Sai Priya Constructions, Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward 8(2), Hyderabad

ITA 533/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6033 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: T CHAITANYA KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Agreed addition
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ES A , HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. ASST. YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 533/HYD/2014 2009 - 10 SAI PRIYA CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD [PAN: ABBFS4062Q] THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(2), HYDERABAD 532/HYD/2014 SMT. GONA NEERAJA HARI PRIYA, HYDERABAD [PAN: AHCPG1492R] 534/HYD/2014 GONA RAVINDER RAO, HYDERABAD [PAN: ADRPG7546D] FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI T. CHAITANYA KUMAR , AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI M. SITARAM , DR DATE OF HEARING : 18 - 0 1 - 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 - 0 2 - 201 6 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THE SE THREE APPEAL S ARE PERTAINING TO A FIRM AND ITS PARTNERS , MAINLY ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITIONS MADE CONSEQUENT TO THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE ORDERS OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - III , HYDERABAD DATED 15 - 01 - 2014 RESPECTIVELY IN EACH CASE. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL AND LD. DR A ND PERUSED THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. I.T.A. NO S . 532, 533 & 534 / HYD / 20 14 : - 2 - : 2. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE - FIRM M/S. S A I P RIYA CONSTRUCTIONS IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND SALE OF FLATS. THE OTHER TWO ASSESSEES ARE PARTNERS IN THE ABOVE FIRM. THERE WERE SURVEY OPERATIONS U/S. 133A OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT [ACT] IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF ASSESSEE ON 09 - 09 - 2008. IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE, MANAGING PARTNER HAS DECLARED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 70 LAKHS AS ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT IN THE FIRM AND RS. 25 LAKHS EACH IN THE INDIVIDUAL CASES. IN THE RETURN FILED CONSEQUENT TO SURVEY IN THE YEAR, ASSESSEE HOWEVER, DID NOT DISCLOSE ANY AMOUNTS. AS FAR AS THE FIRM IS CONCERNED, IT HAS FINALIZED ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OFFERED INCOME OF RS. 18,01,200/ - . ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN THE SCRUT INY WHILE ACCEPTING THAT ASSESSEES NET PROFIT DISCLOSED WO R KS - OUT TO 8.09 WHICH IS TO SOME EXTENT REASONABLE WITH THE OTHER CASES ON THE SAME LINE OF BUSINESS, HOWEVER, WENT ON TO DISALLOW AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LAKHS TO COVER THE DISCREPANCIES IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES ON THE PERCENTAGE OF NET PROFIT ON ESTIMATION BASIS. FURTHER, AO ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 70 LAKHS ON THE BASIS OF THE DECLARATION MADE IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 70 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. SIMILARLY, IN THE HANDS OF THE MANAGING PARTNER AND HIS WIFE , AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 25 LAKHS EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE HA S OBJECTED TO THE SAME. IT WAS THE CONTENTION THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND THE DECLARATION MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY HAS NO BASIS AND CONSEQUENT TO COMPLETION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT POST SURVEY. ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE INCOMES CORRECTLY AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE FURTHER ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE SO - CALLED DECLARATION IN THE COURSE O F SURVEY. ASSESSEE RELIED ON VARIOUS CASE LAW S NOT ONLY BEFORE THE AO BUT ALSO BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). I.T.A. NO S . 532, 533 & 534 / HYD / 20 14 : - 3 - : 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, AS EXTRACTED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER, LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, CONFIRM ED THE AMOUNT BY STATING AS UNDER: 4.2. I HAVE SEEN CAREFULLY THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE. FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE FACT THAT HUGE INVESTMENT HAD BEEN MADE IN THE AFOREMENTIONED TO PROJECTS BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ITS OWN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ALL THE DOCUMENTS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT AT ALL TIMES. THERE WAS NO COERCION OR UNDUE INFLUENCE ON THE MANAG ING DIRECTOR AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND HE HAD FULL ACCESS TO ALL THE INFORMA TION THAT HE WANTED. HE WAS FULLY AWARE AS OF ALL THE DETAILS OF HIS INVESTMENTS AS WELL AS THE MINUTE DETAILS OF HIS PROJECTS. IT WAS ONLY AFTER FULL VERIFICATION THAT HE HAD VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THE SURVEY TOOK PLACE ON 9/9/2008 AND THAT IS THAT THEY THE ADMISSION WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT WAITED FOR A FULL PERIOD OF THREE YEARS TO GO BACK ON THE SURRENDER I.E., IN THE YEAR 2011. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD HOW IT TOOK SUCH AN UNUSUALLY LON G TIME TO VERIFY THE FACTS FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS. IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM ABOVE THAT THE APPELLANT WANTED TO GET OUT OF ITS OWN LIABILITY TO PAY TAXES AND THEREFORE AS AN AFTERTHOUGH DECIDED TO RETRACT HIS STATEMENT. 4. IT WAS TH E CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT ALL THE INVESTMENTS MADE WERE PART OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAS NOT INVESTED ANY AMOUNT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED , REFERRING TO THE STATEMENTS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY , THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE VERIFIED ON THAT DAY AS ASSESSEE DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO OPERATE THE COMPUTERS AND THE SURVEY PARTY ALSO DID NOT EXAMINE ANY OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR INVESTMENTS SO AS TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNTS DECLARED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE AMOUNTS DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WHICH ON VERIFICATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ENTRIES SUBSEQUENT TO THE SURVEY DID NOT OFFER THE INCOME OTHER THAN WERE ARRIVED AT AS A PROFIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION T HAT THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AT ALL, SO THE DECLARATION SO MADE HAS NO BASIS. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT I.T.A. NO S . 532, 533 & 534 / HYD / 20 14 : - 4 - : THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE WAITED FOR A FULL PERIOD OF THREE YEARS TO GO BACK AND SURRENDER IS NOT CORRECT AS THE S URVEY TOOK PLACE ON 09 - 09 - 2008 AND ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON 31 - 03 - 2009 AND RETURNS WERE FILED ON 30 - 09 - 2009, BASED ON THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN ARGUMENT OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH REFERENCE TO ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS. IT WAS THE CONTENTION THAT LD.AO AND CIT(A) DID NOT MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS. 70 LAKHS ON THE BASIS OF ANY MATERIAL OTHER THAN THE STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON VARIOUS CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) INCLUDING THAT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S. KHADER K HAN SON [352 ITR 480] (SC) SIMILAR IN FACTS. IN THE CASE OF INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS ALSO, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR ADDITION AS DETERMINED BY THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A). 5. LD. DR HOWEVER, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) TO SUBMIT THAT ASSESSEE HAS BONAFIDELY ADMITTED THE INCOMES WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN HONOURED BY HIM. LD. COUNSEL IN REPLY SUB MITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN FOR EARLIER YEARS ALSO AND VARIOUS ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO TO SUBMIT THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAXES AS PER THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE EVIDENC E ON RECORD. AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO, HE HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOU N T NOR RECORDED ANY UNACCOUNTED SO - CALLED HUGE INVESTMENTS , THE BASIS OF WHICH WAS THE DECLARATION DURING THE SURVEY. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSES SEE, THERE IS NO IMPOUNDED MATERIAL OR ANY EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSEE HAS EARNED A TENTATIVE I.T.A. NO S . 532, 533 & 534 / HYD / 20 14 : - 5 - : FIGURE OF RS. 70 LAKHS AS UN - EXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND ITS PARTNERS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 25 LAKHS EACH. WE ARE ALSO SURPRISED TO NOTICE THAT LD. CIT(A) AFTER RECORDING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY ASSESSEE DID NOT EVEN COMMENT ABOUT THOSE ASPECTS AND HAS SIMPLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS STAT ING THAT HUGE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE AFOREMENTIONED OBJECTS BY ASSE SSEE. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THOSE INVESTMENTS ARE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS RECORDED OR OUTSIDE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. EVEN IF THEY ARE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, NO SUCH DETAILS ARE PLACED ON RECORD EITHER BY THE AO OR BY THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE SO CALLED HUGE INVESTMENTS ARE ONLY PRESUMPTIONS OF THE OFFICERS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY BASIS. NEXT ISSUE WHICH HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT UNDER ANY COERCION OR UNDUE INFLUENCE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND HE HAD FULL ACCESS TO ALL THE INFORMATION THAT HE WANTED. THIS STATEMENT OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONTRASTS WITH THE STATEMENT RECORDED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY . A SSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED AND HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO OPERATE THE COMPUTERS ( IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NOS. 11 & 13 IN THE STATEMENT) . REFERRING TO CERTAIN ADVANCES MADE FOR AGREEMENTS, AO ASKED FOR THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FOR WHICH ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE INVESTMENTS IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM AS WELL AS IN THEIR INDIVIDUA L HANDS. HOWEVER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THERE WERE NO UNACCOUNTED ADVANCES A S ALL THE ADVANCES ARE MADE THROUGH BANK ACCOUNTS OR THEY ARE ALREADY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THIS, ASSESSEES ARE NOT COMPLYING WITH THE DE CLARATIONS SO MADE IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THIS HAS NOT BEEN CONTRADICTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. I.T.A. NO S . 532, 533 & 534 / HYD / 20 14 : - 6 - : 7. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S. KHADER KHAN SON [352 ITR 480] (SC) (SUPRA) HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD: A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE - FIRM. ONE OF THE PARTNERS IN HIS STATEMENT OFFERED AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 20 L A KHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 AND RS. 30 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 BUT THE STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE PARTNER FROM WHOM THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY OPERATION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WAS NEW TO THE MANAGEMENT AND HAD AGREED TO AN AD HOC ADDITION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON THE ADMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE RECOMPUTED THE ASSESSMENT. THE ORDER WAS SET ASIDE BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THIS ORDER WAS UPHELD B Y THE TRIBUNAL. ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT, THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE MATERIALS COLLECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A WOULD NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND THAT IT COULD NOT BE SAID S OLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE - FIRM THAT THE DISCLOSED INCOME WAS ASSESSABLE AS LAWFUL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. FROM VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, IT IS C LEAR THAT AN ADMISSION BY ASSESSEE DURING T HE SEARCH OR SURVEY PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CONCLUSIVE UNLESS IT IS SUPPORTED BY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. W ITH REGARD TO INVESTMENTS ON WHICH, THE STATEMENT WAS TAKEN, THERE IS NO MATERIAL IDENTIFIED DURING THE SURVEY OPERATIONS SO AS TO DETERM INE THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AT RS. 70 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM AND RS. 25 LAKHS IN EACH OF THE PARTNERS HANDS. FROM THE FACTS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT EXCEPT RELYING ON THE ANSWER GIVEN BY THE MANAGING PARTNER TO A QUESTION POSED BY THE AO IN THE COU RSE OF SURVEY, NO INDEPENDENT INFORMATION / EVIDENCE/MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD SO AS TO SUPPORT THE ADDITIONS MADE. SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE CORROBORATING THE SO CALLED ADMISSION BY ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE SIM PLY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 133A. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS I.T.A. NO S . 532, 533 & 534 / HYD / 20 14 : - 7 - : RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES WITH RESPECT TO THE ABOVE ADDITIONS ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. 9. ONE MORE ISSUE TO BE CONSIDERED IS AN ADHOC ADDITION OF RS. 10 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO. AS ALR EADY STATED ABOVE, AO GIVES A FINDING THAT ASSESSEES BOOK PROFIT AT 8.9% IS TO SOME EXTENT REASONABLE WITH OTHER CASES IN THE SAME LINE OF BUSINESS AS RECORDED IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER, ON VERIFICATION OF THE P&L A/C AND VOUCHERS, HE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT VARIOUS EXPENDITURES DEBITED TO P&L A/C ARE SELF - MADE VOUCHERS. IN PARA 5.1, HE RECORDS THAT MANAGING PARTNER HAS COME FORWARD AND ADMITTED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LAKHS TO COVER ALL THE DISCREPANCIES IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES AND THE PERCE NTAGE OF NET PROFIT ON ESTIMATION BASIS. HOWEVER, IN PARA 5.3, HE AGAIN RECORDS THAT THE MANAGING PARTNER AND COUNSEL HAS REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT. WE ARE NOT SURE WHETHER THE AMOUNT IS AN AGREED ADDITION OR AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE AS SEEN FROM THE A OS ORDER. BE THAT AS IT MAY, ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE SAID DISALLOWANCE IS NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE. LD. CIT(A) AFTER DULY RECORDING THE OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE ON THIS, CONFIRMS THE SAME HOLDING AS UNDER: 6.1. DURING APP EAL PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT STATED THAT SUCH AN ESTIMATED ADDITION DID NOT HAVE ANY BASIS AND IT SHOULD BE DELETED. IT WAS FURTHER ADDED THAT ALL THE EXPENSES WERE SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS. 6.2. I HAVE SEEN CAREFULLY THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE. FIRSTLY, IT IS INCORRECT TO STATE THAT ALL THE EXPENSES ARE PROPERLY VOUCHED. IN FACT, AS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEY WERE VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN THE AMOUNTS AND THE EXPENSES WERE NOT PROPERLY VOUCHED. IN FACT A PORTION OF THE EXPENSES HAD SELF - MADE VOUCHERS WITHOUT ANY DETAILS ON WHAT AND WHOM THE EXPENSES WERE MADE ON. IT IS CLEAR THAT IN ORDER TO AVOID FURTHER SCRUTINY, THE APPELLANT MADE AN OFFER OF AN AGREED SURRENDER ON AN ESTIMATED I.T.A. NO S . 532, 533 & 534 / HYD / 20 14 : - 8 - : BASIS. LOOKING INTO THE NATURE OF VOUCHERS, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ALSO AGREED THAT IF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LAKHS WAS SURRENDERED, IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, HE AGREED TO THE SURRENDER AND DID NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER SCRUTINY. 6.3. DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT SUBSTANTIA TE THE EXPENSES IN QUESTION. IF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS THAT ALL THE EXPENSES WERE PROPERLY COUCHED AND PROVEN, THEN HE COULD HAVE PROVIDED CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS POINT BOTH DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS DURING THE APPEAL PR OCEEDINGS. HE DID NOT DO SO. 6.4. BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PROPERLY SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LAKHS KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE VOUCHERS AND BOOKS. THE DISCREPANCIES REMAINED UNPROV EN EVEN DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS ORDERED TO BE CONFIRMED. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION MADE IS ON ADHOC BASIS. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNS EL AND FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT UNVERIFIABLE VOUCHERS CANNOT BE AVOIDED IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS. KEEPING THAT IN VIEW, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5 LAKHS WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. CONSEQUENTLY, WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKHS. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IN ITA NO. 533/HYD/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. IN BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL CASES OF SHRI GONA RAVINDER RAO AND SMT GONA NEERAJA HARI PRIYA, ADDITION OF RS. 25 LAKHS STANDS DELETED FOR TH E SAME REASONS AS CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM ABOVE AS THERE IS NO BASIS FOR MAKING THE ADDITIONS EXCEPT THE STATEMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED ON THIS ISSUE. I.T.A. NO S . 532, 533 & 534 / HYD / 20 14 : - 9 - : 13. ONE MORE ISSUE IN THE CA SE OF SMT GONA NEERAJA HARI PRIYA IS ON TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6.98 LAKHS FROM 17.25 ACRES OF LAND AND AO TOOK AGRICULTURAL INCOME PER ACRE RS. 15,000/ - PER ACRE AND ALLOWED A GRICULTURAL INCOME TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 2.58 LAKHS. BALANCE OF THE AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 13.1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ASSESSEE HAS NOT JUSTIFIED EARNING SO MUCH OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE ESTIMATION BY THE AO IS REASONABLE . S INCE NO CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE IS FILED BEFORE US, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUNDS PERTAINING TO AG RICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ARE REJECTED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IN ITA NO. 532/ HYD/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND ITA NO. 534/HYD/2014 IS ALLOWED. 14. TO SUM - UP , ITA NO S . 533/HYD/2014 & 532/HYD/2014 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND ITA NO. 534/HYD/2014 IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH FEBRU ARY , 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 TNMM I.T.A. NO S . 532, 533 & 534 / HYD / 20 14 : - 10 - : COPY TO : 1. SMT. GONA NEERAJA HARI PRIYA, 2 - 2 - 244F, JANAPRIYA NAGAR, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD. C/O. B. NARSING RAO & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, PLOT NO. 554, ROAD NO. 92, JUBILEE HILLS, HY DERABAD. 2. M/S. SAI PRIYA CONSTRUCTIONS, 2 - 2 - 244F, JANAPRIYA NAGAR, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD. C/O. B. NARSING RAO & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, PLOT NO. 554, ROAD NO. 92, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. 3. SHRI GONA RAVINDER RAO , 2 - 2 - 244F, JANAPRIYA NAGAR, KUKA TPALLY, HYDERABAD. C/O. B. NARSING RAO & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, PLOT NO. 554, ROAD NO. 92, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. 4 . INCOME TAX OFFICER , W ARD - 8(2), HYDERABAD. 5 . CIT (APPEALS) - III , HYDERABAD. 6 . CIT - II , HYDERABAD. 7 . D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 8 . GUARD FILE.