Mrs. C. Swapna, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad

ITA 671/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61883 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: K C DEVADAS; J J VARUN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Deduction for capital gain; Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Document seized; Application of stay; Cost of acquisition; Reasonable cause; Assessment record; Benefit of exemption; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 40A(3); 54F; 153A; 68; 69; 54; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER APPEAL/SA NO.. ASSTT. YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1361/HYD/2010 2003-04 MRS. G.VENKATALAKSHMI, HYDERABAD PAN: ADBPG1396H DCIT, CENTRAL CIR.-6, HYDERABAD. ITA NO. 1362/HYD/10 2004-05 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 759/HYD/2011 2007-08 -DO- -DO- SA NO. 91/HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 759/HYD/11 2007-08 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 899/HYD/2011 2007-08 DCIT, CENTRAL CIR.-6, HYDERABAD. MRS. G. VENKATALAKSHMI, HYDERABAD ITA NO. 466/HYD/2011 2008-09 MRS. G.VENKATALAKSHMI, HYDERABAD DCIT, CENTRAL CIR.-6, HYDERABAD. SA NO. 90/HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 466/H/11 2008-09 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 760/HYD/2011 2008-09 DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-6, HYDERABAD. MRS. G.VENKATALAKSHMI, HYDERABAD ITA NO. 1315/HYD/10 2002-03 SMT. C. SWAPNA, HYDERABAD. PAN: ACGPG3298C DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD ITA NO. 1316/HYD/10 2004-05 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 1317/HYD/10 2005-06 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 1329/HYD/10 2005-06 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD SMT. C. SWAPNA, HYDERABAD. ITA NO. 672/HYD/2011 2007-08 SMT. C. SWAPNA, HYDERABAD. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD SA NO. 89/HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 672/H/11 2007-08 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 1015/HYD/11 2007-08 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD SMT. C. SWAPNA, HYDERABAD. ITA NO. 671/HYD/11 2008-09 SMT. C. SWAPNA, HYDERABAD. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD SA NO. 88/HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 671/H/11 2008-09 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 1016/HYD/11 2008-09 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD SMT. C. SWAPNA, HYDERABAD. ITA NO. 1318/HYD/10 2003-04 MR. G. SANJAY CHOWDARY, HYDERABAD. PAN: AVIPS9257L DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD SA NO. 144/HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 1318/H/10 2003-04 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 463/HYD/2011 2004-05 -DO- -DO- SA NO. 145/HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 463/H/11 2004-05 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 761/HYD/2011 2004-05 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD MR. G. SANJAY CHOWDARY, HYDERABAD. ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 2 ITA NO. 464/HYD/2011 2005-06 MR. G. SANJAY CHOWDARY, HYDERABAD DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD SA NO. 146/HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 464/H/11 2005-06 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 762/HYD/2011 2005-06 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 , HYDERABAD MR. G. SANJAY CHOWDARY, HYDERABAD ITA NO. 1689/HYD/11 2006-07 MR. G. SANJAY CHOWDARY, HYDERABAD DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD SA NO. 148/HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 1689/H/11 2006-07 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 465/HYD/2011 2007-08 -DO- -DO- SA NO. 147/HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 465/H/11 2007-08 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 1690/HYD/11 2008-09 -DO- -DO- SA NO. 149/HYD/2011 IN ITA NO. 1690/H/11 2008-09 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 1777/HYD/11 2008-09 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD MR. G. SANJAY CHOWDARY, HYDERABAD ITA NO. 700/HYD/2011 2002-03 MR. C. HARISH, HYDERABAD. PAN: AATPC3961D DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-6, HYDERABAD. ITA NO. 668/HYD/2011 2003-04 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 701/HYD/2011 2004-05 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 702/HYD/2011 2005-06 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 669/HYD/2011 2006-07 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 670/HYD/2011. 2007-08 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 467/HYD/2011 2007-08 M/S. LAHARI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN: AABCL3204B DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD. ITA NO. 573/HYD/2011 2002-03 M/S. SWAPNA LAHARI FILMS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN: AANCS6381A DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-6, HYDERABAD. ITA NO. 574/HYD/2011 2003-04 -DO- -DO- ITA NO. 575/HYD/2011 2004-05 -DO- -DO- ASSESSEE BY: SHRI K.C. DEVADAS AND SHRI J.J. VARUN REVENUE BY: SHRI V. SRINIVAS DATE OF HEARING: 05.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.05.2012 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSES AS WELL AS BY REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF CIT(A) WHE REIN CERTAIN ISSUES ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 3 ARE COMMON IN NATURE. HENCE THESE APPEALS ARE CLUB BED TOGETHER, HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CO MMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. A FEW ASSESSEES HEREIN AL SO FILED STAY APPLICATIONS SEEKING THE STAY OF RESPECTIVE OUTSTAN DING DEMAND OF DISPUTED TAX. NOW, WE WILL TAKE-UP THE APPEALS ASS ESEE WISE FOR ADJUDICATION. SMT. G.VENKATALAKSHMI ITA NO.1361/HYD/2010 A.Y. 2003-04 2. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF C IT(A) DATED 24.08.2010. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE GROUND THAT CI T(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 4,81,009/- MADE B Y THE A.O. WITH RESPECT OF THE BANK DEPOSIT AS UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT U/S 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND S EIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTE D AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING 'NIL' INCOME. IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE ARE DEPOSITS IN THE ANDHRA BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4,81,0 09/- OUT OF THE SAME THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN LOAN OF RS. 2,00,000/- BY CHEQUE AND RS. 2,25,000/- BY CASH TO LAHARI GREEN PARK. NO EXP LANATION WAS FILED WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF THE SAID DEPOSIT S. SIMILARLY THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CASH LOAN OF RS. 22,29,160/- FROM M/S LAHARI GREEN PARK A GROUP CONCERN AS PER THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT FILED AND THE SAME WAS UTILIZED FOR MAKING VARIOUS INVESTMENTS AS PER THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUN T. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FILE THE DETAILS OF THE CONFIRMATI ON OF THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF LOANS ACCEPTED DURING THE YEAR INDICATIN G THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTY, PAN, AND DETAILS OF THE INCOM E SOURCE OF THE ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 4 LOAN PARTY ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THAT IN SPITE OF TIME AND OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION OF THE UNSECURED LOANS ACCEPTED DURING THE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TOTAL INCOME W AS THUS ASSESSED AT RS. 27,10,169/- AS AGAINST NIL RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A SSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT [A] AND THE CIT [A] DELETED T HE ADDITION OF RS. 22,29,160/- HOLDING THAT SINCE THE LOAN HAD BEEN TA KEN FROM LAHARI GREEN PARK WHICH WAS ALSO BEING ASSESSED BY THE SAM E ASSESSING OFFICER, THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM LOAN WAS RECEIVED IS ESTABLISHED AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION ON THE FACE OF IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED. BUT, HOWEVER, HE CONFIRMED THE A DDITION OF RS. 4,81,009/- AND THUS HE PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY HIM TOWARDS BANK DEPOSITS IN THE ANDHRA BANK. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE ANDHRA BANK WERE NOTHING BUT LAND A DVANCES RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF LAHARI GREEN PARK AND THE SAM E WERE INCIDENTALLY PAID BACK TO LAHARI GREEN PARK. THE AS SESSEE FILED A COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT IN ANDHRA BANK FOR THE PERIOD. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS OF THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK IS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 1 TO 6. ALTERNAT IVELY, IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AC COUNT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS THE CASE OF T HE DEPARTMENT THAT ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 5 THE EXACT SOURCE OF DEPOSITS SUCH AS, NAME OF THE P ERSONS FROM WHOM THE ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED, COULD NOT BE ESTAB LISHED EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OR DURING THE APPE LLATE PROCEEDING. WHEREAS, IT IS SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE DETAILS OF THE DEPOSITS WERE AVAILABLE AND NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXP LAIN THE SAME. UNDER THIS CIRCUMSTANCES, IN VIEW OF SAME, ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4,81,009/- B EING THE DEPOSITS IN ANDHRA BANK IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO RECONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH A D IRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE DETAILS, AS REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR THE DEPOSITS IN THE ANDHRA BANK. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSE. SMT. G. VENKATALAKSHMI ITA NO.1362/HYD/2010AY 2004-05 6. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING OUT OF THIS APPEAL IS WHETHE R THE CIT [A] IS CORRECT IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 23,14 ,953/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE BANK DEPOSITS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT OR NOT. IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOUND THAT THERE ARE DEPOSITS IN THE ANDHRA BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 23,14, 953/-. THERE WERE NO PROPER EXPLANATIONS REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITIONS AND THE CIT [A] SUSTAINED THE SAID ADDITIONS. THE ASSESSEE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US FOR THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR AND I DENTICAL ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN PARA 5 ABOVE, WHEREIN WE HAVE RESTORED T HE SIMILAR ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDER ING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 6 SMT. G. VENKATALAKSHMI ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 759/HYD/2011- AY 2007- 08 REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 899/HYD/2011- AY 2007-0 8 7. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE AS SESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT W AS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASS ESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A DMITTING INCOME OF RS. 41,99,330/-. IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS. 2,99,52,000/- CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE BASIC CONDITIONS FOR ALLOWING THE EXEMPTIONS ARE NOT FULF ILLED. THIS GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF ADDI TIONAL GROUND AND FILED A PETITION SEEKING THE ADMISSION OF ADDIT IONAL GROUND. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PETITIONS EXPLAINING THE REAS ONS FOR NOT RAISING THIS GROUND BEFORE US IN HER ORIGINAL GROUN DS BEFORE US. WE FIND THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT RAISING TH IS GROUND BEFORE US ON EARLIER OCCASION IN THE FORM ORIGINAL GROUNDS AN D ACCORDINGLY, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR ADJUDICATION. 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF R S. 27,50,000/- BEING 50% OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION O F THE HOUSE AT BHANUR. BEING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE CIT [A]. THE CIT [A] ACCEPTE D THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, BUT, HOWEVER, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SATISFY HIMSELF T HAT A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE TIME STIPULAT ED IN THE SAID SECTION AND TO ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IF HE IS SATISFIED THAT A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAS BEEN CONSTRU CTED. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE CIT [A] AND WHEREAS THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US F OR ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 5 4 OF THE ACT BY THE CIT [A]. ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 7 9. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 3,00,91,500/- ON SALE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN JUBILEE HILLS. OUT OF THIS CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN PU RCHASE OF LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE AT RS. 2,99,52,000/- AND IN VESTMENT IN CAPITAL GAINS SCHEME ACCOUNT OF RS. 1,50,000/-. ACC ORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE CAPITAL GAIN EXEMPTION ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS. 1,50,000/- INVESTED IN CAPITAL GAINS SCHEME. AS REGARDS THE PURCHASE OF LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE AND AN AGREEME NT OF SALE WAS ENTERED ON 29-10 2007. THE SAID SALE DEED WAS REGIS TERED ON 15-2- 2008. SINCE THE REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED WAS A FTER THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE EXEMPTIO N. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY PU RCHASED THE LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE AND NO EVIDENCE WAS P RODUCED REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT WHICH IS A BASIC CONDITION FOR ALLOWING EXEMPTION UNDER S ECTION 54 OF THE ACT. HE THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE RESULTING IN AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,99,52,000/-. 10. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,34,95,800/-. THE ASSESSEE SOLD T HE PROPERTY AT JUBILEE HILLS WAS SOLD ON 28.05.2006 AND WHEREAS TH E ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE LAND ON 29.10.2007 BY MAKING FULL PAY MENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS 1/3 RD SHARE IN THAT PROPERTY AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS COMPLETED ON 03.03.2010. IT I S SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 54 OF THE ACT ONLY SPEAKS ABOUT THE INVESTM ENT OF THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GAINS IN ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND C ONSTRUCTION OF ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. IT NEED NOT BE COMPE TED. HE PLACED ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 8 RELIANCE ON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS INCLUDING THAT OF CIT VS. SARDARMAL KOTHARI REPORTED IN 302 ITR 286 [MADRAS] AND RANJEE T SANDHU VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 59 ITD 94. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THERE IS NO PREREQUISITE THAT TO CLAIM BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, THE CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE COMPLETED DURING THE YEAR. T HE CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN THREE YEARS STIPULATED T IME. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD BEEN HELD BY COURTS THAT IF T HE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS IS INVESTED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIM E, THEN EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT COMPLETED, THE BENEFIT OF SECTI ON 54 OF THE ACT, CANNOT BE DENIED. THE ASSESSEE INVITED ATTENTION TO THE CIRCULAR NO. 667 DATED 18-10-2003 REPORTED IN 204 ITR (ST) 103 W HEREIN NO SUCH STIPULATION OF COMPLETION OF THE HOUSE HAS BEEN LAI D DOWN. THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED THAT THE CASES LAWS RELIED ON BY THE AO ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS THEY RELATE TO PURCHASE OF PROPERTY A ND NOT CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT [A] ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH THE NEW PROPERTY PURCHASED WAS NEVER REGISTERED ON OR B EFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. IT IS INCORRECT TO SA Y THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN IN PURCHASE OF LAND, WHEN THE DATE OF PURCHASE DEED IS BEYOND THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DATE OF REGISTRATI ON IS PARAMOUNT AND NOT THE DATE OF AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER EQUIVALE NT TO THAT, FOR GETTING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 O F THE ACT. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE AC T MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT ONLY A SALE AGREEMENT W AS ENTERED ON 29-10-2007 AND THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED ON 15-2 - 2008 AFTER THE ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 9 DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN. IT IS THE CASE OF TH E DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY PURCHASED THE LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION O F THE HOUSE BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT WHICH IS THE BASIC CONDITION FOR ALLOWING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN WAS UTILIZED BY WAY OF INVES TMENT IN PURCHASE OF A PLOT OF LAND. AS REGARDS CONSTRUCTION, IT IS S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION ON 03.03.2010. AS REGARDS THE REGISTRATION OF THE DEED, IT IS CONTEND ED THAT THE SALE DEED WAS PRESENTED TO THE SRO ON 29-10-2007 BUT DUE TO TECHNICAL PROBLEM ONLY THE SAME WAS NUMBERED AND REGISTERED O N 15-2-2008. THE CIT [A] CLEARLY OBSERVED THAT THE ENDORSEMENT M ADE ON THE SALE DEED INDICATES THAT THE TRANSFER DUTY, STAMP DUTY, REGISTRATION FEE ETC., WERE ALL PAID ON 30-10-2007. CONSIDERING THE SAME, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT UTILIZED BY HER FOR PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE. THE CIT [A] ALSO CLEARLY OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE SALE D EED TO THE SRO WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AND IT WAS BEYOND THE CO NTROL OF THE ASSESSEE, WHY THE DEED WAS REGISTERED IN FEB. 2008. THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UPPORTS THE VIEW OF THE CIT [A]. EVEN THE CIRCULAR NO. 667 DATED 18-10 -1993 DID NOT STIPULATED THAT CONSTRUCTION WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPL ETED IN ORDER TO HAVE THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THOU GH, THE SAID CIRCULAR WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 54F, BUT THE BASIC PREMISE OF BOTH THE SECTIONS 54 AND 54F OF THE ACT ALMOST REMA INS THE SAME. IT MAY HOWEVER BE OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO PRE-CONDIT ION IN SECTION 54 OF THE ACT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. IT IS BECAUSE THE SECTION ITSELF STIPULATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TIME UP TO THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER FOR PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE CIT [A] RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 10 UTILIZED THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN IN PURCHASE OF A PLOT OF LAND. WE DO NOT SEE INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE SECTIO N 54 OF THE ACT BEING A RELIEF PROVISION, IT SHOULD BE VIEWED IN A BIT OF RELAXED MANNER. IN THE CASE OF MRS. SEETHA SUBRAMANIAN VS. ACIT (59 IT D 94) (MUM) CLEARLY HELD THAT IN ORDER TO GET THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTIO N OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY AND OCCUPY THE SAME. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE P RESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE ENTIRE NET CONSIDERATION WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD AND IN FACT HAS EVEN CONSTRUCTED THE MAJOR PORTION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, EXCEPT SOME FINISHING MAKING IT FIT FOR O CCUPATION. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED ALL THE WORK O F CONSTRUCTION AND HAS INVESTED THE ENTIRE NET CONSIDERATION, IT H AS TO BE INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED SUBSTANTIAL DOMAIN OVER NEW HOUSE AND HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENT TOWARDS COST OF LAND AND CONSTR UCTION, WITHIN A PERIOD SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, THE A SSESSEE SAID TO HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CLAIMING TH E EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E. THIS GROUND IN ASSESSEE APPEAL IS ALLOWED WHEREAS; THE APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. NOW, WE WILL TURN TO THE OTHER ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH RELATES TO AN ADDITION OF RS. 27,50,000/ MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION WHIL E COMPUTING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A HOUSE AT BHANUR FOR RS. 75 LAKH S. WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN THEREON THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED COST OF ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES OF RS. 65 LAK HS OUT OF WHICH ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 11 THE COST OF LAND WAS RS. 10 LAKHS AND THE BALANCE O F RS. 55 LAKHS REPRESENTING COST OF EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE COST OF EXPENDITURE DETAILS FOR VERIFIC ATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 50% OF SUCH EXPEND ITURE. THE CIT [A] ALSO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION ON APPEAL. AGGRIEVED F URTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE OF RS. 55 LAKHS HAS BEEN D EBITED IN THE BOOKS OF LAHARI GREEN PARK. 50% OF SUCH EXPENDITUR E HAS BEEN ADDED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODU CED CONSTRUCTION DETAILS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CONS TRUCTION EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE COMPANY AND THE SAM E IS TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT THROUGH JOURN AL. THE DEPARTMENT HAVING ACCEPTED 50% OF SUCH EXPENDITURE, THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWING BALANCE 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE DOES NOT ARISE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT NO PROPER BILLS OR VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED TO SUBSTA NTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAS INCURRED RS. 55 LACS T OWARDS CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE. THE CIT [A] RIGHTLY DISAL LOWED 50% OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND FROM PAGE 2 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHERE THE COST OF HOUSE AT BHANUR WAS GIVEN A ND THE SAME WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DISALLOWED THE 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE ONLY SURMISES AND SUSPICION WITHOUT BRINGING ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS INCURRED LESS EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION WHAT SHE HAS SHOWN . HAVING ACCEPTED 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASONS, WHY THE DEPARTMENT HAS DISALLOWED THE BALA NCE 50% OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DIRECT THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES TO ALLOW ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 12 FULL AMOUNT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED. SMT. G. VENKATALAXMI ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 466/HYD/2011- AY 2008- 09 REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 760/HYD/2011- AY 2008-0 9 16. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY NOTICE UNDER SECTION L53A OF THE ACT W AS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASS ESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A DMITTING INCOME OF RS. 19,96,929/-. IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CASH LOAN OF RS. 65,55,980/- AND LOAN BY CHEQUE OF RS. 4,34,28,009/- FROM LAHARI GREEN PARK AND RS, 37,57,500/- FROM LAHARI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD AS PER T HE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT AND THE SAME WAS UTILIZED FOR MAKI NG VARIOUS INVESTMENTS AS PER THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUN T. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FILE THE DETAILS OF THE CONFIRMATI ON OF THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF LOANS ACCEPTED DURING THE YEAR INDICATIN G THE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION OF THE UNSECURED LOANS ACCEPTED DURING THE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM OTHER D ISALLOWANCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT, AS PER PAGE NO. 210 O F SEIZED BOOKS ANNEXURE A/LIL/PO-L/OL, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 104 ACRES OF LAND IN AND AROUND BHANUR, NANDIGAMA, PATIGANPUR, K ONDAKAL AND SANKARAPALLI VILLAGE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE TOTAL PURCHASE COST AT RS. 24,96,00,000/- AND TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ALSO FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE H AD SOLD LAND TO ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 13 LAHARI INFRASTRUCTURE AS EVIDENT IN PAGE NO. 38 OF SEIZED ANNEXURE A/LIL/P0/04. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH T HE DETAILS OF PARTY-WISE SALES. ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM LAHARI INFRASTRUCTURE OF RS. 37,57,500/- WAS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE TOTAL INCOME WAS THUS ASSESSED AT RS. 3 1,14,90,453/-. BEING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A SSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT [A]. THE CIT [A], APART FROM OTHER ISSUES WHICH IS NOT BEFORE US, DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 24.96 CRORES WHICH WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND S AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 92,40,000/- AND RS. 3 7,57,500/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS OUT OF THE LAND PUR CHASED AND ON PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED AND THE DEPARTMENT IS A PPEAL BEFORE US FOR THE DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LANDS. 17. FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. TH E ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO AN ADDITION OF RS. 24,9 6,00,000/- BEING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 104 ACRES OF LAND IN BHANUR, NANDIGAMA, K ONDAKAL, SANKARAPALLI, ETC. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING , THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE LAND PU RCHASED AND THE COST AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FOR THE SAME. THE ASS ESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE THE DETAILS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER RELYING ON SIMILAR PURCHASE MADE BY SRI G. HARI BABU AS EVIDENT FROM P AGE NO. 70 OF A/LIL/PO-2/02 TOOK THE AVERAGE COST OF LAND AT RS. 24 LAKHS PER ACRE AND ARRIVED AT THE INVESTMENT VALUE FOR 104 AC RES AT RS. 24,96,00,000/-. 18. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED T HAT THE CIT [A] WRONGLY DELETED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 24.96 CRO RES WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT IN ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 14 PURCHASE OF LANDS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE SUBSTANTIATING THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY HER DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. IF REQUIRED, THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE S OLELY ON THE BASIS OF A SHEET NUMBERED PAGE 210 OF ANNEXURE A/LI L/PO-01/01. THE SAID SHEET PREPARED BY A STAFF SHOWS THE DETAIL S OF LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHERS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE'S NAME IS THE TOTAL LAND PURCHASED BY HER OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND THE PURC HASES HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR OVER THE LAST SO MANY YEARS. IN FACT, A LARGE PORTION OF THE SAME HAS ALSO BEEN SOLD. