Koneru Satya Krishna, Vijayawada V. THE ITO, WARD - 2(3), Vijayawada

CO 75/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3108 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S R S NARAYAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 50C; 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO.107/VIZAG/2013 KONERU SATYA KRISHNA, VIJAYAWADA 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.107/VIZAG/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) ITO, WARD - 2(3), VIJAYAWADA KONERU SATYA KRISHNA, VIJAYAWADA [PAN NO . AGJPK6119R ] ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.75/VIZAG/2013 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.107/VIZAG/2013) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) KONERU SATYA KRISHNA, VIJAYAWADA ITO, WA RD - 2(3), VIJAYAWADA ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.R.S. NARAYAN, DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 29.05.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.06.2017 / O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 11.12.2012 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. GROUND NO.(A) AND (J) ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHI CH DO NOT REQUIRE SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. ITA NO.107/VIZAG/2013 KONERU SATYA KRISHNA, VIJAYAWADA 2 3. THE FIRST ISSUE IS RELATED TO THE ADDITION OF RS .26.00 LAKHS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOUND THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN SAVINGS ACCOUNT OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE O F CASH DEPOSITS AND IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE CASH FLOW ST ATEMENT. HOWEVER, THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, HEN CE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED CASH FLOW STATEMENT INCORPORATING THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF LAND AT ENIKEPADU TO SHRI BOPPANA BAPINEEDU PRASAD, GUDIVADA FOR RS.24.00 LAKHS AND ANOTHER PLOT OF LAN D SOLD TO SHRI K.NAGABHUSHANAM, GUDIVADA FOR A SUM OF RS.45.2 5 LACS AS THE SOURCE FOR THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE REVISED CASH FLOW ST ATEMENT INCORPORATING THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM SALE OF LAN DS AT ENIKEPADU FOR RS.26 LAKHS, OBSERVING THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE CA SH FLOW STATEMENTS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.26.00 LAKHS TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE WE NT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE AO, HOLDING THAT THE SOURCE WAS EXPLAINED FOR THE D IFFERENCE IN CASH FLOW AMOUNTING TO RS.26.00 LAKHS. FOR READY REFERE NCE THE RELEVANT ITA NO.107/VIZAG/2013 KONERU SATYA KRISHNA, VIJAYAWADA 3 PART OF THE CIT(A) IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: 5B(II) IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE BANK ACCOUNTS, CASH FLOW STATE MENT, BILLS, VOUCHERS ETC FOR HIS FINANCIAL STATE OF AFFA IRS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER REPORT, WHICH WAS COMPLIED WIT H. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT INITIALLY, WHEREIN HE HAS NOT SHOWN THE ADVANCE RECEIVED AT RS.26,00,000/ - AND IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE HAS REVISE D THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND EXPLAINED HIS POSITION TO T HE AO. THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY TH E APPELLANT, MORE SO WITHOUT CONVINCING WITH THE REAS ONS THAT PRECISELY FOR SUCH REASONS (INADVERTENTLY MISSING T HE ADVANCE RECEIVED AT RS. 26,00,000/- IN THE ORIGINAL CASH FL OW STATEMENT) FILING OF REVISED CASH FLOW STATEMENT WA S NECESSITATED. THUS, BY DISBELIEVING THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION HELD THAT SOURCES FOR THE SAID ADVANCE OF RS. 26,00,000/- WAS NOT GENUINE AND ADDED THE SAME TO T HE RETURNED INCOME WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS. WITHOUT GOING INTO OTHER ASPECTS, THE SOURCES FOR C ASH RECEIPTS AS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LA NDS WAS SELF EXPLANATORY, AS THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BY THE A PPELLANT ON 09.03.2009 AND THUS ADDITION OF THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE SOURCES WERE NOT EXPLAINED IS NOT TENABLE. 5. APPEARING FOR THE DEPARTMENT, THE LD. D.R. AR GUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT ORIG INALLY AND IN THE ORIGINAL CASH FLOW STATEMENT, THE ADVANCES OF RS.26 .00 LACS DID NOT FIND PLACE AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVIS ED CASH FLOW STATEMENT IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD INCLUDED A SUM OF RS.26.00 LACS AS THE ADVANCE RECEIVED STATING THAT THE CASH WAS RECE IVED FOR SALE OF FLATS AT ENIKEPADU. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE RE ASONS FOR NOT DISCLOSING THE ADVANCES IN ORIGINAL CASH FLOW STATE MENT HENCE THE SAME WAS AN AFTER THOUGHT AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. FURTHE R EVEN IF IT IS ACCEPTED, THE ENTIRE ADVANCES WERE REPAID BY THE AS SESSEE TO THE ITA NO.107/VIZAG/2013 KONERU SATYA KRISHNA, VIJAYAWADA 4 PROPOSED PURCHASERS OF THE LAND FOR RELINQUISHING T HEIR RIGHTS BEFORE THE SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION OF THE LAND TO THE SECOND P ARTIES, THUS LEFT WITH THE ZERO CASH BALANCE FROM THE ADVANCES RECEIVED. HENCE, THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE A.O. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THERE WAS NO CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE CA SH BALANCE SHOWN IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS INCORRECT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A.R. ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A LOAN AGAINST THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT ENIKEP ADU BY SALE-CUM-GPA DATED 09/02/2009 AND RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.24 LAKHS FROM BOPPANA BAPINEEDU PTRASAD. THE ABOVE SALE-CUM-GPA WAS AGRE ED FOR THE LOAN TRANSACTION OF RS.24,25,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS R ECEIVED RS.24.00 LAKHS, WHICH WAS BROUGHT IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT . THE AMOUNT OF RS.24.00 LAKHS WAS EVIDENCED BY THE REGISTERED SALE CUM GPA WHICH WAS PLACED ON RECORD. IN THE SECOND SALE CUM GPA WITH KATRGADDA NAGABHUSHANAM FOR SALE OF 1.81 ACRES OF LAND AT ENI KEPADEU, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE AGREEMENT FOR A SUM OF RS.45. 25 LACS AND RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS.200000/- IN CASH WHICH WA S BROUGHT IN TO CASH BOOK AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED FOR T HE DEBTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ABOVE SUMS WERE RECEIVED AND APPLIED TO VARIOUS PURPOSES AS EVIDENCED BY THE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS A ND DULY ITA NO.107/VIZAG/2013 KONERU SATYA KRISHNA, VIJAYAWADA 5 ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE PAYERS. IN THE ORIGINAL CASH FL OW STATEMENT THE ASSESSEE BY OVERSIGHT OMITTED TO INCLUDE THE ABOVE SUMS. THEREFORE THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE SOURCE OF RS.26.00 WAS EXPLA INED WITH THE PROOF AND HENCE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO REQUIRED TO B E DELETED. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED TH E CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED THE CASH FLOW ST ATEMENT INCORPORATING A SUM OF RS.26.00 LACS AS ADVANCES RE CEIVED FOR THE SALE OF THE LANDS BY GPA. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED TH E CASH FLOW STATEMENT TO EXPLAIN SOURCES FOR THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCO UNT AND EXPLAINED THE SOURCE AS ADVANCES. BOTH THE TRANSACTIONS ARE E VIDENCED BY THE REGISTERED SALE AGREEMENTS, WHICH WAS PLACED ON REC ORD. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO DISPROVE THE CONTENTS OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASO N TO SUSPECT THE SOURCE OF RS.26.00 LAKHS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED CASH FLOW STATEMENT. 7.1 THE REVENUE HAS MADE ALTERNATE ARGUMENT FOR TH E ADDITION OF RS.26.00 LACS STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVE D A SUM OF RS.26.00 LACS FROM BOPPANA BAPINEEDU PRASAD AND THE SAID AMO UNT WAS USED FOR ITA NO.107/VIZAG/2013 KONERU SATYA KRISHNA, VIJAYAWADA 6 THE REPAYMENT OF THE THEN EXISTING LOAN OF KAMAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION AND THUS THERE WAS NO CASH BALANCE AVAI LABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR INTRODUCTION OF CASH IN CASH FLOW STAT EMENT. 8. WE HAVE VERIFIED THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE SUM OF RS.24 LAKHS FROM BAPINEEDU PRAS AD ON 9.2.2009 AND A SUM OF RS.2 LAKHS FROM NAGABHUSHANAM ON 9.2.2009 AND ACCOUNTED IN THE CASH BOOK AND BROUGHT IN TO THE CASH FLOW. THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED ON 9.2.2009 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10. AS PER THE ACCOUNT COPY OF FINANCE CORPORATION, THE PAYMEN T WAS MADE TO KAMAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION ON 23.9.2010, A SUM OF RS.15 LAKHS, WHICH WAS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE LD.AR STATED THAT OUT OF THE 45.25 LACS BORROWED FROM K.NAGABHUS HANAM A SUM OF RS.43.00 LACS WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE LOAN OF M/S KAMAKSHI CORPORATION AND A SUM OF RS.2.00 LACS WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOTHING WAS PAID OUT OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.26.0 0 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVI DENCE TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.26 LAKHS WAS PAID TO KAMAKSHI FINA NCE CORPORATION AND THE SAME WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE CASH FLOW STA TEMENT. THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO MUTTAVARAPU SRINIVASBABU WAS ON 22.3.2010 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. SINCE THE SOURCE WA S EXPLAINED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW ITA NO.107/VIZAG/2013 KONERU SATYA KRISHNA, VIJAYAWADA 7 THAT THE AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR OT HER PURPOSES THAN MENTIONED IN CASH FLOW STATEMENT, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASELESS AND NOT ACCEPTABLE. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE ADVANCE OF RS. 26.00 LAKHS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED, ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT AND DISMISS THE REVENUE S APPEAL. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE IS ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN SALE-CUM GPA WITH BOPPANA BAPINEEDU PRASAD ON 9.2.2009 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT SURVEY NO.189/ 2, ENIKEPADU OF 0.97 ACRES FOR RS.24,25,000/- AND RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 24.00 LAKHS ON 9.2.2009. SIMILARLY, BY ANOTHER AGREEMENT ON EVEN DATE, WAS ENTERED INTO FOR RS.45,25,000/- WITH KATRAGADDA NAGABHUSHAN AM FOR SALE OF PROPERTY IN SURVEY NO.189/1A&B ADMEASURING 1.81 ACR ES FOR A SUM OF RS.45,25,000/- AND RECEIVED RS.45 LAKHS. THOUGH TH E ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO SALE-CUM-GPA AND SOLD THE PROPERTIES A ND GIVEN POSSESSION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTED THE SAID SUM FOR CAPITAL GAINS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED T HE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ABOVE PROPERTIES FOR CAPITAL GAINS ADOPTING THE VAL UE U/S 50C OF THE ACT AS UNDER: ITA NO.107/VIZAG/2013 KONERU SATYA KRISHNA, VIJAYAWADA 8 SL.NO. SALE AGREEMENT-CUM- GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DOCUMENT REGISTRATION NO. NAME OF THE PURCHASER S/SRI SALE CONSIDERATION MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SRO 1. 281/2009 BOPPANA BAPINEEDU PRASAD RS.24,25,000 RS.42,68,000 2. 280/2009 KATRAGADDA NAGA BHUSHANAM RS.45,25,000 RS.79,64,000 10. THE A.O. COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS AT RS . 1,18,91,645/- AFTER ALLOWING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. AGGRIEVE D BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OBSERV ING AS UNDER: THIRD GROUND RELATES TO ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AT RS.1,18,91,645/- UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL G AINS. THE AO DEALT AT LENGTH REGARDING THIS ADDITION AT PARA NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FROM PAGE NO.4 TO 8. A PERUSAL OF THE NARRATION OF PARA NO.4 REVEALS THAT THE AO HAS PROCEEDED ON P RESUMPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS. HIS DISCUSSIONS INCLUDE GIVING IR REVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR SALE OF THE IMPUGNED 2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS, TAKING ADVANCE FOR SUCH PURPOSE ON 9.3.2009, INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47)(V), I.E., TRANSFER INCLUDE GIVING GPA IN FAVOUR OF THE PURCHASER, INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 53A O F TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 AND FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT ALL T HOSE EVENTS LEAD TO TRANSFER OF LANDS SOLD BY APPELLANT DURING THE P REVIOUS YEAR 2008-09 CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GA INS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ONLY. THUS, WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE QUANTUM OF CAPITAL GAINS DETERMINED, THE VERY PRESUMPTION THAT SALE TOOK PLACE IN THE YEAR 2 008-09, IS ITSELF IS WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. W HILE THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CRYING THAT SALE TOOK PLACE ON 2 3.3.2010 ON WHICH DATE REGISTRATION WAS ALSO TAKEN PLACE, THE A CTION OF THE AO TO TAKE THE DATE OF 9.2.2009, ON WHICH ADVANCE FOR SALE HAS BEEN RECEIVED, AS THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE CAPITAL GAINS BASED ON ADVANCE RECEIVED CANNOT BE APPRECIATED. FOR REASON S BETTER KNOWN TO THE A.O., IGNORING THE DATE OF REGISTRATIO N IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR ON 23.3.2010 IS AN ACT, WHICH COULD NOT BE APPRECIATED AND ACCORDINGLY THE CAPITAL GAINS ASSES SED AT RS.1,18,91,645/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ITA NO.107/VIZAG/2013 KONERU SATYA KRISHNA, VIJAYAWADA 9 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE D EPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, THE L D. D.R. ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO SALE-CUM-GPA AND GIVE N THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND AND SALE WAS CONCLUDED ON 9.2.2009 AND THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ATTRACTS THE CAPITAL GAINS. THE TRANSFER HAS TOOK PLACE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT AND THE ASS ESSEE REQUIRED TO PAY CAPITAL GAINS TAX. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTED THE CAPITAL GAINS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO TAX THE CAPITAL GAINS. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A.R. ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN NEED OF FUNDS FOR REPAYMENT OF LOANS TO KAMAKSHI FI NANCE CORPORATION DUE TO PRESSURE OF SECURITIZATION. FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPAYMENT OF LOANS, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO SALE-CUM-GPA WITH BOPPANA BAPINEEDU PRASAD AND KATRAGADDA NAGA BHUSHANAM AND OBTAINED T HE ADVANCES BY SURRENDERING THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. SUBSEQUENTL Y, IN FEB10, THE SAID SALE-CUM-GPA WERE CANCELLED BY A REGISTERED CA NCELLATION DEED AND THE PROPERTIES WERE SOLD AT HIGHER PRICE AND THE RE SULTANT CAPITAL GAINS WERE ADMITTED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. THE LD. A.R. ARGUED THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX CANNOT BE IMPOSED FOR TH E SALE OF THE SAME PROPERTY ON TWO OCCASIONS, WHICH TANTAMOUNT TO DOUB LE TAXATION. SINCE THE CANCELLATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS GENUINE AND TH E RESALE OF THE ITA NO.107/VIZAG/2013 KONERU SATYA KRISHNA, VIJAYAWADA 10 PROPERTY WAS ALSO BONAFIDE, THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E A.O. REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO SALE-CUM-GPA ON 9.2.2009 AND RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.24 LAKHS AND RS.45 LAKHS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SALE-CUM- GPAS WERE CANCELLED ON 8.2.2010 AND RESOLD THE PROPERTIES AT HIGHER PRI CE AND THE RESULTANT CAPITAL GAINS WAS ADMITTED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 20 10-11. SINCE THE DEPARTMENT ALSO HAS ACCEPTED THE CAPITAL GAINS IN T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE SALE-CUM-GP A DATED 9.2.2009 AND CANCELLATION AGREEMENTS DATED 8.2.2010 APPEARS TO BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TIMELY ARRANGEMENT OF FUNDS AND IT ALSO AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS A NORMAL PRACTICE TO ADAVANCE T HE LOANS AGAINST THE SALECUM-GPA AS SECURITY. SINCE BOTH THE DOCUMENTS ARE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS, GENUINENESS IS NOT IN DISPUTE. IN THE S ALE DEEDS DATED 9.2.2010 ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO SALE-CUM-GPA WIT H BOPPANA BAPINEEDU PRASAD AND KATRAGADDA NAGA BHUSHANAM AND THE CANCEL LATION OF THE SAID GPAS WERE CLEARLY MENTIONED. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SUSPICION REGARDING THE CANCELLATION OF THE SALE CU M GPA DATED 9.2.2010. THE ASSESSEE ALREADY ADMITTED THE CAPITA L GAINS TAX IN THE ITA NO.107/VIZAG/2013 KONERU SATYA KRISHNA, VIJAYAWADA 11 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 FOR THE SALE OF THE SAID LA NDED PROPERTY AT HIGHER PRICE AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPAR TMENT AND NO FURTHER ACTION WAS TAKEN. SALE OF THE SAME PROPERT Y CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY IN FIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION IN SUPPO RT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, WE DISMISS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JUN 2017. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM: /DATED : 28.06.2017 VG/SPS ITA NO.107/VIZAG/2013 KONERU SATYA KRISHNA, VIJAYAWADA 12 /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT THE ITO, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA 2. / THE RESPONDENT SHRI KONERU SATYA KRISHNA, 59-4 -5, 3 RD LANE, NEAR ITI COLLEGE, ASHOK NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA 3. / THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA 4. ( ) / THE CIT (A), VIJAYAWADA 5. , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM