ITO, WARD-3(3),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SIRIPURAPU CHINATALLI,, VISAKHAPATNAM
In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed
ITA 375/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009
Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Smt.Siripurapu Chinatalli Ward-3(3) D.No.9-16-37/2 Visakhapatnam Gurajada Enclave Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam [Pan : Agrpc1150E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.457/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri K.V.V.Prasad Ward-3(3) Plot No.301, Vytla Residency Visakhapatnam Balajinagar Siripuram Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 : 13.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement
For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 271(1)(c)
3. The assessee entered into a land deal for Rs.26.71 crores. The assessee did not possess adequate money to finalize the deal. It is only with the intention of finding an immediate buyer, the assessee entered into the deal.
4. That the amounts paid as advance did not constitute payment of part consideration does not hold water. Part consideration alone