, DURI NG THE COURSE OF SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT ON 7 .8.2009, IT WAS REVEALED FROM THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE FLAT FOR RS.24,91,250/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE REASON FOR THE DISCREPANCY, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED TH E DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.7,34,750/- AS HIS UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 9. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER AGREEING WITH HIS VIEW. 10. EVEN BEFORE US, AT THIS STAGE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE OR ADVANCED ANY ARGUMENT JUST IFYING HIS STAND. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OPTION BUT TO 13 ITA NOS.455 & 456/MDS/2014 CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. IT IS ORDERED ACCORD INGLY. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 30 TH NOVEMBER , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( ! ' . # ) ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF