THE ITO, WARD -2(3), Vijayawada V. Shri Valluri Venkata Rama Rao, Vijayawada

ITA 434/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6602 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S RAVI SHANKAR NARAYAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R PRASAD
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Gift; Fair market value
• Section: 50C; 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 434 / VIZ /201 3 (ASST. YEAR : 20 09 - 1 0 ) ITO, WARD - 2(3), VIJAYAWADA. V . SHRI VALLURI VENKATA RAMA RAO, FLAT NO. GF - 2, PRAGATHI NIVAS, D.NO. 51 - 2 - 6, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA PAN NO. AHNPV 5514 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NO. 143/VIZ/2013 ( ITA NO. 434 / VIZ /201 3 ) (ASST. YEAR : 20 09 - 1 0 ) SHRI VALLURI VENKATA RAMA RAO, FLAT NO. GF - 2, PRAGATHI NIVAS, D.NO. 51 - 2 - 6, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA V . ITO, WARD - 2(3), VIJAYAWADA. PAN NO. AHNPV 5514 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.S.R. PRASAD C A DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S. RAVI SHANKAR NARAYAN - DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 2 / 1 1 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02 / 01 /201 7 . O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , VIJAYAWADA , DATED 2 2/0 3 /201 3 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 . 2 ITA NO. 434 / VIZ /201 3 C.O.NO. 143/VIZ/2013 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A GIFT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 2 ACRES IN 1967 SITUATED AT GUNADALA VILLAGE IN SURVEY NO. 146/1 . SUBSEQUENTLY , THE ASSESSEE HAS CONVERTED THE LAND INTO PLOTS AND SOLD TO 15 PERSONS . IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE LAND SITUATED IN R.S. NO. 146/ 1C AND 146/1 OF GUNADALA VILLAGE TO 15 PERSONS AND EXEC UTED THE SALE DEEDS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS FOR VERIFICATION OF THE VALUE OF THE LAND SOLD DURING THE YEAR , I N RESPONSE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE FILED ALL THE DOCUMENTS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER PERUSAL OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS NOTICED THAT IN SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INTERPOLATIONS/CORRECTIONS IN HANDWRITING IN THE MARKET VALUE SHOWN IN RULE - 3 S TA TEMENT OF THE DOCUMENT IN ORDER TO SUPPRESS THE MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SRO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CORRECT NESS OF THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF THE PROPERT Y , REFERRED THE MATTER TO SRO AND OBTAINED INFORMATION FROM THE REGIST E R ING AUTHORITY . AS PER THE SRO , THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS OF 1,58,77,000/ - . ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM 15 PERSONS WAS OF 1,25,10,059/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CONSIDERING THE SRO VALUE OF 1,58,77,000/ - , HE TAKEN FULL VALU E OF CONSIDERATION AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. 3 . ON APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED FOR ADOPTION OF 50C BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE 3 ITA NO. 434 / VIZ /201 3 C.O.NO. 143/VIZ/2013 ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH HIGH - TENSION WIRES ARE PASSING, THEREFORE , THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HIM O NLY 1,25,10,059/ - , THE SAME HAS TO BE ADOPTED AS A MARKET VALUE . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CALLING THE REMAND REPORT, ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE ARE SOME HIGH - TENSION WIRES WERE PASSING , HENCE, HE DETERMINED THE MARKET VALUE AT 1,25,10,059/ - . 4. THE ONLY DISPUTE INVOLVED IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS OF 1,25,10,059/ - . ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SRO VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS OF 1,58 , 73,175/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THOUGH THE SRO VALUE OF TH E PROPERTY IS MORE THAN WHAT HE RECEIVED , THERE ARE SOME HIGH - TENSION WIRES ARE PASSING ON HIS LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C, ADOPTED THE SRO VALUE I.E. SALE CONSID ERATION OF 1,58,73,175/ - . THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY HAD NOT REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE MATTER TO DVO FOR DETERMINATION OF THE CORRECT FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY . HOWEVER, AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE LD. CIT(A) TO REFER THE MATTER TO DVO FOR DETERMINATION OF THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY CONSIDERING THE REQU E ST MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, CALLED THE REMAND R EPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE 4 ITA NO. 434 / VIZ /201 3 C.O.NO. 143/VIZ/2013 REMAND REPORT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS THE D I SCR E TION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER OR NOT TO REFER. THE ASSES SEE , BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ALTERNATIVELY SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE SOME HIGH - TENSION WIRES WERE PASSING ON THE LAND, THEREFORE, THE CONSIDER ATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS OF 1,25,10,059/ - IS LESSER THAN THE SRO VALUE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL, SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OF 1,25,10,059/ - . 5. HAVING HEARD BOT H THE SIDE AND A FTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO BY CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE FIND THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE DETERMINATION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AND ALSO FAILED TO CONSIDER SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT. ONCE, THERE IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SRO VALU E AS PER SECTION 50C, IT IS THE OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO AS PER SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY HAD NOT REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO, HOWEVER, HE MADE A SPECIFIC REQUEST BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CALLED REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFUSED TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO, WHICH IS 5 ITA NO. 434 / VIZ /201 3 C.O.NO. 143/VIZ/2013 CONTRARY TO SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF S. MUTHURAJA V. CIT REPORTED IN 369 ITR 483(MAD.) , WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 50C(2 ) OF THE ACT, IT IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO TO WORK OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DIR ECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO TO WORK OUT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW . H ENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6 . THE GROUND NO.5 RELATING TO THE COST OF LAND GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE AS ON 01/04/1981 . 7 . FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AGRICULTURAL LAND AS A GIFT IN THE YEAR 1967 SITUATED IN GUNADALA VILLAGE ABOUT 2 ACRES IN SURVEY NO. 146/1 . THE ASSESSEE HAS CONV ERTED THE ABOVE LAND INTO PLOTS AND SOLD IT TO 15 PERSONS . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BECAME URBAN RESIDENTIAL SITE DUE TO INCLUSION OF GUNADALA VILLAGE IN SCHEDULE - 1 OF THE URBAN CEILING & REGULATION ACT, 1976 WHICH WAS DECLARED AS AN URBAN AGGLOMERATION DUE TO URBAN GROWTH, WHICH WAS ALSO TREATED AS ONE URBAN SPREAD ALONG WITH THE THEN VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPALITY. THEREAFTER, FROM 10/02/1981 THE GOVERNMENT OF AP VIDE GOMS NO. 25MA READ WITH GOVERNMENT 6 ITA NO. 434 / VIZ /201 3 C.O.NO. 143/VIZ/2013 MEMO NO. 2489/G2/79 - MA DATED 19/02/1981 HAS ORDERED THE MERGER OF GUNADALA, PATAMATA AND BHAVANIPURAM VILLAGE PANCHAYATS INTO THE VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPALITY. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COST OF THE LAND SOLD BY HIM AS ON 01/04/1981 AT 190/ - SQ.Y RD . IN SUPPORT OF THE MARKET RATE OF THE LAND AS ADOPTED AT 190/ - PER SQ.YRD, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 04/07/2010 STATED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE JOINT SUB - REGISTRAR - 1 , VIJAYAWADA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 01/04/1981 ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, A LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE SUB - REGISTRAR, GANDHI NAGAR ON 02/11/2011 REQUESTED HIM TO PROVIDE MARKET VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981 . IN RESPONSE, THE SRO, VIJAYAWADA STATED THAT THEY COULD NOT GIVE THE INFORMATION AS RELEVANT RECORD WAS BURN T IN SRO OFFICE DUE TO AGITATION AND DEATH INCIDENT OF V.M. RANGA, MLA (EX.) . SUBSEQUENTLY, HE ISSUED ANOTHER LETTER TO THE SRO, VIJAYAWADA REQU ESTED HIM TO PROVIDE MARKET VALUE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN SURVEY NO. 146/1 OF GUNADALA VILLAGE FOR THE PERIOD IN CONTINUAT ION OF FIVE YEARS AFTER 01/04/1 981. IN REPLY, SRO SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 26/12/2011 REGARDING TH E DETAILS OF MARKET VALUE FOR FOUR YEARS STATING FROM 01/05/1986 TO 16/08/1990 WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - EFFECT DATE RATE PER ACRE 01/05/1986 55,000/ - 01/05/1987 60,500/ - 01/05/1988 66,600/ - 16/08/1990 1,00,000/ - 7 ITA NO. 434 / VIZ /201 3 C.O.NO. 143/VIZ/2013 THE ASSESSING OFFICER KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE DETAILS GIVEN BY THE SRO, VIJAYAWADA AND ALSO ONE OF THE ANOTHER ASSESSEE - SRI ANNE MOHANA RAO, WHO IS ALSO ASSESSED LAND AT R.S.N O . 88/1 OF GUNADALA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 1 0 , THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981 WAS ADOPTED AT 25,000/ - PER ACRE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE SAME VALUE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO . 8 . ON APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MARKET RATE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 25,000/ - PER ACRE IS NO BASIS AND THAT LAND IS SITUATED AT PAYAKAPURAM AND NOT IN GUNADALA, THE VALUE PER ACRE WOULD BE OF 9, 19,600/ - . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT AND THEREFORE, HE ADOPTED 7,50,000/ - PER ACRE AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO REWORK COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 9 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CASE , THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED 2 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE YEAR 1967. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS CONVERTED INTO PLOTS AND THE SAME WAS SOLD TO 15 PERSONS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE LAND SOLD BY HIM IS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND, IT IS AN URBAN LAND AS PER THE NOTIFICATION ISSUE D BY THE URBAN LAND CEILING & REGULATION ACT, 1976 AND SUBSEQUENTLY GOS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE VALUE OF THE LAND PER ACRE AS ON 01/04/1981 9,19,600/ - . ACCORDING TO THE 8 ITA NO. 434 / VIZ /201 3 C.O.NO. 143/VIZ/2013 ASSESSING OFFICER PER ACRE WAS 25,000/ - . THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ADOPTED 7,50,000/ - PER ACRE. WE FIND THAT NOTHING IS ON RECORD TO SHOW WHAT IS THE BASIS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CON C LUSION OF 9,19,600/ - AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO SIMPLY MENTIONED TH A T NEARBY LAND WAS SOLD 25,000/ - PER ACRE, BUT HE HAS NOT MENTIONED ANY DETAILS WHAT IS THE DISTANCE OF THE LAND , WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE LAND, WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY SUCH DETAILS SIMPLY ADOPTED 25,000/ - . WE FIND THAT THERE IS A LOT OF DIFFERENCE IN CLAIM BETW EEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS AND ANY BASIS , ADOPTED THE RATE OF 7,50,000/ - PER ACRE. EVEN BEFORE US , NO SUCH DETAILS ARE FILED TO ADOPT THE RATE PER ACRE AS ON 01/04/1981 . UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 CORRECTLY. IT IS NECESSARY TO REFER TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINA TION OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 . ACCORDINGLY , WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO AND ADOPT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9 ITA NO. 434 / VIZ /201 3 C.O.NO. 143/VIZ/2013 10 . THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL RELATING TO CLAIM UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED TWO FLATS BY UTILIZING CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HIM BY SELLING THE LAND TO 15 PERSONS. FOR THAT PURPOSE, HE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT ON 17/09/2008. ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT, HE PURCHASED TWO FLATS IN FIRST FLOOR OF HARIPRIYA CLASSIC APARTMENTS, D.NO. 47 - 10 - 10 , GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA . SUBSEQUENTLY , THE SAME TWO PROPERTIES WERE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ON 15/10/2008 . THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO HOW YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR TWO FLATS . I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTIES WERE SITUATED IN THE SAME FLOOR AND BOTH THE PROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED ON THE SAME DAY AND, THEREFORE, BOTH THE FLATS HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS ONE PROPERTY . THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY ENTITLED FOR ONE FLAT UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AND ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F ONLY TO ONE FLAT. 1 1 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED FULL CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TWO FLATS . 1 2 . ON APPEAL BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED TWO FLATS IN THE SAME FLOOR OPPOSITE TO EACH OTHER FOR HIS PERSONAL ACCOMMODATION. THEREFORE, THOUGH THERE ARE TWO FLATS IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS ONE HOUSE AND BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54F HAS TO BE GIVEN. 10 ITA NO. 434 / VIZ /201 3 C.O.NO. 143/VIZ/2013 13 . ON THE OTHER HAND, DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 1 4 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE LAND AND PURCHASED TWO FLATS WITH THAT CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT ON 17/09/2008 FOR PURCHASE OF TWO FLATS . THOUGH THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT AGREEMENTS, BUT BOTH FLATS ARE SITUATED IN ONE FLOOR THAT TOO OPPOSITE TO EACH OTHER. THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THERE ARE TWO KITCHENS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO TWO AGREEMENTS, T HEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY ELIGIBLE FOR ONE FLAT AND NOT ON SECOND . WE FIND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED TWO FLATS WITH AN INTENTION TO HOLD IT FOR HIS ACCOMMODATI ON, THOUGH FLATS ARE OPPOSITE TO EACH OTHER , ONCE IT IS PURCHASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEES RESIDENCE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO TWO AGREEMENTS , OBVIOUSLY , WHEN THERE ARE TWO FLATS, HE HAS TO ENTER INTO TWO AGREEMENTS AND ONCE THERE ARE TWO FLATS, THERE WILL BE TWO KITCHENS ALSO. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A GROUND TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE ARE TWO KITCHENS IN TWO FLATS TO DENY THE BENEFIT UN DER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT . KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11 ITA NO. 434 / VIZ /201 3 C.O.NO. 143/VIZ/2013 1 5 . THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL RELATING TO EXPENSES INCURRED ON TRANSFER OF 6,84,455/ - AND INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT 7,11,540/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED THE DETAILS OF ALL THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ALL THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SELF - MADE AND THEREFORE, HE REJECTED THE SAME. HE ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE PERSONS TO WHOM PAYMENTS WERE MADE. SINCE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 1 6 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED 50% OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE . EVEN BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE . HOWEVER, IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A GIFT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS CONVERTED INTO PLOTS AND THE SAME WAS SOLD AT HIGHER PRICE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE . T HOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH BY FILING ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM, IN OUR OPINION, THE ENTIRE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNO T BE DISALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN 12 ITA NO. 434 / VIZ /201 3 C.O.NO. 143/VIZ/2013 ALLOWING 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS , WE FIND NO INFIRMITY TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HENCE , THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 1 7 . IN REGARD TO C.O.NO. 143/VIZ/2013, WHICH IS FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 18 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND THE C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 2 N D DAY OF JANUARY , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( G. MANJUNATHA ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 0 2 N D JANUARY , 201 7 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. SHRI VALLURI VENKATA RAMA RAO, FLAT NO. GF - 2, PRAGATHI NIVAS, D.NO. 51 - 2 - 6, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA 2 . THE REVENUE. ITO, WARD - 2(3), VIJAYAWADA. 3 . THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA . 4 . THE CIT(A) , VIJAYAWADA. 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., VISAKHAPATNAM