THE ITO WARD - 2(1), Vijayawada V. Smt. Ivaturi Mahalakshmamma, Vijayawada

ITA 716/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9876 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Revision of order; Fair market value; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 234B; 143(1); 72

Judgement Text

ITA NO.716/VIZAG/2013 SMT. IVATURI MAHALAKSHMAMMA, VIJAYAWADA 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.716/VIZAG/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) ITO, WARD - 2(1), VIJAYAWADA VS. SMT. IVATURI MAHALAKSHMAMMA, VIJAYAWADA [PAN: AA TPI 0474P ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.N. MURTHY NAIK, DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 20.06.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.09.2016 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 4.9.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL FILED RETURN OF IN COME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON 6.2.2008 BY DECLARING TO TAL INCOME OF ` ITA NO.716/VIZAG/2013 SMT. IVATURI MAHALAKSHMAMMA, VIJAYAWADA 2 11,93,700/- AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'THE ACT') AND SUB SEQUENTLY ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT AFTER FOLLOWING TH E DUE PROCEDURE. 3. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. HAS OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSEE SMT. IVATURI MAHALAKSHMAMMA RECEIVED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT DR.NO.38- 8-7, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA FROM HER HUSBAND LATE SR I IVATURI SIVAPRASAD AS PER REGD. WILL DATED 17.11.1977. SHE HAD GIVEN SUCH PROPERTY FOR DEVELOPMENT TO M/S. DUTTA CONSTRUCTION S, VIJAYAWADA VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 29.1.2001. AS PER THE SAID AGREEME NT, SHE HAD TO RECEIVE 50% OF THE CONSTRUCTED AREA OF THE COMMERCI AL COMPLEX TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEVELOPER. IN THE RETURN OF INC OME FILED ON 6.2.2008, THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED THE RATE PER SQ.YD. AT ` 240/- FOR THE CONSTRUCTED AREA AND ALSO HAD NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUN T VALUE OF COMMON AREA WHILE ARRIVING AT THE SALE CONSIDERATION. WHE N THE A.O. HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN CHARGEABILITY OF CAPITAL GA INS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION TO M/S. DUTTA CONSTRUCTIONS ON 29.1.2001. AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE CAPITAL GAINS HAS TO BE TAXED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND NOT THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE A.O. HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: ITA NO.716/VIZAG/2013 SMT. IVATURI MAHALAKSHMAMMA, VIJAYAWADA 3 1. THOUGH AS PER THE AGREEMENT DT 29.01.2001 FOR D EVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY, THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE DEVELOPER IMMEDIATELY AS PER CLAUSE 16, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE THE ACTU AL DATE OF HANDING OVER POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE DEVELOPER. 2. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE AGREEMENT, AS PER CLAU SE NO.8, THE SHARES OF THE OWNERS AND DEVELOPER IN THE PROPERTY WOULD BE DECID ED ONLY AFTER THE APPROVAL FROM THE MUNICIPALITY AND OTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS A ND AS PER CLAUSE 9 ALL THE APPROVALS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS CONCERNED WOULD BE O BTAINED BY THE DEVELOPER ONLY. IT MEANS THAT SO LONG AS THE APPROVAL IS NOT O BTAINED THE SHARES OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE NOT DETERMINED AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF PART PERFORMANCE OF HANDING OVER THE PROPERTY TO THE DEVELOPER AS CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE. THE PLAN APPROVAL OF THE PROPERTY WAS OBTAINED FROM THE MUNICIPAL AUTHOR ITIES VIDE APPROVAL NO.140.I2QQ. SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL ONLY THE CON STRUCTION WAS STARTED AND PARTLY COMPLETED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 ONLY. AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARE ASSESSA BLE IN THE YEAR 2001-02 IS NOT CORRECT. 3. AS VERIFIED FROM THE REGD. SALE DEEDS EXECUTED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND THE SECOND PARTY JOINTLY VIDE DOCUMENT NO.536/05 DT.05. 02,2005 AND 3755/04 DATED 15- 10-2004, IT WAS RECORDED THEREIN AT PAGE.2 THEREOF, AMONG OTHER THINGS AS FOLLOWS (PARA 5 THEREOF) THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS DEVOLVED UPON THE 1' PART Y (VIZ SMT. LVATURI MAHALAKSHMAMMA) BY VIRTUE OF THE WILL NO.244/1977 E XECUTED BY HER HUSBAND AND SINCE THEN THE SCHEDULED PROPERTY IS UNDER THE ENJO YMENT OF THE 1ST PARTY WITH ABSOLUTE TITLE TOGETHER WITH POSSESSIONARY RIGHTS'. IT IS THEREFORE EVIDENT FROM THE RECITALS OF THE ABO VE REGISTERED TITLE DEEDS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PURCHASERS, THE POSSESSION OVER TH E IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS ONLY VESTED WITH THE ASSESSEE AND NOT IN THE DEVELOPER A S CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGAIN, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORDS THE A HAD ACCOUNTED FOR THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WITH REFERENCE TO THE SALE OF FLATS' WHICH WERE EFFECTED BY MEANS OF 'REGISTERED SALE DEEDS' IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND TAKING SUPPORT FROM THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND OTHER JUDGMENTS QUOTED IN THE ORDER U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DT.31.03.2010, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARE ASSESSABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IS NOT A CCEPTED. IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED DISCUSSION MADE BY THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA IN THE ORDER ULS.263 OF THE INCOME TAX, ACT, 1961 DATED. 31.03.2010, AND FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA THEREIN AS ALSO FOR THE REASONS POINTED OUT IN THE EARLIER PARAS ABOVE, THE CAPITAL GAINS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPTS BASING ON T HE FLATS SOLD, ALONG WITH THE COST OF UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND AND COMMON AREA, FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07. ITA NO.716/VIZAG/2013 SMT. IVATURI MAHALAKSHMAMMA, VIJAYAWADA 4 COMING TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE THE DETAILS OF ACTUAL HANDING OVER HER SHARE OF PRO PERTY BY THE BUILDER. AS PER THE ASSESSEE'S OWN EXPLANATION THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED 72 94 SQ.FT OUT OF THE TOTAL AREA OF CONSTRUCTION. WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS, TH E ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE COST OF COMMON AREA AND THE UNDIVIDED L AND RECEIVED ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTED CARPET AREA. HENCE, THE SAME WAS PROPOS ED FOR TAKING INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AND A SHOW-CAUSE N OTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 04.11.2010 CALLING FOR HER OBJECTIONS F OR ASSESSING THE CAPITAL GAINS BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE VALUE OF COMMON AREA AND TH E VALUE OF UNDIVIDED LAND RECEIVED ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTED AREA OF 7294 S. FT. THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 16.11.2010. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HER W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 19.11.2010. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE'S AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE, SRI. K. SAI SURESH, CA APPEARED ON 03.12.2010 AND THE CASE WAS DISCUSSE D. THE ASSESSEE'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT THERE IS PART OF PERF ORMANCE AND HALF SHARE OF THE SITE WAS ALREADY HANDED OVER TO THE BUILDER AND THE RIGHT IN THE REST OF THE PROPERTY I.E HALF SHARE WAS WITH THE ASSESSEE ONLY AND HENCE THE QUESTION OF INCLUSION OF THE COST OF LAND IN THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ARISE. THIS CONTENTION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. WHILE TAKING TH E VALUE OF THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONSTRUCTED PORTION, THE COST OF TH E UNDIVIDED LAND AND COMMON AREA ARE INCLUDIBLE, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD GOT RIGHT IN THESE AREAS BESIDES THE CARPET AREA OF 7294 SQ.FT RECEIVED. WHILE ARRIVING AT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION THE REG D. VALUER ADOPTED THE COMPOSITE RATE OF 918 PER SFT. AS AGAINST THIS, THE COMPOSITE RATE ADOPTING THE MARKET RATE AS PER S.R.O, PATAMATA FOR THE SITE AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, U/S.500 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. COMES TO RS.933 PER SF T. DOING SO, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARE WORKED OUT AS UNDER: TOTAL CONSTRUCTED AREA RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FIFTH FLOOR : 7294 SFT. SHARE OF ASSESSEE IN COMMON AREA 3900 SFT/5 (FLOORS) : 780 SFT. TOTAL AREA RECEIVED RS. : 8074 SFT. VALUE OF LAND (AS PER SUB REGISTRAR RECORD) : ` 17,700 PER SQ.YD . TOTAL VALUE OF LAND (TOTAL LAND INCLUDING SHARE OF THREE SONS) 17700 X 1369 SQ.YD = 2,42,31,300 TOTAL CONSTRUCTED AREA : 35,340 SFT. VALUE OF LAND PER SFT : 2,42,31,300/35,340 = ` 686 ITA NO.716/VIZAG/2013 SMT. IVATURI MAHALAKSHMAMMA, VIJAYAWADA 5 COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER SFT (AS PER REGN. DEPARTMENTS PROCEEDINGS DT.28.9.2005 ) = ` 440 COMPOSITE RATE PER SFT : ` 1,126 (686+440) FAIR MARKET VALUE OF TRANSFERRED PROPERTY (410 SQ.Y DS) RS.1126 X 8074 : ` 90,91,324 321/410 SHARE IN THE SALE CONSIDERATION 90,91,324 X 321/410 :171,17,841 LESS: INDEXED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY 321X500X497/100 :17,97,685 -------------- CAPITAL GAIN ` 63,20,156 ADD: INTEREST INCOME UNDER OTHER SOURCES : ` 72,773 -------------- ` 63,92,929 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES : ` 72,773 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS : ` 63,20,156 ------------- TAX THEREON : ` 12,51,586 ADD: SURCHARGE : ` 1,25,159 -------------- ` 13,76,745 ADD: EDUCATION CESS : ` 27,535 -------------- ` 14,04,280 ADD: INTEREST U/S 234A : ` 2,24,685 INTEREST U/S 234B : ` 8,00,466 INTEREST U/S 234C : ` 9,082 ------------- : ` 10,34,233 -------------- ` 24,38,513 LESS: SELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAID : ` 3,29,793 -------------- ` 21,08,720 LESS: DEMAND RAISED U/S 143(1) : ` 820 -------------- BALANCE PAYABLE : ` 21,07,900 -------------- 4. ACCORDINGLY, A.O. HAS CALCULATED THE CAPITAL GAI NS INCLUDING UNDIVIDED LAND AND COMMON AREA ALSO. ITA NO.716/VIZAG/2013 SMT. IVATURI MAHALAKSHMAMMA, VIJAYAWADA 6 5. ASSESSEE CARRIED MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. BY OBS ERVING AS UNDER: 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS GIV EN HER PROPERTY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND RECEIVED 5 TH FLOOR OF THE BUILDING WITH CARPET AREA OF 7294 SQ.FT. AS PER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 29.0 1.2001, WHICH WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESS MENT ORDER. INSTEAD THE APPELLANT DISCLOSED THE CAPITAL GAINS DURING THE AS ST. YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME BASED ON THE REG ISTRATION OF FLATS (CONSTRUCTED AREA) AND DISCLOSED HER SHARE. FOR THI S ASST. YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AND TAXE D CAPITAL GAINS ON THE APPELLANT'S SHARE IN COMMON AREA I.E. ON 780 SQ.FT. ON CAREFUL OBSERVATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ONCE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEM ENT IS OVER, 50% SHARE OF CONSTRUCTED VALUE COMES TO THE LANDLORD I. E. THE APPELLANT, WHICH IS TAXABLE DURING ASST. YEAR 2001-02, WHICH IS NOT BEFORE ME. FOR THIS ASST. YEAR, THE APPELLANT ALREADY DISCLOSED CAPITAL GAINS AS PER THE REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS ACCORDING TO HER SHARE OF PR OPERTY RECEIVED. ONCE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS DECIDED AND SHARED BY THE LANDLORD AND THE BUILDER I.E. DEVELOPER, THE ISSUE OF COMMON ARE A DOES NOT COMES TO THE LANDLORD AGAIN. THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY GIVEN HER LAND TO THE DEVELOPER AS PER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DISCLOSE D HER SHARE VALUE FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. HENCE, THERE IS NO QUESTI ON OF COMMON AREA RECEIVED BACK TO THE OWNER OF LAND. THEREFORE, THE CONSIDERATION OF PROPORTIONATE LAND TO THE COMMON AREA WILL NOT ARIS E. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, THE A ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL STANDS DELETED AND THE APPEAL IS HEREB Y IS ALLOWED. 6. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, REVENUE CARRIED MATTER IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE LD. D.R. HAS POINTED OUT THAT THOUGH THE AGR EEMENT ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.1.2001, THE APPROVAL IS OBTAI NED BY THE DEVELOPER AFTER TWO YEARS, THEREAFTER CONSTRUCTION WAS STARTE D AND THEREFORE, THE ACTUAL POSSESSION OF PROPERTY WAS NOT GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THEREFORE TAXING THE CAPITAL GAINS IN T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA NO.716/VIZAG/2013 SMT. IVATURI MAHALAKSHMAMMA, VIJAYAWADA 7 2006-07 IS ACCORDING TO LAW. HE ALSO POINTED OUT T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE AGREEMENT DATED 19.1.2001 S IMPLY HELD THAT CAPITAL GAIN TAXABLE ONLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-0 2 MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE POSSESSIO N TO THE DEVELOPER ON 29.1.2001 AND CAPITAL GAINS HAS TO BE TAXED ONLY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. IN THIS REGARD, HE RELIED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AS A GIFT FROM HER HUSBAND DATED ON 17.11.1977. SHE HAD GIVEN THE SAID PROPER TY TO M/S. DUTTA CONSTRUCTIONS, VIJAYAWADA VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 29.1 .2001. AS PER THE SAID AGREEMENT, SHE HAS TO RECEIVED 50% OF THE CONS TRUCTED AREA OF THE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEVELOP ER. AS PER THE A.O., THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY HAS OBTAINED TH E APPROVAL NO.1440/2003. SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL ONLY, THE CONSTRUCTION WAS STARTED AND PARTLY COMPLETED DURING THE FINANCIAL Y EARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06. AS PER CLAUSE 8 OF THE AGREEMENT, IT SAYS THAT AFTER GETTING THE PLAN APPROVAL, WE WILL FIX OUR SHARES IN THE CO NSTRUCTION. WE FIND ITA NO.716/VIZAG/2013 SMT. IVATURI MAHALAKSHMAMMA, VIJAYAWADA 8 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO OFFERED CAPITAL GAINS FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AS WELL AS 2006-07. IT APPEARS FROM THE RE CORD THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 IS NOT BEFORE US, T HE A.O. HAS COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THEREAF TER THE COMMISSIONER HAS ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT . ASSESSEE CARRIED MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. T HE ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO COMPLETE TH E ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT. THE ORDER ALREADY PA SSED ON 24.2.2015 AND THE ORDER IS UNDER APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). I N SO FAR AS, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT(A ) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE AGREEMENT VARIOUS CLAUSES INCORPORA TED, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CAPITAL GAINS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE HERSELF S IMPLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IS NOT BEFORE ME AND IT HAS TO BE TAXED ONLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT AND THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO H AVE CONSIDERED ALL THE DETAILS. WE ALSO FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 FACTS ARE SIMILAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE REQUEST MADE BY THE L D. D.R. IS JUSTIFIED AND ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) AND ITA NO.716/VIZAG/2013 SMT. IVATURI MAHALAKSHMAMMA, VIJAYAWADA 9 DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO EXAMINE ALL THE DETAILS AN D DECIDE DE-NOVO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 10. SO FAR AS CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, IT IS A MERE ACADEMIC IN VIEW OF THE ISS UE BEING REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH SEPT16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (G. MANJUNATHA) (V. DURGA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! /VISAKHAPATNAM: % /DATED : 09.09.2016 VG/SPS '! (! /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT THE ITO, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA 2. / THE RESPONDENT SMT. IVATURI MAHALAKSHMAMMA, D. NO.38-5-1, IST LANE, PUNNAMATHOTA, OPP. AIR CROSS ROADS, VIJAYAWADA 3. ) / THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA 4. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA 5. ! , , , , ! / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // /0 , (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) , , ! / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM