Nikhil Surana, Secunderabad V. The Addl.CIT, Circle-11, Hyderabad

ITA 955/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 95522514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARITA
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Revised return; Reason to believe; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 142(1); 80IB; 131; 132; 154; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND S HRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.954 /HYD/13 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10. HARISH CHAND SURANA, -VS- DY . CIT, CC-2, HYDERABAD. SECUNDERABAD. HYDERABAD. PAN:AIRPS 7926 G ITA NO.1087/HYD/.2013 ASST. YEAR: 2 009-10 . DY. CIT, CC-2, HYDERABAD HARISH CHAND SURANA, . SECUNDERABAD . ITA NO.955/HYD/.2013 ASST. YEAR: 200 9-10. SRI NIKHIL SURANA VS- ADDL CIT, CIR-11, SECUNDERABAD. HYDERABAD. PAN:AOPPS 3582L ITA NO.1102/HYD/20 13 ASST. YEAR: 2009 -10. ITO, WARD-11(1) HYDERABAD. VS. S RI NIKHIL SURANA SECUNDERABAD. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEES BY SHRI K.C. DEVDAS DEPARTMENT BY S MT. HARITA (DR) DATE OF HEARING 03 - 01 - 2014 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21 - 02 - 2014 2 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS IN CASE OF TWO DIF FERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT (A) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUES AR E INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THESE ARE HEARD, CLUBBED TOGETHER AN D DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . 2. FIRST WE WILL DEAL WITH THE CROSS APPEALS R ELATING TO HARISH CHAND SURANA IN ITA NO. 954/HYD/13 OF ASSESSEE AND ITA NO.1087/HYD/13 OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE EFFECTIVE GRO UNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- I. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-I, HYDERABAD IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,52,90,250 REPRESENTING THE APPELLA NTS ALLEGED SHARE IN THE EXTRA CONSIDERATION ARISING OU T OF UNSIGNED RECEIPTS OF RS.1,60,00,000 IS TOTALLY CO NTRARY TO THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND IS THEREFOR E UNSUSTAINABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. II. THE LD CIT ERRED IN PLACING RELIANCE ON THE STA TEMENT OF PREM SAGAR RAO WHO DID NOT RESPOND TO THE SPECIFIC DEMAND OF THE APPELLANT FOR CROSS EXAMINATION AND THEREFORE THE STATEMENT COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FO R THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF T HE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. III. THE LD CIT OUGHT TO HAVE ADOPTED TAME F.M.V. O F THE PROPERTY AS ON 1-4-81 AT RS.56,14,000 BEFORE INDEXA TION 3 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. AS VALUED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AND INDEXED FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINANT THE COST OF PROPERTY. IV. THE LD. CIT HAVING REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. GEETA DUGGAL (2013) 30 TAXMAN.COM.230 OUGHT TO HEAVE ALLOWED EXEMPTION UI/ S 54F OF THE IT ACT 1961, IN RESPECT OF THE VALUE OF ALL FLATS ALLOTTED TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 1-4- 1981 AT RS.100/- PER SQ. YARD INSTEAD OF RS.10/- PER SQ. YA RD, AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF TH E INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SRO. 3. THE CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW EXEMPTION U/S 54F ON BOTH THE UNIT S CONSIDERING AS ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT INSTEAD OF ONE UNIT ONLY AS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHAS ED TWO DIFFERENT HOUSES WITH TWO DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS A ND ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION ON ONE HOUSE ONL Y. 4. GROUND NOS.1 & 2 ARE WITH REGARD TO CIT (A) CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,52,90,250/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF ON MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND. BRIEFLY THE FACTS RELATI NG TO THE ISSUE IN 4 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. DISPUTE ARE THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. A SEARC H AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN CASE OF M/S. SAINATH ESTATES PVT. LTD., ON 17-3-2009. DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSING SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESS EE TO SAINATH ESTATES PVT. LTD., WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. CONSEQUEN T THEREUPON A NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE CALLING UPON HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 TO 2008-09. FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS R ETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY ON 31-7-2009 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.11,4 5,03,041/- INCLUDING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF 11,27,68,778/- . THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 24-8-2010 AND A NOTICE U/S 142(1) ON 13-9-2010. SUBSEQUENTLY ANOTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 28-10-2010 CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN INFORM ATION. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ON 26-10-2010 FILED A REVIS ED RETURN DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.13,50,08,700 INCLU DING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.12,23,28,778/-. 5. IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON SRI NIKHIL SU RANA HAVE SOLD A VACANT LAND ADMEASURING 11566 SQ. YARDS SITUATED AT PLOT A/16, NACHARAM, HYDERABAD TO M/S SAINATH ESTATES PVT. LTD ., FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,21,00,000 VIDE DOCUMENT NO. 5 -2-91/08 DATED 12-6-2008 AND ANOTHER PIECE OF LAND ADMEASURING 53 3.32 SQ. YARDS HAVING THE SAME PLOT NO. A/16, NACHARAM, HYDERABAD TO M/S SAINATH ESTATES PVT. LTD., FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS .98,10,000/- VIDE DOCUMENT NO.5292/08 DATED 12-6-2008. WHEREAS AS PE R THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FROM M/S SAINATH ESTATES PVT. LTD., THE T OTAL 5 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. CONSIDERATION PAID BY M/S SAINATH ESTATES PVT. LTD . TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATION OF AFORESAID LAND WAS RS.16,20,00,000 /-. AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IN ANNEXURE AA-SEPL/01 WHICH CONTA INED PAYMENT RECEIPTS, THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON WERE PAID AN AMO UNT OF RS.3,10,00,000 IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND BA LANCE AMOUNT OF RS.13,10,00,000/- WAS PAID IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 20 08-09. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE VOUCHERS FORMI NG PART OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, SOME SIGNED AND SOME UNSIGNED BY THE RECEIVER, CLEARLY REVEALED SUBSTANTIAL CASH PAYMENTS. HE FU RTHER NOTED THAT DURING THE POST SEARCH PROCEEDING A SUMMON U/S 131 WAS ISSUED TO SRI K. PREMSAGAR RAO, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF SAIN ATH ESTATES PVT. LTD. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 ON 12-5-20 09 SRI K. PREMSAGAR RAO CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.16,20,00,000 WAS PAID TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATION FOR ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. IN HIS DEPOSITION SRI K. PREMSAGARA RAO ALSO FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE TO BADA L CHAND SURANA ( ASSESSEES FATHER) AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AS UND ER: IN CASH R S.3,45,00,000/- BY CHEQUES RS. 10 ,00,00,000/- ADJUSTMENT BY WAY OF SALE OF FLATS RS.2,75,00 ,000/-. 6. HE FURTHER DEPOSED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF R S.16,20,00,000/- WAS PAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND 200 8-09 I.E., RS.3,10,00,000 IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND RS.13, 10,00,000/- IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DEPOSI TION MADE BY SRI K. PREMSAGAR RAO SUMMONS U/S 131 WERE ISSUED TO S RI HARISHCHAND SURANA AND NIKHIL SURANA FOR VERIFYING ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PAID TO THEM . IN RESPONSE TO THE SUM MONS, SRI 6 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. BADALCHAND SURANA, ASSESSEES FATHER, APPEARED AND A STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FROM HIM. IN THE STATEMENT SRI BADALC HAND SURANA ADMITTED THAT THOUGH AS PER THE SALE DEED THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS.4,21,00,000 BUT ACTUALLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.11. 55 CRORES WAS RECEIVED BY SRI HARISHCHAND SURANA AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.98.10 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED BY SRI NIKHIL SURANA TOTALLING T O RS.12.53 CRORES. WITH REGARD TO THE MODE OR RECEIPT HE STATED THAT SRI HARISHCHAND SURANA RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.9.29 CRORES BY CHEQ UES AND BALANCE AMOUNT BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS FLATS P URCHASE. HE FURTHER STATED, SIMILARLY SRI NIKHIL SURANA RECEIVE D AN AMOUNT OF RS.70 LAKHS AND BALANCE AMOUNT BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS FLATS PURCHASE. WHEN SRI BADAL CHAND SURANA WAS SPECIFI CALLY ASKED ABOUT RECEIVING ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE CONSIDERA TION ADMITTED BY HIM HE STATED THAT THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY CO NSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT HE HAS ALREADY STATED. WHEN SRI BAD ALCHAND SURANA WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE PAYMENT VOUCHERS OF M/S SAINATH ESTATES PVT. LTD., FOUND AND SEIZED AND QUESTIONED AS TO WHY THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF SALE AS ADMITTED BY SRI SAI NATH ESTATES PVT. LTD., AND WHICH IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE SEIZED DOC UMENT SHALL NOT BE ADOPTED AT RS.16,20,00,000/-, SRI BADAL CHAND SU RANA STATED THAT TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IS RS.12 .53 CRORES. HOWEVER, HE ADDED THAT IF THERE IS ANY CONTRARY EV IDENCE HE WILL EXAMINE AND REVISE THE STATEMENT. 7. DURING THE POST SEARCH PROCEEDING, AS APPEAR S FROM THE DISCUSSION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSES SEE WAS ALSO PROVIDED WITH COPIES OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. ON T HE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, A STATEMENT WAS AGAIN RECORDED F ROM SRI BADALCHAND SURANA ON 27-5-2009. IN THE STATEMENT S RI BADALCHAND 7 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. SURANA STATED THAT THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY SRI HARISHCHAND SURANA AND NIKHIL SURANA WAS RS.14 CROR ES INCLUDING CASH OF RS.1,85,00,000/- AS PER THE SEIZED VOUCHERS . AT THE SAME TIME, HE ALSO STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,85,00, 000/- RECEIVED IN CASH WAS REPAID TO SAINATH ESTATES PVT. LTD., AS CO NSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THE AGREEMENT VALUE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF FLAT FROM THE SAID COMPANY. HE HOWEVER DENIED OF HAVING RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,75,00,000 AS MENTIONED IN THE UNSIGNED VOUCHER S FOUND AND SEIZED. HE ALSO STATED THE DETAILS OF CONSIDERATI ON RECEIVED AS UNDER:- BY WAY OF CHEQUES RS.10,00, 00,000/- BY WAY OF ALLOTMENT OF 10 FLATS RS. 4,00,0 0,000 --- --------------------- TOTAL RS .14,00,00,000/- -- ----------------------- 8. ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE AS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THE FORM OF SEIZED MATERIAL AS WELL AS DEPOSITIONS OF THE M. D OF SAINATH ESTATES PVT. LIMITED, SRI K. PREMSAGAR RAO AND ASSE SSEES FATHER SRI BADALCHAND SURANA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS.16,20,00,000/-. HE NOTED THAT THAT AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SAINATH ESTATES PVT. LIMI TED WHICH WAS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION, THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION PAID WAS SHOWN AT RS.16,20,00,000/-. THE SEIZED VOUCHERS ALSO REVEAL PAYMENT OF RS.3,45,00,000/- IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS PAID BY WAY OF CHEQUE. 9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AT RS.12.53 C RORES AND NOTHING 8 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. MORE. HOWEVER, WHEN HE WAS CONFRONTED WITH SEIZED PAYMENT VOUCHERS BEARING HIS SIGNATURE HE SHIFTED HIS STAND BY ADMITTING THAT THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS RS.1 4 CORES INCLUSIVE OF CASH PAYMENT OF RS.1,85,00,000/-. THE PAYMENTS MENTIONED IN UNSIGNED VOUCHERS WAS HOWEVER DENIED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SEIZED MATERIALS AS WELL A S THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S SAINATH ESTATES PVT. LTD MADE IT CLEAR TH AT CONSIDERATION PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON FOR SALE OF LAND IS RS.16.2 0 CRORES. HE OPINED THAT WHEN SOME PAYMENTS IN A TRANSACTION ARE ACCE PTED AS GENUINE, IT WILL FOLLOW THAT OTHER PAYMENTS MENTIONED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THAT TRANSACTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE GENUINE. HE NOTED THAT MAJOR PORTION OF THE PAYMENT MENTIONED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUN T WAS ACCEPTED BY THE VENDORS THEMSELVES. ONLY PAYMENTS WHICH ARE NOT EVIDEN CED BY SIGNED PAYMENT VOUCHERS OR DUE TO NON AVAILABILITY OF PAYMEN T VOUCHERS ARE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FELT THAT FRO M THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SRI BADAL CHAND SURANA IT BECO MES CLEAR THAT WHEN ANY EVIDENCE IS SHOWN TO HIM REGARDING RECEIPT OF ON MO NEY ONLY THEN HE ACCEPTS RECEIPT OF SUCH ON MONEY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT PREVARICATING STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER REVEALED FR OM THE FACT THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THE TOTAL SAL E CONSIDERATION TO BE RS.12.53 CRORES WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED TO RS.14.48 CRORES WHEN ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH SEIZED MATERIAL SHOWING PAYME NT OF ON MONEY, BUT STILL LEAVING BEHIND A BALANCE OF RS.1.20 CR ORES. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE HELD THAT THE EN TIRE AMOUNT OF RS.16.20 CRORES WAS ACTUALLY PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SO N TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT AS PER THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, ADJUSTMENT BY WAY OF SALE OF FLATS WAS ONLY RS.2.75 CORES. HOWEVER, AS PER THE DETAILS FURNISHED IN THE REVISED RET URN ASSESSEES FAMILY 9 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. MEMBERS RECEIVED 10 FLATS, THE TOTAL VALUE OF WHICH A S PER AGREEMENT OF SALE WAS RS.2.90 CRORES. HENCE THE EXCESS CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OF RS.15 LAKHS ALSO HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF SALE CONSIDERATIO N, HENCE THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE TREATED AS RS.16.35 CRORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT CASH COMPONENT OF RS.1.60 CRORES SHOU LD BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ASSESSEE AND HIS SON AND ACCORDINGL Y PROCEEDED TO QUANTIFY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,52,90,250/- AT THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,09,750/- AT THE HANDS OF HIS SON FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ADDIT ION SO MADE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 11. IN COURSE OF PROCEEDING BEFORE CIT (A), IT WA S CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON HAVE SOLD THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION ON 12-6-2008 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.14,75,60,000/-, INCLUDING THE RECORDED/UNRECORDED CON SIDERATION IN THE SALE DEED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE TRANSACTION WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY DE NIED OF HAVING RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,60,00,000/- RECORDE D IN THE UNSIGNED VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DISPUTED THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF UNSIGNED VOUCHERS. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT MUCH IMPOR TANCE CANNOT BE GIVEN TO THE STATEMENT OF SRI K. PREMSAGARA RAO, M.D. M/S SAINATH ESTATES PVT. LTD., AS HE DID NOT APPEAR FOR CROSS EXAMINATION. THUS, IT WAS PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.1,52,90,250/- IS UNSUSTAINABLE. THE CIT (A) HOWEVER, REJECTING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSE E SUSTAINED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 09.0 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IT CAN'T BE DISPUTED THAT THE NACHARAM LANDS WERE SOLD BY SRI HARISH CHAND SURANA AND SRI NIKHIL SURANA TO SEPL FOR THE RECORDED CONSIDERATION OF R S. 4,21,00,000/- AND RS. 98,10,000/- ONLY. ON THE OTHER HAND, AS PER THE BOOKS OF SEPL, THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION WA S RS. 10 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. 16,20,00,000/-, OUT OF WHICH RS. 3,10,00,000/- WAS PAI D IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND THE REMAINING IN THE FINANCIAL Y EAR 2008-09. THIS FACT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE MD OF SEPL, SR I PREMSAGAR RAO ALSO IN HIS STATEMENT DATED 12.5.2009, GIVING THE FULL BREAK-UP OF MODES OF PAYMENTS. 09.1 IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR DOCUMENTATION OF SALE CONSIDERATIO N BY SEPL AND THE CATEGORICAL STATEMENT OF SRI PREMSAGAR R AO, SRI BADAL CHAND SURANA, IN HIS STATEMENT DATED 18.5.2009, CLEA RLY ADMITTED THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS MUCH M ORE THAN THE RECORDED CONSIDERATION. THOUGH HE ADMITTED RECE IPT OF RS. 11.55 CRORES BY SRI HARISH CHAND SURANA AND RS. 98.1 0 LAKHS BY SRI NIKHIL SURANA, THE TOTAL DEAL RS. 12.53 CRORES, O NLY IN THE BEGINNING, ON BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE PAYMENT VOUCHERS O F SEPL AND THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS, IN HIS STATEMENT DATED 27.5. 2009, HE ADMITTED THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY T HE TWO PERSONS AT RS.14 CRORES, INCLUDING CASH OF RS. 1,85,00, 000 BY WAY OF SIGNED VOUCHERS. HE ONLY DENIED THE RECEIPT OF RS. 1. 75 CRORES REPRESENTED BY 'UNSIGNED VOUCHERS' AND FURTHER CLAIMED T HAT RS. 1,85,00,000 RECEIVED IN CASH WERE PAID BACK TO SEPL ONLY AS CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THE AGREEMENT VALUE OF F LATS. 09.2 FROM THE DISCUSSION ABOVE, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT MAJ ORITY OF THE ENTRIES IN THE DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 16.20 CRORES, HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS TRUE AND CORRECT BY BOTH THE PARTIES. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CLAIM REGARDING NON-RECEIPT OF AMOUNTS APPEARING IN THE VOUCHERS WITHOUT SIGNATURES HAS BEEN MADE ONLY IN VIEW OF SOME TECHNICAL DEFICIENCIES I N THOSE VOUCHERS. HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR THAT EVEN THE RECEIPTS OF RS. 1.85 CRORES IN CASH REPRESENTED BY VOUCHERS WITH SIGNATURES HAD BEEN INITIALLY DENIED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANTS WERE C OMPELLED TO ADMIT SUCH RECEIPTS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE SAID VOUCHERS CONTAINED THEIR SIGNATURES. THE DENIAL OF THE UNS IGNED VOUCHERS IS THEREFORE ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT RAISED WITH A V IEW TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE DOCUMENT, EVEN T HOUGH THE AMOUNTS REPRESENTED THEREIN ARE APPEARING IN THE LEDGER ALSO. HOWEVER, IT IS AN ESTABLISHED POSITION OF LAW T HAT IF PART OF A DOCUMENT IS ADMITTED AS TRUE AND CORRECT, THE REMAIN ING ENTRIES THEREIN HAVE ALSO TO BE PRESUMED TRUE AND CORRECT. THEREF ORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CONSIDERATION OF R S. 16.20 CRORES RECEIVED FOR THE NACHARAM LANDS BY SRI HARISH CHA ND SURANA AND NIKHIL SURANA HAS BEEN DULY ESTABLISHED. FURTHER, NOTHING COULD BE EXPLAINED REGARDING EXCESS CONSIDERATION I N KIND OF RS. 15 LAKHS AS FLATS. THEREFORE, IT IS TO BE HELD THAT THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE TWO VENDORS HAS BEEN RIGHTLY TAKEN AT RS. 16.35 LAKHS. 11 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE MAIN T HRUST OF ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AR IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,60,00,000/ - REPRESENTED BY UNSIGNED VOUCHERS WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND H IS SON. THE LEARNED AR REFERRING TO THE PAYMENT VOUCHERS OF SAINA TH ESTATES PVT. LTD., IN THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED THAT MANY OF THE VOUCHERS DO NOT BEAR SIGNATURE OF EITHER ASSESSEE OR ANY OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. HE SUBM ITTED, APART FROM THESE UNSIGNED VOUCHERS THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS SON HAS RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,60,00 ,000/- OVER AND ABOVE WHAT HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THEM IN THE REVISED RE TURN. STRONGLY CONTESTING THE STATEMENT MADE BY SRI K. PREMA SAGAR RA O, M.D. OF M/S SAINATH ESTATES PVT. LTD., THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED TH AT MUCH IMPORTANCE CANNOT BE GIVEN TO IT AS HE NEVER STOOD THE TEST OF CRO SS EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICA LLY PLEADED FOR CROSS EXAMINING SRI PREMASAGAR RAO, BUT ON SOME PRE TEXT OR OTHER HE NEVER TURNED UP FOR CROSS EXAMINATION. THE LEARNED AR REFERRING TO RECONCILIATION STATEMENT OF AMOUNTS DEBITED TO NACHARA M LAND ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF M/S SAINATH ESTATES SUBMITTED, AMOUNT OF RS.1.6 0 CRORES REPRESENTING CASH PAYMENTS ON DIFFERENT DATES AND JOUR NAL ENTRY OF RS.1,09,40,000/- ON 9-6-2008 WERE NEITHER PAID BY SA INATH ESTATES NOR RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR REFERRING TO LETTER DATED 2-12- 2010 ACCOMPANYING THE REVISED RETURN, A COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGE 23 OF PAPER BOOK, AND NOTE APPENDED TO REVISED RETURN, A CO PY OF WHICH IS AT PAGE 36 OF PAPER BOOK, SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RE TURN THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON HAVE DISCLOSED TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.13,80,00, 000/- WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED TO RS.14,75,60,000/- BY VOLUNTARIL Y DECLARING ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS.95,60,000/- AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS 12 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE AND HIS SON HAVE NOT RECEIVED A SI NGLE RUPEE MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS.14,75,60,000/- AS SALE CONSIDERATI ON OF THE LAND AT NACHARAM. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT NO ADDITIO N CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF UNSIGNED VOUCHERS THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPON TH E ORDER OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DISMISSING S.L.P IN CASE OF CIT V S. VASANT S. ADANI (323 ITR (STAT) 49) AND IN CASE OF DCIT VS. C. KRISHNA YADAV (46 SOT 250) (URO). 13. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, DEFENDING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT (A) SUBMITTED THAT U NSIGNED VOUCHERS ARE NOT THE ONLY EVIDENCE FOUND DURING SEARCH WHICH REV EALED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.16.20 CRORES. HE SUBM ITTED THE PAYMENT VOUCHERS, BOTH SIGNED AND UNSIGNED WERE CORROBORATED BY ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE DEVELOPER M/S SAINATH ESTATE S. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE M.D. OF M/S SAINATH ESTATES ALSO CATEGORICALLY ST ATED IN HIS SWORN DEPOSITION THAT ACTUAL AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS SALE CONSIDE RATION WAS RS.16.20 CRORES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE INITIALLY ADMIT TED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.12.54 CRORES. SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN HE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE SEIZED MATERIALS VIZ., PAYMENT VOUCHERS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S SAINATH ESTATES AND ALSO THE STATEMENT OF K. PREMSAGAR R AO, HE CAME FORWARD TO DISCLOSE ADDITIONAL SALE CONSIDERATION BY FIL ING REVISED RETURN. THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED MAJOR PORTION OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHO WN IN THE BOOKS OF M/S SAINATH ESTATES EXCEPT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,60, 00,000/- REPRESENTED BY UNSIGNED PAYMENT VOUCHERS. THE LEANED DR THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTING CASH PAYMENTS ME NTIONED IN SIGNED PAYMENT VOUCHERS THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE TH AT ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED THE AMOUNT AS PER UNSIGNED PAYMENT VOUCHERS. 14. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES IN THE LIGHT OF MATE RIALS ON RECORD, WE RECORD OUR FINDING AS UNDER:- 13 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. 