IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2310/Hyd/2018 Assessment Year 2015-16 Gandamalla Renuka, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-4(3), PAN: ADJPG5988 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue by Shri R.S. Arvindakshan, DR Date of hearing 23/07/2019 Date of pronouncement 24/09/2019 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM. This appeal is filed by assessee against order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad dated 13/11/2018 in appeal No. 0244/17-18/ITO, Ward-4(3)/CIT(A)-1/Hyd/2018-19 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of Act for assessment year 2015-16. 2. In this appeal, assessee has raised five grounds in her appeal however crux of issue is that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming order of Ld. A.O. who had enhanced short term capital gains computed by assessee by treating sale 2 consideration as Rs. 56 lakhs as against Rs. 37 lakhs declared by assessee. 3. Brief facts of case are that assessee is individual earning income from house property and short-term capital gains filed her return of income on 23/08/2017 for relevant assessment year declaring income of Rs. 6,34,530/- [income from house property Rs. 50,400/- and short-term capital gains Rs. 5,84,130/-). case of assessee was taken up for scrutiny pursuant to survey conducted U/s. 133A of Act in case of M/s. Kalyan Constructions wherein assessee is partner in firm. 4. During course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by Ld. A.O. that assessee had acquired Flat No. 101 in Kalyan s Sreelakshmi Golden Edifice project developed by M/s. Kalyan Constructions wherein assessee is one of partner. aforesaid property was acquired by assessee vide Document No.3117/2012, dated 28/09/2012 by way of gift settlement deed towards which assessee s capital in firm was reduced to extent of Rs. 30,24,000/- being market value of property. It was further observed that on 08/05/2014, assessee had sold aforesaid property for sale consideration of Rs. 37,00,000/- vide Document 3 No.1489/2014 and assessee had offered short-term capital gains of Rs. 5,84,130/-. 5. It was further revealed that during course of survey Sri G. Ramesh, Managing Director of partnership firm M/s. Kalyan Constructions has stated that Flat No. 101 was sold for Rs. 3,500/- per sft to one NRI amounting to Rs. 56,00,000/-. Thereafter during course of hearing, counsel for assessee agreed for addition. Based on admission of Ld. AR of assessee, Ld. A.O. made addition of Rs. 19,00,000/- towards short-term capital gains by treating sale consideration as Rs. 56,00,000/- instead of Rs. 37,00,000/- disclosed by assessee in her return of income. 6. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed order of Ld. A.O. by observing as under: - I have carefully considered assessment order submissions of appellant. As per sale agreement, appellant sold one flat No.101, admeasuring 1600 sft situated at Sreelakshmi Golden Edifice for consideration of Rs. 56,00,000/-. As per sworn statement of Sri G. Ramesh, husband of appellant, it is confirmed that property was sold for Rs. 56,00,000/-. Therefore, submissions of appellant is not accepted and I agree with addition made by Assessing Officer. 7. Before us, Ld. AR submitted that assessee had sold property for consideration of Rs. 37 lakhs as stated in Registered Document No.1489/2014 executed on 08/05/2014. Ld. AR further 4 submitted that merely because Counsel of assessee had admitted before he Ld. A.O. that sale value to be Rs. 56 lakhs, addition cannot be made because there is no documentary evidence to substantiate same. It was therefore pleaded that addition of Rs. 19,00,000/- made by Ld. A.O. which was further confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) may be deleted. Ld. DR on other hand vehemently argued in support of orders of Ld. Revenue Authorities. 8. I have heard rival submissions and perused materials on record. From facts of case, it is apparent that sale value mentioned in Registered Sale Deed was only Rs. 37 lakhs. There was nothing on record other than statement of Managing Director Mr. G. Ramesh to establish that assessee had sold property for sale consideration of Rs. 56 lakhs. Merely on statement of Mr. G. Ramesh, Managing Partner of firm or by admission of assessee s Counsel without knowledge and concurrence of assessee, it cannot be presumed that sale consideration of property sold was Rs. 56 lakhs. There is no documentary evidence or any other cogent evidence available on record to establish that assessee has sold property for Rs. 56 lakhs. Further, value recorded in sale deed and executed before Registration Authority stipulates that sale value of property was only Rs. 37 lakhs and same is also accepted by Registration Authority. In this 5 situation, I am of considered view that addition made by Ld. AO by enhancing sale consideration of property sold is not justifiable. Hence, I hereby direct Ld. A.O. to delete addition made for Rs. 19 lakhs towards short-term capital gains computed in hands of assessee. 9. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Pronounced in open Court on 24 th September, 2019. Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 24 th September, 2019 OKK Copy to:- 1) Gandamalla Renuka, D.No. 2-2-1076/5/D/1, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad. 2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Hyderabad. 3) CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad 4) Pr. CIT-1, Hyderabad 5) DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File Gandamalla Renuka v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Hyderabad