Singireddy Vijayalaxmi, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Central Circle, Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 620/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8431 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y.V.S.T. SAI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.620/HYD/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Smt.Singireddy Vijayalaxmi, HYDERABAD [PAN: AEYPV2614P] Vs ACIT, Central Circle-6, HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri A.V.Raghu Ram, AR For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 29-09-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 16-11-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for AY.2007-08 arises from the CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad’s order dated 18-10-2016 passed in case No.0696 / ACIT CC-1(3) / CIT(A)-11 / 10-11, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making un-explained investment addition of Rs.9.90 lakhs, learned representative takes us to the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion treating as under: ITA No. 620/Hyd/2017 :- 2 -: “7. The case was posted for a hearing on 30/06/2016 but none appeared. The assessee was therefore afforded another opportunity vide this office letter dated 01/07/2016 served on the Ld. A.R. It was also informed that copies of receipts given to the vendee stated to have been furnished as additional evidence under Rule 46A are not on record. In response a letter dated 14/07/2016 was furnished with copies of documents claimed to have been furnished earlier. It was stated that these documents evidence receipt of money on sale of property and could not be produced earlier for want of sufficient opportunity. It was stated in the petition as under: "The appellant herewith submit copies of the document demonstrating acquisition of the asset in 1998 through document no. 956/1998, sale document in 2003 as per which the sale consideration is Rs.3,50,000 which has a market value of Rs.6,50,000 and copies of the receipts acknowledging receipt of Rs.10,50,000 through two receipts that are given to the vendees of which Rs.3,20,000 is cash and Rs.7,30,000 is in the form cheques, and Bank statement of Andhra Bank a/c No.00421431 wherein these cheques were deposited with a petition under rule 46A of I.T. Rules”. 8. Having regard to the circumstances of the addition brought out in the assessment order the above documents are admitted into consideration. 9. It is the stand of the assessee that she owned house property at Mahaboobnagar evidenced by the document No.956 of 1998, which was sold in the year 2003 as evidenced by the document No. 4754 of 2003. The sale proceeds received in relation to this transaction was Rs.3,20,000/- in cash vide receipt dated 11/08/2003 and two amounts Rs.3.5 lakhs and 3.8 lakhs vide cheque No.48883 and 48877 dated 28/09/2003. cheques are found credited in the Andhra Bank Savings Bank a/c no.421431 which is seen to have been opened at its Dilsukhnagar Branch on 02/09/2003. These cheques are found credited to this account on 01/10/2003 and 21/10/2003 by one Sri B. Srinivas Reddy. The total sale consideration of the House Property as per written submissions is claimed to be Rs.10,50,000/-. However, as per sale deed registered as document No. 4754/2003 with the District Registrar of Mahaboobnagar the market value of the property is much lesser at Rs.6,65,000/-. The document shows the transaction cost as Rs.3,50,000/- received on a date prior to the registration which happened on 20/10/2003. The cash receipt furnished as additional evidence, however, refers to a lesser amount of Rs.3,20,000/- on 11/08/2003. The document bears no reference to the amounts of Rs.3.50 lakhs and Rs.3.80 lakhs claimed to have been received in cheque from the vendor Sri S. Anna ITA No. 620/Hyd/2017 :- 3 -: Reddy. It is also relevant to note at this juncture. that the bank passbook shows the deposit having been made by Sri B. Srinivas Reddy and not Sri S. Anna Reddy. 10. The assessee's version is that a Sum of Rs.10.50 lakhs was received in 2003 from property sold to Sri S.Anna Reddy. The document shows that a sum of Rs.3.50 lakhs alone was received from Sri Anna Reddy and there is no reference to the sum of Rs.7.30 lakhs. The document bears no reference to Sri B.Srinivas Reddy in whose name the deposit is made in the bank account. Even in respect of the sum of Rs.3.50 lakhs mentioned in the document the corresponding receipt claimed to have been issued by the vendor - assessee, now introduced as evidence, refers to a lesser amount of Rs.3.20 lakhs. 11. In addition to the lack of factual fit in the explanation now offered, the availability of funds claimed to have been received in 2003 for the proposed investment made nearly 4 years later in 2007, is by no means evident. There is no necessary inference that Rs.3.2 lakhs (or Rs.3.5 lakhs as the case may be) received in cash continued to be available with the assessee till 2007. Similarly, the sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs and Rs.3.80 lakhs found credited to the assessee’s bank account in the name of Sri B.Srinivas Reddy (and not Sri S.Anna Reddy, the Vendee) is seen to have been immediately transferred on 29.10.2003 to one Sri Sriramulu bringing the credit balance available in the bank account down to Rs.1,33,000/-. The assessee's explanation does not identify who Sriramulu is, but it is clear from the assessment order that this payee is not the seller of the land purchased in 2007 at Kuntlur Village, Hayatnagar Mandal. For these reasons the explanation now furnished by the Ld. A.R. does not establish availability of explained sources in the year 2007. The addition of Rs.9.90 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on account of an unexplained investment in property, therefore, does not call for any interference”. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings and find no merit in assessee’s stand per se attributing source of the impugned investment of Rs.9.90 lakhs on money derived from sale of his immoveable property. We make it clear that not only the assessee has failed to prove cash component therein by producing the cogent supportive evidence but also it has come on record that Rs.7.3 lakhs ITA No. 620/Hyd/2017 :- 4 -: comprising 3.5 and 3.8 lakhs had been immediately transferred to one Shri Sriramulu (supra). We thus decline the assessee’s arguments in principle. The fact also remains that this assessee derives salary income wherein at least some cash in hand could not be per se ruled out. We thus hold that a lumpsum relief of Rs.1 lakh as the cash in hand available to her would be just and proper. Ordered accordingly. The impugned addition of Rs.9.90 lakhs is deleted to the extent of Rs.1 lakh and balance amount of Rs.8.90 lakhs stands confirmed. 4. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 16 th November, 2021 Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 16-11-2021 TNMM ITA No. 620/Hyd/2017 :- 5 -: Copy to : 1.Smt.Singireddy Vijayalaxmi, C/o.K.Vasant Kumar, A.V.Raghu Ram, P.Vinod & M.Neelima Devi, Advocates, 610, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2.The ACIT, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad. 3.CIT(Appeals)-11, Hyderabad. 4.Pr.CIT-Central, Hyderabad. 5.D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad. 6.Guard File.