THE ITO, WARD-1(2), Vijayawada V. Sri Tadanki Simeon,

ITA 502/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8889 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R S NARAYAN
• Assessee Lawyers: C V S MURTHY
• Section: 54F

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 NOS. 497, 502 TO 505/VIZ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2008-09) ITO, WARD-1(2), VIJAYAWADA. VS. 1) SMT. SONGA HULDA, D.NO. 241, SAIPURAM COLONY, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL PAN NO. BPJPS 6472 P 2) SRI TADANKI SIMEON, S/O LATE SRI ISSAK, D.NO. 241, SAIPURAM COLONY, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL PAN NO. AGCPT 2757 M 3) SMT. TADANKI RAHEL, W/O LATE SRI ISSAK, D.NO. 241, SAIPURAM COLONY, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL PAN NO. AGCPT 2759 F 4) SRI TADANKI ABSOAM, S/O LATE SRI ISSAK, D.NO. 241, SAIPURAM COLONY, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL. PAN NO. AGCPT 2758 E 5) SRI TADANKI GIRI, S/O LATE SRI ISSAK, D.NO. 241, SAIPURAM COLONY, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL. PAN NO. AGEPT 3102 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENTS) 2 ITA NOS.497, 502 TO 505/VIZ/2013 C.O.NOS. 23 TO 27/VIZ/2017 (SMT. SONGA HULDA & OTHERS) C.O.NOS. 23 TO 27/VIZ/2017 (ITA NOS. 497, 502 TO 505/VIZ/2013) (ASST. YEAR : 2008-09) 1) SMT. SONGA HULDA, D.NO. 241, SAIPURAM COLONY, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL PAN NO. BPJPS 6472 P VS. ITO, WARD-1(2), VIJAYAWADA. 2) SRI TADANKI SIMEON, S/O LATE SRI ISSAK, D.NO. 241, SAIPURAM COLONY, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL PAN NO. AGCPT 2757 M 3) SMT. TADANKI RAHEL, W/O LATE SRI ISSAK, D.NO. 241, SAIPURAM COLONY, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL PAN NO. AGCPT 2759 F 4) SRI TADANKI ABSOAM, S/O LATE SRI ISSAK, D.NO. 241, SAIPURAM COLONY, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL. PAN NO. AGCPT 2758 E 5) SRI TADANKI GIRI, S/O LATE SRI ISSAK, D.NO. 241, SAIPURAM COLONY, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL. PAN NO. AGEPT 3102 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.V.S. MURTHY FCA. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.R.S. NARAYAN SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 31/05/2017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/05/2017. 3 ITA NOS.497, 502 TO 505/VIZ/2013 C.O.NOS. 23 TO 27/VIZ/2017 (SMT. SONGA HULDA & OTHERS) O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VIJAYAWADA, ALL DATED 29/04/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. SINCE, FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE, DONT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. GROUND NOS. 2 TO 5 ARE RELATING TO WHETHER THE CAPITAL GAIN HAS TO BE TAXED BY CONSIDERING THE DATE OF AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE DATE OF SALE OF FLATS. 3 . FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH FOUR OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS INHERITED LANDED PROPERTY WHICH WAS GIVEN FOR DEVELOPMENT UNDER REGISTERED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON 06/06/2007 TO M/S. SRI SAI VENKATARAMA CONSTRUCTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SIX FLATS AS PER HER SHARE FROM THE SAID CONSTRUCTION AND HAS ADMITTED THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SAME, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, THE SAID CONSTRUCTION M/S. SRI SAI VENKATARAMA CONSTRUCTIONS HAD DISCONTINUED THE SAID AGREEMENT MADE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND EXPRESSED INABILITY TO EXECUTE THE PROJECT FURTHER. LATER ON, ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH M/S. ABHINANDANA REALTORS LTD. ON 4 ITA NOS.497, 502 TO 505/VIZ/2013 C.O.NOS. 23 TO 27/VIZ/2017 (SMT. SONGA HULDA & OTHERS) 23/11/2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY CONSIDERING THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S.ABHINANDANA REALTORS LTD. THE ASSESSEE BY LETTER DATED 18/02/2013, IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE FLATS WERE RECEIVED FROM M/S.ABHINANDANA REALTORS LTD. TOWARDS THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 AND PREPARED TO PAY THE TAXES INCLUDING CAPITAL GAINS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH M/S. ABHINANDANA REALTORS LTD. ON 23/11/2007 AND THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR OF ENTERING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF AND REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. BY CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS INCLUDING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHATUBHUJ DWARAKADAS KAPADIA VS. CIT (260 ITR 491) DETERMINED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 4. ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE DATE, ON WHICH ASSESSEE SOLD THE FLATS HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING CAPITAL GAIN. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6 . WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHATUBHUJ 5 ITA NOS.497, 502 TO 505/VIZ/2013 C.O.NOS. 23 TO 27/VIZ/2017 (SMT. SONGA HULDA & OTHERS) DWARAKADAS KAPADIA (SUPRA) RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE DATE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT THE DATE OF SELLING OF THE FLATS. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE LEGAL POSITION, SIMPLY DECIDED THE ISSUE BY CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE DATE ON WHICH FLATS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING CAPITAL GAIN. THEREFORE, WE REVERSE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7 . GROUND NOS. 6 TO 9 ARE RELATING TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F ON MORE THAN ONE FLAT. THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F WOULD BE ALLOWABLE FOR ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE FLATS ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE, LEASED OUT TO NARAYANA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, HENCE, DENIED THE CLAIM MADE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. 8 . ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE LEASED OUT THE PROPERTY TO NARAYANA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS TO RUN THE HOSTELS FOR THE STUDENTS, WHO ARE STUDYING IN THEIR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT MUNICIPAL APPROVAL WAS TAKEN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL FLATS AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1) CIT VS. SMT. K.G. RUKMINAMMA (331 ITR 435) (KAR.) 2) CIT VS. GITA DUGGAL (ITA NO. 1237/2011) (DELHI HC) 6 ITA NOS.497, 502 TO 505/VIZ/2013 C.O.NOS. 23 TO 27/VIZ/2017 (SMT. SONGA HULDA & OTHERS) 3) CIT VS. SYED ALI ADIL (ITA NO.2012) (AP HC) THE LD. CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F ON ALL THE FLATS. 9. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 10 . AT THE OUTSET, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AT VISAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SRI RAVURI SAI CHAITANYA IN ITA NO. 498/VIZAG/2013, DATED 28/03/2017 THE SAME MAY BE FOLLOWED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. 11 . ON THE OTHER HAND, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. THE ONLY POINT HAS TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT ON MORE THAN ONE FLAT OR NOT. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AT VISAKHAPATNAM, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F TOWARDS ALL THE FLATS RECEIVED IN PURSUANCE TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF SRI RAVURI SAI CHAITANYA (SUPRA) IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER:- 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FACTUAL 7 ITA NOS.497, 502 TO 505/VIZ/2013 C.O.NOS. 23 TO 27/VIZ/2017 (SMT. SONGA HULDA & OTHERS) MATRIX WHICH LEADS TO THE DISPUTE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER 12 CO-OWNERS ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH SHRI SAI VENKATA RAMANA CONSTRUCTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A PIECE OF LAND ADMEASURING 1.68 ACRES AT S.NO.93. AS PER THE SAID JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE AND 12 OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE AGREED TO SHARE THE CONSTRUCTED FLATS IN THE RATIO OF 17:23. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT ON TOTAL FLATS RECEIVED IN PURSUANCE OF JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IS ALLOWABLE EVEN IF THE FLATS/APARTMENTS ARE SITUATED IN DIFFERENT BLOCKS OR TOWERS. THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 54F OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS LET OUT THE APARTMENT TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL USE. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IS AVAILABLE TO ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, BUT NOT FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL FLATS RECEIVED IN PURSUANCE OF JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 12. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE FLATS RECEIVED IN PURSUANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT? THE ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF A.P., IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SYED ALI ADIL (SUPRA), HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND AFTER ANALYZING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, OBSERVED THAT THE EXPRESSION A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN SECTION 54F OF THE ACT HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN A SENSE THAT BUILDING SHOULD BE OF RESIDENTIAL NATURE AND A SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO INDICATE A SINGLE NUMBER AND WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED TWO RESIDENTIAL FLATS, IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT, IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF ITS PROPERTY ON PURCHASE OF BOTH FLATS. THE HIGH COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT, IS ALLOWABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CONSISTING OF SEVERAL INDEPENDENT UNITS. A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUMANMAL JAIN (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT ALL THE FLATS ARE A PRODUCT OF ONE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OF THE SAME PIECE OF LAND BEING SAID LAND, HENCE EVEN IF FLATS ARE IN DIFFERENT BLOCKS AND DIFFERENT TOWERS, AS LONG AS THEY ARE IN SAME ADDRESS/LOCATION, IT DOES NOT DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FROM GETTING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. IN YET ANOTHER CASE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. V.R. KARPAGAM (2015) 373 ITR 127, HELD THAT PRIOR TO AMENDMENT U/S 54F BY FINANCE ACT, 2004 W.E.F. 1.4.2015, WITH REGARD TO WORD A, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE INCLUDE MULTIPLE FLATS/RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WHERE UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE CERTAIN BUILT-UP AREA, WHICH GOT TRANSLATED INTO FIVE FLATS, EXEMPTION U/S 54F IN RESPECT OF FIVE FLATS IN A MULTI-STOREY CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE AVAILABLE. 13. THUS, THE LEGAL PROPOSITION BEFORE THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 1.4.2015, IN THE CASE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IS VERY CLEAR THAT IF THE LAND OWNER RECEIVES NUMBER OF FLATS, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE LOCATED IN DIFFERENT BLOCKS AND 8 ITA NOS.497, 502 TO 505/VIZ/2013 C.O.NOS. 23 TO 27/VIZ/2017 (SMT. SONGA HULDA & OTHERS) DIFFERENT TOWERS, ONCE THEY ARE IN SAME ADDRESS/LOCATION AND ALL THE FLATS ARE A PRODUCT OF ONE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT, IN RESPECT OF ALL THE FLATS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ALL THE FLATS RECEIVED IN PURSUANCE OF JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY CONTRARY DECISION AGAINST THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SYED ALI ADIL (SUPRA). CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SYED ALI ADIL (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT, TOWARDS ALL THE FLATS RECEIVED IN PURSUANCE TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 14. IN SO FAR AS THE ALLEGATION OF THE A.O., THAT THE FLATS CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY BUT NOT RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS A RESIDENTIAL FLAT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A COPY OF PLAN SANCTIONED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES, WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE APARTMENTS CONSTRUCTED BY THE BUILDER ARE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS LEASED OUT THE PREMISES TO AN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, THE TENANT HAS USED THE PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCOMMODATION OF STUDENTS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS LEASED OUT TO AN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT FACTS, AND ALSO BY FOLLOWING CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ALLOW EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 54F OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE CIT(A) ORDER AND REJECT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 12. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AS CITED ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 502 TO 505/VIZ/2013 13 THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 497/VIZ/2013 ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF ITA NOS. 502 TO 505/VIZ/2013, HENCE, OUR DECISION IN ITA NO. 497/VIZ/2013 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THESE APPEALS ALSO. 9 ITA NOS.497, 502 TO 505/VIZ/2013 C.O.NOS. 23 TO 27/VIZ/2017 (SMT. SONGA HULDA & OTHERS) C.O.NOS. 23 TO 27/VIZ/2013 14 THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 1379 DAYS. IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT WHEREIN HE STATED THAT HEALTH OF HIS MOTHER WAS NOT GOOD AND ALSO HAD NOT TAKEN PROPER ADVICE FROM AR FOR FILING THESE CROSS OBJECTIONS IN TIME, BUT HE FAILED TO FILE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO ILL-HEALTH OF HIS MOTHER. AS THE REASONS ARE IN ROUTINE AND ARE IN STEREO TYPE IN ALL THE AFFIDAVITS, THE SAME ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. HENCE, CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 15 . IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 31 ST MAY, 2017. VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE. A. SMT. SONGA HULDA, B. SRI TADANKI SIMEON C. SMT. TADANKI RAHEL D. SRI TADANKI ABSOAM E. SRI TADANKI GIRI, ALL ARE RESIDING AT D.NO. 241, SAIPURAM COLONY, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL. 2. THE REVENUE - ITO, WARD-1(2), VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA. 5. THE D.R., VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER