Ajay Kochar, Secunderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1066/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2981 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Additional evidence; Valuation report
• Section: 50C; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1066/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 AJAY KOCHAR, SECUNDERABAD. PAN AJCPK 4727B VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(4), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1067/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 LATE VIJAY KOCHAR, REP. BY L/R VISHAL KOCHAR, SECUNDERABAD. PAN AIPPK2621Q VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(4), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJAY MUTHA REVENUE BY : SMT. B. VISHNU PRIYA DATE OF HEARING 12/04/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23/05/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: BOTH THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER DATED 02/01/2017 OF CIT(A) 9, HYDE RABAD FOR AY 2006-07. ITA NO. 1066/HYD/2017 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE, THE AO OBSERV ED THAT DURING THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH TWO OTHER FAMILY 2 ITA NOS. 1066 & 1067/HYD/17 AJAY KOCHAR AND VIJAY KOCHAR MEMBERS HAD ENTERED INTO A SALE CUM GENERAL POWER O F ATTORNEY WITH M/S MAHANAGAR REALTORS IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY AT SY .NO. 96, BEGUMPET HYDERABAD ADMEASURING 1345 SQ.YDS. OR 1224 .58 SQ. MTS. ORIGINAL HOLDING AND AFTER EFFECTING 138 SQ.YDS IN ROAD WIDENING, THE TOTAL LAND IS 1206.5 SQ.YDS. FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 45 LAKHS AS PER THE DEED. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY GIVEN BY SUB-REGISTRAR VALLABHNAGAR ON REVERSE SIDE OF THE DEED IS RS. 1,32,71,500/-. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DEC LARING A CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 58,700/- AND STATED THAT THE TOTAL SALE RECEIPTS OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY WAS RS. 45 LAKHS AND HIS SHARE BEING 1/3 RD HAD RECEIVED ONLY 15 LAKHS AND THEREBY COMPUTED THE CAP ITAL GAIN. 2.2 THE AO ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERSTATED HIS INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF TH E ACT WHEREBY THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR THE STAMP DUTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF SUCH T RANSFER. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A LETT ER DATED 30/10/2008 REQUESTING TO TREAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED AS CO MPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE. 2.3 THE AO OBTAINED THE VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY FROM SUB- REGISTRATION OFFICE, WHICH WAS RS. 11,000/- PER SQ. YD. AND THE SAME WAS ADOPTED, WHICH COMES TO RS. 1,32,71,500/- (RS.1 1000 X 1206.5) 2.4 IN REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 27/11/2009 WHEREIN HE STATED THAT THE PROPERT Y WAS UNDER LITIGATION DUE TO WHICH, NO BUYERS WERE READY TO BU Y AND FINALLY SRI YADAV RAO WHO AGREED TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR R S. 45 LAKHS WITH THE PENDING -LITIGATION AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS WHOLLY INCORRECT FOR THE AO TO ADOPT A VALUE OF AN EXAGGERATED AMOUNT OF RS. 1,32,71,500/-. FURTHER, IT WAS STATED THAT THE FAMI LY MEMBERS WERE 3 ITA NOS. 1066 & 1067/HYD/17 AJAY KOCHAR AND VIJAY KOCHAR UNAWARE OF THE REGISTRATION VALUE AS ALL THE CHARGE S WERE PAID BY THE BUYERS AND THE ROLE OF HIM OR THEIR FAMILY WAS JUST BEING SIGNATORIES AND REQUESTED TO ACCEPT THE SALE VALUE AT RS. 45 LA KHS ONLY. 2.5 THE AO REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, TREATE D THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY AT RS. 1,32,71,500/- AS A GAINST RS. 45,00,000/- ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.6 THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,54, 600/- BEING PAID TOWARDS PROTECTION AND THE SAME WAS SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVITS/VOUCHERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO WORKED OUT THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT RS. 6,32,732/-. 2.7 FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,06,000/- BEING FEES PAID TOWARDS ADVOCATE. ON VERIFICATION O F THE VOUCHERS PRODUCED, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROD UCED AN AFFIDAVIT FOR ONLY RS. 1,06,000/- AND PRODUCED SELF MADE VOUC HERS FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ACCEPTED RS. 1, 06,000/- TOWARDS FEE PAID TO ADVOCATE AGAINST RS. 3,06,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.8 ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 4,45,600/- TOWARDS LAND LEVELLING, CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL AND A ROOM . FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED THE ABOVE AMOUNT BASED ON SELF MADE VOUCHERS AND HENCE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME. 2.9 APART FROM THE ABOVE ADDITIONS, THE AO MADE OTH ER DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS, WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT MATT ER OF APPEAL. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) PASSED A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IN BOTH THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION, AS UNDER: 4 ITA NOS. 1066 & 1067/HYD/17 AJAY KOCHAR AND VIJAY KOCHAR 4. AS REGARDS THE ADOPTING THE VALUE AS PER SRO FOR THE PURPOSE OF 50C, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE THAT BECAUSE OF PENDING LITIGATION, THE LAND FETCHED LES S THAN THE MARKET VALUE IS NOT CORRECT. THUS, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE T HAT IN THE METHOD OF VALUATION 30% SHOULD BE REDUCED FOR ENCUMBRANCES CA NNOT BE ACCEPTED. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED THAT FROM THE SALE A GREEMENT IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE WERE NO ENCUMBRANCES ON THE PROPER TY AS ON THE DATE OF ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OB SERVATIONS, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF AO. 5. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT O F RS. 3,06,000/-, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AFTER GOING TH ROUGH THE RECEIPTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THEY ARE SELF MADE VOUCHERS WITHOUT EVEN THE COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE R ECIPIENT AND HENCE ARE NOT AMENABLE FOR ANY FURTHER VERIFICATION . HE, THEREFORE, UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO. 6. AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE O F RS. 4,45,600/- TOWARDS LAND LEVELLING, CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL AND A ROOM, CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AFTER GOING THROUGH TH E VALUATION REPORT, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE VALUER DID NOT GIVE ANY BAS IS FOR HIS VALUATION EXCEPT STATING THAT IT IS BASED ON HIS PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, WHEREAS, AO HAS GONE BY THE GOVERNMENT VALUE WHICH IS YARDSTICK TO BE FOLLOWED. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN COMPARISON THE VALUATION REPORT DOES NOT SPECIFY ANY PARAMETERS OR COMPARABL E INSTANCES AS TO WHY THE VALUATION SHOULD NOT BE RS. 450/- BUT SHOUL D BE RS. 650/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE CIT(A) HELD THA T THE AO HAS CORRECTLY FOLLOWED THE BENCH MARK VALUE INSTEAD OF AN ESTIMATION MADE BY VALUER WHICH IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. HE, THER EFORE, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO. 5 ITA NOS. 1066 & 1067/HYD/17 AJAY KOCHAR AND VIJAY KOCHAR 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), BOTH THE ASSES SEES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL: 1. THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), HY DERABAD, HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ADOPTING THE VALUATION AS PER SRO FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC 50C. THE COMMISSIONER( APPEALS) ERRED IN TAKING THE VIEW THAT THAT DISPUTES DID NOT EXIST ON THE LAND SOLD AND ON SUCH BASIS REJECTING THE CLAIM THAT THE VALUATION OF LAND SOLD SHOULD BE REDUCED BY 30% FROM THE VALUE AS DETERMINED U/S 50C FOR THE LITIGATION THAT EXISTS AS IS MANDATED BY THE GUIDEL INES FOR VALUATION ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME - TAX . THE ASSESSEE BEGS TO POINT OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D SOUGHT A REMISSION IN VALUE UNDER SEC 5OC IS WITH RESPECT TO DISPUTES WITH UNRELATED PARTIES, AND NOT WITH RESPECT TO DIS PUTES WITHIN THE FAMILY WHICH THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS ERR ONEOUSLY BELIEVED, WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPEAL. THE APPELLANT BEGS TO SUBMIT THAT CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE COURT ORDERS OF DATES SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF SALE HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WHICH IS CL EARLY ARTICULATED IN THE REMAND REPORT BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. THESE FACTS HAS BEEN COMPLETELY NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COM MISSIONER (APPEALS) WHILE REJECTING THE PLEA MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE THAT HE HAD TO SELL THE PROPERTY UNDER EXTREME DISTRESS BEC AUSE OF SEVERAL UNRESOLVED DISPUTES, POLICE CASES AND LITIG ATION FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. 2. THE ID. CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE VIEW TAKEN BY LEARNED ITO, IN ALLOWING OF RS.1,06,OOO/- ONLY O UT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS ADVOCATE FEE OF RS.3,06,000/- ON THE BASIS THAT THE REMAINING AMOUN T IS SUPPORTED ONLY BY SELF MADE VOUCHER. THE ASSESSEE B EGS TO POINT OUT THAT THE FEES PAID IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE RECIPIENT AND IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) OU GHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT FOR LITIGATING IN MORE THAN 10 ONG OING MATTERS OVER 20 YEARS THE LEGAL COST WOULD BE FAR MORE THAN 1.06 LAC'S ALLOWED. 3. THE ID. CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE VIEW OF LEARNED ITO, IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRE D TOWARDS LAND LEVELLING, CONSTRUCTION OF WALL AND A ROOM OF RS. 4,45,600/- ON THE BASIS THAT THE SAME IS ON THE BASIS OF SELF MADE VOUCHERS. THE APPELLANT BEGS TO SUBMIT THAT THE EVI DENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ENGINEER WHO CARRIED OUT THE ABOVE REFERRED WORK AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH COMPOUND WALL AND ROOM IN THE POLICE FIR'S WHICH SE RVED AS CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN NOTE OF B Y THE 6 ITA NOS. 1066 & 1067/HYD/17 AJAY KOCHAR AND VIJAY KOCHAR LEARNED COMMISSIONER APPEALS WHILE REJECTING THE PL EA OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT TH E TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL. 8. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 1, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS SOLD THE LAND IN WHICH TH ERE WERE DISPUTES PENDING BEFORE THE COURTS. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFO RE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT AND THE SAME IS PLACED ON RECORD. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS LAND WAS SOLD IN THE YEAR 2005 BUT LITIGATION WAS CONTINUED IN THE COURTS, THE SAME WA S ACKNOWLEDGE BY AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT, THE SAME WAS REPRODUCED IN PARA 4 OF THE REMAND REPORT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME AND CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE RE IS NO DISPUTE IN THE LAND BY THE REASON THAT THE FAMILY AGREED TO SELL THE PROPERTY JOINTLY. HE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN THE FAMILY BUT THERE ARE OTHER OUTSIDE PARTIES, WHO ARE INTERE STED IN THE PROPERTY, PENDING LITIGATIONS IN THE COURTS ARE EVIDENT, THE RELEVANT PAPERS ARE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND AO. THE SAME WAS OV ERLOOKED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE ORDER. HE SUBMITTE D THAT AS PER THE GUIDELINES FOR VALUATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, 2 009 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME-TAX, WITH REFERENCE TO METHOD S OF VALUATION CHAPTER 5, ITEM 5.2.1.3 FACTORS OF ADJUSTMENT, DISP UTES ON RIGHTS AND ENCUMBRANCES, THERE IS ADJUSTMENT PROPOSED TO THE E XTENT OF 30%, HE PRAYED THAT THIS SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO THIS CASE AS THE LITIGATIONS WERE CONTINUED AFTER SALE OF LAND EXISTED. 9. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, OBJECTED TO SUCH ADJU STMENT AND SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY ENC UMBRANCE CERTIFICATE OR ISSUE BEFORE AO. HE RELIED ON THE OR DERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7 ITA NOS. 1066 & 1067/HYD/17 AJAY KOCHAR AND VIJAY KOCHAR 10. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PR OPERTY WITH THE DISPUTES IN THE PROPERTY. THIS PROPERTY WAS HAVING DISPUTES WITHIN THE FAMILY AND OUTSIDE PARTIES CLAIMING TO BE THE OWNER S. THE SAME WAS DEMONSTRATED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO DURING R EMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE SAME WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK OF OWNE RSHIP DOCUMENTS OF VARIOUS PEOPLE, LIST OF COMPLAINTS FILED. EVEN T HOUGH, AO HAS NOT EXPRESSED HIS OPINION IN THE REMAND REPORT. FURTHER , IT IS NOTICED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE MATTER MERELY CONFIR MING THE DISPUTES WITHIN THE FAMILY. BUT, WE NOTICE THAT THERE ARE DI SPUTES WITH OUTSIDE PARTIES WHO WERE CLAIMING THE OWNERSHIP. ASSESSEE H AS SETTLED THE ISSUES WITH THE FEW BUT SOME DISPUTES WERE UNSETTLE D AT THE TIME OF SALE, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE LIST OF CASES PENDI NG FOR WHICH THE COURT ORDERS WERE SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF SALE. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE ADJUSTM ENT IN THE VALUATION OF LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 30% AS PER THE GUIDELINES FOR VALUATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, 2009. THEREFORE, GROUND RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT NO DOUBT THE VOUCHERS ARE PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT, SIGNED BY THE LAWYERS WHO ARE IN RECEIPT OF LEGAL FEES FOR REPRESENTING I N VARIOUS CASES PENDING IN THE COURTS. THESE EXPENSES ARE GENUINE. AT THE SAME TIME, LD. DR OPPOSED THE SUBMISSION AND SUBMITTED THAT TH E VOUCHERS SUBMITTED ARE NOT GENUINE. 12. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT ASSESSEE HAS LEGAL DISPUTES WITH THE PARTIES, WHO ARE CLAIMING TO BE THE OWNERS OF THE LAND. CONS IDERING THE SAME, IN OUR VIEW, ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE SPENT THE SAME DEF ENDING THE CASES. SINCE THESE VOUCHERS ARE SELF-MADE, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO IN ORDER TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTU NITY TO ASSESSEE TO FILE PROPER CONFIRMATION FROM THE RESPECTIVE LAWYER S WHO RECEIVED 8 ITA NOS. 1066 & 1067/HYD/17 AJAY KOCHAR AND VIJAY KOCHAR LEGAL FEE WITH THEIR DETAILS SUCH AS, ADDRESS AND P AN DETAILS. AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE SAME AND, IF FOUND PROPER, I T MAY BE ALLOWED. 14. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 3, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE BUILDER WHO HAD BUI LT THE COMPOUND WALL AND ROOM BEFORE THE AO DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. L D. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THIS EVIDENCE AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENC E. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE FIR IN WHICH IT SHOWS THAT THERE EXIST COMPOUND WALL AND A ROOM IN THE LAND. THE FI R SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AND CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. AT THE SAME TIME, LD. DR OPPOSED THE ABOVE SUBMISSION AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE VOUCHERS ARE SELF-MADE AND CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. 15. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFOR E THE AUTHORITIES TO SHOW THAT THERE EXISTED COMPOUND WALL AND ROOM A DJACENT TO THE LAND DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. WE REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE AND DETERMINE THE VALUE WITH THE ASSISTANCE FROM DVO WITH REASONA BLENESS AND ALLOW THE SAME AS COST INCURRED TO BUILD THE COMPOU ND WALL AND A ROOM. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. AS THE FACTS AND GROUNDS ARE IDENTICAL IN ITA N O. 1067/HYD/2017 IN THE CASE OF LATE. VIJAY KOCHAR TO THAT OF ITA NO. 1066/HYD/2017 IN THE CASE OF AJAY KOCHAR, FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN THEREIN, WE ALLOW THIS APPEAL ALSO FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. 9 ITA NOS. 1066 & 1067/HYD/17 AJAY KOCHAR AND VIJAY KOCHAR 18. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MAY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHM AN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 23 RD MAY, 2018 KV COPY TO:- 1) AJAY KOCHAR & 2) VIJAY KOCHAR, C/OSANJAY MUTHA & CO., 905/1, 9 TH FLOOR, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYD 500 001 3) ITO, WARD 10(4), HYDERABAD. 4) CIT(A) 9, HYDERABAD. 5) PR. CIT, HYD. 6) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 7) GUARD FILE