Saritha Saireddy, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 827/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4874 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2019
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH PADUCHURI
• Assessee Lawyers: C S SUBRAMANYAM
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained investment; Documents seized; Capital Gains
• Section: 142(1); 201; 292BB; 143(2); 147; 69; 148; 132

Judgement Text

IN T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A , HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 827 AND 828 /HYD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 07 - 08 1. SARITHA SAIREDDY, HY DERABAD. PAN A IRPS 8384C 2. PRUTHVIRAJ REDDY SAIREDDY, HYDERABAD. PAN BHCPS0720H VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 4 ( 1 ) , HYDERABAD. ( APPELLANT S ) ` (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.S. SUBRAMANYAM REVENUE BY : S HRI DINESH PADUCHURI DATE OF HEARING : 1 0 / 0 6 /201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 / 0 8 / 201 9 O R D E R PER S . RIFAUR RAHMAN , A .M. : T H ESE TWO APPEAL S FILED BY THE A BOVE ASSESSEE S ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER S OF CIT(A) 6 , BOTH DATED 14 / 0 2 /201 7 , HYDERABAD FOR AY 20 07 - 08 . AS THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR IN BOTH THE CA SES, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, TO ADJUDICATE BOTH THESE APPEALS, WE TAKE FACTS FROM ITA NO. 827/HYD/2017. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE , AS TAKEN FROM ITA NO. 827/HYD/2017, ARE, A SSESSEE , AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2007 - 08 ON 31.10 .2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.27,72,620/ - . LATER, A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS ISSUED ON 18.03.2014 TO THE ASSESSEE WITH PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE THEN ADD L . CO MMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 6, HYDERABAD, FOR THE REASON THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE , THE ASSESSEE'S AR FILED LETTER ON 13.01.2015 WHEREIN IT W AS 2 ITA NO S . 827 & 828 /HYD/1 7 SARITHA SAI REDDY & PRUTHBVIRAJ REDDY . REQUESTED TO TREAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 31.10.2007 FOR A.Y.2007 - 08 AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U / S 148 OF I.T. ACT. 2. 1 CONSEQUENT TO THE CREATION OF NEW RANGE - L4, HYDERABAD VIDE CBDT'S NOTIFICATION IN F. NO .50 12014 DT. 22. 10.2014 AND NOTIFICATION OF THE CIT - VI IN F.NO. CIT / HYD - VI / JURIS / 2014 - 15 DT.15.11.20 14, THIS CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO DCLT, CIRCLE - 14( 1) , HYDERABAD AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 14/01/2015. IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FURNISHED THE SUBMISSIONS. 2 . 2 ON VERIFICATION OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PLOT ADMEASURING 116 SQ. YARDS FROM SMT. L.YAMUNA, W/O SRI L. JAYA REDDY VIDE DOCUMENT NO.613/2007. THE VALUE OF THE PLOT AS PER REGISTERED DOCUMENT IS RS 4 ,79,660/ - . HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN FROM THE STATEMENT ON OATH OF SRI L. JAYA REDDY, HUSBAND OF THE SELLER WHO DEPOSED BEFORE THE DDIT(INV.), UNIT - II(I), HYDERABAD THAT HE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS SOLD THE PROPERTY ORIGINALLY AT RS.21,500/ - PER SQ. YARD AS AGAIN ST THE DOCUMENT VALUE OF RS . 4, 135/ - PER SQ. YD. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.24,94,000 TOWARDS THE COST OF PLOT AS AGAINST THE DOCUMENT VALUE OF RS 4 ,79,660 AND THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.20,14,340/ - . IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESS EE WAS PROVIDED WITH REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 148 FOR AY 2007 - 08 VIDE OFFICE LETTER DATED 14.1.2015. ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 3.2.2015 RAISED THE OBJECTIONS WHICH WERE DISPOSED OFF BY A.O VIDE LETTER DATED 13.2.2015. FURTHER, A SHOW CAUSE LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18.2.2015 AS TO WHY CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE TAXED ON THE DIFFERENCE VALUE OF RS.20,14,340/ - . IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 23.2.2015 REITERATING THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS SUBMITTE D EARLIER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED IN GS AND WHICH WERE DISPOSED - OFF BY A.O VIDE LETTER DATED 13.2.2015. 2.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME OF RS.20,14,340/ - HAS ESCAPED FROM THE ASSESSMENT, A CCORDINGLY , HE BROUGHT TO TAX THE SAME IN HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 ITA NO S . 827 & 828 /HYD/1 7 SARITHA SAI REDDY & PRUTHBVIRAJ REDDY . 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) . 