Mohd. Zaheeruddin Ahmed, Tandur, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-1, Vikarabad, Vikarabad

ITA 229/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2470 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 142(1); 147; 148; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 229/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 MOHD. ZAHEERUDDIN AHMED, TANDUR PAN ABYPA 0210B VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SYED JAMEELUDDIN REVENUE BY : SHRI B. KURMI NAIDU DATE OF HEARING 28/12/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/02/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 25/11/2016 PASSED BY CIT(A) 2, HYDERABAD RELATING TO AY 2007-08. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE, THE ASSESSEE, SRI MOHD ZAHEERUDDIN AHMED HAS SOLD IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEARI NG SY. NO 134 ADMEASURING 855 SQ.YARDS ON 02.12.2006 FOR A CONSID ERATION OF RS 8,55,000/- WHEREAS THE VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY A S PER THE SRO IS RS 21,38,750/- REGISTERED WITH S.R.O, TANDUR VIDE D OCUMENT NO 3998/2006. ACCORDING TO THE AO, SINCE THE CHARGEABL E MARKET VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP VALUATION DETERMINED BY TH E STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES WAS AT RS 21,38,750/- ON THE DOCUMENTS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IS ATTRACT ED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS ON THE MARKET VALU E OF RS 2 ITA NO. 229 /HYD/2017 MOHD. ZAHEERUDDIN AHMED 21,38,750/- ADOPTED FOR THE STAMP DUTY PURPOSES. HO WEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2007-08 DISCLOSING THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS AND FAILED TO OFF ER THE CORRESPONDING CAPITAL GAINS ON TRANSFER OF THE ABOV E MENTIONED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ALSO D UE TO THE ASSESSES FAILURE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE AO OPINED THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WIT HIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. SINCE FOUR YEA RS FROM THE END OF THE ASST, YEAR HAS LAPSED, PROPOSALS WERE SENT TO T HE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-8, HYDERABAD SEEKING APPROVAL FOR REOPENING T HE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASST YEAR 2007-08. THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-8, H YDERABAD HAS ACCORDED APPROVAL FOR RE-OPENING THE CASE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 14.03.2014. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 148 IS ISSUED A ND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 02.05.2014. 2.1 SUBSEQUENTLY, A NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE I.T. A CT WAS ISSUED ON 16.05.2014 POSTING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 28.05.20 14 AT 3.15 P.M. ASKING ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION , (I) HARD COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2007-08, RE QUIRED TO BE FILED AS PER NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 14.03.2014 (II) TO FURN ISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE ALL THE IMMOVABLE/MOVABLE PROPERTIES SOLD DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2006-07 TO 2013-14 ALONG WITH THE C OPIES OF THE SALE DEEDS AND PURCHASE DEEDS (III) COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET AND OTHER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON, PROPERTY INCOME, IF ANY, ( IV) STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS, CAPITAL ACCOUNT ETC. (5) MOVABLE AND IMMOV ABLE PROPERTIES STATEMENT (VI) DETAILS OF ALL BANK ACCOUNTS HELD BY ASSESSEE ALONG WITH COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS AND (VII) ORIGINAL T DS CERTIFICATES AND COPIES OF CHALLANS PAID. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER F ILED RETURN OF INCOME NOR FURNISHED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR IN RESP ONSE TO THE ABOVE NOTICE ON THE SAID DATE. AFTER ISSUE OF SEVERAL NOT ICES, A FINAL NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 19/01/2015 REQUESTING TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION ON OR BEFORE 27.01.2015 FAILING WHICH IT WILL BE CONSTRUE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION TO OFFER AND ASSESSMENT WILL BE COMPLETED BASED 3 ITA NO. 229 /HYD/2017 MOHD. ZAHEERUDDIN AHMED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ABOVE SAID NOTICE. 