Case Law Details
ACIT Vs. V. V. Rajam (ITAT Hyderabad)
AO has observed that the assessee has purchased a land of 2 acres in survey No. 356/3E1/1 situated at Pragnyapur village, Gajwel Mandal, Medak District in his name for a consideration of ₹ 1.2 crore as well as purchased a house in Hyderabad in his wife’s name for a consideration of 80,00,000/-. This transaction itself has accepted by the assessee during the course of search proceedings at question & answer No. 15. Therefore, we are of the view that the AO has rightly made the addition for unaccounted cash. The assessee has submitted before the CIT(A) wrong facts that in the particular land there was a well and bore-well, but, on perusal of the sale deed executed on 02/08/2012, nowhere it has been mentioned under the ‘Declaration’ that there is a well or bore-well, which is clear from the page No. 69 of the translated sale deed at pages 102, 119 and 138. When the property was purchased in 2001 was a dry agricultural land, but, subsequently, when sale was materialized on 02/08/2012, nowhere it is mentioned in the translated document that the land was agricultural land. Before the CIT(A) at para (c) the assessee has submitted agricultural operation is carrying on and the source of irrigation for the agricultural operations is the open well and also a borewell situated in the land. We find the pattadar pass book at page No. 142 and an attachment at page 143 and no crop grown is mentioned there. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that the said land is an agricultural land cannot be accepted. Earlier the sale agreement was made on two times i.e. 13/03/2012 and 23/07/2012 for a consideration of ₹ 62,00,116/- per acre and the same property has been sold on 02/08/2012 at ₹ 12,67,500/-, which is clearly proved that something has been concealed and during search the assessee clearly stated the actual facts which is clear from the statements recorded during the search and seizure. The statements are also supported that the assessee has made investment of ₹ 2 crore as per question & answer No. 15. In view of the above observations, relying on the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT, 1995 AIR 2019 and CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the order of AO in making the addition of ₹ 1,87,32,500/- on account of unaccounted cash towards sale of land. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue on this issue are allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is directed against CIT(A) – 7, Hyderabad’s order, dated 15/09/2016 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) RWS 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act” on the following grounds of appeal:
1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
