Smt. Vaidyula Venkata Ratna Kumari, Visakhapatnam V. THE ITO, WARD - 3(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 272/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 27225314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D MANOJ KUMAR
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO.271/VIZAG/2013 V. VENKATA RAO, VSKP ITA NO.272/VIZAG/2013 V.V. RATNA KUMARI, VSKP IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 271 /VIZAG/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SRI V. VENKATA RAO VISAKHAPATNAM VS. ITO WARD-3(1) VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.ADUPV 6589J ITA NO.272/VIZAG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SRI V.V. RATNA KUMARI VISAKHAPATNAM VS. ITO WARD-3(1) VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AMBPV 6661R ASSESSEE BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY: SHRI D. MANOJ KUMAR, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 09.07.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.07.2014 ORDER PER BENCH:- THESE APPEALS ARE BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAIN ST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 28.3.2013 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ITA 272/VIZAG/2013: 2. THE FIRST ISSUE AS RAISED IN GROUND NO.2 IS IN R ESPECT OF YEAR OF TAXABILITY OF THE CAPITAL GAIN. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVI DUAL. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER SRI P. VENKATA RAO ARE OWNERS OF 5 082.40 SQ.YDS. OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.42/5, CHINAGADILI VILLAGE, VISAKHAPATNAM. OUT OF THE AFORESAID LAND, ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF 3436.46 SQ.YDS. THE AFO RESAID LAND WAS GIVEN FOR ITA NO.271/VIZAG/2013 V. VENKATA RAO, VSKP ITA NO.272/VIZAG/2013 V.V. RATNA KUMARI, VSKP 2 DEVELOPMENT TO A DEVELOPER M/S. PEETI ESTATES PVT. LTD. UNDER AN UN- REGISTERED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 5.6.2002. S UBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON 21.1.2006 WITH THE SAME DEVELOPER. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS FOR C ONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENT IN TWO BLOCKS CONSISTING OF CELLAR, GROUN D + 4 FLOORS AND THE TOTAL FLATS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ARE 150 IN NUMBER. UNDER T HE TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HER BROTHER IS TO RECEIVE CERTAIN NUMBER OF FLATS IN ALL THE FLOORS ALONG WIT H UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE LAND. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND HER BROTHER SHRI VENKATA RAO HAVE DEPOSED BEFORE THE ADDL. DIT (INV.) THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD RECEIVED 10 FLATS AND SHRI VENKATA RAO 9 FLATS DURING THE FINANCIAL Y EAR 2005-06 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ON THAT BASIS, ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 7.2.11. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148, THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF IN COME ON 28.2.11 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2,15,956/-. 4. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IT WAS SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE ALONG WITH HER BROTHER ENTERED INTO A DEVE LOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER ON 5.6.2002 AND ALSO IMMEDIATELY HAND ED OVER POSSESSION OF THE LAND TO THE DEVELOPER. THE DEVELOPER ON HIS PA RT ALSO STARTED THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BY TAKING NECESSARY STEPS FOR BUILDING APPROVAL FROM MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE TH E DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO IN 5.6.2002, THE CAPITAL GAIN, IF ANY HAS TO BE WORKED OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ONLY AND NOT IN THE PRE SENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. SO FAR AS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 21.1.2006 IS CONCERNED, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME IS ONLY A C LARIFICATORY DOCUMENT IN ORDER TO FACILITATE AND EXECUTE THE SALE DOCUMENTS OF THE FINISHED OR SEMI- FINISHED FLATS IN FAVOUR OF THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS BY THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES AND BY THE BUILDER SINCE THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY WERE INSISTING UPON REGISTRATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT OTHERWISE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 21.1.2006 DOES NOT HAVE ANY ITA NO.271/VIZAG/2013 V. VENKATA RAO, VSKP ITA NO.272/VIZAG/2013 V.V. RATNA KUMARI, VSKP 3 SPECIFIC IMPORTANCE AND IS ONLY CONFIRMING THE AGRE EMENT ORIGINALLY ENTERED INTO ON 5.6.2002. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE TRANSFER HAS TAKEN PLACE BY VIRTUE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 5.6.2002, CAPITAL GAIN, IF ANY CAN ONLY BE ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3-04. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO ASSESS CAPITAL GAIN IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT Y EAR BY HOLDING THAT TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY HAS TAKEN PLACE AS PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 21.1.2006 DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2005-06 RE LEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE, THE A SSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN COURSE OF PROCEEDING B EFORE THE CIT(A) THOUGH THE ASSESSEE AGAIN RELYING UPON THE DEVELOPMENT AGR EEMENT DATED 5.6.2002 SUBMITTED THAT TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY HAS TAKEN P LACE BY VIRTUE OF THE SAID DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND POSSESSION WAS ALSO HANDE D OVER TO THE DEVELOPER AND THE DEVELOPER HAS ALSO STARTED CONSTR UCTION ACTIVITIES BUT THE CIT(A) REJECTED ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT ACTUALLY TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY HAS TAKEN PLACE AS PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 2.1.2006 AS THE SAID DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS MORE SPECIFIC. ACCORDINGLY, HE UPHELD THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER THAT CAPITAL GAIN ARISE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE. 6. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS ENTERED INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER ON 5.6.200 2. REFERRING TO THE SAID DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAG E 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT NOT ONLY THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN PURSUANCE TO THE SAID DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS MENTIONED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BUT THE DEVELOPER HAS ALSO TAKEN POSSESSI ON OF THE PROPERTY AND STARTED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY BY GETTING APPROVAL OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND HAS ALSO STARTED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY IN TRUE SENSE OF THE TERM AS ENVISAGED U/S 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN FINANCIAL YE AR 2002-03, NO CAPITAL GAIN CAN BE CHARGED IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ITA NO.271/VIZAG/2013 V. VENKATA RAO, VSKP ITA NO.272/VIZAG/2013 V.V. RATNA KUMARI, VSKP 4 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE FACT TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER ON 5. 6.2002. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING P LAN, PAYMENT OF ADVANCE, BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WOULD CLEARLY PR OVE THAT TRANSFER HAS TAKEN PLACE PRIOR TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 ASSESSMEN T OF CAPITAL GAIN IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, IF NOT CORRECT. IN SUPPO RT OF SUCH CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT DATED 9.4.2014 OF THE HO NBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN ITTA NO.245 OF 2014 IN CASE OF POTLA NAGESWARA RAO VS. DCIT. FURTHER, INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO THE APPROVAL OF TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY DATED 20.11.2002 LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS ASSOCIATED HIMSELF IN THE DEVELOP MENTAL ACTIVITY AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 5.6.2002. 7. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY SUPPORTI NG THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 5.6.2002 BEING A NON-RE GISTERED ONE CANNOT BE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE S ECOND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 2.1.2006 WHICH IS A REGISTERE D ONE DOES NOT REFER TO THE EARLIER AGREEMENT. LD. D.R. REFERRING TO PARA 6.1 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT T HE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY HAS TAKEN PLACE AS PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 5.6.2002. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE TRANSFE R OF PROPERTY HAS TAKEN PLACE UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 2.1.200 6, CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN RIGHTLY ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS QUITE EVIDEN T THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT DISPUTE THE EXISTENCE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREE MENT DATED 5.6.2002. THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH IS REGARD IN PARA 9 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR CONVENI ENCE. HENCE, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND SALE OF FLATS ARE GONE IN PARALLEL MANNER AT A TIME. ITA NO.271/VIZAG/2013 V. VENKATA RAO, VSKP ITA NO.272/VIZAG/2013 V.V. RATNA KUMARI, VSKP 5 SO FAR AS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS ARE CONCERNED, THE FIRST AGREEMENT ENTERED IN THE YEAR 2002 CAN BE REGARDED AS AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SITE AND SECOND AGREEMENT ENTERE D IN THE YEAR 2006, FOR SPECIFIC DIVISION OF INDIVIDUAL FLATS BET WEEN THE OWNERS AND THE DEVELOPERS. 9. EVEN ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IT IS TO BE SEEN IN PARA 6.1.5 OF HIS ORDER HE ALSO ACCEPTS THE FACT THAT TH E DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 5.6.2002 CAN BE CONSTRUED TO BE REFERRING TO BROAD UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE PARTIES BUT HOWEVER NO COMPLETE POSSESS ION WAS GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPER BUT ONLY A LICENSE WAS GIVEN. AT THIS ST AGE, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO LOOK INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 5.6.2002 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. PEETI REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., THE DEVELOPER . AS CAN BE SEEN FROM PARA-1 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE DEVELOPER HAS PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.5 LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03. FURTHER, CLAUSES 2,3,4,5,6,7 & 8 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN T WOULD SHOW THE MODALITIES OF CONSTRUCTION TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE DEVELOPER. PARA-10 OF THE SAID DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT TH E DEVELOPER SHALL NOT COMMENCE THE WORK OF CONSTRUCTION UNLESS AND UNTIL THE PLANS ARE APPROVED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. CLAUSE 11 OF THE SAI D DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ALLOWS THE DEVELOPER TO ENTER INTO THE LAND AND STA RT HIS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 5.6.2002 READ AS A WHOLE WOULD CLEARLY BRING OUT THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIE S TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPER TY. IT IS ALSO A MATTER TO TAKE NOTE OF THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS PAID THE ADV ANCE OF RS.5 LAKHS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 WHICH IS CLEARLY MENTION ED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. FURTHER, IMMEDIATELY AFTER ENTERING INT O THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THE DEVELOPER HAS TAKEN STEPS FOR APPROVA L OF BUILDING PLAN WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE MUNICIPALITY. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT AFTER APPROVAL OF PLAN THE DEVELOPER HAS STARTED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 20.11.2002 OF THE TOWN PLANNING SECTION OF THE MUNI CIPALITY, COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGE 48 OF PAPER BOOK, ALSO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRO JECT. ALL THESE FACTS WOULD SUGGEST THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 5.6. 2002 HAS BEEN ACTED UPON FOR ALL INTENT AND PURPOSE BY THE DEVELOPER AN D HE HAS STARTED HIS ITA NO.271/VIZAG/2013 V. VENKATA RAO, VSKP ITA NO.272/VIZAG/2013 V.V. RATNA KUMARI, VSKP 6 DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY. IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCE S WHEN THE DEVELOPER HAS TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND STARTED DEVELO PMENT ACTIVITIES AFTER ENTERING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON 5.6.2002 , THE CAPITAL GAIN WOULD ONLY ARISE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WHEN THE TRA NSFER FOR ALL INTENT AND PURPOSE AS ENVISAGED U/S 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT HAS TA KEN PLACE. HENCE, CAPITAL GAIN, IF ANY, HAS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE YEAR IN WHI CH THE TRANSFER HAS TAKEN PLACE AND NOT IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF POTLA NAGESWARA RAO VS. DCIT (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING THE IMPLICATION OF SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT HELD AS UNDER: THE ELEMENT OF FACTUAL POSSESSION AND AGREEMENT ARE CONTEMPLATED AS TRANSFER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE AFORESAID SECTION. WHEN THE TRANSFER IS COMPLETE, AUTOMATICA LLY, CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE H AS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO AND POSSESSION WAS GIVEN. HERE, FACTUALLY IT WAS FOUND THAT BOTH THE AFORESAID ASPECTS TOOK PLACE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR R ELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. HENCE, THE LEARNED TRIBUN AL HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO PAY TAX ON THE CAPITAL GAIN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY E LEMENT OF LAW TO ADMIT THIS APPEAL. CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IT IS TO BE HELD THAT TRA NSFER HAS TAKEN PLACE IN A.Y. 2003-04. 10. SO FAR AS THE SECOND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATE D 2.1.2006 IS CONCERNED, ONLY BECAUSE IT IS REGISTERED WITH THE R EGISTERING AUTHORITY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TRANSFER HAS TAKEN PLACE AS PER THE SAID DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. THAT SECOND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED ONLY FOR THE PUR POSE OF REGULARIZING AND REMOVING THE DIFFICULTIES WHICH THE BUYERS MAY FACE WHILE REGISTERING THE PROPERTY WITH THE SRO. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE DEVELOPE R HAS TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 5.6.2002 AND HAS STARTED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY, THE CAPITAL GAIN, IF ANY HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND NOT IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT WILL BE PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT IN COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. A.R. ITA NO.271/VIZAG/2013 V. VENKATA RAO, VSKP ITA NO.272/VIZAG/2013 V.V. RATNA KUMARI, VSKP 7 SUBMITTED THAT AS AND WHEN ASSESSEE HAS SOLD FLATS RECEIVED FROM DEVELOPER CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN OFFERED. IN THIS CONTEXT HE S UBMITTED THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y. 2008-09. CONSIDERING THE TOT ALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CHARGING CAPITAL GAIN IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCO RDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ACCEPT THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION HEREIN ABOVE, THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE ARE OF MERE ACADEMIC INTEREST AND NEED NOT BE ADJUDICATED. 11. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE APPEAL IS CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED. ITA NO.271 OF 2012: 12. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL AND ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING COMMON TO THE ISSUE DECIDED BY US IN ITA NO.2 72/VIZAG/2013 FOLLOWING OUR DECISION THEREIN WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH JULY14 SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 9 TH JULY, 2014 ITA NO.271/VIZAG/2013 V. VENKATA RAO, VSKP ITA NO.272/VIZAG/2013 V.V. RATNA KUMARI, VSKP 8 COPY TO 1 SRI V. VENKATA RAO, 10-203/2, VISALAKSHI NAGAR, V ISAKHAPATNAM 2 SMT. V. VENKATA RATNA KUMARI, FLAT NO.109-10, HIL L VIEW RESIDENCY, SECTOR-2, ARILOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM 3 ITO WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM 4 THE CI T, VISAKHAPATNAM 5 THE CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM 6 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 7 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM