Smt. A Rajya Lakshmi, Visakhapatnam V. The ITO, Ward-3(2), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam

ITA 51/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94105 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G GURUSAMY
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Difference of opinion; Retraction

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISHAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISHAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO51/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 SMT. A RAJYA LAKSHMI, D.NO.10 - 50 - 22/1, SIRIPURAM JUNCTION VISAKHAPATNAM VS. ITO, WARD - 3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM PAN/GIR NO. : AADPL 9520 H APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) I.T.A. NO52/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 SRI A JANAKIRAM D.NO.10 - 50 - 22/1, SIRIPURAM JUNCTION VISAKHAPATNAM VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM PAN/GIR NO. : AALPA 9208 K APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) APPELLANTS BY : SRI G.V.N. HARI, ADV RESPONDENT BY : SRI G.GURUSAMY, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING : 22 /7/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 /7/2015 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, AM : BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED SEPARATE APPEALS AGAINST A COMMON ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM AND THEY RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. 2 I.T.A. NO.51& 52/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 2. SINCE THE ISSUES CONTESTED IN THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE AND ALSO ARIS E OUT OF COMMON SET OF FACTS, BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE RECEIVED CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,00,00,000/ - TOWARDS SALE OF SHARES HELD BY THEM. 4. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE CITED ABOVE ARE STATED IN BRIEF. SMT.A RAJYALAKSHMI IS THE SPOUSE OF SRI A. JANAKIRAM AND BOTH OF THEM ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. SHRI A. JANAKIRAM AND SMT. A RAJYALAKSHMI HELD 40000 AND 35000 SHARES RESPECTIVELY IN A COMPANY NAMED M/S. VARUN MOTORS PVT LTD (VMPL). DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, SHRI A JANAKIRAM SO LD 40000 SHARES FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.10,00,000/ - AND SMT. A RAJYALAKSHMI SOLD 31000 SHARES, OUT OF 35000 SHARES HELD BY HER, FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.7,75,000/ - . BOTH THE ASSESSEES SOLD THE SHARES TO A PERSON NAMED SHRI V PRABHU KISHORE, WHO IS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF VMPL. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT SHRI A. JANAKIRAM WAS ALSO ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF M/S VMPL. BOTH THE PARTIES DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE SALE OF THE SHARES IN THE RETURNS FILED BY THEM. 5. THE DEPARTMEN T CARRIED OUT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEES U/S.132 OF THE ACT, IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI V. PRABHU KISHORE, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. VARUN MOTORS PVT LTD. DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI A JANAKIRAM, A PAPER WAS FOUND AND THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME READ AS UNDER: 3 I.T.A. NO.51& 52/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 DEAR JANAKIRAM, I HAVE PROMISED AND COMMITTED TO YOU TO PAY A CONSOLIDATED SUM OF RS.2 CORRES (RUPEES TWO CRORES ONLY) TOWARDS THE VALUE OF YOUR 7.5% SHARE HOLDING IN M/S. VARUN MOTORS PVT LTD. THE ABOVE SAID RS.2 CRORES SHALL BE PAID BY ME TO YOU AT THE TIME OF YOUR DAUGHTER MS DIVYAS WEDDING, AS AND WHEN THE WEDDING TAKES PLACE. FURTHER , I HAVE AGREED TO PAY YOU AND YOUR WIFE MRS LAXMI A SUM OF RS.50,000/ - (RUPEES FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY) EACH EVERY MONTH FOR YOUR FAMILY COMFORT LEVEL WITH EFFECT FROM 1.5.2006 UNTIL I PAY YOUR DAUGHTER AS SAID ABOVE. NOW, YOU WILL TRANSFER YOUR FAMILY SHAREH OLDING OF 7.5% IN FAVOUR OF MR V. PRABHU KISHORE OR HIS NOMINEES 6. THE ABOVE SAID LETTER WAS SIGNED BY SRI V.PRABHU KISHORE. IN THE STATEMENT TAKEN FROM THE ASSESSEE ON 11.3.2008 I.E. ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE LETTER CITED ABOVE. THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS AND REPLIES ARE EXTRACTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE GIVEN BELOW: - Q.20 . PLEASE REFER TO THE COMMUNICATION FROM MR PRABHU KISHORE, MD M/S. VARUN MOTORS PVT LTD., REGARDING SHARE TRANSFER. PLEASE EXPLAIN. ANS. I HA VE SOLD MY SHARES TO MR V. PRABHU KISHORE, MD M/S. VARUN MOTORS PVT LTD., FOR RS.10 LAKHS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE NO.103893 DATED 9.6.2006 OF M/S. VARUN MOTORS PVT LTD., TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATION OF MY 40000 SHARES WHICH IS DEPOSITED AGAIN IN M/S. VARUN MOTORS PVT LTD., ON 9.6.2006 AS A LOAN. Q. 21 - WHAT IS THE REFERENCE OF TWO CRORES MENTIONED BY MR V PRABHU KISHORE IN LETTER DATED 17.4.2008. ANS: - IT IS A COMMITMENT GIVEN BY MR V. PRABHU KISHORE THOUGH AGAINST 75% SHAREHOLDING TRANSFER AS PER THE LETTER AJ RA/A/1/25 . BUT THE SAME IS PROMISED TO BE GIVEN AT THE TIME OF MY DAUGHTERS MARRIAGE. 4 I.T.A. NO.51& 52/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 7. SUBSEQUENTLY, ANOTHER STATEMENT WAS TAKEN FROM THE ASSESSEE ON 15.4.2008, WHEREIN, THE ASSESSEE GAVE NEW EXPLANATIONS. THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ARE EXTRACTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER: Q.5 - WHAT IS THE CONSIDERATION PAID BY MR V. PRABHU KISHORE AGAINST THIS TRANSRER OF 7.5% SHARE HOLDING. ANS: WE WERE PAID RS.17,50,000/ - AS CONSIDERATION AGAINST THIS TRANSFER OF 7.5% SHARE HOLDING WHICH WAS AGAIN GIVEN BACK BY US TO M/S. VARUN MOTORS PVT LTD., AS LOAN. Q.7 - WHY DID YOU TAKE A LETTER FROM MR V. PRABHU KISHORE REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF 7.5% SHARES AND WHY DID MR V. PRABHU KISHORE MENTION THAT RS.2 CRORES IS THE CONSIDERATION TO BE PAID AGAINS T HIS TRANSFER OF 7.5% SHAREHOLDING. ANS: GENERALLY, MR V. PRABHU KISHORE IS VERY CAUTIOUS AND SYSTEMATIC. THIS RS.2 CRORES IS A GIFT TO BE RECEIVED AND HAS NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER WITH THE TRANSFER OF 7.5% SHARES OF M/S. VARUN MOTORS PVT LTD. 8. TO S UM UP, THE ASSESSEE HAS DENIED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,00,000/ - REPRESENTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF 75,000 SHARES (40000 SHARES HELD BY HIM AND 35,000 SHARES HELD BY HIS WIFE SMT. A RAJYALAKSHMI). HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT A GREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEES AND, ACCORDINGLY, HELD THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS.1.9 CRORES (RS.2,00,00,000 RS.10,00,000/ - RECEIVED BY SHRI JANAKIRAM) IS ASSESSABLE AS CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCRUAL BASIS, EVEN THOUGH, THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS NOT PAID ON THAT DATE. ACCORDINGLY, HE ASSESSED THE AMOUNT OF RS.1.90 CRORES IN THE HANDS OF SHRI A. JANAKIRAM. 9. IN THE HANDS OF SMT. A RAJYALAKSHMI, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED A SUM OF RS.1 CRORE AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, WHICH WAS CALCULATED AT 50% OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.2 CRORES REFERRED TO IN THE LETTER FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 5 I.T.A. NO.51& 52/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 10. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.2.00 CRORES ON TRANSFER OF SHARES. HOWEVER, THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT IN RIGHT IN ASSESSING THE ENTIRE DIFFERENCE IN THE HANDS OF SRI A. JANAKIRAM AND ALSO HE HELD THAT THE AO WAS WRONG IN ASSESSING RS.1 CRORE IN THE HANDS OF SMT. A RAJYALAKSHMI. SINCE THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE IS RS.2 CRORES, THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOCATED BETWEEN SRI A JANAKIRAM AND SMT. A RAJYALAKSHMI IN PROPORTION TO NUMBER OF SHARES TRANSFERRED BY THEM I.E. IN THE RATIO OF 40,000 : 31,000. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A), BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED APPEALS BEFORE US. 11. THE LEARNED A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE DISPUTE HAS ARISEN ON THE BASIS OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY SHRI V. PRABHU KISHORE, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S VARUN MOTORS (P) LTD TO SHRI JANAKIRAM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LETTER WAS GIVEN IN CONNECTION WITH AN AGREEMENT REACHED BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO DISPOSE OF CONTROLLING INTEREST, BUT FINALLY IT WAS NOT GIVEN EFFECT TO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS, HOWEVER, PROCEEDED TO ADJUDICATE VARIOUS ISSUES WITH THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER HAVE B EEN ACTED UPON BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND HENCE HE HAS TRIED TO VALIDATE THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER BY CONSIDERING VARIOUS PROBABILITIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHRI JANAKIRAM WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE LETTER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND ALSO DURING THE COURSE OF STATEMENT TAKEN FROM HIM SUBSEQUENTLY WITHIN A PERIOD OF LESS THAN A MONTH. THE ASSESSEE SHRI JANAKIRAM HAD CLEARLY STATED IN HIS STATEMENTS THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS.2.00 CRORES WAS NOT RELATED TO THE VALUE OF SHARES AN D IT WAS AGREED TO BE GIVEN BY SHRI V. PRABHU KISHORE TO MEET THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF HIS DAUGHTER. HE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.10.00 LAKHS ONLY ON TRANSFER OF 40,000 SHARES. 6 I.T.A. NO.51& 52/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 12. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT SHRI JANAKIRAM WA S A PARTNER IN M/S VARUN LEASING WITH 25% SHARE AND ALSO LOOKED AFTER ALL BUSINESS ACTIVITIES RELATING TO SALE OF 3 WHEELERS. HE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT HE WAS PAID A SUM OF RS.15,000/ - PER MONTH FROM VARUN MOTORS AND ALSO PAID MONTHLY COMMISSION OF RS.50 ,000/ - FROM VMPL FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY HIM. 13. THE LEARNED A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SHRI JANAKIRAM HAS, IN FACT, CAME FORWARD TO ADMIT THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME, WHERE EVER IT WAS AVAILABLE, WHICH IS EVIDENCED BY THE ANSWER GIVEN BY HIM TO Q. NO .24 AND 25. IN REPLY TO THOSE QUESTIONS, HE HAS ADMITTED ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND AGREED TO OFFER THE SAME. THE SAID ADMISSION OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.00 CRORES, ACCORDING TO LEARNED A.R, SHOW THE BONA FIDES OF THE ASSESSEE, I.E., ACCORDING TO LEARNED A.R, SHRI JANAKIRAM WOULD HAVE ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IF ANY, ARISING ON TRANSFER OF SHARES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EARN UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM TRANSFER OF SHARES TO V. PRABHU KISHORE, THE LEARNED A.R SUBMITTED THAT SHRI JANAKIRAM HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT IT WAS ONLY A COMMITMENT GIVEN. THE LEARNED A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHRI JANAKIRAM FURTHER EXPLAINED THE FACTS IN THE SWORN STATEMENT TAKEN FROM HIM ON 15.4.2008, WHEREIN, IN THE ANSWER GIVEN TO Q. NO.7, HE HAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.00 CRORES MENTIONED IN THE LETTER WAS A GIFT TO BE GIVEN TO HIM AND THE SAME DOES NOT HAVE ANY CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF SHARES. THE LEARNED A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID CLARIFICATION CAN BE CONSIDERED AS RETRACTION OF THE EARLIER STATEMENT, IN WHICH CASE, THE REVENUE SHOULD NOT PLACE RELIANCE ON THE EARLIER STATEMENT. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD A.R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VINOD SOLANKI VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR (CIVIL APPEAL NO.7407 OF 2008 DATED 18 - 12 - 2008) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE CANNOT PLACE RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT, WHICH HAS LATER BEEN RETRACTED, WITHOUT BRINGING ANY OTHER CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. 7 I.T.A. NO.51& 52/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 14. THE LEARNED A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SMT. A RAJYALAKSHMI HAS ALSO TRANSFERRED 31,000 SHARES AND HER ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF THE LETTER CITED ABOVE. THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A STATEMENT FROM SMT. A RAJYALAKSHMI ALSO, YET HE CHOSE NOT TO PUT ANY QUESTION TO HER ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER, REFERRED ABOVE. FURTHER, SMT. A. RAJYALAKSHMI HELD 35,000 SHARES, BUT SHRI V. PRABHU KISHORE HAS WRITTEN LETTER ONLY TO SHRI JANAKIRAM, MEANING THEREBY THE RE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE THREE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE DID NOT EXAMINE SHRI V. PRABHU KISHORE, THOUGH HE ALSO FILED A LETTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN HE HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE AMO UNT OF RS.2.00 CRORES WAS INTENDED TO BE GIVEN TO MEET THE EXPENSES OF MARRIAGE OF DAUGHTER OF SHRI JANAKIRAM. HE HAS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THE GRATUITOUS PAYMENT OF RS.50,000/ - MENTIONED IN THE LETTER WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY SHRI JANAKIRAM. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT SINCE SHRI JANAKIRAM WAS HOLDING THE POST OF DIRECTOR AND SINCE HIS SERVICES WERE REQUIRED BY THE COMPANY, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGREED TO USE HIS SERVICES BY PAYING MONTHLY COMMISSION OF RS.50,000/ - . ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE AS SESSEE AND SHRI PRABHU KISHORE, BEING THE PARTIES CONNECTED WITH THE IMPUGNED LETTER, HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER WERE NOT ACTED UPON. THE LEARNED A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEES WERE GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.00 CRORES AS STATED IN THE LETTER. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER CREDIBLE MATERIAL CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE LD A.R PLACE D RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF GRANDHI NARENDRA VS. ACIT (2010)(41 DTR (VISAKHA)(TRIB) 227). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. FAIRDEAL TEXTI LE PART P LTD (362 ITR 497) AND ALSO ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MACNEILL & BARRY LTD VS. CIT (158 ITR 374) TO CONTEND THAT THE ADDITION 8 I.T.A. NO.51& 52/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 CANNOT BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF LETTER, WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN NOT ACTED UPON. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL A.P HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NARESH KUMAR AGARWAL (369 ITR 0171) TO SUBMIT THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF MERE CONFESSIONAL STA TEMENT. 15. THE LEARNED A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SHRI JANAKIRAM AND SHRI PRABU KISHORE HAD ENTERED INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU), AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEES HEREIN WAS BARRED FROM DOING IDENTICAL BUSINESS. THE AO HAS REFERRED TO THE MOU IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE IMPUGNED LETTER WAS WRITTEN AT THAT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. HOWEVER, THE MOU WAS NOT ACTED UPON AND HENCE SHRI JANAKIRAM HAS CONTINUED TO PROVIDE HIS SERVICES TO VMPL. THIS FACT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LETTER WAS ALSO NOT ACTED UPO N. THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LETTER SPEAKS ABOUT TRANSFER OF 75,000 SHARES, WHERE AS BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE ACTUALLY TRANSFERRED ONLY 71,000 SHARES. FURTHER, THE GRATUITOUS PAYMENT OF RS.50,000/ - PER MONTH WAS ALSO NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EES. HOWEVER, THE MONTHLY COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.50,000/ - MADE TO SHRI JANAKIRAM HAS BEEN INFERRED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO BE THE GRATUITOUS PAYMENT STATED IN THE LETTER, WHICH IS TOTALLY INCORRECT. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE SAID FACTS ALSO PROVE THAT THE PARTIES HEREIN AS WELL AS SHRI PRABHU KISHORE DID NOT ACT UPON THE LETTER CITED ABOVE. 16. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CONDUCTING OF MARRIAGE OF DAUGHTER IS AN OBLIGATION OF THE PARENTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LETTER HAS STATED THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS.2.00 CRORES WAS TO BE PAID AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF DAUGHTER OF SHRI JANAKIRAM. SINCE THE HAPPENING OF MARRIAGE IS A CONTINGENT EVENT, THE CONTRACT ENTERED UPON HAPPENING OF A CONTINGENT EVENT CANNOT BE ENFORCED. IN THIS REGARD , HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE DELHI 9 I.T.A. NO.51& 52/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. CHANDER BALA MODI VS. GTO (1988)(31 TTJ (DEL) 314), WHICH WAS RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF GIFT TAX ACT. 17. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD C IT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE HANDS OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES ON THE BASIS OF A LETTER, WHICH WAS NOT ACTED UPON BY THE PARTIES. 18. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE LETTER WRITTEN BY SHRI V. PRABU KISHORE CLEARL Y STATES THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.00 CRORES IS COMMITTED TOWARDS THE VALUE OF 7.5% SHARE HOLDING HELD BY THE ASSESSEES IN VMPL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD SHOW THAT THE SAID LETTER WAS ACTUALLY ACTED UPON BY THE ASSESSEES AND SHR I V. PRABU KISHORE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE GRATUITOUS PAYMENT OF RS.50,000/ - PER MONTH MENTIONED IN THE LETTER HAS BEEN GIVEN EFFECT TO AND SHRI JANAKIRAM IS GETTING THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE FORM OF COMMISSION. BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE ALSO TRANSFERRED 71,00 0 SHARES IN FAVOUR OF PRABU KISHORE. THUS TWO EVENTS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER HAVE BEEN PERFORMED, MEANING THEREBY THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER WITH REGARD TO THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2.00 CRORES SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED TO BE TRUE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE POSTPONEMENT OF PAYMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION TO A FUTURE DATE WOULD NOT INVALIDATE THE SALE TRANSACTION. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE LD D.R INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO SECTION 5 OF THE SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 5. CONTRACT OF SALE H OW MADE: - ( 1 ) A CONTRACT OF SALE IS MADE BY AN OFFER TO BUY OR SELL GOODS FOR A PRICE AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH OFFER. THE CONTRACT MAY PROVIDE FOR THE IMMEDIATE DELIVERY OF THE GOODS OR IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF THE PRICE OR BOTH, OR FOR THE DELIVERY OR PAYMENT BY INSTALMENTS, OR THAT THE DELIVERY OR PAYMENT OR BOTH SHALL BE POSTPONED. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE AGREEMENT TO PAY THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2.00 CRORES AT A FUTURE DATE, I.E., AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF DAUGHTER OF SHRI JANAKIRAM, IS A CASE OF 10 I.T.A. NO.51& 52/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 MERE POSTPONEMENT OF PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF A CONCLUDED SALE CONTRACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, SINCE THE PROPERTY IN 71,000 SHARES HAS ALREADY BEEN TRANSFERRED, THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE PAYMENT WOULD NOT INVALIDATE THE CONCLUDED SALE. ACCORDINGLY TH E LEARNED D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES ARE JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSING THE CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCRUAL BASIS. 19. THE LD D.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES AS WELL AS SHRI V. PRABU KISHORE HAS NOT DISOWNED THE LETTER. THOUGH THE ASSESSEES HAVE TRA NSFERRED 71,000 SHARES OUT OF 75,000 SHARES, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE BALANCE QUANTITY OF 4000 SHARES HAVE BEEN RETAINED ONLY TO ENSURE THE RECEIPT OF RS.2.00 CRORES STATED IN THE LETTER. HENCE THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER HAVE BEEN ACTED UP ON BY THE PARTIES AND ACCORDINGLY THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.00 CRORES STATED IN THE LETTER SHOULD BE TAKEN AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION PERTAINING TO 7.5% OF THE SHARES HELD BY THE ASSESSEES HEREIN. FURTHER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE LETTE R SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE PRESERVED IT TO ENFORCE THE PAYMENT OF RS.2.00 CRORES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SHRI JANAKIRAM HAS INITIALLY ACCEPTED THAT THE SAID CONSIDERATION WAS TOWARDS THE TRANSFER OF SHARES AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT, HE HAS C HANGED HIS VERSION AND STATED THAT THE SAME REPRESENTED GIFT AGREED TO BE GIVEN BY SHRI V. PRABU KISHORE. THE LEARNED D.R THE SECOND STATEMENT WAS MERE AN AFTERTHOUGHT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO NECESSITY TO STATE ABOUT THE GIFT IN THE LETTER WRITTE N FOR A BUSINESS TRANSACTION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO NECESSITY TO WRITE A SEPARATE LETTER TO SMT. A RAJYALAKSHMI, SINCE SHE WAS THE SPOUSE OF SHRI JANAKIRAM AND HENCE HIS DECISION SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO SMT. A RAJYALAKSHMI. 20. THE LD D.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ADDRESSED ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN A DETAILED MANNER AND ACCORDINGLY PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 11 I.T.A. NO.51& 52/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 21. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE WHOL E DISPUTE REVOLVES AROUND THE LETTER WRITTEN BY SRI V PRABHU KISHORE TO THE ASSESSEE SRI A JANAKIRAM, WHICH WAS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SRI A JANAKIRAM. WE HAVE EARLIER NOTICED THAT SRI A JANAKIRAM IS A DIRECTOR OF M/S. VARUN MOTORS PVT LTD ., AND HE, ALONG WITH HIS WIFE, HELD 75000 SHARES OF M/S. VARUN MOTORS PVT LTD., WHICH APPEARS TO BE 7.5% OF THE TOTAL SHAREHOLDING OF THE COMPANY. IN THE ABOVE SAID LETTER, SRI V PRABHU KISHORE HAS PROMISED TO PAY A CONSOLIDATED SUM OF RS.2 CRORES TOWARD S VALUE OF 7.5% SHAREHOLDING IN M/S. VARUN MOTORS PVT LTD. THE SAID PROMISE HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO MEAN THAT THE VALUE OF 7.5% OF SHAREHOLDING IS EQUIVALENT TO RS.2 CRORES. 22. WE NOTICE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT A MEMORAN DUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WAS ALSO ENTERED INTO BETWEEN SRI A JANAKIRAM AND SRI V PRABHU KISHORE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXTRACTED THE RELEVANT PARTS OF MOU IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER: MR JANAKI RAM SHALL NOT START ANY INDEPENDENT BUSINESS IN ISOLATION OF MR PRABHU KISHORE. EVERY BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY WILL BE TAKEN UP JOINTLY ONLY, UNLESS BOTH CAME TO AN UNDERSTANDING OTHERWISE. THE EXISTING PROPRIETORY CONCERN VARUN MOTORS, DEALING IN BAJAJ AUTO LTD BELONGING TO SRI V PRABHU KISHORE WILL CONTINUE TO BE EXCLUSIVE AND ANY FUTURE BUSINESS OPENING PROVIDED BY BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED WILL BE DEALT EXCLUSIVELY BY PROPRIETORY CONCERN M/S. VARUN MOTORS ONLY. SINCE, SRI V PRABHU KISHORE IS THE KEY PERSON FOR JOINT BUSINESS VENTURE OF MR JANAKI RAM AND SRI V PRABHU KISHORE, IN THE EVENT OF ANY DIFFERENCE OF OPINION OR DISPUTE, MR PRABHU KISHORES WORD SHALL BE THE FINAL WORD I.E. SRI V PRABHU KISHORE WILL HAVE A FINAL SAY. THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE MOU, IN OUR VIEW, ARE ALSO VERY MUCH RELEVANT: - FURTHER, THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ENTERED INTO BY MR. A. JANAKIRAM AND MR. V. PRABHU KISHORE CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT RS. 2 CRORES CONSIDERATION IS PROMISED TO BE GIVEN TO MR. A. JANAKIRAM BE CAUSE HE HAS ACCEDED HIS INTERESTS AND DID NOT START HIS OWN BUSINESS OPERATIONS SO AS TO DEFEAT THE OBJECTIVES OF VARUN MOTORS. 12 I.T.A. NO.51& 52/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 THUS, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ACCEPTS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.00 CRORES WAS PROMISED TO BE GIVEN FOR SURR ENDERING HIS INTERESTS AS WELL AS FOR NOT STARTING HIS OWN BUSINESS, I.E., AS NON - COMPETE FEE. 23. THE MOU REFERRED TO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE LETTER WRITTEN BY SHRI PRABU KISHORE APPEAR TO BE RELATED TO A COMMON AGREEMENT REACHED BETWEEN THE PAR TIES AND THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO VINDICATES THE SAID VIEW. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TERMS OF LETTER WAS NOT GIVEN EFFECT TO, WHERE AS THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE TRIED TO ESTABLISH ON THE BASIS OF SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE TERMS OF THE LETTER WAS GIVEN EFFECT TO. 24. WE SHALL NOW EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE ISSUE SUPPORT THE CASE OF ASSESSEE OR REVENUE. WE HAVE EARLIER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAVING REFERRED TO M OU ALSO, HAS PROCEEDED TO TREAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.2.00 CRORES AS REPRESENTING THE SALE VALUE OF 7.5% OF SHARE HOLDING. HOWEVER, AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CORROBORATE THE AMOUNT OF R S.2.00 CRORES AS REPRESENTING THE VALUE OF 7.5% OF THE SHARE HOLDING. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE VALUATION OF SHARES IS NORMALLY DONE IN A SCIENTIFIC MANNER CONSIDERING VARIOUS FACTORS LIKE THE BOOK VALUE OF SHARES, PAST FINANCIA L PERFORMANCE, FUTURE EARNING POTENTIALS ETC. IN THE CASE OF LISTED COMPANIES, THE MARKET VALUE OF SHARES COULD BE EASILY ASCERTAINED THROUGH PRICE AT WHICH THE SHARES ARE TRADED IN THE STOCK EXCHANGE. IN SPITE OF AVAILABILITY OF MARKET PRICE OF SHARES I N A LISTED COMPANY, YET THE EXERCISE OF VALUATION OF SHARES IS USUALLY UNDERTAKEN, WHENEVER THERE IS TRANSFER OF SHARES BETWEEN TWO GROUPS. IN THE CASE OF UNLISTED / PRIVATE COMPANIES, THE VALUATION OF SHARES IS AN EXERCISE THAT IS NECESSARILY CARRIED OUT IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE PRICE AT WHICH THE SHARES ARE TO BE TRANSFERRED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS NOT 13 I.T.A. NO.51& 52/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 SHOWN BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES THAT SUCH AN EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEES/ PRABHU KISHORE. EVEN IN THE SEARCH OPERATIONS ALSO, NO MATERIA L RELATING TO VALUATION OF SHARES WAS SEIZED. FURTHER THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE VALUE OF 7.5% OF SHARE HOLDINGS IN M/S. VARUN MOTORS PVT LTD. COULD BE RS.2.00 CRORES. WE NOTICE THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HA S OBSERVED THAT THE MARKET PRICE OF SHARES OF PVT LTD COMPANY WOULD BE MUCH MORE THAN THE BOOK VALUE IN VIEW OF THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE SHARES AND THE GOOD WILL OF THE CONCERN. THE SAID OBSERVATIONS MAY BE PARTIALLY TRUE, BUT WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE SHO WN IS THAT THE MARKET PRICE OF 7.5% OF SHARE HOLDING COULD BE RS.2.00 CRORES OR NOT. SECONDLY, WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE MOU WAS ALSO REACHED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THE SAME WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES IN ORDER TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER THE SAID MOU WAS GIVEN EFFECT TO OR NOT. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT THE NOTING FOUND IN A PIECE OF PAPER, IF NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, SHOULD BE CORROBORATED WITH OTHER MATERIALS. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERI AL ON RECORD TO ASCERTAIN INTRINSIC VALUE OF SHARES OF M/S. VARUN MOTORS PVT LTD., IN ORDER TO CORROBORATE THE AMOUNT OF RS.2 CRORES, WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF 75000 SHARES AND HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY T HE TAX AUTHORITIES THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2 CRORES ACTUALLY REPRESENTS THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF 7.5% OF SHARE HOLDING LACKS CREDENCE. 25. WE HAVE EARLIER NOTICED THAT SRI A JANAKIRAM AND SRI V PRABHU KISHORE HAS ALSO ENTERED INTO AN MOU AS PER WHICH, SHRI A JANAKIRAM WAS PROHIBITED FROM DOING ANY INDEPENDENT BUSINESS WHICH MAY AFFECT THE INTEREST OF M/S. VARUN MOTORS PVT LTD. WE HAVE ALSO EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE MOU AS WELL AS THE LETTER MAY PERTAIN TO THE COMMON AGREEMENT REACHED, SINCE NO PRUDEN T BUSINESSMAN WOULD AGREE TO OFFER HIGHER CONSIDERATION FOR A SHARE VALUE UNLESS IT IS COMBINED WITH SOME OTHER RIGHTS OF INTANGIBLE NATURE. WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE MOU CITED ABOVE, IN FACT, CREATES A NON - COMPETE RIGHT IN FAVOUR OF SRI V PRABHU KIS HORE. IN 14 I.T.A. NO.51& 52/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 THE LETTER WRITTEN BY SHRI PRABU KISHORE, HE HAS USED THE EXPRESSION CONSOLIDATED SUM AND THE WORD CONSOLIDATE USUALLY MEANS TO UNITE INTO ONE OR TO MERGE. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS POSSIBLE TO INFER THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.00 CRORES REPRESENT ED A CONSOLIDATED AMOUNT TOWARDS THE VALUE OF SHARES AS WELL AS FOR ACCEDING NON - COMPETE RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF SHRI PRABU KISHORE, IN WHICH CASE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.2.00 CRORES COULD NOT BE ASSIGNED TOWARDS THE VALUE OF SHARES, IF ONE AGREES WITH THE VIE W OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES THAT THE LETTER/MOU WAS GIVEN EFFECT TO. 26. WE NOTICE THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE CONSIDERED THE LETTER WRITTEN BY V. PRABU KISHORE IN ISOLATION WITHOUT TAKING THE MOU ALSO INTO ACCOUNT. WE NOTICE THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUG HT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE MOU WAS GIVEN EFFECT TO BY THE PARTIES THERETO. ACCORDING TO THE MOU, SHRI A. JANAKIRAM SHALL NOT START INDEPENDENT BUSINESS AND HE CAN DO THE BUSINESS JOINTLY WITH PRABU KISHORE. ACCORDING TO THE LD A.R., SRI A. JANAKIRAM CONTINUES TO OFFER HIS SERVICES TO M/S. VARUN MOTORS PVT LTD AS DONE EARLIER TO THE MOU AND ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LETTER WAS NOT GIVEN EFFECT TO. THIS FACT, IN OUR VIEW, SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MOU / LETTER WAS NOT GIVEN EFFECT TO. 27. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE SHRI A. JANAKIRAM HAS STATED IN THE SWORN STATEMENT THAT HE IS GETTING MONTHLY COMMISSION OF RS.50,000/ - FROM VMPL AND GETTING MONTHLY SALARY OF RS.15,000/ - FROM ANOTHER CONCERN NAMED M/S VARUN MOTORS. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DOUBT THAT HE WOULD NOT BE GETTING THESE PAYMENTS IF THE MOU WAS GIVEN EFFECT TO. HENCE THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES THAT THE MONTHLY COMMISSION OF RS.50,000/ - PAID TO SHRI JANAKIRAM ACTUALLY REPRESENT S THE GRATUITOUS PAYMENT MENTIONED IN THE LETTER DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CORRECT. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE SHRI JANAKIRAM HAS PRESERVED THE LETTER WITH THE INTENTION TO ENFORCE THE SAME IS ALSO AN INFERENCE DRAWN BY HIM, 15 I.T.A. NO.51& 52/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 WHE N BOTH JANAKIRAM AND SHRI PRABU KISHORE HAS OFFERED EXPLANATIONS ABOUT THE LETTER. FURTHER, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT TRANSFERRED THE ENTIRE 75,000 SHARES (I.E., 7.5% OF THE SHARE HOLDING) AS STATED IN THE LETTER, BUT ONLY 71,000 SHARES HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED. 28. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES THAT THE LETTER WAS ACTED UPON BY THE PARTIES AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.00 CRORES REPRESENTED THE VALUE OF 7.5% OF THE SHARE HOLDING IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL. ON THE CONTRARY, A COMBINED READING OF MOU AND THE LETTER WRITTEN BY SHRI V. PRABU KISHORE WOULD SHOW THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY TO INFER THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.00 CRORES WAS A CONSOLIDATED AMOUNT AGREED TO BE P AID TOWARDS THE VALUE OF SHARES AS WELL AS FOR NON - COMPETE AGREEMENT. THE VERY FACT THAT SHRI JANAKIRAM CONTINUE TO WORK IN THE VARUN MOTOR GROUPS SHOWS THAT THE MOU WAS NOT GIVEN EFFECT TO AND CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE LETTER WRITTEN BY SHRI PRABU KISHORE WAS NOT ACTED UPON. WE HAVE EARLIER NOTICED THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE DRAWN INFERENCES WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.00 CRORES AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION TOWARDS THE SHARES TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEES. SINCE WE HAVE HELD THAT THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES SHOW THAT THE MOU / LETTER WAS NOT GIVEN EFFECT TO AND THE AMOUNT OF R S.2.00 CRORES DOES NOT REPRESENT THE SALE VALUE OF SHARES ALONE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE QUESTION OF ACTUAL RECEIPT/PAYMENT OR ACCRUAL. 29. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY LEARNED CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE HANDS OF BOTH 16 I.T.A. NO.51& 52/VIZ/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 THE ASSESSEES HEREIN AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION CONTESTED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES. 30. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 /7/2015 . SD/ - SD/ - (D.MANMOHAN ) (B.R.BASKARAN) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 28 / 7 /2015 B.K.PARIDA , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT: SMT. A RAJYA LAKSHMI, /SHRI A. JANAKIRAM, D.NO.10 - 50 - 22/1, SIRIPURAM JUNCTION VISAKHAPATNAM 2. THE RESPONDENT : ITO, WARD - 3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM / DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM 3. THE CIT(A) - VISHAKHAPATNAM 4. CIT , VISHAKHAPATNAM 5. DR, ITAT, VISHAKHAPATNAM 6. / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, VISHAKHAPATNAM