TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perations is the open well and also a borewell situated in the land. 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 As relying on SUMATI DAYAL [ 1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] and DURGA PRASAD MORE [ 1971 (8) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT] we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the order of AO in making the addition on account of unaccounted cash towards sale of land. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue on this issue are allowed. - ITA No. 582/H/2017 - - - Dated:- 28-5-2021 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A). 4. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, which were extracted by the CIT(A) in his order at pages 8 to 13, deleted the addition made by the AO. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the ITAT. 6. Before us, the ld. DR besides relying on the order of AO submitted that the assessee, GPA holder of the property could not establish the source of investment made by him and the transaction of sale agreement executed on 23rd July, 2012 was not canceled and he has received payment as per the sale deed. He submitted that the agreement was made on 13/03/2012 between K. Vijayasri and Bukka Kanakaiah and others and they have developed the land by way of plotting. He submitted that as per the revenue record, the land was dry land and it is the duty of the assessee to get it changed on revenue documents, if the assessee is utilizing the land other than as mentioned in the revenue record. He contended that the CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition made by the AO without considering the findings and documents found during the course of search and seizure operation u/s 153A of the Act. He submitted that the CIT(A) has coterm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asri and Sukkjl Kanakaiah. CIT(A) AO 71-76 11. Cancellation agreement executed on 25th June 2012 between Smt K. Vijayasri and V.V. Rajam CIT(A) AO 77-79 12. Sale Agreement executed on 23rd July 2012 between K. Vijayasri and V.V. Rajam. CIT(A) AO 80-84 13. General Power of Attorney Given by Smt. Vijayasri to V.V. Rajam along with proof of identity. CIT(A) AO 85-90 14. Sale Deed executed on 02nd Aug 2012 vide Doc No. 6876/2012 between Vijayasree and B.Mallareddy along with English Translated documents. CIT(A) AO 91-106 15. Sale deed executed on 2nd August, 2012 vide Doc No. 6877/2012 between Vijayasree and B. Mallareddy along with English Translated documents. CIT(A) AO 107-123 16. Sale deed executed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statement recorded during the course of search and seizure operation is as under: 7. Give the details of land transaction entered. Ans: One Mr. Bukka Kanakaiah and A. Venkatesham came to me personally on 03.03.2012 so as to purchase the land situated at Ponnala Village belonging to my daughter Smt. K. Vijaya Sri, basing on the information given by me to local agents. After due negotiations they came forward to purchase the land 4 acres and 9 guntas @ ₹ 62,00,116/- per acre (total ₹ 2.48 Crs.). And as such they paid an advance of ₹ 5,Ol,l16/- and subsequently entered into agreement on 13.03.2012 by paying ₹ 45,OO,OOO/- as token of advance and committed to pay the balance amount by 06.06.2012. Meanwhile the balance amount they paid as ₹ 15,50,000/- on 19.04.2012 and ₹ 35,00,OOO/- on 19.05.2012. Thus totally they paid ₹ 1,00,51,116/-. 9. Whether the agreement with Sri B. Kanakaiah and Sri A. Venkatesam was materialized? Ans: The agreement was not materialized. It was cancelled on 25-62012 due to n-payment of the balance sale consideration in view of the search and seizure f Income Tax Authorities on 05-6-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ans: I invested ₹ 2 crores in purchase of the land property and house property. I paid ₹ 1.20 crores towards land purchase 2.00 acres and ₹ 80 lakhs for the purchase of house on the name of myself my wife. 8.2 On perusal of the statement, 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 agricu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
