KRISHNA RAO VADDA,HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -11(4), HYDERABAD.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and reiterated his stand, by way of submission of facts since he has offered proper explanation and provisions of section 69A are not applicable. Learned CIT(A) however noted in his order that in spite of granting several adjournments, the assessee failed to comply and therefore, he was left with no option, but to proceed ex-parte and due to paucity of evidence, he cannot interfere with the order of the learned Assessing Officer. On that premise, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Hence, this appeal by the assessee. It is the submission of the learned AR that when the assessee sold the property, he received the sale consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- not as advance, but as sale consideration on the date of registration of the document before the Sub Registrar, consequently, he cannot add the same under section 69A of the Act. He further submitted that consistent view taken by the Coordinate Benches is that when the sale consideration itself is received before the sub-registrar at the time of registration, provisions of section 269SS are not applicable and consequently section 271D also cannot be invoked. Learned AR further submitted that when the assessee explained the source of money deposited in bank that too in one go, there is no reason for the authorities for not accepting the same. He, therefore, prayed that the addition may be deleted.

Per contra, the learned DR submitted that the learned Assessing Officer rightly dismissed the appeal by making addition, as in spite of several adjournments given by the learned CIT(A), the assessee failed to comply with the same and therefore, it is not open for the assessee now to put forth his case before the Tribunal and seek deletion of addition. She

I have gone through the record in the light of submissions made either side. It could be seen from the computation of income filed by the assessee that at the time of filing of the return of income, the assessee declared sale consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- in the computation. Assessee also pleaded before the learned Assessing Officer at the first opportunity about his receiving the sale consideration of immovable property. Assessee also produced the sale deed dated 02/11/2016, which clearly shows that the transaction was registered on 02/11/2016 and the consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- was paid to the assessee.

I find no reason not to believe the statement of the learned AR that since it is not mentioned that consideration was paid through banking channels, it shall be inferred to have been paid in cash only. Be that it may be, the plea of the assessee is well corroborated by the sale deed and also revealing the same in computation of income at the time of filing of the return of income. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the receipt in question is unexplained to invoke the provisions of section 69A of the Act and it shall not be the reason to make any addition in the hands of the assessee when the receipts are properly explained. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the addition in this case cannot be sustained and on the face of these facts, I do not find it necessary to restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) also. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed and the learned Assessing Officer will delete the addition of Rs.18,00,000/- made under section 69A of the Act.

Other addition that is challenged is in respect of disallowance under Chapter VI-A under section 80C of the Act. Assessment Order is silent on this aspect, but the computation of income speaks of the same. Learned AR submits that Form 16 is filed along with the return of income. However, it

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 30th September, 2024.