ITO, W-10(4), Hyderabad V. Sri J.V.R.Kishore Babu, Hyderabad

ITA 567/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2787 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M H NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Capital receipt; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 80IB; 147; 68; 69; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 567/HYD/11 ASST. YEAR 2003-04 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(4), HYDERABAD. V/S. SRI JVR KISHORE BABU, HYDERABAD. (PAN/GIR NO. AFAPJ3004N /6K-1455) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1181/H/11 ASST. YEAR: 2003-4 INCOME TAX OFFICER, V/S. SMT. J. SRIDEVI, WARD 10(4), HYDERABAD HYDERABAD (PAN AZDPS3739A) APPELLANT BY : SRI M.H. NAIK RESPONDENT BY : S HRI S. RAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING 20 - 03 - 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26 - 04 - 2013. O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BOTH THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-VI, FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THEY 2 ITA NOS. 567/H/11 & 1181/H/11 SHRI JVR KISHORE BABU SMT. J. SRIDEVI WERE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND, THEREFORE, A C OMMON ORDER IS PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 567/H/11 APPEAL BY SRI JVR KISHORE BABU 2. THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIV E GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE AMOUNTS OF RS. 1,36,000/- AND RS. 15,83,419/- INCLUDED IN THE ADDITION MADE T OWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GODOWNS. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AO IGNORED OTHER LOANS OF RS. 1,36,000/- AND SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS. 15, 83,419/-. THE CIT(A) DID NOT COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE DETAILS OF THE LOANS WERE CREDITORS WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE DESPITE BEING SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR. 3. AS WOULD APPEAR FROM THE AFORESAID GROUNDS THE D EPARTMENT IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN ACCEPTING THE LOANS AND CREDITS OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,26,000/- AND RS. 15,8 3,419/- WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 37,02,205/- MADE BY TH E AO U/S 69 OF THE ACT, AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCT ION OF WAREHOUSE GODOWNS. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPU TE ARE THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE ON 28/02/2005 ADMITTING INCOME F ROM WAREHOUSE BUSINESS AT RS. 2,97,957/- AND INCOME FRO M CIVIL CONTRACT WORK AT RS. 57,144/- THAT BESIDES THE ASSESSEE ALSO DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 56,000/-. THE INCOME DER IVED FROM WAREHOUSE BUSINESS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,97,957/- WAS CLAIMED AS 3 ITA NOS. 567/H/11 & 1181/H/11 SHRI JVR KISHORE BABU SMT. J. SRIDEVI DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE IT ACT. ACTION U/S 147 WA S INITIATED BY THE AO BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148 ON 24/10/2006 ON THE GROUND THAT THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED FROM LETTING OUT WAREHOU SE GODOWN IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT IN COME FROM BUSINESS. IN COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E AO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE SEEKING EXPLANATI ON ON VARIOUS RAISED THEREIN. IN THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THE A O SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES SHOWN IN TH E BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/03/2003 ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE SOU RCE FOR THE AMOUNTS INVESTED IN THE ASSETS AND THE DEPOSITS MAD E AND THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND WITH SUPPORTING DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE. THE AO ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE FINAN CIAL YEAR-WISE LOANS TAKEN FROM ANDHRA BANK AND REPAYMENT MADE WIT H DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. HE FURTHER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF LOANS TAKEN FROM OTHERS, FINANCIAL YEAR- WISE, WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND CONFIRMATION LE TTERS OF THE CREDITORS GIVING COMPLETE AND LATEST ADDRESSES OF T HE CREDITORS. THE AO FURTHER SOUGHT PARTY-WISE/HEAD-WISE DETAILS OF S UNDRY CREDITORS WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, DID NOT COMPLY TO THE AFORESAID SHOW CAUSE LETTER DATE D 22/03/2007. THE AO AGAIN ISSUED A LETTER ON 17/10/2007 REQUESTI NG THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AS WELL CALLED FOR IN THE EA RLIER SHOW CAUSE LETTER. AS THERE WAS NO RESPONSE EVEN TO THIS LETTE R ALSO, THE AO ISSUED ANOTHER NOTICE GIVING A LAST OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSEE AF TER REQUESTING FOR 15 DAYS ADJOURNMENT, FINALLY THOUGH APPEARED BEFORE THE AO ON 12/12/2007 BUT DID NOT FURNISH THE INFORMATION CALL ED FOR IN THE SHOW CAUSE LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED ON 22/03 /2007. THE 4 ITA NOS. 567/H/11 & 1181/H/11 SHRI JVR KISHORE BABU SMT. J. SRIDEVI ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED A LETTER ENCLOSING A C OPY OF HIS LOAN ACCOUNT WITH ANDHRA BANK AND A COPY OF THE LETTER D ATED 16/10/2003 ADDRESSED TO THE ANDHRA BANK. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE AVAILAB ILITY OF FUNDS AND INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF W AREHOUSE GODOWN, THE AO PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AO NOTE D THAT AS PER LOAN ACCOUNT WITH ANDHRA BANK, THE ASSESSEE HAD TAK EN A LOAN OF RS. 41,73,185/-. THE DETAILS OF ASSET AS MENTIONED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/03/2003 ARE AS UNDER: BUILDING RS. 5,68,585/- GODOWN RS. 67,78,805/- LAND RS. 3,10,000/- DEPOSITS RS. 2,18,000/- CASH ON HAND RS. 23,219/- SIMILARLY DETAILS OF LIABILITIES AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/03/2003 ARE S UNDER: LOANS (ANDHRA BANK) RS. 41,73,185/- OTHER LOANS RS. 1,26,000/- SUNDRY CREDITORS RS.15,83,419/- IT WAS NOTED FURTHER NOTED BY THE AO THAT AS AGAINS T THE INVESTMENTS AND DEPOSITS OF RS. 78,75,390/- THE ASS ESSEE HAS AN EXPLAINABLE SOURCE OF RS. 41,73,185/- BEING LOAN TA KEN FROM ANDHRA BANK WHEREAS THE BALANCE INVESTMENT, WHICH WORKS OU T TO RS. 37,02,205/- WAS NOT OUT OF ANY EXPLAINABLE SOURCE. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT SO FAR AS THE LOAN TAKEN FROM OTHERS AMO UNTING TO RS. 1,26,000/- AND SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS. 15,83,419/-, TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 17,09,419/-, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH NA MES AND PRESENT ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE MONEY WAS BO RROWED NOR 5 ITA NOS. 567/H/11 & 1181/H/11 SHRI JVR KISHORE BABU SMT. J. SRIDEVI ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THE LOAN CREDITORS TO THE EFF ECT THAT THEY HAD GIVEN LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE OR THAT THEY HAD SUPPLI ED ANY MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE AND PRO PER EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE INVESTMENT OF THE BALANCE OF AMOUNT OF RS. 37,02,205/- IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF WA REHOUSE GODOWN DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE AO CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WAREHOUSE GODOWN AND ADDED IT TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 5. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION IN AN APPEA L FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 6. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING BEFORE THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GODOWN WAS COMPLETED BY FEBRUARY, 2002 AND THE TOTAL COST OF T HE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GODOWN WAS RS. 67,78,805/- WAS ALREADY ACCOU NTED FOR IN FEBRUARY, 2002. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PE R THE JOINT INSPECTION REPORT BY THE MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR C ONSTRUCTION OF GODOWN BY MUNICIPAL SURVEYOR, NIZAMABAD AND BANK MA NAGER ANDHRA BANK THE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED ON 16/01 /2002 AND WAS HANDED OVER BY 02/02/2002 THOUGH THE RENTS WERE RECEIVED FROM 01/08/2002. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED IN THE EARLIER FY THE DE TERMINATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION BY THE AO IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE TRIAL BALANCE FOR THE PER IOD ENDED 31/03/2002 THE ENTIRE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED AT A N AMOUNT OF RS. 67,78,805/- AND THE SOURCES FOR SUCH CONSTRUCTION W AS OUT OF THE 6 ITA NOS. 567/H/11 & 1181/H/11 SHRI JVR KISHORE BABU SMT. J. SRIDEVI OPENING CAPITAL OF RS. 20,03,123/-, LOAN FROM ANDH RA BANK OF RS. 41,86,067/-, LOAN FROM OTHERS RS. 1,36,000/- AND OU TSTANDING LIABILITIES OF RS. 18,86,643/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS WERE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO COVER THE INVESTM ENT MADE IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE WAREHOUSE GODOWN. 7. THE CIT()A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION BY CONCLUDING AS UNDER: 18.1IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE UNDERESTIMATED ITS COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT ANY POIN T OF TIME. ONLY ON THE STRENGTH OF BALANCE SHEET FIGURES, THE AO ARRIVED AT SUCH OPINION. MOREOVER, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO INDICATE THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION REFLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS HAS BEEN SUPPRESSED AND THAT THE DIFFERENCE AS ARRIVED BY THE AO HAD BEEN INVESTED I N THE SAME ASSET. HAD IT BEEN THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAV E DEFINITELY GOT MORE LOAN FROM THE BANK SINCE THE VALUE OF TH E PROPERTY HAD TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF ITS COST OF CONSTRUC TION BUT NOT ON THE BASIS OF BALANCING FIGURES. IT IS NOT THE CA SE OF THE AO THAT THE SUPPRESSION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION HAD BE EN INVESTED IN THE GODOWN BY WAY OF ANY ADDITIONAL LOAN FACILIT Y ALSO. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS GOES TO PROVE THAT SIMPLY O N THE BASIS OF BALANCING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE BASIS OF BALANCE SHEET FIGURES WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A VALID ESTIMATION. MOREOVER, WHILE D OING SO, THE AO IGNORED THE LOANS FROM OTHERS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 ,36,000/- AND RS. 18,86,643/- AS ON THE DATE OF FINALIZATION OF ACCOUNTS WHICH IS AVAILABLE WITH HIM. THE AO HAS NOT MADE AN Y ATTEMPT TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF SUCH SOURCES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 37,02,295/- MADE TOWARDS UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF GODOWN FOR THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION IS DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 8. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7 ITA NOS. 567/H/11 & 1181/H/11 SHRI JVR KISHORE BABU SMT. J. SRIDEVI 9. WE HAVE HEARD SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. I T IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT EVEN AFTER AVAILING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY THE ASSESSEE RE MAINED UNCOOPERATIVE AND DID NOT FURNISH THE INFORMATION A S WERE CALLED FOR BY THE AO NOR PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE LOANS TAKEN FROM OTHERS AS WELL AS THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. THEREF ORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THE AO TREATED THE LOAN TAKEN FROM OTH ERS OF RS. 126,000/-AND SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS. 15,83,419/- AS NOT GENUINE AND INVESTMENT TO THAT EXTENT WAS CONSIDERED AS UNE XPLAINED. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS QUOTED HEREIN ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT THE CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE AO IG NORED THE LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,36,000/- AND RS. 18,86,643/- AS ON THE DATE OF FINALISATION OF ACCOUNTS, WHICH IS AVAILABLE WITH H IM. IN OUR VIEW, THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT AS W OULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURN ISH ANY INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE EITHER WITH REGARD TO THE L OANS TAKEN FROM OTHERS OR SUNDRY CREDITORS WHICH COMPELLED THE AO T O COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT SUCH LOAN AND SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE NOT GENUINE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE LOANS TAKEN FROM OTHERS AND SUNDRY CR EDITORS IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AO HAS IGNORED THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE. THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT NEITHER ANY EXPLANATION NOR ANY EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO WITH RE GARD TO THE LOAN TAKEN FROM OTHERS AND SUNDRY CREDITORS. THEREF ORE, BEFORE ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AN OPPORTUNITY SHOUL D HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE AO TO HAVE HIS SAY IN THE MATTER BY CA LLING FOR A 8 ITA NOS. 567/H/11 & 1181/H/11 SHRI JVR KISHORE BABU SMT. J. SRIDEVI REMAND REPORT. HAVING CONSIDERED THE TOTALITIES OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO LOAN FROM OTHERS AND SUNDRY CREDITOR S REQUIRES TO BE EXAMINED AFRESH BY THE AO. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A O WHO SHALL EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TAKEN FROM OTHE RS OF RS. 1,26,000/- AND SUNDRY CREDITORS RS. 15,83,419/- AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FURTHER MATERIALS WHICH MAY BE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THE AO SHA LL AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE IN THE MATTER. ITA NO. 1181/H/11 BY SMT. J. SRIDEVI 10. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED OF ADVANCE OF RS. 12 ,00,000/- TOWARDS PROPOSED SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR WHIC H NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE APPE AL PROCEEDINGS. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS OF RS. 1,12,000/- AND SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS. 18,15,337/- WAS NOT PROVIDE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF WHIC H THE ADDITION WAS MADE TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED BY NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVIN G THE NATURE OF THE RECEIPT WHETHER AS A CAPITAL RECEIPT OR OTHE RWISE AND 9 ITA NOS. 567/H/11 & 1181/H/11 SHRI JVR KISHORE BABU SMT. J. SRIDEVI FILED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTION. TH E LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED THE RELIEF MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO DID NOT APPRECIATE THE NATURE OF THE RECEIPT. 11. THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL ARE ALMOST ID ENTICAL TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL RELATING TO THE ASSESS EES HUSBAND IN ITA NO. 567/H/11 (SUPRA). 12. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE OTHER APPEAL, THE AO NOTED FROM THE BALANCE SHE ET THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN BUILDINGS, GODOWNS, LAND, AND DEPOSI TS AS ON 31/03/2003 AMOUNTED TO RS. 90,52,306/- AGAINST WHIC H THE ASSESSEE HAD LOAN TAKEN FROM ICICI BANK AMOUNTING T O RS. 54,46,811/-. SO FAR AS THE BALANCE INVESTMENT OF RS . 36,05,225/- IS CONCERNED, IT REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THOUGH IN THE B ALANCE SHEET, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN OTHER LOAN OF RS. 1,12,000/- AND SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS. 18,15,337/-, BUT, SINCE THE ASSESS EE DID NOT FURNISH ANY INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPP ORTUNITIES GRANTED TO HER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE OTHER LOANS OF RS . 1,12,000/- AND SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS. 18,15,337/-. ACCORDINGLY, T HE AO TREATED THE BALANCE INVESTMENT OF RS. 36,05,225/- AS UNEXPLAINE D AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 13. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHILE EXPL AINING THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE WAREHOUSE GODOWN, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 12,00,000/- FROM ONE SHRI N. SATYANARAYANA TOWARDS PROPOSED SALE OF 2 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. SO FAR AS THE SUND RY CREDITORS OF RS. 18,15,337/- IS CONCERNED, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE THAT THE 10 ITA NOS. 567/H/11 & 1181/H/11 SHRI JVR KISHORE BABU SMT. J. SRIDEVI AFORESAID AMOUNTS REPRESENT THE OUTSTANDING LIABILI TIES PAYABLE TOWARDS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH WAS ACTUALL Y PAID DURING THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE SUNDRY CREDITORS HAVE CONFIRMED THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVABLE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 14. THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINI NG THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT WERE ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WAS DELETED. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AN D PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. AS WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE O BSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, NONE OF THE INFORMATIONS/EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE CIT(A) WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO. THE FACT OF SALE OF AG RICULTURAL LAND AS IT APPEARS WAS NEVER RAISED BEFORE THE AO. SIMILARL Y NO EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OR LOAN TA KEN FROM OTHERS WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO TO ESTABLISH GENUINENES S OF SUCH CLAIM. WHATEVER EXPLANATIONS/EVIDENCES WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN BUILDING, WAREHOUSE, LAND, ETC., WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE CIT(A) DURING THE APPEAL PROC EEDINGS. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING IN THE CASE OF AS SESSEES HUSBAND IN ITA NO. 567/H/11 (SUPRA), WE ALSO REMIT THIS MAT TER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE WITH ID ENTICAL DIRECTIONS. THE AO SHALL CONSIDER ALL THE MATERIAL/EVIDENCES TH AT MAY BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AND PASS NECESS ARY ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER. 11 ITA NOS. 567/H/11 & 1181/H/11 SHRI JVR KISHORE BABU SMT. J. SRIDEVI 16. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS BEING ITA NO. 56 7/H/11 AND 1181/H/11 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26 TH APRIL, 2013. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DT/- 26 TH APRIL, 2013. KV COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. ITO, WARD 10(4), IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD 2. SR J.V.R. KISHORE BABU AND SMT. J. SRIDEVI, 2 - 2 - 1118/1/8K, 1 ST FLOOR, SHIVAM ROAD, HYDERABAD 500044. CIT (A)-VI, HYDERABAD. CIT - V , HYDERABAD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD.