Smt. M.Nagarathnamma, Madanpalle, Chittoor V. ITO, Ward-1, Madanapalle

ITA 1782/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6554 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KURMI NAIDU
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 54B; 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1782/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 SMT. M. NAGARATHNAMMA MADANAPALLE. PAN AGFPM3838D VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADANAPALLE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE : MR. B. KURMI NAIDU DATE OF HEARING : 2 3 .0 2 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .0 5 .2016 ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC . 50C OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS FIXED BY THE VALUATION CELL OF RS.41,42,000 BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50 C OF THE ACT. HE OUGHT TO 2 ITA.NO.1782/HYD/2011 SMT. M. NAGARATHNAMMA, MADANAPALLE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE VALUATION MADE BY THE VALUATION CELL IS NOT CORRECT. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE VALUE AS FIXED BY THE VALUATION CELL IS NO T CORRECT AS THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE SAID VALUATION CELL IS NOT THE CORRECT METHOD TO BE ADOPTED FOR ARRIVING AT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT DIRECTLY SELL THE PROPERTY TO THE VENDEE, BUT ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH A MIDDLEMAN AND IN TURN THE SAID PERSON ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH THE VENDEE. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE GROUND WITH REGARD TO THE ADOPTION OF THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND ITEM. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAVING ACCEPTED AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT RS.1,29,700 AS AGAINST RS.85,000 FOR THE FIRST ITEM SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT RS.5,34,930 AS AGAINST RS.4,02,450 ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE ADMITTED OF RS.45,365 AS THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 8. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 1.1. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A LETTER DATED 28.08.2014 FOR ADMISSION OF THE FOLLOW ING ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL : THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THA T THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GAIN IS EXEMPT U/S.54B OF THE I. T. ACT AS THE CAPITAL GAIN WORKED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WI TH 3 ITA.NO.1782/HYD/2011 SMT. M. NAGARATHNAMMA, MADANAPALLE THE PROVISIONS U/S. 48 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS UTILIZED IN ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETRIX OF SUSHMA SILK HOUSE . SHE DERIVED INCOME FROM TRADING OF SAREES. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 ON 23.03. 2010 ADMITTING NET INCOME OF RS.5,40,637 WHICH INCLUDES LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.45,365. DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, T HE A.O. EXAMINED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR PURCHASE OF AC.29.49 OF LAND AT KALIKARI (V) AN D ALSO AGRICULTURAL INCOME ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.1. WITH REGARD TO THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED TWO PIECES OF LAND TOTALING TO AC.5.24 ON 06.03.2004 AND 09.06.2004 RESPECTIVELY W HICH HAS BEEN SOLD ON 30.11.2007 FOR AN ALLEGED SUM OF R S.25 LAKHS. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE NECESSARY DETAILS. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS S TATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND AT A PRICE LES S THAN THE MARKET VALUE/SRO VALUE AND HAS SOLD THE LAND AL SO FOR THE CONSIDERATION LESS THAN THE SRO VALUE. ASSE SSEE HAD FURTHER STATED THAT SHE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE ON 25.04.2007 WITH MR. R.K. MOHAN FOR SALE OF THE LAND FOR A SUM OF RS.19,65,000 AND RECE IVED 4 ITA.NO.1782/HYD/2011 SMT. M. NAGARATHNAMMA, MADANAPALLE RS.16 LAKHS AS ADVANCE AND AGREED TO RECEIVE THE BA LANCE OF RS.3,65,000 WITHIN SEVEN MONTHS THEREAFTER AND EXECUTE THE SALE DEED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN POSSESSION OF THE SAID LAND TO M R. R.K.MOHAN ON 25.04.2008 AND THAT MR. R.K. MOHAN HAD REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF MR. C. SIVAKUMAR AND SMT. PADMAVATHI FOR RS.25 L AKHS ON 30.11.2007. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE STA MP DUTY VALUE OF THE LAND WAS RS.49,46,000, DUE TO DISADVANTAGEOUS LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY, MR. R.K. MOHAN HAS RECEIVED RS.25 LAKHS FROM THE BUYER OUT OF WHIC H, HE PAID RS.3,65,000 TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE BALANC E CONSIDERATION PAYABLE AND HAD ALSO BORNE STAMP DUTY OF RS.4,75,250, THUS, MAKING A PROFIT OF RS.58,750 IN THE DEAL. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD I N FACT RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.19,65,000 ONLY AN D NOT RS.25 LAKHS. THE A.O. MADE VARIOUS ENQUIRIES AND RECORDED STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO SENT AN INSPECTOR TO VERIFY THE OTHER DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ULTIMATE VENDEES MR. SIVAKUMAR AND SM T. PADMAVATHI, THOUGH CONFIRMED THE PAYMENT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.25 LAKHS, DENIED ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE WITH THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO ST ATED THAT THEY HAVE PAID THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION O N THE DATE OF REGISTRATION ONLY. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE A FFIDAVIT OF MR. R.K. MOHAN BEFORE THE A.O, WHEREIN IT WAS STATE D THAT ASSESSEE WAS PAID A SUM OF RS.16 LAKHS ON 25.04.200 7 AND THE BALANCE OF RS.3,65,000 AT THE TIME OF REGIS TRATION. 5 ITA.NO.1782/HYD/2011 SMT. M. NAGARATHNAMMA, MADANAPALLE THE A.O. DEPUTED THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX TO ENQ UIRE WITH MR. R.K. MOHAN, WHO THEREAFTER FILED THREE LET TERS BEFORE THE A.O. DENYING THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND FR OM THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE A.O. DISREGARDED THE AFFIDAVIT OF MR. R.K. MOHAN AND CAME TO THE CONCLUS ION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY TO MR. C. SIVAKUMAR AND SMT. C. PADMA RANI ON 30.11.2007 ONLY . AS REGARDS THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT WHICH PROPE RTY WAS SOLD, HE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION C ELL AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT SINCE THE VALUATIO N REPORT WAS NOT RECEIVED AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIM E BARRED, HE TREATED THE SRO VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS REG ARDS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY, HE TREATED THE SALE CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT REGISTRA TION CHARGES AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION. THE ASSESSEE HA S ALSO STATED THAT HE HAD DEVELOPED THE PROPERTY AND HAD INCURRED A SUM OF RS.9,42,618 TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. THE A.O. HOWEVER, ALLOWED ONLY 50% OF THE SAME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.39,11,556 AFTER ALLOWING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. 2.2. THEREAFTER, THE A.O. CONSIDERED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HO LDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE PROPERTIES BEFORE SH E COULD REAP THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THAT THE LANDS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT HELD FOR SUFFICI ENT 6 ITA.NO.1782/HYD/2011 SMT. M. NAGARATHNAMMA, MADANAPALLE PERIOD TO EARN THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, HE TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2.3. AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT F OR PURCHASE OF AC.29.49 OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT KALIKI RI (V), THE A.O. DISBELIEVED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME WAS PURCHASED OUT OF THE ADVANCE RECEIVED BY H ER FROM MR. R. K. MOHAN AND TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPE AL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESS EES CONTENTIONS AT LENGTH, CONSIDERED THE COST OF ACQUI SITION OF THE LAND ALONG WITH THE REGISTRATION CHARGES PAID F OR PURCHASE OF THE FIRST PROPERTY ONLY AND FAILED TO A DOPT THE SAME FOR THE OTHER PROPERTY AS WELL. AS REGARDS THE STATEMENT OF MR. R.K MOHAN AND THE SOURCE OF INVEST MENT FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AT KALIKIRI, THE CIT(A ) ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT ASSESSEE HA S PRODUCED THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE SALE WRIT TEN IN THE HANDWRITING OF MR. R.K. MOHAN HIMSELF AND THAT THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EX AMINE MR. R.K. MOHAN WHEN HE HAS DENIED ENTERING INTO ANY SUCH AGREEMENT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE MR. R.K. MOHAN, THE CI T(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN T HE KALIKIRI PROPERTY. AS REGARDS THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY SOLD, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE DVOS REPORT HAS SINCE BEEN RECEIVED AND THEREFORE, HE DIRECTED THE VALUAT ION 7 ITA.NO.1782/HYD/2011 SMT. M. NAGARATHNAMMA, MADANAPALLE GIVEN BY THE DVO TO BE ADOPTED. AS REGARDS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDIT ION. AGAINST THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHILE REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 2004 AT A PRI CE MUCH LESS THAN THE SRO VALUE AS NOTED BY THE A.O. HIMSELF IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS SITUATED AT DISADVANTAGEOUS POSITION AND THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT MARKETABLE AS PER THE SRO VAL UE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD THEREFORE INTENDED TO SELL THE PROPERTY AND ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH REAL ESTATE BROKER MR. R.K. MOHAN WH O PAID ASSESSEE A SUM OF RS.16 LAKHS ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 25.04.2007. HE SUBMITTED TH AT THIS AGREEMENT WITH MR. R.K. MOHAN HAS BEEN ACCEPTE D BY THE CIT(A) AND THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL AGAINST THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A). THUS, THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY RS.19,65,000 AND NOT THE S UM OF RS.46,40,000 WHICH IS THE SRO PRICE. FURTHER HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DVO VALUATION OF RS.41,42,000 IS ALSO NOT CORRECT AS THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS HAVE NOT B EEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE DVO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE DVO ACCEPTED THAT THE LANDS OF THE ASSES SEE DID NOT HAVE PROPER APPROACH ROAD AND THERE WAS A C OLONY OF WEAKER SECTIONS OF SOCIETY IN THE VICINITY, HE H AS GIVEN 8 ITA.NO.1782/HYD/2011 SMT. M. NAGARATHNAMMA, MADANAPALLE ONLY 15% WEIGHTAGE FOR SUCH DISADVANTAGEOUS POSITIO N AS AGAINST 50% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ATLEAST 30% WEIGHTAGE OUG HT TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR THIS DISADVANTAGEOUS POSITION O F THE LAND. FURTHER, HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT WHILE TAKING THE COST OF ACQUISITION, REGISTRATION CHARGES FOR PURCH ASE OF THE PROPERTY ALSO OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE CIT(A) WHILE TAKING THE REGISTRATION CHARGES FOR THE FIRST PROPERTY OMITTED TO DIRECT THE A.O. TO TAKE THE REGISTRATION CHARGES OF THE OTHER PROPERTY AS WELL. AS REGARDS THE AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME DISALLOWED BY BOTH THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE C IT(A), THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING AGRICULTURAL LAND AT KALIKIRI (V) PURCHASED ON 25.04.2007 FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THEREFORE, THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 5. AS REGARDS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INVESTED FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AT KALI KIRI (V) AND THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO MAKE THIS CLAIM IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME OR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INADVERTENTLY AND PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADMIT TED AND ADJUDICATED AT THIS STAGE. 9 ITA.NO.1782/HYD/2011 SMT. M. NAGARATHNAMMA, MADANAPALLE 6. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT FOR COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE COST OF ACQUISITION, DEVELOP MENT CHARGES OR COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE ASSET AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALL THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED. AS REGARDS THE COST OF ACQUISITIO N, THE CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THAT THE REGISTRATION CHARGES A LSO HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR TAKING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY. WE AGREE WITH THIS FINDING OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO ADOPT THE REGISTRATIO N CHARGES FOR BOTH THE PROPERTIES. AS REGARDS THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DI RECTED THAT ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES OF RS.9,42,630 ARE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. AS REGARDS THE VALUE OF T HE PROPERTY SOLD, THE SRO VALUE IS RS.46,40,000 WHILE THE DVO HAS VALUED IT AT RS.41,42,000. THIS DIFFERENCE SHOWS THAT THE SRO VALUE IS NOT CORRECT. COMING TO THE DV O VALUATION, WE FIND THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED AND PROVE N FACT THAT THERE IS NO APPROACH ROAD TO THE ASSESSEES LA ND AND ALSO THAT THERE IS A WEAKER SECTIONS OF SOCIETY COL ONY IN THE VICINITY. THE DVO HAS GIVEN ONLY 15% WEIGHTAGE FOR THE SAME. WHEREAS, ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED 50% AS AN ADJUSTMENT. WE FIND THAT THE WEIGHTAGE AT 15% GIVEN BY THE DVO IS NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE DISADVANTAGES POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADMITTED BY THE DVO . THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO GIVE ADJUSTMENT OF 30% FOR 10 ITA.NO.1782/HYD/2011 SMT. M. NAGARATHNAMMA, MADANAPALLE THE SAID DISADVANTAGES. THEREAFTER, THE A.O. IS DIR ECTED TO COMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW, AS PER THE DIRECTIONS ABOVE. 8. AS REGARDS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEA L RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT, THE LD. D.R . SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE PROPERTY I.E., AGRICULTURA L LAND WAS PURCHASED PRIOR TO THE SALE OF THE LAND, THE EX EMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B IS NOT ALLOWABLE. ADMITTEDLY, THE LAND WAS SOLD BY EXECUTION OF SALE DEED ON 30.11.2007 AN D THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS NOT PAID UNTIL THAT D ATE. SECTION 54B PRESCRIBES THAT WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND WHI CH, IN THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHI CH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE HAS BEING USED BY THE ASSES SEE FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, AND THE ASSESSEE IS, WITHIN THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER THAT DATE, PURCHASED ANY OTHER LAND FOR BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, THEN , INSTEAD OF CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF WHICH THE TRANSFER T OOK PLACE, IT SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B. THUS, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. D.R., THE PURCHASE OF LAND AFTER TRANSFER O F THE CAPITAL ASSET ONLY IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SALE OF AGRI CULTURAL LAND. SINCE ALL THE FACTS ARE ON RECORD AND AS NOTE D ABOVE, THE FACTS ARE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT SEE A NY 11 ITA.NO.1782/HYD/2011 SMT. M. NAGARATHNAMMA, MADANAPALLE REASON TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. I N VIEW OF THE SAME, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.05.2016. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 13 TH MAY, 2016 VBP/- COPY TO : 1. SMT. M. NAGARATHNAMMA, MADANAPALLE C/O. M/S. KGM GUPTA & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 10/67, GANDHI ROAD, CHITTOOR 517 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, MADANAPALLE . 3. CIT(A), GUNTUR. 4. CIT, TIRUPATHI . 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE