9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the appellant has also placed necessary evidence to prove that he has carried out agricultural operations and also declared agricultural income in the return of income filed in the earlier A.Ys. Be that as it may be, merely because the agricultural operation was not carried out in land which is otherwise an agricultural land as per revenue record and is also situated beyond the specified limit cannot be treated as capital asset, as long as the said land is capable of carrying out agricultural operations. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the land sold by the assessee to M/s Incredible India Projects (P) Ltd is an agricultural land and thus, cannot be treated as capital asset in terms of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. CIT (A)-12, Hyderabad, while deciding the issue of taxability of sale of land in the case of Shri Raja Babu Nimmattoori for the A.Y 2018-19 has considered the very same land sold by the assessee and after considering the relevant facts including the certificate issued by the Tehsildar and certificate from the Commissioner of Bhongir Municipality held that the impugned land sold by the assessee is an agricultural land and cannot be treated as capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evelopers u/s 56(2)(ix). Taxability of capital gain in pursuant to JDA entered - From a plain reading of section 45(5A) of the act, it is undoubtedly clear that the capital gain, if any, is chargeable to tax in terms of specified agreement shall be levied for the previous year in which certificate of completion is issued by the competent authority. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Developer has not completed the project in all respects and has not obtained a completion certificate from the competent authority. In fact, it was not a case of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) that the assessee has obtained completion certificate and even after obtaining completion certificate, capital gain was not offered to tax. Unless AO and CIT (A) proves that the conditions prescribed for u/s 45(5A) of the Act is satisfied, the question of computation of capital gain for the impugned A.Y does not arise. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the AO completely erred in making addition towards capital gain in pursuant to the JDA on 30.06.2017, contrary to the provisions of section 45(5A) - CIT (A) without appreciating the relevant facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined to reverse the findings of the learned CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the differential consideration of Rs. 13.00 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. Addition towards the cash found and seized during the course of search - HELD THAT:- Since there are contradictory explanation, one at the stage of search proceedings and another at the stage of assessment proceedings, it is difficult to accept the explanation of the assessee with regard to the source of cash found during the course of search - it is also difficult to reject the explanation of the assessee in light of income declared by the assessee for the last 3 A.Ys. Since the appellant is not required to maintain regular cash book for his income and further as per the revised balance sheet as on 31.3.2017, sufficient cash balance is available to explain cash found during the course of search, in our considered view, a reasonable amount of cash found during the course of search can be attributable to cash in hand available with the assessee before the date of search. Therefore, we direct the AO to accept the explanation of the assessee with regard to the source for cash found during the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (A) without appreciating the relevant facts simply sustained the addition made by the AO. Since the appellant has explained increase in capital account with known sources of income and such explanation is supported by necessary evidence, in our considered view, the addition made by the AO towards increase in capital account is not sustainable. Unexplained investment in land at Edupally Village, R.R. District - No source for consideration paid over and above what was stated in the registered sale deed provided - HELD THAT:- Although the appellant claims to have explained the source out of opening cash and bank balance available as on 31.3.2017, but the revised statement of affairs filed by the assessee does not include additional consideration paid as per cash receipt. In so far as the argument of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has not confronted with the seized document and also not provided for cross examination of the vendors, in our considered view when the document found during the course of search clearly shows the signature of the vendors and further the contents also matched with the registered sale deed, then the question of providing cross examination of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned to uphold the findings of ld. CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the Revenue. Addition made towards income from family pension - HELD THAT:- The assessee has filed relevant bank statement of the assessee from 1/4/2016 to 31/03/2018 which and as per the said bank statement, the appellant has only received family pension of Rs. 1,20,000/- and the same has been disclosed in her return of income filed for the impugned A.Y. Therefore, we are of the considered view that when the appellant has received only Rs. 1,20,000/- income of family pension, it is incorrect on the part of the AO and the learned CIT (A) to assume that the assessee has received Rs. 6,60,000/- income from family pension without there being any evidences to prove this finding, more particularly when the assessee claims that for earlier A.Ys she has received arrears from family pension. Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards income from family pension. - Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member And Shri K. Narasimha Chari, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA For the Revenue : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in appeals filed by the Revenue. Therefore, we deem it not necessary to reproduce the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue in both the appeals. ITA No. 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu Nimmatoori 5. The brief facts extracted from ITA No. 591/Hyd/2022 for the A.Y 2017-18, in the case of Shri Ramesh Babu Nimmatoori are that the assessee is an individual and is one of the Trustees of M/s. Aurora Educational Society and group trusts. The assessee has originally filed his return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 29.12.2017 admitting total income of Rs. 28,08,800/-. A search seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of M/s. Aurora Educational Society and other groups in which the assessee was also covered. Consequent to search operation u/s 132 on 23.3.2018, notice u/s 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 24.12.2018 was issued and served on the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee filed return of income on 2.4.2019 admitting total income at Rs. 28,08,800/-. The assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 21.12.2019 and determined the total income at Rs. 4,16,12,360/-, by inter-alia making various additions including the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer, although the land, in question, was situated beyond 2 kms from Bhongir Municipality but it is situated within the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority notified by the Govt. of A.P vide GO No.570 dated 25.08.2018 and hence, as per the provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a), the land is a capital asset and the profit derived from sale of land is assessable for capital gain. Therefore, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- as income from capital gain towards sale of land. 8. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee reiterated his arguments made before the Assessing Officer and claimed that the impugned land sold by the appellant to M/s. Incredible India Projects (P) Ltd is an agricultural land and is situated beyond 2 kms from local Municipality. The assessee had also filed necessary evidence, including a certificate from local authority to prove that the land, in question, was beyond the specified limit and further the population of Bhongir Village as per 2011 Census is 53,339. 9. The learned CIT (A) after consideri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the orders of the learned CIT (A) submitted that the land sold by the assessee is a capital asset which is evident from the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer. Further, the land is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of HMDA vide Govt. Notification dated 25.08.2008. The assessee never used the land for agricultural purposes. The land is situated in a place where lots of developmental activities have taken place. Therefore, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A), after considering the relevant facts has rightly treated the land sold by the assessee as a capital asset and therefore, their orders should be upheld. 13. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the relevant evidence filed by the assessee in light of certain judicial precedents considered by the learned CIT (A) including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (1993) 204 ITR 631. Agricultural land in India has been defined u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per section 2(14) of the Act, agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agricultural income in the return of income filed in the earlier A.Ys. Be that as it may be, merely because the agricultural operation was not carried out in land which is otherwise an agricultural land as per revenue record and is also situated beyond the specified limit cannot be treated as capital asset, as long as the said land is capable of carrying out agricultural operations. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the land sold by the assessee to M/s Incredible India Projects (P) Ltd in Sy. No.758, 765, 766, 777, 795 and 796 is an agricultural land and thus, cannot be treated as capital asset in terms of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 15. We further have noted that the learned CIT (A)-12, Hyderabad, while deciding the issue of taxability of sale of land in the case of Shri Raja Babu Nimmattoori for the A.Y 2018-19 has considered the very same land sold by the assessee and after considering the relevant facts including the certificate issued by the Tehsildar and certificate from the Commissioner of Bhongir Municipality held that the impugned land sold by the assessee is an agricultural land and cannot be treated as capital asset. The relevant findings of the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the local limitation of Bhongir Municipality and thus cannot be treated as capital asset. The Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) without appreciating the relevant facts simply made additions towards capital gain from sale of land. Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards unaccounted sale proceeds received from Incredible India Projects (P) Ltd amounting to Rs. 1,35,00,000/- from sale of agricultural land. 18. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.2(a) and 2(b) of the assessee s appeal is addition towards increase in capital account of Rs. 1,37,61,200/-. During the course of assessement proceedings, it is seen from the return of income filed by the assessee that there is increase in his capital account to Rs. 3,20,93,664/- when compared to closing capital account balance for the immediately preceding financial year at Rs. 1,83,32,464/-. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source for the increase in capital account of Rs. 1,37,61,200/-. The assessee in his reply dated 10.12.2019 stated that he had sold 4 acres of land to M/s. Incre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able. Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards increase in capital account of Rs. 1,37,61,200/-. 23. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.4(a) and 4(b) of assessee s appeal is addition towards undisclosed income arises towards amount received from Aishwarya Infra Developers amountingtoRs.79,35,760/-. The fact with regard to the impugned dispute are that during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the case of Aishwarya Infra Developers, a signed agreement between M/s Aurora Educational Society and the appellant Mr. N. Ramesh Babu and 3 other family Members namely Shri Raja Babu, Mrs. Yashoda and Mrs. Sulochana was found. As per the document, the appellant and others entered into a sale agreement with Aishwaria Infra Developers for sale of land admeasuring 29 acres and 15 guntas in Survey No.711, 720 and 721 of Bhongir Revenue Village for a consideration of Rs. 8,81,25,000/- at the rate of Rs. 30 lakhs per acre. As per the agreement of sale, Rs. 2.00 crore advance in cash has been paid and also agreed to pay Rs. 1.00 crore on or before 30.09.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be considered as agricultural land. The Assessing Officer further noted that the appellant and other sellers have received Rs,.5.18 crores M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers pursuant to the sale agreement. Since the transfer of property has not taken place because of failed negotiations, the amount received by the appellant from developers become income of the assessee in terms of section 56(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and thus made addition of Rs. 79,35,760 in the hands of the assessee u/s 56(2)(ix) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 25. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee has reiterated its arguments made before the Assessing Officer and submitted that the impugned land, in question, is an agricultural land and is situated beyond 2 kms from the local Municipality. Further, the appellant has entered into an agreement with Developers and received advance amount of Rs. 5.18 crores. M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers could not complete the sale transactions and because of this a tripartite agreement was entered into with M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers and appellant and other sellers with M/s. JVG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further, the appellant has forfeited advance paid by M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers. Therefore, if a person receives any amount in pursuant of an agreement of sale and subsequently on cancellation of said agreement, the advance received is forfeited, then said forfeiture of advance is taxable as income u/s 56(2)(ix) of the Act. The CIT (A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly upheld the addition made by the AO and their order should be upheld. 29. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee and other co-owners have entered into an agreement of sale with M/s. Aishwaria Infra Developers for the sale of agricultural land at Bhongir Village to the extent of 29.15 acres on 14.09.2016. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has received an advance amount of Rs. 5.18 crores from M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers. This fact is confirmed by the Managing Partner of M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers. It is also an admitted fact that Aishwarya Infra Developers was not able to pay the balance amount of consideration. Therefore, a tripar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24.03.2018 where he has clearly admitted that he himself has cancelled the sale agreement and has entered into development agreement with M/s. JVG Structures (P) Ltd along with land owners. In the said development agreement cum GPA M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers is also one of the parties. Therefore, from the above, it is undisputedly clear that the amount received by the appellant from M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers in terms of agreement of sale is finally treated as advance received by the appellant in pursuant to development agreement cum GPA dated 30.06.2017. Since it is compromising agreement between the appellant M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers and M/s. JVG Structures (P) Ltd, in our considered view, the said arrangements cannot be brought within the ambit of section 56(2)(ix) of the I.T. Act, 1961, because the advance received from Aishwarya Infra Developers is not forfeited and further the negotiations between the parties was not failed. As we have already noted in previous part of this paragraph, M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers is also one of the parties to the development agreement cum GPA and thus, the advance paid by M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers has been treated as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018, the case has been taken up for scrutiny assessment. The assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 28.12.2019 and determined the total income at Rs. 9,03,96,302/- by making various additions including the addition made towards unaccounted sale proceeds received from JVG Structures (P) Ltd for sale of land. The addition towards the undisclosed Long-term capital gain from JDA, addition towards difference between sale consideration as per sale deed and guideline value of the property, unexplained investment in land and addition on cash seized during search. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority and the learned CIT (A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 30.09.2022 partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee where the learned CIT (A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unaccounted sale proceeds received from sale of land, undisclosed LTCG, addition u/s 56(2)(ix) and the addition towards cash found during search. 35. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground 5(a) to 5(d) of assessee s appeal is additions towards unaccounted sale proceeds received fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther it is situated within 2 kms from the limits of Bhongir Municipality. Further, no agricultural activity has been carried out in the said land either at the time of its transfer or prior to its transfer. Moreover, the assessee and other co-owners have applied for a layout permission to develop the land into plots before its transfer and thus from the intention of the assessee, it is very clear that the assessee want to commercially exploit the land as an organized business activity and thus the consideration received for transfer of land is assessable to tax under the head income from capital gain . Thus, worked out capital gain and made addition of Rs. 3,12,58,220/- in the hands of the assessee. 36. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority and reiterated its arguments taken before the Assessing Officer. The assessee further contended that as per provisions of section 45(5A) of the act, capital gain, if any, chargeable from transfer of capital asset being land or building or both under a specified agreement, shall be chargeable to incometax in the previous year in which the certificate of completion on the own or part of the project is issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.Y does not arise. 39. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer clearly indicate the intention of the assessee to commercially exploit the land by entering into JDA on 30.06.2017. The appellant had also obtained plan sanction from the competent authority on 13.04.2017. Since the land in question are converted into residential plots, capital gain will arise from the transfer of said non-agricultural land and thus, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) have rightly computed the capital gain, and their order should be upheld. 40. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the relevant reasons given by the Assessing Officer to make additions and relevant findings of the learned CIT (A) to enhance the assessment in terms of section 251(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and in respect of the alleged consideration received towards transfer of land in pursuant to JDA-cum-GPA on 30.06.2017. Admittedly, the appellant had entered JDA on 30.06.2017 with M/s. JVG Structures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and has not obtained a completion certificate from the competent authority. In fact, it was not a case of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) that the assessee has obtained completion certificate and even after obtaining completion certificate, capital gain was not offered to tax. Unless the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) proves that the conditions prescribed for u/s 45(5A) of the Act is satisfied, the question of computation of capital gain for the impugned A.Y does not arise. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer completely erred in making addition towards capital gain in pursuant to the JDA on 30.06.2017, contrary to the provisions of section 45(5A) of the Act. The learned CIT (A) without appreciating the relevant facts simply sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer and further enhanced the assessment on the very same issue. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards computation of capital gain in terms of development agreement with JVG Structures (P) Ltd. 42. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.6(a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto on 23.7.2017 and cash consideration of Rs. 1.00 crore has been paid from 2007 to 2015. The registration of the property was postponed due to certain litigations and in this regard, a resolution regarding the transaction to be registered in the name of M/s. Aurora Educational Society was passed on 6.8.2017 and a memorandum of understanding was also entered into between the society and members on 19.08.2017. Since the agreement was entered into in the year 2007 and part of the consideration was also paid, the market value of the property as on the date of agreement to be considered. Further, when a registered sale deed clearly shows consideration paid through cheque, then the addition cannot be made towards the different in stamp duty value and consideration as per sale deed u/s 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned CIT (A) without appreciating the relevant facts simply sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer, therefore, requested to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 47. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that there is a difference between st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... greement cannot be applied. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error in the reasons given by the learned CIT (A) to sustain the addition made by the Assessing Officer for an amount of Rs. 24,07,600/-, being the difference between the stamp duty value and consideration paid for purchase of property u/s 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the learned CIT (A) and reject the ground taken by the assessee. 49. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.8 of assessee s appeal is addition towards unexplained investment for purchase of land at Road No.40, Jubilee Hills, u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee along with Shri N Raja Babu, Smt. N. Yashoda, Smt. Sulochana, Smt Manjusha and N Anudeep have purchased a land and building at Road No.40, Jubilee Bills vide document No.4404/2017 dated 19.07.2017. The total consideration was agreed at Rs. 5,68,00,000 and a sum of Rs. 78.00 lakhs was already paid as on the date of the agreement. The assessee was not able to explain the source for purchase of property, therefore, the Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs. 94,66,666/- in the hands of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed a relevant ledger extract to prove that the money has been paid from his account. We find that although the Assessing Officer has made addition towards the difference amount, there is no reference as to how the said payment was made in terms of the agreement of sale dated 5.5.2017 i.e whether it is by cheque or by cash. In absence of any finding as to cash payment, then it is difficult to accept the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to make additions in the hands of the assessee, more so when the other party claims that the entire consideration has been paid from his account and the source has been explained. The learned CIT (A) without appreciating the relevant facts simply sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, we are inclined to reverse the findings of the learned CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the differential consideration of Rs. 13.00 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. 54. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.9(a) to 9(c) of assessee s appeal is the addition towards the cash found and seized during the course of search. During the course of search proceedings in the residential premise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Assessing Officer and in light of statement recorded from the assessee during the course of search, the CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer and their order should be upheld. 58. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appellant has disclosed more than Rs. 80.00 lakhs income for the last 3 A.Ys including for the impugned A.Y. The appellant had also filed the revised cash flow statement as on 31.3.2017 and as per the said cash flow statement, cash balance was at Rs. 46,25,710/-. If we go by the balance sheet and cash flow statement filed by the assessee, it appears that there is sufficient cash in hand as on 31.3.2017 to explain the cash found during the course of search on 23.3.2018. Further, the appellant has also returned Rs. 41,79,800/- as income for the A.Y 2018-19. Therefore, from the income returned by the assessee for the last 3 A.Ys, it seems that the explanation of the assessee with regard to the source of cash found during the course of search appears to be reasonable and bona-fide. But the fact remains th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 relevant to A.Y 2018-19. The assessee has deposited the amount received from the Aurora Educational Society to repay the loan borrowed from the Bank. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee could not file any evidence to justify the explanation given for source of income to explain cash deposits into bank account, therefore, made addition u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 61. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee reiterated his arguments taken before the Assessing Officer and explained that the source for cash deposit into UCO Bank account is out of repayment of loan received from Aurora Educational Society. The assessee further contended that alternatively the appellant is having sufficient declared income which is more than cash deposit into Bank account therefore, submitted that the question of making addition towards cash deposits does not arise. The CIT (A) after considering the submission of the assessee and also taken note of the fact that the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant to the Society on 14.2.2007. The learned CIT (A) further noticed that even otherwise the income declared by the assessee for the current financial year relevant to A.Y 2018-19 is much more than the amount of cash deposit of Rs. 2,07,000/- into UCO Bank Account and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of telescoping the income to the additions made u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The findings of the facts recorded by the learned CIT (A) are not controverted with any evidence. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the learned CIT (A) and reject the grounds taken by the Revenue. 65. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Grounds of appeal No.3 to 5 of the Revenue s appeal is addition towards unsecured loan of Rs. 2,43,50,000/-. During the course of assessement proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the appellant has shown unsecured loans of Rs. 2,43,50,000/-, however, has not provided any details of the loans. A show-cause notice dated 19.11.2019 was issued to the assessee and called upon the assessee to explain why the amount of Rs. 2,43,50,000/- should not be treated as unexplained credit in the books of account and added to his retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf contrary to the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T Rules, 1962. Therefore, she submitted that this issue may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification. 68. The learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that the appellant has filed revised balance sheet and statement of affairs for the financial year 2017-18 and corrected earlier errors committed while filing the financial statements. The assessee had also explained that there is no unsecured loan as claimed in the balance sheet filed before the Assessing Officer. The learned CIT (A), after considering the relevant findings deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and their order should be upheld. 69. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The appellant has filed an original statement of affairs during the assessment proceedings and revised the statement of affairs before the learned CIT (A) for the year ending 31.3.2018. As per the revised statement of affairs filed by the assessee, there is no difference in assets shown in either of the balanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income for the A.Y 2016-17 on 14/03/2017 admitting total income of Rs. 19,83,320/-. A search seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of M/s. Aurora Educational Society and other groups in which the ass was also covered. Consequent to search operation u/s 132 on 23.3.2018, notice u/s 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 24.12.2018 was issued and served on the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee filed return of income on 2.4.2019 admitting total income at Rs. 19,83,320/-. The assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 21.12.2019 and determined the total income at Rs. 9,30,78,347/- by making various additions, including the addition made towards unaccounted sale proceeds received from Incredible India Projects (P) Ltd for sale of land. The additions towards unproved increase in capital account, addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) and additions towards unexplained cash deposits. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority and the learned CIT (A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 29.8.2022 partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee where the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. The appellant has received cash from society on various dates towards repayment of their loan borrowed from the assessee and in turn, the assessee has repaid the loan to bank by depositing cash into bank account. To support his argument, the assessee has filed certificate from the society and the ledger copies. The learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant submission of the assessee and also taken note of various facts observed that although the appellant claims to have received cash from M/s. Church Educational Society and M/s. Aurora Educational Society, but no evidence has been filed including the bank statements to prove that the appellant has transferred money to Aurora Educational Society in the financial year 2006-07 and 2009. Further, the appellant has not submitted any cash book from Society for receiving of money from Incredible India Projects (P) Ltd, therefore, the learned CIT (A) opined that it is difficult to believe that the appellant has borrowed money from Bank in the year 2009 and has transferred Rs. 4.0 crores to the Aurora Educational Society. No year-wise loan account of the society has been produced. No proof has been filed to prove that the interest, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gument of the assessee that the cash deposited into bank account is out of repayment of loan from the society. The learned CIT (A), after considering the relevant facts has rightly sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer and their order should be upheld. 78. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the relevant bank loan statement of UCO Bank, certificate issued by M/s. Aurora Educational Society and M/s. Church Educational Society. From the bank account statements of UCO Bank, we find that the appellant has borrowed term loan of Rs. 5.00 crores on 23.03.2009. Although there is no direct evidence of transfer of sum of Rs. 5.00 crores to M/s. Church Educational Society, but the other evidence filed by the assessee, including the certificate from Church Educational Society dated 23.3.2009, it is noticed that the educational society has acknowledged receipt of Rs. 5.00 crores from appellant through cheque and cash. This is further supported by the ledger account copy of the appellant in the books of Church Educational Society where the opening balance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 3,99,00,000 towards cash deposits into UCO Bank. 79. Coming back to the cash deposit of Rs. 26,15,000/- into SBI Bank Account. The appellant, except stating that the source for cash deposit is out of past withdrawal from the very same bank account, but no evidence has been filed including the relevant bank statement to substantiate its claim. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the claim of the assessee that there are past withdrawn from same bank account, in our considered view the explanation of the assessee cannot be accepted. Thus, we sustain the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposits of Rs. 26,15,000/- into SBI Bank Account. 80. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos 4(a) to 4(c) of assessee s appeal is the addition in respect of increase in capital account as per the balance sheet amounting to Rs. 3,58,63,000/-. 81. During the course of assessment proceedings, it is seen from the return of income filed by the assessee that there is increase in his capital account to Rs. 4,58,87,868/- when compared to closing capital account balance for the immediately precedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y evidence, in our considered view, the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards increase in capital account is not sustainable. Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards increase in capital account of Rs. 3,58,63,822/-. 86. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.5 of assessee s appeal is addition towards the differential amount of consideration paid for purchase of property u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. During the financial year relevant to A.Y 2016-17, the appellant has purchased a property vide document No.543/2016 dated 12.2.2016 for a consideration of Rs. 27,14,000/-. The fair market value of the property as per the registered document was Rs. 32,94,000/-. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 2,90,000/- being 50% of the share of the assessee on difference amount of Rs. 5,80,000/- (Rs.32,94,000 Rs. 27,14,000) u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 87. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 88. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in sustaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error in the order of the learned CIT (A) in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer and thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the learned CIT (A) and reject the grounds taken by the assessee. 91. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.6(a) to 6(f) of assessee appeal is the addition towards unaccounted sale proceeds received from Incredible India Projects (P) Ltd towards sale of land for Rs. 23,25,000/-.. 92. The fact with regard to the impugned dispute are that during the financial year relevant to A.Y 2017-18, the assessee has sold a land admeasuring 4 acres at Raigiri Village through the registered Sale Deed No.8709/2016 dated 3.8.2016 to M/s. Incredible India Projects (P) Ltd for a consideration of Rs. 20.00 lakhs @ Rs. 5.0 lakh per acre. However, while submitting information in the case of M/s. Ravi Rishi Educational Society, M/s. Taraka Educational Society and M/s. Karshak Vidy7a Parishad, the assessee has admitted sale proceeds at Rs. 33,75,000/- per acre for sale of 4 acres of agricultural land to M/s. Incredible In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not less than 10,000 or in any area within the distance measured aerially not being more than 2 kms from the local limitation of any Municipality or Cantonment Board and which has a population of more than 10,000 but not exceeding 1,00,000. In other words, any land situated within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or in any area within such distance as specified by the Govt. is treated as capital asset. If any land is situated outside the limits of local Municipality, then such land is treated as agricultural land. Although lot many discussions have been taken place in respect of nature of the land on the basis of carrying out of agricultural operations, the Courts/Tribunals in their decisions have taken a view that once the land is classified as an agricultural land in the revenue record, then merely for not carrying out agricultural operations, the said land cannot be treated as non-agricultural land. In other words, for not carrying agricultural operations, any land cannot be treated as nonagricultural land, if such land is classified as agricultural land as per revenue record and is capable of carrying out agricultural operations. Therefore, in order to decide whether particul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000 and less than 1,00,000, then that land will be defined as agricultural land. From the certificates issued by Tehsildar, Bhiongir Mundal, it can be seen that in the present case, the lands in question are situated at a distance of more than 2 kms from the Bhongir Municipality and the population of Bhongir village as per population census 2011 is 53,339. Further the AR produced a certificate from Commissioner, Bhongir Municipality vide ROC No.GU13412021 dated 19,01.2021 stating that the land possessed by the appellant vide Survey umbers 758, 765, 766, 775,795 796 have been recently merged into Municipality vide G.O.No.93, dated 18.04.2018 Gazette No.11, dated 30.03.2018. In other words, the land of the appellant was not within the municipal limits during the current year but was merged into municipality vide G.O.No.93, dated 18.04.2018 Gazette No.11, dated 30.03.2018. Therefore, the land is to be treated as an agricultural land and not as a capital asset; hence no capital gain will arise from sale of such agricultural lands. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 1,99,12,500/- is directed to be deleted. Since the increase in capital account during AY 2018-19 is also a result of sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atoori, in ITA No 589/Hyd/2022 for Asst. Year 2018-19. But for figures, the facts and issue is identical. The reasons given by us in proceeding paragraphs No. 74 to 78 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this, appeal as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we direct the AO to delete additions made towards cash deposits in to bank account for Rs. 68,85,000/- under section 69A of the Act, as unexplained investments. 98. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground No.4(a) to 4(f) of assessee s appeal is the addition towards undisclosed advance received from M/s Aishwarya Developers amounting to Rs. 79,35,760/-. 99. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We, find that an identical issue has been considered by us in the case of Sri. Ramesh Babu Nimmatoori, in ITA No 591/Hyd/2022 for Asst. Year 2017-18. The facts and issue is identical. The reasons given by us in proceeding paragraphs No. 23 to 32 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this, appeal as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we direct the AO to delete addition made towards undisclosed advance received from M/s Aishwarya Developer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich Rs. 14,17,000/- was paid by cheque and balance of Rs. 29,60,500/- was paid in cash. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source for consideration paid over and above what was stated in the registered sale deed. In response, the assessee submitted that he has paid only Rs. 14,17,000/- as per the registered sale deed by cheque and not paid any consideration over and above the registered sale deed value. The so called cash receipt cannot be considered as evidence to allege that the appellant has paid excess amount when the guideline value of the property is equal to the amount of consideration referred to in the sale deed. The Assessing Officer however, was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and according to the Assessing Officer, as per the cash receipt, the vendors have sold property for a consideration of Rs. 43,77,500/- and received part of consideration in cash. Further, the cheque payments referred to in the receipt is also matched with the sale deed, therefore, opined that the assessee has paid consideration in excess of what was stated in the sale deed and thus, made addition of Rs. 43,77,500/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and considered the relevant documents found during the course of search coupled with the sale deed dated 21.04.2017. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that as per the cash receipt, total consideration paid for purchase of property was at Rs. 43,77,500/- whereas as per the registered sale deed, consideration has been shown at Rs. 14,17,000/- and paid by cheque. The assessee could not explain the source for excess consideration paid over and above the registered sale deed. Although the appellant claims to have explained the source out of opening cash and bank balance available as on 31.3.2017, but the revised statement of affairs filed by the assessee does not include additional consideration of Rs. 29,60,500/- paid as per cash receipt. In so far as the argument of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has not confronted with the seized document and also not provided for cross examination of the vendors, in our considered view when the document found during the course of search clearly shows the signature of the vendors and further the contents also matched with the registered sale deed, then the question of providing cross examination of the vendors does not arise. We t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid a sum of Rs. 1,57,00,000/- on the date of agreement. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source for purchase of property. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 26.11.2019 submitted that said property was purchased by M/s Church Educational Society, in the names of members of the society and has been utilized for the purpose of aims and objects of the society. The payment made for purchase of property has been accounted in the books of account of the society. Since the property does not belong to the members, it cannot be said that the investment were made by the members to bring into tax the said investment as unexplained investment. The Assessing Officer, however, was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee except making an oral claim that the land was purchased by the society, but no evidence has been filed to prove that the property was purchased by the society and consideration was also paid from the books of account of the society. No cash flow and fund flow statement or the bank statement or cash book etc., have been submitted. Therefore, opined that the assessee co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not explained. Therefore, sustained addition of Rs. 52,33,333/-, being 1/3rd share of the assessee out of differential consideration paid amounting to Rs. 1.57 crores. 113. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 114. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 52,33,333/- being 1/3rd share of Rs. 1.57 crores alleged to have been paid for purchase of property as per supplementary agreement dated 31.12.2016 without appreciating the fact that the said agreement was unsigned. Further, there is no proof of payment of differential consideration as alleged by the Assessing Officer. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the alleged supplementary agreement dated 31.12.2016 is not pertains to the present A.Ys. Assuming for a moment, the appellant have paid excess consideration of Rs. 1.57 crores as per the said agreement, the source for investment needs to be explained for A.Y 2017-18, but not for the A.Y 2018-19. Therefore, based on the said agreement the additions cannot be made. He further submitted that as per the final sale deed, the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther, the supplementary agreement dated 31.12.2016 pertains to A.Y 2017-18 and as per the said agreement, the Assessing Officer himself stated that Rs. 1.57 crores has been paid as on the date of agreement. If the claim of the Assessing Officer is correct, then the additions, if any, to be made towards the differential consideration should be made for the AY 2017-18 and further the assessee needs to explain the source for said investment for the A.Y 2017-18 only. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has made addition towards differential consideration as per the registered document for the A.Y 2018-19, even though it was alleged that Rs. 1.57 crore was paid for the A.Y 2017-18. On this count itself, the additions sustained by the learned CIT (A) cannot be upheld. 117. Be that as it may be, the appellant has also filed copies of bank statement of Shri N Raja Babu and others and claimed that even the balance consideration of Rs. 1.57 crores have been paid through proper banking channels and accounted in the books of account for the relevant A.Y and copies of bank statement of Shri N. Raja Babu was available in pages 408 to 410 of the paper book filed by the assessee. From the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lared more than Rs. 80.00 lakhs income for the A.Y 2016-17 to 2018-19 and out of the declared income, cash found during the course of search is explained. The Assessing Officer however, was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee could not explain the source for cash found during the course of search. Therefore, by taking note of relevant statement recorded during the course of search and also the explanation given by the assessee made addition of Rs. 8,10,000/- u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 as unexplained money etc., 122. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 123. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in sustaining the addition towards the cash found during the course of search for Rs. 8,10,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee is having sufficient income to explain the source for the cash found during the course of search. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that as per cash book, cash balance as on 31.3.2017 as per the revised balance sheet filed before the learned CIT (A), Rs. 42,35,30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... planation of the assessee with regard to the source of cash found during the course of search in toto. At the same time, it is also difficult to reject the explanation of the assessee in light of income declared by the assessee for the last 3 A.Ys. Since the appellant is not required to maintain regular cash book for his income and further, as per the revised balance sheet as on 31.3.2017, sufficient cash balance is available to explain cash found during the course of search, in our considered view, a reasonable amount of cash found during the course of search can be attributable to cash in hand available with the assessee before the date of search. Therefore, by taking into account the overall facts of the case, we direct the Assessing Officer to accept the explanation of the assessee with regard to the source for cash found during the course of search to the extent of Rs. 5.00 lakhs. In other words, the assessee gets relief to the extent of Rs. 5.00 lakhs out of additions made by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 8,10,000/-. The balance amount of Rs. 3,10,000/- is hereby confirmed. 126. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.621/Hyd/2022 is partly allowed. ITA No.701/Hy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ped and the learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant fact has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and their order should be upheld. 131. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The learned CIT (A) recorded a categorical finding that the appellant has sufficient income to explain cash deposits into bank account. The learned CIT (A) further noticed that even otherwise the income declared by the assessee for the current financial year relevant to A.Y 2018-19 is much more than the amount of cash deposit of Rs. 18,37,500/- into SBI and UCO Bank Account and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of telescoping the income to the additions made u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The finding of the facts recorded by the learned CIT (A) is not controverted with any evidences. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the learned CIT (A) and reject the grounds taken by the Revenue. 132. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Grounds No.4 of the Revenue s appeal is addition towards unsecured loan of Rs. 2,92,50,000/-. During the course of assessement proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lance sheet represent the funds received for sale of a property at Chikadapally. The learned DR further submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in accepting the revised balance sheet without appreciating the fact that the assessee has filed revised financial statements and without providing any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the said revised balance sheet, deleted the addition himself contrary to the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T Rules, 1962. Therefore, she submitted that this issue may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification. 135. The learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that the appellant has filed revised balance sheet and statement of affairs for the financial year 2017-18 and corrected earlier errors committed while filing the financial statements. The assessee had also explained that there is no unsecured loan as claimed in the balance sheet filed before the Assessing Officer. The learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant facts deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and their order should be upheld. 136. We have heard both the parties, peru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent year and credits found in Bank Account relates to income offered for the current year. The learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant submission of the assessee and also taking note of income declared by the assessee directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards credits found in Bank account. 139. The learned DR, submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in deleting the addition made towards credits found in Bank Account even though the appellant failed to explain the said credits with necessary evidences. Further the learned CIT (A) erred in accepting the argument of the assessee that the income declared for the current year takes care credits found in the bank account even though the appellant fails to file necessary cash flow statement or books of account to explain credits in bank account. 140. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the income declared by the assessee covers credits found in bank account and therefore, the learned CIT (A) by taking note of relevant facts has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and their order should be upheld. 141. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17 Smt. N. Yashoda 145. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.6(a) and 6(b) of assessee s appeal is addition of Rs. 7,36,89,000/- towards Long-Term Capital Gain from sale of property. The fact with regard to the impugned dispute are that the assessee has sold 3 acres 3 guntas land at Bandlaguda, Rajendra Nagar vide document No.8521/2015 dated 19.10.2015 to WIIZ Realtors LLP for a consideration of Rs. 1,92,38,000/-, whereas the stamp duty value of the property as per the registered document was at Rs. 5,95,32,000/-. The appellant had also sold 39 guntas of land at Bandlaguda, Rajendra Nagar to M/s. WIIZ Realtors LLP for a consideration of Rs. 61,00,000, whereas the stamp duty value of the property was at Rs. 1,41,57,000/-. As per the return of income filed for the A.Y 2016-17, the assessee has not admitted any capital gain on sale of land. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the capital gain derived from sale of land shall not be computed. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 26.11.2018 submitted that the impugned agricultural land sold to M/s. WIIZ Realtors LLP in Survey Nos 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... individual capacity. The learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of relevant evidences opined that, although the appellant had entered into agreement of sale dated 8.1.2007 for transfer of 39 guntas of land in survey Nos.130, 131 and 132 and 3 acres and 3 guntas in Survey No.140 to Ravi Rishi Educational Society and also effected mutation in the name of the society by way of an order dated 19.06.2008 from the revenue authorities, but on perusal of the said agreement, none of the 2 agreement for sale were registered document. In absence of registration of agreement, it cannot be said that the title in the land has been passed on to Ravi Rishi Educational Society. Further, the mutation proceedings were also not acted upon and the appellant continued to be the owner of the land. The appellant had also sold the land in her individual capacity to M/s. WIIZ Realtors LLP by way of 2 sale deed dated 19.10.2015 and also received consideration. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that Ravi Rishi Educational Society is actually owner of the land and further consideration has been received by Ravi Rishi Educational Society cannot be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 7,36,89,000/- towards Long-Term Capital Gain derived from transfer of agricultural land to M/s. WIIZ Realtors LLP. As per the registered sale deed dated 19.10.2015, the appellant is the vendor of the land. But, if we go by the agreement of sale dated 8.1.2007 and 15.12.2010 coupled with proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad dated 19.6.2008, it is undisputedly proved that the appellant has sold the land to M/s. Ravi Rishi Educational Society in the year 2007 and 2010 and also revenue record has been transferred in the name of the education society. Further, the entire sale consideration received for sale of land is directly paid to M/s. Ravi Rishi Educational Society which is evident from the books of account maintained by the Society. The copies of agreement of sale dated 8.1.2007 and 15.12.2010 is available in Page Nos.559 to 564 of the paper book filed by the assessee. The ledger account of the buyer M/s. WIIZ Realtors LLP in the books of account of the Ravi Rishi Educational Society for the finan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 57 of the I.T. Act, 1961 under the head income from other sources for Rs. 15,000/-. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee does not wish to press the ground and thus, Ground of appeal No.2 is dismissed as not pressed. 154. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos. 3(a) to 3(c) of assessee s appeal is addition in respect of family pension receipts of Rs. 5,40,000/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has admitted income from family pension of Rs. 6,60,000/- for the A.Y 2016-17. However, in the return of income filed for A.Y 2017-18, she had shown family pension under the head income from other sources at Rs. 1,20,000/-. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the reduction of income from family pension. In her reply dated 9.12.2018, the assessee has submitted that for earlier A.Ys, she has received family pension arrears amounting to Rs. 6,60,000/-. The Assessing Officer however, was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee could not submit any evidences including relevant bank account statement to support her argument. Therefore, the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the considered view that when the appellant has received only Rs. 1,20,000/- income of family pension, it is incorrect on the part of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) to assume that the assessee has received Rs. 6,60,000/- income from family pension without there being any evidences to prove this finding, more particularly when the assessee claims that for earlier A.Ys she has received arrears from family pension. Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards income from family pension. 160. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.4(a) to 4(d) of assessee s appeal is addition towards undisclosed income received from M/s Aishwarya Infra Developers amounting to Rs. 1,62,70,380/- 161. We have heard both parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that an identical issue has been considered by us, in the case of Sri. Ramesh Babu Nimmatoori, ITA No. 591/Hyd/2022 for Asst. Year 2017-18. But for figures, the facts and issue are identical. The assessee is one of the co-owners of Property which has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds 6(a) to 6(d) of assessee s appeal is unaccounted sale proceeds received from M/s JVG Structures (P) Ltd in pursuant to Joint Development Agreement cum GPA amounting to Rs. 4,46,92,560/-. 167. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) is erred in upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards computation of Long-Term Capital Gain in pursuant to JDA with M/s. JVG Structures (P) Ltd without appreciating the fact that as per the provisions of section 45(5A), in case where the land owner entered into JDA, capital gain arising on transfer of an asset shall be chargeable to tax in the year in which completion certificate is issued by the competent authority, but not in the year in which the JDA is entered. Since the appellant only entered into JDA for the impugned A.Y and the project is not completed in all respect and further the developer has not obtained completion certificate from the competent authority, the question of computation of capital gain for the impugned A.Y does not arise. 168. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain arises to the assessee being an individual or HUF from the transfer of a capital asset being land or building or both under a specified agreement, the capital gain shall be chargeable to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the certificate of completion for the whole or part of the project is issued by the competent authority and for the purpose of section 48, the stamp duty value on the date of issue of the said certificate has increased by the consideration received in cash, if any, shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset. From a plain reading of section 45(5A) of the act, it is undoubtedly clear that the capital gain, if any, is chargeable to tax in terms of specified agreement shall be levied for the previous year in which certificate of completion is issued by the competent authority. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Developer has not completed the project in all respects and has not obtained completion certificate from the competent authority. In fact, it was not a case of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of property u/s 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the learned CIT (A) and reject the ground taken by the assessee. 174. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.9 of assessee s appeal is addition of Rs. 52,33,333/- as unexplained investment towards purchase of land at Road No.41 of Jubilee Hills. 175. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that an identical issue has been considered by us, in the case of Sri. Raja Babu Nimmatoori, in ITA No 621/Hyd/2022 for Asst. Year 2018-19. The facts and issue are identical. The reasons given by us in proceeding paragraphs No. 111 to 117 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal, as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, for the above reasons, we reverse the findings of the learned CIT (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions sustained by the learned CIT (A) for Rs. 52,33,333/- towards extra consideration alleged to have been paid for purchase of the property. 176. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Gr. No. 10 of assessee appeal is addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he A.Y 2018-19. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made towards undisclosed advance received from M/s. Aishwarya Infra Developers u/s 56(2)(ix) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 181. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA No.620/Hyd/2022 A.Y 2018-19- Smt. N. Sulochana 182. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos 4(a) to 4(d) of assessee s appeal is the addition made towards unaccounted sale proceeds received from sale of land to JVG Structures (P) Ltd amounting to Rs. 2,48,45,535/-. 183. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that an identical issue has been considered by us, in the case of Sri. Ramesh Babu Nimmatoori, in ITA No 619/Hyd/2022 for Asst. Year 2018-19. But for figures, the facts and issue are identical. The reasons given by us in proceeding paragraphs No. 35 to 41 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal, as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly to this, appeal as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we are inclined to reverse the findings of the learned CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards differential consideration of Rs. 13.00 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. 189. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.620/Hyd/2022 is partly allowed. ITA No.594/Hyd/2022 A.Y 2018-19 Smt. N. Manjusha 190. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.6(a) and 6(b) of assessee s appeal is addition of Rs. 52,33,333/- towards unexplained investment in property purchased at Road No.41, Jubilee Hills. 191. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that an identical issue has been considered by us, in the case of Sri. Raja Babu Nimmatoori, in ITA No 621/Hyd/2022 for Asst. Year 2018-19. The facts and issue are identical. The reasons given by us in proceeding paragraphs No. 111 to 117 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal, as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, for the above reasons, we reverse the findings of the learned CIT (A) and direct the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the date of registration. The balance amount of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- has not been paid so far, because there was a dispute over the property and a case was filed before the Hon'ble Telangana High Court on 10.11.2005. Therefore, the Assessing Officer erred in making addition towards balance consideration of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- and invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned CIT (A) after considering the relevant submission of the assessee and taken note of various evidence observed that the appellant is able to explain the source for payment of Rs. 20.00 lakhs being Rs. 18.00 lakhs paid through RTGS and Rs. 2.00 lakhs paid at the time of registration. Therefore, deleted the addition made to the extent of Rs. 20.00 lakhs. As regards the balance consideration of Rs. 1.00 crore, the learned CIT (A) observed that although the appellant claims to have not paid the balance consideration because of pending litigation before the Hon'ble Telangana High Court, but fact remains that the AR refers to the litigation pending since 2002, that means the assessee is aware of the litigation at the time of purchase of the property. Therefore, the argument of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon'ble High Court of Telangana regarding the title and interest in property by way of Writ Petition dated 10.11.2005 which is available in Page 235 to 236 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee. Further, the assessee claims that except Rs. 20.00 lakhs paid at the time of registration, balance consideration was not paid till now and in this regard filed necessary bank statement which is available in Page 717 to 731 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee. From the details furnished by the assessee, it appears that there is pending litigation in respect of title and interest in the property before the Court of Law. When there is a dispute in the property and pending litigation, unless the litigation is resolved in the Court of law, the title and interest in the property will not be passed on to the buyer. If we go by the above fact, it appears that the argument of the assessee that he has not paid the balance consideration appears to be reasonable. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the mater needs to be examined by the Assessing Officer in the light of argument of the assessee that, he has not paid balance consideration because of pending litigation in High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. 205. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that there is a clear difference between the consideration and the guideline value and thus, the difference has been rightly brought to tax u/s 56(20(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore, the order of the learned CIT (A) should be upheld. 206. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that consideration paid for purchase of property as per the registered sale deed dated 12.2.2016 of Rs. 27,14,000/- has been explained out of amount received from Aurora Educational Society which is evident from the recitals of the sale deed where the money has been directly paid by the society to the seller Smt. Swaroopa Reddy and duly accounted for in the books of account of the Society. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) has rightly held that the addition made to the extent of Rs. 13,57,000/- as per the registered sale deed cannot be sustained. In so far as the differential amount of consideration as per sale deed and guidelines val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income disclosed by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer erred in making a separate addition. 212. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) submitted that the assessee could not explain the credits even though the said credits pertaining to income from salary. Although the assessee claims to have included salary credits appearing in the bank account in the income declared for A.Y, no evidence has been filed. The learned CIT (A), after considering the relevant facts, has rightly sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer and their order should be upheld. 213. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that all credits found in the bank account of the assessee are not income. There may be credits pertaining to various transactions. Unless the Assessing Officer proves that the credits in the bank account are income of the assessee, addition cannot be made. In the present case, it was the argument of the assessee that he has disclosed total income of Rs. 25,35,600/- under the head income from business for the A.Y 2017-18 and said inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 619/Hyd/2022 for Asst. Year 2018-19. The facts and issue are identical. The reasons given by us in proceeding paragraphs No. 49 to 53 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal, as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we are inclined to reverse the findings of the learned CIT (A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards differential consideration of Rs. 13.00 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. 219. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.476/Hyd/2022 is partly allowed. 220. As a result, appeals in ITA No.591/Hyd/2022 for A.Y 2017-18 is allowed, ITA No.619/Hyd/2022 for A.Y 2018-19 is partly allowed, ITA No.700/Hyd/2022 (Revenue) for A.Y 2018-19 is dismissed, ITA No.311/Hyd/2022 for A.Y 2013-14 is dismissed, ITA No.589/Hyd/2022 for A.Y 2016-17 is partly allowed, ITA No.590/Hyd/2022 for A.Y 2017-18 is allowed, ITA No.621/Hyd/2022 for A.Y 2018-19 is partly allowed, ITA No.701/Hyd/2022 (Revenue) for A.Y 2018-19 is dismissed, ITA No.337/Hyd/2022 for A.Y 2016-17 is partly allowed, ITA No.593/Hyd/2022 for A.Y 2017-18 is partly allowed, ITA No.618/Hyd/2022 for A.Y 2018-19 is partly allowed, ITA No.592/Hyd/2022 for A.Y 2017-18 is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
