9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the expenditure as he is earning income from his profession as insurance commission agent for quite a period of time. Further, the assessee's family has also resources for earning agricultural income. Hence, addition made by the Ld. AO which is further sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) on this regard is not warranted. Accordingly, hereby set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition made in the hands of the assessee invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is also allowed in his favour. - ITA Nos.1065/H/2018, ITA Nos.1066/H/2018 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2020 - Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sri K. V. Chalamaiah For the Revenue : Sri Rajat Mitra, DR ORDER Both these appeals are filed by the assessees against the orders of the Ld. CIT (A)-10, Hyderabad in appeal Nos. 0318 0319/CIT(A)-10/2015-16 both dated 20/03/2018 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2007-08. Since substantial facts in both the appeals are identical, pertaining to related parties and with respect to the same issue, they are tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the Ld. AO by agreeing with his views, aggrieved by which both the assessees are now in appeal before us. 4. Ground No.1: Addition towards Unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act in the case of both the assesses:- 5. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed in both the cases of the assessees that they had deposited cash in their individual bank accounts maintained with ING Vysya Bank aggregating to ₹ 13,79,000/- and ₹ 13,83,100/- respectively during the relevant FY. It was further observed that both the assessees have deposited cheques in their bank accounts ₹ 1,22,817/- and ₹ 85,000/- respectively. It was also revealed that both the assessees had not disclosed the aforestated bank deposits in the return of income. Since both the assessees could not explain the source for the bank deposits, the Ld. AO computed peak deposits in the bank account at ₹ 13,94,817/- in the case of Sri Sunil Kumar Bommineni and ₹ 11,11,100/- in the case of Sri Papi Reddy Bommineni and added the same to their income as unexplained income U/s. 69 of the Act. When the matter cropped up before the Ld. CIT (A) Sri Papi R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts. 11.1. In the course of the appeal proceedings, the appellant came forward with an explanation based on sale of agricultural lands. Basically, the appellant states that there was a sale agreement dated 15/3/2006, in respect of sale of agricultural lands, for a consideration of ₹ 27,00,000/-. This transaction got concluded with the sale deed registered on 7/12/2006, for a consideration of ₹ 6 lakhs. No explanation has been offered by the appellant in respect of the action of registering the property at a sale towards sale consideration. While the sale deed is registered with government authority, the sale agreement remains in private domain. Whatever are the reasons in respect of the adoption of two different standards, for two different purposes, with two different values, they are best known to the appellant. Also, in the absence of proof of a cash receipt, in accordance with the sale agreement, and lack of witness, the sale agreement does not have any value. Basically, there is no authenticity about the sale agreement. 11.2. Another aspect is about the sum of ₹ 6 lakhs which is mentioned in the registered sale deed. The fact of existence of bank ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons it is quite common for the buyers to disclose the value of the property at a lesser rate in order to avoid registration charges especially in rural areas. When all the details with respect to the transactions are available before the Revenue they ought to have examined all the relevant parties before arriving at any conclusion, however, the Ld. Revenue Authorities have even failed to examine the buyers of the properties in order to explore the veracity of the claim of the assessees. Further it is apparent that Sri Sunil Kumar Bommineni has meagre sources of income from his profession as insurance commission agent. Sri Papireddy Bommineni is also earning only a small amount of pension income. Moreover there are no findings by the Ld. Revenue Authorities that both the assessees are engaged in any other activity earning income other than agricultural income. In this situation, it is a great injustice inflicted on both the assessees by the Ld. Revenue Authorities for making additions without properly examining the veracity of the claim of the assessees when sufficient documents and explanation were furnished before them. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
