DCIT, Hyderabad V. Smt KUsha Reddy, Hyderabad

ITA 671/HYD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3393 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C DEVADAS
• Assessee Lawyers: K E SUNIL BABU
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Block assessment; Capital Gains

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B ', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER APPEAL NO. ASST YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(SS)A NO.40/HYD/2005 BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1996-97 TO 2001- 02 AND FROM 1.4.2001 TO 12.2.2002 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4, HYDERABAD SHRI K.CHENNA REDDY (HUF), HYDERABAD (PAN AABHK 3105M) ITA NO. 671/HYD/2007 2000-01 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), HYDERABAD SMTR. K.USHA REDDY, HYDERABAD (PAN AURPK 6649 E) ITA NO. 672/HYD/2007 2000-01 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), HYDERABAD SHRI K.CHENNA REDDY, HYDERABAD (PAN ADFPK 3615 D) APPELLANTS BY : SHRI K.E.SUNIL BABU RESPONDENT S BY : SHRI K.C.DEVADAS O R D E R PER G.C.GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT: THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. IT(SS)A NO.40/HYD/2005: 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL, WHICH RELATES TO THE BLOCK PERIOD COVERING ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM 199 6-97 TO 2001-02 AND FROM 1.4.2001 TO 13.2.2002, ARE AS UNDER- IT(SS)A NO.40/HYD/ 05 & TWO OTHERS SHRI K.CHENNA REDDY (HUF), HYD AND TWO OTHERS 2 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS ERRONE OUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPREC IATED THE FACT THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 10-2-2000 E NTERED INTO WITH RAJA SYNDICATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD., THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS HANDED OVER AFTER RECEIVING PART CO NSIDERATION. IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(47)(V) OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT READ WITH S.53A OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT ONC E THE POSSESSION IS HANDED OVER, THE TRANSACTION IS TREAT ED AS COMPLETE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXING THE CAPITAL GAIN S. AS SUCH THE CAPITAL GAIN IS ASSESSABLE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD SINCE AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE SAME IN ITS REGULAR RETURN. ONE OF TH E SIGNATORIES TO THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 10-2-2000 IN FAVOUR OF RAJA SYNDICATE CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND TO THE FINAL CONV EYANCE DEED DTD.27.6.2000 IN FAVOUR OF YASURAJA SYNDICATE AND C ONSTRUCTION P. LTD. IS SHRI K.SRINIVASA RAO. THESE DOCUMENTS HA VE BEEN SIGNED BY HIM IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF BOTH THE COMPANIES. THE FINAL CONVEYANCE DEED WAS MADE IN F AVOUR OF YESURAJA SYNDICATE AND CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. I N PLACE OF THE ORIGINAL VENDEE VIZ. RAJA SYNIDCATE CONSTRUCTION CO MPANY LTD. THIS HAS BEEN DONE BECAUSE RAJA SYNDICATE CONSTRUCT ION COMPANY LTD. WAS DENIED REGISTRATION UNDER THE COMP ANIES ACT. MERELY BECAUSE THE FINAL CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 27.0 6.2000 IS IN FAVOUR OF YASURAJA SYNDICATE AND CONSTRUCTION PV T. LTD., IT WILL NOT IN ANY WAY AFFECT THE BASIC CHARACTER OF T HE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO AS PER THE EARLIER AGREEMENT DATED 10- 2-2000 WITH RAJA SYNDICATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. 3. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT OF SALE ENTERED INTO WITH M/S. RAJA S YNDICATE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS HANDED OVER BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER RECEIVING PART CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE, IN TERM S OF PROVISIONS OF S.2(47)(V) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH S. 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, THE TRANSACTION STANDS COMPLETE FOR T HE PURPOSE OF TAXING THE CAPITAL GAINS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS ASSESSABLE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD SINCE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTI ON, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE TRANSACTION IN ITS REGULAR RETURN. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PART PERFORMANCE IN PURSUANCE OF THE AGREEMENT WAS COMPL ETED IN THIS CASE AND THEREFORE THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS RIGHTLY TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACT ION OF SALE OF CAPITAL IT(SS)A NO.40/HYD/ 05 & TWO OTHERS SHRI K.CHENNA REDDY (HUF), HYD AND TWO OTHERS 3 ASSET RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND T IME FOR FILING THE RETURN THEREOF HAS ALREADY EXPIRED AND THE SEARCH WAS COND UCTED ON THE 8.2.2001. HE RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S. G.SAROJA(301 ITR 124); AND OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I N ATLAS AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD. V/S. ITO(313 ITR (AT) 398) IN 301 ITR 124(MAD); 313 ITR (AT) 398(MUM) IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IF THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS IS TAXED IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHENNA REDDY(HUF), THE ASSESSEE, T HEN IT COULD NOT BE AGAIN TAXED IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHENNA REDDY(IND) AND S MT.USHA REDDY, WIFE OF SHRI CHENNA REDDY. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE AS PER THE AGREEMENT WAS OUT OF HUF FUNDS AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THIS ISSUE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, AND THER EFORE, THERE IS NO BASIS WHATSOEVER FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION IN THE OTHER TWO CONNECTED CASES OF SHRI CHENNA REDDY(IND) AND SMT. K.USHA REDDY, WIFE OF SH RI CHENNA REDDY. HE REFERRED TO COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 5.8 .1997 BETWEEN THE FACT EMPLOYEES (HYD) CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY AND THE ASSE SSEE AND ALSO ANOTHER AGREEMENT DATED 5.8.1997 BETWEEN M/S. FACT EMPLOYEE S (HYD) CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY AND SMT.K.USHA REDDY, WIFE OF SHRI K.CHENNA REDDY. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE AS SESSEE EVER GOT POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION AND THEREFORE, THE BASIC CO NDITION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S.2(47)(V) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ARE NOT SATI SFIED IN THIS CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT WAS EXE CUTED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI CHENNA REDDY, WITHOUT ANY MENTION THAT HE HAS EXECUTED THE AGREEMENT IN HIS CAPACITY AS KARTA AND MANAGER OF HIS HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS N OT ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE HUF AND FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIE D ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN V.D.DHANWATEY V/S. CIT (68 IT R 365)-SC. HE REFERRED TO COPIES OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED IN THE COMPILA TION AT PAGES 8 TO 26 TO IT(SS)A NO.40/HYD/ 05 & TWO OTHERS SHRI K.CHENNA REDDY (HUF), HYD AND TWO OTHERS 4 SHOW THE FLOW OF FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE-HUF AND THAT THE AMOUNT INVESTED AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT OF SALE BY THE ASSESSEE CAME FROM HIS HUF FUNDS ONLY. HE REFERRED TO THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2000 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS WI FE WITH M/S. RAJA SYNDICATE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD, IN SUPPORT OF HIS P LEA THAT POSSESSION OF LAND WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY AN AGREEMENT HOLDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPANY M/S. RAJA SY NDICATE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. WAS NEVER INCORPORATED AS A COMPANY WITH T HE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, AND THEREFORE, THE SAID AGREEMENT COUL D NOT BE ACTED UPON. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE DEED WAS IN FACT EXECUTED O N 27.6.2000 BETWEEN M/S. FACT EMPLOYEES (HYD) CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY AN D M/S. YESURAJA SYNDICATE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., WHEREIN THE VACANT AND PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS HANDED OVER TO THE VENDEES. THIS TRANSACTION DATED 27.6.2000 RELATES TO THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2001-02 AND THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RELATION THERETO WAS DUE ON 31. 7.2001 AND ON THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E. 8.2.2001, THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT DUE TO BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF IN COME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER THE ACT ON 31.7.2001 AND THE PROFIT ON THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF LAND WAS DECLA RED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE-HUF. 5. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN HIS REJO INDER HAS REFERRED TO THE CONTENTS OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE D ATED 10.2.2000 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE ON THE ONE HAND AND M/S. RAJA SYNDICAT E CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ON THE OTHER WHEREIN THE FACT OF SALE OF THE LAND I N QUESTION WORTH RS.72 LAKHS WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED. HE SUBMITTED THAT MERE LY BECAUSE THE COMPANY NAMED M/S. RAJA SYNDICATE & CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. CO ULD NOT BE REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE AGREEMENT ITSELF WAS INVALID AND THE CAPITAL GAINS RESULTING THEREFR OM WAS NOT ASSESSABLE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. HE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO THE PART IT(SS)A NO.40/HYD/ 05 & TWO OTHERS SHRI K.CHENNA REDDY (HUF), HYD AND TWO OTHERS 5 PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT AND HANDING OVER OF TH E POSSESSION, THE PROVISIONS OF S.2(47) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT READ WI TH RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT STAND SATISFIED AND TH E CAPITAL GAINS ARE CLEARLY TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). WE HAVE PERUSED THE COPIES OF THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IN ITS COMPILATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE FIND THAT THE COPIES OF THE FLOW OF FUNDS ALONGWITH THE COPIES OF THE INCOME TAX RECORD FILED BY THE ASSESS EE AT PAGES 8 TO 26 OF THE ASSESSEES COMPILATION, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS INVESTED THE FUNDS IN THE TRANSACTION OUT OF ITS HUF FUNDS ONLY. WE FIND THAT THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE INVESTMENT OF FUNDS IN THE TRANSACTION WAS OUT OF T HE HUF FUNDS ONLY. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CERTIFICATE FROM COMP ANY SECRETARY TO THE EFFECT THAT NO COMPANY IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. RAJA SYNDICATE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. WAS EXISTING. THE COMPANY SECRETARY HAS FURTHER CERTIFIED THAT ANOTHER COMPANY IN THE NAME OF M/S. YASURAJA SYNDICATE AND CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD. WAS EXISTING WITH THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND THIS WAS INCORPORATED ON 26.5.2000. IN FACT, THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 10.2.2000 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS WIFE ON THE ONE HAND AND M/S. RAJA SYNDICATE AND CONSTRUCTI ON CO. LTD. ON THE OTHER WAS NEVER ACTED UPON BETWEEN THE PARTIES, AND THERE FORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT THE TRANSA CTION WAS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 000-01. WE FIND THAT THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 27.6.2000 BETWEEN M/S. F ACT EMPLOYEES (HYD) CO. OP. HOUSING SOCIETY AND M/S. YESURAJA SYNDICATE & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. AND THE VENDORS, M/S. FACT EMPLOYEES (HYD) CO . OP. HOUSING SOCIETY HAVE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED THAT T HEY HAVE DELIVERED VACANT, AND PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE VEND EE. THE ASSESSEE IT(SS)A NO.40/HYD/ 05 & TWO OTHERS SHRI K.CHENNA REDDY (HUF), HYD AND TWO OTHERS 6 ADMITTEDLY WAS NEVER THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN Q UESTION. HE WAS MERELY AN AGREEMENT HOLDER ON BEHALF OF M/S. FACT EMPLOYEE S (HYD) CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY AND THE PROFIT OR LOSS HAS ACCRUED ONLY WHEN THE SALE DEED IS EXECUTED BY THE OWNERS OF THE LAND AND IN THIS CASE, THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 27.6.2000 AND THEREFORE, CAPITAL GAINS ARE ASSESSABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WAS DUE ON 31.7.2001 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED ITS RETURN WITHIN TIME ALLOWED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ON 31.7.2001, WHEREIN THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF LAND AND THE COS T OF LAND WAS DULY DECLARED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE HUF AND ASSES SED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE PLE A OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE EVER RECEIVED THE VACANT PHYSICAL POSS ESSION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION, AFTER EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 5.8.1997 BETWEEN M/S. FACT EMPLOYEES (HYD) CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY A ND THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE FACTS, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTION OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF LAND WAS NOT ASSESSABLE IN THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2000-01 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S.2(47)(V) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT READ WITH S.53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY AN AGREEMENT HOLDER ON BEHALF OF M/S. FACT EMPLOYEES (HYD) CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY AND WAS NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT PAID FULL CONSIDERATION UPTO 10.2.2000 TO THE VENDORS M/S. FA CT EMPLOYEES (HYD) CO- OP. HOUSING SOCIETY AND THEREFORE, THE POSSESSION W AS RIGHTLY NOT HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE AT ANY POINT OF TIME. THE RETU RN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WAS NOT DUE AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, WHICH WAS CONDUCTED ON 8.2.2001 AND THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSIN G THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER S.158BD OF THE ACT. THE RE TURN OF INCOME WAS FILED IN THE NORMAL COURSE ON 31.7.2001, WHEREAS THE NOTI CE UNDER S.158BD WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 5.11.2001. THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 11.5.1998 FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SE ARCH ON THE PREMISES OF IT(SS)A NO.40/HYD/ 05 & TWO OTHERS SHRI K.CHENNA REDDY (HUF), HYD AND TWO OTHERS 7 ONE SHRI A.V.SHANKAR RAO WAS NOT ACTED UPON, AS THE VENDOR SHRI A.V.SHANKAR RAO FAILED TO PAY THE BALANCE CONSIDERA TION TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO M ISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NO T CORRECT IN SAYING THAT IN TERMS OF S.2(47)(V) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT READ WITH S.53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, THE TRANSFER MATERIALIZED ON 10.2.200 0, I.E. THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND TO M/S. YESURAJA SYNDICATE AND CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD. THE CIT(A) HA S CONCLUDED THAT THE SALE OF LAND IN QUESTION TO M/S. YESURAJA SYNDICATE AND CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD. TOOK PLACE ON 27.6.2000 WHEN THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS HANDED OVER TO THE PARTY, AND THIS DATE FALLS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 001-02 AND THEREFORE, INCOME ARISING OUT OF THIS TRANSACTION COULD NOT B E BROUGHT TO TAX IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CON CLUDED THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND REGULAR ASSESSMENT ARE MUTUALLY EX CLUSIVE AND THAT DUE DATE FOR THE FILING OF THE RETURN IN THE CASE HAS N OT EXPIRED BY THE TIME OF THE SEARCH AND THE INCOME EARNED UPTO THE DATE OF SEAR CH WAS REFLECTED IN THE DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE AND THER EFORE, OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2001-02, FOR WHICH THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ON 31.7.2001. THERE BEING NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE CON FIRM THE SAME, AND ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL A RE REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ITA NO.671/HYD/2007: 8. GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 READ AS FOLLOWS- 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED ON BOTH FACTS AND IN LAW. IT(SS)A NO.40/HYD/ 05 & TWO OTHERS SHRI K.CHENNA REDDY (HUF), HYD AND TWO OTHERS 8 2. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT TH AT ORDER OF THE CIT(A) I HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THE CIT(A) TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL THE PROPERTY IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 4. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT TH AT K.CHENNA REDDY (HUF) IS NOWHERE INVOLVED IN SALE OF THE PROP ERTY. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. IN VIEW OF OUR DECI SION IN THE FOREGOING PARAS OF THIS ORDER THAT THE TRANSACTION IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE K.CHENNA REDDY(HUF) IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMEN T FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THE VERY SAME INCOME COULD NOT BE B ROUGHT TO TAX TWICE, ONCE IN THE HANDS OF THE HUF AND SECOND TIME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE- INDIVIDUAL, AND ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIR MED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.672/HYD/2007: 11. GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 READ AS FOLLOWS- 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED ON BOTH FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT TH AT ORDER OF THE CIT(A) I HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THE CIT(A) TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL THE PROPERTY IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 4. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT TH AT K.CHENNA REDDY (HUF) IS NOWHERE INVOLVED IN SALE OF THE PROP ERTY. IT(SS)A NO.40/HYD/ 05 & TWO OTHERS SHRI K.CHENNA REDDY (HUF), HYD AND TWO OTHERS 9 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. IN VIEW OF OUR DEC ISION IN THE FOREGOING PARAS OF THIS ORDER THAT THE TRANSACTION IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE-HUF IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT, THE VERY SAME INCOME COULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX TWICE, ONCE IN THE HANDS OF THE HUF AND SECOND TIME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE-INDIVIDUAL, AND ACCORD INGLY, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS IS SUE. IT IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE R EVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8.4.2011 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (G.C.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DT/- 8 TH APRIL, 2011 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. 2. 3. SHRI K.CHENNA REDDY (HUF), C/O. SHRI V.G.RAO & ASSO CIATES, CAS, 306 IIIRD FLOOR, OASIS PLAZA, TILAK ROAD, ABIDS, HYDERA BAD 1 SHRI K.CHENNA REDDY, C/O. SHRI V.G.RAO & ASSOCIATES , CAS, 306 IIIRD FLOOR, OASIS PLAZA, TILAK ROAD, ABIDS, HYDERABAD 1 SMT. K. USHA REDDY REDDY (HUF), C/O. SHRI V.G.RAO & ASSOCIATES, CAS, 306 IIIRD FLOOR, OASIS PLAZA, TILAK ROAD, ABID S, HYDERABAD 1 4 . 5. ASST . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4 , HYDERABAD DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(3), HYDERAB AD 6 . 7. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) - 1 , HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) II, HYDERABAD 8 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL HYDERABAD IT(SS)A NO.40/HYD/ 05 & TWO OTHERS SHRI K.CHENNA REDDY (HUF), HYD AND TWO OTHERS 10 9. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I, HYDERABAD. 10 . THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S