Asst. DIT(Exemptions)-III, Hyderabad V. M/s. Sayanna Goud Memorial Educational Society, R.R.Dist

CO 24/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0407 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SUDHAKAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: S VENKATESAN
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 143(3); 2(14); 147; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 270/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) III, HYDERABAD SAYANNA GOUD MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, R.R. DISTRICT. PAN AADTS8039A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 24/HYD/2013 (IN ITA NO. 270/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SAYANNA GOUD MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, R.R. DISTRICT. PAN AADT58039A ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) III, HYDERABAD. (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI D. SUDHAKAR RAO ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. VENKATESAN DATE OF HEARING 18-02-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20-02-2015 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AND C.O. OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 24/12/2012 PASSED BY L D. CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD FOR A.Y. 2009-10. 2 ITA NO. 270 /HYD/2013 & C.O. NO. 24/H/13 SAYANNA GOUD MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ITA NO. 270/HYD/2013 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY DEPARTMENT IS WITH REG ARD TO FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED OF RS. 16,36 ,15,000 ON SALE OF LAND TO M/S RAMKY ESTATES AND FARMS PVT. LTD. IS TAXABLE IN A.Y. 2008-09. 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS RELATING TO THE AFORESAID ISS UE IN DISPUTE ARE, ASSESSEE, A SOCIETY, IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12 A OF THE ACT. FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETU RN OF INCOME ON 30/09/09 DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING EXEM PTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IT WAS NOTICED BY AO THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PY, ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 16,36,15,000 AS CONSIDERATION TOWARDS SALE OF A PLOT OF LAND. TO A QUERY RAISED BY AO, IT WAS STATED BY ASSESSEE THAT SOCIETY PURCHASED FIVE ACRES OF LAND IN SRINAGAR VILLAGE IN THE YEAR 1988. IT ALSO RECEIVED 59 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT SRIN IGAR VILLAGE IN THE YEAR 2002-03 AS DONATION FROM MEMBERS OF SOCIETY AN D THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. THE SOCIETY DONATED 10 ACRES OF LAND TO GO VT. OF AP IN 2005. ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE ON 08/02/06 WITH M/S RAMKY ESTATES AND FARMS PVT. LTD. FOR SALE OF L AND TO THE EXTENT OF 54 ACRES @ 44.80 LAKH PER ACRE. IT WAS ST ATED, ASSESSEE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 18,90,000 AS ADVANCE DURI NG THE PY 2005-06. THE A.P. GOVT. IN APRIL, 2006 ISSUED A NOT IFICATION TO ACQUIRE LAND IN SRINIGAR VILLAGE INCLUDING ASSESSEE S LAND. M/S RAMKY ESTATES AND FARMS PVT. LTD. ENTERED INTO JOIN T AGREEMENT WITH GOVT. OF AP AND HYDERABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AU THORITY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED TOWNSHIP. IN THIS PROC ESS, M/S RAMKY PROPOSED TO PURCHASE THE ENTIRE AREA UNDER ACQUISIT ION. AS PER THE SURVEY CONDUCTED BY M/S RAMKY AND ASSESSEE, LAND BE LONGING TO ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE 36.38 ACRES ONLY. ACCORDIN GLY, ASSESSEE 3 ITA NO. 270 /HYD/2013 & C.O. NO. 24/H/13 SAYANNA GOUD MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ENTERED INTO AN IRREVOCABLE GPA ON 24/08/07 WITH M/ S RAMKY FOR PURCHASE OF BALANCE LAND FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 16,55,05,000. AO NOTICED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL CONS IDERATION OF RS. 16,55,05,000, ASSESSEE RECEIVED A PART AS ADVANCE I N THE EARLIER YEAR. HOWEVER, DURING THE RELEVANT PY ASSESSEE RECE IVED BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,36,15,000. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THA T ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 16,30,00,000 TO M/S ALL TIM E PROJECTS LTD. TOWARDS PURCHASE OF A PLOT OF LAND THROUGH AN UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT. ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, DID NOT OFFER ANY CAP ITAL GAIN BY CLAIMING THE PAYMENT TO M/S ALL TIME PROJECTS LTD. AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. AO, HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT M/S ALL TIME PROJECTS LTD. IS A COMPANY WHEREIN SMT. M. RADHIKA, WIFE OF THE SECR ETARY OF ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS ONE OF THE DIRECTOR. THE SECRET ARY HIMSELF IS ALSO ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. AO HELD T HAT PAYMENTS MADE ATTRACTS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13 OF THE A CT, ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF TH E ACT. FURTHER, AO ALSO REJECTED ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT LAND SOLD BE ING AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT. A CCORDINGLY, AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY DETERMINING THE TOTAL I NCOME AT RS. 16,41,82,943. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED A N APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 4. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMI SSIONS MADE BEFORE AO. IN ADDITION, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSE E THAT PROVISIONS U/S 11 & 12 RELATING TO APPLICATION, ACC UMULATION AND INVESTMENT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO AN INCOME, WHICH I S OTHERWISE EXEMPT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE THAT AS POSSESSION OVER THE LAND WAS HANDED OVER TO M/S RAMKY UNDER GP A DURING FY 2007-08, CAPITAL GAIN, IF ANY, IS NOT TAXABLE IN T HE IMPUGNED AY, BUT IN THE AY 2008-09. 4 ITA NO. 270 /HYD/2013 & C.O. NO. 24/H/13 SAYANNA GOUD MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY 5. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE, THOUGH DID NOT ACCEPT ASSESSEES CLAIM WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF LAND AS AGRICULTURAL AND ALSO APPLICATION OF SALE P ROCEEDS, HOWEVER, SHE ACCEPTED ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT POSSESSION OVER THE LAND HAVING BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE PURCHASER DURING AY 2008-09 IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(47)(V), CAPITAL GAIN, IF ANY, HA S TO BE ASSESSED IN THE AY 2008-09. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED AO TO BRING THE CAPITAL GAIN TO TAX FOR AY 2008-09 BY TAKING REMEDI AL MEASURES AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. BEING AGGRIEVED OF T HE AFORESAID DECISION OF LD. CIT(A), DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 6. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT AS ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS SHO WN THE RECEIPT AS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED A Y, LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT CAPITAL GAIN ARISIN G FROM SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAXED IN THE AY 2008-09 AND NOT IN THE IMP UGNED AY. 7. LD. AR, HOWEVER, SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ASPECT, SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE POSSESSION OVER THE LAND WAS HANDED OVER TO THE DEVELOPER IN TERMS WITH THE GPA IN FY 2007-08, THERE WAS A TRANSFER IN TERMS WITH SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ONLY BECAUSE ASSESSEE UNDER A MIS TAKEN IMPRESSION, HAS SHOWN THE AMOUNT AS APPLICATION OF INCOME IN THE IMPUGNED AY, DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE A DVANTAGE OF SUCH MISTAKE COMMITTED BY ASSESSEE. LD. AR SUBMITTE D THAT IN PURSUANCE TO DIRECTION OF LD. CIT(A), AO IN THE MEA NTIME, HAS REOPENED ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT FOR AY 2008- 09 AND HAS ALSO PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 31/03/14 BY BRINGIN G TO TAX ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,41,82,943 RE CEIVED TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATION FROM M/S RAMKY. LD. AR, THUS, SU BMITTED THAT WHEN THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE ON SALE OF LAN D HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX IN AY 2008-09, THE SAME AMOUNT CANNO T BE TAXED AGAIN IN THE IMPUGNED AY. THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT 5 ITA NO. 270 /HYD/2013 & C.O. NO. 24/H/13 SAYANNA GOUD MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD . CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AS WELL AS ORDERS O F REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO T HE FACT THAT ASSESSEE ON 24/08/07 HAS ENTERED INTO GPA WITH M/S RAMKY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AND IN PURSUANCE TO THE TERMS O F THE SAID GPA HAS HANDED OVER POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO M/S R AMKY. THIS FACT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR AY 2008-09. AS OBSERVED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 6 .3 OF HER ORDER, AO ALSO IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 28/08/12 HAS AD MITTED THAT SALE HAS TAKEN PLACED IN AY 2008-09. THEREFORE, SIN CE ASSESSEE HAS HANDED OVER POSSESSION OVER THE PROPERTY TO THE DEVELOPER ON EXECUTION OF GPA ON 05/05/07, THERE IS A TRANSFER O F THE ASSET IN TERMS WITH SECTION 2(47)(V) DURING THE FY 2007-08 R ELEVANT TO AY 2008-09. THIS VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE JURISIDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF POTLA NAGRESW ARA RAO VS. DCIT, [2014] 365 ITR 249. MOREOVER, IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), AO N OT ONLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2008-09 BY TAKING RE COURSE TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, BUT HAS ALSO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2008-09 BY BRINGING TO TAX THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16, 41,82,943 RECEIVED FROM M/S RAMKY TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT OF LAND . THIS FACT IS VERY MUCH EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR AY 2008- 09 U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT FOR AY 2008-09. TO A QUERY RAISED BY THE BENCH, LD. AR OF ASSESSEE ASS ERTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 FOR AY 2008-09. LD . AR ASSURED THAT ASSESSEE ACCEPTS THE FACT THAT IF AT ALL CAPIT AL GAIN HAS TO BE ASSESSED, THEN, IT IS TO BE IN THE AY 2008-09. ON P ERUSAL OF THE 6 ITA NO. 270 /HYD/2013 & C.O. NO. 24/H/13 SAYANNA GOUD MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IN APP EAL PREFERRED FOR AY 2008-09, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED BEFORE US , ALSO REVEALS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE YEAR OF TAXABI LITY. THEREFORE, ONCE IT IS ACCEPTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS HANDED OVER P OSSESSION OF THE LAND TO THE DEVELOPER IN FY 2007-08, IN TERMS W ITH AN AGREEMENT TRANSFER TAKES PLACE DURING THAT FY, NOT ONLY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47)(V) BUT ALSO AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF POTLA NAGESWARA RAO (SUPRA). IN THE AFORESAID VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING THA T CAPITAL GAIN, IF ANY, FROM THE SALE OF LAND HAS TO BE ASSESSED IN AY 2008-09 AND NOT IN THE IMPUGNED AY. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BY DISMISSING THE GROUND RAISED BY DEPARTMEN T ON THIS ISSUE. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO LD. CIT(A) UPHO LDING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. 10. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS RELATING TO THE AFORESAID IS SUE WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT, AO TREATED THE EXCESS OF INC OME OVER EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,67,943 AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED AY. IN AN APPEAL PREFERRED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO SUCH DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUN D THAT AS RECEIPTS OF TWO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RUN BY ASS ESSEE IS NOT EXCEEDING THE SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF RS. 1 CRORE, SURP LUS OF RS. 5,67,943 IS EXEMPT U/S 10(23)(IIIAD). LD. CIT(A) AF TER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE R ATIO LAID DOWN IN THE DECISIONS PLACED BEFORE HER, ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23)(IIIAD) BEING CONVINCED OF THE FACT THAT THE RECEIPTS OF EACH OF THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS DI D NOT EXCEED THE SPECIFIED LIMIT OF RS. 1 CRORE DURING THE RELEVANT FY. 7 ITA NO. 270 /HYD/2013 & C.O. NO. 24/H/13 SAYANNA GOUD MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHO RITIES. LD. DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE RECEIPTS OF ASSESSEE D URING THE YEAR HAVING EXCEEDED RS. 1 CRORE, ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIB LE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23)(IIIAD), HENCE, THE SURPLUS OF INCOME OVE R EXPENDITURE WAS CORRECTLY TAXED BY AO. LD. AR, HOWEVER, SUBMITT ED THAT AS THE RECEIPTS OF EACH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION RUN BY ASS ESSEE, WHICH HAVE DISTINCT IDENTITY DID NOT EXCEED THE PRESCRIBE D LIMIT OF RS. 1 CRORE AS PROVIDED 10(23C)(IIIAD), ASSESSEE IS ELIGI BLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD). IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CO NTENTION, LD. AR RELIED UPON A DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIG H COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. CHILDREN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, 358 ITR 37 3. 12. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23 )(IIIAD). ON PERUSAL OF FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD, IT IS EVI DENT THAT THE INDIVIDUAL RECEIPTS OF THE TWO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUT IONS RUN BY ASSESSEE DO NOT EXCEED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS. 1 CRORE AS PROVIDED U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD). THEREFORE, WE DO NOT F IND ANY BASIS IN DEPARTMENTS CONTENTION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIB LE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD). FURTHER, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FR OM SALE OF LAND HAVING ALREADY BEEN HELD TO BE TAXABLE IN AY 2008-0 9, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE IMPUGNED A.Y. THAT BEIN G THE CASE, THERE IS NO REASON TO DISTURB THE FINDING OF LD. CI T(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM HER DECISION WITH REGARD TO ASSESSEES C LAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD). THIS GROUND IS DISMIS SED. 13. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 8 ITA NO. 270 /HYD/2013 & C.O. NO. 24/H/13 SAYANNA GOUD MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C.O. NO. 24/HYD/2013 BY ASSESSEE 10. THE FIRST ISSUE AS RAISED IN C.O. IS WITH REGAR D TO FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) THAT THE LAND SOLD BY ASSESSEE IS NOT AN AGR ICULTURAL LAND, BUT, A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. AS CAN BE SEEN, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND SOLD BY ASSESSEE TO THE DEVELOPER BEING RECORDED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SITUATED BEYOND EIGHT KILOMETERS FROM THE LIMIT OF A NOTIFIED MUNICIPALITY, IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET U/S 2 (14) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, NEITHER THE AO NOR LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED SUC H CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE LAND SOLD BY ASSESSEE IS A CAPITAL ASSET. 11. LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US, CIT(A) HAVING HELD THAT CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM SALE OF LAN D IS NOT TAXABLE IN THE IMPUGNED AY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED OR LEGALLY COR RECT IN GIVING HER FINDING WITH REGARD TO NATURE OF LAND. LD. AR SUBMI TTED THAT ONCE LD. CIT(A) HOLDS A PARTICULAR INCOME NOT TO BE TAXABLE IN THE PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR, SHE HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DECIDE ANY OTHER ISSUE RELATED TO SUCH INCOME. THEREFORE, FINDING OF CIT(A ) WITH REGARD TO NATURE OF LAND NEEDS TO BE EXPUNGED. 12. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IN PRINCIPLE, WE A GREE WITH THE LD. AR THAT LD. CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE COMMENTED UPON T HE NATURE OF LAND, ONCE, SHE HELD THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF SAL E OF LAND NOT TO BE TAXABLE IN THE IMPUGNED AY BUT, A.Y. 2008-09. TH EREFORE, ONCE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT INCOME IS NOT TAXAB LE IN THE IMPUGNED AY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF SHE HAD NO T COMMENTED UPON THE NATURE OF LAND AND LEFT IT TO BE DECIDED B Y AUTHORITIES CONCERNED WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE RELATING TO TAXA BILITY OF THE SAID 9 ITA NO. 270 /HYD/2013 & C.O. NO. 24/H/13 SAYANNA GOUD MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY INCOME IN THE A.Y. 2008-09. THE FINDING OF LD. CIT( A), IN OUR VIEW, HAS CAUSED SERIOUS PREJUDICE TO ASSESSEE AS HE HAS BEEN PRECLUDED FROM RAISING THE ISSUE OF NATURE OF LAND IN THE APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, WE EXPUNGE THE OBSERV ATIONS OF LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO NATURE OF LAND AND OBSERVE TH AT THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE RELA TING TO NATURE OF LAND IN A.Y. 2008-09 SHOULD NOT GET INFLUENCED WITH THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED A.Y . AND DECIDE THE ISSUE INDEPENDENTLY ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES O N RECORD AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 14. THE NEXT ISSUE AS RAISED IN C.O. IS AGAINST THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE ALLOWABILITY TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING T HE FACT THAT WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BOTH ON THE ISS UE OF YEAR OF TAXABILITY OF CAPITAL GAIN AS WELL AS CLAIM OF EXEM PTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD), THIS ISSUE MORE OR LESS HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. LD. AR ALSO ACCEPTS THIS POSITION. IN VIEW OF THE AFORE SAID, THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE THIS ISSUE. 15. IN THE RESULT, C.O. FILED BY ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. TO SUM UP, DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND C.O. OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/02/2015. SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 KV 10 ITA NO. 270 /HYD/2013 & C.O. NO. 24/H/13 SAYANNA GOUD MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY COPY TO:- 1) ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-III, 3 RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYD 04. 2) SAYANNA GOUD MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, 3-42, TUKKUGUDA VILLAGE, MAHESWARAM MANDAL, RR DIST. 3) CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD 4) DIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.