TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Thus we are of the considered view that findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) in light of the decision of ITAT., Chennai Bench is uncontroverted.The Revenue has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that findings of fact recorded by learned CIT(A) is incorrect or opposed to the facts. - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A.No.2074/Chny/2018 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2021 - Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice-President And Shri G.Manjunatha, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Mr.G.Chandrababu, Addl.CIT For the Respondent : Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ORDER PER G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against order of the learned CIT(A)-14, Chennai dated 28.03.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,54,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment in villa plot. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that addition was made on the basis of charge sheet and su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 filed by CBI before the court of Hon ble Special Judge for CBI cases as additional evidence before CIT(A) . On an examination of the said charge sheet it was noticed that some of villa plot buyers have paid on money in addition to what was stated in sale agreement . As EHTPL was relying on the above charge sheets it is clear that the fact of extra consideration was paid is accepted by EHTPL. As per charge sheet and supplementary charge sheets it was noticed that Shri Tummala Ranga Rao, Director of M/s. Stylish Holmes Real Estates Pvt.Ltd. had confirmed that some of the villa plots were sold by collecting excess amount ranging from ₹ 4000 per sq.yard to ₹ 45,000 per sq.yard over and above the registered rate of ₹ 5000 per sq.yard. The relevant extracts of the charge sheet and supplementary charge sheets were also forwarded to this office. It was seen from charge sheets filed that as per instructions of Mr. Koneru Rajendra Prasad, Shri T.Ranga Rao Director of M/s. Stylish Holmes Real Estates Pvt.Ltd sold 82 villa plots of which one villa plot was purchased by the assessee Shri Ramcharan Tej Konidala by collecting excess amounts from the buyers ranging from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of charge sheet filed by the CBI before the Court of Special Judge for CBI in the case of M/s.Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. without bringing on any evidence to prove that the assessee has paid on-money for purchase of the flat. The assessee has also taken support from the decision of ITAT., Chennai in the case of Mr.R.Saibabu in ITA No.2933/Chny/2016, where under identical set of facts and on the basis of same CBI enquiry conducted in the case of M/s.Emaar Hills Township Pvt.Ltd. held that the Assessing Officer has not established on the basis of evidence gathered that the assessee has paid on money to the extent quantified by the Assessing Officer . The learned CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also by following the decision of the ITAT., Chennai in the case of Mr.R.Saibabu in ITA No.2933/Chny/2016 held that the conclusion arrived at by the Assessing Officer that assessee has paid on-money for purchase of flat is not based on any document or independent enquiry carried out during the course of assessment proceedings, accordingly, deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A) are as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and findings of the CBI during the course of search in the case of M/s.Emaar Hills Township Pvt.Ltd. The DR further submitted that learned CIT(A) ought not to have decided the case before the disposal of appeal by the CBI Special Court, as the issue has not attained finality and is still pending. 5. The learned AR, on the other hand, strongly supporting the order of learned CIT(A) submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by series of decisions of the Tribunal in the case of R.Saibabu in ITA No.2933/Chny/2016 and the decision of ITAT.,Hyderabad in the case of G.Samyutha in ITA No.356/Hyd/2017 dated 28.02.2018, where the Tribunal has recorded categorical finding that unless the Assessing Officer has brought on record some independent evidences to prove that on-money payment has been made for purchase of property, he cannot make additions solely on the basis of charge sheet filed by the CBI before CBI Special Court, when the proceedings in the CBI Special Court is still pending. 6. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that an identical issue has been consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... burden cannot be said to be discharged by merely referring to the thirty party statements. Alternatively, with a view to assist the Assessing Officer and to reduce the rigour of the burden that lay upon the Assessing Officer, provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the Act have provided for certain deeming provisions, where, an assumption of income is raised in the absence of satisfactory explanation from the assessee. As these are deeming provisions, the conditions precedent for invoking such provisions is required to be strictly construed. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the presumption of having undisclosed income to make investment have to be established with reasonable certainty. In this case it was not done by the Department. 6.2 In this case, the Assessing Officer has not established on the basis of evidence gathered that the assessee has paid on money to the extent quantified by him. In fact, the Department has no piece of evidence against the assessee directly link the assessee towards payment of on money. Yet, merely on the basis of the fact that some other buyers have accepted payment of on-money, the Assessing Officer cannot made addition under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
