9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Further, we find force in the argument of the Ld. AR that the Ld. AO has not brought any material evidence to prove that it is not the business income of the assessee. Even before us, the Revenue has not produced any records supporting the claim of the Ld. AO. Further, we find that the Ld. AO has also failed to examine how the assessee generated the cash deposit outside the books of account. No documentary evidence was also gathered by the Revenue with respect to the excess stock as contended by the Ld. AO. Further, from the sworn statement of Sri Grandhi Ramjee, in response to Q. No. 15, he had admitted that an amount was generated by the assessee firm outside the books of account during the FY 2016-17. Further, in response to Q. No. 16, he has also admitted that the assessee-firm has offered Rs. 1 Cr under IDS scheme in the name of the assessee-firm and partners and has requested to give the telescoping benefit to pay the tax on the balance amount of Rs. 3,65,27,000/- We are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the assessee had explained nature and source of payment of Rs. 4.65 Crs - income of Rs. 4.65 Crs for the AY 2017-18 represents partl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Visakhapatnam. During the search operation, it was unearthed that the assessee firm has purchased Acres 2.515 cents of land in Anandapuram during the period January, 2017 March, 2017 for a total consideration of Rs. 5,45,88,000/- as per SRO value. During the course of survey, the Managing Partner of the firm Shri Grandhi Ramjee was asked to explain the cash payment made over and above the SRO value for acquiring the said land. In his sworn in statement, the Managing Partner admitted that the assessee-firm has paid Rs. 4,65,27,000/- in cash over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed which the Ld. AO noted that the assessee-firm had paid to Shri Dwarampudi Satyanarayana Reddy Rs. 4,65,27,000/- over and above the SRO value and the same was not recorded in the books of account of any of his business concerns including M/s. Sree Tirumala Steel Enterprises. It was also observed by the Ld. AO that the cash payments were made during October, 2016 and February, 2017 relevant to the FY 2016-17. Therefore, the Ld. AO opined that the said cash of Rs. 4,65,27,000/- is an unaccounted / undisclosed income or cash during the FY 2016-17. The Ld. AO however notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e unaccounted receipts from the demonetization period were to be treated as unexplained as it had been preceded by IDS and then succeeded by PMGKY schemes. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing the taxation of the aforesaid unexplained amount of Rs. 4,65,27,000/- at normal tax rate instead of the tax rate applicable U/s. 115BBE of the Act, since the same is not warranted on facts of the case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act are applicable for AY 2017-18 itself as intended in the statement of the object and reasons of the bill Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016 and therefore not invoking the said provisions is not justified. 5. The appellant craves leave to add or delete or amend or substitute any ground of appeal before and or at the time of hearing of appeal. 4. Before us, at the outset, with respect to disputed amount of Rs. 4,65,27,000/-, the Ld. DR drew our attention to the finding of the Ld. AO and stated that the assessee has clearly accepted in the sworn statement recorded U/s. 131(1A) of the Act on 11/10/2017 that the cash payments to the extent of Rs. 4,65,27,000/- we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Enterprises generated out of the books of account. The Ld. AR vehemently argued that the source is therefore explained. The Ld. AR further argued that no material evidence was brought on record by the Ld. AO to prove that it is not a business income. Since the source is explained, the Ld. AO has erred in making the addition U/s. 68 of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that since the provisions of section 68 and 69 cannot be invoked, invoking the provisions of section 115BBE is not valid in law. The Ld. AR also submitted that the Revenue has not raised any ground regarding telescoping benefit while filing the appeal. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. The undisputed facts are that the there was a survey U/s. 133A of the Act on 11/10/2017 in consequence of search U/s. 132 in the case of DRK Reddy Educational Society. The assessee had purchased Ac. 2.515 Cents for a consideration of 5.45 Crs and the cash component of Rs. 4.65 Crs was paid over and above the SRO value. This fact was also agreed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that an amount of Rs. 4,65,27,000/- was generated by the assessee firm outside the books of account during the FY 2016-17. Further, in response to Q. No. 16, he has also admitted that the assessee-firm has offered Rs. 1 Cr under IDS scheme in the name of the assessee-firm and partners and has requested to give the telescoping benefit to pay the tax on the balance amount of Rs. 3,65,27,000/-. For the sake of reference, we hereby extract below the Q. No. 15 and 16 and their answers from the sworn statement of Sri Grandhi Ramjee: Q. 15. Please give the source of cash of Rs. 4,65,27,000/- paid to Sri Dwarampudi Satyanarayana Reddy for purchase of Anandapuram Land? A. The aforesaid cash of Rs. 4,65,27,000/- paid to Sri Dwarampudi Satyanarayana Reddy for purchase of Anandapuram land is out of business profit of M/s. Sree Tirumala Steel Enterprises generated outside the books of account during the Financial Year 2016-17. Q. 16 . Since the aforesaid cash of Rs. 4,65,27,000/- is paid in cash from profits generated outside the books of account please state why it should not be considered as undisclosed income of your firm M/s. Sree Tirumala Steel Enterprises? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