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I) SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 281 OF THE IT ACT. II) REOPENING ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ANOTHER AUTHORITY WITHOUT VERIFICATION AND APPLICATION OF MIND DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW. 5. AS REGARDS THE FIRST GROUND REGARDING CHALLENGING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147, THE CIT(A) ELABORATELY DISCUSS ED THE ISSUE WITH VARIOUS C ASE LAW, REJECTED THE GROUND. 5.1 FURTHER, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ARGUED ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION, NEVERTHELESS, IT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO HAVE A BRIEF DISCUSSION ON THE SAME AND ACCORDINGLY, HE OBSERVED AS UNDER: 04.9.1 TH E ASSESSEE ACCEPTS THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. SHE ALSO ACCEPTS THE CHE Q UE PAYMENT. BUT SHE DENIES ALLEGED CASH P A YMENT. ACCORDING TO HER, THE REOPENING AND THE SUBSEQUENT ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT HAVI NG ANY CORROBORATIVE E VIDENCE . AS ALREADY DISCUSSED, THE SELLER OF THE LATTER CONFIRMED HAVING RECEIVED THE UNACCOUNTED CON S EDERATION . THE DETAILS OF SUCH P AYMENT ARE RECORDED IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE EMPLOYEE THE SMR GROUP, WHOSE MANAGING DIRECTOR IS ASSESSEE'S HUSBAND . IF A DOCUMEN T SHOWING THE CASH PAYMENT, DULY SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE, HAD BEEN SEIZED, THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE CLINCHING EVIDENCE. BUT SUCH SIGNED DOCUMENTS RELATING TO UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYME NT S ARE RARELY FOU ND . IN SUC H A S ITUATION ONE HAS TO GO BY OVER REACHING CIRCUMS TANCES AND PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY. CONSIDERING THAT THE INFORMATION EMERGED FR O M SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT AND MAJORITY OF THE BUYERS AND ALL THE SELLERS CONFIRMED THE INCIDENCE OF UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT, IT STANDS TO REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOUL D ALSO HAVE MADE SUCH PAYMENT. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW AN EXISTENCE OF A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP DUE TO WHICH THE UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT COULD HAVE BEEN WAIVED IN HIS CASE. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE PROPERTY BOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE FORMED P ART OF LAND GIVEN ON DEVELOPMENT TO M/S PRITHVIRAJ PROJECTS PVT. LTD., A GROUP OF CONCERN OF SMR BUILDERS. THE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE IS STRICT FOR PENALTY AND PROSECUTION, BUT, FOR ASSESSMENT, THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE THAT UNACCOUNTE D PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A DDITION IS CONFIRMED ON MERITS ALSO. 4 ITA NO S . 827 & 828 /HYD/1 7 SARITHA SAI REDDY & PRUTHBVIRAJ REDDY . 4.10 THERE IS MERIT IN ASSESSEE S SUBMISSION THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY SUBJECTED THE ADDITION TO CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE HAS BOUGHT THE PROPERTY FROM THE SELLERS AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,14,350/ - IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE SAME BEING ADDED AS CAPITAL GAINS. THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME BY TAKING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20,14,350/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND TAX IT ACCORDINGLY. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE WITH APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - VI, HYDERABAD (C.I.T(APPEALS ) IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2007 - '08, THE APPELLANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD. 2. T HE APPELLANT CASE WAS REO PENED UNDER SECTION 147 CONSEQUENT ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM D D LT INVESTIGATION REGARDING DISCOVERY OF SOME UNCORROBORATED MATERIAL/EVIDENCE IN COURSE OF SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SRI JAYA REDDY. 3. IN COURSE OF FILING THE APP EAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL THE APPELLANT INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO RAISE CERTAIN LEGAL GROUNDS WHICH GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. THE GROUNDS NOW RAISED ARE ESSENTIAL FOR ADJUDICATION OF THIS APPEAL. 4. ON A REVIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON THE B ASIS OF INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ON THE SUBJECT, THE APPELLANT SEEKS TO RAISE THE UNDER MENTIONED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICATING UPON THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS NOW SOUGHT TO BE RAISED ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITS THAT THE HON'BLE APPELLANT TRIBUNAL I S EMPOWERED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC LTD. (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). 6 THE APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY KINDLY ADMIT THE UNDER MENTIONED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND TAKE THE SAME INTO ACCOUNT WHILE ADJUDICATING UPON THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEAL. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL (RAISED IN ITA NO. 827/H/17) 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/ S.147 INSTEAD OF U/ S.153C AS THE INFORMATION REGARDING ALLEGED PAYMENT OF ON MONEY EMANATED OUT OF DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF SRI JAYA REDDY WHOSE PREMISES WAS COVERED U/S .13 2 OF IT ACT. 5 ITA NO S . 827 & 828 /HYD/1 7 SARITHA SAI REDDY & PRUTHBVIRAJ REDDY . 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ARRIVING AT AN INFERENCE THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.292BB IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE AND NON - SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE AUTHORISED PERSON CAN BE CURED BY APPLICATION OF SEC.292BB OF IT ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD H AVE APPRECIATED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.292BB CANNOT CURE A JURISDICTION ERROR, AS THE SAID SECTION COVERS ONLY SERVICE OF NOTICE BUT NOT ISSUE OF NOTICE WHICH IS A JURISDICTIONAL ONE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT CORROBORATION O F ON MONEY TRANSACTION IS A REQUIREMENT BEFORE TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME ON THE BASIS OF SETTLED JUDICIAL PRECEDENT INCLUDING THAT OF APEX COURT. 4. THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS IS BAD IN LAW AS THE SAME DOESN'T CONFIRM TO THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCE DURE LAID DOWN BY CBDT BY ITS LETTER DT.L0.12.2018 IN AS MUCH AS THE AO MECHANICALLY FOLLOWED THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND. 8. A FTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH COUNSELS, ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ADMI TTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 9. BEFORE US, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE WAS SERVED ON A.V. RAMANA , MANAGER OF THE COMPANY , WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY ASSESSEE. HE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE FURTHER NOTICE ISSUED BY A.O U/S 143(2) AND ASSESSEES SUBMISSION , BUT , HE SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT SERVING THE NOTICE U/S 148 BEFORE A.O. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE WITH THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS NOT THE AGENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS BAD IN LAW. FURTHER , HE SUBMI TTED THAT THE REOPENING WAS MADE DUE TO THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI L. JAYA REDDY AND ACCEPTED TO HAVE SOLD THE LAND @ 21500/ SQM WHERE AS ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY PAID RS. 4135/ - . HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE DURING SEARCH RELATING TO ASSESSEE NO R THERE IS ANY RE F ERENCE IN THE STATEMENT A BOUT THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE , RE - OPENING IS NOT PROPER. HE SUBMITTED THAT SEC. 292BB IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED OBJECTION BEFORE THE A O EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCE EDINGS. 10 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE WAS SERVED PROPERLY AND WITH PROPER REASONS FOR REOPENING. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT 6 ITA NO S . 827 & 828 /HYD/1 7 SARITHA SAI REDDY & PRUTHBVIRAJ REDDY . VS. SUDEEV INDUSTRIES LTD., 94 TAXAMAN. COM 373(DELHI) AND REFERRED PARA 24 OF THE ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE RAJESH KUMAR RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS D EALT WITH THE RE OPENING ISSUE IN PARA 4.2 OF THE ORDER. ON MERIT, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SWORN STATEMENT OF SHRI L. JAYA REDDY CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD @ 21500 /S Q M. AND THERE IS CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS A REFERE NCE OF SALE OF LAND TO OTHER PURCHASERS AL SO AND NO MENTION OF SPECIFIC NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OVERALL PICTURE CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD FOR RS. 21500 SQM . AND ASSESSEE HAS PAID ADDITIONAL PAYMENT. 10.1 IN THE REJOINDER, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS REFERENCE TO THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE PURCHASER , T HEREFORE , HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE P RESSES THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.1. HENCE, THE A.O SHOULD HAVE ISSUED NOTICE U/S 153 NOT U/S 148. THEREFORE , THE WHOLE ASS ESSMENT I S VOID AB - IN I TIO. 11. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. BEFORE US, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL OBJECTING TO THE FOLLOWING : . (A) NON SERVING OF NOTICE DIRECTLY TO ASSESSEE (NOT WITH THE EMPLOYE E ). (B) INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY DDIT INVESTIGATION A S EVIDENCE TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. (C) REOPENING U/S 148 IS BAD AND A.O SHOULD HAVE INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C. (D) NON APPLIC ATION OF SEC. 292BB IN ASSESSEES CASE. (E) CORROBORATION OF ON MONEY TRANSACTION IS A REQUIREMENT BEFORE IT IS TREATED AS INCOME. 11.1 WITH REGARD TO (A), WE NOTICE THAT THE NOTICE WAS HANDED OVER TO THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS REGULARLY REPRESE NTING FOR THE COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ASSESSEE. WHEN THE EMPLOYER REPRESENTS HABITUALLY FOR THE ASSESSEE, AND NOT NECESSITY THAT HE SHOULD BE A N AUTHORIZED AGENT IN WRITING. HE CAN BE TREATED AS DEEMED AGENT. THEREFORE , SERVING NOTICE UNDER BONA - FIDE BEL IEF THAT IT IS SERVED WITH THE PERSON WHO IS HABITUALLY 7 ITA NO S . 827 & 828 /HYD/1 7 SARITHA SAI REDDY & PRUTHBVIRAJ REDDY . REPRESENT ASSESSEE IS SERVING NOTICE PROPERLY. ACCORDINGLY GROUND ON THIS A SPECT IS REJECTED. 11.2 WITH REGARD TO (B), RELEVANT GROUND 2 AND ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.4, THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY DDIT I NVESTIGAT ION IS NOT PROPER EVIDENCE TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT . THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY DDIT INVESTIGAT ION IS INTE R N AL SOURCE AND NOT EXTERNAL SOURCE. THEREFORE, THIS INFORMATION CAN BE T ERMED AS PROPER INFORMATION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. SINCE, IT IS INTERNAL INFORMATION, A.O NEE D NOT HAVE TO SATISFY H IMSELF ONE MORE TIME TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148. THEREFORE, THE INFORMATION OF PROCEEDINGS IS PROPER. 11.3 WITH REGARD TO (C), THE IN ITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C IS NOT POSSIBLE SINCE THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH IS RELATING TO S ALE BETWEEN L. JAYA REDDY AND SMR. THE SMR BUILDERS SOLD THIS LAND TO SE VA RAL PARTIES. THE INDIVIDUAL PARTIES ARE NOT IN CONTACT WITH THE L. JAYA REDDY. IN THE STATEMENT , NO WHERE , IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ONLY CONFIRMATION THAT THIS LAND WAS SOLD @ 21500/ - SQM . THEREFORE, THERE IS NO D IRECT MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE A.O TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 11.4 WITH REGARD TO (D), NON APPLICATION OF SEC. 292BB IN ASSESSEES CASE, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTION BEFORE A.O AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT ITSELF. THEREFORE, SEC 292BB HAS NO APPLICATION TO THIS CASE. 11.5 WITH REGARD TO (E), CORROBORATION OF ON MONEY TRANS ACTION , WE NOTICE THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD THROU GH SMR BUILDERS. THE SECOND PARTY SHRI L. JAYA REDDY HAS ACCEPTED THAT THEY HAVE SOLD THE LAND FOR RS. 21500/ - SQ M AND OFFERED TO TAX. SINCE THE TRANSACTION WAS THROUGH M/S. SMR BUILDERS, WHO IS THE CONSENTING PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEES HUSBAND ARE MAN AG ING THE COMPANY I.E. M/S. SMR BUILDERS, THERE IS NO NEED FOR CORROBORATION O F O N MONEY TRANSACTION BEFORE MAKING ANY ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 12. IN THE RESULT , APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8 ITA NO S . 827 & 828 /HYD/1 7 SARITHA SAI REDDY & PRUTHBVIRAJ REDDY . 13. AS THE FACTS AND GROUNDS IN ITA NO. 828/H P YD/2017 ARE MATERIALLY TO THE ITA NO. 827/HYD/2017, FOLLOWING THE DECISION, THEREIN, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE APPEALS UNDER CO NSIDERATION ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH AUGUST , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - ( P. MADHAVI DEVI ) (S . RIFAUR RAHMAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 30 TH AUGUST , 201 9 KV C OPY TO: - 1) S. SARITHA SAI REDDY AND 2) S. PRITHVIRAJ REDDY, PLOT NO. 275, VINAY NIVAS, ROOM NO. 25, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 03 4 2) DC IT, CIRCLE 14(1), HYDERABAD 3) CIT(A) 6 HYDERABAD. 4) PR. CIT - 6 , HYD. 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD. 6 ) GUARD FILE S.NO DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BE FORE AUTHO R SR.P.S/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFO RE T HE SECOND ME MBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVE D BY SECOND MEM BER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAF T COMES TO THE S R.P.S./PS SR.P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FO R PRONOUNCEME NT ON SR. P.S./P.S . 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GO ES TO TH E HEAD CLE RK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORD ER