Tax Management India. Com
        A knowledge portal that keeps us updated ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals News SMS Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, Versus SMT K.V. LAKSHMI SAVITRI DEVI

2012 (12) TMI 1111 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Unaccounted investment u/s 69 - Held that:- There was no basis for the Revenue to presume that the respondent had made the cash payment of ₹ 1.00 crore even though the registered sale deed dt.21- 08-2006 in respect of the above sale transaction disclosed only a cheque payment of ₹ 65.00 lakhs by the respondent. Even if the vendor K.Rajani Kumari admitted receipt of sale consideration of ₹ 1.40 crores, the respondent had not admitted payment of ₹ 1.65 crores and in the swo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

TICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO PET.ADV. : NARASIMHA SARMA RESP.ADV. : SRINIVAS JUDGMENT (Per Hon ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao) This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) challenging the order dt. 31-03-2011 in I.T.A.No.1504/Hyd/2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, Hyderabad relating to the assessment year 2003-04. 2. The respondent is an individual deriving income from salary in house property. She did not file her origina .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Krishna Kumar under a registered sale deed dt.21.8.2006 which disclosed a consideration of only ₹ 65.00 lakhs. 4. A search and seizure action was conducted on the premises of Sri C.Radha Krishna Kumar on 25-10-2007 and in the said search, a diary was found and entries in the said diary disclosed that certain cash amounts totaling ₹ 1.00 crore were also received from the assessee/respondent in addition to ₹ 65.00 lakhs, the recorded sale consideration. 5. The respondent was conf .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

no knowledge of the cash amount of ₹ 1.00 crore. Her brother K.V.Srirama Murthy also gave a statement dt.20-11- 2007 stating that the above property was purchased in 2002 and only ₹ 65.00 lakhs was paid and there was no cash payment at all. 6. However, Smt. K.Rajani Kumari, in her return of income filed in response to the notice issued under Section 153-C admitted the sale consideration to be ₹ 1.40 crores as against the entries recorded in the seized diary of ₹ 1.65 cror .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

therefore the sum of ₹ 1.00 crore is treated as unaccounted investment in the purchase of property and the same is liable to tax under Section 69 of the Act in the hands of the respondent. 8. Challenging the same, the respondent filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Hyderabad. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 15-10-2010 following the same reasoning given by the assessing officer. He also held that since part of the entries mentioned in the diary (the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the premises of the respondent but in the premises of C.Radha Krishna Kumar; that it was a loose slip containing certain entries which was not in the handwriting of the respondent; that it does not contain either date of payment or the name of the person who made the payment; that the name of the respondent was not found in the loose sheet and only the names of C.Radha Krishna Kumar and his wife K.Radha Kumari were found therein. It opined that there was no basis for the Revenue to presume t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se of the property as the transaction was negotiated by her brothers. It held that there was no document or material to show that the respondent actually paid ₹ 1.65 crores for the purchase of the property and the Revenue had drawn inferences based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises. 11. Challenging the same, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 12. Heard Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 13. Sri Sarma contended that the Tribunal erred in passing the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.