9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r law to make addition in every case where the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be not satisfactory. This ratio was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of [CIT vs. P.K.Noorjahan - 1997 (1) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court] which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not justified in holding that the sum of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- is not attributable to sale of property and making addition of the same. Thus, we accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 3,00,00,000/-. As held in the para supra that the money of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- was receive as a part of sale consideration of the house property sold, the same is, therefore, eligible for consequential relief u/s.54 of the Act to the extent of the actual investment made in the new house. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1/HYD/2013 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2015 - Shri Saktijit Dey and Shri Inturi Rama Rao, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Mohd. Afzal, AR For the Respondent : Shri Rama Kishna, Bandi, DR ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M. : This is an appeal by assessee against the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he consideration stated in the conveyance deed and, therefore, he was of the opinion that the said sum of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- was not eligible for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. This made him to believe that income got escaped from the assessment and issued the notice u/s.148 of the Act. It is noticed from the records that the appellant at no stage of proceedings contested the legality of issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 3. Subsequently, after issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad, had completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 13.12.2011 at a total income of ₹ 3,04,99,640/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- under the head Income from Other Sources by holding that this amount does not represent the sale consideration of the property sold and consequently, the exemption u/s. 54F of the Act was also denied. The brief facts highlighting the transaction are as follows:- 4. The appellant owned a house property situated at Plot No.471, Dr.No.8-2-293/82/A/471, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad admeasuring 1378 Sq. yards allotted by the Jubi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x (Appeals)-IV, Hyderabad. The appellant contended before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- on the following grounds:- (i) The Appellant had admitted before ADIT (Investigation) Unit-II, Hyderabad on 27.07.2008 i.e., immediately after transaction of the sale that sale consideration of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- over and above what is stated in the conveyance deed was received in cash. (ii) Advance tax was paid even on this amount on 29.07.2008 and, therefore, it was prayed before the CIT (Appeals) that the amount of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- should be treated as part of sale consideration relatable to the sale of property in question. However, learned CIT(Appeals) had disagreed with the above submission and confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition and dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 29.06.2012. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant had come up with the present appeal before us with a delay of 110-days in filing the appeal. The appellant filed petition for condonation of the delay stating that the delay was on account of death of the appellant, leaving be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further relied on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Intezar Ali in Income Tax Appeal No.162 of 2013, dated 26.07.2013 and Kerala High Court in the case of K.S.Kannan Kunhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in Income-tax 72 ITR 757 in support of proposition that when the preponderance of probability is more in favour of the explanation of the assessee, no addition should be made rejecting the explanation of the assessee. 9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. He further argued that when the appellant had failed to furnish name and address of the buyer of the property, the explanation tendered by the appellant cannot be believed. 10. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The crux of the matter is whether the amount of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- is relatable to the sale of the property as claimed by the appellant or not. This issue needs to be adjudicated in the backdrop of the facts of the case. In this case, the appellant had maintained before the ADIT (Investigation), Hyderabad immediately after the sale of property that she received ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me positive evidence and, therefore, it can safely be said that the explanation furnished by the appellant cannot be doubted. Moreover, this kind of addition can be made by the Assessing Officer by using his discretionary power under the provisions of Sec. 69 of the Act and the Assessing Officer is not obliged under law to make addition in every case where the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be not satisfactory. This ratio was laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.K.Noorjahan - 237 ITR 570 which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not justified in holding that the sum of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- is not attributable to sale of property and making addition of the same. Thus, we accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 3,00,00,000/-. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed. 12. Next ground of appeal relates to exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. Since we held in the para supra that the money of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- was receive as a part of sale consideration of the house property sold, the same is, therefore, eligible for consequential relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