2.2 SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A RETURN O F INCOME ON 20.03.2015 SHOWING THE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS 2,19,720/ -. AS VERIFIED FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALE PROCEEDS ON PROPERTY SITUATED AT S. NO 134 AT SAIPUR, TANDUR AT RS 8,55,500/-, WHEREAS AS PER THE DOCUMENT ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME THE MARKET VALUE WAS RS 21,38,750/- AS PER SRO, TANDUR. HENCE, THE AMOUNT OF RS 21,38,750/- WAS CONSIDERED BY AO FOR CALCULATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF THE ASSES SEE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT IT WAS SEEN FROM THE FACTS THAT THE A SSESSEE STATED TO HAVE SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.8,55,000/-. IT WAS FOUND BY THE AO THAT THE VALUE OF THE SAID P ROPERTY AS PER THE SRO AS ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION WAS RS.21,38,750 /- AND HENCE THE SAID AMOUNT WAS BROUGHT TO TAX U/S.50C OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE WAS RS.8,55,000/- AND HENCE, THIS AMOUNT ONLY HAS TO BE ADOPTED AS THE SALE CONSIDERA TION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE FILED GROUNDS O F APPEAL 1 TO 4, BEFORE LD. CIT(A) CONTESTING THE REOPENING OF THE A SSESSMENT. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON THE ISSU E OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE AR IS FOUND TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE SECTION 5OC OF TH E ACT, SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND, THEREFORE, TH E AO IS VERY WELL JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE SAID PROVISION ACCORDINGL Y COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN WAS CORRECT AND HENCE CONFIRMED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 4 ITA NO. 229 /HYD/2017 MOHD. ZAHEERUDDIN AHMED 1- THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS), DT.25-11-2016, IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND IS AGAINST T HE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND PROBABILITIES OF THE CASE. 2. THE C.I.T. (APPEALS) IS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SPITE OF THE PLEA OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 12-03-2014 IS INVALID IN LAW, AS IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HIMSELF IN PAGE-2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAS ACCORDED PERMISSION FOR RE- OPENING THE CASE ON 14-03-2014. 3. THE C.I.T. (APPEALS) IS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SPITE OF THE PLEA OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WRONG IN RE-OPENING THE ASSES SMENT U/S. 147 ON 12-03-2014 WITHOUT PROCESSING THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 10-02-2008. 4. THE C.I.T (APPEALS) IS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SPITE OF THE PLEA OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 ON 31- 03-2015 WITHOUT ISSUING ANY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF T HE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS INVALID IN LAW. 5) THE C.IT. (APPEALS) IS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO ADOPTED THE DEEMED SALE CONS IDERATION OF RS.21,38,750/- UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. ACT , 1961 PREVAILING ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION, IGNORING TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO SALE AGREEMENT ON 09-07-2005 AND ACTUALLY RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.8,55,500 /- ONLY, AS PER THE SALE AGREEMENT. 6) THE C.I.T. (APPEALS) IS WRONG IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED, FINALLY, IS ONLY FULFILLMENT OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF SALE AGREEMENT, AND THEREFORE, THE DEEMED SALE CONS IDERATION U/S. 50C PREVAILING ON THE DATE OF SALE AGREEMENT W ILL HAVE TO BE ADOPTED. 7) THE C.I.T. (APPEALS) IS WRONG IN NOT DISCUSSING IN HIS ORDER AS TO WHY THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T, HIGH COURT AND I.T.A.T., CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS URGED ARE NOT APPLICABLE, THOUGH THE SAME WERE MENTIONED BY HIM I N PARAGRAPHS- 3 AND 4 AT PAGES 3 AND 4 OF HIS ORDER. 6. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AND CONTESTED T HAT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 ONLY ON 12/03/2014, WHICH IS BEY OND 4 YEARS. 5 ITA NO. 229 /HYD/2017 MOHD. ZAHEERUDDIN AHMED ACCORDING TO HIM, LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE REOP ENING OF ASSESSMENT AS PROPER WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROCEDURE FOR SANCTION TO THE NOTICE IS NOT PRO PER AS THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY WAS CIT BUT IT WAS SANCTIONED BY ACIT. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED WITH OUT ISSUANCE OF ANY NOTICE U/S 143(2), WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE AMPLE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, WHICH CONFIRMS THAT WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2), THERE IS NO JURISDIC TION TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. 6.1 FURTHER, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 10/02/2008 AND WITHOUT PROCESSING THE ABO VE RETURN OF INCOME, AO WAS WRONG IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT ON 12/03/2014. 7. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITI ES. 8. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BEFORE US, T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 12/02/2008, WITHOUT D ISCLOSING THE INCOME FOR CAPITAL GAINS AND THIS RETURN OF INCOME WAS DEEMED ACCEPTED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, AO IS SUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 AFTER GETTING SANCTION FROM THE ADDL. CIT O N 14/03/2014. AO HAS TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT ON OR BEFORE 31/03/2 015. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY RETURN OF INCOME OR CONFIRMED THAT RETURN OF INCOME WAS ALREADY SUBMITTED. HOWEVER, AO HAS ISSUED SEVERAL NOTICES U/S 142(1) ASKING ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RELEVANT INFORMATION. ONLY UPON SERVING FINAL OPPORTUNITY B Y ISSUE OF LETTER DATED 19/01/2015, ONLY ON 20/03/2015, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME BY INCORPORATING CAPITAL GAIN OF R S. 2,19,720/-. AS STATED EARLIER, AO HAS TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT O N OR BEFORE 31/03/2015, THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO FILE RETURN OF IN COME ONLY ON 20/03/2015 BY ADOPTING DELAY TACTICS. THERE WAS NO TIME FOR AO TO ISSUE AND SERVE THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) TO ASSESSEE A ND COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. IN THIS SITUATION, ASSESSEE CANNOT EXP ECT TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) AS THE ASSESS EE IS WELL AWARE OF 6 ITA NO. 229 /HYD/2017 MOHD. ZAHEERUDDIN AHMED THE ASSESSMENT AND CHOSE TO DELAY THE SUBMISSION OF RETURN OF INCOME. 8.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1. ACIT VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON, [2010] 321 ITR 362 (S C) 2. CIT VS. AMARCHAND SHARMA AND UDANI, [2014] 364 I TR 203 (A.P.) 3. CIT VS. CEBON INDIA LTD., [2010] 229 CTR 188 (P& H) 4. CIT VS. DEEP BARUAH [2010] 329 ITR 362 (GAU.) 5. CIT VS. CPR CAPITAL SERVICES LTD., 2011 330 ITR 43 (DEL.) 6. CIT VS. PAWAN GUPTA [2009] 318 ITR 322. (DEL.) 7. CIT VS. RAJEEV SHARMA [2011] 336 ITR 678 (ALL.) 8. ALPINE ELECTRONICS ASIA PVT. LTD. VS. DIRECTOR G ENERAL OF INCOME-TAX & OTHERS [2012] 341 ITR 247 (DEL.) 9. CIT VS. H. GOUTHAMCHAND, 2012] 204 TAXMAN 86 (KA R.) 10. CIT VS. ADARSH TRAVEL BUS SERVICE, [2012] 204 T AXMAN 114 (DEL.) 11. MANISH PRAKASH GUPTA VS. CIT, [2012] 249 CTR 57 (ALL.) 12. CIT VS. PANORAMA BUILDERS (P) LTD. [2014] 224 T AXMAN 203 (GUJ. 13. CIT & ANOTHER VS. MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL, [2012] 345 ITR 29 (ALL.) 14. CIT VS. GITSONS ENGG. CO., [2015] 370 ITR 87 (M AD.) 15. VIRENDRA DEV DIXIT AND OTHERS VS. ACIT [2011 33 1 ITR 483 (ALL.) 16. DCIT VS. NATIONAL REFINERY (P) LTD., [2010] 134 TTJ 109 (MUM.) 17. MADAN SINGH KANGAROT VS. ITO, [2012] 134 ITD 3 79 (JAIPUR) 18. V.R. SREE KUMAR VS. ITO, [2012[ 136 ITD 257 (CO CHIN) 19. G.N. MOHAN RAJU VS. ITO, [2015] 167 TTJ 236 (BA NG.) 20. PRAKASH RAMJI BAVALI VS. ITO, [2013] 152 TTJ 72 5 (MUM.) 21. ITO VS. ALIGARH AUTO CENTRE, [2013] 152 TTJ 767 (AGRA.) 22. SANJEEV R. AROA VS. ACIT, [2014] 150 ITD 267 (M UM.) 23. DCIT VS. MS. MAYAVATHI, [2011] 135 TTJ 274 (DEL .) 24. ITO VS. KULDIP KAUR, [2011] 51 DTR 13 (CHD.) 25. ITO VS. DLG ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THEY ARE DISTINGUISHABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT OF ANY HELP T O THE ASSESSEES CASE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 4 IS DISMISSED. 7 ITA NO. 229 /HYD/2017 MOHD. ZAHEERUDDIN AHMED 8.2 WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 3, NO DOUBT, THE ASSE SSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 10/02/2008, BUT, FAILED TO DISC LOSE THE SALE TRANSACTION, WHICH GENERATED CAPITAL GAINS. THE SAM E WAS DECLARED ONLY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS SUBMITTED ON 20/03/2015. THEREFORE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. 8.3 WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 2, IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WAS INVALID AS THE SAME WAS SANCTION ED BY ADDL. CIT, NOT BY CIT. IN THIS REGARD, WE REPRODUCE SECTION 15 1 PRIOR TO ITS SUBSTITUTION BY FINANCE ACT, 2015, WHICH READS AS U NDER: 151. SANCTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE (1) IN A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR SECTION 147 HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SE CTION 148 [BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER], UNLESS THE [JOINT] COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED B Y SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISS UE OF SUCH NOTICE]: PROVIDED THAT, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE I SSUED UNLESS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IS SA TISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFORE SAID, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. (2) IN A CASE OTHER THAN A CASE FALLING UNDER SUB-S ECTION (1), NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY AN ASSE SSING OFFICER, WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF [JOINT] COMMISSI ONER, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS THE [JOINT] COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE.] [EXPLANATION.-FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HERE BY DECLARED THAT THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, THE COMMISSIONER OR TH E CHIEF COMMISSIONER, AS THE CASE MAY BE, BEING SATISFIED O N THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT FIT NESS OF A CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, NEE D NOT ISSUE SUCH NOTICE HIMSELF. AS PER SECTION 151(2), THE POWER TO SANCTION WAS WI TH CIT/ADDL. CIT. THEREFORE, THE SANCTION OF NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE IN STANT CASE BY ADDL. 8 ITA NO. 229 /HYD/2017 MOHD. ZAHEERUDDIN AHMED CIT WAS PROPER. THEREFORE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8.3 WITH REGARD TO OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 5, 6 & 7 ARE NOT ARGUED BEFORE US AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISMI SSED AS NOT PRESSED. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C BECOME APPLICABLE SINCE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE IS SUE FOR REFERRING TO VALUATION CELL FOR EVALUATION OF MARKET VALUE OR MADE ANY SUBMISSION FOR SELLING AT A LOWER PRICE THAN SRO VA LUE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH CIT(A)S ORDER. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHM AN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2018 KV COPY TO:- 1) SHRI MOHD. ZAHEERUDDIN AHMED, C/O SYED JAMEELUDD IN, INCOME- TAX CONSULTANT, 16-7-302, ERRAM COTTAGE, HYDERABAD 500 024 2) ITO, WARD 1, VIKARABAD 3) CIT(A) 2, HYD. 4) PR. CIT 2, HYD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 6) GUARD FILE