आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.467/Hyd/2019 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2008-09)

Shri Ram Mohan Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Darumagari, Secunderabad Ward-15(1)

PAN:AGAPD7084P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.466/Hyd/2019 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2008-09)

Late Vanaja Darumagari Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Shri Ram Mohan Rao Ward-15(1) Darumagari, Secunderabad Hyderabad PAN:AKQPD6499Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: Shri Arun Lal, CA राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 21/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President These two appeals by the husband and wife are directed against two separate orders dated 10/01/2019 of the learned CIT (A)-7, Hyderabad for the A.Y.2008-09. The issues involved in both the appeals are identical and common arising from the common facts and circumstances, therefore, for the purpose of recording the facts, the appeal in case of the husband Shri Ram Mohan Rao Darumagari in ITA No.467/Hyd/2019 is taken as a lead case.

2. The assessee and his wife have not filed any return of income u/s 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the year under consideration. There was a search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act in case of MB Patil Group and M/s. Raja Rani Developers on 24/11/2011. During the said search and seizure action, it was interalia revealed that the assessee Shri Bhim Rao Patil and Shri Vinod Kumar purchased a land measuring 3 acres and 9 guntas situated in Survey No.148, Kompally Village, Qutaballapur Mandal, R.R. District vide sale deed dated 10/10/2007 for a consideration of Rs.3.35 crores in the name of M/s. Raja Rani Developers, a partnership firm formed, vide partnership deed dated 26/10/2007. Thus, the land was purchased by these persons stated to be partners of the partnership firm in the name of the said partnership firm prior to the said firm came into existence. Subsequently, the said partnership was dissolved and the land was transferred in favour of the partners. This information relating to the assessee was received by the Assessing Officer from Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vide letter 16/2/2015 that, the assessee and the other persons have purchased the land and then the same was transferred in favour of the partners including the assessees as part of the dissolution of the partnership firm. The Assessing Officer accordingly reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 on 5/3/2015 which stated to be duly served on the assessee on 7/3/2015. However, there was no response on behalf of the assessee to the notices issued u/s 148. After several opportunities and show- cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer for framing the assessment on best judgment basis, the assessee filed a reply dated 4/6/2015 requested for time up to 15/06/2015. Finally, the assessee filed his return of income on 5/10/2015 in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment by making addition u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.9,53,00,000/- as unexplained investment in purchase of land. Since the wife of the assessee was not a party to the sale deed dated 10/10/2007 whereby the land was purchased in the name of the partnership firm, the Assessing Officer has restricted the addition in the hand of the wife of Rs.10.00 lakhs on account of investment made in the partnership firm.

3. On appeal, the learned CIT (A) has restricted the addition on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land to Rs.4,76,50,000/- by enhanced the assessment by a sum of Rs.10.00 Lakhs on account of investment made by the assessee towards the capital in the partnership firm apart from the addition sustained on account of unexplained i