Shri Bonagiri Narasimha Murthy, V. THE ITO, WARD-3,RAJAHMUNDRY, Rajahmundry

ITA 279/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2060 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K SETHY
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 143(3); 2(14); 142(1); 133A; 131; 148; 144; 11

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.279, 280, 281, 283 & 284/VIZAG/2012 BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY & OTHERS, E.G. DIST. 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.279/VIZAG/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY RAJANAGARAM MANDALAM E.G. DIST. VS. ITO WARD - 3 RAJAHMUNDRY [PAN: APHPB 5966J ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) ./I.T.A.NO.280/VIZAG/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) BONAGIRI VEERA VENKATA RAJU RAJANAGARAM MANDALAM E.G. DIST. VS. ITO WARD - 3 RAJAHMUNDRY [PAN: APHPB 5967K ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) ./I.T.A.NO.281/VIZAG/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) BONAGIRI SATYAVATHI RAJANAGARAM MANDALAM E.G. DIST. VS. ITO WARD - 3 RAJAHMUNDRY [PAN: ARSPB 0758M ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.279, 280, 281, 283 & 284/VIZAG/2012 BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY & OTHERS, E.G. DIST. 2 ./I.T.A.NO.283/VIZAG/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) BONAGIRI SATYANARAYANA RAJANAGARAM MANDALAM E.G. DIST. VS. ITO WARD - 3 RAJAHMUNDRY [PAN: ATEPB 6016G ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) ./I.T.A.NO.284/VIZAG/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) BONAGIRI SURYA RATNA NARASIMHA MURTHY RAJANAGARAM MANDALAM E.G. DIST. VS. ITO WARD - 3 RAJAHMUNDRY [PAN: AMZPV 9391A ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.K. SETHY, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 1 9.02.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.03. 2016 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 25.1.2012 PERT AINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. SINCE, THE FACTS ARE IDE NTICAL AND ISSUES ARE ITA NOS.279, 280, 281, 283 & 284/VIZAG/2012 BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY & OTHERS, E.G. DIST. 3 COMMON, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOS ED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.279/VIZAG/2012: 2. THE FACTS ARE IN BRIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG W ITH FOUR OTHERS HAS SOLD THE LANDS SITUATED IN PALACHERLA VILLAGE OF RA JANAGARAM MANDAL OF EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH FO UR OTHERS HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME. THERE WAS A SURVEY CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF M/S. GODAVARI TOWNSHIPS (P) LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM ON 11 .8.2008 U/S 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'THE ACT'), DURING WHICH THE FACT OF SALE OF LAND BY THE ABOVE ASSESSE ES CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DERIVED CAP ITAL GAIN FROM THE SALE OF ABOVE PROPERTY AND DID NOT FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, A NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19.9.2008 CALLING FOR RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WI TH THE NOTICE, SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSES SEE ON 22.9.2008 TO RECORD A SWORN STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O. ON 7.10.2008 AND A SWORN STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FRO M THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 10.2. 2009 BY CALLING UPON ASSESSEE THAT WHY ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COM PLETED EX-PARTE ITA NOS.279, 280, 281, 283 & 284/VIZAG/2012 BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY & OTHERS, E.G. DIST. 4 U/S 144 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSU ED BY THE A.O., ASSESSEE HAS FILED A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON 23.3.2009, ADMITTING THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS ON SALE OF 7.65 ACRES OF LAND AT PALACHERLA VILLAGE OF ` 97,92,000/- BESIDES AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 60,000/-. IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HIM IS EXEMPT FROM T HE INCOME TAX FOR THE REASON THAT THE LANDS THAT WERE SOLD BY HIM ARE SITUATED BEYOND 8 KMS. FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF RAJAHMUNDRY. 