GST Course
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), CHENNAI Ramcharan Tej Konidala, CHENNAI Details

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Chennai

Brief :
 This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against order of the learned CIT(A)-14, Chennai dated 28.03.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10.

Citation :
I.T.A.No.2074/Chny/2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT
AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A.No.2074/Chny/2018 
Assessment Year: 2009-10) 

The Assistant Commissioner of Income
Tax,Non-Corporate Circle-20(1)
Chennai.
Appellant

Vs

Mr. Ramcharan Tej Konidala,
98, Kamdar Nagar,
Mahalingapuram,
Chennai-600 034.
PAN: ALIPK 5347D
Respondent)

Appellant by : Mr.G.Chandrababu, Addl.CIT
Respondent by : Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan,
Advocate

Date of hearing : 18.02.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2021

O R D E R

PER G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

 This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against order of the learned CIT(A)-14, Chennai dated 28.03.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10.

2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to facts and circumstances of the case.

2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of `1,54,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment in villa plot.

2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that addition was made on the basis of charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet filed by the CBI based on the facts findings by CBI.

2.3 The learned CIT(A) ought to have decided the case before disposal of appeal by the CBI Special Court as the issue has not attained finality and is still pending.

3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and film artist by profession, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 u/s.139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment for the impugned assessment year has been originally completed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 21.12.2011. The assessment has been subsequently reopened u/s.147 of the Act for the reasons recorded, as per which income chargeable to tax had been escaped assessment on account of on money payment for purchase of property. Accordingly, notice u/s.148 dated 31.03.2013 was issued and served on the assesse. The case was taken up for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, on the basis of information received from the DCIT, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad, opined that the assessee has paid on-money for purchase of property from M/s. Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. and accordingly, by taking note of various facts including charge sheet filed by CBI before the Court of Special Judge for CBI held that the assessee has paid a sum of `1,54,50,000/- towards on-money payment for purchase of residential Villa flat admeasuring 4000 sq.yard. The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order are as under:- 

To know more in details find the attachment file
 
 

 

Guest
on 19 May 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 25
downloaded 4 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags