K Sagar Goud L/R of (Late) Mr. Hari Shankar Goud, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1873/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2591 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALIK
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM; P VINOD S
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Capital asset; Gift; Search and seizure; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 2(14); 153A; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT.P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 1873 /HYD./2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SRI K.SAGAR GOUD, L/R OF (LATE) MR.K.HARI SHANKAR GOUD, H.NO.9-2-121, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, LANGER HOUSE, HYDERABAD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -6(4), HYDERABAD. [PAN AIDPK 8270 F ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.1874/HYD./2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SRI K.SAGAR GOUD, L/R OF (LATE) SMT.K. SHAKUNTHALA,, H.NO.9-2-121, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, LANGER HOUSE, HYDERABAD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -6(4), HYDERABAD [PA N AHSPK 6743 R] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.A.V.RAGHU RAM, & MR.P.VINOD, ADVOCATES /RESPONDENT BY : MS. SUMAN MALIK, D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 0 9 - 08 - 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 - 09 - 2017 / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE TWO APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, HYDERABAD DATED 05.09.2014 PERTAINI NG TO ASSESSMENT ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 2 - : YEAR 2008-09. SINCE GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE TWO DI FFERENT ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE COMMON IN NATURE, THESE APPEALS ARE CLU BBED TOGETHER, HEARD TOGETHER, DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS F OR OUR ADJUDICATION. 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON LAW AND ON FACT TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS.3,50,00,000 ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GA IN. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A)S OBSERVATION THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT EVIDENCING TRANSFER OF LAND AND SEIZED DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING PA YMENTS OF CONSIDERATION BELONGED TO SMR BUILDERS (P) LTD (SM R) IS NOT CORRECT IN AS MUCH AS IN COURSE OF SEARCH OF THE PREMISES O F SMR, THE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT WERE FOUND THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT AGREEMENT OF SALE WHICH BE LONGED TO THE APPELLANT AND PAPERS INDICATING TRANSACTIONS FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF SMR BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT, THEREBY INVITING PRO CEEDING UNDER SECTION 153C AGAINST THE APPELLANT BUT NOT A PROCEE DING UNDER SECTION 147. 3. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM BELONGING AS DO NE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS A CONSTRICTED INTERPRETATION AND SAME DOE S NOT CONFIRM TO THE BROAD PRINCIPLE FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY INITIATED PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 147 WH EN THE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153C WHICH IS A SPECIAL PROVISION. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE BASI C FACT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF RAJENDRANAGAR MUNICIPALITY AND NOT LOCATED WITHIN T HE SPECIFIED LIMITS ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 3 - : OF A NOTIFIED MUNICIPALITY TO RECKON THE DISTANCE A S RAJENDRANAGAR WAS NOT A NOTIFIED MUNICIPALITY AT ANY POINT OF TIME 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WRONGLY ASSUMED THAT THE SUBJ ECT LAND WAS LOCATED NEAR GHMC AND HENCE A CAPITAL ASSET, WHEN G HMC WAS NOT NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 2(14)(III)(B) TO RECKON THE DISTANCE UNDER THE SAID SECTION AND FAILED TO DISTINGUISH THE RATIO OF THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF CIT V MADUKUMAR [20121 254 CTR 564 (KAR) A ND SRINIVAS PANDIT (ITA.NO56/HYD/2007 DT 23-04-2010 WHICH HAS B EEN CONFIRMED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, AND WHICH WAS SQU ARELY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 7. THE LEARNED CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE CORRECT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS AY 2005-06 BUT NOT AY 2008-09 AS THE INITIAL AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED DURING PREVIOUS YEAR 2004-05 AND THE SECOND AGREEMENT WAS A CONTINUATION THEREOF. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IN THE NAME OF A DEAD PERSON (LAT E HAN SHANKAR GOUD) IS BAD IN LAW AND ANY OTHER SUBSEQUENT PROCEE DING WHICH FOLLOWED IS ALSO BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE THE ASSES SMENT IS VOID. 3. THUS, GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4 ARE RELATING TO JURISD ICTION WITH REFERENCE TO RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT. 4. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE AO HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND SRI K.HARI SHAN KAR /HIS WIFE SMT. K.SHAKUNTALA HAD SOLD LAND ADMEASURING 6 ACRES IN SURVEY NO.13/A LOCATED AT BANDLAGUDA VILLAGE, RAJENDRA NAGAR MANDAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT TO SMR BUILDERS PVT LTD (SMR) AND SRI M.LAKSHMA REDDY FOR A SUM OF 2,00,00,000 VIDE REGISTERED AGREEMENT OF ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 4 - : SALE-CUM-GPA (AGPA) DATED 29.05.2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT AS PER CERTAIN LOOSE SHEETS AND OT HER DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS IN THE CAS E OF SMR, THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS 7,00,00,000 FOR THE PLOT OF !AND OF 6 ACRES AND 1,48,75,0O0 FOR ANOTHER PLOT OF AC.0.17 GUNTAS, OF WHICH A SUM OF RS.7,97,75,000 HAD ALREADY BEEN PAID AND CHEQUES FO R RS.44,50,000 HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR THE BALANCE SUM OF RS.51,00,000 LEA VING A BALANCE OF RS.6,50,000. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE U/S.148 ON 31.01.2012 WHICH WAS SERVED ON SRI K. SAGAR GOUD, LEGAL HEIR O F THE APPELLANT. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE SRI K. SAGAR GOUD SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 25.09.2008 BE TREATED AS THE RETUR N FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148. THE AO ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S.14 7 OF THE ACT AND TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD AS CAPITAL ASSET. AGGR IEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 4.1 IN THE COURSE OF THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS, THE AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT SEC.153A & 153C WERE SPECIAL ENACTMENTS GOVERN ING ASSESSMENTS IN SEARCH CASES, THAT THESE PROVISIONS WERE A CODE IN ITSELF, THAT INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C WAS GOVERNED BY DISCOVERY OF V ALUABLE ASSETS AND DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO AN ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH AND THAT ONCE A CASE FELL U/S 153C, THE JURISDICTION U/S 147 WAS OUSTED BY LEGISLATIVE MANDATE. THE AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE REQUIREMENT S AND CONSEQUENCES OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AS AGAINST THOSE U/S 153C WERE VERY DIFFERENT AND THAT THERE WAS NO OVERLAPPING IN THESE STIPULATIONS AND THAT THEY OPERATED IN THEIR LEGITIMATE/ASSIGNED FIELD THE AR ALSO SUBMITT ED THAT SPECIAL PROVISIONS ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 5 - : TOOK PRECEDENCE OVER GENERAL PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THEREFORE, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 147 INSTEAD OF U/S 153C WAS ERRONEOUS AND BAD IN LAW. THE AR RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD: I. ALL INDIA PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK OFFICERS ASSOC IATION VS. CHAIRMAN-CURN- MANAGING DIRECTOR,PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS [ 20W] 321. ITR 324 (MP) II. RAWATMAL HARAKCHAND VS. CIT 129 ITR 346 III. RAMBALLBH GUPTA VS. ACIT [2005] 149 TAXMAN 4 51 (MP) 288 ITR 347 IV. ITO VS. ARUN KUMAR KAPOOR [2011] 58 DTR 201. A SR V. CARGO CLEARING AGENCY 307 ITR 1 (GUJ) VI. CIT VS. SURESH N. GUPTA 297 ITR 322 VII. MANISH MAHESWARI VS. ACIT [2007] 341 (SC) VIII. PRAKAS JEWELLERS VS. ACIT [2012] 211. ITR 43 6 (GUJ) 4.2 ACCORDING TO LD.CIT(A), THERE IS NO DISPUTE WI TH THE PRINCIPLES RELIED ON BY THE AR, VIZ THAT SEC.147 AND SEC.153C OPERATE IN MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE DOMAINS AND THAT SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF THE LAW TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER GENERAL PROVISIONS. WHAT IS A MATTER OF DISPUTE IS WHICH OF THE TWO SECTIONS, SEC. 147 OR 153C, APPLIES TO THE APPELLANTS CASE. SEC.153C( 1) STATES NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECT ION 153, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY M ONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THI NG OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONG S OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED T O IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENT S OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTH ER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EA CH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ASSESS OR ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 6 - : REASSESS INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 53A. 4.3 THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE CRUCIAL CONDIT ION LAID DOWN FOR THE OPERATION OF SEC.153C AT THE SEIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS ETC., BELONGS TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SEC 153 A IT IS THEREFORE, NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHETHER ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC., BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT WERE SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF SMR. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRE D TO THE REGISTERED AGREEMENT OF SALE-CUM-GPA DATED 29.05.2007 AND CERT AIN LOOSE SHEETS AND RECEIPTS EVIDENCING THE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF RS.7,97,7 5,000 AND INDICATING FURTHER PAYMENTS OF 51,00,000. THE AR WAS ALSO REQU ESTED IN THE COURSE OF THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO SPECIFY THE DOCU MENTS BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT WHICH FORMED THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM OF AP PLICABILITY OF SEC.153C. THE AR HAS REFERRED TO THE SAME LOOSE SHEETS AND RE CEIPTS FOR THE SUM OF RS.7,97,75,000/-. ACCORDING TO LD.CIT(A), ALL THE S EIZED DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF SMR. THE PRIMARY CONCLU SION, THEREFORE, IS THAT THESE DOCUMENTS BELONGED TO SMR AND NOT TO THE APPE LLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BROUGHT AN EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST O THERWISE. FURTHER, THE NATURE OF THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IS ALSO SUCH THAT THEY CANNOT BE SAID TO BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. THE AGPA DATED 29.05.200 7 IS A DOCUMENT TO WHICH BOTH PARTIES WERE SIGNATORIES AND EACH PARTY PRESUMABLY HAD ONE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT. THE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT FOUN D AT THE PREMISES OF SMR, THEREFORE, BELONGED TO SMR AND NOT TO THE APPE LLANT. ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 7 - : 4.4 THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE OTHER DOCUMENT S ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 1 48 CONSISTED OF LOOSE SHEETS AND RECEIPTS. THE LOOSE SHEETS, CONTAINING D ETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS, WERE OBVIOUSLY WRITTEN BY SMR AS AN AIDE-MEMOIR AND THEREFORE, BELONGED TO SMR THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM SMR OBVIOUSLY ALSO BELONGED TO SMR SINCE THAT WAS T HE EVIDENCE WITH SMR FOR THE PAYMENTS MADE BY IT. THE LD.CIT(A) ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT TT CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE SAID THAT ANY OF THE DOCUMENT S ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT. AS A RESULT, THE NECESSARY CONDITION FOR INVOCATION OF SEC 153C WAS NOT SATISFIED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND THER EFORE, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN RESORTING TO SEC.148. AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.C IT(A), NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION U/S.132 OF THE ACT IN THE PREMISE S OF SMR BUILDERS (P) LTD (SMR) BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSM ENT IN THESE CASES SHOULD HAVE BEEN FRAMED U/S.153C OF THE ACT, NOT U/ S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT IN BOTH THE ASSESSEE S CASE IS NULL AND VOID. FOR THIS PURPOSE, HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGME NTS:- I) RAJAT SHUBRA CHATTERJI VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.2430/ DEL./15 VIDE ORDER DATED 20.05.2016. II) G.KOTESWARA RAO & OTHERS VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.40 0 TO 407/VIZAG/14 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.10.2015. ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 8 - : III) CARGO CLEARING AGENCY VS. JCIT IN 307 ITR 1 (G UJ.) 6. ON THE OTHER HAND. LD.D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE DO CUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION U/S.132 OF THE A CT AT THE PREMISES OF SMR WERE NOT AT ALL BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND THOSE DO CUMENTS BELONG TO THE SMR BUILDERS (P) LTD., FOUND. SINCE THE CASE WAS R EOPENED U/S.147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSES SMENT HAS TO FRAME U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LD.A.R IS THAT THE DOCUM ENTS SEIZED AT THE PREMISES OF SMR BUILDERS (P) LTD., WERE BELONGED T O THE ASSESSEE. SPECIFICALLY, HE POINTED OUT THE REGISTERED AGREEME NT OF SALE-CUM-GPA DATED 29.05.2007 AND RECEIPTS IN THE FORM OF LOOSE SHEETS CONTAINING DETAILS OF PAYMENTS OF RS.7,97,75,000/- AND INDICATING OTHER P AYMENTS RS.51 LAKHS WERE BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOT TO SMR BUILDE RS (P) LTD. AS SUCH, ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS TO BE FRAMED U/S.153C OF THE ACT. ALL THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED FROM THE PREMIS ES OF SMR BUILDERS (P) LTD. THE PRIMARY PLEA OF THE LD.D.R IS THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE BELONGED TO SMR BUILDERS (P) LTD., NOT TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE SMR BUILDERS (P) LTD., THESE DOCUMENTS HAS NOT BELONGE D TO THEM. THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON (I.E. SMR BUILDERS (P) LTD.,) HAVE ARRIVED AT A DECISION THAT THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS BELONGED TO THE SMR BUILDE RS (P) LTD., UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE DOCUMENTS DID NOT BELONG TO THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 153C OF THE A CT DID NOT GET ATTRACTED BECAUSE THE VERY EXPRESSION USED IN SEC.153C OF THE SAID ACT IS THAT WHERE ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 9 - : THE AO IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELL ERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING, SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED, BELONG TO THE PE RSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SEC.153A, . IN VIEW OF THIS PHRASE , IT IS NECESSARY THAT BEFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE SAID A CT CAN BE INVOKED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON MUST BE SA TISFIED THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL (WHICH INCLUDES DOCUMENTS) DOES NOT BELONG TO THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A (I.E., THE SEARCHED PERSON). IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE, THE AO SHALL INDICATE THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, WHICH DO NO T BELONG TO THE SEARCHED PERSON, AND WHICH BELONG TO OTHER PERSON, THAT IT C ONTAINS THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS NOTED BY THE AO, THE REGISTERED AGREEM ENT OF SALE-CUM-GPA DATED 29.05.2007 SHOWS THE SRI K.HARI SHANKAR ALONG WITH HIS WIFE SMT.K.SHAKUNTALA HAD SOLD LAND ADMEASURING 6 ACRES IN SURVEY NO.13/A LOCATED AT BANDLAGUDA VILLAGE, RAJENDRA NAGAR MANDA L, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT TO SMR BUILDERS (P) LTD., AND SRI M.LAKSHMA REDDY, FOR A SUM OF RS.2/- CRORES VIDE REGISTERED AGREEMENT OF SALE-CUM-GPA DA TED 29.05.2007. THE AO ALSO RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT AS PER CERTAIN LO OSE SHEETS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERA TIONS IN THE CASE OF SMR BUILDERS (P) LTD.,, THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERAT ION WAS RS.7/- CRORES FOR THE PLOT OF LAND OF 6 ACRES AND RS.1.48 CRORES FOR ANOTHER PLOT OF AC.0.17 GUNTAS, OF WHICH A SUM OF RS.7,97,75,000/- HAD ALR EADY BEEN PAID AND CHEQUES FOR RS.44,50,000/- HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR THE BALANCE SUM OF RS.52/- LAKHS LEAVING A BALANCE OF RS.6.50 LAKHS. THE AO IS SUED A NOTICE U/S.148 ON 31.01.2012 WHICH WAS SERVED ON SRI K.SAGAR GOUD LEG AL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 10 - : 7.1 IN OUR OPINION, FINDINGS OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT S, IN THE POSSESSION OF A SEARCH PERSON, DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN AND IMPL Y THAT THEY BELONG TO THE PERSON WHO HOLDS THE ORIGINALS. SIMILARLY, IT DOES NOT MEAN THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE BELONGED TO THE PERSON OTHER THAN TH E SEARCHED PERSON. POSSESSION OF DOCUMENTS AND OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS. WHILE THE SEARCHED PERSON MAY BE THE OWNER OF THE DOCUMENTS AND THE OTHER PARTY WHOSE NAME APPEARED IN THE SAID DOC UMENTS MAY BE PARTY TO THAT DOCUMENT, THAT ITSELF CANNOT MAKE THAT DOCU MENTS BELONG TO THE PERSON WHOSE NAME IS APPEARED IN THE DOCUMENT. UNLE SS IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION DO NOT BELONG TO THE SEARCHED PERSON, AND BELONG TO PERSON WHOSE NAME IS APPEARED IN THE DOCU MENT, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVOKING SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. WE ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT CONFUSE THE EXPR ESSION BELONGS TO WITH THE EXPRESSIONS RELATES TO OR REFERS TO. A REGI STERED SALE DEED, FOR EXAMPLE, BELONGS TO THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY ALTHOUGH IT OBVIOUSLY RELATES TO OR REFERS TO THE VENDOR. IN THIS EXA MPLE IF THE PURCHASERS PREMISES ARE SEARCHED AND THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IS SEIZED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT BELONGS TO THE VENDOR JUST BECAUSE H IS NAME IS MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT. IN THE CONVERSE CASE IF THE VENDORS PREMISES ARE SEARCHED AND A COPY OF THE SALE DEED IS SEIZED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAID COPY BELONGS TO THE PURCHASER JUST BECAUSE IT REFERS T O HIM AND HE (THE PURCHASER) HOLDS THE ORIGINAL SALE DEED. IN THIS LI GHT, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF THE SMR BUILDERS (P) LTD., BELONGS TO THE SEARCHED PERSON I.E. SMR BUILDERS ( P) LTD. BEING SO, THERE IS ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 11 - : NO QUESTION OF INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTI ON 153C OF THE ACT AND THESE DOCUMENTS RIGHTLY USED BY THE AO FOR THE PURP OSE OF REOPENING OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENT AS THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF IN COME, IN THESE TWO CASES, BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE JUDGEMENT RELIED BY THE LD.A.R CANNOT BE APPLIED TO FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE IN HAND AND ACCORDINGLY, NOT CONSIDERED. HENC E, WE CONFIRM THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IN THESE CASES. THIS GROUND OF APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATING TO GROUND NOS.5, 6 & 7 IS WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD A PROPERTY W HICH WAS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET LIABLE TO TAX AND TRANSFER U/S.2(14)(III) OF THE ACT. 8.1 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET LIABLE TO TAX ON TRANSFER U/S 2(14)(III). THE TRANSFERRED LAND WAS LOCATED AT BANDLAGUDA VILL AGE, RAJENDRA NAGAR MANDAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE LAND FELL WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF G HMC UNDER GO NO 261 DATED 16.04,2007 UNDER WHICH 12 MUNICIPALITIES, INCLUDING RAJENDRA NAGAR MUNICIPALITY, WERE MERGED WITH GHMC. HENCE, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD AS CAPITAL ASSE T. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE APP EAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 12 - : 8.2 BEFORE LD.CIT(A), LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT RAJEND RA NAGAR MUNICIPALITY WAS MERGED WITH GHMC UNDER GO NO 261 DATED 16.04.20 07. THE APPELLANTS LAND, HOWEVER, WAS LOCATED IN BANDLAGUDA VILLAGE UN DER RAJENDRA NAGAR MANDAL WHICH WAS NOT PART OF RAJENDRA NAGAR MUNICIP ALITY BANDLAGUDA VIILAGE OF RAJENCIRA NAGAR MANDAL WAS MERGED WITH G HMC MUCH LATER UNDER G.O NO 407 DATED 31.08.2013. THE APPELLANTS CASE T HEREFORE, DOES NOT FALL UNDER 2(14)(III)(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED BY AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE THAT THE NEAREST MUNICIPALITY FOR THE LAN D WAS RAJENDRA NAGAR, THAT AT THE TIME THAT THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, GHMC HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED U/S 2(14)(III)(B) AND THEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF WORKIN G OUT THE EXTENDED DISTANCE FROM THE LIMITS OF GHMC DID NOT ARISE AND THAT WITHOUT NOTIFICATION THE EXTENDED DISTANCE COULD NOT BE CALCULATED. THE AR RELIED ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF SRINIVAS PANDIT (ITA NO.56 /HYD/2007, DTD.23.04.2010) AND CIT VS. MADHU KUMAR [2012] 254 CTR 564 (KAR). 8.3 THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE TRANSFER OF TH E LAND HAD TAKEN PLACE ON 29.5.2007. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE LAND FEL L WITHIN A DISTANCE OF 8 KMS FROM THE LIMITS OF GHMC. THE QUESTION TO BE DEC IDED WHETHER GHMC CAN BE CONSIDERED A NOTIFIED MUNICIPALITY U/S 2(14) (III)(B). GOMS. NO.261, DATED 16.04.2007, INTER ALIA, STATES AS FOLLOWS: 10. IN THE REFERENCES 11TH TO 22ND READ ABOVE, GOV ERNMENT ISSUED ORDERS ABOLISHING THE MUNICIPALITIES 1. L. B . NAGAR 2. GADDIANNNARAM 3. UPPAL KALAN 4. MALKAJGIRI 5. KAPRA 6. A/WA! 7. QUTBULLAPUR 8. KUKATPALLY 9. SERILINGAMPALLI 10. RAJENDRANAGAR 11. RAMCHANDRAPURAM AND 12. PATANCHER U ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 13 - : RESPECTIVELY TO INCLUDE THE AREAS COVERED BY THESE MUNICIPALITIES IN THE LIMITS OF HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SO AS TO CONSTITUTE GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL COR PORATION. 11. GOVERNMENT WITH A VIEW TO SECURE EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY IN MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, HAVE DECIDED TO INCLUDE T HE AREAS COVERED BY THE 12 MUNICIPALITIES REFERRED IN PARA ( 1) WITHIN THE LIMITS OF HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DULY ALT ERING ITS LIMITS TO ESTABLISH GREATER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION I N THE LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST. ACCORDINGLY, GOVERNMENT HEREBY INC LUDE THE AREAS COVERED BY THE 12 MUNICIPALITIES REFERRED IN PARA (1) WITHIN THE LIMITS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDER ABAD. NOTIFICATION IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UNDER THE PROV ISO TO SUB SECTION (1) AND WITH SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 3 OF THE HY DERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1955 (ANDHRA PRADESH ACT 2 OF 195 6), THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HEREBY INCLUDE THE AREA S COVERED BY THE ERSTWHILE MUNICIPALITIES VIZ. 1. L.8. NAGAR 2 . GADDIANNARAM 3. UPPAL KALAN 4. MALKAJGIRI 5. KAPRA 6. ALWAL 7. QUTHBULLAPUR 8. KUKATPALLY 9. SERILINGAMPALLI 10. RAJENDRANAGAR 1 1. RAMACHANDRAPURAM AND 12 PATANCHERU WITHIN THE LIMIT S OF HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ESTABLISH GREAT ER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. 8.3(A) ACCORDING TO CIT(A) FROM THE LANGUAGE OF G O MS.261 THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE GO WAS TO INCLUDE THE NEW AREAS COVE RED BY THE TWELVE MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION TO ESTABLISH GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION , WHILE THE TWELVE MUNICIPALITIES WERE ABOLISHED THROUGH SEPARATE GOS, THERE WAS NO SIMILA R ABOLITION OF THE HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. AS A RESULT, HYDER ABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ITSELF CONTINUED TO EXIST. ALL THAT WAS DONE WAS TO EXPAND THE ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 14 - : JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS OF HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPOR ATION. GHMC WAS MERELY A NEW NAME GIVEN TO THE EXISTING MUNICIPALITY AFTER T HE MERGER TO NEW AREAS INTO ITS LIMITS. 8.4 THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.A.R WAS THAT THERE W AS A NEW MUNICIPALITY CREATED AS A RESULT OF GO MS. 261, I.E. GHMC. GIVEN THE FACT THAT HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WAS NEVER ABOLISHED, ACCEPTIN G THE ARS VIEW WOULD RESULT IN A STATUTORY CRISIS OF TWO MUNICIPAL BODIE S HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE SAME AREAS. THE VIEW THAT IT WAS THE OLD MUNIC IPALITY, HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THAT CONTINUED TO EXIST, IS NOT ONLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE STATED LANGUAGE OF GO MS. 261 BUT ALSO RESULTS IN A HARMONIOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE G.O. 8.5 ACCORDING TO LD.CIT(A) , HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL C ORPORATION, WHICH HAD BEEN NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, CONTINUED TO BE IN EXISTENCE AFTER THE MERGER OF NEW AREAS INTO IT UNDER GOMS. 261 DATED 16.04.2007. AS A RESULT, THE APPELLANTS LAND LOCAT ED AT A DISTANCE OF LESS THAN 8 KMS OF THE NEW LIMITS OF HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER, I.E. 29.05.2007, FELL WITHIN THE DEFIN ITION OF CAPITAL ASSET, BEING WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SEC.2(14)(III)(B). 