3. THE A.O. HAS PROCESSED THE RETURN FILED BY THE A SSESSEE U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S 14 8 OF THE ACT DATED 14.12.2009. THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/ S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. HAS NOTED THAT AS PER THE G.O. ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN G.O. MS NO.159MA DATED 23.3.1995, WHEREIN PALACHERLA PANCHA YAT IN RAJANAGARAM MANDAL FIGURED IN THE LIST OF VARIOUS P ANCHAYATS INCLUDED IN THE RAJAHMUNDRY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE AGAIN TO EXPLAIN WHY THE LANDS SOLD BY HIM SHOULD N OT BE TREATED AS ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 2(14) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THAT, ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CERTIFICA TE FROM ASST. ENGINEER, ROADS & BUILDINGS (R&B), SOUTH SECTION, RAJAHMUNDRY , WHEREIN, IT IS ITA NOS.279, 280, 281, 283 & 284/VIZAG/2012 BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY & OTHERS, E.G. DIST. 5 CERTIFIED THAT THE DISTANCE FROM RAJAHMUNDRY MUNIC IPAL CORPORATION LIMITS I.E. FROM 194/8 OF LALACHERUVU JUNCTION TO D IWANCHERUVU- NARENDRAPURAM ROAD KM03/400 IS BEYOND 8 KILOMETERS (EIGHT KMS ONLY) AND SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R&B, THE LANDS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BEYOND 8 KMS. AND SUBMITTE D THAT ACCORDINGLY THE LANDS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT AN ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE NOTED THAT AS PER THE G.O. ISSUED BY THE G OVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PALACHERLA PANCHAYAT IS IN THE LIST OF PANCHAYATS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE THEN RAJAHMUNDRY MUNICIPALITY, NOW A CORPORATION. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TENABLE. THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOTED THAT AS PER THE REPORT GIVEN BY THE INSPECTOR OF HIS OFFICE, WHEREIN IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE ACTUAL DIS TANCE RECORDED FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF RAJAHMUNDRY TO THE LAND SOL D BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN 8 KMS. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE LAND SOLD BY ASSESSEE CONSTITUTE ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. THE GAIN A RISING ON SALE OF SUCH LANDS IS TAXABLE U/S 45 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, T HE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF ITA NOS.279, 280, 281, 283 & 284/VIZAG/2012 BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY & OTHERS, E.G. DIST. 6 EXEMPTION IS REJECTED AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY CALCULATING THE CAPITAL GAINS. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 6. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQU ENT TO THE GO MS NO.159MA, ANOTHER GO WAS ISSUED I.E. GO MS NO.389 D ATED 29.8.2001 BY GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH EXCLUDED PALACHERLA VILLAGE ALONG WITH SOME OTHER VILLAGES FROM RAJAHMUNDRY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PALACHERLA VILLAGE DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF RAJAHMUNDRY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. THEREFORE, S ECTION 2(14)(III)(A) OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATION. THE LD. CIT(A) BY C ONSIDERING THE GO ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH I.E. GO MS NO.389 DATED 29.8.2001 HAS HELD THAT CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 7. SO FAR AS CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 2(14)(III) OF TH E ACT IS CONCERNED, THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT TO ASCERTAIN THE DISTA NCE, A.O. GOT ENQUIRIES DONE THROUGH THE INCOME TAX INSPECTOR AND IT IS REPORTED BY THE INSPECTOR THAT THE SAID LAND IS AT 7.7 KMS. FRO M RAJAHMUNDRY ITA NOS.279, 280, 281, 283 & 284/VIZAG/2012 BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY & OTHERS, E.G. DIST. 7 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS BY AN APPROACH ROAD WH ICH IS NORMALLY AN ACCEPTABLE ROAD. THE DISTANCE WAS MEASURED BY THE INSPECTOR BY TRAVELLING ON A MOTORABLE ROAD BY TWO WHEELER. AS AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE GOT A CERTIFICATE FROM THE ASST. ENGINEER, R&B SAYING THAT THE LAND IS BEYOND 8 KMS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CERTIFICATE IS REPRODUCED. CERTIFIED THAT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN LALACHERUVU-VE LUGUBANDA NEAR TATALAMMA TEMPLE IS ABOVE 8.00 KMS (EIGHT KMS ONLY) . HOWEVER, THE SAID REPORT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE EXACT DISTANCE OR THE ROUTE WHICH WAS TAKEN TO MEASURE THE DISTANCE AND T HE A.O. HAS OBSERVED THAT MORE WEIGHTAGE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE IT IS A SPECIFIC ENQUIRY. THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT A FURTHER ENQUIRY AND THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX AGAIN CONDUCTED A FURTHER ENQUIRY THROU GH AN OFFICE VEHICLE I.E. FOUR WHEELER AND ACCORDINGLY THEY MEASURED THE DISTANCE AS 7.7 KMS. FROM THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS. BY CON SIDERING THE SAID REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, THE LD. CIT( A) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS WI THIN 8 KMS. OF THE DISTANCE FROM RAJAHMUNDRY MUNICIPAL LIMITS AND HENC E THE SAID LAND FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AS PER TH E PROVISIONS OF SUB ITA NOS.279, 280, 281, 283 & 284/VIZAG/2012 BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY & OTHERS, E.G. DIST. 8 CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT AND ACC ORDINGLY, THE A.OS ACTION IS CONFIRMED. 8. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R&B DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN MORE W EIGHTAGE THAN THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF THE DEPAR TMENT. 10. THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R&B HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. AS WELL AS CIT(A) FOR THE REASON THAT IN THE C ERTIFICATE IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN LALACHERUVU-VEL UGUBANDA NEAR TATALAMMA TEMPLE IS ABOVE 8 KMS. AND SUBMITTED THAT VELUGUBANDA IS A PLACE OF PALACHERLA VILLAGE AND BOTH THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW CONFUSED THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R&B DEPARTMENT AND THEY H AVE GIVEN WEIGHTAGE TO THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR. THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED A CLEAR CE RTIFICATE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, R&B DEPARTMENT THROUG H A LETTER NO.1379/DISTANCE CERTIFICATE/JTO2/2013 DATED 20.7.2 013, WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE DISTANCE FROM RAJAHMUND RY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS TO KM 4/4 OF DIVANCHERUVU-NAREND RAPURAM ROAD (VIA) VELUGUBANDA OF PALACHERLA VILLAGE WHERE SURVEY NO.1 58, 159 & 160 OF ITA NOS.279, 280, 281, 283 & 284/VIZAG/2012 BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY & OTHERS, E.G. DIST. 9 PALACHERLA VILLAGE ARE LOCATED IS 9.00 KMS. (NINE K ILOMETERS ONLY) AND HENCE, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE CERTIFIC ATE ISSUED BY THE R&B HAS TO BE GIVEN MORE WEIGHTAGE RATHER THAN THE ENQU IRY CONDUCTED BY THE A.O. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SECOND E NQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX BY TRAVELLING ON FOUR W HEELER, THE INSPECTOR HAS STATED THAT WE TRAVELLED ALONGSIDE THE APPROAC H ROAD OF THE LAY-OUT TO SOME EXTENT, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT TH E VEHICLE HAS REACHED UP TO THE ASSESSEES LAND OR NOT. THEREFORE, IT HA S BEEN CERTIFIED THAT THE METER READING IS 7.7 KMS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMS TANCES, BENEFIT OF DOUBT SHOULD GO IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. HAS SUBMITTED T HAT AS PER THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE INSPECTOR, IT IS WITHIN 8 KMS. OF MUNICIPAL LIMITS AND THEREFORE IT IS A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN T HE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, GAIN ARISING FROM S ALE OF THE LAND IS A TAXABLE INCOME. IT IS STRONGLY SUPPORTED BY THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATE RIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE LAND SO LD BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITHIN 8 KMS. FROM RAJAHMUNDRY MUNICIPAL LIMITS OR BEYOND 8 KMS. ITA NOS.279, 280, 281, 283 & 284/VIZAG/2012 BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY & OTHERS, E.G. DIST. 10 13. THE ASSESSEE HAS OWNED LANDS AT PALACHERLA VILL AGE, RAJANAGARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. THE ASSESSEE HAS S OLD THE SAME TO M/S. GODAVARI TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM. A SURV EY OPERATION U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF M/S. G ODAVARI TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM, DURING WHICH THE FACT OF SALE OF LAND BY THE ABOVE ASSESSEES CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE DEPARTMEN T. THEREAFTER, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY ASK ING AN EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE THAT WHY THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASS ESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SE CTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THAT, ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E LAND SOLD BY ASSESSEE IS BEYOND 8 KMS FROM THE RAJAHMUNDRY MUNIC IPAL CORPORATION AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT AN ASSET WITHIN THE MEANI NG OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, HE RELIED ON THE CERTIFICATE ISS UED BY THE ASST. ENGINEER, R&B, RAJAHMUNDRY, WHEREIN IT WAS CERTIFIE D AS PER EXTRACT HEREUNDER: CERTIFIED THAT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN LALACHERUVU-VE LUGUBANDA NEAR TATALAMMA TEMPLE IS ABOVE 8.00 KMS (EIGHT KMS ONLY) . 14. THE A.O. HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS NOTED THAT THE LAND SITUATED IN PALACHER LA VILLAGE IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF RAJAHMUNDRY AS PER GO MS NO.159MA DATED 25.3.1995 AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE RE PORT OF THE ITA NOS.279, 280, 281, 283 & 284/VIZAG/2012 BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY & OTHERS, E.G. DIST. 11 INSPECTOR THAT THE LAND IS WITHIN 8 KMS AND HELD TH AT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN ASSET AND IT IS TAXABLE ACCORD ING TO SECTION 45 OF THE ACT. 15. ON APPEAL, CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LI MITS AS PER THE GO MS NO.389 DATED 29.8.2001 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF ANDH RA PRADESH AND HAS OBSERVED THAT PALACHERLA VILLAGE WAS EXCLUDED F ROM THE RAJAHMUNDRY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. HOWEVER, HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASST. ENGINEER R&B IS NOT CLEAR AS THE EXACT DISTANCE OR THE ROUTE WHICH WAS TAKEN TO MEASURE TH E DISTANCE AND HE HAS DIRECTED THE A.O. TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY ONCE AG AIN AND ACCORDING TO THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE DEPARTME NT HAS CONDUCTED ONE MORE ENQUIRY BY TRAVELLING IN AN OFFICE VEHICLE I.E. FOUR WHEELER AND THEY MEASURED THE DISTANCE AS 7.7 KMS. FROM THE MUN ICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: WE HAVE TAKEN THE OFFICE VEHICLE AND STARTED MEASURI NG THE SPEEDOMETER FROM THE END POINT OF RAJAHMUNDRY MUNIC IPAL LIMIT I.E., FROM LALACHERUVU INTERSECTING JUNCTION OF HIGHWAY A ND REACHED THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. UPTO THE ENTRY POINT OF THE LA Y OUT GATE, THE DISTANCE MEASURED 6.2 KMS, FROM WHERE WE PROCEEDED FURTHER T O REACH THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS OF THE ASSESSEES. WE TRAVELLED ALONGSIDE THE APPROACH ROAD OF THE LAY OUT TO SOME EXTENT. EVEN THEN, THE SPEEDOMETER DID NOT ITA NOS.279, 280, 281, 283 & 284/VIZAG/2012 BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY & OTHERS, E.G. DIST. 12 EXCEED 8 KMS. THE SPEEDOMETER ACCURATELY AND UNERR INGLY SHOWN 7.7 KILOMETERES DISTANCE FROM THE END OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS OF RAJAHMUNDRY. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT WE PREFERRED TO MEASURE THE DISTANCE BY ROAD APPROACH BY ACCEPTABLE ROUTE AND ACCEPTABLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION. 16. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX. WE FIND THAT FROM THE REPORT, IT APP EARS THAT THEY HAVE TRAVELLED FROM THE END POINT OF RAJAHMUNDRY MUNICIP AL LIMIT I.E. FROM LALACHERUVU INTERSECTING JUNCTION OF HIGHWAY AND RE ACHED THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS, UPTO THE ENTRY POINT OF THE LAY OUT GATE, THE DISTANCE MEASURED AS 6.2 KMS., FROM THEY PROCEEDED FURTHER T O REACH THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEY TRAVELLED ALONG SIDE OF THE APPROACH ROAD OF THE LAY OUT TO SOME EXTENT. EVEN THEN, THE SPEEDOMETER DID NOT EXCEED 8 KMS. THE SPEEDOMETER ACCURATELY AND UNERRINGLY SHOWN 7.7 KMS. DISTANCE FROM THE END OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS OF RAJAHMUNDRY. FROM THE ABOVE, THERE IS A CONFUSION THAT THE INSPECTOR PROCEEDED BY FOUR WHEELER ALONG SIDE OF THE APPROACH ROAD OF THE LAY OUT TO SOME EXTENT. IT IS NOT CLEA R THAT FROM THAT EXTENT TO LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE, WHAT IS THE DISTANCE? THAT THE INSPECTOR TRAVELLED ONLY TO SOME EXTENT AND STOPPED THEIR VEH ICLE AND THE METER IS SHOWING 7.7 KMS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE DISTANCE FROM RAJAHMUNDRY MUNICIPAL LIMITS TO THE LAND SOLD BY TH E ASSESSEE IS EXACTLY ITA NOS.279, 280, 281, 283 & 284/VIZAG/2012 BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY & OTHERS, E.G. DIST. 13 7.7 KMS., FOR THE REASON THAT THE INSPECTOR BY MEAS URING THE DISTANCE, THEY REACHED APPROACH ROAD. THROUGH, THEY TRIED TO REACH THE ASSESSEES LANDS, THEY STOPPED WITHOUT REACHING THE ASSESSEES LANDS. SO BASED ON THE SPEEDOMETER, THEY CAME TO A CONCLUS ION THAT THE DISTANCE WOULD BE 7.7 KMS. WITHOUT REACHING ASSESSE ES LAND. UNDER THESE MITIGATING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS WIT HIN 8 KMS. OF RAJAHMUNDRY MUNICIPAL LIMITS. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LALSINGH AND OTHERS (2 010) 325 ITR 588 (P&H) HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF WHO IS COMPETENT TO MEASURE THE DISTANCE AND OBSERVED THAT TAHSILDAR WORKING UNDER THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS MORE COMPETENT THAN THE INSPECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT WITHOUT THE HELP OF RE VENUE OFFICIALS, IT IS DIFFICULT FOR A PERSON TO IDENTIFY THE LAND AND THE N TO MEASURE THE DISTANCE OF SAID LAND WITH MUNICIPAL LIMITS. KEEP ING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTME NT OF R&B, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH SHOULD BE GIVEN MORE W EIGHTAGE. ITA NOS.279, 280, 281, 283 & 284/VIZAG/2012 BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY & OTHERS, E.G. DIST. 14 17. THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED ANOTHER CERTIFICATE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, R&B DEPARTMENT LETTER NO.1379 DATED 20.7.2013, WHICH IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: AS REQUESTED BY SRI BONAGIRI SURYA RATNA NARSHIMHA MURTHY S/O RAMAKRISHNA RAO A RESIDENT OF PALACHERLA VILLAGE, I T IS CERTIFIED THAT THE DISTANCE FROM RAJAHMUNDRY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIM ITS TO KM 4/4 OF DIWANCHERUVU-NARENDRAPURAM ROAD (VIA) VELUGUBANDA W HERE SURVEY NO.158, 159 & 160 OF PALACHERLA VILLAGE ARE LOCATED IS 9.00 KMS. (NINE KILOMETERES ONLY) 18. THOUGH THE ABOVE CERTIFICATE IS NOT PLACED BEFO RE THE CIT(A), HOWEVER WE FIND THAT THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ROADS & BUILDINGS IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE DISTANCE OF THE LAND FROM RAJAHMUNDRY MUNICIPALITY TO ASSESSEES LANDS. 19. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE SAME. 20. SO FAR AS OTHER APPEALS ARE CONCERNED, FACTS AR E SIMILAR TO THE ABOVE APPEAL AND KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSER VATION IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, WE ALLOW THE APPEALS FILED BY OTHER ASS ESSEES IN ITA NOS.280/VIZAG/2012, 281/VIZAG/2012, 283/VIZAG/2012 & 284/VIZAG/2012 ON THE SAME ISSUE. ITA NOS.279, 280, 281, 283 & 284/VIZAG/2012 BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY & OTHERS, E.G. DIST. 15 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE ES ARE ALLOWED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND MAR16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (G. MANJUNATHA) (V. DURGA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! /VISAKHAPATNAM: % /DATED : 02.03.2016 VG/SPS '! (! /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT BONAGIRI NARASIMHA MURTHY, D.NO. 2-112, PALACHERLA VILLAGE, RAJANAGARAM MANDALAM, EAST GODAVARI DIST. 2. / THE APPELLANT BONAGIRI VEERA VENKATA RAJU, D.N O.2-112, PALACHERLA VILLAGE, RAJANAGARAM MANDALAM, EAST GODA VARI DIST. 3. / THE APPELLANT BONAGIRI SATYAVATHI, D.NO.2-112, PALACHERLA VILLAGE, RAJANAGARAM MANDALAM, EAST GODAVARI DIST. 4. / THE APPELLANT BONAGIRI SATYANARAYANA, D.NO.2-1 12, PALACHERLA VILLAGE, RAJANAGARAM MANDALAM, EAST GODAVARI DIST. 5. / THE APPELLANT BONAGIRI SURYA RATNA NARASIMHA M URTHY, D.NO.2- 112, PALACHERLA VILLAGE, RAJANAGARAM MANDALAM, EAST GODAVARI DIST. 6. / THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD-3, RAJAHMUNDRY 7. ) / THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY 8. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM 9. ! , , , , ! / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 10. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // /0 , (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) , , ! / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM