Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0630 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
6 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
15-07-2021
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB-A
Next Hearing Date
18-05-2021
Assessment Year
2014-2015
Appeal Filed On
28-12-2020
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 782/HYD/20 2014-15 M/S.ASMA ESTATES AND INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED SECUNDERABAD [PAN: AAICA2191F] DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD 784/HYD/20 2015-16 M/S.S.V.MULTI LOGITECH PRIVATE LIMITED SECUNDERABAD [PAN: AASCS7131D] 785/HYD/20 2016-17 FOR ASSESSEE : S HRI P.MURALI MOHANA RAO, AR FOR REVENUE : S MT. AMISHA GUPT , DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 8 - 0 5 - 20 2 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 - 0 7 - 2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : THE INSTANT BATCH OF THREE APPEALS PERTAIN TO TWIN ASSESSEES NAMELY M/S.ASMA ESTATES AND INVESTMENTS PRIVA TE LIMITED AND M/S.S.V.MULTI LOGITECH PRIVATE LIMITED. THE FORMER ASSESSEE HEREIN HAS FILED ITS APPEAL ITA NO.782/HYD/2020 AGAINST THE CIT(A)-11, HYDERABADS OR DER DT.11-09-2020 IN APPEAL NO.10275/2019-20, THE LATTER ASSESSEES APPEALS ITA NOS.784 & 785/HYD/2020 ARISE AGAINST THE VERY CIT(A)S ORDERS DT.04-09-2020 ALL IN APPEAL NOS. 10280/2019-20 & 10286/2019-20, INVOLVING PROCEEDING S ITA NOS. 782, 784 & 785/HYD/2020 :- 2 -: U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153C IN FORMER AND U/S.143(3) R.W. S.153A IN LATTER TWIN ASSESSEES; RESPECTIVELY. HEARD BOTH THE ASSESSEES AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT. CASE FILES PERUSED. 2. IT TRANSPIRES AT THE OUTSET THAT ALL THESE APPEALS INVOLV E DELAY IN FILING OF 03 DAYS (ITA NO.782/H/20) AND 06 DAYS (ITA NOS.784 & 785/H/20); RESPECTIVELY, STATED TO BE ATTRIBU TABLE TO THE REASON(S) BEYOND THEIR CONTROL AS PER THE RESPECTIV E CONDONATION PETITION(S)/AFFIDAVIT(S). NO REBUTTAL HAS C OME FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL SIDE. THE IMPUGNED DELAY IS CONDONED IN ALL THE ABOVE SAID APPEALS THEREFORE. 3. WE NOTICE AT THE OUTSET THAT ALL THE THREE INSTANT APPEALS ARISE FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL SEARCH ACTION DT.04-07-2017. THE SAME LED TO INITIATION U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153C AND 153A PROCEEDINGS; AS THE CASE MAY BE, FINALLY CULMINATING IN SECTION 69B UN-EXPLAINED INVESTMENT ADDITION(S) IN THE NATURE OF ON-MONEY PAYMENTS INVOLVING VARYING SUMS OF MONEY, S TATED TO BE BASED ON THE ALLEGED INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUN D/SEIZED DURING THE COURSE THEREOF. 4. BEFORE WE PROCEED FURTHER, THESE ASSESSEES AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT ARE AD IDEM DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO.783/HYD/2020 (INVOLVING YET ANOTHER GROUP CONCERN M/S.ZAINAB INVE STMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT PERTAINING TO THE VERY SEARCH A CTION) STANDS RESERVED FOR FINAL PRONOUNCEMENT ON 04-03-2021 . AND THAT WHATEVER DECISION IS TAKEN THEREIN ON THE BASIS OF TH E SEIZED MATERIAL WOULD APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS HEREIN AS WELL. ITA NOS. 782, 784 & 785/HYD/2020 :- 3 -: 5. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO BOTH PARTIES FOREGOING UNIFORM STAND. WE NEXT FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCHS ORDER IN THE ASSESSEES GROUP CONCERNS APPEAL (SUPRA) HAS ALREADY DECIDED THE VE RY UN- EXPLAINED INVESTMENT ADDITION ISSUE IN ASSESSEES FAVO UR AND AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT AS UNDER: 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INVESTIN G IN REAL ESTATE AND UNDERTAKING INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS ETC. SHRI A JAZ FAROOQI IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHO HAD PREDOMINAN T CONTROL OVER THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS ORIGIN AL RETURN OF INCOME ON 19/11/2015 FOR THE AY 2015-16 DECLARING T OTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,83,810/- AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143( 1) OF THE ACT ON 30/06/2018. THEREAFTER, SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIO NS U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY AND ITS RELATED PERSONS AND CONCERNS ON 4/7/2017. SUBSEQUE NTLY, THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 153A OF THE ACT WAS CO MPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 28/12/2019 WHEREIN THE LD. AO MADE SEVE RAL ADDITIONS ALONG WITH THE ADDITION MENTIONED IN THE GROUNDS HE REIN ABOVE. 