V.Srinivas, Visakhapatnam V. THE ITO, Visakhapatnam

ITA 545/VIZ/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2336 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALIK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Salary income; Source of fund; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 201; 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / I . T .A.NO. 5 4 5 /V IZ /201 4 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 7 - 0 8 ) SRI V.SRINIVASU D.NO.1 - 111 PARADESIPALEM VISAKHAPATNAM [PAN : ACTPV4040J] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 ( 2 ) VISAKHAPATNAM ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : S HRI G.V.N.HARI , A R / RESPONDENT BY : S MT.SUMAN MALIK, D R / DATE OF HEARING : 29 . 0 7 . 201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .0 8 . 201 9 / O R D E R P ER SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)], VISAKHAPATNAM VIDE I.T.A. NO.1005/2013 - 14/ITO,W - 2(2),VSP/2014 - 15 DATED 16.09.2014 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.)2007 - 08. 2 I.T.A. NO .545/VIZ/2014. A.Y.2007 - 08 V.SRINIVASU., VISAKHAPATNAM 2. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE ASSESSEE RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT) AND ARGUED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS A LEGAL GROUND WHI CH GOES TO THE RO OT OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) AND THE COMPLETE FACTS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WITH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND NO VERIFICATION OR INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUND. THEREFORE REQUEST ED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS STATE D TO BE PURELY LEGAL GROUND WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE FURTHER INV ESTIGATION. THEREFORE, WE ADMIT THE ADDITION GROUND. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS INVALID AND CONSEQUENTLY WHETHER THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS VOID - AB - INITIO? 4. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS RELATED TO THE VALIDITY OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS INVALID, HENCE REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING THE ASSESSEE 3 I.T.A. NO .545/VIZ/2014. A.Y.2007 - 08 V.SRINIVASU., VISAKHAPATNAM SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE WAS REOPEN ED FOR ASSESSMENT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN CANARA BANK AMOUNTING TO RS.3 1 . 0 0 LAKHS. THE AO FORMED A BELIEF BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE GPA HOLDER AND TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY IN THE SAME CAPACITY, THUS, THE SOURCES OF DEPOSITS MADE IN CANARA BANK CANNOT BE MADE FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS, THUS THE SOURCE REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND ACCORDINGLY ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE , THE AO HAD REOPENED THE ASSE SSMENT FOR ESCAPING THE INCOME REPRESENTING THE DEPOSITS THE SAME REQUIRED TO BE TAXED AS UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT . SINCE HE DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT , THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS TO BE TREATED AS INVALID AND THE AO IS NOT PERMITTED TO MAKE ANY OTHER ADDITION UNLESS THE AO MAKES ADDITION REPRESENTING UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. ACCORDINGLY ARGUED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS INVALID AND THE BELIEF FORMED BY THE AO IS CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE MATERIAL CONSIDERED BY HIM FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY LIVE NEXUS WITH SUCH INFORMATION. HENCE, ARGUED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS INVALID AND REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 4 I.T.A. NO .545/VIZ/2014. A.Y.2007 - 08 V.SRINIVASU., VISAKHAPATNAM 5 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR ARGUED THAT THE A O FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSITS OF RS.31 LAKHS AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2010 OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.37.80 LAKHS RELATING TO SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 1.26 ACRES IN THE YEAR 2006 - 07 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y .2007 - 08 . AS PER THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY IN THE CAPACITY OF GPA HOLDER BUT NOT AS THE OWNER, THUS, THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE PRESUMED FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICUL TURAL LAND THUS THE SOURCE FOR DEPOSIT REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. HENCE, THE AO FORMED A BELIEF THAT THE INCOME OF RS.37.80 LAKHS HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE LD.DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE AO HAS FORMED THE BELIEF THAT THE SUM OF RS.37.80 LAKHS REQUIR ED TO BE TAXED AS UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE SUM OF RS.37.80 LAKHS WAS SOURCED FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAX. THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT ADMITTED THE ABOVE SUM OF RS.37.80 LAKHS FOR CAPITAL GAINS FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 THOUGH IT WAS LIABLE FOR TAX. SINCE IT IS SAME TRANSACTION AND THE SUBJECT MATTER IS ON E AND THE SAME, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE NOMENCLATURE GIV EN IN REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT DOES NOT MATCH THE SAME S HOULD NOT LEAD TO INVALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148. SINCE 5 I.T.A. NO .545/VIZ/2014. A.Y.2007 - 08 V.SRINIVASU., VISAKHAPATNAM THE TRANSACTION IS SAME AND THE SUBJECT MATTER BEING ONE AND THE SAME, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE SAME. THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), HENCE ARGUED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) REQUIRED TO BE UPHELD. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSMENT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS 2007 - 08. THE ASSESSEE WAS DERIVING INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY, BUSINESS AND OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y.2007 - 08 , THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.1,51,600/ - AND THE SAID RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). NO A SSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE A.Y.2010 - 11, THE AO CAME TO KNOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE INTEREST AND HAVING FIXED DEPOSITS WITH CANARA BANK TO THE TUNE OF RS.31.00 LAKHS AND THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS WAS CLAIMED TO BE FROM THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND . T HE AO HAS NOTED FROM THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED THAT THE ASSESSEE AFFECTED THE SALE IN THE CAPACITY OF GPA HOLDER AND THEREFORE, THE AO TOOK VIEW THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS WOULD NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. AC CORDINGLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT STATING THAT THE SUM OF RS.37.80 6 I.T.A. NO .545/VIZ/2014. A.Y.2007 - 08 V.SRINIVASU., VISAKHAPATNAM LAKHS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WHICH HAD ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT PARA NO.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH EXPLAINS THE REASONS LEADING TO REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND READS AS UNDER : 02. LATER ON IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSIT OF RS.31 LAKHS IN CANARA BANK (AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET S ON 31.3.2010) OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.37.80 LAKHS DERIVED FROM SALE OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1.26 ACRES IN THE YEAR 2006 - 07. AS PER THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE, HE HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY ONLY I N THE CAPACITY OF GPA HOLDER. HENCE, THE SOURCES OF DEPOSIT MADE IN CANARA BANK REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THUS, THE UNDERSIGNED HAS REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF RS.37.80 LAKHS, UNDER UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE A CT AND IT IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 TO REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2007 - 08. 6 .1 . FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(1) AND NO ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) . DURING THE F.Y.2006 - 07, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.37.80 LAKHS OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF RS.31 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED IN CANARA BANK AND RECEIVING THE INTEREST FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS WERE ACQUIRED TO TH E EXTENT OF 1.26 ACRES VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 21.04.2004 ON 07.05.2004 UNDER SY.NO.46/2 IN PARADESHIPALEM FOR A SUM OF RS.4.00 LAKHS INCLUDING REGISTRATION FEE AND STAMP DUTY AND SOLD 0.76 CENTS TO M/S DHATRI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., 7 I.T.A. NO .545/VIZ/2014. A.Y.2007 - 08 V.SRINIVASU., VISAKHAPATNAM VISAKHAPAT NAM FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.22,80,000/ - AND 0.50CENTS TO GUMMA V.S.S.NAGESH, SRIKAKULAM FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.15,00,000/ - . THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE SUM OF RS.37.80 LAKHS TOWARDS SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 A ND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALSO NOT MADE BY THE AO U/.S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WAS TO EXAMINE THE SOURCES OF BANK DEPOSITS MADE IN THE CANARA BANK FOR WHICH THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SOURCE WAS UNEXPLAINED. THOUGH THE SOURCE WAS STATED TO BE EXPLAINED AS SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 1.26 ACRES, THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE NOT ADMITTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAIN S TAX AND THE SALE WAS MADE AS A GPA HOLDER AS PER THE DOCUMENT FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO FOR THE A.Y.2010 - 11. THOUGH THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS FOR DEPOSITS MADE IN CANARA BANK, THE SAME WERE MADE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER FOR TAX IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.AR TO HOLD THAT THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR TAXING THE UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND HAVING FAILED TO TAX THE UN EXPLAINED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS TO HELD BAD IN LAW. THOUGH THE AO 8 I.T.A. NO .545/VIZ/2014. A.Y.2007 - 08 V.SRINIVASU., VISAKHAPATNAM HAS WRONGLY GIVEN NOMENCLATURE AS UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADMIT THE SUM OF RS.31 LAKHS FOR INCOME TAX PURP OSE. THE SUM OF RS.31 LAKHS WAS SOURCED FROM THE SALE OF LAND WHICH ATTRACTS CAPITAL GAINS TAX. SINCE THE TRANSACTION WAS THE SAME AND THE SUBJECT MATTER IS ALSO THE SAME, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR A DIFFERENT ISSUE. IT IS NOT A CASE OF NEW FACTS AND ISSUES ARE TOTALLY UNCONNECTED WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER FOR REOPENING. AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE LD.CIT(A), THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE SOURCE OF IMPUGNED RECEIPT AND TAXABILITY FROM COMPLEMENTARY ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE S AME TRANSACTION WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT AND HAS COME TO THE NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AO HAS FORMED A BELIEF CONTRADICTORY TO THE INFORMA TION CONTAINED IN THE MATERIAL CONSIDERED BY HIM. THE FACT IS THAT AS PER THE SALE DEED, THE SALE WAS EXECUTED AS GPA HOLDER. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 WAS COMPLETE U/S 143(1), THE AO NEITHER CALLED FOR ANY INFORMATION NOR FORMED ANY OPIN ION WITH REGARD TO SALE TRANSACTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. JET AIRWAYS (I) LTD. (2011) 331 ITR 236. 9 I.T.A. NO .545/VIZ/2014. A.Y.2007 - 08 V.SRINIVASU., VISAKHAPATNAM THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IF , AFTE R ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148, THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLDS THAT THE INCOME WHICH HE HAS INITIALLY FORMED A REASON TO BELIEVE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AS A MATTER OF FACT NOT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT IS NOT OPEN TO HIM INDEPE NDENTLY TO ASSESSEE SOME OTHER INCOME. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HAS FORMED AN OPINION FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME RELATING TO THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.31 LAKHS. THE SAID INCOME WAS NOT ADMITTED AS TAX BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER TH E HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE SUM OF RS.3 7.80 LAKHS HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WHICH THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT UNDER CAPITAL GAINS. A T THE TIME OF FORMING THE BELIEF THE AO VIEWED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, WHEREAS THE SAID DEPOSIT HAS TAKEN THE SHAPE OF CAPITAL GAINS WITH LARGER AMOUNT. MERELY BECAUSE THE NOMENCLATURE IS DIFFERENT, WHEN THE TRANSAC TION AND THE SUBJECT MATTER IS THE SAME, THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE LD.AR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - III VS. SWA RNA ANDHRA IJMII INTEGRATED TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, 10 I.T.A. NO .545/VIZ/2014. A.Y.2007 - 08 V.SRINIVASU., VISAKHAPATNAM HYDERABAD. THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE HON BLE HIGH COURT RENDERED THE JUDGEMENT IS ON FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH READS AS UNDER : THUS, IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT THE REASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE FOR ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OTHER THAN THE INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT AS PER THE REASONS RECORDED FOR FORMATION OF BELIEF WHILE INITIATING PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 6.2. IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO NEW ISSUE HAS CROPPED UP, SUBSEQUENTLY ON NEW SET OF FACTS. THE REASON FORMING BELIEF WAS DEPOSIT OF RS.31.00 LAKHS WHICH WAS SOURCED FROM THE SALE OF LAND WHICH ATTRACT S THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER THE SAME FOR TAXATION. THUS THE ISSUE FOR REOPENING AND ADDITION MADE IS ONE AND THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH OF ANDHRA PRADESH HAS NO APPLICATION IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE ASSES SEE ALSO RELIED ON THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAY HARISCHANDRA PATEL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (2018) 167 DTR (GUJ) 475. IN THE CITED CASE, THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF IN COME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, RESULTING IN ESCAPEMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS, BUT WHEREAS SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATED THAT IT HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING THE CAPITAL GAINS, THEREFORE, THE ABOVE CASE LAW ALSO DOES NOT H ELP THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY ISSUED 11 I.T.A. NO .545/VIZ/2014. A.Y.2007 - 08 V.SRINIVASU., VISAKHAPATNAM NOTICE U/S 148, ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND. 6.3. WITH REGARD TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) FOUND TH AT THE IMPUGNED LAND WAS SOLD FOR NON AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE AND ADMITTED THAT THE SAID LAND IS SITUATED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF GVMC. THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION ATTRACTS CAPITAL GAINS TAX AND ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD.AR DID NOT ADVANCE ANY ARGUMENTS ON MERITS OF THE CASE. SINCE THE SAID LAND IS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF GVMC AND THE LAND WAS SOLD FOR NON AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES TO NON AGRICULTURISTS, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH AUGUST, 2019. S D/ - S D/ - ( . ) ( . . ) (V. DURGA RAO) ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM /DATED : 30 .0 8 .2019 L.RAMA, SPS 12 I.T.A. NO .545/VIZ/2014. A.Y.2007 - 08 V.SRINIVASU., VISAKHAPATNAM / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / THE ASSESSEE - SRI V.SRINIVASU , D.NO.1 - 111 , PARADESIPALEM , VISAKHAPATNAM 2. / THE REVENUE - INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2( 2 ), VISAKHAPATNAM 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2 , VI SAKHAPATNAM 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VISAKHAPATNAM 5 . , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM