Sarella Raja Rao, Visakhapatnam V. ITO, Ward-2(2), Visakhapatnam

ITA 430/VIZ/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1609 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEBA KUMAR SONAWA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 430 / VIZ /201 7 (ASST. YEAR : 20 1 0 - 11 ) SARELLA RAJA RAO, H.NO. 55 - 43 - 18/6, DOCTORS COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM. V S . IT O , WARD - 2(2 ), VISAKHAPATNAM. PAN NO. AZMPR 9738 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI , ADV OCATE . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI DEBA KUMAR SONAWA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 10 / 0 8 /201 8 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 / 0 9 /201 8 . O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 , VISAKHAPATNAM , DATED 31 /0 3 /201 7 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 . 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL , NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'ACT') . IN PURSUANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2 ITA NO. 430 /VIZ/2017 ( SARELLA RAJA RAO ) ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 5,05,415/ - AGAINST THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN SURV EY NO. 3 9 / 1, PLOT NO. 144, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM . THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD HIS HOUSE PROPERTY FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 13,75,000/ - ON 10/11/2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING SECTION 50C, ADOPTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 20.00 LAKHS AS PER SRO VALUE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ALLOWED INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT BY CONSIDERING THE CONTRACT AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ONE MR.NARAYANA AND ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF RECEIPTS ISSUED BY MR.NARAYANA IN PROOF OF HAVING RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED. SUBSEQUENTLY, LD. COMMISSIONER AFTER EXAMINING THE RECORDS, IT IS NOTICED TH A T THE SALE OF SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROPERTY IS ONLY A VACANT LAND , ADMEASURING 2 00 SQ.YDS WITHOUT ANY STRUCTURE AND COMPOUND WALL. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE DISALLOWED ASSESSEES C L AIM OF DEDUCTION TOWARDS INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL AND THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS , AS HE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF PAYMENT RECEIPTS AND CONTRACT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH A MASON NAMELY G.NARAYANA . HENCE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF INDEXED COST OF 3 ITA NO. 430 /VIZ/2017 ( SARELLA RAJA RAO ) IMPROVEMENTS AND INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUC TION OF COMPOUND WALL OF RS. 13,63,507/ - IS PRIMA FACIE NOT TENABLE ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND ACCORDINGLY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 23/02/2015 IS PRIMA FACIE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDIC I A L TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME WAS PROPOSED TO BE REVISED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. A CCORDINGLY, LD. COMMISSIONER ISSUED SHOW - CAUSE LETTER DATED 18/11/2016 CALLING EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTICE IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 2. FURTHER, IT IS OBSERVED THA T IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 5,05,415/ - , AGAINST THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY VIDE DOC. NO. 1589/09 REGISTERED WITH SRO, MADHURAWADA. IT IS N OTICED FROM THE COMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS THAT THE ASSESSES HAS CLAIMED INDEXED COST OF COMPOUND WALL AND IMPROVEMENTS AGGREGATING TO RS. 13,63,507/ - WITH THE CONTENTION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL OF RS.1,00,000/ - AND COST OF IMPROVEME NTS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS.2002 - 03 AND 2003 - 04 OF RS.8,75,000/ - . HOWEVER, IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE SALE DEED EXECUTED FOR SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ONLY VACANT LAND ADMEASURING 200 SQ.YARDS WITHOUT ANY STRUCTURES AND COMPOUND WALL. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE DISALLOWED ASSESSEE'S CLAIMS OF DEDUCTION TOWARDS THE INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL AND THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALL OWED THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM BASING ONLY UPON THE PAYMENT RECEIPTS AND CONTRACT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH A MASON NAMELY SRI G. NARAYANA RAO. HENCE THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS AND INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL OF RS. 13,63,507/ - IS PRIMA - FACIE NOT TENABLE ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.23.02.2015 PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR ASST. YEAR 2010 - 11 IS PRIMA FACIE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF 4 ITA NO. 430 /VIZ/2017 ( SARELLA RAJA RAO ) THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS PROPOSED TO BE REVISED U/S.263 O F THE I.T. ACT. 4. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE I.T. ACT, DATED 23.02.2015 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2010 - 11 SHALL NOT BE REVISED AND THE INCOME RECOMPUTED AND DETERMINED AS PE R DISCUSSIONS MADE ABOVE. IN THIS REGARD, YOUR CASE IS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 02.12.2016 AT 4.30 P.M. IN THE CHAMBER OF THE UNDERSIGNED AT 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, DABAGARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM, ON WHICH DATE YOU MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED, EITHER PER SONALLY OR THROUGH AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, FAILING WHICH IT WILL BE DEEMED THAT YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION FOR THE PROPOSED REVISION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY DATED 16/12/2016 WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: - I HAVE WORKED IN REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND RETIRED FROM SERVICE IN THE YEAR 2004. DURING THE F.Y 2001 - 02, A HOUSE SITE WAS ALLOTTED TO ME BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT NON GAZETTED EMPLOYEES CO - OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. THE COPY OF THE PURCHASED DEED FO R ALLOTMENT OF THE SITE IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. I WISH TO BRING TO YOUR KIND NOTICE THAT THERE WAS A CLAUSE IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS BETWEEN THE SOCIETY AND PURCHASER AS PER THE ALLOTMENT DEED. IT BOUNDS THE PURCHASER TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING ON THE ALLOTT ED PROPERTY WITHIN A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS OR OTHERWISE THE SOCIETY IS AT LIBERTY TO TAKE BACK ALLOTTED SITE. HENCE I HAVE MADE LAND LEVELING AND DEVELOPMENT AND THEN CONSTRUCTED A COMPOUND WALL AND A SHED WHICH IS IN A LIVABLE CONDITION IN A HASTE. THE COST TOWARDS IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY IS AS DETAILED BELOW: - - - AFTER RETIREMENT FROM SERVICE, I LOST MY WIFE ON 13 - 05 - 2006 DUE TO CANCER AND SINCE THEN I HAVE BEEN IN SORROWFUL MOOD. I WAS TOTALLY COLLAPSED AND STUCK IN VERY BAD WEATHER OF DIFFICULTIES. FINANCIAL YEAR 2001 - 02 COST OF COMPOUND WALL RS. 1,00,000 FINANCIAL YEAR 2002 - 03 COST OF LAND LEVELING AND DEVELOPMENT I.E., FILLING OF RS. 4,25,000 NEW SOIL INSTEAD OF OLD SOIL AND LEVELING WITH GRAVEL FINANCIAL YEAR 2003 - 04 COST OF RESIDENTIAL SHED WITH RS. 4,50,000 ROOFING OF CEMENT SHEETS TOTAL: RS. 9,75,000 5 ITA NO. 430 /VIZ/2017 ( SARELLA RAJA RAO ) I HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE IMPACTS OF VASTU BAD AFFECTS DURING THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION OF CIVIL WORK ON THE SAID LAND. SUBSEQUENTLY, I REALIZED THE BAD EFFECTS OF THE VASTU AS MY WIFE EXPIRED AND I WAS SENTIMENTALLY DEPRESSED. AFTER SOME TIME I HAVE ALSO DECIDED TO PERFORM MY DAUGHTER'S MARRIAGE. AS PER THE ADVICE OF MY WELL WISHERS AND VASTU CONSULTANTS AND ALSO WITH FEELING OF SENTIMENT, I HAVE DEMOLISHED COMPOUND WALL AND SHED WHICH WERE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SAID LAND FOR POSITIVE ENERGY TO PERFORM THE MARRIAGE OF MY ONLY DAUGHTER. I TOTALLY WENT IN A BAD PHASE AFTER MY WIFE'S DEATH. I WAS TOTALLY IN A FINANCIAL CRUNCH AND ALSO UNABLE TO PERFORM MY DAUGHTER'S MARRIAGE. IN AN URGENT NEED OF FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MY DAUGHTER'S MARRIAGE AND TO CLEAR THE DEBTS WHICH WERE TAKEN FOR THE MEDICAL TREATMENT OF MY WIFE, I SOLD THE PROPERTY IN DISCUSSION RELATING TO THE SAID A.Y. FOR A THROWN AWAY PRICE OF RS. 13,75,000/ - ONLY. DUE TO UNFORESEEN SITUATIONS, THE SALE OF THE SAD LAND WAS MADE FOR A LOWER PRICE. WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND GOOD PRICE IN THE MARKET AS I WAS UNDER PRESSURE TO PERFORM MY DAUGHTER'S MARRIAGE. HENCE, I HAVE SOLD THE SAID LAND FOR AN AMOUNT LESSER THAN THE SRO VALUE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS I HAVE SUBMITTED NECESSARY EVIDENCE FOR COST OF IMPROVEMENTS I.E., CONTRACT AGREEMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCES IN SUP PORT OF MY CLAIM AS DEDUCTION FOR DETERMINING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. ACCORDINGLY I HAVE DECLARED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND PAID TAXES. I HAD NO INTENTION OF CONCEALING THE INCOME PARTICULARS FOR THE SAID A.Y. IN CONSIDERATION. I HAVE SUBMITTED MY RETURN OF INCOME AND CLAIM THE EXPENDITURE RIGHTLY. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O VERIFIED THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MY CLAIM AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY DISALLOWED THE TRANSFER EXPENSES. FURTHER, I SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 13,75,000/ - WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMING THE MARRIAGE OF MY DAUGHTER ON 5TH NOVEMBER, 2009 AND ALSO TO CLEAR DEBTS TAKEN FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT OF MY WIFE. I DID NOT UTILIZE THE SAID AMOUNT FOR ANY OTHER BENEFICIAL PU RPOSE. I REQUEST YOUR GOODSELF TO PLEASE CONSIDER MY FAMILY AND FINANCIAL SITUATION THAT HAS ARISEN AT THE TIME OF SALE OF THE SAID PROPERTY. IF ANY ADVERSE ACTION IS TAKEN BY YOUR GOOD SELF AT THIS JUNCTURE, MY FINANCIAL POSITION WILL BECOME MUCH WORSE. 4. L D. COMMISSIONER HAS EXAMINED THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AS PER TERMS 6 ITA NO. 430 /VIZ/2017 ( SARELLA RAJA RAO ) AND CONDITIONS OF THE ALLOTMENT OF PLOT IS NOT RELEVANT AND AS PER THE SALE DEED, NO SUCH REFERENCE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WA LL OR ANY HOUSE. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE SALE DEED THAT ON THE DATE OF SALE , THERE IS NO COMPOUND WALL AND NO CONSTRUCTION, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTI ON/ IMPROVEMENT OF RS.13,60,507/ - , WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COMMISSIONER FURTHER EXAMINED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY ALLOWED THE INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS. 13,60,507/ - IGNORING THE FACT THAT ON THE DATE OF SALE, NO SUCH STRUCTURE IS AVAILABLE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE SAID EXPENDITURE OF RS. 13 ,60,507/ - . 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED REVENUE EMPLOYEE AND THE PLOT WAS ALLOTTED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT NON - GAZETTE D EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, WITHIN A 7 ITA NO. 430 /VIZ/2017 ( SARELLA RAJA RAO ) PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS AFTER ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING ON THE ALLOTTED PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED C OMPOUND WALL AND ALSO A SHED AND SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN HIS WIFE WAS EXPIRED, ON THE ADVICE OF THE WELL - WISHERS AND VASTU CONSULTANTS AND ALSO WITH THE FEELING OF SENTIMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMOLISHED THE COMPOUND WALL AND SHED , WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE S AID LAND. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PROPERTY IS SOLD TO PERFORM HIS DAUGHTERS MARRIAGE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF COST OF ACQUISITION AND INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT. THE ASSESSING OF FICER AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SAID THAT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, HYDERABAD A BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI BODA DINESH REDDY (HUF) VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 296/HYD/2009, BY ORDER DATED 25/01/2012 . 7. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER AND SUBMITTED THAT ON THE DATE OF SALE, THERE IS NO CONSTRUCTION IS AVAILABLE IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER 8 ITA NO. 430 /VIZ/2017 ( SARELLA RAJA RAO ) WRONGLY ALLOWED THE INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT . HENCE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND PRAYED THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER MAY BE UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. T HE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. IN PURSUANCE TO THAT, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME AND ADMITTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 5,05,415/ - AGAINST THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. AS PER THE SALE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.13,75,000/ - , HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE SALE DEED VIDE DOCUMENT NO. 1589/2008, DATED 10/11/2009 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE MARKET VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY AS PER THE SRO RECORDS FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE OF RS. 20.00 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT HE CONSTR U CTED A COMPOUND WALL AND ALSO SHED IN THE SCHEDULED PROPERTY AND CLAIMED EXPENDITURE AS DEDUCTION OF RS. 13,63,507/ - THE SAME IS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEFORE THE 9 ITA NO. 430 /VIZ/2017 ( SARELLA RAJA RAO ) ASSESSING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CONTRACT AGREEMENT ENTERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL AND SHED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CONSIDERING THE SAME, CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS A BUILDING AND COMPOUND WALL, WHICH WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE NO. 17 TO 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK . WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL. IT IS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT COMPOUND WALL WAS DEMOLISHED DUE TO VASTU DEFECTS. IN OUR OPINION, COMPOUND WALL CANNOT BE DEMOLISHED FOR VASTU DEFECT EVEN WE ASSUME THAT THERE WAS A VASTU DEFECT , T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS EXCEPT AGREEMENT ENTERED WITH ONE MR. NARAYANA , WHO IS MAS ON. SO FAR AS EXISTENCE OF CONS T RUCTION OF SHED IS CONCERNE D, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY HOUSE NUMBER OR ELECTRICITY BILL OR MUNICIPAL TAX RECEIPT. ONLY HIS CASE IS BASED ON AGREEMENT ENTERED WITH MR.NARAYAN. ON THE BASIS OF AGREEMENT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS A COMPOUND WALL AND ALSO A SHED CONSTRU CTED, PARTICULARLY THE SALE DEED DATED 10/11/2009 CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY TRANSFERRED VACANT LAND TO THE PURCHASER. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA N CES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT HAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF 10 ITA NO. 430 /VIZ/2017 ( SARELLA RAJA RAO ) THE REVENUE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 13,63,507/ - . WE FIND N O REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 10. SO FAR AS CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SHRI BODA DINESH REDDY (HUF) (SUPRA) , FACTS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. IN THAT CASE, THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT TH E OLD BUILDING WAS DEMOLISHED, BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO SUCH EVIDENCE IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . HENCE, RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THUS, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 1 1 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON TH IS 0 5 T H DAY OF AUG. , 201 8 . S D / - S D / - ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 0 5 T H AUGUST , 201 8 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE SARELLA RAJA RAO, H.NO. 55 - 43 - 18/6, DOCTORS COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE REVENUE ITO, WARD - 2(2), VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE PR. CIT - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE D.R . , VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 11 ITA NO. 430 /VIZ/2017 ( SARELLA RAJA RAO )