Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0825 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
6 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
08-07-2021
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB-A
Next Hearing Date
04-03-2021
Assessment Year
2015-2016
Appeal Filed On
28-12-2020
Judgement Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 783/HYD/2020 A.Y. 2015 - 16 ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD. PAN: AAACZ 4042 Q VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(4), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO REVENUE BY: SMT. NIVEDITA BISWAS, DR DATE OF HEARING: 04/03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08 /0 7 /2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY , A.M: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 11, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 10281/2019 - 20, DATED 04/09/2020 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 153A OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2015 - 16. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 03 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE 2 ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY WHEREIN THE REASONS FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT WAS EXPLAINED. FOR REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE AFFIDAVIT IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: - .. THE CIT(A) ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE A.Y. 2015 - 16, WAS RECEIVED ON 26/10/2020, AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME DUE TO COVID - 19 PANDEMIC, OUR OFFICE WAS CLOSED FROM 23/3/2020 TO 8/5/2020. EVEN THOUGH THE OFFICE WAS OPENED AFTER 8/5/2020, KEEPING IN VIEW OF COVID PANDEMIC AND DIFFICULT SITUATION, STAFF WERE ALLOWED TO WORK ONLY ON ROTATIONAL BASIS ON ALTERNATE DAYS AND FOR FEW HOURS. FURTHER, OFFICE WAS CLOSED FREQUENTLY DUE TO DETECTION OF NEW CORONA POSITIVE CASES AMONG STAFF. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL COULD BE FILED ON 28/12/2020 WITH THE DELAY OF 03 DAYS AS THE APPEAL WAS DUE FOR FILING ON 25/12/2 020 AND INSTEAD OF THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED ON 28/12/2020. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASONS, THE DELAY MAY PLEASE BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE CONSIDERED DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. .. 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE REASON FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS DUE TO THE NON - FUNCTIONAL OF THE ASSESSE E S OF FICE BECAUSE OF COVID - 19 PANDEMIC . THEREFORE , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH A FEW DAYS DEL A Y . HENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 0 3 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND PROCEED TO A DJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWENTY GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL HOWEVER, THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE AS FOLLOWS: - 3 (I) THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND RAISED WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO FOR RS. 95,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED COMMISSION PAID FOR OBTAINING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FOR RS. 18,60,00,000/ - . (II) THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO FOR RS. 14,09,25,000/ - INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 69B OF THE ACT TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED SALE CONSIDERATION PAID FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INVESTING I N REAL ESTATE AND UNDERTAKING INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS ETC. SHRI AJAZ FAROOQI IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHO HAD PREDOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 19/11/2015 FOR THE AY 2015 - 16 DE CLARING TOTAL 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 OPERATIONS U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ITS RELATED PERSONS AND CONCERNS ON 4/7/2017. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 153A OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 4 28/12/2019 WHEREIN THE LD. AO MADE SEVERAL ADDITIONS ALONG WITH THE ADDITION MENTIONED IN THE GROUNDS HEREIN ABOVE. 6. GROUND NO.1: ADDITION OF RS. 95 LAKHS TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED COMMISSION: 7. THE LD. AR AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 95 LAKHS U/S. 69C OF THE ACT ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID COMMISSION IN ORDER TO OBTAIN ACCOMMODATI ON 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 ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PAGE 74 TO 80 OF HIS ORDER AT PARA 7.2.3 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL : - 7.2.3. O N CONSIDERATION OF AO'S FINDINGS AND BASIS THEREOF AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE FOLLOWING POSITION EMERGES: I) THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF T HE TRANSACTIONS. THERE IS NO ADVERSE FINDING ON THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. I I) THE ENQUIRIES AT THE DELHI AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF MR. BARDIA CREATE SUSPICION AS TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WITH THE CREDITOR. THE SUSPICION SHOULD LEAD TO INVESTIGATION TO BRING OUT THE FACTS AND MATERIAL 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 CONDUCTED FURTHER ENQUIRIES TO TAKE IT TO THE LOGICAL CONCLUS ION. 5 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 APPELLANT. UNLESS SOME EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AND APPELLANT IS CONFRONTED WITH SUCH EVIDENCE, THE BURDEN DOES NOT SHIFT BACK TO THE APPELLANT. IV) NO EVIDENCES, WERE FOUND DURING THE SEARCH WHICH ARE 'INCRIMINATING AS TO THE TRANSACTIONS WITH VARIOUS COMPANIES. THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED WERE POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES ONLY. OTHERWIS E, THE TRANSACTIONS ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE HANDS OF RECIPIENT AND THE PAYER. V) THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY DDIT(INV), HYDERABAD AT DELHI OF MR BARDIA IS PERUSED. THE STATEMENT IS REPRODUCED FOR READY REFERENCE. QL. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSE LF ? 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 N UMBER IS 9811024165 AND ABHARYBARDIA@GMAIL.COM. I AM FURNISHING HEREWITH COPY OF MY AADHAR CARD NO.3850 8843 1656 AS IDENTITY PROOF. Q2. PLEASE STATE IF YOU ARE AWARE OF THE PENAL CONSEQUENCES 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/FIRMS. I) TERINL ENTERPRI SES 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: 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 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? A NS: YES, I AM DIRECTOR IN TARINI ENTERPRISES LTD AND IN A LL OTHER COMPANIES I AM ACTING AS RETAINER/CONSULTANT. Q6. PLEASE FURNISH REGISTERED ADDRESSES OF THE FOL L 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 HEADS OF A LL THE ABOVE COMPANIES CONTAINING THE REGISTERED ADDRESSES. Q.7. WHERE ARE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES MAINTAINED? ANS: THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THESE COMPANIES ARE MAINTAINED AT THE CORPORATE OFFICE I.E 20 - B, OLD GUPTA COLONY, DELHI. Q8. ON VERIFICATION IT IS FOUND THAT THE BUILDING AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS IS BEING DEMOLISHED AND NO OFFICE WAS FOUND FUNCTIONING THERE. PLEASE EXPLAIN. 7 ANS: YES, THE PREMISE IS UNDER RENOVATION. SO WE HAVE 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 A BOVE COMPANIES BY POST. Q.10. HAVE THE ABOVE COMPANIES MADE ANY ADVANCES/INVESTMENTS IN THE FOL L OWING 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 1500000 0 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 II) INVESTMENTS IN SV MULTI LOGITECH P LTD 8 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 SHEETS IN RELATION TO THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS FOR YOUR VERIFICATION. Q.11. WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF ABOVE INVESTMENTS? ANS: THE INVESTMENTS H AVE BEEN MADE OUT OF THE SHARE CAPITAL/INVESTMENTS. Q12. PLEASE FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE SHARE HOLDERS OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES WITH FULL ADDRESS WITH PAN. ANS: I WILL COMPILE AND FORWARD THE DETAILS OF THE SHARE HOLDERS OF THE ABOVE COMPA NIES BY POST BY 10.10.2017. Q.13. HOW DO YOU KNOW SRI. AJAZ FAROOQI AND SMT LAXMI RAMAN? ANS: WE MET THEM THROUGH COMMON FRIEND SRI. V. P ANAND. Q.14. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED INVESTM - ENTS? 9 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 INVESTMENTS ARE STILL RECEIVABLE. ANS: YES, THE ABOVE MENTIONED INVE STMENTS ARE STILL RECEIVABLE BY OUR COMPANIES. Q.16. HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY BENEFIT OUT OF THE ABOVE INVESTMENTS MADE.? ANS: NO, WE HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED ANY BENEFITS OUT OF THE ABOVE INVESTMENTS AS THIS MONEY HAS BEEN INVESTED FOR THE COLLABORATION/JOI NT VENTURES OF THE PROJECTS. Q.17. PLEASE FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECTS. ANS: THE PROJECTS AT VARIOUS PLACES WHICH ARE STILL IN PROCESS. Q.18. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AMOUNTS INVESTED BY YOU HAS BEEN USED BY SRI. AJAZ FAROOQI FOR MAKING INV ESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS, FIXED ASSETS AND ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES 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 YOUR INVESTMENTS. ANS: WE HAVE MADE THE INVESTMENTS UNDER AN UNDERSTANDING/CONTRACT WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED COMPANIES, THEREFORE WE ARE FULLY ESSURED ABOUT THE JOINT VENTURE PROJECT. Q.19. HOW WERE THE ABOVE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE ABOVE COMPANIES. ANS: THE ABOVE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING 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 INVESTMENTS MADE IN APPELLANT AND THEIR GROUP COMPANIES. HE HAS NOT STATED ANYTHING AGAINST THE TRANSACTIONS. THE STATEMENT IS EVASIVE, AT THE BES T, AS TO THE DETAILS OF BUSINESS OF THE CREDITOR COMPANY I GROUP. MR. BARDIA'S STATEMENT DOES NOT HELP THE CAUSE OF AO IN ANYWAY. VI) IN VIEW OF THE FACTUAL POSITION AS ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST ON THEM TO PROVE TH E CREDIT AND THE ACTION IX] S.68 CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE CASE. THE ADDITION MADE IS NOT WARRANTED AND THE SAME IS, ACCORDINGLY, DELETED. 10 8. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT (A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION WITH RESPECT TO RS. 18,60,00,000/ - HOWEVER , OMITTED TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUND RAISED WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION MADE TOW ARDS THE PRESUMED COMMISSION PAID FOR ARRANGING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR RS. 18,6 0,00,000/ - AMOUNTING TO RS.95 LAKHS WHICH IS INTERRELATED. THE LD. AR FURTHER ARGUED STATING THAT WHEN THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS. 18,60,00,000/ - TOWARDS THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ITSELF IS DELETED THEN ADDITION MADE FOR RS. 95 LAKHS ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE PAID COMMISSION FOR OBTAINING THE AFORESAID ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEGS TO STAND. THE LD. AR THEREFORE SUBMITTED 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 ASSESSEE. 9. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR. WHEN THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS. 18,60,00,000/ - FOR OBTAINING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ITSELF IS DELETED THEN THERE CANNOT BE ANY SCOPE FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS. 95 LAKHS O N THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INCURRED COMMISSION EXPENDITURE FOR OBTAINING SUCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY HESITATION TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO ON THIS ISSUE WHICH IS OMITTED TO BE ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION 11 MADE BY THE LD. AO FOR RS. 95 LAKHS ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INCURRED COMMISSION EXPENDITURE FOR OBTAINING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IS HEREBY DELETED. 10. GROUND NO.2: ADDITION MADE FOR RS. 14,9 9,45,000/ - INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B OF THE ACT.: 11. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF MR. J.K. DATTA, GENERAL MANAGER OF M/S. K.V.R. RAIL INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD., AND IN THE PREMISES OF THE AC COUNTS MANAGER EMPLOYED IN THE CONCERNS OF SHRI AJAZ FAR OO QI CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED CONTAINING DETAILS OF CASH PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY M/S. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED TO MS. ADALA BHANU REKHA AND MS. ADALA INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI TOWARDS PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ADMEASURING 2855 SQ YDS AT ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. 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 T O HAVE BEEN PAID THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 14,09,25,000/ - WAS SAID TO HAVE PAID BY CASH. IT WAS FURTHER REVEALED THAT THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WAS MADE BY REGISTERED SALE DEED WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHA SED FOR RS. 19,40,75,000/ - VIDE DOCUMENT NO. 4212 AND 4213/2013, DATED 07/11/2014 OF SRO, BANJARA HILLS. THE 12 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 BELONGS TO HIM , AND THE DATA PERTAINS TO M/S. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS HOUSE CONSTRUCTION. SHRI J.K. DATTA HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME IN HIS STATEMENT WHICH IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 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 PATH PEN - D/INVESTMENT - HOUSE CONSTR.XLS.) KINDLY CONFIRM AND EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS. ANS: I CONFIRM THAT THE PRINTOUT PAGE NO.1 OF ANNEXURE: A/JKD/RES/05 (TAKEN FROM HP PEN - DRIVE NO.1 SEIZED UNDER THE ANNEXURE: A/JKD/RES/04 FROM THE PATH PEN - D/ZAINAB INVESTMENT - HOUSE CONSTR.XLS. WHICH IS FOUND IN MY HOUSE. THE DETAI LS AVAILABLE IN THE PAGE RE COST OF THE PROPERTY AND THE PAYMENT DETAILS FOR THE SAME. THE PAGE CONTAINS THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED AT JUBILEE HILLS COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED, JUBILEE HILL S, HYDERABAD OF RS. 33,50,00,000. RS. 19,40,75,000/ - WAS PAID THROUGH DEMAND DRAFTS TO SMT. A. BHANU REKHA (RS. 9,60,30,000) AND SMT. ADALA INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI (RS. 9,80,45,000). THE REMAINING COMPONENT OF RS. 14,09,25,000/ - WAS DETAILS OF CASH PAYMENT IN TWO 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 VIDE PAGE NO.4 TO 8 UNDER THE ANNEXURE A/JKD/RES/05. KINDLY CONFIRM AN EXPLAIN THE CONTE NTS? ANS: YES. I CONFIRM THAT THE PRINT OUT WAS TAKEN FROM 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, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD - 0020. 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 13 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 PROPERTY MS. ADALA BHANU REKHA AND MS. ADALA INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI CONFIRMED THE ON - MONEY TRANSACTION AND ADMITTED THE SAME IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PAID TAX. 13. FOR THE AFORESTATED REASONS THE L D. 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 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED TH E ORDER OF THE LD. AO BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: - 8.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE MATERIAL EVIDENCING CASH PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 14,09,00,000/ - WAS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM MR . J.K. DUTTA WHO IS LOOKING AFTER THE AFFAIRS OF THE GROUP COMPANIES. M/S. DATTA, FROM WHO POSSESSION, THE MATERIAL WAS SEIZED CLEARLY EXPLAINED THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS UNEQUIVOCALLY. THE SAME WAS CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT BY WAY OF SHOW C AUSE NOTICE. FURTHER, THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY ALSO ACCEPTED TO OFFER CASH RECEIPTS TO TAX AND PAY TAXES ON THE ABOVE AMOUNTS RECEIVED. THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS ARE COLLABORATED BY THE STATEMENT OF THE PERSON FROM WHOSE POSSESSION THE DOCUMENT IS SEIZED AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF SELLER OF THE PROPERTY AS TO CASH RECEIPTS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION, THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS BROUGHT OUT BY A.O. ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE CASES RELIED ON BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE A.O. IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE REJECTED. 14 14. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE PEN - DRIVE RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE IS NEITHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR A DOCUMENT , BUT IT IS ONLY A DIGITAL DEVICE. THE LD. AR FURTHER ARGUED BY STATING THAT ANY DIGITAL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE CORROBORATED WITH SOME PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH , OTH ERWISE NO CONCLUSIVE CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN AND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE NO SUCH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, OR ANY MATERIAL WAS FOUND WITH THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PRINTOUT OF THE DIGITAL DATA DID NOT BEAR THE SIGNATURE OF THE PARTY AND THERE WERE NO SIGNATURE OF WITNESS IN ORDER 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 FA ROO QI, DIR ECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY NOR IN THE PREMISES OF APPELLANT COMPANY WITH REGARD TO THE CASH PAYMENT MADE TO THE SELLERS OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT SOME DATA FOUND IN THE PEN - DRIVE OF THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS RECOVERED FR OM THE EMPLOYEES HOUSE CANNOT HAVE ANY BEARING O N THE TRANSACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 65B(4) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT WAS NOT FOLLOWED HENCE, THE CONTENTS RETRIEVED FROM THE PEN - DRIVE DOES NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMIN E THE VENDORS OF THE PROPERTY . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD 15 ONLY RELIED ON THE DOCUMENTS FOUND IN THE PEN - DRIVE OF THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM THE SELLERS OF THE PROPERTY. THUS, THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE , AND ALL 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 CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AS IT IS NO T A DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE TRANSACTION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT OR ITS DIRECTOR SHIR AJAZ FA ROO QI 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. AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT MERELY BASED ON THE SELLERS STATEMENT THAT THEY HAVE ACCEPTED ON - MONEY FOR THE PROPERTY SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CANNOT BE HELD BINDING FOR SUCH TRANSACTION . HENCE RELIANCE PLACED ON THE STATEMENTS OF MS. ADALA BHANU REKHA AND MS. ADALA INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI THE SELLERS OF THE PROPERTY WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF THIRD - PARTY EVIDENCE CANNOT BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING ADDITION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO HAD NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS EXAMIN ING THE SELLERS OF THE PROPERTY VIZ., MS. ADALA BHANU REK HA AND MS. ADALA INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI. THE LD. AR THEREAFTER PLACED 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 16 MAHESH BANSAL 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 LD. CIT (A) MAY BE DELETED. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHE R HAND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND PRAYED FOR CONFIRMING THE SAME. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. PAGE NO. 54 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTAINS THE PRINT - OUT EXTRACT OF THE DATA RETRIEVED FROM THE PEN - DRIVE WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE S EMPLOYEE , BEING THE SUMMARY OF PAYMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF AN AREA OF 2855 SQ FT. THE SAME IS SIGNED BY THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE PRINTOUT IS TAKEN FROM THE PEN - DRIVE G: \ PEN - D \ ZAINAB INVESTMENT - HOUSE CONST.XLS . OTHER THAN THAT , NOTHI NG IS PENNED IN THE PRINT - OUT . FURTHER A S POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR NEITHER THESE DOCUMENTS ARE SIGNED BY THE LD. REVENUE OFFICERS OR BY ANY WITNESS. MOREOVER S INCE, THE DATA IS RETRIEVED FROM A DIGITAL DEVICE CERTIFICATE U/S. 65B(4) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT IS ESSENTIAL TO PROVE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DATA WHICH IS ALSO LACKING. FURTHER , THIS DATA 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 DIRECTORS OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SIMILARLY, THE PRINTOUT FROM THE 17 PEN - DRIVE STATING THE PROPERTY SALE RECEIPT 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 ASSESS EE. THEREFORE, THESE DOCUMENTS APPEAR TO BE DUMB DOCUMENTS AND CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, CONFESSIONS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED BY HIM. IT IS P ERTINENT TO MENTION THAT T HE CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTION F.NO.286/2/2003 - IT (INV.II), DATED 10/3/2003 HAS CONDEMNED THE FORCED CONFESSION MADE DURING THE SEARCH AND SURVEY OPERATIONS. FURTHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE CASE GAJJAM CHINNA YELLAPPA VS. ITO VIDE ORDER DATED 6/11/2014 REPORTED IN [2015] 59 TAXMANN.COM 69 (ANDHRA PRADESH AND TELANGANA) HAS HELD THAT WHERE ASSES SMENT ORDER PASSED ON THE BASIS OF MERE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WHICH ARE RETRACT ED AND WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PRODUCE ANY OTHER COGENT MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE STATEMENTS OR SALE CONSIDERATION OF LAND, THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER IS TO BE SET ASIDE . W HILE DECIDING SO THE HONBLE COURT HAD PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 10/03/2003 REFERRED HEREIN ABOVE. FURTHER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE CIT VS. S. KHADER KHAN SON VIDE 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 EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND ANY ADMISSION MADE DURING SUCH STATEMENT CANNOT BE MADE BASIS OF ADDITION. F ROM THE FACTS 18 OF THE CASE BEFORE US , IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAVE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE STATEMENT OF THE SELLERS AND SOME DUM P - DOCUMENTS . THE LD. AO HAS OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER IN PARA 21.4, PAGE 60 THAT WHEN HE CONFRONTED THE SELLERS, THEY ADMITTED FOR HAVING RECEIVED ON - MONEY FOR RS. 14,09,25,000/ - AND HAD PAID TAX FOR THE SAME IN THEIR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT PRODUCED THE SELLERS ASSESSMENT ORDERS BEFORE US TO VERIFY THE FACTS OF THOSE CASE S AND BY REL YING ON THE ORAL STATEMENTS SUCH ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLERS WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATE . THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THOSE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IS ALSO NOT BROU GHT TO OUR NOTICE . IT IS OBVIOUS THAT ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF MERE STATEMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES VIZ., THE SELLERS OF THE PROPERTY FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE W HEN THERE ARE NO OTHER COGENT CORROBORATE EVIDENCE, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AS TO HOW SUCH ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE BUYERS AS WELL AS THE SELLERS OF THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO PLACE MUCH RELIANCE ON TH E OBSERVATION S MADE BY THE LD. AO. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY IS CONCLUDED BY A WAY OF A RE GISTERED SALE DEED STATING THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS RS. 19,40,75,000/ - WHICH WERE PAID BY DEMAND DRAFT. IN A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO [1981] REPORTED IN 131 ITR 597 HAD CATEGORICALLY HELD 19 THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE PLEA OF UNDERSTATEMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION UNLESS IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT PHYSICALLY MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED OVER AND ABOVE THE DECLARED CONSIDERATION. FURTHER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE CASE CIT VS. SMT. K.C. AGNES [2003] REPORTED IN 262 ITR 354 VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 22/01 /2003 HA D HELD THAT WHEN A DOCUMENT SHOWS A FIXED PRICE, THERE WOULD BE A PRESUMPTION THAT IT IS THE CORRECT PRICE AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES. IT IS T RUE THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE AGREEMENT THE SALE DEED IS EXECUTED. BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT 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 PROPERTY, THE IMPLICATION OF THE CONTRARY STATEMENTS MADE BY THE VENDOR OR WHETHER RELIANCE COULD BE PLACED ON THE LOOSE SHEETS RECOVERED IN THE COURSE OF THE RAID WERE ALL QUESTION OF FACT. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE HIGH C OURT FOR HAVING DISMISSED THE 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 - MO NEY OF RS. 14,09,25,00/ - TO THE SELLERS OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE TWO EVIDENCE RELIED BY THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES VIZ., THE DATA RETRIEVED FROM THE PEN - DRIVE AND THE ADMISSION BY THE VENDORS OF THE PROPERTY THOUGH MAY HAVE A PERSUASIVE VALUE BUT WILL NOT HAVE 20 MUCH SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENTIARY VALUE IN ORDER TO MAKE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE L D. AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS. 14,09,25,000/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS ON - MONEY PAID FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 17. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED AFTER 90 DAYS OF HEARING THE APPEAL, WHICH IS THOUGH AGAINST THE USUAL NORMS, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE EXTRA - ORDINARY SITUATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE LOCK - DOWN DUE TO COVID - 1 9 PANDEMIC. WHILE DOING SO, WE HAVE RELIED IN THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. JSW LTD. IN ITA NO.6264/M/2018 AND 6103/M/2018 FOR AY 2013 - 14 ORDER DATED 14TH MAY 2020. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 TH JU LY , 2021. SD/ - SD/ - (S.S. GODARA) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 08 TH JU LY , 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 21 1) M/S. ZAINAB INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED C/O. P. MURALI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6 - 3 - 655/2/3, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 500 082. 2) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(4), HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 11, HYDERABAD . 4) THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL) , HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on Startup Fundraising
₹5000
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
Shipping and Logistics Agreement
₹0
No Objection Letter for Use of Property – Partnership Firm
₹0
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026