8.6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THE LAND TRANSFERRED BY THE APPELLANT WAS A CAPITAL ASSET FALLING WITHIN THE AM BIT OF THE SEC.2(14) AND ITS TRANSFER WAS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO CAPITAL GAINS. A GAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 15 - : 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS CLEARLY BROUGHT ON RECORD BY T HE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THE LAND IN DISPUTE IS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IT FALLS WITHIN THE HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND NOTIFIED U/S 2( 14)(III)(B) OF THE ACT AND IT IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN 8 KMS OF LIMITS OF HYDERA BAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER I.E.29.05.2017. HENCE, THE CAPITAL GAINS WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS LOCATED EITHER WITHIN THE LIMITS OF AN MUNICIPALITY OR WITHIN THE DISTANCE OF 8 KMS FRO M ANY NOTIFIED MUNICIPALITY OR URBAN AREA. THEREFORE, THE LAND TRANSFERRED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS A CAPITAL ASSET FALLING WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE SEC.2(14) AND ITS TRANSFER IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO CAPITAL GAINS. HENCE, THE VIEW OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 10. THE NEXT GROUND IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) SHOULD H AVE APPRECIATED THAT THE CORRECT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06 BUT NOT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AS THE INITIAL AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED D URING PREVIOUS YEAR 2004-05 AND THE SECOND AGREEMENT WAS A CONTINUATION THEREOF. 10.1 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS AGITATED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN FOR THE AY 2008- 09 ON THE GROUND THAT THE CORRECT YEAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT WAS AY 2005-06. THE APPELLANT HAD ENTERED INTO AN UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT OF SALE DATE D 4.11.2004 WITH SRI M. LAKSHMA REDDY. THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT WERE AS FOLLOWS: ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 16 - : A. SRI K. HARISHANKAR AND SMT. K. SHAKUNTALA AGREED TO SELL 10 ACRES OUT OF 13 ACRES 23 GUNTAS LAND IN SURVEY NO.13/A, SANDL AGUDA VILLAGE, RAGENDRA NAGAR MANDAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT TO SRI M. LAKSHMA REDDY FOR A SUM OF 4,40,00,000. B. AN ADVANCE OF 25,00,000 WAS PAID ON 04.11.2004. C. THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WAS TO BE COMPLETED WITH IN 18 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF HANDING OVER THE FREE, CLEAR AND VACANT POS SESSION OF THE LAND. D. THE FIRST INSTALMENT OF 75,00,000 OUT OF THE BAL ANCE CONSIDERATION WAS TO BE PAID AFTER COMPLETION OF SURVEY TO THE SCHED ULE PROPERTY AND AFTER HANDING OVER THE FREE, CLEAR AND VACANT POSSE SSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY. E. THE SECOND INSTALMENT OF 75,00,000 WAS TO BE PAI D AFTER 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF HANDING OVER THE POSSESSION. SALE DEED FOR 3 ACRES OF LAND WAS TO BE EXECUTED AFTER THIS PAYMENT. F THE AGREEMENT SPECIFIED THE SCHEDULE OF BALANCE PAYMENT AND REGISTRATION OF LAND. THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, PARTICULARLY AT CLAUSE 2 AND AND 2(B), AS DESCRIBED AT PARA C, D, AND E ABOVE, MAKE IT CLEAR THAT POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN HANDED OVER BY THE APPELLANT ON THE SIGNING OF THE AGREEMENT. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD NEITHER TRANSFER RED THE PROPERTY UNDER A REGISTERED SALE DEED NOR HAD POSSESSION BEEN HANDED OVER IN TERMS OF SEC.53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A TRANSFER HAD TAKEN PLACE ON THE SIGNING OF THE AGREEMENT ON 4.11 .2004. 10.2 THE APPELLANT HAD SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERED INTO AN AGPA DATED 29.05.2007 WITH SMR AND SRI M. LAKSHMA REDDY. THE T ERMS OF THIS AGPA WERE AS FOLLOWS: A. SRI K. HARISHANKAR AND SMT. K. SHAKUNTALA AGREED TO SELL 6 ACRES OUT OF 13 ACRES 23 GUNTAS LAND IN SURVEY NO.13/A, BANDL AGUDA VILLAGE, RAGENDRA NAGAR MANDAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT TO SMR AND SRI M. ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 17 - : LAKSHMA REDDY FOR A SUM OF 2,00,00,000 (WITH EQUAL SHARE TO THE TWOVENDEES). B. THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID/PAYABLE AS FOLLOWS I. 5,00,000 PAID ON SIGNING OF THE AGPA II. 15,00,000 WITHIN 30 DAYS OF GETTING ULC CLEARAN CES III. 50,00,000 WITHIN 90 DAYS OF GETTING ULC CLEARA NCES IV. 50,00,000 WITHIN 120 DAYS OF GETTING ULC CLEAR ANCES V. 50,00,000 WITHIN 180 DAYS OF GETTING ULC CLEARAN CES C. UNDER THE GPA EXECUTED SIMULTANEOUSLY, THE VENDO RS AUTHORIZED THE VENDEES TO FILE APPLICATIONS ETC FROM THE MUNICIPAL OR OTHER AUTHORITIES FOR PERMISSION FOR CONVERSION FOR LAND USE CEILINGS, INCOME TAX PERMISSIONS, PERMISSION FROM ELECTRICITY DEPART MENT, FIRE DEPARTMENT ETC; TO SELL THE PROPERTY, RECEIVE SALE CONSIDERATION, ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS OF SALE, EXECUTE SALE DEEDS, GIFTS, MORTGAGES, GPA ETC.; TO CONSTRUCT BUILDINGS AND TO SELL THE CONSTR UCTED BUILDINGS OR PORTIONS THEREOF WITH UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND ETC; TO APPEAR BEFORE MUNICIPAL AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES, TO APPO INT ADVOCATES SIGN VAKALATS , AFFIDAVITS, APPEALS WRITS ETC 10.3 IT IS THUS CLEAR FROM THE AGPA THAT THE APPEL LANT HAD CONVEYED ALL RIGHTS, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO THE E XTENT OF 6 ACRES TO THE TWO VENDEES, I.E. SMR AND SRI M. LAKSHMA REDDY UNDER TH E AGPA DATED 29.05.2007. IT IS, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE TRANSFE R HAD TAKEN PLACE IN TERMS OF SEC.53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT ON 29.05 .2007. 10.4. THE AR HAS ARGUED BEFORE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE AGPA DATED 29.05.2007 WAS MERELY A CONTINUATION OF THE EARLIER AGREEMENT DATED 04.11.2004 AND A PART OF THE LATTER. ACCORDING TO LD.CIT(A), THE AGP A DATED 29.05.2007 MAKES NO REFERENCE TO THE AGREEMENT DATED 04.11.2004 NOR TO THE CONSIDERATION OF ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 18 - : 25,00,000 PAID UNDER THE AGREEMENT DATED 04.11.2004 . FURTHER, THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE VENDEES, THE EXTENT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED AND THE CONSIDERATION THEREOF ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT , FOR THE TWO AGREEMENTS. THEREFORE, LD.CIT(A) ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT T HE TRANSFER HAVING TAKEN PLACE ON 29.05.2007, THE LIABILITY TO CAPITAL GAINS AROSE IN THE AY 2008-09 AND NOT IN THE AY 2005-06. AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD .CIT(A), NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN HANDED OVER BY THE ASSESSEE ON SIGNING OF THE AGREEMENT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY UNDER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NOR HAD GIVEN THE POSSESSION IN TERMS OF SEC.53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TRANSFER WAS TAKEN PLACE ON SIGNING THE AGREEMENT DATED 04.11.2004; AND ALSO IT CANNOT BE S AID THAT THE GPA CUM SALE AGREEMENT DATED 29.05.2007 IS AN CONTINUATION OF THE EARLIER AGREEMENT DATED 04.11.2004. BEING SO, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. T HIS GROUND STANDS REJECTED. 12. THE LAST GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF A DEAD PERSON (LATE HARI SHANKAR GOU D) IS BAD IN LAW AND ANY OTHER SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOLLOWED IS ALSO BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT IS VOID. ITA NOS.1873 & 1874/HYD./14 :- 19 - : 12.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHO WN ANY MATERIAL THAT NOTICE WAS SERVED ON A DEAD PERSON. FURTHER, THE A SSESSEE BEING A LEGAL HEIR, PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, COULD NOT RAISE THIS GROUND BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTI ON 292 BB OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE AT THIS STAGE. THIS GROUND IS ALSO REJECTED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ABOVE CITED T WO ASSESSEES IN THE TITLE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017, AT HYDERABAD. SD/- SD/- ( P.MADHAVI DEVI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED: 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. K S SUNDARAM / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ( ) / CIT(A) 5. / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. / CIT 6. / GF