SYED AFSAR HASAN Vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals by three different assessees are against separate orders of learned CIT(A) -VI, Hyderabad pertaining to assessment year 2006 -07. As facts are identical and issues are common, all these appeals are clubbed together and disposed in this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

(2.) THERE is a delay of 136 days in appeals preferred by the assessees. Assessees have filed delay condonation petitions explaining cause of delay supported by affidavits. After considering submissions of the parties, we are of the view that there is reasonable cause for filing the appeals belatedly. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the aforesaid appeals for consideration on merit.

(3.) BRIEFLY , facts are that assessee is an individual deriving income from salary, share income from M/s. Hansa Overseas Enterprises and also income from other sources. For the assessment year under consideration, assessee filed his return of income on 31.10.2006 declaring income of Rs. 3,34,510. Though the return was initially processed u/s. 143(1), subsequently on the basis of information available on record, Assessing Officer had reason to believe that assessee's income assessable for the year under consideration has escaped assessment. Accordingly, he reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 8.9.2011. During the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer from the information available on record noticed that assessee during the relevant previous year has sold a property situated at H. No. 8 -2 -678, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad by registered Sale Deed No. 2540/05 dated 23.6.2005 for a consideration of Rs. 1,09,50,000. However, assessee has not offered to tax capital gains arising out of such sale transaction. Accordingly, AO called upon assessee to explain reasons for not disclosing capital gain. Assessee in his reply submitted that capital gain was not declared only because sale proceeds of the property has not come to their hands and the same has been paid to State Bank of India who appropriated sale proceeds towards dues of a company and a partnership firm respectively where assessee is one of the directors and a partner. Thus, it was submitted that the sale transaction will not attract any capital gain tax. Assessing Officer after verifying the facts and materials on record noticed that though assessee claimed that the entire sale consideration was appropriated by the bank towards dues outstanding in the name of M/s. Hoe Leather Garments Pvt. Ltd. in which assessee is a director. However, on perusal of the bank account maintained by assessee with State Bank of Hyderabad, it was noticed that assessee has deposited sale consideration of Rs. 1,09,50,000 in the following manner: