Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Kadapa V. Dr. M. Varalakshmi, Kadapa

ITA 1345/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77844 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADAGIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Capital asset converted into stock in trade; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences; Competent authority; Revised return
• Section: 45(2); 54F; 147; 148; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1345/HYD/2012 A.Y. : 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, SIMHAPURI COLONY, KADAPA VS. DR. M. VARALAKSHMI, KADAPA. PAN ADIPM9300C APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. NO. 1346/HYD/2012 A.Y. : 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, SIMHAPURI COLONY, KADAPA VS. DR. M. VENU GOPAL REDDY, KADAPA. PAN ADIPM 9340C APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY: SHRI B. YADAGIRI ASSESSEE BY: SHRI A.V. RAGHU RAM DATE OF HEARING: 19.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11.04.2014 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: BOTH THESE APPEALS PERTAINING TO TWO ASSESSEES AR E PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), GUNTUR DATED 21/06/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THE Y WERE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER, THEREFORE, A COMMON ORDER IS PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS IN BOTH THE APPEALS, EXCEPT THE AMOUNTS, WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: I.T.A. NOS. 1345 & 1346/HYD/2012 DR. M. VARALAKSHMI 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADOPTING THE ASSESSEES BASELESS CLAIM OF COST OF APARTMENT CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 65,0 0,000/- IGNORING THE REASONABLE VALUATION ESTIMATED BY ASSE SSING OFFICER AT RS. 861 SFT RELYING ON THE VALUATION REP ORT IN NO. 1:2:1277 OF DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER IN A SIM ILAR STRUCTURE IN THE SAME VICINITY I.E. NAGARAJUPALLI, KADAPA. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE COS T OF BUILDING ALONG WITH COST OF SITE FOR QUANTIFYING INDEXED CO ST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY THOUGH THE DEVELOPMEN T AGREEMENT- CUM-GPA BETWEEN THE LANDLORDS AND DEVELOPER CLEARL Y STATES THAT THERE WAS ONLY A TRANSFER OF 32 CENTS OF LAND. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO FAILED EVEN TO REFER TO MAP ENCLOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH ALSO DOES NOT SHOW ANY EXISTENCE OF OLD BUILDING. 3. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE DEAL WITH FACTS AS INVOLVED IN ITA NO. 1345/HYD/2012. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, ASSES SEE AN INDIVIDUAL IS A DOCTOR BY PROFESSION. SHE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY UNDER DISPUTE ON 19/03/2008 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 86,740/-, BESIDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 15,000/-. SUBSE QUENTLY, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESS EE ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND DR. M. VENUGOPAL REDDY ENTERED INTO A DEVEL OPMENT AGREEMENT-CUM-POWER OF ATTORNEY ON 11/10/2006 WITH M/S NAVINOS CONSTRUCTIONS UNDER WHICH THEY TRANSFERRED 32 CENTS URBAN LAND SITUATED AT SURVEY NOS. 222/2, 223/1B, 223/2A2, AT NAGARAJUPALLE, KADAPA TOWN TO THE DEVELOPER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL COMPLEX. ON EXECUTION OF DEV ELOPMENT-CUM- POWER OF ATTORNEY, THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HER HUSB AND HANDED OVER ALL THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PROPERTY TO THE DEVELOPER. UNDER TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, DEVELOPER HAS TO CONSTRUCT ABOUT 45 FLATS OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND WILL GET SHARE OF 40% OF THE SUPER STRUCTURE I.E. 1 8 FLATS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTED ANY INCOME FROM CAPITAL G AINS IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2007-08, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 30/06/2010. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN ADMITT ING LONG TERM CAPITAL I.T.A. NOS. 1345 & 1346/HYD/2012 DR. M. VARALAKSHMI 3 GAIN OF RS. 14,91,208/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED EXEMPTION OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S 54 OF THE ACT TOWARD S INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT CONVERSIO N OF THE ASSET TO STOCK-IN-TRADE, WHICH STAND WAS ONLY TAKEN IN TH E REVISED RETURN FILED IN PURSUANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO CONVERSION OF THE VACANT LA ND INTO STOCK-IN- TRADE BY OBSERVING THAT AS PER SECTION 45(1) OF TH E ACT ANY GAIN ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET WAS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS IN THE IMME DIATELY FOLLOWING ASSESSMENT YEAR, HENCE, ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR TAX ON CAPITAL GAIN IN THE RELEVANT AY 2007-08 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 2(47) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS AND IS ONLY ENGAGED IN MEDICAL PROFESSION, SHE CANNOT TREAT HER CAPITAL AS SET AS STOCK-IN- TRADE. FURTHER, IT WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT AS THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND HAVE GIVEN 32 CENTS TO THE DEVELOPER FOR DEVELOPMENT, ONLY HALF SHARE OF THE INDEXED COST OF SITE WILL BE GIVEN AS EXEMPTION U/S 54F WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GA INS AND ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 70,55,466/-. WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARRIVED AT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILT UP AREA RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 861/- PER SFT. BY RELYING UPON A REPORT OF THE DVO IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER PROP ERTY IN THE SAME LOCALITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HELD THAT ASSE SSEE AND HER HUSBAND HAVE ONLY TRANSFERRED VACANT LAND AND THER E WAS NO BUILDING, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION BY EXCLUDING THE COST OF BUILDING. B EING AGGRIEVED OF THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFER RED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). I.T.A. NOS. 1345 & 1346/HYD/2012 DR. M. VARALAKSHMI 4 4. DURING THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND HAVE CONSTRUCTED A HOUSE AT KADAPA IN THE YEAR 1975 AFTER PROCURING 32 CENTS OF LAND. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BOTH OF THEM WERE CA RRYING ON THEIR PROFESSION IN A SMALL PORTION OF HOUSE. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT SINCE THEIR CHILDREN ARE AT USA, THEY ARE ALONE RESIDING IN THE HOUSE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ON 11/10/2006, THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND ENTERED INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-CUM-POWER OF ATTORNEY WI TH THE DEVELOPER M/S NAVINOS CONSTRUCTION WITH A SHARING R ATIO OF THE BUILT UP AREA AT 40:60. THE DEVELOPER HAS ALSO MADE REFUN DABLE DEPOSIT OF RS. 10 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE MEANWHILE, THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND HAVE STARTED CONSTRUCT ING ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITH A COST OF RS. 34,26,000/- AT SIMHAPUR COLONY, KADAPA. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ORIGI NAL ASSET WAS CONVERTED INTO STOCK-IN-TRADE ON 15/08/2007 FOR RS. 65,00,000/- AND ACCORDINGLY CAPITAL GAIN WAS COMPUTED ON THE VALUE OF THE STOCK-IN- TRADE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEVELOPER AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXECUTED SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT ON 16/07/2007 WHER EIN SHARE OF THE OWNERS HAVE BEEN CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AS THE CONS TRUCTION OF APARTMENTS HAVE COME TO A STAGE AS PER WHICH SKELET ON HOUSE CAN BE IDENTIFIED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE FY 20 10-11, THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS HUSBAND HAS SOLD 5 NO. OF APARTMENTS , WHICH WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN. SIMILARLY, DURING AY 2012- 13, THE ASSESSEE SOLD 7 APARTMENTS IN WHICH ASSESSEES SHARE IS 3 APARTMENTS. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THERE W AS TRANSFER IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT WHILE ENTERING TH E DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-CUM-POWER OF ATTORNEY, BUT, IT WAS CONTEN DED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONVERTED ORIGINAL ASSET TO STOCK- IN-TRADE FOR VALUE OF RS. 65,00,000/-, CAPITAL GAIN HAS TO BE COMPUTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 45(2) OF THE ACT. 5. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE HOLDI NG THAT PROVISIONS I.T.A. NOS. 1345 & 1346/HYD/2012 DR. M. VARALAKSHMI 5 OF SECTION 45(2) WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE S CASE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CONVERTED THE ORIGINAL ASSET INTO STOC K-IN-TRADE DURING THE FY RELEVANT TO THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION. THER EFORE, SINCE THE STOCK-IN-TRADE HAS BEEN SOLD IN THE SAME YEAR OF CO NVERSION ONLY THE ELEMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN WOULD COME UP FOR CONSIDERA TION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS THE QUANTIFICATION OF CAPITAL GAIN IS CONCERNED, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE VALUE OF THE BU ILT UP AREA ADOPTED BY THE AO AT RS. 4,57,62,150/- BY RELYING UPON A VA LUATION REPORT BY THE DVO IN ANOTHER CASE IS NOT IN ORDER. HE, THEREF ORE, HELD THAT THE RATE OF 65,00,000/- AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF C OMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. SO FAR AS INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED, THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE AO HAD DETERMI NED ONLY THE LAND VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 38,400/- FOR THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF 32 CENTS IGNORING THE COST OF STRUCTURE LOCATED THEREI N. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF COST OF THE BUILDING AT RS. 6,28,400/- ALS O CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. HE DIRECTED THE AO TO ASCERTAIN THE COST OF BUILDING FROM VARIOUS CHANNELS AND ALLOW INDEXED COST OF ACQUISIT ION OF THE SITE AND BUILDING AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 6. THE FIRST ISSUE AS RAISED IN GROUND NO. 1 IS CON FINED TO QUANTIFICATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENT . THE LEARNED DR RELYING UPON THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE AO SUBMIT TED THAT SINCE THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ARRI VED AT BY THE DVO IN THE SAME LOCALITY, THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADO PTED FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. THE LEARNED AR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN CASE OF A DIFFERENT PROPERTY CANNOT BE APPLIED IN RESPECT OF THE CONSTRUCTION MA DE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT UNLESS THE CONSTRUC TION MADE IS OF THE SAME NATURE WITH SAME MATERIALS USED AND UNLESS NATURE OF CONSTRUCTION IS SIMILAR IN ALL RESPECTS, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN CASE OF ANOTHER BUILDING CANNOT BE ADOPTED IN CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NOS. 1345 & 1346/HYD/2012 DR. M. VARALAKSHMI 6 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD. SO FAR AS THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 45( 2) BY TREATING THE ORIGINAL ASSET AS STOCK-IN-TRADE IS CONCERNED, SINC E THE ISSUE IS NOT RAISED BEFORE US THERE IS NO REASON TO DEAL WITH TH E SAME. AS CAN BE SEEN, THE ONLY DISPUTE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS WITH REGARD TO THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IT IS VERY MUCH EVIDENT FROM T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE COST OF CONSTRUCT ION AT R. 861/- PER SQFT. BY RELYING UPON THE REPORT OF THE DVO IN CASE OF ANOTHER BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN THE SAME LOCALITY. HOWEVER, IN OUR V IEW, SUCH APPROACH OF THE AO IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. UNLESS, THE NATURE OF CONSTRUCTION OF BOTH THE BUILDINGS ARE SAME WITH USE OF SAME MATERIALS, SAME LABOUR COST AND OTHERWISE SIMILAR IN ALL RESPECTS, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER BUILDING CANNOT BE TAKEN AS COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILT UP AREA RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE. THIS IS BEC AUSE THERE ARE NUMBER OF FACTORS WHICH CAN HAVE IMPACT ON THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN TWO CASES CANNOT BE THE SAME. IF AT ALL, THE AO WAS NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT THE COST SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEAST HE COULD HAVE DONE IS TO REFER THE VALUAT ION OF THE BUILDING TO THE DVO FOR ASCERTAINING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTI ON OR AT LEAST HE COULD HAVE ADOPTED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE DEVELOPER FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. WITHOUT DOING THAT, THE ACT ION OF THE AO TO STRAIGHTAWAY ADOPT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DETERMI NED IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER BUILDING CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. SIMILARLY, TH E VALUE OF RS. 65,00,000/- ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE VALUE ADOPT ED AT RS. 65,00,000/- WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, VA LUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN THE AFOREM ENTIONED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONSIDER IT PROPER TO REMIT T HE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION INCURRED BY THE BUILDER TOWARD S CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING AND ADOPT THE SAME FOR COMPUTING CAPIT AL GAIN. THE I.T.A. NOS. 1345 & 1346/HYD/2012 DR. M. VARALAKSHMI 7 ASSESSING OFFICER MUST AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE. 8. SO FAR AS THE SECOND ISSUE IS CONCERNED, IT RELA TES TO THE QUANTIFICATION OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF TH E PROPERTY. WHILE IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY TRANSFERRED THE LAND, ASSESSEE CLAIMED LAND ALONG WITH BUILDING WA S TRANSFERRED, THEREFORE, COST OF THE BUILDING ALSO SHOULD BE TAKE N FOR DETERMINING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. THE AO HAS MENTIONED I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AS PER THE TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGRE EMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY TRANSFERRED 32 CENTS OF LAND WHER EAS THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED 32 CENTS OF LAND ALONG WITH THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED OVER THE SAID L AND AND HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO ASCERTAIN THE COST OF BUILDING F ROM THE SRO OR ANY OTHER COMPETENT AUTHORITY. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEA RNED AR REFERRING TO SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN T SUBMITTED THAT IT CLEARLY MENTIONED ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF BU ILDING OVER THE LAND, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT STAND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 9. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E AND RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE SCHE DULE OF PROPERTY INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-CUM-POWER OF AT TORNEY THERE IS MENTION OF A HOUSE BEARING NO. 3/2182 AND 0.32 CENT S VACANT SITE. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SH OW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED THE HOUSE ALONG WITH THE V ACANT SITE TO THE DEVELOPER. THEREFORE, FOR VERIFYING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXISTENCE OF A HOUSE ON THE 32 CENTS OF LAND TRANSFERRED TO T HE DEVELOPER, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. IT IS OPEN FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A HOUSE ON T HE LAND TRANSFERRED BY PRODUCING MUNICIPAL TAX RECEIPT OR A NY OTHER AUTHENTIC EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER SHALL AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E DECIDING THE ISSUE. I.T.A. NOS. 1345 & 1346/HYD/2012 DR. M. VARALAKSHMI 8 12. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. AS THE ISSUE IN CASE OF DR. VENUGOPAL REDDY IN ITA NO. 1346/HYD/12 IS MATERIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CASE OF DR. VARALAKSHMI IN ITA NO. 1345/HYD/2012 (SUPRA), FOLLO WING THE DECISION THEREIN THIS APPEAL IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/04/ 2014. (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 11 TH APRIL, 2014 KV COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. ITO, WARD 1, KADAPA 2. DR. M. VARALAKSHMI, # 42/347-123, SIMHAPURI COLO NY, KADAPA 516 001. 3. THE CIT(A), GUNTUR 4. THE CIT, TIRUPATHI 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD