Sri P.Koteswara Rao, Visakhapatnam V. THE DCIT, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam., Visakhapatnam

ITA 251/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9937 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T S N MURTHYDR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of cross examination; Third party statement; Revised return; Documents seized
• Section: 50C; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.251&252/VIZAG/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 & 2008-09) P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM [PAN: AHYPP1039P ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.S.N. MURTHY,DR / DATE OF HEARING : 29.07.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.08.2016 / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM DA TED 24.2.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND 2008-09. SINCE , THE FACTS ARE ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 2 IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, THEY ARE HEARD TOG ETHER AND DISPOSED OFF, BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIEN CE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM COMMISSION FROM REAL ESTATE BU SINESS AND OTHER SOURCES FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007-08 & 2008-09 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,48,012/- & R S.2,90,940/- RESPECTIVELY. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIZUR E OPERATION CONDUCTED IN THE GROUP OF M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS, IT WAS FOUND THAT M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS PURCHASED A SITE ADMEASURING 4430 SQ.YDS. ON 27.5.2006 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,99,35,000/- FROM SRI PEELA AP PARAO AND OTHERS. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY SRI PEELA APPARAO AND OTHERS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE SRI P. KOTESWARA RAO AS ONE OF THE CO- OWNERS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE DEPARTMENT FOUND CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WHICH SHOWS THAT M/ S. M.V.V. BUILDERS HAS PAID ON MONEY OF RS.75 LAKHS IN CASH TO SHRI P. KOTESWARA RAO TOWARDS PURCHASE OF VENKOJIPALEM SITE. WHEN SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S. M.V.V. B UILDERS, SHRI M.V.V. SATYANARAYANA HAD ADMITTED THAT HE HAD PAID A SUM O F RS.50 LAKHS AND RS. 25 LAKHS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY, TOWARDS SETTLEMENT OF LA ND DISPUTE IN RESPECT OF VENKOJIPALEM SITE. ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 3 3. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISC LOSED SAID AMOUNT, IN THE INCOME TAX RETURNS FILED FOR THE RES PECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEREFORE, HAVING REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT IN COME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 O F THE ACT FOR BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES, THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED REVISED RETURNS U/S 148 OF THE ACT, DISCLOSING ADDITIONAL I NCOME OF RS.18,17,561/- TOWARDS CAPITAL GAIN FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08, HOWEVER FILED REVISED RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2008-09 ADMITTING THE SAME INCOME AS IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED. TH E CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 1 43(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE, THE AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED R ELEVANT DETAILS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY ON MONEY OF RS.75 LAKHS RECEIV ED FROM M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. IN RESPONSE , THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ON MONEY FROM M/S. M.V .V. BUILDERS AND ALSO STATED THAT IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHY SRI M.V. V. SATYANARAYANA SAID THAT ON MONEY IS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCH ASE OF VENKOJIPALEM SITE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER ADDRESSED TO SRI M.V.V. SATYANARAYANA SEEKING CLARIFICATION I N THIS REGARD, HE HAS REPLIED THAT THEY HAVE NOT PAID ANY ON MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 4 REQUESTED THAT NO ADDITION IN THIS REGARD IS CALLED FOR. HOWEVER, THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSES SEE, HELD THAT WHATEVER ASSESSEE STATED IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND CANNOT BE AC CEPTABLE FOR THE REASONS THAT SRI M.V.V. SATYANARAYANA CLEARLY ADMIT TED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.75 LAKHS WAS PAID TO SRI P. KOTESWARA RAO AND ALSO THE RELEVANT ENTRIES WERE FO UND IN THE SEIZED MATERIALS. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION WHY SAID AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS, ACCORDINGLY, COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3), R.W.S. 147 AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.50 L AKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & RS.25 LAKHS FOR THE YEAR 2008-09. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE AS SESSEE HAS CHALLENGED VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, IN ADDITION TO ISSUES ON MERIT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. WAS ERRED IN LAW IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, WHEN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE RETURN FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS PENDING. AS REGARDS THE ISSUES ON MERIT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY ON MONEY FROM M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS. I T WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT KNOWN TO HIM AS TO WHY SRI M.V.V. SATYANARAYANA HAS ADMITTED THAT HE HAD PAID ON MONE Y TOWARDS ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 5 PURCHASE OF VENKOJIPALEM SITE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WAS STATED IN THE SALE DEED FROM M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS. TO THIS EFFECT, FU RNISHED A COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS, WHEREIN THEY HAVE S TATED THAT NO ON MONEY IS PAID TOWARDS PURCHASE OF VENKOJIPALEM SITE . 5. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY REOPENED T HE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT, AS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE RECORDS THA T THERE IS NO ACTION PENDING ON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS RE GARDS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. TOWARDS ON MONEY, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT SEIZED DOCUMENTS CLEARLY EXHIBITS THAT M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS HAS PAID ON MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF VENKOJIPALEM SITE. TH E CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT THE MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S. M.V.V. BUILD ERS, SRI M.V.V. SATYANARAYANA, WHILE DEPOSING BEFORE INVESTIGATING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT HE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.75 LAKHS TO SRI P. KOT ESWARA RAO TOWARDS VENKOJIPALEM SITE. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY ON MONEY TOWARDS SALE OF SITE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, CONFIRMED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMMON GROUNDS FOR TWO YE ARS. FROM THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED TWO ISSUES, I.E. FROM ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 GROUND NO. 1 TO 4, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENT REASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE DID NOT PRESS GROUNDS RELATING TO VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENTS FOR BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, W E DISMISS GROUNDS RELATING TO VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AS NOT PRESSED. 7. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GROUND REMAINS FOR OUR CONSID ERATION FOR BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS IS ADDITION TOWARDS ALLEGED ON MON EY PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF SITE. THE FACTS WHICH LEAD TO IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, IN THE CAS E OF M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS, IT WAS FOUND THAT M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS PU RCHASED A SITE FROM ASSESSEE WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS ON 27.5.2006 FOR A CO NSIDERATION OF RS.1,99,35,000/-. IT WAS FOUND FROM THE MATERIAL SE IZED DURING SEARCH OPERATION, THAT M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS HAS PAID ON MO NEY OF RS.75 LAKHS IN CASH TO SHRI P. KOTESWARA RAO TOWARDS PURCHASE OF V ENKOJIPALEM SITE. SRI M.V.V. SATYANARAYANA, MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS, WHILE DEPOSING STATEMENT BEFORE THE INVESTIGATING O FFICER ADMITTED THAT HE HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS AND RS.25 LAKH S DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. BASED ON SUCH INFORMATION, THE A.O. C OME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ON MONEY TOWARDS SALE OF ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 7 SITE, THEREFORE, OPINED THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS BEEN ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITIONS OF RS.5 0 LAKHS AND RS.25 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 2008-09 RES PECTIVELY. 8. THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS.50 LAKHS AND RS.25 LAKHS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008- 09, TOWARDS ALLEGED ON MONEY PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF SALE OF VENKOJIPALEM SITE. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN MAKING ADDITIONS BASED ON CERTAIN LOOSE SLIPS FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS WITHOUT ANY CORROB ORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ON MONEY HAS BEEN PAID TO THE ASSESSEE TO WARDS PURCHASE OF SITE. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY DISOWNED RECEIPT OF ON MONEY FROM M/S. M.V.V. BUILD ERS. IT IS FURTHER ARGUED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SR I M.V.V. SATYANARAYANA DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT WAS N OTICED THAT SRI M.V.V. SATYANARAYANA HAS STATED THAT HE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.75 LAKHS TOWARDS SETTLEMENT OF LAND DISPUTE IN RESPECT OF VE NKOJIPALEM SITE, BUT NOWHERE, STATED THAT HE HAD PAID ON MONEY TO THE AS SESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SITE. THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS NOT CORR ECT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ON MONEY TOWARDS SALE OF ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 8 VENKOJIPALEM SITE. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS SOME ENTRIES RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIALS IN THE NAME OF ASS ESSEE. THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE FIRM CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE S AID AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID TOWARDS SETTLEMENT OF LAND DISPUTES TO VARIOUS PERSONS. TO THIS EFFECT, THEY HAVE ADDRESSED A LETTER TO THE ASSESSE E WHEREIN IT WAS CLEARLY STATED THAT NO ON MONEY PAID TO ASSESSEE TO WARDS PURCHASE OF SITE. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CORRECT ON THE PART OF THE A.O. TO ALLEGE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ON MONEY TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SITE. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORT ED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DE PARTMENT GATHERED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION IN THE FORM OF SEIZED MATERI ALS, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS, WHEREIN IT WAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE FIRM HAS PAID A SUM O F RS.75 LAKHS OF MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF VENKOJIPA LEM SITE. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE FIRM, SRI M.V.V. SATYANARAYANA HAS ADMITTED WHILE DEPOSING BEFORE TH E INVESTIGATION OFFICER THAT HE HAD PAID ON MONEY TO SRI P. KOTESWA RA RAO TOWARDS VENKOJIPALEM SITE. THOUGH ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE P AID MONEY TOWARDS SETTLEMENT OF LAND DISPUTES TO VARIOUS PERSONS, FAI LED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO WHOM HE HAS PAID AMOUNT TOWARDS ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 9 SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE. THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY MADE AD DITIONS TOWARDS ON MONEY AND HIS ORDER SHOULD BE UPHELD. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE A.O. MADE ADDITIONS OF RS .50 LAKHS & RS.25 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 2008-09 TOWARDS ALLEGED ON MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O . WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ON MONEY FRO M M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS, HOWEVER FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE SAME IN TH E RETURN FILED FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE A.O. FURTHER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SEIZED DOCUMENTS FROM THE PREMISES OF M/S. M.V.V. B UILDERS CLEARLY EXHIBITS THAT M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS HAS PAID ON MONE Y OF RS.75 LAKHS IN 2 FINANCIAL YEARS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 2008-09 TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF VENKOJIPALEM SITE. THE A.O., FURTHER, OBSERVED THAT SRI M.V.V. SATYANARAYANA, MANAGING PA RTNER OF THE FIRM HAS ADMITTED THAT HE HAD PAID ON MONEY OF RS.75 LAK HS TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD NO T RECEIVED ANY ON MONEY TOWARDS SALE OF VENKOJIPALEM SITE. THE ASSESS EE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT HE ALONG WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS SOLD A SITE TO M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,99,37,000/- AN D RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED O N 7.6.2006 AND ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 10 ALLEGED ON MONEY PAYMENT WAS ISSUE ARISED IN THE FI NANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 2008-09. THEREFORE, IT IS HIGHLY UNCOMMON TO MAKE PAYMENT OF ON MONEY AFTER C OMPLETION OF SALE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THA T SRI M.V.V. SATYANARAYANA HAS ADDRESSED A LETTER, WHEREIN HE HA S CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT NO ON MONEY IS PAID TOWARDS PURCHASE OF VENKOJIPALEM SITE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS A ON MONEY RECEIPT TOWARDS SALE OF SITE. 11. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATI ON IS WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE SEIZED DOC UMENTS INDICATE EXCHANGE OF ON MONEY BETWEEN THE PARTIES. ADMITTEDL Y, IN THE ASSESSEES CASE THERE WAS NO SEARCH. THE SEIZED DOC UMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS, IS A LOOSE SHEET WHEREIN CERTAIN FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WERE R ECORDED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH, SRI M.V.V. SATYANARAYANA STATED THAT HE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.50 LAKHS AND RS.25 LAKHS IN THE FI NANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 2008-09, TO SRI P. KOT ESWARA RAO TOWARDS LAND DISPUTE SETTLEMENT, NOWHERE IT IS STATED THAT HE HAD PAID ON MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SITE. THE ASSE SSEE RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING STATED THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY ON MO NEY FROM M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS TOWARDS SALE OF SITE. BESIDES, LOO SE SHEETS FOUND IN THE ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 11 PREMISES OF M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS, THE A.O. DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER DOCUMENT TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ON MONEY FROM THE PURCHASER. THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT SOME RELIABLE AND COGENT MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUPPORT HIS FINDINGS OR TO CORROBORATE THE STATEMENT OF THE PURCHASER. THE ASSESSEE DENIED HAVING RECEIVED ANY ON MONEY OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WA S STATED IN THE SALE DEED. THE ASSESSEE RIGHTLY CLAIMED THAT THE S ALE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON 7.6.2006. THE SALE TRANSACTION H AS BEEN COMPLETED BY WAY OF REGISTERED SALE AGREEMENT-CUM-GPA. THE A SSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FULL CONSIDERATION AS ON THE DATE OF REGIS TRATION OF DOCUMENT AND HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO T HE BUYERS. THE ALLEGATION OF THE A.O. IS THAT THE PURCHASER HAS PA ID ON MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE FINANCIAL YEARS RELEVANT TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08 AND 2008-09 WHICH IS ALMOST ONE YEAR AFTER SALE IS COMP LETED. WE FURTHER NOTICED THAT TOTAL CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PAID THRO UGH PROPER BANKING CHANNEL. IT WAS NOT A CASE OF A.O. THAT THE VALUE S HOWN IN THE SALE DEED IS NOT REAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, BECAUSE THE VALU E DECLARED IN THE SALE DEED IS THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES FOR DETERMINING STAMP DUTY PURPOSE. FUR THER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE A.O. TO SHOW THAT THERE IS A UNDE R VALUATION OF PROPERTY AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT I S INVOKED WHILE ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 12 COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. THE A.O. MERELY ACTED U PON THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE THIRD PARTY WHICH WAS TOTALLY DENIED B Y THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT UNLESS STATEMENT IS TE STED UNDER CROSS EXAMINATION, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDE NCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. USED THE ADMISSION OF PARTNERS OF PURCHASER FIRM MADE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT IN THEIR CASE AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE, BUT FAILED TO NOTE THAT ADMISSION OF OTHER PARTIES CANNOT BE C ONSIDERED AS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, UNLESS TH ERE IS A CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, BECAUSE THE MAKER OF STATEMENT CAN BIND HIMSELF, BUT HOW HE BIND OTHERS FROM HIS STATEMENT WITHOUT T HERE BEING ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, EXCEPT LOOSE SHEET FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF M/S. M.V.V. BUILDERS AND ADMISSION MADE BY THE THIRD PARTY IN THEIR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT ON MONEY IS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SITE. WE FURTHER NOTICED THAT SRI M.V.V. SATYANARAYANA, WH ILE DEPOSING BEFORE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT HE HAS PA ID MONEY TO SRI P. KOTESWARA RAO TOWARDS SETTLEMENT OF LAND DISPUTES, BUT NOWHERE, STATED THAT HE HAD PAID ON MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS P URCHASE OF VENKOJIPALEM SITE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT B RINGING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT ON MONEY IS EXCHANGED BETWEE N THE PARTIES, ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 13 MERELY HARPING UPON LOOSE SHEET AND THIRD PARTY STA TEMENT, WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO BRING ON MONEY TO TAX AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE A .O. IS REQUIRED TO BRING FURTHER EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ACTUA L MONEY IS EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BUT LITERALLY FAILED TO DO SO. THE A.O. DID NOT CONDUCT ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY RELATING TO VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, INSTEAD MERELY RELIED UPON STATEMENT GIVE N BY THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. FURTHER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE A.O. THAT MONEY HAS BEEN EXCHANGED BETWEEN PURCHASE R AND SELLER. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT IN MAKING ADDITIONS TOWARDS ON MONEY WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY MONEY OVER AND A BOVE WHAT WAS STATED IN THE SALE DEED. 13. COMING TO THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BEN CH OF VISAKHAPATNAM ITAT IN THE CASE OF SRI VENKATA RAMA SAI DEVELOPERS VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.453/VIZAG/2012 DATED 6.11.2015. THE COORDINATE B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD AS UNDER : 24. CONSIDERING THE TOTAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO APPLYING THE RATIOS OF THE JUDGEMENTS CITED AB OVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT IN COMING TO T HE CONCLUSION THAT THE ON MONEY IS EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE PARTIES BASED ON A LOOSE SHEET FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF A THIRD PERSON AND ALSO AD MISSION BY A THIRD PERSON. TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION, THE A.O. SHOULD HA VE CONDUCTED AN ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 14 INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND ASCERTAIN WHETHER ANY UNDER VALUATION IS DONE, IF SO WHAT IS THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. FURTHER, THE A.O. DID NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION TO SAY THAT THER E IS ON MONEY EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. IN THE ABSENCE OF PR OPER ENQUIRY AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES, WE FIND NO REASON TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. THEREFORE, WE REVERSE THE CIT(A) ORDER AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 14. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT H YDERABAD A BENCH, IN THE CASE OF K.V. LAKSHMI SAVITRI DEVI VS. ACIT (2012) 148 TTJ 157. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, UNDER S IMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD AS UNDER: ADMITTEDLY THERE WAS NO SEARCH ACTION IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A LOOSE SLIP CONTAINING CERTAIN ENTRIES RECOR DING THE PAYMENT WHICH WAS FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF CRK. IT DOES NOT CONTAIN EITHER DATE OF PAYMENT OR NAME OF THE PERSON WHO HAS MADE THE PAYMENT. ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT, CRK DENOTES C . RADHA KRISHNA KUMAR AND KRK DENOTES K. RAJANI KUMARI. HOW EVER, NO NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND IN THE LOUSE SHEET. THE P ROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FROM P W/C CRK FOR A DISCLOSED CONSIDERAT ION OF PS. 65 LAKHS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN REGIST ERED AND THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED FOR A CONSIDERATION OF PS. 65 LAK HS ON 21ST AUG., 2006 WHICH CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE S TATE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES. FURTHER NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS ANY INVOKING OF S. 50C WHILE COMPLETING THE ASS ESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE SELLER. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OTHER THAN THE SEIZED MATERIAL MARKED AS 'A/CRK104' WHERE RELEVANT ENTRIES ARE MAD E AT RS. 1,65,00,000. THE SEIZED MATERIAL WAS NOT FOUND AT T HE PREMISES O THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY PAID RS. 1.65 RORES TOWARDS PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE AND HER BROTHER CATEGORICALLY DENIED THE PAYMENT OF ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE RS. 65 LAKHS. THE AO PLACED HI RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT O F 5, WHO IS A THIRD PARTY. THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT ENOUGH TO FASTEN ADDITIONAL TAX LIABILITY ON TH E ASSESSEE. AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE DOCUMENT THIS IS JUST A HANDWRITTEN LOOSE DOCUMENT AND THE HANDWRITING IS ALSO NOT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LOOSE DOCUMENT WAS FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF A THIRD PARTY . THE BURDEN IS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE CONCLUSIVELY T HAT THE LOOSE DOCUMENT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO PRESU MPTION IN LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY PAID RS. 165 LAKHS T OWARDS PURCHASE ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 15 OF THE PROPERTY. THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THIS CAS E IS TO BE COMPUTED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE AVAILABLE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. IT SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. AS OF NOW, THE MATERIAL CONSIDERED BY THE AO FOR MAKING THE ADDITI ON OF PS. 1 CRORE IS SEIZED MATERIAL MARKED A 'A/CRK104' AND THE STATEME NT OF S. THIS LOOSE SHEET FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF CRK IS NOT ENO UGH MATERIAL TO SUSTAIN THIS ADDITION. THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED ARE SOME PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO MAKE THE ADDITION. THE AO HAS TO ESTABLISH THE LINK BETWEEN THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND OTHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO THE A SSESSEE. THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND STATEMENT OF CRK CANNOT BE CONC LUSIVE EVIDENCE TO MAKE THIS ADDITION. THE ENTIRE CASE HEREIN IS DE PENDING UPON THE RULE OF EVIDENCE. THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIO N TO SAY THAT ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PASSED ON BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS ACTU ALLY RS. 165 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HER BROTHER STATED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATEMENTS THAT THE CONSIDERATION PASSED BETWEEN TH E PARTIES IS ONLY RS. 65 LAKHS. IN SPITE OF THIS THE AO PROCEEDED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL IS CONCLUSIVELY REFLECTING THE PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION AT RS. 165 LAKHS. THE DEPARTMENT HERE IN I REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL TO THE A SSESSEE. AS STATED EARLIER THERE IS NO DATE AND NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ALLEGATION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL DENOTES THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PURCHASER FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, NO SUCH NARRATION OR NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT ABLE TO UNEARTH ANY DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL OR ANY CORROBORATI VE MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN ACTUALLY PAID PS. 165 LAKHS FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THE DATE ON WHICH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE AND THE SOURCE FROM W HICH II IS PAID AND/OR ANY DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHERE THE C ASH WAS WITHDRAWN. WITHOUT ANY OF THESE DETAILS, THE DEPART MENT HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID PS. 165 LAK HS FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT DRA W INFERENCE ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES . SUSPICION, HOWEVER STRONG CANNOT TAKE PLACE OF MATERIAL IN SUP PORT OF THE FINDING FROM THE AO. THE AO SHOULD ACT IN A JUDICIAL MANNER , PROCEED WITH JUDICIAL SPIRIT AND COME TO A JUDICIAL CONCLUSION. THE AO IS REQUIRED TO ACT FAIRLY AS A REASONABLE PERSON AND NOT ARBITRARI LY AND CAPRICIOUSLY. THE ASSESSMENT MADE SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH MATERIAL AND IT SHOULD STAND ON ITS OWN LEGS. THE BASIS FOR ADDITION CANNO T BE ONLY THE LOOSE SHEET OR A THIRD PARTY STATEMENT. IN THE ABSE NCE OF CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL, AND/OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDE NCE, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THUS, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON A DUMB DOCUMENT AND NOTING ON LOOSE SHEET. IT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND THE EVIDENCE ON RECOR D IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE REVENUE'S ACTION. IN A BL OCK ASSESSMENT UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS TO BE DETERMINED OR THE . BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE DETECTED IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 16 ACTION. THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE CASE ARE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE DEPARTME NT. THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION IN THE P URCHASE OF PROPERTY IS ON THE REVENUE. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS DUTY, INSTEAD MADE UP A CASE ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES WHICH CANNOT BE ALLOWED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO REA SON TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 100 LAKHS TOWARDS ON-MO NEY PAYMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 100 LAKHS IS DELETED. CIT VS. P.V. KALYANASUNDARAM (2006) 203 CTR (MAD) 4 49: (2006) 282 ITR 259 (MAD) RELIED ON 15. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBL E A.P. HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF K. LAKSHMI SAVITRI DEVI IN ITA NO.56 3 OF 2011. THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT, WHILE UPHELD THE ORDER OF ITAT A BENCH, IN THE CASE OF K. LAKSHMI SAVITRI DEVI, OBSERVED AS UN DER. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY HE LD THAT THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT DT. 21.8.2006 UNDE4R WHICH THE RESPONDENT PURCHASED THE ABOVE PROPERTY SHOWED THAT ONLY RS.65.00 LAKHS WAS PAID TO THE VENDOR BY THE RESPONDENT; THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SH OW THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD PAID RS.1.00 CRORE IN CASH ALSO TO T HE VENDOR; THAT NO PRESUMPTION OF SUCH PAYMENT OF RS.1.00 CRORE IN CAS H CAN BE DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY FOUND IN A DIARY/LOOSE SHEET IN THE PREMISES OF C. RADHA KRISHNA KUMAR WHICH IS NOT IN THE RESPONDENT S HANDWRITING AND WHICH DID NOT CONTAIN THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT OR ANY DATE OF PAYMENT OR THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO MADE THE PAYM ENT. IT RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE REVENUE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL TO THE RESPONDENT AND HAD DRAWN INFERENCES BASED ON SUSPICION, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES WHICH CANNOT TA KE THE PLACE OF PROOF. WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONDUCT ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY RELATING TO THE VAL UE OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED AND THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE ACTUAL CONS IDERATION IN THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY IS ON THE REVENUE AND IT H AD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE SAID BURDEN. 16. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. P.V. KALYANA SUNDARAM (2007) 294 ITR 49, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTA NCES HELD IN ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 17 FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND H AVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. IT IS TRUE THAT THE DIVISION BENCH OF T HE HIGH COURT HAS BORROWED EXTENSIVELY FROM THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNA L AND THE COMMISSIONER AND PASSED THEM OFF AS IF THEY WERE TH EMSELVES THE AUTHOR(S). WE FEEL THAT QUOTING FROM AN ORDER OF S OME AUTHORITY PARTICULARLY A SPECIALIZED ONE CANNOT PER SE BE FAU LTED AS THIS PROCEDURE CAN OFTEN HELP IN MAKING FOR BREVITY AND PRECISION, BUT WE AGREE WITH MR. VAHANVATI TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY BORROWED WORD S USED IN A JUDGEMENT MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED AS SUCH IN ANY APPRO PRIATE MANNER AS A COURTESY TO THE TRUE AUTHOR(S). BE THAT AS IT MA Y, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE THREE QUESTIONS REPRODUCED ABOVE C AN, IN NO WAY, BE CALLED SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW. THE FACT AS T O THE ACTUAL SALE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY, THE IMPLICATION OF THE CONTRADICTO RY STATEMENTS MADE BY RAJARATHINAM OR WHETHER RELIANCE COULD BE PLACED ON THE LOOSE SHEETS RECOVERED IN THE COURSE OF THE RAID ARE ALL QUESTIO N OF FACT. WE THEREFORE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL. 17. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND ALSO APPLYING THE RATIOS OF THE JUDGEMENTS CITED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT IN COMING TO THE CONCL USION THAT ON MONEY EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BASED ON A LOOSE SHE ET FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF A THIRD PARTY AND ALSO STATEMENT GIVEN BY A THIRD PERSON. TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION, THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE TAKEN AN INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND ASCERTA IN WHETHER ANY UNDER VALUATION IS DONE, IF SO WHAT IS THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. FURTHER, THE A.O. FAILED TO BRING ANY EVIDENCE TO S UPPORT HIS FINDINGS THAT THERE IS ON-MONEY PAYMENT OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS STATED IN THE ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 P. KOTESWARA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 18 SALE DEED. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER ENQUIRY AND SUF FICIENT EVIDENCES, WE FIND NO REASONS TO CONFIRM THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. THE CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING FACTS, SIMPLY UPHELD AD DITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE C IT(A) AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE TOWARDS ALLEGED O N MONEY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.251&252/VIZAG/2012 ARE ALLOWED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH AUG16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 12.08.2016 VG/SPS )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT SRI P. KOTESWARA RAO, D.NO.55-2- 37, SEETHARAMA NILAYAM, H.B. COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VIS AKHAPATNAM 3. + / THE CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A), VISAKHAPATNAM 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 12 . (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) . , # / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM