DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD vs. M/S VARALAXMI CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deletion of Rs.3,85, 00, 000/- representing the cash withdrawal.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the unexplained cash deposit of Rs.75,00,000/ - without giving any reason in their order.

Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”.

It next transpires that the assessee’s appeal in as well as the C.O No.37/Hyd/2018 suffer from respective delay(s) of 2076 and 2016 days attributable to miscellaneous reasons with misplacement of case file and the communication gap in the management. Hon'ble Apex Court’s landmark decision(s) in Collector Land Acquisition, ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors 1987 SCR (2) 387 and University of Delhi vs. Union of India Civil Appeal No.9488 and 9489/2019 dated 19.12.2019 hold that cause of substantive justice of 2013 CO 37 of 2018 and ITA 2179 of 2018 Varalakshmi Constructions Khammam must prevail over all technical aspects in case the litigant is able to sufficiently explain the delay in exercising the corresponding legal remedy(ies). We therefore, reject the Revenue’s vehement arguments contesting the assessee’s averments in the two condonation petitions i.e. both cross appeal as well as the cross objection (supra). The same stand admitted.

It next emerges that the assessee’s sole of substantive grounds in appeal ITA 2779/Hyd/2018 seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action disallowing the expenditure amount of Rs.73,35,836/- @ 10% since bogus in nature. Its cross objection No.37/Hyd/2018, on the other hand, support the CIT (A)’s action granting part relief forming subject matter of adjudication in the Revenue’s appeal.

We notice with the able assistance of both the parties that the Revenue’s appeal seeking to revive the corresponding addition(s) amounting to Rs.4,60,00,000/- comprises of cash withdrawals of Rs.3,85,00,000/- as well as cash deposit of Rs.75,00,000/-; deserves to be declined for the sole reason that the corresponding material to this effect had emerged during the course of search dated 4.2.2011 in M/s. Madhucon group. The Assessing Officer had thereafter framed its impugned assessment on 27.12.2011. Coupled with this, he also took recourse to section 153C proceeding to add the very amount forming part of Rs.6,85,00,000/- as money routed back by way of sub-contracts in construction business. And that this tribunal’s common order in assessee’s appeal No.1842 and 170 & 171/Hyd/2015 and Revenue’s cross appeals No.197 & 198 quashed the said section 153C assessments for want of a valid satisfaction. Meaning thereby that the impugned addition of the above money routed involving M/s. of 2013 CO 37 of 2018 and ITA 2179 of 2018 Varalakshmi Constructions Khammam Madhucon group has been already held to be an invalid addition under the specific provisions enshrined in section 153C of the Act. We therefore, quote legal maxim “generalia specialises non-derogant” and hold that the very addition is not liable to be sustained in section 143(3) proceedings for this precise reason alone. We accordingly decline Revenue’s sole substantive grievance as well as the main appeal in . The assessee’s C.O No.37/Hyd/2018 supporting the CIT (A)’s order under challenge stand rendered infructuous therefor.