15 UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON SOLD LAND ADM EASURING 11,566 SQ. YARDS AND 533.32 SQ. YARD SITUATED AT PLOT NO. A/16 , NACHARAM, HYDERABAD TO M/S SAINATH ESTATES UNDER REGISTERED SALE D EED NO.5291/08 AND 5292 DATED 12-6-2008 FOR RS.4,21,00,000/- AND R S.98,10,000/- RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND PAY MENT VOUCHERS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM M/S SAINATH ESTATES PVT. LTD., TH E TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION PAID WAS RS.16,20,00,000/-. DURING THE PO ST SEARCH PROCEEDING THE M.D. OF M/S SAINATH ESTATES DEPOSED IN HI S SWORN STATEMENT THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.16,20,00,000/- WAS PAID TO ASSESSEE AND HIS SON TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATION OF LAND. THE DETAILS OF PAYM ENTS AS STATED BY HIM ARE AS UNDER:- I) CASH PAYMENTS RS.3,45,00,000/- II) CHEQUE PAYMENTS RS.10,00,00,000 III) ADJUSTMENT BY WAY OF SALE OF FLATS RS. 2,75,00,000 16. AS IT APPEARS FROM RECORD, THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE PAYMENTS MADE BY CHEQUE AND BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENT OF SALE OF FLATS AS T HE ASSESSEE ACCEPTS OF RECEIVING THEM. THE DISPUTE IS ONLY WITH REGARD TO CASH PAYMENT OF RS.3,45,00,000/- WHILE THE ASSESSEE ADMITS OF HAVING RECEI VED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,85,00,000/- AS MENTIONED IN SIGNED PAYMENT VOUCH ERS AND RECEIPTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED THAT ENTIRE CASH PAYMENT OF RS.3,45,00,000/- REPRESENTED BY SIGNED AND UNSIGNED P AYMENT VOUCHERS FOUND AND SEIZED WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON. AS CAN BE SEEN, DURING THE POST SEARCH PROCEEDING IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS I SSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT ASSESSEES FATHER SRI BADAL CHAND SURANA APPEARE D ON HIS BEHALF. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 18-5-2009 HE DEPOSED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.11.55 CRORES CONSISTING OF CHEQUE PAYMENTS OF RS.9.29 COR ES AND BALANCE BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENTS TOWARDS FLATS PURCHASED WAS RECEIV ED BY HARISH 14 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. CHAND SURANA AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.98.10 LAKHS CONSISTING OF RS.70 LAKHS BY CHEQUE AND BALANCE BY ADJUSTMENT OF FLATS PURCHASED WAS R ECEIVED BY NIKHIL SURANA . THUS, THE TOTAL RECEIPT ADMITTED BY HIM WA S RS.12.53 CRORES. AFTER BEING PROVIDED, WITH THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SEIZ ED MATERIAL WHEN SRI BADAL CHAND SURANA AGAIN APPEARED ON 27-5-2009, A ST ATEMENT WAS RECORDED FROM HIM. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED HE DEPOS ED THAT TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HARISH CHAND SURANA AND NIKHIL SURANA IS RS.14,00,00,000/- INCLUDING CASH PAYMENT OF RS.1,85,00,0 00/- AS PER PAGE NOS. 5,8,9 AND 10 OF SEIZED MATERIAL MARKED AS ANNEX URE AAA/SEPL/01 WHICH REPRESENT SIGNED PAYMENT VOUCHERS. THE SALE CONSIDER ATION ADMITTED IN DEPOSITION OF SRI BADAL CHAND SURANA WAS FOLLOWED UP BY THE ORIGINAL RETURNS FILED ON 31-7-2009 WHEREIN AN AMOUNT OF RS.12 ,54,48,700/- AT THE HANDS OF HARISH CHAND SURANA AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,25,5 1,300/- AT THE HANDS OF NIKHIL SURANA TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS.13.80 CR ORES WAS SHOWN TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATION. ON 26-10-2010 THE ASSESSEE FI LED A REVISED RETURN DECLARING ADDITIONAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.95, 60,000/-. THUS THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION FINALLY SHOWN BOTH BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON NIKHIL SURANA IS RS.14,75,60,000/-. FROM THE AFORESAID NARRA TION OF FACTS IT BECOMES ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT ASSESSEES STAND FROM THE VERY BEGINNING REMAINS INCONSISTENT AND UNTRUSTWORTHY. INITIALLY, THE ASSESSEE TOTALLY DENIED OF HAVING RECEIVED ANY CASH PAYMENTS. SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN HE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE SEIZED PAYMENT VOUCHERS AND RECEIPTS , HE ONLY ACCEPTED THE SIGNED RECEIPTS REPRESENTING AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,85 ,00,000/-. IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN T HE SEIZED PAYMEN T VOUCHERS HAVE ALSO BEEN RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S SAINATH EST ATES PVT. LTD. THE M.D. OF THE SAID COMPANY ALSO DEPOSED OF HAVING PAI D SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.16.20 CRORES AS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. T AKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF FACTS AND MATERIALS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEES CONDUCT IS NOT ABOVE BOARD. WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS 15 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. ACCEPTING THE CASH PAYMENT AS PER THE SEIZED PAYMENT VOU CHERS HE CANNOT DENY THE REST OF IT ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THOSE AR E REPRESENTED BY UNSIGNED PAYMENT VOUCHERS, WHEN FACT REMAINS THAT PAYM ENTS REFLECTED IN ALL THE PAYMENT VOUCHERS ARE ALSO ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S SAINATH ESTATES PVT. LTD APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE M.D. OF M/S SAINATH ESTATES ALSO ADMITTED THAT SALE CONSIDERATION PAID WAS R S.16.20 CRORES. 17. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF UNSIGNED DOCUMENTS IS ALSO NOT TENABLE BECAUSE SUCH UNSIGNED DOCUMENTS ARE NOT THE ONLY EVIDENCE BUT THEY ARE CORROB ORATED BY ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S SAINATH ESTATES. A SSESSEES PLEA IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT INITIALLY H E TOTALLY DENIED OF RECEIVING CASH PAYMENTS. ONLY WHEN HE WAS CONFRONTED WITH SEIZED PAYMENT VOUCHERS HE WAS FORCED TO ACCEPT A PART OF THE CASH PAYMENT MENTIONED IN THE PAYMENT VOUCHERS BEARING EITHER HIS SIGNATURE OR S IGNATURE OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ASSESSEES CONTENTION T HAT IT HAS NOT RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.16.20 CRORES IS NOT BELIEVABLE. SO FAR AS ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT HE WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNI TY TO CROSS EXAMINE SRI K. PREMA SAGAR RAO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN IT. IT IS VERY MUCH EVIDENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT WH EN ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SRI PREMA SAGAR RAO ON 9-11-2010 NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR SRI PREMA SAGAR RAO APPEARED. THAT APART CROSS EXAMINING SRI PREMA SAGAR RAO NO WAY WOULD HAVE IM PROVED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF S AINATH ESTATES AND PAYMENTS REFLECTED IN SEIZED PAYMENTS VOUCHERS COUPL ED WITH THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ALSO ACCEPTED A PART OF THE CASH PAYMENT CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.16.20 CRORES RECOR DED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S SAINATH ESTATE IS THE ACTUAL AMOUNT RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON. SO FAR AS DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY TH E LEARNED AR ARE 16 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. CONCERNED, ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION WE FIND THEM TO BE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN THOSE CASES APART FROM THE UNSI GNED DOCUMENTS/LOOSE SHEETS THERE ARE NO OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. WHEREAS, IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PAYMENT VOUCHERS ARE CO RROBORATED BY OTHER EVIDENCES WHICH DEMONSTRATE PAYMENT OF SALE CO NSIDERATION OF RS.16.20 CRORES. IN AFORESAID VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE D O NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). HOWEVER, WE NEED TO MENTION HERE THAT IN COURSE OF HEARING THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT ACCO RDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS RS.16,35,00, 000/-. THE AMOUNT OFFERED BY ASSESSEE AND HIS SON IS RS.14,75,60,000/-. THE REFORE, SHORTFALL IS RS.1,59,40,000/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,60,00,000/- RESULTING IN EXCESS ADDITION OF RS.60,0 00. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THIS ASPECT AND IF THERE IS ANY EXCESS A DDITION AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THE SAME MAY BE MODIFIED. WITH THE AFOR ESAID OBSERVATION, WE DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE. 18. GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE CORRESPONDING TO GR OUND NO.2 OF DEPARTMENT IS WITH REGARD TO F.M.V. OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1-4-1981. WHILE THE ASSESSEES CASE IS CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE ADOPTED THE F.M .V OF RS.56,14,000 BEFORE INDEXATION AS PER THE REGISTERED V ALUER, THE DEPARTMENT WANTS RESTORATION OF F.M.V ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 19. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE EXAMI NING THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN BY THE ASSESSEE NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED A SUM OF RS.12,54,487/- AS THE COST OF ASSET ON 1 -4-1981 AND INDEXED THE SAME TO RS.73,01,114. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE PROPERTY AS GIFT VI DE REGISTERED GIFT 17 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. DEED DATED 28-3-2006 FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S SU RANA INDUSTRIES. THEREFORE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN, THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF ASSET AS PER SEC. 49(1), SHALL BE THE COST FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED, IT I S MENTIONED IN THE GIFT DEED THAT M/S SURANA INDUSTRIES HAS ACQUIRED 8 ACR ES OF LAND SITUATED AT NACHARAM ON 3-9-1968 UNDER A REGISTERED DOCUMENT. HOWEVER, THE GIFT DEED DID NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THE COST OF LAND PURCHASED ON 3-9- 1968. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COST AT WHICH THE ASSET WAS PURCHASED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED SINCE DETAILS ARE NOT AVAILABLE, THEY HAVE ROUGHLY ADOPTED 1% OF THE PRESENT SALE VALUE OF RS.12,54,487/-. THE ASSESSING O FFICER NOT BEING CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED TH E COST OF LAND AS ON 1-4-1981 AT RS.10 PER SQ YARD AND QUANTIFIED THE CO ST OF ENTIRE LAND AT RS.1,15,660/- AND DETERMINED THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISI TION AT RS.6,73,140/- AND COMPUTED CAPITAL GAIN ACCORDINGLY. 20. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE ISSUE IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E CIT (A). IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE CIT (A) THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN 1% OF SAL E VALUE KEEPING IN VIEW NORMAL TRENDS OF DISCLOSURE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT A REPORT OF A REGISTERED VALUER WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER REQUESTING HIM TO ADOPT THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 1-4-1981 AT RS.8 ,59,000/- WHICH WAS ALSO IGNORED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE RATE OF RS.10/- PER SQ. YARD ON THE BASIS OF SRO VALUE WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE F.M.V. 21. THE CIT (A) HELD THAT REGISTERED VALUERS REA SONING FOR ADOPTING THE RATE OF RS.250 PER SQ. YARD IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS HE HAS AD OPTED THE SAID RATE BY ADOPTING 50% OF THE RATE RS.500 PER SQ. YARD IN B ANJARA HILLS ON 1-4- 1981. THE CIT (A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT LAND RATE OF BANJARA HILLS CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR ASSESSING LAND RATE AT NACHARAM, AS ON 198 1 WHEN BANJARA 18 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. HILLS HAS ALREADY STARTED DEVELOPING, THERE IS NO SUCH DEV ELOPMENT AT NACHARAM. HE FURTHER OPINED THAT THE REGISTERED VALUE RS OPINION IS NOT ON THE BASIS OF ANY COMPARABLE INSTANCES IN THE SAME LOCALITY BUT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF HIS PERSONAL AND SUBJECTIVE OPINION. SIMILARLY, THE CIT (A) ALSO DID NOT APPROVE THE VALUE OF RS.10 PER SQ. YARD ADOPTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SRO VALUE. THE CIT (A) HAVING REJECT ED THE VALUE ADOPTED BOTH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS REGISTERED VALUER PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF LAND AS ON 1-4-1981 AT RS.100 P ER SQ. YARD. 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. ON A PERUSAL OF T HE MATERIALS ON RECORD AS WELL AS ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE CIT (A) HAVE CORRECTLY ADOPTED THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1-4-1981. WHILE THE CIT ( A) WAS CORRECT IN REJECTING THE FMV OF RS.10 PER SQ. YARD ADOPTED BY ASSE SSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SRO GUIDELINES, BUT THE FMV OF RS.100 PER SQ. YARD AS ON 1-4-1981 ADOPTED BY HIM IS ALSO WITHOUT ANY BASIS. NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE CIT (A) CONDUCTED NECESSARY ENQUIRY AND BROUGHT ON R ECORD COMPARATIVE INSTANCES OF SALE OF LAND IN THAT LOCALITY OR NEARBY ARE A WHICH COULD HAVE THROWN SOME LIGHT ON THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1- 4-1981. WHEN THE CIT (A) IS REJECTING THE FMV ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERE D VALUER FOR THE REASON THAT IT IS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF HIS PERSONAL AND SUBJECTI VE OPINION HE COULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED THE SAME ERROR BY ESTIMATING THE FM V AS ON 1-4-1981 AT RS.100 PER SQ. YARD WHICH HAS NO BASIS AT ALL. HOWEVE R, WE NEED TO MENTION HERE THAT ON PERUSING THE REGISTERED VALUER S REPORT, A COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGE 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT HE HAS ADOPTED THE FMV OF RS.250/- PER SQ. YARD ON THE BASIS OF FEW INSTANCES OF SALE OF PROPERTY IN BANJARA HILLS. IN OUR VIEW, FMV OF A PROPERTY AT NA CHARAM CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF FEW INSTANCES OF SALE AT BAN JARA HILLS AS IT IS NOT IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL 19 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE HAVE FAILED TO FACTUAL LY ESTABLISH THE FMV OF THE LAND AS ON 1-4-1981, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL CONDUCT NECESSARY ENQUIRY TO ASCERTA IN THE FMV OF THE LAND AS ON 1-4-1981. THE ASSESSEE MAY ALSO SUBSTAN TIATE HIS CLAIM BY BRINGING COMPARATIVE INSTANCES OF SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE SAME LOCALITY OR NEARBY AREAS. NEEDLESS TO MENTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BE FORE DECIDING THE ISSUE. SINCE WE ARE REMITTING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE DECISIONS RE LIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO CITE THESE DE CISIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL CONSIDER THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SAME WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEES GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND DEPARTMENTS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 23. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.4 OF THE MAIN GR OUNDS AND GROUND NO.3 OFADDITIONAL GROUND IS A COMMON ISSUE RELATING TO ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F IN RESPECT OF ALL THE FLATS ALLOTTED T O HIM. HENCE, WE WILL DEAL WITH IT AT A LATER STAGE WHILE CONSIDERING THE A DDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 24. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS . THE LEARNED AR CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DO NOT REQUIRE INVESTIGATION INTO NEW FACTS AND CAN BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS ALREADY ON R ECORD. THE ADDL. GROUNDS ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE FLAT NO.215 ADMEASURING 2010 SQ. FT. WAS ONLY ONE FLAT WHICH WAS SPLIT BY T HE VENDEE M/S SAINATH ESTATES (P) LTD., INTO TWO SALE DEEDS I N ORDER TO ENABLE THEM TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 19961. 20 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE PURCHASE OF FLAT NO.2315 WAS EVIDENCED BY AN AGREEMENT OF SALE DEED DATED 9- 6-2008 WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE FLAT NO.215 WITH A BUI LT UP AREA OF 2010 SQ.FT., WAS ONLY ONE FLAT AND THEREFORE THE EX EMPTION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AT RS.57,11,200/- MUST BE ALLOWED. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S 54F FOR ALL THE RESIDENTIAL FLATS ACQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT AGA INST SALE OF FACTORY BUILDING AND PLOT. 25. IN ADDITIONAL GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2, THE ASSESSEE H AS RAISED THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F BY TREATING FLAT N O.215 AS ONE FLAT. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ISSUE RAISED IN THESE GROUNDS CAN BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS O F FACTS ALREADY ON RECORD. HENCE, WE ADMIT THESE GROUNDS AND PROCEED TO DECI DE THE SAME. 26. BRIEFLY STATED, IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FIL ED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.57,11,200/- AS INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE OF NEW HOUSE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WHILE EXAMINING THE SAL E DEEDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED TWO FLATS I .E., 215 & 215A FROM M/S SAINATH ESTATES UNDER TWO SEPARATE REGISTE RED SALE DEEDS FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.32,55,000/- AND RS.22,28,200/- RESP ECTIVELY EXCLUDING REGISTRATION CHARGES OF RS.2,28,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO GET DEDUCTION U/S 54F IN RESPE CT OF ONLY ONE FLAT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT BOTH DOCUMENTS REPRESENT SALE O F ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND THE BUILDER FOR HIS CONVENIENCE O F CLAIMING DEDUCTION/S 80IB (10) HAS REGISTERED IT AS TWO SEPARATE UNITS. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH ASSESSEES EXPLANATION AND ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF RS.33,53,770 U/S 54F BY RESTRICTING IT TO ONE HOUSE. IN PROCEEDING BEFORE THE CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE STAND TAKEN 21 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT (A) HELD THAT AS THE BUILT UP AREAS REGISTERED UNDER TWO SEPARATE SALE DEEDS WERE CONTIGUOUS AND ADJACENT AND WERE HAVING A COMMON WALL, DEDUCTION U/S 54F CANNOT BE RESTRICTED TO ONE OF SUCH RESIDENTIAL BUILT UP AREA. HE THEREFORE DIRECTED TO ALLOW EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF BOTH OF THEM. 27. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IALS ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE TWO ADDITION AL GROUNDS HAVE BECOME PURELY ACADEMIC AS THE CIT (A) HAS ALLOWED THE D EDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54F OF THE ACT BY DIRECTING THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO TREAT IT AS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THEREFORE, IT IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY TO GO INTO THE ISSUE WHETHER IT IS ACTUALLY ONE RESIDENTIAL HO USE REGISTERED AS TWO UNITS UNDER TWO SEPARATE DOCUMENTS BY THE BUILDER M/S S AINATH ESTATES FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB. THAT APART, THE VIEW OF THE CIT (A) IS NOT ONLY IN TUNE WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON BY HIM BUT ALSO IN CONFORMITY WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED B Y DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. 28. AS WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE GROUND NO.3 OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 29. IN ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.3 AND MAIN GROUND NO .4, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F IN RESPECT OF ALL THE FLATS ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 30. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. IT IS THE CONTENTIO N OF THE LEARNED AR THAT OUT OF THE 10 FLATS ALLOTTED BY THE BUILDER 9 FLATS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH THEY ARE REGISTERED IN NAME OF DIFFERENT FAMI LY MEMBERS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT AS ALL THE FLATS ARE IN DIFFERENT FLOO RS OF THE SAME BUILDING ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F ON ALL THE FLAT S. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH 22 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. CONTENTION, THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPON NUMBER OF DECI SIONS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: I) VITTAL KRISHNA CONJEEVARAM VS. ITO (1 44 ITD 325) II) CIT VS. SYED ALI ADIL (352 ITR 418( AP) IV) DLF COMMERCIASL PROJECTS CORPORATION AND ANOTHER VS. ACI T (357 ITR 211 (DELHI) V) CIT VS. SMT. K.G. RUKMINIAMMA (331 ITR 211 (KARN) ON PERUSAL OF MATERIALS ON RECORD, IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSE E HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F AMOUNTING TO RS.57,11,200/- IN RESPECT OF ONE HOUSE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ALSO ASSESSEE NEVER CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F IN RESPECT OF ALL FLATS. EVEN BEFORE THE CIT ( A) THE ASSESSEE NEVER RAISED ANY ISSUE WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION U/S 54F IN RESP ECT OF ALL THE FLATS. HENCE, AT THIS BELATED STAGE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMIT TED TO RAISE THIS ISSUE BEFORE US FOR THE FIRST TIME. THOUGH WE FULLY AG REE WITH THE PRINCIPLES DECIDED IN THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AR , BUT ASSESSEES CLAIM CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AT THIS STAGE. THAT PART, SOME OF TH E FLATS ADMITTEDLY ARE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF OTHERS AND NOT IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT REQUIRES INVESTIGATION INTO/ CONSIDERATIO N OF NEW FACTS WHICH CANNOT BE DONE IN AN ADDITIONAL GROUND AS HELD BY TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY VS. CI T (229 ITR 383). THEREFORE WE CANNOT PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THIS ADDI TIONAL GROUND. SIMILARLY, GROUND NO.4 OF THE MAIN GROUNDS CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED AS IT DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A). AS A RESULT, MAIN GROUND NO.4 AND ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.3 ARE DISMISSED. 23 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. ITA NO.955/HYD/2013 NIKHIL SURANA 31. GROUND NO.1 IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 DECIDED IN CASE OF HARISHCHAND SURANA (SUPRA) IN ITA NO.954/HYD/2013. THERE FORE, FOLLOWING OUR REASONING GIVEN THERE UNDER, WE DISMISS THIS GROU ND ALSO. 32. GROUND NO.2 IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO.3 OF ITA NO.954/HYD/13. FOLLOWING OUR DECISION THEREIN, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERING AFRESH IN TERMS WITH OUR DIRECTIO N. 33. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ALL FLATS. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY US WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO.4 OF ITA NO.954/HYD/13. FOLLOWING OUR DECI SION THEREIN, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND. GROUND NO.4- THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.4 IS RELAT ING TO ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.62,50,000/- BEING THE VALUE OF FLAT NO S.739 AND 740 RECEIVED AFTER 15-3-2009. 34. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. IT IS THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE TWO FLATS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AT THE HA NDS OF SRI HARISH CHANDRA SURANA. HENCE, THEY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED A PETITION U/S 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECTIFY ING THE MISTAKE BUT IT STILL REMAINS UNATTENDED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE IS REQUIRED TO BE RE MITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THE SE TWO FLATS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AT THE HANDS OF SRI HARISH CHAND SURANA, THEY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AGAIN AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE T HIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 24 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. 35. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE MAIN GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED THREE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ADDIT IONAL GROUNDS RAISED IN CASE OF THE OTHER ASSESSEE SRI HARISHCHAND SURANA IN ITA NO .954/HYD/2013. FOLLOWING OUR DECISION IN THAT CASE, WE DISMISS ALL THE ADDITIONA L GROUNDS RAISED. ITA NO.1102/HYD/2013 (DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL): 36. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 OF THE AFORESAID CROSS APPEALS IS WITH REGARD TO F.M.V OF LAND AS ON 1-4-1981 ADOPT ED BY THE CIT (A) AT RS.100 PER SQ. YARD. 37. THIS ISSUE IS SIMILAR TO GROUND NO.2 OF THE DEPARTMENT IN ITA NO.1087/HYD/13 IN CASE OF HARISHCHAND SURANA. IN VIEW OF OUR FIND ING WHILE DECIDING THE AFORESAID GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENT, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS RA ISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS APPEAL ALSO. 38. THE NEXT ISSUE AS RAISED IN GROUND NO.3 IS W ITH REGARD TO CIT (A) ALLOWING DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54F OF THE A CT. 39. SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE CROSS APPEALS RELATING TO HARISHCHAND SURANA, FOLLOWING OUR FINDING GIVEN THER EIN, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE DE PARTMENT. 40. TO SUM UP, ITA NO.954 AND 955/HYD/2013 OF THE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND BOTH THE APPE ALS OF THE DEPARTMENT BEING ITA NOS. 1087/HYD/2013 AND 1102/HYD/13 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21-02-2014. SD/ - (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2014. JMR * 25 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD. COPY TO:- 1) C/O SEKHAR & CO., 133/4, R.P. ROAD, SECUNDERABAD. 2) DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, HYDERABAD. 3) CIT (A)-I HYDERABAD. 4) CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD. 26 ITA NOS.954 OF 2013 AND OTHERS, HARISHCHAND SURANA & OTHERS, SECUNDERABAD.