Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI MANJUNATHA G & SHRI RAVISH SOOD
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 Assessment Years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Shri Venkatesh Gangakhedkar, The ACIT, Circle-9(1), vs. Hyderabad - 500 065. Hyderabad. PAN AEHPG4977P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : CA, C. Maheswar Reddy For Revenue : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 ORDER PER BENCH :
The assessee has filed four appeals ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 against the separate orders all dated 15.07.2024 of the learned CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad, relating to Assessment Years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017- 2018. Since common issues are involved in all these three appeals, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this single consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First, we take-up appeal of the 2 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 Assessee ITA.No.901/Hyd./2024 for the assessment year 2014-2015 as “lead” appeal, in which, the assessee has raised the following grounds :
1. “The order of the learned CIT(A) is erroneous in lave as well as facts of the case and hence the addition made for Rs.40,00,000/- is liable to be deleted.
2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that the Assessing Officer has relied completely upon the dumb documents found during the course of search of other party with whom the appellant does not have any business transactions, ignoring this fact, the learned CIT(A) could not have confirm the addition made by the AD.
3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the settled judicial precedent that no addition could be made on the basis of notings' in the loose sheets without any corroborating evidence
4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that the Assessing Officer without considering and rebutting the evidences submitted by the appellant, finalized the assessment proceedings a/s. 153C res 147 of the IT Act by making some general observations and made the addition on of Rs.40,00,000/-by treating the same as an unexplained expenditure u/s: 69C of the IT Act and hence the same may not be sustained.
5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have observed that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 153C of the IT Act accordingly the proceedings are also null & void.
6. There is no satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for issuing the notice u/s 153C of the IT Act, as such entire proceedings initiated by the AO is mull and void
3 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024
7. The Appellant craves to add/leave/alter any grounds of appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.”
Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a doctor by profession and filed his return of income for the assessment years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Sri Manohar Rao Warlawar on 09.11.2016 and certain loose sheets page nos.18 to 28 were found and seized vide Annexure- A/VMR/RES/01. The Assessing Officer of the searched person i.e., DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Hyderabad recorded satisfaction under section 153C of the Act on 19.12.2018 in light of relevant incriminating material found during the course of search in the premises of Sri Manohar Rao Warlawar and observed that, page-19 of the above loose sheet contains payment of Rs1,15,15,000/- for the period from 20.02.2014 to 25.09.2016 and further, from the above payments, a sum of Rs.40 lakhs pertains to financial year 2013-2014 relevant assessment year 2014-2015. Therefore,
4 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 he observed that, “I am satisfied that the expenditure mentioned above in page 19 has a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee for the financial year 2013-2014 relevant to the assessment year 2014-2015.”
The Assessing Officer of the assessee i.e., ACIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad, has recorded satisfaction for initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Act, for the assessment years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 on the basis of information and satisfaction received from DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad and satisfied that, loose sheet pages 18 to 28 found during the course of search in the case of Sri Manohar Rao Warlawar and more particularly, page-19 of the above loose sheet contains details of total cash payment of Rs.1,15,15,000/- for the period between 20.02.2014 to 25.09.2016 and out of which, cash payment of Rs.40 lakhs pertains to financial year 2013 2014 relevant to assessment year 2014-2015. He further noted that, the above cash payments made by the assessee towards construction of building at Sy.No.11/27, Khanamet Village, Serilingampally
5 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 Mandal. However, no details pertaining to the cash transaction have been declared by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer observed that, income chargeable to tax for the assessment years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 has escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee and that “I am satisfied the assessment to be re-assessed under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018”. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 153C of the Act on 25.03.2019 and served on the assessee. However, there is no response from the assessee for the notice issued under section 153C of the Act. Therefore, a show cause letter dated 14.11.2019 was issued to the assessee proposing to complete the assessment based on the merits of the case and as per the information available on record. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee has filed an application denying the transaction of expenditure in toto. Since, the assessee did not furnish any proof as called-for in the show cause letter such as, municipal plan approval, year-wise construction details, valuation report by approved
6 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 valuer, bank account copies etc., the Assessing Officer has made addition towards unexplained expenditure incurred for the purpose of house property at Sy.No.11/27, Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal. and assessed the income of the assessee under section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The details of year-wise additions made by the Assessing Officer are as under : A.Y. Income Addition Income Returned assessed [Column 2+3] 1. 2. 3. 4. 2014-15 Rs.18,17,540 Rs.40,00,000/- Rs.58,17,540/- 2015-16 Rs.17,89,160 Rs.57,75,000/- Rs.75,64,160/- Rs.26,51,600/- Rs.43,33,380/- 2016-17 Rs.16,81,780/- [i.e. Rs.14 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ] Rs.14,91,600/- Rs.30,96,890/- 2017-18 Rs.16,05,290/- [i.e. Rs.2.40 lakhs + Income from house property reducing standard deduction at Rs.12,51,600/- ]
Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Act, in light of satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person for the assessment year 2014-2015 and the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer of the 7 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 assessee for the assessment years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 and in light of certain judicial precedents and submitted that, the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer on the basis of loose sheet nos.18 to 28 found during the course of search in the case of Sri Manohar Rao Warlawar does not show any income of the assessee which has a bearing on the determination of the total income for the assessment years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018. The assessee had also challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained expenditure incurred for construction of building by filing certain evidences including details of construction of building, year of completion of construction and rental income derived from such building for the earlier assessment year and argued that, the building construction was completed in the financial year 2009-2010, whereas the document relied upon by the Assessing Officer i.e., loose sheet containing date i.e., from 20.02.2014 to 25.09.2016 and further, the said details does not even contain name of the assessee and also the nature
8 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 of payments. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted.
During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidences filed by the assessee to the Assessing Officer for his comments in terms of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant additional evidences filed by the assessee, submitted his remand report dated 04.07.2024 and stated that, the assessee could not furnish the requisite documents and information called-for by the Department to establish the year of construction of the property in the financial year 2009-2010. The learned IT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the loose sheets found during the course of search in the case of Sri Manohar Rao Warlawar held that, the documents found during the course of search shows certain expenditure incurred by the assessee towards construction of house property or building. This fact has been admitted by Sri Manohar Rao Warlawar in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. The 9 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 assessee could not establish the payments referred to in the incriminating document with any evidence including source for the said payment. Although, the assessee claims that, the document found during the course of search, does not pertains to the building construction and further, the building construction was completed in the financial year 2009-2010, but, the assessee failed to file any evidence including occupancy certificate etc., to prove his claim that, building construction was completed in the financial year 2009-2010. Further, the document furnished by the assessee including valuation report dated 21.01.2020, copy of lease agreement dated 19.06.2011 and affidavit from Sri Manohar Rao Warlawar denying that, he has never given any statement that, expenditure relates to assessee viz., Sri Venkatesh Gangakhedkar is only a self-serving document, which does not have any evidentiary value. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) rejected the explanation of assessee and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards the unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards payments made on the 10 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 basis of loose sheet page-19 found to during the course of search in the case of Sri Manohar Rao Warlawar.
Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, appeal before the Tribunal .
CA, C. Maheshwar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, referring to the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person for the assessment year 2014-2015 submitted that, as per the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer recorded under section 153C of the Act dated 19.12.2018, the Assessing Officer refers to loose sheet page nos.18 to 28 vide Annexure-A/VMR/RES./01 found during the course of search in the case of Sri Manohar Rao Warlawar and arrived at a satisfaction that, the payments referred to in the said documents had a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2014-2015. Further, the Assessing Officer of the assessee, has recorded satisfaction for the assessment years 2014-2015 to 2017- 2018 on the basis of information and satisfaction received 11 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 from the Assessing Officer of the searched person and satisfied that, said information including page-19 of the above loose sheet contains cash payments towards construction of building at Sy.No.11/27, Khanamet Village Serilingampally Mandal and it has a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee for the assessment years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018. If we go through the relevant loose sheets, including page-19, it is a plain sheet under the Head “Dr.DM Rao Garu” with date and certain amount without any reference to the name of the assessee and the person to whom the said payment was made and also the nature and purpose of the payment. Therefore, the satisfaction arrived by the Assessing Officer on the basis of loose sheet no.19 that, the said document is having a bearing on the total income of the assessee for the above assessment year is illegal and notice issued by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the said illegal satisfaction note renders the entire assessment proceeding void abinitio and liable to be quashed.
12 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 7.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further, referring to the document found during the course of search and various other documents submitted that, the loose sheet page no.19 refers to date and amount without any party to the transaction. However, the Assessing Officer on the basis of the statement of Sri Manohar Rao Warlawar come to the conclusion that, the said document belongs to the assessee and is having a bearing on the determination of the total income, even though, the Assessing Officer has not verified the basic facts with the assessee to confirm the statement given by the person who was searched. Further, the person who gave the statement has filed an affidavit, though, subsequently and denied the version of the Assessing Officer that, he has given statement and admitted that, the said document belongs to the assessee and expenditure incurred for the purpose of construction of building. Since, the document found during the course of search is a dumb document, which does not have any information, which pertains or relates to the assessee, the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer that, the said 13 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 document is having a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee for the above assessment year is illogical, unlawful and thus, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the said document needs to be deleted.
7.2. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further, referring to the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act submitted that, the Assessing Officer on the basis of date and amount recorded in loose sheet page no.19, made addition towards unexplained expenditure for all the four assessment years on the ground that, the assessee has incurred expenditure for construction of building at Sy.No.11/27 Khanamet Village Serilingampally Mandal, but, the fact remains that, the construction of above building in the given address was completed in the year 2009-2010, for which, the assessee has filed various evidences including the valuation report from the valuer, running bill submitted by the contractor, lease agreement entered into for letting- out the property and rental income offered for income tax 14 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 for earlier assessment year. Although, the assessee has furnished all the evidences, but, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) has made additions only on the ground that, the assessee has failed to produce occupancy certificate to prove the completion of construction. However, the fact remains that, for the above building, the assessee has not taken occupancy certificate because, in that area, most of the buildings are constructed without any sanction plan from the Municipal Authorities and, therefore, no buildings were taken occupancy certificates. Since, the assessee has furnished relevant evidences to prove construction was completed in the year 2009-2010, the document and it’s contents not related to the assessee for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer without verifying the relevant facts, has simply made the addition. The learned CIT(A) without verifying the relevant facts, has simply sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted.
15 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 8. Sri Gurpreet Singh, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that, the loose sheets found during the course of search contains dates and payments. Dr. VM Rao in the statement recorded, stated that, the said payments relates to construction of expenditure incurred by his son-in-law-the-assessee. The Assessing Officer on the basis of documents found during the course of search coupled with the statement recorded from Dr. VM Rao, has recorded satisfaction in terms of section 153C and satisfied that, the said document is having a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee for the above assessment year. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that, the document considered by the Assessing Officer for recording satisfaction does not show any light on the transaction of the assessee for the above assessment year is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. Learned Sr. AR further, referring to the addition made by the Assessing Officer submitted that, the Assessing Officer made the addition on the basis of documents found during the course 16 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 of search, which contains details of payments for each financial year, relevant to assessment year under consideration. The Assessing Officer called-upon the assessee to file relevant evidences to prove the source for the said expenditure. Since, the assessee failed to prove the source, the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition towards unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts has, rightly sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the order of the learned CIT(A) should be upheld.
We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer initiated proceeding under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and completed the assessment under section 153C r.w.s.147 of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and made addition towards unexplained expenditure towards construction expenditure on the basis of loose sheets found during the course of search, in the case of Dr. VM Rao. The Assessing Officer of 17 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 the searched person recorded satisfaction under section 153C of the Act dated 19.12.2018 and satisfied that, loose sheet nos.18 to 28 seized vide Annexure-A/VMR/RES/01 contains cash payments towards construction of building by the assessee for the assessment years 2014-2015 to 2017- 2018, which has a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee for the above assessment years. The Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction note on the basis of page no.19 of the loose sheet coupled with statement recorded from Dr. VM Rao under section 132(4) of the Act, where he has stated that, page no.19 contains expenditure incurred by his son- in-law for construction of building at Sy.No.11/27 Khanamet Village Serilingampally Mandal. The Assessing Officer of the assessee extended the satisfaction from assessment years 2014-2015 to assessment year 2017-2018 on the basis of information and satisfaction note received from the Assessing Officer of the searched person and satisfied that, loose sheets nos.18 to 28 and more particularly, page-19 of the above loose sheet contains details of cash payments to the tune of Rs.1,15,15,000/- for 18 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 the period between 20.02.2014 to 25.09.2016 and further, it has a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee for the assessment years 2014-2015 to 2017- 2018. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153C of the Act and completed the assessment by making addition towards unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for all four assessment years.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person for the assessment year 2014-2015 and satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the assessee for the assessment years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018, in light of relevant loose sheet nos.18 to 28 and more particularly, page-19 in light of arguments of the Counsel for the Assessee and upon consideration of the relevant documents, we ourselves do not subscribe to the reasons given by the learned CIT(A) to uphold the initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Act, for the simple reason that, the loose sheet page no.19 contains certain 19 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 jottings in the name of Dr. VM Rao Garu. Further, in the said loose sheet, date and amount is mentioned. However, there is no reference of name of the assessee in the above loose sheet and further, the said loose sheet does not even contain the basic requirement of charging Section-4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, i.e., certainty of taxable event, party to the transaction and year to which it pertains. We further note that, it is only a plain paper contains certain date and amount without any narration as to the nature of payment, parties to the transaction and purpose of payments. Since, there is no reference of name of the assessee in the seized document and further, the purpose of payment and parties to the transaction is missing, in our considered view, on the basis of said loose sheet, the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer that, the said document is having a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee for the assessment years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 is illegal and illogical and cannot be accepted. Although, the Assessing Officer refers to statement recorded from Dr. VM Rao Garu, but, the fact remains that, the person who gave 20 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 the statement has been subsequently filed an affidavit and stated that, he never admitted that the said document belongs to the assessee and contents therein are pertains to the assessee and towards amount incurred for construction of building. Assuming for a moment, the affidavit filed by the person who gave the statement is an after-thought going by the date of satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer and the date of affidavit filed by Dr. VM Rao, but, the fact remains that, once the document is silent of the particulars of the assessee and it’s transactions or activities, in our considered view, unless the Assessing Officer cross- examine with the assessee, with reference to the statement of the third party and ascertain that, whether said transactions are pertains to the assessee or not, he cannot simply proceed on the assumption that, the said document belongs or relates to the assessee and is having a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. Since, the document is silent about the name of the assessee and the parties to the transaction and purpose of payment, in our considered 21 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 view, on the basis of said document, the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice is illegal and thus, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on the basis of illegal or incorrect satisfaction note becomes void abinitio and liable to be quashed. This legal principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs., M/s. U.K. Paints (Overseas Ltd.) in Civil Appeal No.6634 of 2021, wherein it was held that, “as no incriminating material found in the case of any of the assessee either from the assessee or from the third party and the assessments were made under section 153 of the Act, the High Court has rightly set-aside the assessment orders. Therefore, the impugned Judgment and the Orders passed by the High Court do not require any interference from this Court.”
In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer on the basis of satisfaction note recorded for initiation of 22 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 proceedings in light of loose sheets found during the course of search in the case of Dr. VM Rao does not have any bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee for the above assessment years. Therefore, in our considered view, the notice issued under section 153C of the Act and consequent assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153C r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are void abinitio and liable to be quashed. Thus, we quash the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018.
The assessee has raised grounds challenging additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2014-2015 to 2017- 2018 and further, addition made by the Assessing Officer towards rental income for the assessment year 2016- 2017. The Counsel for the Assessee CA, C. Maheshwar Reddy and Sri Gurpreet Singh, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, has argued the issue in light of relevant evidences.
23 ITA.Nos.901, 902, 903 & 904/Hyd./2024 But, the fact remains that, since we have quashed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153C r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for all four assessment years, in our considered view, the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained expenditure for the assessment years 2014-2015 to 2017- 2018 and rental income for the assessment years 2016- 2017 and 2017-2018 does not require any specific adjudication because, it becomes infructuous. Thus, the other grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the four assessment years are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 31.07.2025.