M/S. PRESTIGE AVENUES LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-VII, HYDERABAD

आआआआ आआआआआआ आआआआआआ, आआआआआआआआ आआआ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad

BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.741/Hyd/2011
(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2006-07)

M/s. Prestige Avenues Limited,
Hyderabad.
PAN:AADCP3698P

Vs.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle-VII,
Hyderabad.
(Appellant)

(Respondent)

निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A.
रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by:: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 07/11/2024
घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/01/2025

आदेश/ORDER
PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. :

This appeal is filed by M/s. Prestige Avenues Limited,
Hyderabad (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 15.02.2011 for the A.Y. 2006-
07. 2. At the outset, the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld.
AR”) submitted that the solitary ground in the appeal is on ITA No.741/Hyd/2011 2

account of addition of Rs.70,93,332/- made by the Learned
Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). The brief facts with regard to the grounds are that the assessee had purchased 8 acres of land at Karkhal Pahad village of Mahboobnagar District @ Rs.40,000/- per acre on 20.03.2006 by a registered sale deed. During the search operation u/s.132 of the Act conducted on 30.11.2006 in the premises of the assessee, one deed of the agreement to sale was seized from the premises of the assessee. As per the seized deed of agreement to sale, the consideration decided per acre of land was Rs.12,22,222/-. One money receipt of Rs.30 lakhs was also seized from the assessee. The comparative chart of the party to the registered sale deed dated 30.11.2006, the deed of the agreement to sale is found at page no.11 of the order of Ld. AO.
The Ld. AO found that the seller, survey number and the land area sold were same in both the deeds. He also found that one of the agreement holder and one of the purchaser to the deed of agreement to sale were the witness to the registered sale deed.
Therefore relying on section 292C and 132(4A) of the Act, the Ld.
AO made addition of Rs.70,93,332/- u/s.69A of the Act, being

ITA No.741/Hyd/2011 3

the difference in the rate as per deed of agreement to sale and the rate as per registered sale deed.
3. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) agreed to the view of Ld. AO and uphold the addition.
4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the name of the assessee was not there in the deed of agreement to sale as well as in the money receipt seized from the premises of the assessee. The deed of agreement to sale is not a registered document and therefore has no evidential value. He also submitted that in order to sell the property at higher rate, the seller sometime prepare forged agreement, which has nothing to do with the actual transaction. The Ld. AR also submitted that they have paid only the amount mentioned in the registered sale deed which has been registered before a sub-