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE BACKUP PAPERS AS TO HOW THE SHEET HAS BEEN PREPARED AND STATED THAT THE BACKUP PAPERS SHOW THAT THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS OF PURCHASE AND AS SUCH IT DOES NO T TANTAMOUNT TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE CIT [A] DELETED THE ADD ITION AFTER THOROUGHLY EXAMINED BY HIM IN THE PRESENCE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CIT [A] HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REFERENCE TO THE SEIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WHILE EXAMINING THE SEIZE D DOCUMENTS IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS FOUND THAT PAGE NO. 222 TO 247 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT A/LIL/PO/OL/1 GIVES T HE DETAIL BREAK UP OF THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE TOTALLING TO 104 ACRES 27 GUNTAS. THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS THOROUGHLY EXAMINED B Y THE CIT [A] ,IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS AS UNDER. I) OUT OF 18.24 ACRES OF LAND PURCHASED AT BHANUR V ILLAGE, ONLY 3 ACRES 34 GUNTAS OF LAND WAS PURCHASED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 15 2008-09 WHICH IS UNDER APPEAL. THE SAID LAND WAS PURCHASED VIDE DOCUMENT NO. 13849 AND 14095 DATED 1 - 6-2007. THE BALANCE LAND OF 14 ACRES 30 GUNTAS WERE PURCHASED IN THE FINANCIAL YEARS WHICH IS NOT RELEV ANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. II) OUT OF 53 ACRES 34 GUNTAS OF LAND PURCHASED ET- KENDAKAL ONLY 1 ACRE 29 - GUNTAS WAS PURCHASED IN FINANCIAL YEAR VIDE DOCUMENT NO.6096 DATED 29-5- 20 07. THE BALANCE LAND WAS PURCHASED IN EARLIER YEARS AND HENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR EXAMINATION I N THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. III) OUT OF 31 ACRES 4 GUNTAS OF LAND AT BULKAPUR, NO LAND WAS PURCHASED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THESE LAN DS WERE PURCHASED IN EARLIER YEARS. IV) AS REGARDS PURCHASE OF LAND AT SANKARAPALLI, IT WAS FOUND THAT 1 ACRE 05 GUNTAS OF LAND WAS PURCHASED O N 12-4-2007 VIDE DOCUMENT NO. 5278 AND HENCE RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 20. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A LEDGER COPY BEFORE THE CIT [A], STATED TO BE APPEARING IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF LAHARI GR EEN PARK, TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN PURCHASE OF THE LAN DS. THE SAME WAS ALSO EXAMINED BY HIM IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THAT THE CIT [A] CLEARLY OBSERVED THAT OU T OF 104 ACRES 27 GUNTAS OF LAND CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ONLY 6 ACRES 28 GUNTAS OF LAND WAS PURCHASED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, THIS LAND W AS PURCHASED BY LAHARI GREEN PARK AND NOT BY ASSESSEE HERSELF AND ENTERED IN ITS BOOKS ACCORDINGLY. AS SUCH, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE RELEVANT RECORDS OF THE PARTIES AND DEC IDE THE ISSUE IN ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 16 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HOWEVER, REGARDING OTHER PROPE RTY, WE FIND THAT, ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK, THESE LANDS WER E ALSO NOT PURCHASED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 RELEVAN T TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND SAME IS FALLS IN THE EA RLIER FINANCIAL YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THIS ADDITION OF RS. 24.96 CRORES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE IS TO BE D ELETED AND HE CAN TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS AS DIRECTED BY THE CIT(A) . THERE FORE, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 21. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSE E IS WHETHER THE CIT [A] IS RIGHT IN SUSTAINING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 92,40,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS OUT OF THE LAND PURCHASED. SINCE, WE HAVE ALREADY DEALT THIS ISSUE IN EARLIER PARA-19-20 OF THIS ORDER AND THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 22. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 37,57,500/- BEING PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT AS PER PAGE NO. 38 OF ANNEXURE A/LIL/P0/04, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD LAND TO THE EXTE NT OF RS. 37,57,500/- TO LAHARI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY DETAILS, THE ENTIRE SALE AMOUNT ADDED TO THE RETURN ED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT [A] CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. AGGRI EVED FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 23. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE WAS ACCOUNTED BY M/S. LAHARI GREEN PARK (LGP IN SHO RT) AS PER PARA 7.1 OF THE CIT [A] ORDER. THE SOURCES OF THE PURCH ASE OF LAND ARE ALSO IN THE HANDS OF LGP. THUS, THE SALE IS FULLY ACCOUN TED IN LGP AND THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 37,57,500/- IS REFLECTED ON TH E RECEIPT SIDE OF THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, IT IS SU BMITTED THAT, THE SAME IS TO BE DELETED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARN ED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES. ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 17 24. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT, AS PER THE PAPER BOOK FILED, THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION BOTH PURCHASE AND SAL E WERE ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF LGP. THE SOURCES OF PURCHASE OF LAN D IF IT WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF LGP AND THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 37,57,500 IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE LGP. HENCE , THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO DELETE THE ADDITION IF IT IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF LAHARI GREEN PARK. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SMT. C. SWAN ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1315/2010- AY 2002-03 25. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER O F CIT(A) DATED 06-08-2010. THE GRIEVANCE OF ASSESSEE HEREIN WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 8,17,140/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T IN PURCHASE OF GOLD AND DIAMONDS. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PRE MISES OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A O F THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING 'NIL' INCOME. IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED GOLD AND DIAMOND WORTH RS. 8,17,140/- AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENTS ANNEXURE AM/CH/02 PAGE NO. 5 TO 9. THE AS SESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSES SEE FILED DATE WISE PURCHASE OF THE ORNAMENTS BUT COULD NOT EXPLAI N THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT. THE SAID INVESTMENT ALSO DID NOT AP PEAR IN THE RECEIPT AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE AS SESSING OFFICER TREATED THE PURCHASE OF ORNAMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,17,140/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AND ADDED BACK TO THE RETURNED INCOME. BEING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE CIT [A]. THE CIT [A] ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 18 CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 26. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL AM/CH/02 AT PAGES 5 TO 9, SMT. SWAP NA HAS BOUGHT THE GOLD. THIS PURCHASE WAS PAID FOR BY SHRI. G. HA RI BABU THROUGH CHEQUE TO M/S SHREE JEWELLERS. THE COUNSEL TAKEN US TO THE PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED. THEREFORE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE AS UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT IS NOT CORRE CT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BELOW . THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED EITHER BEFORE CIT(A) OR BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, HENCE THIS ADDI TION TO BE CONFIRMED. 27. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE US THE DETAILS OF GO LD PURCHASED BY SMT. SWAPNA AND IT WAS PAID BY SHRI. HARI BABU THRO UGH CHEQUE TO SHREE JEWELLERS AND THE IN OUR OPINION, IT FAIR T O EXAMINE THE SAME BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND TO DECIDE AFRESH IN THE LI GHT OF THESE EVIDENCE AND THEREAFTER HE WOULD DECIDE ON MERIT OF THE ISSU E. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. SMT. C. SWAPNA ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1316/HYD/2010- AY 2004 -05 28. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER O F CIT(A) DATED 06.08.2010 WITH REGARD TO SUSTAINING OF ADDI TION OF RS. 6,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF TH E ACT. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUEN TLY NOTICE UNDER ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 19 SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSIT OF RS. 6 LAKHS IN THE BANK ACC OUNT AND TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE CIT [A] CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. AGGRIEV ED FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE CREDIT RELATES TO PAYM ENT RECEIVED FROM SHRI. CVS SHARMA TOWARDS BORAMPET HOUSE SALE BY PLA CING DETAILS IN PAGE NO. 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AFORESAID DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE LIGHT OF E VIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASID E THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. SMT. C. SWAPNA ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1317/HYD/2010 AY 200 5-06 REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1329/HYD/2010 AY 2005 -06 29. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 06.08.2010. THE ASSESEE RAISED THE GROUND REL ATING TO SUSTAINING OF ADDITION OF RS. 20 LAKHS AND THE RE VENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS . 48.85 LAKHS MADE UNDER SECTION U/S 69 OF THE ACT. IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOUND THAT AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL AT PAGE NO. 29 TO 33 OF A/CH/01, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND IN BHANOOR OF 4 ACRES 2 GUNTAS FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 68,85,000/- OUT OF WHICH CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 20 LAKHS WAS PAID. ASSESSEE WAS RE QUESTED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR PURCHASE OF THE LAND. HOWEVE R, NO REPLY WAS FILED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THIS TRA NSACTION WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT. ACC ORDINGLY, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 68,85,000/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE RETURN ED INCOME. ON ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 20 APPEAL, THE CIT [A] HELD THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 0 LAKHS WHICH HAS BEEN PAID IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE AGREEM ENT OF SALE REMAINS UNEXPLAINED AND THE SAME NEEDS TO BE ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME. AS REGARDS THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 48,85, 000/- IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT PURCHASED THE SAID LAND IN PURSUANCE OF THE AG REEMENT FOR SALE. SINCE THE AGREEMENT INDICATES THAT THE BALANCE AMOU NT SHALL BE PAID ONLY AFTER REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS ACTUALLY PASSED FROM THE BUYER TO THE SE LLER IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CONCRETE FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SALE HAS IN FACT TAKEN PLACE. THEREFORE, HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,85,000/- IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAN D. IN OTHER WORDS, FROM OUT OF RS. 68,85,000/-, ADDITION OF RS. 20,00, 000/- IS CONFIRMED AND THE BALANCE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. AGGRIEVE D FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US, FOR THE ADDITION O F RS. 20,00,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT [A] AND THE DEPARTMENT IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE US FOR THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 48,85,000/-. 30. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT IS NOT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAI D PURCHASE WAS NOT AFFECTED. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT ADDING OF SUCH AMOUNT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT HA S BEEN SIGNED BY ALL THE VENDORS IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES THU S ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF RS. 20 LAKHS IN CASH. EVEN ON THE LA ST PAGE OF THE AGREEMENT, THE VENDORS HAVE REITERATED IN HAND WRIT TEN STATEMENT THAT IF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT MADE WITHIN ONE MONT H FROM THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT, THE TOTAL AMOUNT WILL BE FORFEITED. THIS INDICATES THAT THE VENDORS HAD IN FACT RECEIVED THE ADVANCE MENTIO NED IN THE AGREEMENT OF SALE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SIGN ED THE DOCUMENT, NONETHELESS THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE IS EST ABLISHED SINCE THE VENDORS ACKNOWLEDGED THE RECEIPT OF THE SAME. T HEREFORE, THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION IS COMPLETED. THE CIT[A] IS NOT CORRECT IN GIVING ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 21 RELIEF OF RS. 48,85,000/- IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVI DENCE FROM THE SELLER OF LAND SHOWING THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATION FROM THE ASSESSEE, IN PURSUANCE OF TH E AGREEMENT OF SALE DEED DATED 1.1.2005. 31. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ADDI TION OF RS. 68,85,000/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON TH E BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT FOUND. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE A GREEMENT HAS BEEN SIGNED BY ALL THE VENDORS IN THE PRESENCE OF W ITNESSES THUS ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF RS. 20 LAKHS IN CASH. EVEN ON THE LAST PAGE OF THE AGREEMENT WHEREIN THE VENDOR CONFIRMED IN HAND WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT IF THE REGISTRATION IS NOT MADE WITH IN ONE MONTH FROM THIS DATE I.E. 01-01-2006, THE TOTAL AMOUNT WILL BE FORFEITED. THIS INDICATES THAT THE VENDORS HAD IN FACT RECEIVED THE ADVANCE MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT OF SALE. BEING SO, THO UGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SIGNED THE DOCUMENT, THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE SINCE THE VENDORS ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF THE SAME AND SAME TO BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. REGARDING BALANCE OF AMOUNT OF RS. 48.85 LAKHS, IT IS NOT EST ABLISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT PUR CHASED THE SAID LAND IN PURSUANCE OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE. SINCE , THE AGREEMENT INDICATES THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT SHALL BE PAID ONL Y AFTER REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED, IT CANNOT BE SAID T HAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS ACTUALLY PASSED FROM THE BUYER TO THE SELLER IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CONCRETE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE FACT THAT ACTUAL SALE . WE ALSO FIND THAT THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT BRING ANYTHING ON RECOR D TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACT COMPLETED THE TRANSACTION AND PAID THE BALANCE AMOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, PART OF THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 22 SMT. C. SWAPNA ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 672/HYD/2011 AY 2007 -08 REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1015/HYD/2011 AY 2007 -08 32. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 29.03.2011. 33. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS WITH REGAR D TO SUSTAINING ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWING THE CLAIM U/S 54 OF THE ACT.. THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH REGARD TO DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) FO R GRANTING OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE O PERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDEN TIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY NOTICE UNDER SECTION L53 A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO WHIC H THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION ADMITTING INCOME OF RS. 25,11,849/-. IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUES M ADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS TO THE RETURNED INCOME: S. NO. ITEM AMOUNT (RS. 1. DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S 54 5,32,48,000 2. UNACCOUNTED INCOME ON SALE OF PLOTS AT SURARAM 30,14,833 3. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 22,32,900 4. DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) 56,461 5. DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) 29,18,184 6. CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 9,80,50,507 7. UNPROVED CREDITORS 20,18,979 34. THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 16,40,51,713/- . ON APPEAL, THE CIT [A] ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AND PARTLY SUSTAINED TH E ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND PARTLY UNDER SECTION 69 O F THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. AGGRIEVED FURTHER, THE ASS ESSEE IS APPEAL BEFORE US FOR THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE CIT [A] O N HER CLAIM OF THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AND FOR THE A DDITIONS ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 23 SUSTAINED BY HIM. THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTI ON 54 OF THE ACT. 35. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL, BOTH BY THE A SSESSEE AND REVENUE, RELATES TO AN ADDITION OF RS. 5,32,48,000/ - BEING DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE A CT, CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL ISSUE, IN T HE CASE OF SMT. VENKATALAXMI, WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE BY GIVING CERTAIN DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. FOR THE SAME REASONING AS IN PARA-12 OF TH IS ORDER, WE DECIDE THE ISSUE ON SIMILAR LINE WITH REGARD TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AT RS. 5,32,48,000/- . THERE FORE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED ON THIS ISSUE AND GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 36. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS RELATE S TO ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT [A] TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT OF RS. 7.32 LACS OUT OF RS. 22.32 LAKHS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFIC ER. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT MAJORITY OF THE JEWELLERY PURCHASES HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED WITHIN THE LIMITED TIME GIVEN AND NO SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO TH E ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE BALANCE JEWELLERY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMST ANCES, WE FEEL IT PROPER TO SEND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING PROPER OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 37. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RE LATES TO ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT [A] TOWARDS UNEXPLAIN ED CASH CREDITS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CASH LOAN OF RS. 1,57,98,586/ - AND LOAN BY CHEQUE OF RS. 1,70,33,436/- FROM LAHARI GREEN PARK AS PER RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT, WHICH WAS UTILIZED FOR MAKING VARIOUS ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 24 INVESTMENTS. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWING NE W ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,52,18,485/- AS APPEARI NG IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF LAHARI CONSTRUCTION, PROPRIETORSH IP CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE NO PROPER DETAILS WERE FURNISHED DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A N ADDITION OF RS. 9,80,50,507/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ON APPEA L, THE CIT [A] SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,30,46,085/- AND DEL ETED BALANCE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 38. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED HAVE BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD CUR RENT LIABILITIES UNTIL THE PLOT HAS BEEN REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF T HE BUYER. THE LIST OF THE PERSONS GIVEN THE ADVANCE HAS ALREADY BEEN S UBMITTED TO THE CIT [A] ALONG WITH THE ADDRESS AND AMOUNTS OUTSTAND ING AS ON DATE OF BALANCE SHEET. THE CIT [A] BLINDLY TAKEN SALE D EED AS THE ONLY PROOF TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ADVANCE AND HAS GONE AHEA D BY MAKING THE ADDITION OF THE REMAINING AMOUNTS FOR WHICH NO SALE DEED EXISTED AS ON THAT DAY. NOW, OVER PERIOD OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE REGISTERED FEW MORE PLOTS AND SALE DEEDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW. HE REFERRED PAGES 24 TO 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENTS . 39. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENT ATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, A LIST OF ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOM ERS ASSESSMENT YEAR-WISE WHICH CONTAINS THE FULL ADDRESSES OF THE CUSTOMERS. AS PER THE LIST SUBMITTED, THE ADVANCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 STOOD AT RS. 5,47,50,218/-. FOR THE CROSS VERIFICAT ION OF THE CLAIM OF ADVANCE, THE SALE DEEDS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WA S ALSO EXAMINED. OUT OF AROUND 145 PLOTS AVAILABLE FOR SAL E, AS PER THE LIST, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD AND REGISTERED 58 PLOTS. FROM VERIFICATION OF THESE SALE DEEDS, THE CLAIM OF YEAR-WISE ADVANCE WA S VERIFIED THERE WERE CASH RECEIPTS AS WELL AS RECEIPTS BY CHEQUES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VERIFYING THE DOCUMENTS, SUBMITTED TH AT THE ADVANCE FOR ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 25 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WAS RS. 2,21,72,400/-. AS R EGARDS THE BALANCE OF 87 PLOTS SINCE NO MATERIAL WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ADVANCES COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. HENCE, ADDITION OF THE BALANCE ADVANCE OF RS. 4,30,46,085/- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT [ A] IS CORRECT AND THE SAME IS TO BE CONFIRMED SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAIL ED TO EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH EV IDENCE. 40. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE AM OUNT RECEIVED FROM THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN IN T HE BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD CURRENT LIABILITIES UNTIL THE PLOT H AS BEEN REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE BUYER. IT APPEARS THAT LIST OF P ERSONS WAS ALSO GIVEN TO THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ONCE, THE AMOUNT WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET, AND THE DETAILS OF PERSONS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE ADVANCE WERE GIVEN, THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE IN PROVING THE SOURCES OF THE ADVANCE. THE CIT [A] HAS TAKEN SALE DEED AS THE BASIS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ADVANCE AND FOUND THAT AN ADVANCE OF RS. 4,30,46,085 IS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO MATERIAL WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT PLOTS WERE REGISTERED SUBSEQUENTLY I N THE NAME OF THOSE PARTIES FROM WHOM AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS ADVANCE AND IT IS NOT CORRECT TO CONSIDER ONLY SALE DEED RE GISTERED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AS THE ONLY PROOF TO SUBSTANTIATE T HE ADVANCE AND TO MAKE ADDITION OF THE REMAINING AMOUNTS FOR WHICH NO SALE DEED EXISTED AS ON THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS BRINGING ANY ADVERSE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND MERIT IN TH IS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COUNSEL. IN OUR OPINION, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT REGISTERED THE SALE DEEDS IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT SH OULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE ADVAN CE AND IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT IF OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME, TH E BALANCE FEW PLOTS WERE ALSO REGISTERED IN FAVOUR OF THOSE PARTIES WH O HAS GIVEN THE ADVANCE, THEN ALSO, NO ADDITION TO BE MADE ON THIS COUNT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WITH THE ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 26 ABOVE DIRECTION, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED. SMT. C. SWAPNA ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 671/HYD/2011 AY 2008 -09 REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1016/HYD/2011 AY 2008 -09 41. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 29.03.2011. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ADMITTING INCOME OF RS. 5, 10,090/-. IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUES, MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS TO THE RETURNED INCOME: 1. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD, ETC U/S.69 RS. 36,11,069/- 2. UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S. 69C RS. 60,43,145/- 3. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) RS 7,71,110/- 4. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) RS. 11,70,000/- 5. CASH CREDIT U/S 68: RS. 17,61,03,670/- 6. UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/S. 69A RS. 2,62,000/- 7. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND U/S 6 9 RS. 32,16,00,000/- 42. THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 51,00,71,084/- . BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT [A]. THE CIT [A] DELETED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 32.16 CRORES ADDED AS UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LANDS, IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE SUBSTANTIATING TH E ACTUAL AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY HER DURING THE UNDER CONSIDER ATION. THE CIT [A] ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 60 LACS ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE NOT SIGNED BY THE RECEIPTS. HENCE, O N THE ABOVE DELETION, THE REVENUE IS APPEAL BEFORE US. FOR OTHE R ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT [A], THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 43. FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. TH E FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 32,16,00,000/- BEING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURC HASE OF LAND. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSE RVED THAT AS PER PAGE NO. 210 OF SEIZED DOCUMENT ANNEXURE A/LIL/P01/ 01, IT WAS ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 27 FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 134 ACRES OF LAND IN AND AROUND BHANUR, NANDIGAMA, KONDAKAL, SANKARAPALLI, E TC. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED T O FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE LAND PURCHASED AND THE COST AND SOUR CE OF INVESTMENT FOR THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE THE D ETAILS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING ON SIMILAR PURCHASE M ADE BY SRI G. HARI BABU AS EVIDENT FROM PAGE NO. 70 OF A/LIL/PO-2/02 T OOK THE AVERAGE COST OF LAND AT RS. 24 LAKHS PER ACRE AND A RRIVED AT THE INVESTMENT VALUE FOR 134 ACRES AT RS. 32,16,00,000/ - AND ADDED TO THE RETUNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE CIT [A] DELETED THE ADDITION, HENCE, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 44. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED T HAT THE CIT [A] ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE A MOUNT OF RS. 32.16 CRORES ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LANDS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE SUBSTANTIATING THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY HER DURING THE YEAR. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF A SHEET NUMBERED PAGE 210 OF ANNEXURE A/LIL/PO-OL. THE SAID SHEET PREPARED BY A STAFF SHOWS THE DETAILS OF LAND PURCH ASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHERS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE'S NAME IS THE TOTAL LAND PURCH ASED BY HER OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTE D FOR OVER THE LAST SO MANY YEARS. IN FACT, A LARGE PORTION OF THE SAME HAS ALSO BEEN SOLD. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE BACKUP PAPERS AS TO HO W THE SHEET HAS BEEN PREPARED AND STATED THAT THE BACKUP PAPERS SHO W THAT THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS OF PURCHASE AND AS SUCH IT DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT [A] RIGHTL Y DELETED THE ADDITION. ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 28 45. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CIT [A] RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION BY EXAMINING THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN T HE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FOUND THAT PAGE NO. 232, 233, 245 AND 246 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT A/LIL/PO/OL/1 GIVES THE DETA IL BREAK UP OF THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE TOTALLING TO 134 ACRES 10.5 GUNTAS. THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS THOROUGHLY EXAMINED B Y THE CIT [A] IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSES SEE HAD FILED A LEDGER COPY BEFORE THE CIT [A], STATED TO BE APPEAR ING IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF LAHARI GREEN PARK, TO EXPLAIN THE INVES TMENTS MADE IN PURCHASE OF THE LANDS. THE SAME WAS ALSO EXAMINED B Y HIM IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT [A] FINA LLY FOUND THAT PURCHASE OF 2 ACRE 3.5 GUNTAS OF LAND AT BHANUR IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 REMAINS UNEXPLAINED EVEN IN THE LEDGER ACCO UNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT, ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK, THESE LANDS WERE PURCHASED BY SHRI. G. HARI BABU AND THE SAME WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF SHRI. G. HARI BABU. IN VI EW OF THE SAME, THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON TH IS ISSUE IS DESERVED TO BE DELETED. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 46. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE REL ATES TO CIT [A]S ACTION IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 60.00 LACS MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE NOT SIGNED BY THE REC IPIENTS. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT THE SIMILAR ADDITION WAS NOT MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SUBM ITTED THAT THE CONCEPT OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ADDITION WAS BASED ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL AT PAGE 102 AND 103 OF A/LIL/P01/01. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THESE TWO PAPERS ARE RECEIPTS WHICH ARE NOT SIGNED BY PERSONS RECEIVING THEM AND PERTAINS TO ADVANCES RECEIVED AG AINST PURCHASE OF ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 29 PLOT NO.751. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE AND HER MOTHER HAD PURCHASED A PLOT BEARING NO.751, BANJARA HILLS, HYD ERABAD VIDE DOCUMENT NO.617/2008 FROM THE SAME PERSONS WHOSE NA MES ARE APPEARING ON THE UNSIGNED RECEIPTS. THIS WAS PURCHA SED FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.7,60,00,000/-. IT IS EVIDENT TH AT THE PLOT NO. IN THE SAID DEED AND THE RECEIPTS ARE ONE AND THE SAME AND THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED BY THE ASSESSEE. W ITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE UNSIGNE D PAPERS HAVE NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATION FR OM THE PARTIES WHO HAVE PURPORTED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE SAME. HENCE, NO ADDITION ON THIS COUNT IS WARRANTED. 47. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND WE FIND THAT THE CIT [A] CLEARLY OBSERVED THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS PAGE NO. 102 AND 103 OF A/LIL/PO-L/OL, REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ARE UNSIGNED RECEIPTS. AS PER THE SAID UNSIG NED RECEIPTS, SMT. G. VENKATALAKSHMI, MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE A SSESSEE HAVE PAID RS. 30 LAKHS EACH TO MSRK PRASAD AND G. PONNAM BABA IN RESPECT OF PLOT NO. 751. WE FIND THAT THE SAID UNSI GNED RECEIPTS HAVE NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES WHO HAVE PURPORTED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE SAME. THER E IS NOTHING BROUGHT ON RECORD TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT THE AS SESSEE ALONG WITH HER MOTHER HAD ACTUALLY PAID THESE AMOUNTS TO MSRK PRASAD AND PONNAMAMBA. WE FIND IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT [A] THAT NO ADVERSE VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THIS PAYMENT IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF G.VENKATALAKSHMI. CONSI DERING THE TOTALITY FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN OU R CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BASED O N THESE UNSIGNED PAPERS IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS RIGHTLY DEL ETED BY THE CIT [A]. WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER AND THE SA ME IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 30 48. NOW, WE WILL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS RELATES TO ADDI TION OF RS.14.70 LACS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT [A] TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT BASED ON THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BOTH P ARTIES AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE ADDI TION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT [A] TO THE TUNE OF RS.14.70 LACS IS REMITTE D BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. THE GRO UND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 49. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH R EGARD TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION O F RS.5.49 CRORES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT . WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE, WHICH WE HAVE DECIDED IN THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR IN PARA-40 OF THIS, IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE. FOLLOWING THE STAND TAKEN THERE, WE DIREC T THE DEPARTMENT TO CONSIDER THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 5,34,61,744/- BEING THE ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PROSPECTIVE CUSTO MERS IF THE SALE DEED IS REGISTERED IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. A S REGARDS THE UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 14,70,573/-, WE FIND THAT NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED IN A HURRIED MANNER. IN OU R OPINION, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PUT FORTH HER CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 50. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 2,62,000/-BEING UNEXPLAINED MONEY F OUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. WE FIND THAT DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE CASH OF RS. 2 ,62,000/- FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME. IN SPITE OF OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE ASSESS EE, NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS FILED. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 31 SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESS EE WHICH WAS DRAWN FROM HER BANK ACCOUNTS. FURTHER, CASH OF HER PROPRIETARY CONCERN LAHARI CONSTRUCTIONS WAS ALSO AVAILABLE WIT H HER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION IS NOT CALLED FOR. HOWEVE R, THE CIT [A] OBSERVED THAT AFTER PURSUING THE RECEIPTS AND PAYME NTS ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPE LLATE PROCEEDING, THE SAID ACCOUNT DOES NOT EXPLAIN AVAILABILITY OF C ASH WITH THE ASSESSEE AS CLAIMED BY HER. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRM ED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. SHRI. SANJAY CHOWDARY ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1318/HYD/2010- AY-2003 -04 51. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE AS SESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT W AS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING NIL INCOME. IN COURSE OF THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WERE DEPOSITS ON VARIOUS DATES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE A T AXIS BANK, JUBILEE HILLS BRANCH AMOUNTING TO A TOTAL OF RS.45, 79,691/-. HOWEVER, THE SOURCE FOR THESE DEPOSITS COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT TIME AND OPPORTUNITY GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THESE DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 6 8 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS APART, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENTS, A/LIL/02 THE AS SESSEE HAD PURCHASED LAND FOR RS.4,49,764/-. SIMILARLY, AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENTS A/LIL/01 THERE WAS PURCHASE OF LAND OF RS .9,30,430/-. APPARENTLY THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURC ES FOR THESE LAND PURCHASES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREAT ED THESE ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 32 INVESTMENTS AS UNEXPLAINED AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.13,80,194/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.59,59,885/-. ON APPEAL, THE CIT [A] CONFIRMED TH E ADDITION. BEING AGGRIEVED FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 52. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GI VEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, WE FEEL IT PROP ER TO SEND THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRE SH CONSIDERATION AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. SHRI. G. SANJAY CHOWDARY ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 463/HYD/2011 AY 2004 -05 REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 761/HYD/2011 AY 2004- 05 53. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 18.02.2011. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,95,649/-. IN COURSE OF THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WERE DEPOSITS ON VARIOUS DATES IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN AXIS BANK, JUBILEE HILLS BRANCH AMOUNTI NG TO A TOTAL OF RS. 6,13,025/-. SIMILAR DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 3 3,92,295/- WAS FOUND IN ANDHRA BANK, JUBILEE HILLS BRANCH. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE H AD SHOWN RECEIPT OF CASH LOAN OF RS. 13,25,873/- AND LOAN BY CHEQUE OF RS. 1,18,250/- FROM LAHARI GREEN PARK AS PER RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT S ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE DEPOSITS IN AXI S BANK AND ANDHRA BANK WERE NOT APPEARING IN RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS AC COUNT. IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT TIME AND OPPORTUNITY GRANTED BY THE A O THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS NOR CONFIR MATION FROM LAHARI GREEN PARK. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TREATED THESE DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO A TOTAL OF RS. 54,49,44 3/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 33 TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS APART, THE AO FO UND THAT AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENTS A/LIL/P0/03 PAGE NO. 9 TO 14, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LAND OF 70 ACRES IN BHANUR AND LAY OUT WA S MADE AND PLOTS WERE DEVELOPED. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THESE LANDS FROM G. SAROJINAMMA, C. R ATHNA KUMARI, G. KALALAKSHMI, D. DAYAKAR REDDY, H. SRINIV AS AND H. SREEKANTH VIDE REGISTERED AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GEN ERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 9-3-2004. THE SAID GPA DATED 9-3-200 4 WAS NOT IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND HENCE THE PURCHASE VALUE O F THESE LANDS WAS NOT ASCERTAINABLE. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FILE THE DETAILS OF COST OF LAND AND DEV ELOPMENT AND TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF THE LAND. NO REPL Y WAS RECEIVED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ENTI RE PURCHASE OF LAND AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. TAKING THE PREVAILING MA RKET RATE AT RS. 25 LAKHS PER ACRE, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 17,50 ,00,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THUS THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 18,07,45,092/- . ON APPEAL, THE CIT [A] DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 17.50 CRORES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LANDS. HENCE, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US FOR THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y. 54. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSE E RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS,40,05,320/- WHICH CONSISTS OF DE POSIT OF RS.6,13,025/- IN AXIS BANK AND RS.33,92,295/- IN AN DHRA BANK. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE NOTHING BUT ADVANCES RECEIVED FOR SALE OF PLOT AT SURARAM WHICH WAS SOLD IN THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007- 08 AND THE INCOME OFFERED THEREON AND SOME SALARY R ECEIVED FROM LIPL ETC. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, WE FEEL IT PROP ER TO SEND THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRE SH CONSIDERATION AFTER ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 34 GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 55. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENU E RELATES TO THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER RELATING TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.17.50 CRORES IN PURCHASE OF LAND. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE CIT [A] AFTER PERUSING THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, THE SEIZED MATERIALS AS WELL THE REMAND REPORT SENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, OBSERVED THAT THE PURCHASER OF THE LAND IS LAHARI GREEN PARK [LGP] WHO HAVE ALSO PAID THE SALE CONSIDERATION TO THE VENDORS AND THE VENDORS HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAME. HE ALSO OBS ERVED THAT SEVERAL LANDS WERE PURCHASED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSM ENT YEARS AND THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED IN THE CURRENT ASSE SSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ISSUE ALSO DISCUSSED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VIDE HIS OBSERVATION AT PARA 4.3 OF HIS O RDER, BEFORE MAKING HIS OBSERVATION. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT [A] , IN WHICH HE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE SU STAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, TAKING A VIEW THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS OWNER OF THE 70 ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SEIZ ED DOCUMENT A/LIL/2 IN DETAIL AS DIRECTED BY THE CIT(A) AND DE CIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THI S ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . SHRI. G. SANJAY CHOWDARY ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 464/HYD/2011 AY 2005 -06 REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 762/HYD/2011 AY 2005- 06 56. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING T OTAL INCOME OF RS.6,76,848/-. IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDING UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUN D THAT THERE WERE ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 35 DEPOSITS ON VARIOUS DATES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE IN AXIS BANK, JUBILEE HILLS BRANCH AMOUNTING TO A TOTAL OF RS.28,562/-. SIMILARLY DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.4,04,293/- WAS F OUND IN ANDHRA BANK, JUBILEE HILLS BRANCH. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT FURNISH SOURCES OF THE DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITIONS. APART FROM THE OTHER ADDITIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.29,75,00,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME A S UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND. ON APPEAL, THE CIT [A] DELETED THE ADDITION WHICH PERTAINS TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT I N PURCHASE OF LAND AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.4,32,855/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR TH E ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT [A] IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AND ADDITIONS DELETED BY THE CIT [A] IN RESPECT OF UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND RESPECTIVELY. 57. WE FIND THAT THE CIT [A] SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.4,32,855/- AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBST ANTIATE THE ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. BEFORE US, THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE S OURCES OF THE AFORESAID DEPOSITS. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE AXIS BANK AS WELL AS ANDHRA BANK, THE ADDITION OF RS.4,32,855/- SUSTAIN ED BY THE CIT [A] BEING THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, AS PROPER OPPORTUNITY HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN, WE FEEL APPROPRIATE TO REMIT BACK THE ISSUE TO TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR F RESH CONSIDERATION. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 58. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS R AISED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING O FFICER RELATING TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.29.75 CRORES IN PURCHA SE OF LAND. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS ALREADY DECID ED BY US, ON SIMILAR ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 36 AND IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESS EE IN PARA-48 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FI ND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT [A], IN WHICH HE CLEARLY DEMON STRATED THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE, IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.29.75 CRORES AS UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LANDS. WE UPHOLD THE DIRECTION OF TH E CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTS OF SEIZE D DOCUMENTS A/LIL/01 AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW. WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AS DECIDED BY US IN PARA 40 OF THIS ORDER. 59. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. SHRI. G. SANJAY CHOWDARY ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1689/HYD/2011 AY 200 6-07 60. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING T OTAL INCOME OF NIL. IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECEIPT OF CASH L OAN OF RS.1,12,17,141/- AND CHEQUE LOAN OF RS.1,00,24,615/ - FROM LAHARI GREEN PARK AS PER RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT. THI S APART, AS PER AXIS BANK, JUBILEE HILLS BRANCH THERE WERE DEPOSIT OF RS. 10,41,184/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SI MILARLY, THERE WAS DEPOSIT OF RS.55,12,817/- IN ANDHRA BANK, JUBIL EE HILLS BRANCH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE DEPOSITS IN AXIS BANK AND ANDHRA BANK WERE NOT APPEARING IN RECEIPTS AND PAYM ENTS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH SOURCE OF THE DEPOSI TS NOR CONFIRMATION FROM LAHARI GREEN PARK. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE LOANS AND BANK DEPOSI TS AMOUNTING TO TOTAL OF RS.2,77,95,777/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDI T UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS APART, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT AS PER SEIZ ED DOCUMENTS A/LIL/P0/03 THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD DURING THE YEAR O NE PLOT IN BHANUR TO SHRI ASHISH GOGIA ON 1-8-2005. SIMILARLY, ONE MORE PLOT ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 37 WAS SOLD TO ALI AZGHAR ON 20-8-2005 FOR RS.25,78,33 0/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY PROFIT IN RESPECT OF THE SE SALES. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE PROFIT RATE OF 25% OF TH E SALE AMOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.11,44,583/ -. ON APPEAL, THE CIT [A] CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,04,040/-[NO T RS.10,41,184/-] AND RS.55,12,817/- BEING THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDI TS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. LIKEWISE, HE SUSTAINED THE A DDITION OF RS.11,44,583/- BEING THE PROFIT ON SALE OF PLOTS. A GGRIEVED FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 61. WE FIND THAT THE DEPOSITS IN AXIS BONK OF RS.1,04,0 40/-, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E TOTAL CREDIT COMES TO RS.1,04,040/- AND NOT RS. 10,41,184/- AS M ENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED E ITHER BEFORE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE US. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE CONFIRM THIS ADDITION OF RS.1,04,040/- FOR BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.55,12,817/-, SINCE BOTH PARTIES AGREED, WE REMIT THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONS IDERATION AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED ON THIS ISSUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSE. 62. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO PROF IT ON SALE OF PLOT IN BHANUR AMOUNTING TO RS.11,44,583/-. THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TH E GPA HOLDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTING THE DOCUMENTS AND THE SAID PROFIT / SALE HAS BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED BY G.HARI BABU OF LAHARI GR EEN PARK IN HIS ACCOUNTS FOR WHICH THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IF BOTH TH E TRANSACTIONS ON THIS ISSUE ARE DULY ACCOUNTED IN THE HANDS OF LGP O N THE BASIS OF ACCOUNT COPIES FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 15- 20-29-34 AND AS PER SALE AGREEMENTS WITH ASHISH GOGIA AND ALI ASGA R, THEN THE ADDITIONS NOT CALLED FOR. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE GROU ND OF APPEAL BY THE ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 38 ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT, THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. SHRI. G. SANJAY CHOWDARY ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 465/HYD/2011 AY 2007 -08 63. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A) DATED 15.02.2011. 64. BEFORE GOING INTO THE DETAILS OF THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL WE FIND THAT THE CIT [A] DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE AS ADMITTED TAX WAS NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 13-7-2 009 ADMITTING INCOME OF RS.30,14,840/- ON WHICH THE TAX WORKED OU T TO RS.9,59,037/- AND A LETTER WAS FILED BEFORE THIS TR IBUNAL ON 7-2- 2012, REQUESTING ADJUSTMENTS OF CASH SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH. WE ACCEPT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND W E DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY UNADJUSTED SEIZED CAS H AMOUNT WITH THE DEPARTMENT, IF SO, GIVE CREDIT TOWARDS ADMITTED TAX OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAF TER, THE CIT [A] HAD TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON MERIT; WE SEND THIS A PPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT [A] FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. SHRI. G. SANJAY CHOWDARY ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1690/HYD/2011 AY 200 8-09 REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1777/HYD/2011 AY 2008 -09 65. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING T OTAL INCOME OF RS.17,73,690/-. IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WERE DEPOSITS ON VARIOUS DATES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN AXIS BANK, JUBI LEE HILLS BRANCH AMOUNTING TO A TOTAL OF RS.18,93,944/-. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOW N RECEIPT OF CASH LOAN OF RS.1,18,80,691/- AND LOAN BY CHEQUE OF RS,8 8,06,500/- FROM LAHARI GREEN PARK AS PER RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCO UNT, THE ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 39 ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE DEPOSITS IN AXI S BANK WERE NOT APPEARING IN RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT. IN SPIT E OF SUFFICIENT TIME AND OPPORTUNITY GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS NOR CONFIR MATION FROM LAHARI GREEN PARK. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TREATED THESE DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO A TOTAL OF RS.2,25,81,1 35/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS APART, THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOUND THAT AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENTS A/LIL/PO- 1/01 PAGE NO .210, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 142 ACRES OF LAND IN AND ARO UND BHANUR, NANDIGAM, PATIGANPUR, KONDAKAL, SANKARAPALLI ETC. T HE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF LAND PURCHA SED, COST OF THE LAND PURCHASED AND SOURCE FOR THE SAME. THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TREATED THE ENTIRE PURCHASE OF LAND AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. TAKING THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE AT RS.24 LAKHS PER ACRE, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.34,08,00,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSES SING OFFICER ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.4,80,000/- BEING THE UNEXPLA INED EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. THUS THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.36,56,34,825/-. ON APPEAL, THE CIT [ A] DELETED RS.32,81,40,000/- AND SUSTAINED RS.1,26,60,000/- TO WARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LANDS. APART FROM THE DELETIONS, THE CIT [A] HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER FINDING IN RESPECT OF RS.18,93,944/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDE R SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US THE DELETIO N MADE BY THE CIT [A] TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF L AND. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR THE ADDITIONS C ONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 66. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ALREADY DECIDED BY US, ON SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL CIR CUMSTANCES, IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA-40 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 40 THE CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT [A], IN WHICH HE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE SU STAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.32,81,40,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND HOEVE R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SEIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PAGE NO. 230, 231, 243 AND 244 OF A/LIL/PO-1/01 AND TAKE NE CESSARY ACTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SUBJECT TO THIS, WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL BY THE REVE NUE IS DISMISSED. 67. WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE CIT[A] HAS GIVEN INCOMPLETE FINDINGS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION RS.18,93,944/-, AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE MATTER RELATING TO THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT [A] FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1,26,60,000/-, WE AGRE E WITH THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE HIS CASE, SINCE, NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE ISS UE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR FR ESH CONSIDERATION. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. SHRI C. HARISH ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 700/HYD/2011 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 68. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE AS SESSEE ON 19-02- 2008. CONSEQUENTLY NOTICES UNDER SECTION L53A OF TH E ACT WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO WHIC H THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONS IDERATION ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 -03 FOR RS. 41,053/- IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECEIPTS FROM AGRICULTURE AND EXPENDITURE ON AGRICULTURE. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENC E IN THE FORM OF ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 41 EXPENDITURE MADE FOR TILLING, CULTIVATION ETC WAS P RODUCED FOR THE SAID AGRICULTURAL OPERATION. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSE E HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY RECEIPT FOR THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ACCORDINGL Y, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL RECEIP TS SHOWN IN THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT AS INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES AND ADDED BACK THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THIS APART , THE AO FOUND THAT FOR THE AY 2002-03 THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECE IPT OF GIFT WORTH RS. 2,70,106/- ON THE OCCASION OF MARRIAGE AND OTHE R ADVANCES OF RS. 1,19,000/- AS PER THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACC OUNT. HOWEVER, IN SPITE OF OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED, THE ASSESSEE FAIL ED TO FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF LOAN, GIFT ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE ADDED THE RECEIPTS OF RS. 3,89,106/- TREA TING THE SAME AS CASH CREDITS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL , THE CIT [A] CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R RELATING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE AND ALSO SUSTAINED ADDITION AT 50% OF THE GIFTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 69. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRICULTURE INCOME WAS DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RET URN OF INCOME WHICH IS MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. NO EVIDENC E FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. THE AGRICULTURE INCOME REPRESENTS THE S ALE PROCEEDS OF SUGAR CANE RECEIVED FROM M/S. SHIV SAKTHI SUGAR IND USTRIES. THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE RECEIVED IN CHEQUE. HENCE, ADDI TION IS NOT WARRANTED. WITH REGARD TO 50% DISALLOWANCE OF GIFT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT HAVING ACCEPTED THE 50% OF THE GIFT SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE AS JUSTIFIED, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUSTAINED THE BALANCE 50% OF THE GIFT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ON THE OTH ER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE O RDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 42 70. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE FIND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME IN HIS ORIGINAL RET URN OF INCOME FILED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURE COMMODITIES ARE RECEIVED IN CHEQUE FROM SUGAR COMPA NY. THE REVENUE DID NOT BRING ANYTHING ON RECORD TO DISPROV E THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AS INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL B Y THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 70.1 WITH REGARDS TO THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF. IN OUR, OPINION, THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT DISP UTED THE OCCURRENCE OF THE MARRIAGE AND THERE IS NO EVIDEN CE TO DISPROVE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. BEING SO, THE ADDITION IS MA DE ONLY ON SURMISES AND SUSPICIONS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTA LITY FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS ISSUE, WE INCLINED TO DELETE THIS ADDITION. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SHRI. C. HARISH - ITA NO. 668/HYD/2011 FOR A.Y. 200 3-04 71. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS RELATES TO SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTURE INCOME AS IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCE BY THE CIT (A). WE FIND THAT, ON SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL ISSUE, WE HAVE DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE I N THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE AT PARA 70 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE REASON S NARRATED THERE UNDER, WE ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SHRI. C. HARISH - ITA NO. 701/HYD/2011 FOR A.Y. 200 4-05 72. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION TOWARDS AGRICULTURE INCOME. WE FIND THAT, ON SIMILA R AND IDENTICAL ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 43 ISSUE, WE HAVE DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE AT PARA 70 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE REASONS NARRATED THERE UNDER, WE ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 73. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,35,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECEIPT OF GIFT WORTH RS. 11,000/- AND SALE O F SHARES OF RS. 1,24,000/- AS PER THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT . HOWEVER, IN SPITE OF OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF LOAN, GIFT ETC., AS ALSO EVIDENCE RE LATING TO SALE OF SHARES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ADDED THE RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,35,000/- TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CR EDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE CIT [A] CONF IRMED THE ADDITION AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF THE AFORESAID SHARES W ERE ADMITTED AT RS. 1,24,000/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, HENC E, NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED ON THIS ISSUE. WITH REGARD TO THE GIFT S OF RS. 11,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AMOUNT BEING VERY SMA LL, BY CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ALLOW THE GRO UND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. IN THE RESULT, THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . SHRI. C. HARISH ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 702/HYD/2011 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 74. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS RELATES TO SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTURE INCOME AS IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCE BY THE CIT (A). WE FIND THAT, ON SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL ISSUE, WE HAVE DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE I N THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE AT PARA 70 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE REASON S NARRATED THERE UNDER, WE ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 44 SHRI. C. HARISH ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 669/HYD/2011 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 75. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION TOWARDS AGRICULTURE INCOME. WE FIND THAT, ON SIMILA R AND IDENTICAL ISSUE, WE HAVE DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE AT PARA 70 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE REASONS NARRATED THERE UNDER, WE ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL BY TH E ASSESSEE RELATES TO UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL ANNEXURE A/CH/01, THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED FOREIGN TOUR EXP ENDITURE OF RS. 3,45,588/- AND EXPENDITURE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF ART ITEMS OF RS. 1,02,000/-. IN SPITE OF OPPORTUNITY GIVEN, NO PROPE R EXPLANATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID EXPENDITURES WERE A LSO NOT REFLECTED IN THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, THEREFORE, ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,47,588/- TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. EVEN BEFORE US, NO PROPER EXPLANATIONS WERE OFFERED TO PROVE THAT THESE EXPENDITURES WERE EXPLAINED. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WI TH REGARD TO FOREIGN TOUR EXPENSES AND PURCHASE OF PAINTINGS. THE GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. IN THE RE SULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. SHRI. C. HARISH ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 670/HYD/2011 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 76. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS RELATES TO SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTURE INCOME AS IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCE BY THE CIT (A). WE FIND THAT, ON SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL ISSUE, WE HAVE DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE I N THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE AT PARA 70 OF THIS ORDER. FOR THE REASON S NARRATED THERE ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 45 UNDER, WE ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. M/S. LAHARI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 467/HYD/2011 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 77. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON 1 9-2-2008 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. C ONSEQUENTLY, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ADMITTING T OTAL INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 9,02,231/-. DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUN D THAT AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL A/LIL/2 PAGE NO. 60, THERE IS A COS T DIFFERENCE IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND AS PER SALE DEED AND SALE AGREEMEN TS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 52,24,204/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DIFFERENCE SHOULD NOT BE ADDE D TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY EXPLANATION. THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL DCIT, CENTRAL CIR -6, HYDERABAD. IINCOME WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. ON APPEAL, THE CIT [A] ENHANCED THE ADDITION TO RS. 67,50,634/- AS AGAINST ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED FURTHER, THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 78. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPANY HAD PURCHASED 63 ACRES 21 GUNTAS LAND AND H AD SOLD 2 ACRES 8 GUNTAS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH LAND AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND PAID T AXES ACCORDINGLY. THE NET COST OF PURCHASE OF BALANCE 61 ACRES 13 GUN TAS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,82,87,424/- IS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET UNDER FIXED ASSETS SCHEDULE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT P AID TO SELLERS ON PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HIGHER THAN TH AT SHOWN IN THE SALE DEEDS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THE ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 46 BREAK-UP OF LAND PURCHASED, THE AMOUNT PAID, NAME O F THE SELLERS AND ALSO THE MODE OF PAYMENT ETC., HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THESE DETAILS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R VIDE ITS LETTER 16- 12-2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION WI THOUT CONSIDERING THE DETAILS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF SC RUTINY PROCEEDINGS, AN ADDITION OF RS. 52,24,204/- WAS MADE AS UNACCOUN TED PAYMENT IN PURCHASE OF LANDS WHICH IS WRONG AND UNJUSTIFIED . IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT FOR THE LAND INCLUDING T HE REGISTRATION CHARGES WERE TABULATED AND PREPARED IN THE FORM OF A STATEMENT AND THIS STATEMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD PURCHASED LANDS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AND THE TOTAL OF SUCH PURCHASES HAD BEEN DE BITED TO LAND ACCOUNT IN THE LEDGER, A COPY OF THE SAME IS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD MADE PAYMENTS O VER AND ABOVE THE SUB REGISTRAR VALUE; HOWEVER THE TOTAL PAYMENT MADE WAS DEBITED TO THE LAND ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. REFERRING TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENT A/LIL/2, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL C OST AS SHOWN AT COLUMN 10 HAS BEEN DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE DIFFERENCE AT COLUMN NO. 16 REFLECTS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID AND THE SUB REGISTRAR VALUE. AS THE AMO UNTS HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THERE IS NO QUEST ION OF TAKING IT AS UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 79. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT, AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE DIFFER ENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL COST OF LAND TO THE BUYER AND THE COST OF LAN D AS PER CONVEYANCE DEED IS NOTED AT COLUMN NO, 16, WHICH TOTALS TO RS. 52,24,204/- FOR THE LAND PURCHASED BETWEEN 17-8-2006 TO 19-1-2007 A S APPEARING IN PAGE NO. 60 OF THE SEIZED PAPER. HOWEVER, THE COST AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANNEXURE-II(A) IS RS. 3,28,85,037/- WHEREAS THE COST OF LAND AS SHOWN IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IS RS. 2,61 ,36,733/- LEAVING A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 67,48,304/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINATION OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS HAS REACHED A DIFFERENCE OF ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 47 RS. 67,50,634/- WHICH IS ALMOST SAME AS THE DIFFERE NCE WORKED OUT EARLIER. THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED THE COST OF L AND TO THE TUNE OF RS. 67,50,634/- WHICH IS RIGHTLY ADDED TO THE INCO ME BY THE CIT [A] INSTEAD OF RS. 52,24,204/- ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 80. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS TH E CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TOTAL COS T OF THE LAND WHICH IS THE HIGHER AMOUNT HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE LAND LEDGER ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD 1 ST APRIL 2006 TO 31 ST MARCH 2007, COPY OF WHICH WAS FILED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE NET COST OF LAND AS PER THE SAID LEDGER WAS ALREADY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SH EET FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31-3-2007 FORMING PART OF THE RETURN OF INCO ME WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT ON 7-11-2007. IT IS ALS O THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DETAILS SUBMI TTED AT THE TIME OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED, THE ASSESSEE IS READY WITH ALL THE DETAI LS, INCLUDING THE ON-MONEY PAID ON THE LAND PURCHASE TO PROVE THAT WH Y THE ADDITIONS SHOULD BE DELETED. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPA RTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED THE COST OF LAND TO THE TU NE OF RS. 67,50,634/- WHICH IS RIGHTLY ADDED TO THE INCOME B Y THE CIT [A] INSTEAD OF RS. 52,24,204/- ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE FEEL IT PROPER TO REMIT THI S MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION, NO DOUBT , WHILE DOING SO, HE SHOULD GIVE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF B EING HEARD. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSE. M/S. SWAPNA LAHARI FILMS P. LTD ITA 573/H/11(AY- 2002-03) & 574/H/11( 2003-04) 81. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSES SEE ON 19-2- 2008. CONSEQUENTLY NOTICES UNDER SECTION 153A WERE ISSUED IN ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 48 RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND 2003-04 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 6,53,571/- AND RS. 40,12,376/- RESPECTIVELY. IN COU RSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE ON PRODUCTION OF MOVIE AS CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY BOOKS O R VOUCHERS IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT TIME AND OPPORTUNITY GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLO WED 75% OF THE EXPENDITURE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. SIMILA RLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED THE CREDITORS FOR EXPENSES SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE RESPECTIVE YEARS SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE DETAILS OF CREDITORS ALONG WITH CONFIRMATI ON LETTERS. ON APPEAL, THE CIT [A] CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT [A] ALSO ENHANCED THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPE CT OF CREDITORS FOR EXPENSES. AGGRIEVED FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 82. THE FIRST COMMON EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL FOR BOT H THE ASSESSMENT YEARS RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDI TURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON PRODUCTION OF MOVIE. IT IS CONTENTI ON OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO FILE A NY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LO SS ACCOUNT. SINCE THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, T HE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE IS GENUINE AND ALSO INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. IT IS CO NTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT AMOUNT DISALL OWED EQUALS TO 75% OF EXPENDITURE ON PRODUCTION ON MOVIE AND WORK IN PROGRESS. BOOKS HAVE BEEN AUDITED AND NO DISCREPANCY BETWEEN BOOKS AND SEIZED MATERIALS WERE FOUND FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESS MENT YEARS. HENCE, THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IS TO BE ALLOWED. AFT ER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN OU R CONSIDERED VIEW, ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IF THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO 10% ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 49 OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. IN THE RESULT, THE GRO UND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 83. THE NEXT COMMON EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF LIABILI TIES SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, THE RE IS A TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITY OF RS. 57,26,812/- AS AGAINST RS. 40,071/- FOR THE EARLIER YEAR. SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 03-04, THE TOTAL LIABILITY AS ON 31-3-2003 STOOD AT RS. 66,48,233/- AS AGAINST RS. 57,26,812/- FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS YEAR. AS I N THE CASE OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF THE CRED ITORS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE THE DETA ILS OF THE CREDITORS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 56,86,741/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND RS. 9,21,421/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 84. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT CREDITORS FOR EXPENSES, WHICH APPEARING THE BALANCE SHEET ARISES FROM EXPENSES AC TUALLY INCURRED. THEREFORE, ANY DISALLOWANCE WOULD RESULT IN DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE. SINCE, WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE AT 10 % OF THE EXPENDITURE IS REASONABLE ONE, THIS ADDITION WILL N OT SURVIVE. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CREDITORS FOR EX PENSES IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HENCE, WE ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. 85. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, THE CIT [A] FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDRY DEBTOR OF RS. 21,51,950/- . AS PER SCHEDULE-VI OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDIN G 31-3-2002, RS. 21,51,950/- WAS RECEIVABLE FROM G. HARI BABU. A CRO SS VERIFICATION WAS MADE WITH THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY SRI G. HAR I BABU, LOAN ADVANCED TO SWAPNA LAHARI FILMS PVT LTD IS RS. 1,13 ,57,150/-. THIS IMPLIES THAT SRI G. HARI BABU HAS PAID RS. 1,13,57, 150/- TO THE ASSESSEE SWAPNA LAHARI FILMS. SINCE, THE SAME IS N OT EXPLAINED, HE ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 50 MADE THE ADDITION, BY ENHANCING, ON ACTUAL DIFFEREN CE OF RS. 1,35,09,100/- (RS. 1,13,57,150 PLUS RS. 21,51,950). AGGRIEVED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT [A], THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 86. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RECONCILIATION HAD NOT TAKEN PLAC E IN THE BOOKS OF LGP AS ON 31.03.2002. THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE ARO SE. OVER THE YEARS, THE RECONCILIATION HAS BEEN DONE AND THE SAM E WAS DONE BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. WE FIND THAT THE DEPAR TMENT DID NOT BRING ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH S HRI. HARIBABU. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE DIFFERENCE IS ONLY DUE TO THE RECONCILIATION DIFFERENCE AND THE SAME IS RECONCILE D SUBSEQUENTLY BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, TH E ENHANCEMENT MADE BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIF IED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE SAME. THE GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED ON THIS ISSUE. THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PART LY ALLOWED. M/S. SWAPNA LAHARI FILMS P. LTD.-ITA. NO. 575/H/201 1- A.Y. 2004-05 87. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING L OSS OF RS. 72,491/-.IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE AS CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY BOOKS OR VOUCHERS IN SPITE OF SUFFICIEN T TIME AND OPPORTUNITY GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCOR DINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE CLAIME D. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED THE CREDITORS FOR EXPENSES OF RS. 1,86,056/- SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET SINCE THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE DETAILS OF CREDITORS ALONG WITH CONFIRMATI ON LETTERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 7,78 ,685/- BEING THE CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AT ANDHRA BANK WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN. THE TOTAL INC OME WAS ASSESSED ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 51 AT RS. 9,64,741/-. ON APPEAL, THE CIT [A] CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE AND ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRI EVED FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 88. WE FIND THE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPEN DITURE AND DISALLOWANCE FOR CREDITORS FOR EXPENSES, ARE ALREAD Y DECIDED BY US IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE AT PARA 73-74 OF THIS ORDER , ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE TOWARDS CREDITORS FOR EXPENSES AND SUSTAIN THE DISALLOWANCE AT 10% OF THE EXPENDITURE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 7,78,685/- BEING THE CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AT ANDHRA BANK WHI CH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN, WE FIND THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR THE CREDIT ENT RIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, WE REMIT THIS MATTER TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING PR OPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. THE GROUND OF APPEAL B Y THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. IN THE RESULT, TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 89. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS AND ARE DISPOSED OF A S FOLLOWS: MRS. G. VENKATALAKSHMI 1) ITA NO. 1361/HYD/2010 ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. 2) ITA NO. 1362/HYD/2010 ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. 3) ITA NO. 759/HYD/2011 ALLOWED. 4) ITA NO. 899/HYD/2011 DISMISSED. 5) ITA NO. 466/HYD/2011 ALLOWED. 6) ITA NO. 760/HYD/2011 DISMISSED. MRS. C. SWAPNA 7) ITA NO. 1315/HYD/2010 PARTLY ALLOWED 8) ITA NO. 1316/HYD/2010 PARTLY ALLOWED 9) ITA NO. 1317/HYD/2010 DISMISSED 10) ITA NO. 1329/HYD/2010 DISMISSED 11) ITA NO. 672/HYD/2011 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. 12) ITA NO. 1015/HYD/2011 DISMISSED 13) ITA NO. 671/HYD/2011 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. 14) ITA NO. 1016/HYD/2011 DISMISSED. ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 52 MR. G. SANJAY CHOWDARY 15) ITA NO. 1318/HYD/2010 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 16) ITA NO. 463/HYD/2011 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES 17) ITA NO. 761/HYD/2011 DISMISSED 18) ITA NO. 464/HYD/2011 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. 19) ITA NO. 762/HYD/2011 DISMISSED 20) ITA NO. 1689/HYD/2011 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 21) ITA NO. 465/HYD/2011 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. 22) ITA NO. 1690/HYD/2011 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 23) ITA NO. 1777/HYD/2011 DISMISSED. MR. C. HARISH 24) ITA NO. 700/HYD/2011 ALLOWED. 25) ITA NO. 668/HYD/2011 ALLOWED. 26) ITA NO. 701/HYD/2011 ALLOWED. 27) ITA NO. 702/HYD/2011 ALLOWED. 28) ITA NO. 669/HYD/2011 PARTLY ALLOWED. 29) ITA NO. 670/HYD/2011 ALLOWED. M/S. LAHARI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD 30) ITA. NO. 467/HYD/2011 ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. M/S. SWAPNA LAHARI FILMS PVT. LTD. 31) ITA. NO. 573/HYD/2011 PARTLY ALLOWED. 32) ITA. NO. 574/HYD/2011 PARTLY ALLOWED. 33) ITA. NO. 575/HYD/2011 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 90. ALL THE STAY APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES AR E DISMISSED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DISPOSED OF THE AP PEALS THEMSELVES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH MAY, 2012 SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 4 TH MAY, 2012 ITA NO. 463 & 32 ORS, SHRI SANJAY CHOWDARY & ORS. ====================== 53 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 , 7 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, L.B. STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBA GH, HYDERABAD-4. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCL E-6, 7 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, L.B. STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBA GH, HYDERABAD-4. 3. MRS. G. VENKATALAKSHMI, PLOT NO. 723/A, ROAD NO. 37 , JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD-500 033. 4. SMT. C. SWAPNA, PLOT NO. 723/A, ROAD NO. 37, JUBILE E HILLS, HYDERABAD-500 033. 5. SHRI G. SANJAY CHOWDARY, PLOT NO. 723/A, ROAD NO. 3 7, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD-500 033 6. SHRI C. HARISH, H. NO. 56, LUMBINI ENCLAVE, GATED COMMUNITY, KOTHAGUDA CHOWRASTA, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD . 7. M/S. LAHARI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., 723/A, ROAD NO. 37 , JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD-500 033. 8. M/S. SWAPNA LAHARI FILMS PVT. LTD., 723/A, ROAD NO. 37, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD-500 033. 9. THE CIT (A)-I, HYDERABAD 10. THE CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD. 11. THE DR, A-BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD TPRAO