SYED IRFANUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 433/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 December 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the request of the assessees' counsel for withdrawal of appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessees filed their original returns of income, and subsequently, a search operation led to a notice under section 153A. During the search, a difference in consideration for land transfer was discovered, which was admitted as additional income by the assessees.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the addition of income based on a search and seizure operation. However, the appeals were withdrawn by the assessees before the Tribunal could adjudicate on the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.A.R
Hearing: 09.12.2024Pronounced: 10.12.2024

O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M :

These two appeals filed by the assessees are directed against separate, but identical orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, even dated 19.03.2024 for A.Y 2016-17. Since, the facts are identical and issue is common but for the figures, for the sake of convenience, these two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of, by this consolidated order.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that assessee in an individual, filed original return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 28.03.2017 admitting income of Rs.10,83,43,460/-. The case was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.10.2016. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 was conducted in the Red Rose Group of cases on 12.07.2018 and as a part of search operations, warranted was issued in the case of the assessee and search was conducted. Thereafter, notice u/s 153A dt.23.01.2019 was issued to the assessee. In response, assessee filed the return of income on 29.03.2019, admitting the total income of Rs.19,58,43,460/-. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) dt.23.07.2019 was issued to the assessee. Subsequently, notices were issued u/s 142(1) of the Act calling for information. In response, assessee furnished information on various dates.

2.1. During the search and seizure operation in case of M/s. WIIZ Realtors LLP, Assessing Officer found an agreement of sale for transfer of land between two parties and on examination, came to know that there was a difference between actual consideration paid to landlords and registered sale deed to the tune of Rs.17,54,25,000/-. When the said fact was confronted with one Mr. Syed Hameduddin, the said amount was admitted as additional income in the hands of assessees herein being the partners. After verifying all the information available on record, Assessing Officer completed the assessment adding Rs.8,75,00,000/- and Rs.6,25,00,000/- in the hands of assessees herein and passed assessment orders even dated 16.05.2021 u/s 153A of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved with such assessment orders, assessees filed appeals before the LD.CIT(A), who granted part relief to the assessees and thereafter LD.CIT(A) passed rectification orders u/s 154 of the Act even dated 19.03.2024.

4.

Aggrieved with the orders of LD.CIT(A), the assessees are now in appeal before us.

5.

At the time of hearing, ld.AR for the assessees Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A., filed petitions for withdrawal of appeals. The ld. DR for the Revenue, Shri Madan Mohan Meena, has no objection for the withdrawal of appeals filed by the assessees. Therefore, considering the request of the learned counsel for the assessees, the captioned appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.

6.

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →