ACIT, Hyderabad V. Smt. J. Anuradha, Hyderabad

ITA 1531/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69971 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M CHANDRAMOULESWARA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: D SUDHAKAR RAO
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Search and seizure; Fair market value
• Section: 50C; 2(14); 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 1518 AND 1519/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2006-07 & 2008-09. SRI J. APPA RAO, -V- ACIT, CC-3, HYDERABAD. HYDERABAD. PAN:ACDPJ5765G ITA NO.1530 TO 1532/HYD/2 010 ASST. YEARS 2008-09,2007- 08 & 2006-07 ACIT, CC-3, -V- SMT. J. ANURADHA, HYDERABAD. HYDERABAD. PAN:ACMPJ5637L ITA NO.1533/HYD/2010 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 ACIT, CC-3, V- SRI J. APPA RAO, HYDERABAD. HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENTS) DEPARTMENT BY SHRI M. CHANDRAMOULESWARA RAO ASSESSEE BY SHRI D. SUDHAKAR RAO DATE OF HEARING 0 6 - 1 1 - 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 - 11 - 2013 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M: 2 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. THESE SIX APPEALS, FOUR BY THE DEPARTMENT AND OTHER TWO FILED BY ONE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2008-09. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ALL THESE APP EALS ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THE COMBINED O RDER . ITA NOS. 1530 TO 1532/HYD/2010 :- 2. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE DEPARTMENT. SINCE FACTS AND ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THE APPEALS AND THE GRO UNDS RAISED ARE ALSO COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE W ILL DEAL WITH THE FACTS AS TAKEN FROM ITA NO.1532/HYD/2010. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 RELATE TO THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE C IT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS.68,80,076/-. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVI DUAL. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 19-2-2008 IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SRI J. APPA RAO WHO IS THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE SEA RCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION SINCE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND AND SEIZED, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT CALLING UPON THE ASSESSE E TO FILE HER RETURN OF INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMEN T YEAR 3 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.6,51,252/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH 12 OTHERS HAD PURCHASED LAND ADMEASURING AC.26.23 GUNTAS SITUATED IN SURVEY NO.438A AND 439A,MANKHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, MAHESHWARAM MANDAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT FROM M/S PREMIER POULTRY PRODUCTS LIMITED FOR A TOTAL CO NSIDERATION OF RS.26,00,000/-. OUT OF THE SAID LAND, THE ASSES SEE ALONG WITH 12 OTHERS SOLD LAND ADMEASURING AC.6.39.10 G UNTAS TO M/S S.M.V AGENCIES PVT. LTD., FOR A CONSIDERATION O F RS.6.97,76,859/- AND LAND ADMEASURING AC.2.01.83 GU NTAS TO M/S PARK VIEW INFACON PVT. LTD FOR RS.2,04,56,612. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BY CLAIMING THE SAID LAND T O BE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND AS SUCH NOT COMING WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET, HAS TREATED THE SAME AS NOT TAXABLE . WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID LAND WAS SITUATED AT MANKHAL GRAM PA NCHAYAT WHICH DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE LIMITS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD OR ANY OTHER NEARBY MUNICIPALITY. HENCE , IT WILL NOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSET AS PER SECTION 2(14)(II I) OF THE I T ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE LAND IN QUESTION MAY BE AN AGRICULT URAL LAND BUT SINCE THE SAME IS WITHIN THE AREA COMING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF HYDERABAD AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTH ORITY AND AS PER GOMS NO.352 DATED 30-7-2001 OF GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND IT COMES WITHIN THE AREAS OF HADA. HE FURTHER 4 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. HELD THAT SINCE THE HADA IS AN AUTHORITY AS PER SEC TION 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT, THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED F ROM SALE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE CHARGED TO SHO RT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE TOTAL SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.8,94,40,99 7/- OUT OF WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RS.68,80,076/- WAS TREATED AS S HORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. T HE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE, PREFERRE D AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 4. DURING THE HEARING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) ,, THE ASSESSEE REITERATING THE STAND TAKEN BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE NATURE AND CHARAC TER OF THE LAND IS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IT IS SITUATED BEYOND 8KM FROM THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A CA PITAL ASSET IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FUR THER CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HADA IS NOT A LOCAL AUTHORITY AND MANKHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, MAHESWARAM MANDAL, RANGA REDDY DIST RICT WHERE THE LAND WAS SITUATED IS NOT A NOTIFIED ARE A AS PER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION NO.9447 DATED 6-1- 1994. THE CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AS SESSEE AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TEH SILDHAR WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE LAND SITUATED AT MANKHAL VILLAGE IS MORE THAN 10KM TO 20 KM FROM THE LIMITS OF SHAMSHABAD AN D ALSO NOT WITHIN THE AREA OF GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPA L CORPORATION (GHMC). HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION NOT BEING COVERED BY NOTIFICATION NO.9447 ISSUED BY THE CBDT, 5 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A CAPITAL ASSET U/S 2(14 ) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS CO MPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ORDE R OF THE CIT (A) , THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OT HER MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT DISPUTE THE NA TURE AND CHARACTER OF LAND WHICH IS AGRICULTURAL. HOWEVER, HE HAS TREATED IT TO BE A CAPITAL ASSET IN TERMS WITH SECT ION 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT IT FALLS WITHIN THE AREA SPECIFIED BY THE HADA. IN OUR VIEW, THE ISSUE IN D ISPUTE IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA. THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBU NAL, HYDERABAD BENCH IN CASE OF SMT. T. URMILA VS. ITO ( 2012) 28 TAXMANN 222, WHERE BOTH THE PRESENT MEMBERS ARE PA RTIES WHILE CONSIDERING IDENTICAL ISSUE AS TO WHETHER HAD A CAN BE TREATED AS A LOCAL AUTHORITY OR MUNICIPALITY AS DEF INED U/S 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT HELD THAT SINCE HADA IS NEITH ER A MUNICIPALITY NOR A BODY AS REFERRED TO U/S 2(14) (I II) OF THE ACT, AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF HAD A CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL ASSET. 6. THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL WAS ALSO AFFIRMED BY THE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT WHILE DISMISSING THE REVENUES APPEAL VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 17- 6 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. 7-2013 IN ITA NO.297/HYD/2013, IN CASE OF CIT VS. S MT T. URMILA. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- HYDERABAD AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, IS THEREF ORE, NOT A BODY WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSES (A) AND (B ) OF THE SAID SECTION. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE PROCEEDS OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DO NOT FORM CAPITAL GAIN, AS THEY DO NOT RELATE TO CAPITAL ASSET. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS COME TO T HE CORRECT CONCLUSION. THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF LAW INV OLVED IN THIS APPEAL, FOR WHICH, DECISION OF THIS COURT I S REQUIRED. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL. 7. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AS AFORESAID, WE HOLD THAT THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CANNOT BE S UBJECTED TO CAPITAL GAIN TAX AS IT IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET WITHI N THE MEANING U/S 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MAT TER, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) BY DISM ISSING THE GROUND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE AS RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 5 AND 6 RELATES TO THE CIT (A) ALLOWING 40% OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS LEVELLING AND DEVELOPING COST. 9. BRIEFLY THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE 7 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND HAVE JOINTLY PURC HASED A PROPERTY ON 28-2-2005 CONSISTING OF LAND ADMEASURIN G 1000 SQ. MTRS., FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.67,15,030/- INCLUDING REGISTRATION CHARGES OF RS.7,97,730/-. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT IN HER PERSONAL BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31-3-2005, THE AS SESSEE HAD SHOWN THE VALUE OF THE LAND AT RS.22,16,258/- BEING 1/3 RD SHAREHOLDER AND ASSESSEES HUSBAND HAD SHOWN THE VA LUE OF LAND AT RS.44,98,772/- AS 2/3 RD SHAREHOLDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE SAID LAND BEING PAR T OF TOTAL LAND ADMEASURING 5000 SQ. METERS WAS SOLD VIDE SALE DEE D DATED 3- 7-2006 FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,92,90,000/-. OUT OF TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION, ON THE BASIS OF LAND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND AT 1000 SQ. METERS, THEY RECEIVED A N AMOUNT OF RS.98,58,000/-. HOWEVER, IN HER RETURN OF INCOM E, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT SHE WAS HAVING ONLY 1/4 TH SHARE IN THE PROPERTY AND HER SHARE IN THE SALE CONSIDERATIO N WAS SHOWN AT RS.24,64,500/-. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE AS SESSEE SHE HAD FURTHER CLAIMED DEDUCTION TOWARDS COST INCURRE D FOR LEVELLING, CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL ETC., AT RS.21,50,000 THEREBY REDUCING THE COST OF PURCHASE AT RS.88,65,0 30/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO TED THAT IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND WHILE EXAMINING THE DETAILS OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION, IT WAS NOTICED THAT AS PER TH E INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY HIM IN THE FORM OF RECEIPTS RS.9 LAKH S WAS PAID FOR ROCK CUTTING, RS.4 LAKHS WAS PAID FOR EXCAVATIO N, RS.8.5 8 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. LAKHS FOR LEVELLING OF PLOT ETC. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE FIRST TWO PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH AND LAST PAYME NT WAS MADE BY CHEQUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE CASH RECEIPTS ARE DATED 16-12-2006 AND 31-1-2006 BEFORE THE SALE OF THE SAID LAND AND THE CHEQUE PAYMENT WAS MADE TH ROUGH CHEQUE DATED 14-3-2006 WHICH WAS AFTER THE DATE OF THE SALE. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT AS PER THE RECITALS IN THE PU RCHASE DEED DATED 28-2-2005, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LAND PURCHASE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE HAD A 1000 SQ.FT. ACC ROOF STRUCTURE BUILT ON IT. SIMILARLY, FROM THE SALE DEED DATED 3 -1-2006, IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT TOTAL LAND OF 5000 SQ. MTRS HAD ON IT 5000 SQ. FT. ACC SHEET STRUCTURES AND THE SALE DEED FURTHER MENTIONED ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF STRUCTURE BEING SOLD. FROM THIS DEED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT UNDERTAKEN ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK LIKE ROCK CUTTING, EXCAVATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL AS CLAIMED BY HE R. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT THE VALUE TA KEN IN THE BALANCE SHEETS ALSO PROVES THAT THE CLAIM OF COST O F CONSTRUCTION WAS AN AFTER THOUGHT TO BRING DOWN TH E INCIDENCE OF CAPITAL GAIN. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE FOR COST OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE LAND PURCHASED CANNOT BE ALLOW ED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED T HE CLAIM MADE TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE ALSO. SO FAR AS THE SHARE HOLDING IN THE LAND IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF 1/3 RD SHARE IN THE LAND WHILE HER HUSBAND IS THE 2/3 RD SHARE HOLDER 9 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. AND ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS. THE AS SESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID COMPUTATION OF C APITAL GAINS AGITATED THE MATTER BY WAY OF AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 11. THE CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE SO FAR AS THE PATTERN OF SHAREHOLDING IS CONCERNED, REJECTED ASSESSEES CLAIM AND BY FOLLOWING HIS ORD ER IN CASE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND SRI APPA RAO HELD THAT THE A SSESSEES SHARE IS 1/3 RD AND HER HUSBAND S SHARE IS 2/3 RD . SO FAR AS COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS CONCERNED, THE CIT (A) FOLLOWING HIS ORDER PASSED IN CASE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND SRI APPA RAO F OR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E., 2006-07 ALLOWED 40% OF THE TOTAL COST CLAIMED. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. SO FAR AS THE PAT TERN OF SHAREHOLDING IS CONCERNED, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS N EITHER FILED ANY APPEAL NOR ANY CROSS OBJECTION OBJECTING TO T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) ,WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO GO IN TO THAT ASPECT. HOWEVER, SO FAR AS 40% ALLOWANCE FROM THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IS CONCERNED, IT IS TO BE SEEN FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) IN CASE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND SRI APPA RAO THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD AND HAS ACCEPTED THE OR DER OF THE CIT (A) IN ALLOWING 40% OF THE EXPENDITURE. IN TH IS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WHEN THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE OR DER OF THE CIT (A) ALLOWING 40% EXPENDITURE IN CASE OF ASSESSE ES HUSBAND, THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT CHALLENGE THE SAME I N CASE OF 10 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. THE WIFE OF SRI J. APPA RAO I.E., THE PRESENT ASSE SSEE. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT ( A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 13. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN ITA NO.1532/HYD/2 010 AS MENTIONED ABOVE IN THIS ORDER, FOLLOWING THE REASON ING GIVEN THEREIN, WE DISMISS THE GROUND NO.1 IN ITA NOS. 15 30 AND 1531/HYD/2010 AS WELL. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEA LS OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1518/ HYD/2010 14. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUNDS ARE GROUND NOS. 2 AN D 3. IN GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) CONFIRMING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS VIEW WITH REGAR D TO SHARING RATIO IN THE SURPLUS ON SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET. 15. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A LAND JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE ON 28-2- 2005 ADMEASURING 1000 SQ. METERS FOR A TOTAL CONSI DERATION OF RS.67,15,030 INCLUDING REGISTRATION CHARGES OF RS.7 ,98,730/-. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PERSONAL BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31 -3-2005 HAD SHOWN VALUE OF THE LAND AT RS.44,98,772/- BEIN G 2/3 RD SHARE IN THE PROPERTY AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.22,16,2 58/- WAS SHOWN AS THE SHARE OF HIS WIFE BEING 1/3 RD SHARE IN HER BALANCE- SHEET AS ON 31-3-2005. THE SAID LAND BEING PART OF TOTAL LAND ADMEASURING 5000 SQ. MTRS., WAS SOLD VIDE SALE DEED DATED 3- 1-2006 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,92,90,000/- AND FOR THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFES SHARE 1000 SQ. METERS THEY RECEIVED 11 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. OUT OF THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION, AN AMOUNT OF RS.98,58,000/-. HOWEVER, WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPIT AL GAINS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO BE HAVING 3/4 TH SHARE IN THE PROPERTY AND IN THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WHEREAS 1/4 TH SHAREHOLDING IN THE PROPERTY WAS SHOWN AT THE HANDS OF HIS WIFE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER WHILE COMPUTIN G THE CAPITAL GAINS TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS 2/3 RD SHARE HOLDER AND HIS WIFE AS 1/3 RD SHARE HOLDER AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY BY COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE A FORESAID RATIO OF 2/3 RD AND 1/3 RD . THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT (A). 16. THE CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING THAT AS PER THE VALUE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31-3- 2005, THE ASSESSEE WAS 2/3 RD OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND HIS WIFE IS 1/3 RD OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTY. HE THEREFORE HELD THA T THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THAT EXTENT IS CORRECT. 17. WE HAVE HEARD SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PE RUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE CIT (A) IN ASSESSEES CASE AND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEES WIFE SMT. J. ANURADHA, WHICH WE HAVE DEALT WITH IN THE E ARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER WHILE CONSIDERING THE DEPARTMENTS A PPEAL IN ITA NO.1530/HYD/2010, IT IS SEEN THAT THE CIT (A) IN CA SE OF ASSESSEES WIFE HAD REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WITH REGARD TO SHARE-HOLDING RATIO AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF 2/3 RD SHAREHOLDING AND HIS WIFE IS 1/3 RD SHAREHOLDING AND 12 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. THIS FINDING OF THE CIT (A) IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. ANURADHA WAS NOT CHALLENGED BY HER BY PREFERRING ANY APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED EVEN A CROSS OBJECTION WHEN THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED AN APPEAL A GAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE CIT (A) WITH REGARD TO SHAREHOLDING RATIO IN CASE O F ASSEESSEES WIFE SMT. ANURADHA ATTAINED FINALITY. SMT. ANURADH A, HAVING ACCEPTED THE CIT (A)S DECISION HOLDING HER AS 1/3 RD SHAREHOLDER IN THE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CHALLENGE THE SHAREHOLDING RATIO AGAIN IN HIS OWN CASE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS REGA RD. 18. THE NEXT ISSUE AS RAISED IN GROUND NO.3 IS WITH REGARD TO CIT (A) ALLOWING AT 40% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CL AIMED TOWARDS LAND DEVELOPMENT. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOL D PROPERTY LAND MEASURING 1000 SQ. MTRS., AND HAS RECEIVED SAL E CONSIDERATION OF RS.98,58,000/-. HOWEVER, WHILE CO MPUTING CAPITAL GAINS, IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REDUCED AN AMOUNT OF RS.21,50,000/- T OWARDS COST INCURRED FOR LEVELLING, CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOU ND WALL ETC. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EX PLAIN THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED CERTAIN RECEIPTS. HO WEVER, ON EXAMINING THE SAID RECEIPTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT 13 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. AN AMOUNT OF RS.9 LAKHS AND RS. 4 LAKHS WERE PAID I N CASH ON 16-12-2006 AND ON 3-1-2006 JUST BEFORE THE EXECUTIO N OF SALE DEED AND THE PAYMENT MADE BY WAY OF CHEQUE DATED 1 4-3- 2006 WAS AFTER THE DATE OF SALE. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE SALE DEED ALSO MENTIONED ABOUT AN EXISTING ACC ROOF STRU CTURE OVER 5000 SFT. HE THEREFORE CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE TOWARDS THE COST O F CONSTRUCTION AND ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 19. IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT (A), AFTE R CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTH ER RELEVANT FACTS THE CIT (A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT INCURRING O F SOME EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS LAND DEVELOPMEN T CANNOT BE TOTALLY RULED OUT AND ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED 40% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. THE ASSESSEE STILL NOT SATISF IED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), IN ALLOWING 40% OF THE EXPEN DITURE CLAIMED, HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US . 20. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT IN CASE OF SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE MADE IN CASE OF ASSESSEES WIFE, THE CIT (A) HAD ALLOWED 40% EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION FOR TH E SELF SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT FURTHER APPEARS THAT THOU GH THE DEPARTMENT HAS PREFERRED APPEAL CHALLENGING THE AL LOWANCE OF 40% DEDUCTION CLAIMED BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER PREFERRED ANY APPEAL NOR FILED ANY CROSS OBJECTION. IN FACT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED, THE ASSESSEE HAD PLEADED FOR 14 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. CONFIRMING THE CIT (A)S ORDER WITH REGARD TO ALLOW ANCE OF 40% EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE S WIFE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), THERE IS NO JUST IFIABLE REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALLOWING 40% D EDUCTION TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION. WE ARE THEREFORE NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDING LY THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE DISMISSED. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1519/HYD/2010:- 22. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE NO ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED. 23. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER:- THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN CONVEYED TO HI S WIFE ON THE BASIS OF SALE CUM GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY REG ISTERED IN HIS FAVOUR ON 31-12-2001. THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE SALE IS REGISTERED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANTS WIFE INSTEAD OF REGISTERING THE SAM E BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS OWN FAVOUR. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC . 50C ARE NOT THERE IN STATUTE IN THE YEAR 2001. 24. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT AS PER THE DOCUM ENT DATED 3-9-2007 SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS CONDUC TED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURPORT EDLY SOLD PROPERTY ADMEASURING 333 SQ. YARDS AT PLOT NO.101, ROAD NO.2 15 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD TO HIS WIFE SMT. J. ANURAD HA FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.33 LAKHS. IN THE RETURN OF INC OME FILED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOW N SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.33 LAKHS AND DEDUCTED THERE FR OM THE COST OF PURCHASE AT RS.20,12,500 AND COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS.11,81,000/- AND THEREBY ADMITTING NO CAPITAL GAI NS. SO FAR AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS FOUND THAT THE SAID C OST OF IMPROVEMENT WAS CLAIMED ON TWO COUNTS I.E., RS.2,7 5,000/- FOR CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.9 ,06,000/- FOR ROCK CUTTING CHARGES. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE FOR COCK CUTTING WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BE EN INCURRED DURING NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 2006. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INCORPORATED A CLAUSE IN THE UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 6-11-2006 REGARDING INCURRING OF EXPE NDITURE BY THE VENDOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE INC URRED FOR ROCK CUTTING AND ONLY ALLOWED THE COST INCURRED TOW ARDS CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL AT RS.2,75,000/-. 25. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON EXAMINATION OF THE RE GISTERED SALE DEED FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE ASSES SEE TO HIS WIFE FOUND THAT IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED THE VAL UE OF THE PROPERTY FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES WAS SHOWN AT RS.1,17,22,550/-. HE THEREFORE BY INVOKING THE PRO VISIONS CONTAINED U/S 50C OF THE ACT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT T HE VALUE ADOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE AS 16 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR WORKING OUT CAPITAL GAINS IF THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER SALE DEED IS LESS THAN TH E VALUE ADOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKE D TO EXPLAIN, HE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THE SAID PROPERTY FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.19,90,000 ON 29-12 -2001 BY WAY AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY FROM K. SASHIKALA REDDY. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON 6-11-2006 HE HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH SMT. J. ANURADHA, WIFE OF THE A SSESSEE FOR TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.33 LAKHS. HE FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT HE RECEIVED BY WAY OF CHEQUE AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 1 LAKHS AS PART SALE CONSIDERATION AND BALANCE SALE CONSIDERAT ION OF RS.12 LAKHS WAS ALSO RECEIVED BY WAY OF CHEQUE BEFORE JUN E, 2007. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED, THE VALUATION FOR REGISTRATION HAS INCREASED, HENCE THERE IS VARIATION IN STAMP DUTY VALUE AND SA LE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY IS BETWEEN THE FAMILY MEMBERS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C COULD NOT B E APPLIED THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER WAS NOT CONVINCED WIT H THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH PROCEED INGS ON 19-2-2008, THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT HE HAD PURC HASED THE SAID PROPERTY BY WAY OF AGREEMENT OF SALE FOR A CON SIDERATION OF RS.18,99,000/- IN DECEMBER, 2001. 26. HE HAD FURTHER STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS TRA NSFERRED TO HIS WIFE BY REGISTERED SALE DEED EXECUTED IN SEPT. 2007 FOR A 17 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. CONSIDERATION OF RS.33 LAKH. FROM THE ABOVE STATEME NT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT THE AGREEMENT EXE CUTED WITH HIS WIFE IN NOVEMBER, 2006 IN RESPECT OF THE P ROPERTY IN QUESTION. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 6-11-2006 WAS NEITHER FOUND NOR SEIZED ON TH E DAY OF SEARCH AND ONLY AFTER TWO MONTHS FROM THE CONCLUSI ON OF THE SEARCH WHEN A STATEMENT WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSE E ON 9-4- 2008, THE ASSESSEE CAME UP WITH A COPY OF AGREEMENT WITH HIS WIFE CLAIMING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR CONSID ERATION OF RS.33 LAKH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT EV EN IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 3-9-2007, THERE IS NO ME NTION OF EXISTENCE OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 6-11-2006. HE THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATE D 6-11- 2006 IS NOTHING BUT A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT AND CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE FINA LLY CONCLUDED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE TAKEN AS PER THE VALUE ADOPTED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED FOR STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR STAMP DUTY AT RS.1,17,22,55 0 AND ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 88,73,330 AFTER GIVING BENEFIT FOR COST INDEXATION AND COST OF IMPROVEMENT. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). IN COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT (A), THE ASSESS EE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION CONTENDING THEREIN THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS 18 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. ENTERED INTO REGISTERED SALE AGREEMENT CUM GPA WIT H ONE SMT SASHIKALA REDDY ON 31-12-2001. 27. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PAID TOTAL CONSIDERATIO N OF RS.20 LAKHS TO SMT. SASHIKALA REDDY AND OBTAINED THE RIG HT TO DEAL WITH PROPERTY AND ALSO TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE SAI D PROPERTY. BY VIRTUE OF THE SAID AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA, TH E ASSESSEE HAD ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SA LE AND GIVE POSSESSION FOR THE SAME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY HAS TAKEN PLACE ON 30-12-2001 ITSELF IN T ERMS WITH SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT AND THE ONLY ACT WHICH IS PENDING IS TO COMPLETE REGISTRATION OF FINAL SALE DEED BEFORE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TRANS ACTION OF SALE IS BETWEEN HUSBAND AS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND HIS WIFE. THE ASSESSEE HAS REGISTERED SALE DEED DT. 3-9-2007 WITH HIS WIFE IN THE CAPACITY OF AN AGENT OF THE ORIGINAL O WNER AS GENERAL L POWER OF ATTORNEY AND NOT IN HIS INDIVIDU AL CAPACITY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT REGISTRATION IS UNDER THE AG REEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA AND THE FACT THAT HE IS REPRESENTIN G SMT. K. SASHIKALA REDDY IS QUITE EVIDENT FROM THE REGISTER ED SALE DEED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AS A GPA HOLDER AND HIS WIFE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IN FAVOUR O F SMT. ANURADHA, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE IS A SEQUEL TO THE A GREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA DATED 31-12-2001 AND THE PROPERTY HAS ALREADY BEEN TRANSFERRED ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF AGREEM ENT OF SALE CUM GPA ITSELF AND THE PRESENT SALE DEED REGISTERE D IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES WIFE IS AN ACT OF COMPLETING RE GISTRATION 19 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. FORMALITIES AND BY THIS REGISTERED SALE DEED, NO NE W TITLE HAS BEEN CONVEYED NOR IT BROUGHT NEW ASSET EITHER TO THE ASSESSEE OR TO HIS WIFE OR TO HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. 28. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD A GENERAL AGREEMENT CUM GPA AND THE SAME HAS BEEN REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES ON 31-12-2001, THE STAMP V ALUATION AS APPLICABLE ON 31-12-2001 HAS TO BE APPLIED AND NOT THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITI ES AS ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED DATED 3-9-2007. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTUAL SALE OF PROPERTY SHOULD RELATE BACK TO THE DATE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY ON 31-12-2001. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE ASSESSEE RELI ED UPON THE DECISION OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS VS. CIT (227 ITR 43). IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT ON THE DAY ON WHICH THE ACTUAL TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE WAS 31-12- 2001. AS SECTION 50C WAS NOT THERE IN THE STATUTE ON 31-12- 2001 THEREFORE THE PROVISION CANNOT BE MADE APPLICA BLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) CIT VS. NIRMAL TEXTILES (224 ITR 378) II) CIT VS. LAXMAN SINGH (159 ITR 983) 29. THE ASSESSEE ALTERNATIVELY SUBMITTED THAT THE AGREEMENT OF SALE WAS ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A GPA HOLDER WITH HIS WIFE ON 6-11-2006 FOR AN APPARENT SALE CONSIDERATIO N OF RS. 33 LAKH. THIS AGREEMENT ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS TOTALLY 20 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. IGNORED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS IT HAS TAKEN PL ACE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY UNDER THE UNREGISTERED SALE AGREEMENT H AD TAKEN PLACE ON 6-11-2006 CONVEYING RIGHTS OVER THE PROPER TY AND GIVING POSSESSION OF THE SAME. SINCE TRANSFER OF C APITAL ASSET HAS TAKEN PLACE ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT, THE MARK ET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENTS, REGISTRATION A UTHORITY AS ON 6-11-2006 HAS TO BE APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 50C IF AT ALL TO BE APPLIED THEN IT HAS TO BE APPLIED B Y TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE REGISTRATION VALUE AS ON THE DAT E OF AGREEMENT OF SALE ON 6-11-2006 AND NOT THE VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF THE REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED. 30. THE CIT (A) HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE LOCALITY IS KNOWN TO THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY . SINCE THERE IS UNDER VALUATION AS PER THE VALUE ADOPTED B Y THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, THEN THE SALE VALUE IS TO BE A DOPTED BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES AS HAS BEEN PROVIDED U/S 50C OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONF IRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 31. THE LEARNED AR MOSTLY REITERATING THE STAND TA KEN BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A REGISTERED AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM G PA O N31- 12-2001 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.20,12,500/- INCL UDING 21 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. REGISTRATION CHARGES OF RS.1,13,500 WITH A NRE NAME LY SMT. SASHIKALA REDDY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THOUGH THE ASSE SSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND BY VIRTUE OF THE AFORESAID AGREE MENT OF SALE CUM GPA ON 31-12-2001 BUT THERE WAS NO REGISTERED S ALE DEED IN HIS FAVOUR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY REMAINED UNDER HIS POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT AS PER THE AGREE MENT OF SALE CUM GPA. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO HOLD THE PROPERTY IN HIS NAME ONLY BUT HE WAS COMPELLED TO EXECUTE A SALE DEED WITH HIS WIFE BECAUSE OF POLICY DECISION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT FIXING TIME UP TO 31-12-2007 FOR CONVERT ING THE GPA TO A SALE DEED BY PAYING THE STAMP DUTY. 32. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN ORDER TO OBTAIN REGISTERED SALE DOCUMENT, THE ASSES SEE HAD EXECUTED THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF HIS WIFE SMT. J. ANURADHA. THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WAS UNDERTAKEN IN RELATION TO THE AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA WITH AN OBJECTIVE OF HOLDING THE PROPERTY EITHER IN HIS NAME OR IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE. APART FROM THAT, THERE IS NO MOTIVE OF MAKING ANY PROFIT OUT THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO WITH HIS WIFE AND THER E IS NO INFUSION OF ANY BLACK MONEY INTO THIS TRANSACTION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA ON 31-12-2001, THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 50C ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS ON THAT DATE THE PROVISION WAS NOT THERE IN THE STATUTE BOOK. IT WAS SUBMITT ED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED COMPLETE POSSESSIO N COUPLED WITH ABSOLUTE RIGHTS OVER THE PROPERTY ON 31-12-200 1 I.E. THE 22 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. DATE OF EXECUTION OF REGISTERED AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA AND THOUGH THE COMPLETE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS ALSO PAID TO THE VENDOR ON 31-12-2001 BUT THE ULTIMATE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY ON 3-9 -2007 AND THE ASSESSEE HAD EXECUTED THE REGISTERED SALE DEED WI TH HIS WIFE ON 3-9-2007 IN THE CAPACITY OF AN AGENT OF SMT. SAS HIKALA REDDY THE ORIGINAL OWNER AND NOT IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. HENCE LEGALLY THE SALE WAS MADE BY SMT. SASHIKALA R EDDY AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS THE TRANSFER OF LAND WAS COMPLETED IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(47) ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA ON 31-12- 2001, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C IF AT ALL HAS TO BE APPLIE D THEN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF EXEC UTION OF AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA I.E. 31-12-2001 HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND NOT THE DATE WHEN THE FINAL SALE DEE D WAS REGISTERED. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) DCIT VS. S. VENKAT REDDY (2013) 32 TAXMAN 324 II) M. SIVAPARVATHI, CH. KASTURIBAI & OTHERS (123 ITD 463) 33. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DATE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE OF THE LAND IS CRUCIAL AND SINCE ON THAT DATE THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 50C WAS NOT IN THE IT ACT, IT CANNOT BE IN VOKED EVEN THOUGH THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED AT A SUBSEQUE NT DATE. THE LEARNED AR ALTERNATIVELY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD 23 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. ENTERED INTO SALE AGREEMENT WITH HIS WIFE WITH THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF HOLDING THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE FAMILY E ITHER IN HIS NAME OR IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE TO COMPLETE THE SAL E TRANSACTION BEFORE THE CUT OFF THE DATE PF 31-12-20 07 FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE ON THE PART OF THE ORIGINAL OWNER SMT. SASHIKALA REDDY, RESIDENT OF USA TO COME AND COMPLETE THE F ORMALITIES, THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT HAVING ANY OTHER OPTION HAS RE GISTERED THE SALE DEED IN HIS WIFES NAME. THEREFORE, IF AT ALL THE VALUATION AS PER SECTION 50C IS TO BE MADE, THEN TH E VALUE AS ON 6-11-2006 I.E., WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED IN TO THE AGREEMENT OF SALE FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.3 3 LAKH, THAT VALUE HAS TO BE TAKEN. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE O BJECT FOR WHICH SECTION 50C WAS INTRODUCED WOULD MAKE IT APPA RENT THAT ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THERE IS A MOTIVE ATTACHED FOR UNDERVALUING THE PROPERTY THEN ONLY HE VALUE ADOPTE D FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE WOULD BE APPLICABLE. SINCE IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO MOTIVE FOR UNDERVALUATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY AS IT IS ONLY TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE HUSB AND AND WIFE, SECTION 50C CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE. IN TH IS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED AR RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISION:- KP VERGHESE VS. ITO (131 ITR 597) 34. IT WAS FINALLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT S ECTION 50C OF THE ACT WAS ERRONEOUSLY INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SALE TRANSACTION HAS AL READY TAKEN PLACE BY VIRTUE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA DATED 31-12- 24 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. 2001 AND THE REGISTERED SALE DEED 3-9-2007 IS ONLY A CULMINATION OF TRANSACTION WHICH HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. 35. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED TH AT IN VIEW OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION AS CONTAINED U/S 50C OF THE ACT THE VALUE FIXED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR TH E PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. 36. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES MA DE AT THE TIME OF HEARING AS WELL PERUSED AS THE WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W AS WELL AS MATERIALS ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DISPUTE THE FACT THAT HE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM G PA WITH ONE SMT. SASHIKALA REDDY IN RESPECT OF A PROPERTY A DMEASURING 333 SQ. YARDS AT BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD FOR A CON SIDERATION OF RS.18,99,000. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DOES NOT DISPUTE T HE FACT THAT BY VIRTUE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA, HE HAS NOT ONLY ACQUIRED POSSESSION OVER THE PROPERTY BUT ALSO ENJ OYING HIS RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY LIKE A OWNER. THEREFORE, I T CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THERE IS A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IN TERM S WITH SEC. 2(47) FROM THE ORIGINAL OWNER SMT. SASHIKALA REDDY TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER AGREEMENT DATED 31-12-2001. THE ASS ESSEE ALSO IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE US HAS ADMITTED THE FACT THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM TH E ORIGINAL OWNER AND WAS VIRTUALLY ENJOYING ALL THE RIGHTS OVE R THE 25 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. PROPERTY AS A OWNER, BY NOT ONLY ACQUIRING POSSESS ION BUT ALSO OTHER RIGHTS TO DEAL WITH THE PROPERTY IN ANY MANNE R THAT HE LIKES. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT OF THE ORIGINAL OWNER WHILE SELLING THE SAID PROPERTY TO HIS WIFE SMT. J. ANURADHA. FURTHER, THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REGISTERED SALE DEED EXECUTED O N 3-9-2007 CONVEYING THE PROPERTY TO HIS WIFE IS AS A SEQUEL T O THE AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA EXECUTED BY THE ORIGINAL LAND OWNER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON 31-12-2001 IS ALSO NO T ACCEPTABLE. 37. AS WE HAVE HELD EARLIER, THE AGREEMENT OF SAL E CUM GPA EXECUTED ON 31-12-2001 IS DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FRO M THE REGISTERED SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 13-9-2007 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE SMT. ANURADHA. WHILE UNDER TH E AGREEMENT DATED 31-12-2001, THE PROPERTY WAS TRANSF ERRED BY SMT. SASHIKALA REDDY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR A CONSIDER ATION UNDER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 3-9-2007, THE PROPER TY WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS WIFE FOR CONSIDERATION. THE REFORE, THE TWO TRANSACTIONS ARE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE AND CANN OT BE SAID TO BE ONE TRANSACTION. HENCE, THE ASSESSEES CONTE NTION THAT THE SALE EFFECTED VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 3 -9-2007 SHOULD RELATE BACK TO THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF AGRE EMENT OF SALE CUM GPA DATED 31-12-2001 AND THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THAT DATE I.E. 31-12-2001 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS CA NNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE FURTHER ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE 26 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. THAT THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN AS I T STOOD ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE EXECUTED BY THE ASSES SEE WITH HIS WIFE ON 6-11-2006 IS ALSO EQUALLY UNACCEPTABLE. SECTION 50C IS VERY MUCH CLEAR IN ITS LANGUAGE. A READING OF THE SAID PROVISION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT AFTER THE INSERTION O F THE AFORESAID PROVISION W.E.F. 1-4-2003, WHERE THE CONS IDERATION RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF A TRANSFER OF AN CAPITAL A SSET BEING LAND OR BUILDING IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSES SED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY TH E STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY OF STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PUR POSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THEN VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTH ORITY SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION R ECEIVED OR ACCRUED AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER FOR THE PURPOS E OF SEC. 48. 38. THEREFORE, THE USE OF WORD SHALL IN SUB-SECTI ON (1) OF SECTION 50C MAKES IT MANDATORY ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY T HE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY I N A CASE WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IS LESS THAN SUCH VALUATION MADE. HOWEVER, SUB-SECTION (2) PROVIDES AN EXCEPTI ON TO THE AFORESAID SUB-SECTION AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE IF CLAIMS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASS ESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY TH E STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED IN ANY AP PEAL OR REVISION BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTHORITY, COURTS OR HIGH COURTS, THEN 27 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF TH E SAID ASSET TO THE VALUATION OFFICER AND DECIDE IT ACCORDINGLY AFTER RECEIVING THE REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER. AS CAN BE SEEN IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY SUCH OB JECTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBJECTING TO THE VALUA TION MADE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AS PROVIDED UNDER SUB -SECTION (2) OF SECTION 50C. HENCE, THERE IS NO OTHER OPTI ON BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT TO APPLY THE PROVISION OF SEC TION 50C AS THERE IS APPARENTLY AN UNDERVALUATION WITH REGARD T O THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY VIS A VIS THE VALUE ADOPTED/ASSESSE D BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT F OR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND AN Y MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN SO FAR AS HIS CL AIM THAT SECTION 50C WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE OR THE VALUE AS ON 6-11- 2006 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. SO FAR AS THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCERNED, THOUGH THE RATIO LAI D DOWN IN THOSE DECISIONS ARE THE CORRECT PROPOSITION OF LAW BUT THEY ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS THERE IS A CLEAR UNDERVALUATION OF PROPERTY ESTABLISHED BY VI RTUE OF THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT F OR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISM ISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 28 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. 39. IN GROUND NO.3, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF PART OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED TOWARDS COST OF IMPROVEMENT. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THESE FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE EARLIER, IT IS NOT NECESSAR Y TO REPEAT THEM AGAIN. 40. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AN D PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LO WER AUTHORITIES IN SO FAR AS HIS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON COCK CUTTING AMOUNTING TO RS.9,06,000. EVEN BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OF SUBS TANCE TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT ACTUALLY IT HAS INCURRED SU CH EXPENDITURE. IN AFORESAID VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE D O NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER O F THE CIT (A) BY DISMISSING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 41. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 151 9/HYD/2010 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1533/HYD/2010 :- 42. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE DEP ARTMENT IS WITH REGARD TO CIT (A) DELETING AN AMOUNT OF RS.14 ,20,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.51,35,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 29 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. 43. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF A LOOSE SHEET FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSE E, NOTED THAT AS PER THE SCRIBBLING MADE IN THE SAID LOOSE SHEET A TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS.63.20 LAKHS WAS ALLEGEDLY MADE TO SM T. LAXMAMMA FOR PURCHASE OF AC.1.33 GUNTAS OF LAND. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL CONTAINED A REGISTER ED SALE DEED AS PER WHICH LAND ADMEASURING AC.1.39 GUNTAS WAS PU RCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SMT. LAXMAMMA FOR CONSIDERATIO N OF RS.11,85,000/- WHICH WAS PAID, AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED, BY WAY OF CHEQUE NO.145494 FOR RS.2,64,000/- AND CH EQUE NO.145496 FOR RS.9,21,000/-. ON THE BASIS OF THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE LOOSE SHEET AND THE SALE CONSIDERA TION AS MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OPINED THAT THERE WAS SUPPRESSION OF ACTUAL CONSIDE RATION AT THE TIME OF REGISTERING THE PROPERTY AS THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER THE LOOSE SHEETS RECOVERED DU RING THE POST SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS RS.63.20 LAK HS. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT DURING THE SEARCH ENQUIRY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE STATEMENT RECORD ED BY SRI B. MALLESH HUSBAND OF SMT. LAXMAMMA WHEREIN HE STAT ED TO HAVE SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY FOR RS.49 LAKHS AT THE RATE OF RS.25 LAKHS PER ACRE, THE ASSESSEE CAME FORWARD TO DISCLO SE AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.37,15,000. THE ASSESSING O FFICER HOWEVER FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACT UALLY PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.63.20 LAKHS AS MENTIONED IN THE LOO SE SHEET 30 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. WHEREAS IT HAS SHOWN THE PAYMENT OF RS.11,85,000/- AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED, HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.51.35 LAKHS AS THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED IT TO THE INCOME OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO PASSED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE CIT (A) AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSE E HAS ACTUALLY ADMITTED PAYMENT OF RS.49 LAKH AND HAS DEC LARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.37,15,000/- RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.14,20,000/-. 44. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY RELYING UPON THE LOOSE SHEET FOUND DURIN G THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION HAS TAKEN THE ACTUAL SALE CON SIDERATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE RS.63,20,000/- AS AGAINS T THE VALUE MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED AT RS.11,85,0 00/- AND THEREBY TREATED THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.51,35 ,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM PARA-12 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS EARLIER MENTIONED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A REVISED COMPUTATION DECLA RING ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.37,15,000/-. IT IS THE CON TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US ALSO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT O NLY DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.37.15 LAKHS BUT ALSO PAID TAX ON IT. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE ADDIT IONAL 31 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. INCOME OF RS.37.15 LAKHS AND PAID TAX ON IT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAK ING ADDITION OVER AGAIN OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.37.15 LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY, IN OUR VIEW THE CIT (A) WAS CORRECT I N SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.14.20 LAKHS OUT OF THE TOTAL A MOUNT OF RS.51,35,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENC E, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. 45. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA NO.1533/HYD/2010 IS DISMISSED. 46. TO SUM UP, DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IN ITA NO.1530 TO 1532/HYD/2010 IN CASE OF SMT. J. ANURADHA AND IN I TA NO.1533/HYD/2010 IN CASE OF SRI J. APPA RAO ARE DIS MISSED. ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NOS.1518 AND 1519/HYD/2010 ARE ALSO DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29 -11-2013. SD/- ( CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 JMR* 32 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD. COPY TO:- 1) ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD. 2) BOTH ASSESSEES, C/O SRI M. CHANDRAMOULESHWARA RAO, C-5, SKYPARK APARTMENTS, BASHEERBACH, HYDERABAD. 3) CIT (A)-VII, HYDERABAD. 4) CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD. JMR* 33 ITA NOS.1530 TO 1532 AND OTHERS OF 2010 J. APPA RAO & SMT. ANURADHA, HYD.