A.Aravind LR of late A.Ramulu, Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 543/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2536 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B RAJARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Capital asset; Search and seizure; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 263; 63; 132

Judgement Text

ITA NO 543 OF 2016 A ARVIND LR OF SHRI A RAMULU HYD ERABAD. PAGE 1 OF 13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.543/HYD/2016 (BLOCK PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2000-01) SHRI A. ARAVIND LR OF SRI A. RAMULU HYDERABAD PAN: ABQPA 4168 K VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 9(1) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI K.A. SAI PRASAD FOR REVENUE : SHRI B. RAJA RAM, DR O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1991 -92 TO 2000-01. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEV ED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A)-7, HYDERABAD, DATED 18.12.20 15. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT CORRECT EITHER ON FACTS OR IN LAW AND IN BOTH. 2. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY FURTHER ENQUIRIES AS DIRECTED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. DATE OF HEARING: 05.07 . 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.10.2017 ITA NO 543 OF 2016 A ARVIND LR OF SHRI A RAMULU HYD ERABAD. PAGE 2 OF 13 3. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO VALID TRANSFER OF LAND TO ATTRACT CAPITAL GAIN TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 4. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FAILED TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS ON VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE ABSENCE OF NOTICES TO ALL THE LEGAL HEIRS. 5. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BRINGING TO TAX THE ENTIRE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ALONE IGNORING THE OTHER LEGAL HEIRS. 6. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE LATE A. RAMULU THE FATHER OF THE APPELLANT RECEIVED RS.11.74.000 ONLY FROM THE VENDOR. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SHRI A. RAMULU WHO, ALONG WI TH TWO OTHER GROUPS WAS THE CO-OWNER OF THE LAND ADMEASURING 101 64 SQUARE YARDS SITUATED AT SURVEY NO.102/1, 102/2, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD. THE OWNERS OF THE LAND WERE, I) SMT. N. ANDALAMMA AND HER RELATIVES HAVING 31.50 % SHARE IN THIS PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT OF 3202 SQ. YA RDS. ITA NO 543 OF 2016 A ARVIND LR OF SHRI A RAMULU HYD ERABAD. PAGE 3 OF 13 II) SHRI A. RAMULU AND HIS BROTHERS SRI A. ANJAIAH, SRI A. KESAVULU HOLDING JOINT PROPERTY OF 38.50% OF THE TO TAL AREA OF THE LAND I.E. 10164 SQ. YARDS. III) SHRI N. SRINIVAS, SRI N. GANESH AND SHRI N. RA JU HAVING 30% OF THE JOINT SHARE IN THE TOTAL OF THE L AND OF 10164 SQ. YARDS. 3. THE ENTIRE PROPERTY OF 10164 SQ. YARDS WAS SERVI CE INAMDARI LAND WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY ALLOTTED TO ONE SHRI NALKARI ANANTHAIAH AND SHRI A. CHENNAIAH AND THE THREE GROU PS OF PERSONS STATED ABOVE HAPPENED TO BE THE DESCENDANTS OF THE ORIGINAL OWNERS. TWO COMPANIES BY NAME M/S. SAI SRE E FINANCIAL AND M/S. SAI SREE PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD, OWNED BY ON E SHRI M. SAMBASIVA RAO HAD ENGAGED SHRI AMBATI SATYANARAYANA AS A MIDDLEMAN/BROKER ON THEIR BEHALF FOR INITIATING A P URCHASE DEAL FOR THE ENTIRE LAND OF 10164 SQ. YARDS FROM THE ABO VE THREE GROUPS OF PERSONS. IN SEPTEMBER, 1999, THE ENFORCEMENT DIR ECTORATE, GOVT. OF INDIA, HAD CONDUCTED CERTAIN INQUIRIES/INV ESTIGATIONS INTO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATIO N ACT, BY SHRI SAMBASIVA RAO, THE PROMOTER OF THE TWO COMPANIES ME NTIONED ABOVE, AND IT WAS FOUND THAT HE HAD RECEIVED CERTAI N SECRET COMMISSION FROM A SUPPLIER OF UREA FROM TURKEY WITH OUT THE ITA NO 543 OF 2016 A ARVIND LR OF SHRI A RAMULU HYD ERABAD. PAGE 4 OF 13 AUTHORITY FROM THE RBI AND THAT SUCH SECRET COMMISS ION WAS USED BY HIM TO PURCHASE THE 10164 SQ. YARDS OF LAND LOCA TED AT NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD FROM THE ABOVE THREE GROUPS OF PERSONS SOMETIME IN THE YEAR 1995-96. 4. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE DEPARTMENTAL INFORMATI ON, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE OFFICE OF SHRI AMBATI SATYANARAYANA IN JUNE, 20 00 AND SEVERAL INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND SEIZED . FROM THE SAID SEIZED MATERIAL, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ABOVE T HREE GROUPS OF PERSONS, WHO WERE THE OWNERS OF THE LAND AT NAMPALL Y HAVE RECEIVED CERTAIN SALE CONSIDERATION. ON THE BASIS O F SUCH MATERIAL, THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER CO-O WNERS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1995-96, WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THEIR REGULAR RETURNS OF INCOME FILED. HE, THEREFORE, ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT TH EREAFTER BRINGING CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM SUCH TRANSFER O F LAND TO TAX. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAID ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE CIT (A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE CAME IN FURTHER APPEAL TO THE ITAT. ITA NO 543 OF 2016 A ARVIND LR OF SHRI A RAMULU HYD ERABAD. PAGE 5 OF 13 5. MEANWHILE, THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, HAD REVIS ED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WAS ALSO CHALLENGED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE ITAT . THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN IT(SS) NO.20/HYD/2007 AND 46/HYD/2009 OBSERVED THAT THE IT AT IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER CO-OWNER SMT. N. ANDALAMMA HAD SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT FOR RE-CONSIDERATION ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PURCHASER, M/S. SAI SREE PROJECTS , HAS ALSO BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE AO. 6. AS REGARDS 263 ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL IN IT(SS)A NO . 3/HYD/09 HAD SET ASIDE THE SAME TO THE CIT ON THE G ROUND THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS OFFERED OR EXT ENDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT, CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL, OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE R EVISED AS THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAD SET ASIDE THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER, YET HE DIRECTED THE AO TO DO THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING HIS DIRECTIONS TO CONSIDER THE FACTS RE LATING TO QUANTUM OF ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE LAND I.E., 1/3 RD OF THE LAND, AND TO ADOPT EXACT SALE CONSIDERATION INSTEAD OF AP PROXIMATE VALUE AS ADOPTED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, AFTER PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE CIT AND ITA NO 543 OF 2016 A ARVIND LR OF SHRI A RAMULU HYD ERABAD. PAGE 6 OF 13 THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE SAME HOLDING THAT TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT IN M.A. NO.133/HYD/2014, DATED 15.10.20 14 SHOULD BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN IT(SS)A NO.3/HYD/2009 IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAD MOD IFIED ITS EARLIER ORDER STATING THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE AND THE CIT MAY WAIT FOR THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE PAS SED BY THE AO IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ONLY IF WARRANTED MAY CONSIDER INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 2 63 OF THE ACT AGAIN. 7. CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, THE AO COMP LETED THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH. DURING SUCH ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE, MR. RAMULU, HAD DIED AND IS SURVIVED BY T HREE SONS (I) ARAVIND ARYA, (II) A. VEER RAGHUVEERAYA AND (III) A . JAYAVEERAYA AND PRAYED THAT ALL THE THREE PERSONS BE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS HIS LEGAL HEIRS. THE AO HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT A NY LEGAL HEIR CERTIFICATE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBMITTED THAT L ATE A. RAMULUS SHARE SHOULD BE APPORTIONED INTO FOUR PORTIONS AS T HE ASSESSEES MOTHER, SMT. Y. YASHODAMMA HAD WILLED HER SHARE OF THE LAND TO ONE SHRI N. NARSIMHA, WHO HAD ALSO OFFERED THE CAPI TAL GAIN TO TAX ITA NO 543 OF 2016 A ARVIND LR OF SHRI A RAMULU HYD ERABAD. PAGE 7 OF 13 IN HIS HANDS. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO, ON THE GROUND THAT THE COPY OF THE W ILL WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HER. 8. AS REGARDS THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVE D BY SRI A. RAMULU AND HIS TWO BROTHERS TO BE ONLY RS.54 .00 LAKHS, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME. SHE RELIED UPON THE NOT INGS IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS RS.10.00 CRORES WHICH WORKED OUT TO BE RS. 9,838.65 PER SQ. YARD. THEREFORE, SHE TREATED THE S HARE OF THE LAND OF SRI RAMULU TO BE 1/3 RD I.E., 1304.33 SQ. YARDS AND WORKED OUT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.1,28,32,846 AND CO MPUTED THE TAX ACCORDINGLY. 9. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT (A) OBJECTING TO THE ASSESSMENT AND ALSO BRINGI NG TO HIS NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED THE ISSUE TO BE EXAM INED AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED IN THE CASE OF THE CO-OWNER SMT. N. ANDALAMMA AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF M/S SAI S REE PROJECTS (P) LTD. THE CIT (A) HOWEVER, CONFIRMED THE ORDER O F THE AO BUT DIRECTED THAT THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE, SRI RAMULU , IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS 978.275 SQ. YARDS ONLY. FOR COMING TO THIS ITA NO 543 OF 2016 A ARVIND LR OF SHRI A RAMULU HYD ERABAD. PAGE 8 OF 13 CONCLUSION, HE ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, MR. A. R AMULUS MOTHER HAD WILLED HER SHARE OF THE PROPERTY IN FAVO UR OF ONE SHRI N. NARASIMHA, WHO HAS ALSO BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX FOR THE CAPITAL GAIN. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF THE CIT (A), THE A SSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI K.A. SAI PRASAD REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE A UTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE THREE GROUPS OF PERSON S, WHO WERE THE OWNERS OF THE LAND, ALLEGEDLY ENTERED INTO AN A GREEMENT WITH MR. SAMBASIVA RAO FOR THE SALE OF THEIR LAND AT NAM PALLY BUT DUE TO THE INQUIRY BY THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, THE TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE FINALIZED AND THE POSSESSION WAS NEVER HANDED OVER TO THE VENDEES. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SMT. N. ANDALAMMA HAD BEE N SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR RE-CONSIDERATION, IN VIEW OF TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT CASE OF THE VENDEE, SRI SAI PROJECTS (P) LTD, HAD ALSO BEEN SET ASIDE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE EARLIER RO UND OF LITIGATION BEFORE THE ITAT, ALL THESE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO TH E NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD SET ASIDE THE ASSESSM ENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF THE AO BY DIRECTING THE AO TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SMT. ITA NO 543 OF 2016 A ARVIND LR OF SHRI A RAMULU HYD ERABAD. PAGE 9 OF 13 N. ANDALAMMA. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FAC T THAT AS PER THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ORDER, THE ASSESSEES F ATHER AND HIS GROUP HAD RECEIVED ONLY RS.54.00 LAKHS AS SALE CONS IDERATION BUT THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO. HE DRE W OUR ATTENTION TO THE VARIOUS VARIATIONS IN THE NOTINGS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AS TO THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO WITH REGARD TO THE REGISTRATION CHARGES IN CURRED FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY BY MR. SAMBASIVA RAO. HE D REW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT AT ONE PLACE, REGISTRATI ON CHARGES ARE MENTIONED AS RS. 1.4 CRORES, WHEREAS AT ANOTHER PLA CE, RS. 2 CRORES IS MENTIONED WHEREAS THE ACTUAL REGISTRATION CHARGES INCURRED WAS RS.16.00 LAKHS (APPROXIMATELY) ONLY. T HEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE SEIZED MATERIAL IS NOT RELIAB LE AND CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION. HE ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS NEVER HANDED OVER TO THE VENDEES AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO TRANSFER WARRANTING, BR INGING OF CAPITAL GAIN TO TAX. 11. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE APPLICATION MADE BEFORE THE AO AND ALSO BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INFORMING THAT SHRI A. RAMULU H AD EXPIRED AND IS SURVIVED BY THREE SONS, WHO ARE TO BE BROUGH T ON RECORD AS ITA NO 543 OF 2016 A ARVIND LR OF SHRI A RAMULU HYD ERABAD. PAGE 10 OF 13 THE LEGAL HEIRS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEI NG ONE OF THE SONS OF SHRI A. RAMULU, ONLY HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RE CORD AS A LEGAL HEIR AND THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GAIN IS BROUGHT T O TAX IN HIS HANDS, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. THUS, THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSMENT BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT AFTER BRINGING ALL THE LRS ON RECORD AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE AS SESSMENTS MADE IN THE CASE OF THE CO-OWNER, SMT. N. ANDALAMMA AS W ELL AS THE VENDEE M/S SRI SAI SREE PROJECTS (P) LTD AS DIRECTE D BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS. 12. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 13. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ITAT IN THE EARLIER PRO CEEDINGS, HAD CLEARLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND HAD SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF THE AO OBSERVING THAT THE CASES OF THE VENDEE SHRI SAI SREE PROJECTS AND THE CO-OWNER, SMT. N. ANDALAMMA H AVE BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. CONSEQUENT TO THIS DIRECTION, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE H ANDS OF THE VENDEE AS WELL AS THE CO-OWNER BEFORE COMPLETING TH E ASSESSMENT ITA NO 543 OF 2016 A ARVIND LR OF SHRI A RAMULU HYD ERABAD. PAGE 11 OF 13 IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TO ADOPT A UNIFORM AND RATIONAL APPROACH. FURTHER, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS INITIALLY COMPLETED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI A. RAMULU, WHO HAS D IED THEREAFTER, AND ALL HIS LEGAL HEIRS HAVE TO BE BROU GHT ON RECORD TO BRING TO TAX HIS INCOME. THOUGH THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO THAT S HRI A. RAMULU IS SURVIVED BY THREE SONS, THE AO HAS REFUSED TO BR ING THEM ON RECORD STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE LEGAL HEIR CERTIFICATE. WE CANNOT FIND FAULT WITH THIS APPROAC H OF THE AO, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE LEGAL HEIR CER TIFICATE EVEN BEFORE US AT THIS STAGE. BUT, THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE SUCH CERTIFICATE EVEN AT THIS STAGE. FURTHER, WE ARE ALSO OF THE OP INION THAT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE CIT (A) HAVE CORRECTLY FOLLOWED THE EARLIER DIRECTIONS OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. I N VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR BRINGING ALL THE LEGAL HEIRS OF SHRI A. RAMULU ON R ECORD AND TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE AND THE OTHER LEGAL HEIRS DE NOVO AFTER MAKING DUE INQUIRIES WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE HANDS OF SMT. N. ANDALAMMA A ND ALSO VENDEE M/S. SRI SAI SREE PROJECTS (P) LTD AND ALSO AFTER MAKING DUE INQUIRIES WITH REGARD TO ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS THAT ITA NO 543 OF 2016 A ARVIND LR OF SHRI A RAMULU HYD ERABAD. PAGE 12 OF 13 POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS NEVER HANDED OVER TO THE VENDEES AND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION PERMISSION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE OTHER CO-OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, TO COME TO A CONCLUSION ON THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE IS A TRANSFER OF THE P ROPERTY. THE AO IS THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO COMPLETE ALL THE INQUIRIE S BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE. SINCE THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL AGAINST THE FINDINGS O F THE CIT (A) THAT THE EXTENT OF LAND OF 978.285 SQ. YARDS ONLY I S TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, SRI A. RAMULU, AND THE CAPITAL GAIN IS BE COMPUTED ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT DISTURB THIS FINDING OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO FOLLOW THE SAME WHI LE BRINGING THE CAPITAL GAIN, IF ANY, TO TAX. 14. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH OCTOBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 4 TH OCTOBER, 2017. VINODAN/SPS ITA NO 543 OF 2016 A ARVIND LR OF SHRI A RAMULU HYD ERABAD. PAGE 13 OF 13 COPY TO: 1 C/O CH. PARTHASARATHY & CO. 1-1-298/2/B/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOWBHAGYA AVENUE, STREET NO.1, ASHOKNAGAR, HYDERABA D 500020 2 DY. CIT, CIRCLE 9(1) 2 ND FLOOR, D-BLOCK, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A) - 7 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 7 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER