Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :
This Revenue’s appeal for AY.2010-11 arises from the CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad’s order dated 24-01-2019 passed in case No.0138/CIT(A)-7/2017-18, in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Case called twice. None appeared at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
We notice at the outset that this Revenue’s appeal suffers from delay of 108 days stated to be attributable to the reasons mentioned in its condonation petition/affidavit and on account of no rebuttal thereof from assessee’s side, this delay stands condoned therefore.
Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing assessment findings treating this assessee as a benamidar thereby making short term capital gain addition on protective basis of Rs.4,52,40,000/-, we note that the lower appellate discussion to this effect reads as under:
5. I have considered the submissions of the appellant and findings of the Assessing Officer carefully. Regarding Ground Nos.2 & 3, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.4,07,99,300/- under the head 'short term capital gains' on protective basis. The Assessing Officer held that the appellant has sold the plot with No.623-F in Sy. Nos.403/1(Old), 120 (New) of Shaikept (V) and 102/1 of Hafeezpet (V) within the approved layout of the Jubilee Hills Cooperative Society to Sri V.Suresh Babu for a document consideration of RS.1,60,00,000/-, which is at a much lower than the market value determined by Sub Registrar at Rs.4,52,40,000/- in the capacity of Benamidar and Smt Renuka Datla was considered as beneficial owner of the property. Thereafter, assessment order was passed u/s.143(3) rws 147 assessing the capital gains of Rs.4,07,99,300/- in the hands of Smt Renuka Datla for A.Y.2010-11, dated 19-12- 2017 holding that Smt Renuka Datla was the actual owner of the property and the appellant Sri D.Nagappa is her Benami. On reference made to competent authority under Prohibition of Benami Transaction Act, 1988, assessee was declared as benamidar u/s.2(10) of the PBPT Act of Property sold. On further reference by Initiating Officer & Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Hyderabad, Hon'ble Members of adjudicating authority u/s.71 of the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, 1988, New Delhi Ref No.R-365/2017 order u/s.26(3), dated 31-12-2018, have held in Para 9 & 10 as under:
9. Considering the submissions of the both side and the aforesaid discussion it is held that the property / money deposited in bank account falls within the ambit of benami property within the meaning section 2(8) and the said property is also subject matter of benami transactions.
Considering the facts conveyed in order u/s.24(4) passed by I.O. investigation conducted by the I.O., material in possessions of I.O., statement of the 'defendants and submissions of the I.O. and the defendants it is held that the property / money deposited in bank accounts under attachment is benami property and is subject matter of benami transactions within the meaning of section 2(8) and 2(9) of the PBPT Act." On consideration of the facts of the case, order of the case, order of the adjudicating authority u/s.71 of the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, 1988, order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s.143(3) rws 147, dated 19-12-2017 for A.Y.2010-11, I am of the considered view that appellant is not the beneficiary of the transactions and the real beneficiary is Smt Renuka Datla. Therefore, the protective addition made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of appellant requires to be deleted. Hence, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition. These grounds of appeal are allowed”.
4. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance seeking to revive the impugned protective addition in the assessee’s hands due to the clinching reason that the prescribed Adjudicating Authority u/s.71 of the Prohibition of Bename Transaction Act, 1988’s order dt.19-12-2017 (supra) has already given a conclusive finding of the fact that the real beneficiary herein is one Smt.Renuka Datla only. We thus uphold the learned CIT(A)’s action deleting the impugned addition(s) for this precise reason alone as there is no basis left for assessing the sum in issue in assessee’s hands on protective basis. No other argument or ground has been pressed before us.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20th September, 2021