M/s. GSR Properties Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad V. Weath Tax Officer - 2(2), Hyderabad

CO 4/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9702 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 04-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 133A; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SL. NO WTA.NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 34/HYD/2013 2005- 2006 WTO WARD 2(2) HYDERABAD M/S. GSR PROPERTIES P. LTD., HYDERABAD PAN AABCG-8711-B 2. 35/HYD/2013 M/S. GAJJALA CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD., HYDERABAD PANAABCG-8712H 3. 36/HYD/2013 M/S. GVR PROPERTIES P. LTD., HYDERABAD PAN AABCG-8714B 4. 37/HYD/2013 M/S. GGR PROPERTIES P. LTD., HYDERABAD PAN AACCG-2091-E 5. 38/HYD/2013 M/S. GMR CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD., HYDERABAD PAN AABCG-8713-G 6. 39/HYD/2013 M/S. GAJJALA RAM REDDY PROPERTIES P. LTD., HYDERABAD PAN AABCG8710F 7. 40/HYD/2013 M/S. HARINI RESORTS & PROPERTIES P. LTD., HYDERABAD PAN AABCH-2577-F SL. NO . CROSS OBJECTION NO. ARISING OUT OF WTA.NO. A.Y. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT 8 04/HYD/2014 34/H/13 2005- 2006 M/S. GSR PROPERTIES P. LTD., HYDERABAD PAN AABCG- 8711-B WTO WARD 2(2) HYDERABAD 9. 05/HYD/2013 35/H/13 M/S. GAJJALA CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD., HYDERABAD PANAABCG- 8712H 2 WTA.NO.34 TO 40/HYD/2013 & C.OS.4 TO 10/HYD/2014 M/S. GSR PROPERTIES P. LTD., & OTHERS, HYDERABAD. 10. 06/HYD/2013 36/H/13 2005- 2006 M/S. GVR PROPERTIES P. LTD., HYDERABAD PAN AABCG- 8714B WTO WARD 2(2) HYDERABAD 11. 07/HYD/2013 37/H/13 M/S. GGR PROPERTIES P. LTD., HYDERABAD PAN AACCG- 2091-E 12. 08/HYD/2013 38/H/13 M/S. GMR CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD., HYDERABAD PAN AABCG- 8713-G 13. 09/HYD/2013 39/H/13 M/S. GAJJALA RAM REDDY PROPERTIES P. LTD., HYDERABAD PAN AABCG8710F 14. 10/HYD/2013 40/H/13 M/S. HARINI RESORTS & PROPERTIES P. LTD., HYDERABAD PAN AABCH- 2577-F REVENUE BY MR. R. MOHAN REDDY ASSESSEE BY MR. K.C. DEVDAS DATE OF HEARING 23.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27.06.2014 O R D E R PER BENCH : THE SEVEN APPEALS BY REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD DATED 13 TH AUGUST, 2013 ON THE ISSUE OF DELETING THE NET WEALTH CONSID ERED BY AO. ASSESSEES FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS ON THE ISSUE OF MA KING 3 WTA.NO.34 TO 40/HYD/2013 & C.OS.4 TO 10/HYD/2014 M/S. GSR PROPERTIES P. LTD., & OTHERS, HYDERABAD. ADDITION IN REOPENED PROCEEDINGS. THE ISSUES BEING COMMON IN ALL THESE APPEALS AND THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS WERE ALSO BEING COMMON, THESE ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DECIDED BY THI S COMMON ORDER. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. D.R. AND LD. COUNSEL IN DETAI L AND PERUSED THE PAPER BOOK FILED IN THIS REGARD. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THESE SEVEN COMPANIES ARE GROUP COMPANIES AND ARE FLOATED BY MR. G. MADHUSUDHAN RED DY ALONG WITH SMT. VIDYAVATHI WHO IN ALL FLOATED 13 CO MPANIES. EACH OF THE COMPANY PURCHASED 1/13 TH SHARE EACH IN A LAND MEASURING AC.2.39 GTS IN PLOT NO.7, SURVEY NO. 151/ 4, ROAD NO.2, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. THE LAND WAS PURCHA SED ON 26.04.2004. SUBSEQUENTLY, THESE 13 COMPANIES ENTERE D INTO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 03.08.2005 WITH M /S. DLF RETAIL DEVELOPERS LTD., TO SELL THEIR SHARE OF LAND FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.60.49 CRORES. ASSESSEES HEREIN HAVE FILED RETURNS OF WEALTH TAKING THE MARKET VALUE ON 1/13 TH UNDIVIDED SHARE AT RS.83,08,000/-. BY REDUCING THE UNSECURED LOANS FROM DIRECTORS REFLECTED AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN THE RETURN AND CLAIMING BASIC EXEMPTION OF RS. 15 LAKHS NET WEALTH WAS DISCLOSED AT RS.43,01,993/-. THESE RETUR NS WERE ACCEPTED AS THE ASSESSEES HAVE PAID TAXES THEREON. SUBSEQUENTLY, SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A WAS CONDUCT ED IN THE CASE OF M/S. GMR CONSTRUCTIONS LTD ON 27.01.200 6 AND A.O. VERIFIED THE CLAIMS OF RETURNS FILED WITH REFE RENCE TO WEALTH. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF SH ARE APPLICATION MONEY, THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 17 OF WEALTH TAX ACT WAS INITIATED IN EACH CASE AND NOTICES WERE ISSUED ON 4 WTA.NO.34 TO 40/HYD/2013 & C.OS.4 TO 10/HYD/2014 M/S. GSR PROPERTIES P. LTD., & OTHERS, HYDERABAD. 04.09.2008. IN RESPONSE, EACH OF THE ASSESSEE FILED LETTER DATED 12.10.2009 STATING THAT RETURN FILED BY THE COMPANY ON 28.03.2006 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPON SE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. IN THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O. ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF REDUCING THE UNSECURED LOANS FROM DIRECTORS REFLECTED AS SHA RE APPLICATION MONEY IN THE RETURN. HOWEVER, HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT MARKET VALUE OF JHM PLOT SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO DLF RETAIL DEVELOPERS AT RS.60.47 CR ORES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR VALUING THE PROPERTY AS ON 31.03. 2005 AND ACCORDINGLY, HE RE-VALUED THE PROPERTY BY DIVIDING THE SAID VALUE BY 13 AND MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3,82,11,846/- TO THE WEALTH RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THOUGH, THE N ET WEALTH ARRIVED AT BY ASSESSEE WAS AFTER CLAIMING THE BASIC EXEMPTION OF RS. 15 LAKHS, A.O. HOWEVER, ALLOWED BASIC EXEMPT ION AGAIN THEREBY, DETERMINING NET WEALTH AT RS.4,10,13,839/- . 4. ASSESSEES PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) ON THE ACTION OF THE A.O. AND CONTESTED INTER ALIA ISSUES OF NOTICE IN WEALTH TAX AND FURTHER TAKING UP A NEW IS SUE OF PROPOSING TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS.3,82,11,846/- I.E., DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOU VALUE AND THE ADMITTED VALUE WHICH WAS NOT THE REASON RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSES SMENT. FURTHER, IT ALSO CONTESTED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTIO N EVEN THOUGH SHOWN AS ASSETS IN THE BALANCE SHEET IS A CU RRENT ASSET I.E., STOCK-IN-TRADE AND NOT THE FIXED ASSET AND HE NCE, EXEMPT FROM WEALTH TAX FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS FROM THE D ATE OF ITS ACQUISITION UNDER SECTION 2(EA) EXPLANATION (1) (B) OF WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957. 5 WTA.NO.34 TO 40/HYD/2013 & C.OS.4 TO 10/HYD/2014 M/S. GSR PROPERTIES P. LTD., & OTHERS, HYDERABAD. 4.1. LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE GROUND OF REOPENING BUT ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION TH AT THE SAID LAND WAS STOCK-IN-TRADE AND ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION BY STATING AS UNDER : 4.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED CAREFULLY THE FACTS AND EVI DENCE AND I FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS HELD THE LAND TO BE A FIXED ASSET AND NOT A STOCK IN TRADE BECAUSE THE APPELLAN T DID NOT DEVELOP THE SAME. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS A SIMP LE PROPOSITION I.E, IF THE LAND IS BEING TRADED, THEN IT IS A STOCK IN TRADE AND IF IT IS HELD AS AN ASSET FOR GE NERATING INCOME, THEN IT CANNOT BE A STOCK IN TRADE. REGARDL ESS OF THE OBJECTS ENSHRINED IN THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATIO N OF THE COMPANY, THE FACT IS THAT IT IS THE TREATMENT GIVEN TO THE LAND WHICH WILL DETERMINE ITS STATUS. IN THE CURREN T CASE THE LAND WAS PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 2004 AND THE MOU WAS ENTERED IN 2005. THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS VERY CLEARLY TO SELL THE LAND AND EARN PROFIT OUT O F ITS. THIS HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY STATED BY THE A.O. HIMSELF. ONCE, THE PURPOSE IS TO SELL AT THE 1 ST AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY AND TO EARN PROFITS, IT IS VERY CLEARLY AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE I.E., THE APPELLANT HAS CONDUCTED T HE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF LAND. THE LAND HAS TO BE TREATED AS STOCK IN TRADE OF THE APPELLANT. THE A.O . IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. ALL OTHER CALCULATIONS WILL B E MADE KEEPING THIS PROPOSITION IN MIND. 5. REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED ON THE ABOVE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE CWT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN IGNORING T HE VITAL FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF DECLARED THE A SSET TO THE WEALTH TAX AND THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED NOW AS A NON-TAXABLE ASSET. 2. THE CWT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN TREATING TH E ASSET DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF WEALTH BY THE ASSES SEE HIMSELF AS ASSET AS NOT LIABLE TO WEALTH TAX ? 3. THE CWT(A) IS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DIRECTIN G THE A.O. THAT WEALTH TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE 6 WTA.NO.34 TO 40/HYD/2013 & C.OS.4 TO 10/HYD/2014 M/S. GSR PROPERTIES P. LTD., & OTHERS, HYDERABAD. RETURNED THOUGH THERE IS NO SUCH PROVISIONS UNDER L AW TO REFUND ADMITTED TAX. 4. THE CWT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THA T THE ASSETS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF TO WEAL TH TAX AS STOCK-IN-TRADE ? 5. CWT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION O F SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUN ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD., 198 ITR 297 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THA T REOPENING CAN BE ONLY TO BENEFIT REVENUE. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE TAKEN AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 6. LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. WHER EAS LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) ON MERIT S. AS FAR AS CROSS OBJECTION IS CONCERNED, THE LD. COUNSEL RELIE D ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F JET AIRWAYS 331 ITR 236 FOR PROPOSITION THAT A.O. COULD NOT HAVE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT MAKING THE ADDITION WHEN T HAT WAS NOT A REASON FOR REOPENING. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUES AND EXAMINED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. AS SEEN FROM THE REASONING RECOR DED FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, THE A.O. HAS ONLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM I S NOT ALLOWABLE. HOWEVER, IN THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HE HAS ACCEPTED ASSESSEES CLAIM. THERE FORE, TO THE EXTENT OF REASONS FOR REOPENING IN FACT TURNED OUT TO BE NO REASON AT ALL. HOWEVER, A.O. ALTOGETHER TOOK-UP A N EW ISSUE OF MAKING ADDITION ON THE VALUE AS DETERMINED IN MOU R EDUCED BY THE VALUE AS PER THE BOOKS I.E., PROPORTIONATE S HARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE TOTAL VALUE. THIS NEW ISSUE WAS NOT ORIGINALLY 7 WTA.NO.34 TO 40/HYD/2013 & C.OS.4 TO 10/HYD/2014 M/S. GSR PROPERTIES P. LTD., & OTHERS, HYDERABAD. CONTEMPLATED AT THE TIME OF REOPENING EVEN THOUGH A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED MUCH BEFORE THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND ENTIRE INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE A.O. 8. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. JET AIRWAYS (INDIA LTD.) 331 ITR 236 (BOM.) (HC) CONSIDERED THE SCOPE OF POWER OF A.O. TO ASSESS SUC H OTHER INCOME IN THE CASE OF RE-ASSESSMENT UNDER THE PROVI SIONS OF I.T. ACT, PARTICULARLY, SECTION 147 EXPLANATION (3) . PROVISIONS FOR WEALTH TAX AS FAR AS REOPENING IS CONCERNED ARE PARI MATERIA WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. THEREFORE, THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF T HE CASE. HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT EXAMINED THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 147 AND HELD AS UNDER : EXPLN. 3 TO S. 147 BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 200 9 CLEARLY HAD BEFORE IT BOTH THE LINES OF PRECEDENT ON THE SU BJECT. THE PRECEDENT DEALT WITH TWO SEPARATE QUESTIONS. WHEN I T EFFECTED THE AMENDMENT BY BRINGING IN EXPLN. 3 TO S . 147, PARLIAMENT STEPPED IN TO CORRECT WHAT IT REGARDED A S AN INTERPRETATIONAL ERROR IN THE VIEW WHICH WAS TAKEN BY CERTAIN COURTS THAT THE AO HAS TO RESTRICT THE ASSESSMENT O R REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ONLY TO THE ISSUES IN RESP ECT OF WHICH REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSES SMENT. THE CORRECTIVE EXERCISE EMBARKED UPON BY PARLIAMENT IN THE FORM OF EXPLN. 3 CONSEQUENTLY PROVIDES THAT THE AO MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISS UE WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF T HE PROCEEDINGS THOUGH THE REASONS FOR SUCH ISSUE WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE UNDER S. 148(2). EXPLANATION 3 LIFTS THE EMBARGO, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY JUDICIAL INTERPRETAT ION, ON THE MAKING OF AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT ON GROU NDS OTHER THAN THOSE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH A NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER S. 148 SETTING OUT THE REASONS FOR THE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THOSE JUDICIAL DECIS IONS HAD HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED ON THE GROUND THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED 8 WTA.NO.34 TO 40/HYD/2013 & C.OS.4 TO 10/HYD/2014 M/S. GSR PROPERTIES P. LTD., & OTHERS, HYDERABAD. ASSESSMENT ON A CERTAIN ISSUE, THE AO COULD NOT MAK E AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT ON ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH C AME TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE PROCEEDINGS. THIS INTERPRE TATION WILL NO LONGER HOLD THE FIELD AFTER THE INSERTION OF EXP LN. 3 BY THE FINANCE ACT (NO. 2) OF 2009. HOWEVER, EXPLN. 3 DOES NOT AND CANNOT OVERRIDE THE NECESSITY OF FULFILLING THE CON DITIONS SET OUT IN THE SUBSTANTIVE PART OF S. 147. AN EXPLANATI ON TO A STATUTORY PROVISION IS INTENDED TO EXPLAIN ITS CONT ENTS AND CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO OVERRIDE IT OR RENDER THE SU BSTANCE AND CORE NUGATORY. SEC. 147 HAS THIS EFFECT THAT TH E AO HAS TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME ('SUCH INCOME') WH ICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE FORMATION OF BELIEF AND IF HE DOES SO, HE CAN ALSO ASSESS OR REASSESS ANY OTHER INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, IF AFTER ISSUING A NOTICE UND ER S. 148, HE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLD S THAT THE INCOME WHICH HE HAS INITIALLY FORMED A REASON T O BELIEVE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HAS AS A MATTER OF FACT NOT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT IS NOT OPEN TO HIM TO INDEPE NDENTLY ASSESS SOME OTHER INCOME. IF HE INTENDS TO DO SO, A FRESH NOTICE UNDER S. 148 WOULD BE NECESSARY, THE LEGALIT Y OF WHICH WOULD BE TESTED IN THE EVENT OF A CHALLENGE B Y THE ASSESSEE. 8.1. IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT A.O. WAS PREVENTED IN MAKING ANY OTHER ADDITION WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF ADDITION. THIS PRINCIPLE WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI RAM SINGH 306 ITR 343. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT A. O. COULD NOT HAVE EMBARKED ON MAKING THE ADDITION ON A NEW ISSUE WITH OUT MAKING THE ADDITION ON THE ISSUE WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF REOPENING. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE ALLOW THE CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION AND ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT A.O. COULD NOT HAVE MADE THE ADDITION. 9. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED THE CROSS OBJE CTIONS, THE APPEALS RAISED BY THE REVENUE MORE OR LESS, BEC OME ACADEMIC IN 9 WTA.NO.34 TO 40/HYD/2013 & C.OS.4 TO 10/HYD/2014 M/S. GSR PROPERTIES P. LTD., & OTHERS, HYDERABAD. NATURE EXCEPT GROUND NO.5. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO T HE FACT THAT ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS OFFERED THE VALUE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR WEALTH TAX PURPOSES AND ALSO PAID TAXES, EVEN THOUG H IT TURNED OUT LATER THAT ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY OFFERED THE WEALTH TAX ON THE LAND AND ASSET WAS STOCK-IN-TRADE, AS UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. SU N ENGINEERING WORKS P. LTD., 198 ITR 297, THE REOPENING CAN ONLY BE TO THE BENEFIT OF REVENUE BUT CANNOT GIVE ANY ADVERSE EFFECT TO TH E ALREADY RETURNED INCOMES/RETURNED WEALTH. THE JURISDICTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS LIMITED TO THE ADD ITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. TO THAT EXTENT, LD. CIT(A) CAN GI VE RELIEF ON THE ADDITION MADE. SINCE PROCEEDINGS ARE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ORIGINALLY OFFERED INCOME CANNOT BE DISTURBED. IN V IEW OF THIS, LD. CIT(A) DIRECTION HAS TO BE MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT THAT WEALTH RETURNED SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. A.O. IS DIRECTED TO AC CEPT THE RETURNED WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEES. IN VIEW OF THIS, GROUND N O.5 OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED AND OTHER GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS ACADE MIC IN NATURE. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL SEVEN APPEALS OF THE REVENU E ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND ALL SEVEN CROSS-OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSES SEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.06.2014. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 27 TH JUNE, 2014 VBP/- 10 WTA.NO.34 TO 40/HYD/2013 & C.OS.4 TO 10/HYD/2014 M/S. GSR PROPERTIES P. LTD., & OTHERS, HYDERABAD. COPY TO 1. WEALTH TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (2), ROOM NO.836, C-B LOCK, 8 TH FL.OOR, I.T. TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 2. M/S. GSR PROPERTIES P. LTD., PLOT. NO. 1112, MLAS COLONY, ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 034. 3. M/S. GAJJALA CONSTRUCTIONS, P. LTD., 4. M/S. GVR PROPERTIES P. LTD., 5. M/S. GGR PROPERTIES P. LTD., 6. M/S. GMR CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD., 7. M/S. GAJJALA RAM REDDY PROPERTIES P. LTD., 8. M/S. HARINI RESORTS & PROPERTIES P. LTD., 3. CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD. + 7 COPIES 4. CIT-II, HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH, HYDERABAD.