6. GROUND NO.1: ADDITION OF RS. 95 LAKHS TOWARDS UN ACCOUNTED COMMISSION: 7. THE LD. AR AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED BEFORE US THA T THE LD. AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 95 LAKHS U/S. 69C OF T HE ACT ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID COMMISSION I N ORDER TO OBTAIN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF RS. 18,60,00,000/-. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO FOR RS. 18,60,00,000/- TOWARDS THE AC COMMODATION ENTRIES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PAGE 74 TO 80 O F HIS ORDER AT PARA 7.2.3 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER AGAINST WHICH THE REVEN UE IS NOT IN APPEAL:- 7.2.3. ON CONSIDERATION OF AO'S FINDINGS AND BASIS THEREOF AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE FOLLOWING POSITIO N EMERGES: I) THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDIT OR AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THERE IS NO ADVERS E FINDING ON THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. II) THE ENQUIRIES AT THE DELHI AND THE STATEMENT RE CORDED OF MR. BARDIA CREATE SUSPICION AS TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WITH THE CREDITOR. THE SUSPICION SHOULD ITA NOS. 782, 784 & 785/HYD/2020 :- 4 -: LEAD TO INVESTIGATION TO BRING OUT THE FACTS AND MA TERIAL ON RECORD TO DISPROVE THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. NO SUCH ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE AO TO BRING OUT FACTS/MATERIAL ON RECORD. SUSPICION, HOWEVER STRONG , CANNOT SUBSTITUTE FOR EVIDENCE. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE CONDU CTED FURTHER ENQUIRIES TO TAKE IT TO THE LOGICAL CONCLUS ION. III) THE APPELLANT DISCHARGED, THE INITIAL 'BURDEN OF PROOF BY PRODUCING ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE AO HAS NOT CONTRADICTED ANY OF THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE A PPELLANT. UNLESS SOME EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AND APPEL LANT IS CONFRONTED WITH SUCH EVIDENCE, THE BURDEN DOES NOT SHIFT BACK TO THE APPELLANT. IV) NO EVIDENCES, WERE FOUND DURING THE SEARCH WHIC H ARE 'INCRIMINATING AS TO THE TRANSACTIONS WITH VARIOUS COMPANIES. THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED WERE POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES ONLY. OTHERWISE, THE TRANSACTIONS ARE DULY RECORDED IN TH E HANDS OF RECIPIENT AND THE PAYER. V) THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY DDIT(INV), HYDERABAD A T DELHI OF MR BARDIA IS PERUSED. THE STATEMENT IS REPRODUCE D FOR READY REFERENCE. QL. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF? ANS: I AM ABHAY CHAND BARDIA, SO/A. SRI DHARM CHAND BARDIA, AGED ABOUT 64 YRS, RESIDENT OF 20-B, KIRAN KUTIR, OLD GUPTA COLONY, DELHI-110 009. MY MOBILE NUMBER IS 9811024165 AND ABHARYBARDIA@GMAIL.COM. I AM FURNISH ING HEREWITH COPY OF MY AADHAR CARD NO.3850 8843 1656 A S IDENTITY PROOF. Q2. PLEASE STATE IF YOU ARE AWARE OF THE PENAL CONS EQUENCES OF GIVING A FALSE STATEMENT ON OATH. ANS: YES, I AM MADE AWARE OF. Q3. WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION? ANS: I AM A DIRECTOR IN THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES/FIR MS. I) TERINL ENTERPRISES LTD. II) DWINGER AGENTS P LTD III) ROCHHARD ENTERPRISES P LTD IV) VERBENA DEVELOPERS P LTD. V) KD STOCK BROKING P LTD VI) MICRON PRECISION ENGINEERING P LTD. Q4. WHAT ARE THE OTHER COMPANIES OPERATED FROM THIS ADDRESS I.E 3/14A, IST FLOOR, DOUBLE STOREY, VIJAYA NAGAR. ANS: THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES ARE OPERATED FROM THIS PREMISES: ITA NOS. 782, 784 & 785/HYD/2020 :- 5 -: S. NO NAME OF THE COMPANY NATURE OF ACTIVITY 1 EFFICIENT INDUSTRIAL FINANCE LTD INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND DEBENTURES 2 GOOSE SHARES AND SECURITIES P LTD INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE 3 KARPO REAL ESTATE P LTD REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS 4 KARPO BUILDERS P LTD REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS 5 JASNATH INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS 6 TARINI ENTERPRISES LTD INVESTMENT AND FINANCE 7. KHATUSHYAM SHARES AND SECURITIES P LTD INVESTMENT AND FINANCE 8. R.K INVESTMENT P LTD INVESTMENT AND FINANCE 9. MINIMUM SHARES AND SECURITIES P LTD INVESTMENT AND FINANCE 10. GAIETY REALTECH P LTD REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS 11. MICRON PRECISION ENGINEERING P LTD NOT ACTIVE 12. ROCKHARD ENTERPRISES P LTD NOT ACTIVE 13. SUNRISE AGRO PRODUCTS LTD INVESTMENT IN MCX 14. SUNRISE DISTILLIERIES LTD INVESTMENT IN MCX Q5. ARE YOU RELATED TO ANY OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES? ANS: YES, I AM DIRECTOR IN TARINI ENTERPRISES LTD A ND IN ALL OTHER COMPANIES I AM ACTING AS RETAINER/CONSULTANT. Q6. PLEASE FURNISH REGISTERED ADDRESSES OF THE FOLL OWING COMPANIES. S. NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY 1 EFFICIENT INDUSTRIAL FINANCE LTD 2 GOOSE SHARES AND SECURITIES P LTD 3 KARPO REAL ESTATE P LTD 4 KARPO BUILDERS P LTD 5 JASNATH INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD 6 TARINI ENTERPRISES LTD 7 KHATUSHYAM SHARES AND SECURITIES P LTD 8 R. K INVESTMENTS P LTD 9 MINIMM SHARES AND SECURITIES P LTD 10 GAIETY REALTECH P LTD ANS: I AM FURNISHING HEREWITH THE RELEVANT LETTER H EADS OF ALL THE ABOVE COMPANIES CONTAINING THE REGISTERED ADDRE SSES. ITA NOS. 782, 784 & 785/HYD/2020 :- 6 -: Q.7. WHERE ARE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ABOVE C OMPANIES MAINTAINED? ANS: THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THESE COMPANIES ARE MAINTAINED AT THE CORPORATE OFFICE I.E 20-B, OLD GU PTA COLONY, DELHI. Q8. ON VERIFICATION IT IS FOUND THAT THE BUILDING A T THE ABOVE ADDRESS IS BEING DEMOLISHED AND NO OFFICE WAS FOUND FUNCTIONING THERE. PLEASE EXPLAIN. ANS: YES, THE PREMISE IS UNDER RENOVATION. SO WE HA VE SHIFTED THE RELEVANT RECORDS TEMPORARILY TO 3/14A, 1ST FLOOR, DOUBLE STOREY, VIJAY NAGAR COLONY, DELHI. HOWEVER, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT READILY AVAILABLE AT THIS OFFICE. BACK UP OF THE ACCOUNTS WAS TAKEN UP AND KEPT WITH OUR AUDITOR . I WILL FURNISH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS AND WHEN REQUIRED. Q9. WHO ARE THE DIRECTORS OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES? ANS: THEY ARE ALL MY RELATIVES AND FRIENDS AND WILL FURNISH LIST OF ALL DIRECTORS OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES BY POS T. Q.10. HAVE THE ABOVE COMPANIES MADE ANY ADVANCES/INVESTMENTS IN THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES/INDIVIDUALS? S. NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY 1 ZAINAB INVESTMENTS P LTD 2 ZARA INVESTMENTS P LTD 3 S.V. MULTI LOGITECH P LTD 4 SHOEB ESTATES P LTD 5 MRS. LAXMI RAMAN ANS: YES, WE HAVE MADE THE INVESTMENTS IN THE ABOVE COMPANIES/INDIVIDUAL EXCEPT ZARA INVESTMENTS P LTD AS PER THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: I) INVESTMENTS IN ZAINAB INVESTMENTS P LTD NAME OF THE COMPANY FY AMOUNT INVESTED GAIETY REALTECH P LTD 2014-15 15000000 MINIMUM SHARES AND SECURITIES P LTD 2014-15 20000000 JASNATH INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD 2014-15 30000000 KARPO BUILDERS P LTD 2014-15 13000000 2015-16 12000000 KARO REAL ESTATE P LTD 2014-15 30000000 TARINI ENTERPRISES LTD 2014-15 30000000 KHATUSHYAM SHARES AND SECURITIES P LTD 2014-15 25000000 R.K. INVESTMENT P LTD 2014-15 25000000 GOOSE SHARES AND SECURITIES P LTD 2015-16 3000000 TOTAL 203000000 ITA NOS. 782, 784 & 785/HYD/2020 :- 7 -: II) INVESTMENTS IN SV MULTI LOGITECH P LTD NAME OF THE COMPANY FY AMOUNT INVESTED EFFICIENT INDUSTRIAL FIANNCE LTD 2015-16 51400000 MINIMUM SHARES AND SECURITIES P LTD 2015-16 12000000 GOOSE SHARES AND SECURITIES P LTD 2015-16 9000000 TOTAL 72400000 III) INVESTMENTS IN SHOAIB ESTATES P LTD NAME OF THE COMPANY FY AMOUNT INVESTED KARPO BUILDERS P LTD 2015 - 16 3000000 GOOSE SHARES AND SECURITIES P LTD 2015-16 54000000 TOTAL 57000000 IV) MRS. LAXMI RAMAN NAME OF THE COMPANY FY AMOUNT INVESTED JASNATH 2014 - 15 1500000 GAIETY 2014-15 3000000 MINIMUM 2014 - 15 500000 TOTAL 5000000 I AM FURNISHING HEREWITH THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS, THE COPIES OF BANK TRANSACTIONS AND COPIES OF BALANCE S HEETS IN RELATION TO THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS FOR YOUR VERIFIC ATION. Q.11. WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF ABOVE INVESTMENTS? ANS: THE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF THE SHAR E CAPITAL/INVESTMENTS. Q12. PLEASE FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE SHARE HOLDER S OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES WITH FULL ADDRESS WITH PAN. ANS: I WILL COMPILE AND FORWARD THE DETAILS OF THE SHARE HOLDERS OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES BY POST BY 10.10.2017. Q.13. HOW DO YOU KNOW SRI. AJAZ FAROOQI AND SMT LAX MI RAMAN? ANS: WE MET THEM THROUGH COMMON FRIEND SRI. V. P ANAND. Q.14. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED IN VESTM- ENTS? ITA NOS. 782, 784 & 785/HYD/2020 :- 8 -: ANS: THE ABOVE MENTIONED ADVANCES/INVESTMENTS WERE MADE TO COLLABORATE REAL ESTATE PROJECTS WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED COMPANIES/INDIVIDUAL. Q.15. PLEASE STATE WHETHER THE ABOVE MENTIONED INVE STMENTS ARE STILL RECEIVABLE. ANS: YES, THE ABOVE MENTIONED INVESTMENTS ARE STILL RECEIVABLE BY OUR COMPANIES. Q.16. HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY BENEFIT OUT OF THE ABOV E INVESTMENTS MADE.? ANS: NO, WE HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED ANY BENEFITS OUT OF THE ABOVE INVESTMENTS AS THIS MONEY HAS BEEN INVESTED F OR THE COLLABORATION/JOINT VENTURES OF THE PROJECTS. Q.17. PLEASE FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED PR OJECTS. ANS: THE PROJECTS AT VARIOUS PLACES WHICH ARE STILL IN P ROCESS. Q.18. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AMOUNTS INVESTED BY YOU H AS BEEN USED BY SRI. AJAZ FAROOQI FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS IN MUTU AL FUNDS, FIXED ASSETS AND ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIE S IN HYDERABAD. AS SUCH THE MONEY IS FULLY INVESTED AND IS BEING ENJOYED BY SRI. AJAZ FAROOQI AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES DO YOU JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF YOU R INVESTMENTS. ANS: WE HAVE MADE THE INVESTMENTS UNDER AN UNDERSTANDING/CONTRACT WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED COM PANIES, THEREFORE WE ARE FULLY ESSURED ABOUT THE JOINT VENT URE PROJECT. Q.19. HOW WERE THE ABOVE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE AB OVE COMPANIES. ANS: THE ABOVE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKIN G CHANNELS, I AM FURNISHING THE INFORMATION SEPARATELY. Q.20. DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE. ANS: NO. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE STATEMENT THAT MR. BARDIA HAS NOT ADMITTED TO ANY DISCREPANCIES AS REGARDS TO THE INV ESTMENTS MADE IN APPELLANT AND THEIR GROUP COMPANIES. HE HAS NOT STATED ANYTHING AGAINST THE TRANSACTIONS . THE STATEMENT IS EVASIVE, AT THE BEST, AS TO THE DETAIL S OF BUSINESS OF THE CREDITOR COMPANY I GROUP. MR. BARDIA'S STATEMEN T DOES NOT HELP THE CAUSE OF AO IN ANYWAY. ITA NOS. 782, 784 & 785/HYD/2020 :- 9 -: VI) IN VIEW OF THE FACTUAL POSITION AS ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST ON THEM TO P ROVE THE CREDIT AND THE ACTION IX] S.68 CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE CASE. THE ADDITION MADE IS NOT WARRANTED AND THE SAME IS, ACC ORDINGLY, DELETED. 8. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THOU GH THE LD. CIT (A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION WITH RESPECT TO RS. 18 ,60,00,000/- HOWEVER, OMITTED TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUND RAISED WI TH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS THE PRESUMED COMMISSION PAID FOR ARRANGING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR RS. 18,60,00,000/- AMOUNT ING TO RS.95 LAKHS WHICH IS INTERRELATED. THE LD. AR FURTHER ARG UED STATING THAT WHEN THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS. 18,60,00,000/- TOWAR DS THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ITSELF IS DELETED THEN ADDITI ON MADE FOR RS. 95 LAKHS ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HA VE PAID COMMISSION FOR OBTAINING THE AFORESAID ACCOMMODATIO N ENTRIES DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEGS TO STAND. THE LD. AR THEREFORE S UBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS. 95 LAKHS TOWARDS THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION FOR OBTAINING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES MAY BE DELETED. THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSES SEE. 9. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE FIND MERIT IN THE S UBMISSION OF THE LD. AR. WHEN THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS. 18,60,00,00 0/- FOR OBTAINING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ITSELF IS DELETED THEN THERE CANNOT BE ANY SCOPE FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS. 95 L AKHS ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INCURRED C OMMISSION EXPENDITURE FOR OBTAINING SUCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIE S. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY HESITATION TO DELETE THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE LD. AO ON THIS ISSUE WHICH IS OMITTED TO BE ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO FOR RS. 95 LAKHS ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INCURRED C OMMISSION EXPENDITURE FOR OBTAINING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IS HEREBY DELETED. 10. GROUND NO.2: ADDITION MADE FOR RS. 14,99,45,000 /- INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B OF THE ACT.: 11. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATI ONS IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF MR. J.K. DATTA, GENERAL MAN AGER OF M/S. K.V.R. RAIL INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD., AND IN THE PRE MISES OF THE ACCOUNTS MANAGER EMPLOYED IN THE CONCERNS OF SHRI AJAZ FAROO QI CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED CONTA INING DETAILS OF CASH PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY M/S. ZAINAB INVES TMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED TO MS. ADALA BHANU REKHA AND MS. ADALA INDI RA PRIYADARSHINI TOWARDS PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPE RTY ADMEASURING 2855 SQ YDS AT ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABA D. AS PER THESE DOCUMENTS, TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY IS RS. 33,50,00,000/- OUT OF WHICH RS. 19,40,75,000/- WAS MENTIONED TO ITA NOS. 782, 784 & 785/HYD/2020 :- 10 -: HAVE BEEN PAID THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 14,09,25,000/- WAS SAID TO HAVE PAID BY CASH. IT W AS FURTHER REVEALED THAT THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WAS MADE BY REGISTERED SALE DEED WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE PROPERTY W AS PURCHASED FOR RS. 19,40,75,000/- VIDE DOCUMENT NO. 4212 AND 4213/ 2013, DATED 07/11/2014 OF SRO, BANJARA HILLS. THE PRINTOUTS OF THE DATA FOUND IN THE PEN-DRIVE SEIZED IN THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI J. K. DATTA ARE EXTRACTED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO AT PAGE NO.54 TO 59 WHEREIN SHRI J.K. DATTA HAS HANDWRITTEN THAT THE PEN-DRIVE BELON GS TO HIM, AND THE DATA PERTAINS TO M/S. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS HOUSE CONS TRUCTION. SHRI J.K. DATTA HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME IN HIS STATE MENT WHICH IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FO R REFERENCE:- Q.NO. 47. I AM SHOWING YOURE THE PRINTOUT PAGE NO .1 OF ANNEXURE: A/JKD/RES/05 (TAKEN FROM THE HP PEN-DRIVE NO.1 SEIZED UNDER THE ANNEXURE: A/JKD/RES/04 FROM THE PA TH PEN- D/INVESTMENT-HOUSE CONSTR.XLS.) KINDLY CONFIRM AND EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS. ANS: I CONFIRM THAT THE PRINTOUT PAGE NO.1 OF ANNEX URE: A/JKD/RES/05 (TAKEN FROM HP PEN-DRIVE NO.1 SEIZED U NDER THE ANNEXURE: A/JKD/RES/04 FROM THE PATH PEN-D/ZAIN AB INVESTMENT-HOUSE CONSTR.XLS. WHICH IS FOUND IN MY H OUSE. THE DETAILS AVAILABLE IN THE PAGE RE COST OF THE PR OPERTY AND THE PAYMENT DETAILS FOR THE SAME. THE PAGE CONTAIN S THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF HO USE PROPERTY SITUATED AT JUBILEE HILLS COOPERATIVE HOUS E BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD OF RS. 33 ,50,00,000. RS. 19,40,75,000/- WAS PAID THROUGH DEMAND DRAFTS T O SMT. A. BHANU REKHA (RS. 9,60,30,000) AND SMT. ADALA IND IRA PRIYADARSHINI (RS. 9,80,45,000). THE REMAINING COM PONENT OF RS. 14,09,25,000/- WAS DETAILS OF CASH PAYMENT IN T WO INSTALMENTS (RS. 12,00,00,000 AND RS. 2,09,25,000). *** Q.NO.50. I AM SHOWING HE PRINTOUTS (TAKEN FROM THE PEN- DRIVE.1 FROM THE PATH PEN/D/RECEIPTS.XLS) SEIZED VI DE PAGE NO.4 TO 8 UNDER THE ANNEXURE A/JKD/RES/05. KINDLY CONFIRM AN EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS? ANS: YES. I CONFIRM THAT THE PRINT OUT WAS TAKEN F ROM THE PEN-DRIVE FOUND IN MY HOUSE. THE DETAILS AVAILABLE IN THE PAGE ARE RECEIPTS FOR CASH PAYMENTS TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF HOUSE PROPERTY BY ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PVT LTD SITUATED AT JUBILEE HILLS COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED, J UBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD-0020. ITA NOS. 782, 784 & 785/HYD/2020 :- 11 -: PAGE NO. OF ANNEXURE DATE NAME OF THE PERSON AMOUNT (RS.) 8 03/11/2014 SMT. BHANU REKHA 3,00,00,000 7 04/11/2014 SMT. ADALA INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI 3,00,00,000 6 05/11/2014 SMT. ADALA INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI 3,00,00,000 5 06/11/2014 SMT. BHANU REKHA 3,00,00,000 4 07/11/2014 SMT. ADALA INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI 2,09,25,000 --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------*SRI DUTTA RECONFIRMED THE ABOVE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 26/07/2017. 12. FURTHER, ON QUERY WITH THE SELLERS OF THE PROPE RTY MS. ADALA BHANU REKHA AND MS. ADALA INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI CONF IRMED THE ON- MONEY TRANSACTION AND ADMITTED THE SAME IN THE SCRU TINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PAID TAX. 13. FOR THE AFORESTATED REASONS THE LD. AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PAID ON-MONEY OF RS. 14,09,35,000/- TO THE SELLERS OF THE PROPERTY AND ADDED TO THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO BY OBSERV ING AS FOLLOWS:- 8.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE MATERIAL EVIDENCIN G CASH PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 14,09,00,000/- WAS FOU ND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM MR. J.K. DU TTA WHO IS LOOKING AFTER THE AFFAIRS OF THE GROUP COMPANIES. M/S. DATTA, FROM WHO POSSESSION, THE MATERIAL WAS SEIZED CLEARL Y EXPLAINED THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS UNEQUIVOCALLY. THE SAME WAS CONFRONTED TO THE APPE LLANT BY WAY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. FURTHER, THE SELLER OF T HE PROPERTY ALSO ACCEPTED TO OFFER CASH RECEIPTS TO TAX AND PAY TAXES ON THE ABOVE AMOUNTS RECEIVED. THE CONTENTS OF THE DO CUMENTS ARE COLLABORATED BY THE STATEMENT OF THE PERSON FRO M WHOSE POSSESSION THE DOCUMENT IS SEIZED AND THE ACCEPTANC E OF SELLER OF THE PROPERTY AS TO CASH RECEIPTS. IN VIE W OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION, THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE DECISI ONS RELIED ON BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS BROUGHT OUT BY A.O. ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE CASES RE LIED ON BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE A.O. IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE REJE CTED. 14. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE PEN-DR IVE RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE IS NEITHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR A DOCUM ENT, BUT IT IS ONLY A DIGITAL DEVICE. THE LD. AR FURTHER ARGUED BY STAT ING THAT ANY DIGITAL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE CORROBORATED WITH SOME PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SEIZED ITA NOS. 782, 784 & 785/HYD/2020 :- 12 -: DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, OTHERWISE NO CONCLUSIV E CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN AND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE NO SUCH PH YSICAL EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, OR ANY MATERIAL WAS FOUND WITH THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY. THE LD. AR F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PRINTOUT OF THE DIGITAL DATA DID NOT BEAR THE SIGNATURE OF THE PARTY AND THERE WERE NO SIGNATURE OF WITNESS IN ORD ER TO PROVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE DATA RETRIEVED. THE LD. AR FURTHER ARGUED BY STATING THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF SHRI AJAZ FAROOQI, DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY NOR IN THE PREMIS ES OF APPELLANT COMPANY WITH REGARD TO THE CASH PAYMENT MADE TO THE SELLERS OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT SOME DATA FOU ND IN THE PEN- DRIVE OF THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS REC OVERED FROM THE EMPLOYEES HOUSE CANNOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE TRA NSACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 65B(4) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT WAS NOT FOLLOWED HENCE, THE CONTENTS RETRIEVED FROM THE PEN-DRIVE DOES NOT HAVE ANY EVID ENTIARY VALUE. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE THE VENDO RS OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. REVENUE AUT HORITIES HAD ONLY RELIED ON THE DOCUMENTS FOUND IN THE PEN-DRIVE OF T HE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM THE SELLE RS OF THE PROPERTY. THUS, THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE, AND A LL THE EVIDENCE WERE BY WAY OF ORAL TESTIMONY WHICH CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE NOTINGS AND STATEMENTS OBTAINED FROM THIRD PARTIES CANNOT BE TREATED AS CO RROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AS IT IS NOT A DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE TRAN SACTION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT OR ITS DIRECTOR SHIR AJAZ FAROOQI WHO HAS DENIED THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE NOTINGS RETRIEVED FROM THE PEN -DRIVE SEIZED IN THE PREMISES OF THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. A R FURTHER ARGUED THAT MERELY BASED ON THE SELLERS STATEMENT THAT TH EY HAVE ACCEPTED ON-MONEY FOR THE PROPERTY SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CANNOT BE HELD BINDING FOR SUCH TR ANSACTION. HENCE RELIANCE PLACED ON THE STATEMENTS OF MS. ADAL A BHANU REKHA AND MS. ADALA INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI THE SELLERS OF T HE PROPERTY WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF THIRD-PARTY EVIDENCE CANNOT BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING ADDITION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE LD. AO HAD NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FO R CROSS EXAMINING THE SELLERS OF THE PROPERTY VIZ., MS. ADALA BHANU R EKHA AND MS. ADALA INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI. THE LD. AR THEREAFTER P LACED RELIANCE IN THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ANIL JAGGI VS. ACIT, MUMBAI REPORTED IN 89 TAXMANN.COM 266 (MUM. TRIB.) AND THE DECISION OF THE INDORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL DCIT VS. SHRI MAHESH B ANSAL IN ITA NO. 499/IND/2018 VIDE ORDER DATED 12/6/2019 FOR THE AY 2010-11. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO FOR RS. 14,09,25,000/- WHICH WAS FURTHER SUSTAINED BY THE L D. CIT (A) MAY BE DELETED. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ITA NOS. 782, 784 & 785/HYD/2020 :- 13 -: ORDER OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND PRAYED FOR CONFIRMING THE SAME. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. PAGE NO. 54 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTAINS THE PRINT-OUT EXTRACT OF THE DATA RETRIEVED FROM TH E PEN-DRIVE WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSE SSEES EMPLOYEE, BEING THE SUMMARY OF PAYMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF A N AREA OF 2855 SQ FT. THE SAME IS SIGNED BY THE EMPLOYEE OF THE AS SESSEE STATING THAT THE PRINTOUT IS TAKEN FROM THE PEN-DRIVE G:\P EN-D\ZAINAB INVESTMENT-HOUSE CONST.XLS. OTHER THAN THAT, NOTHI NG IS PENNED IN THE PRINT-OUT. FURTHER AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR NEITHER THESE DOCUMENTS ARE SIGNED BY THE LD.REVENUE OFFICERS OR BY ANY WITNESS. MOREOVER SINCE, THE DATA IS RETRIEVED FROM A DIGITA L DEVICE CERTIFICATE U/S. 65B(4) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT IS ESSENTIAL TO PRO VE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DATA WHICH IS ALSO LACKING. FURTHER, THIS D ATA IS MAINTAINED BY THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH DOES NOT LINK TO ANY DOCUMENT FOUND WITH THE ASSESSEE OR IN THE PREMISES OF THE D IRECTORS OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SIMILARLY, THE PRINTOUT FROM THE PEN-DRIVE STATING THE PROPERTY SALE RECEI PT EXTRACTED IN PAGE 55, 56, 57, 58 AND 59 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ALSO HAS THE SAME DEFICIENCY TO TREAT IT AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THESE DOCUMENTS APPEAR TO BE DUMB DOCUME NTS AND CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION IN THE H ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, CONFESSIONS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED BY H IM. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTION F.NO.286/2/2003-IT (INV.II), DATED 10/3/2003 HAS CO NDEMNED THE FORCED CONFESSION MADE DURING THE SEARCH AND SURVEY OPERATIONS. FURTHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AND AND HRA PRADESH IN THE CASE GAJJAM CHINNA YELLAPPA VS. ITO VIDE ORDER DATED 6/11/2014 REPORTED IN [2015] 59 TAXMANN.COM 69 (AND HRA PRADESH AND TELANGANA) HAS HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON THE BASIS OF MERE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WHICH ARE RETRACTED AND WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID N OT PRODUCE ANY OTHER COGENT MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE STATEMENTS OR SALE CONSIDERATION OF LAND, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TO BE SET ASIDE. W HILE DECIDING SO THE HONBLE COURT HAD PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CBDT CIRCU LAR DATED 10/03/2003 REFERRED HEREIN ABOVE. FURTHER, THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE CIT VS. S. KHADER KHAN SON VI DE ORDER DATED 4/7/2007 REPORTED IN [2008] 300 ITR 157 (MAD.), HAD HELD THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 133A OF THE ACT HAS NO EVID ENTIARY VALUE AND ANY ADMISSION MADE DURING SUCH STATEMENT CANNOT BE MADE BASIS OF ADDITION. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFOR E US, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES WHILE MAKING THE A DDITION HAVE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE STATEMENT OF THE SELLERS AND SOME DUMP- DOCUMENTS. THE LD. AO HAS OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER IN PARA 21.4, PAGE ITA NOS. 782, 784 & 785/HYD/2020 :- 14 -: 60 THAT WHEN HE CONFRONTED THE SELLERS, THEY ADMITT ED FOR HAVING RECEIVED ON-MONEY FOR RS. 14,09,25,000/- AND HAD PA ID TAX FOR THE SAME IN THEIR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWE VER, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT PRODUCED THE SELLERS ASSESSMENT ORDERS BEFORE US TO VERIFY THE FACTS OF THOSE CASES AND BY RELYING ON THE ORAL STATEMENTS SUCH ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE H ANDS OF THE SELLERS WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATE. THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THOSE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IS ALSO NOT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE . IT IS OBVIOUS THAT ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E ON THE BASIS OF MERE STATEMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES VIZ., THE SELL ERS OF THE PROPERTY FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE WHEN THERE ARE NO OTHER COGENT CORROBO RATE EVIDENCE, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AS TO HOW SUCH ADDITION CAN B E MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE BUYERS AS WELL AS THE SELLERS OF THE P ROPERTY. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO PLACE MUCH RELIANCE ON THE O BSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE PURC HASE OF THE PROPERTY IS CONCLUDED BY A WAY OF A REGISTERED SALE DEED STATING THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS RS. 19,40,75,000/- W HICH WERE PAID BY DEMAND DRAFT. IN A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO [1981] REPORTED IN 1 31 ITR 597 HAD CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE PLEA OF UNDERSTATEMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION UNLESS IT IS E STABLISHED THAT PHYSICALLY MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED OVER AND ABOVE T HE DECLARED CONSIDERATION. FURTHER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF K ERALA IN THE CASE CIT VS. SMT. K.C. AGNES [2003] REPORTED IN 262 ITR 354 VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 22/01/2003 HAD HELD THAT WHEN A DOCUMENT SHO WS A FIXED PRICE, THERE WOULD BE A PRESUMPTION THAT IT IS THE CORRECT PRICE AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES. IT IS TRUE THAT ON THE BASIS O F THE AGREEMENT THE SALE DEED IS EXECUTED. BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THA T THE PRICE STATED IN THE AGREEMENT WILL BE PRICE SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED . FURTHER, THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE CIT, SALEM VS. P.V. KALYANASUNDARAM VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 14/09/2007 REPORTED IN 294 ITR 49 IT WAS HELD THAT THE FACT AS TO THE ACTUAL SALE PRICE OF THE P ROPERTY, THE IMPLICATION OF THE CONTRARY STATEMENTS MADE BY THE VENDOR OR WHETHER RELIANCE COULD BE PLACED ON THE LOOSE SHEETS RECOVE RED IN THE COURSE OF THE RAID WERE ALL QUESTION OF FACT. THEREFORE, THE RE WAS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT FOR HAVING DISMISSED TH E REVENUES APPEAL. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEFORE US AND THE DECISIONS CITED HEREIN ABOVE, WE CANNOT CONCLUSIVELY AGREE ON THE FINDING OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ON-MONEY OF RS. 14,09,25,00/- TO THE SELLERS O F THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE TWO EVIDENCE RELIED BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES VIZ., THE DATA RETRIEVED FROM THE PEN-DRIVE AND THE ADMIS SION BY THE VENDORS OF THE PROPERTY THOUGH MAY HAVE A PERSUASIV E VALUE BUT WILL NOT HAVE MUCH SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENTIARY VALUE IN ORDE R TO MAKE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LD. AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE FOR ITA NOS. 782, 784 & 785/HYD/2020 :- 15 -: RS. 14,09,25,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TOW ARDS ON-MONEY PAID FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. 5.1. WE ADOPT THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION AS WELL AS REA SONING CONTAINED THEREIN; MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO DELETE ALL THE IMPUGNED SECTION 69B IDENTICAL UN-EXPLAINED INVESTMENT(S)/ADDI TIONS INVOLVING VARYING SUMS IN THESE THREE INSTANT APPEALS. THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS TO THIS EFFECT STAND ACCEPTED THER EFORE. NO OTHER ARGUMENT HAS BEEN RAISED BEFORE US. 6. THESE TWIN ASSESSEES THREE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED I N ABOVE TERMS. A COPY OF THIS COMMON ORDER BE PLACED IN THE R ESPECTIVE CASE FILES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JULY, 2021 SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.G ODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED: 15-07-2021 TNMM ITA NOS. 782, 784 & 785/HYD/2020 :- 16 -: COPY TO : 1.M/S.ASMA ESTATES AND INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, C/O. P.MURALI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6-3- 655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD. 2.M/S.S.V.MULTI LOGITECH PRIVATE LIMITED, C/O. P.MU RALI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6-3- 655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD. 3.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), HYDERABAD. 4.CIT(APPEALS)-11, HYDERABAD. 5.PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-HYDERABAD. 6.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 7.GUARD FILE.
