Kum. Potla Shanti, Khammam V. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Hyderabad

MA 99/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9992 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMISHA S GUPT
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.N. M.A.NO. AY APPLICANT RESPONDENT 1. 96/H/12 (INITA NO. 1521/H/11) 2008-09 POTLA NAGESWARA RAO, KHAMMAM. (PAN AGOPP 4882 H) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4, HYDERABAD. 2 97/H/12 (IN ITA NO. 1523/H/11) 2008-09 KUM. POTLA SHANTI, KHAMMAN. (PAN APEPP 2329 E) -DO- 3. 98/H/12 (IN ITA NO. 1529/H/11) 2007-08 KUM. POTLA SHANTI, KHAMMAM. -DO- 4. 99/H/12 (IN ITA NO. 1530/H/11) 2008-09 KUM. POTLA SHANTI, KHAMMAM -DO- 5. 100/H/12 (IN ITA NO. 1522/H/11) 2008-09 POTLA NISHANTH, KHAMMAM (PAN APEPP 2339 R) -DO- 6. 101/H/12 (IN ITA NO. 1531/H/11) 2008-09 POTLA NISHANTH, KHAMMAM. -DO- 7. 102/H/12 (IN ITA NO. 1568/H/12) 2007-08 POTLA NISHANTH, KHAMMAM -DO- APPLICANTS BY : SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM RESPONDENT BY : SMT. AMISHA S. GUPT DATE OF HEARING: 23/11/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/02/2013 2 M.A. NOS. 96 TO 102/HYD/2012 POTLA NAGESWARA RAO AND OTHERS ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M.: MA NO 96/H/12 IN ITA NO 1521/H/11 FOR AY 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF SHRI. POTLA NAGESWARA RAO MA NO 97/H/12 IN ITA NO 1523/H/11 FOR AY 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF KUM. POTLA SHANTHI AND MA NO 100/H/12 IN ITA NO 1522/H/11 FOR AY 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF SHRI. POTLA NISHANTH: 1. AS ALL THE MAS ARE ON IDENTICAL ISSUE BUT IN THE CASE OF THREE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES, THEY ARE ALL DISPOSED OF TOGETHER AS UNDER:. 2. MA NO 96/H/12 IS AGAINST OUR ORDER IN ITA NO 1521/H/11 DT 22.3.12 FOR AY 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF SHRI. POTLA NAGESWARA RAO. THE FIRST GROUND SEEKING RECTI FICATION IS AS UNDER: THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THAT AS IN THE CASE OF SM T. K. RADHIKA, IN THIS CASE ALSO THE DEVELOPER, THE TRANS FEREE HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS OBLIGATION AND IN FACT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF WAS CANCELLED LATER ON 26/11/2011 AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE MATERIAL PAPERS F ILED IN PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 35 ONWARDS. FURTHER THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THAT AS IN THE CASE OF SMT. K. RADHIKA THERE IS A CLAUSE MAKING TIME AS ESSENCE OF CONTRACT VIZ., CLAUSE 13 OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH IS AT PAGE 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS PER WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE DONE WITHIN 24 MONTHS OF OBTAINING SANCTION FROM THE GRAM PANCHAYAT WITH CLAUSE FOR REASONABLE EXTENSION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF SMT. RADHIKA THERE WAS REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT THOUGH MEAGRE WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE WAS NO SUCH REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT. HE CONTENDED THAT IN SPITE REPEATED SUBMISSIONS TO THE AT THERE IS NO PERFORMANCE BY THE DEVELOPER THE AO HAS NOT BOTHERED TO VERIFY THE FACT AND EVEN THE CIT(A) HAS NOT 3 M.A. NOS. 96 TO 102/HYD/2012 POTLA NAGESWARA RAO AND OTHERS GOT IT DONE AND HAS SIMPLY RELIED ON DECISIONS TO H OLD THAT THERE IS TRANSFER. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THAT SINCE FACTS O F HIS CARE ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF SMT. RADHIKA AND THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN APPLICA NTS CASE TO HOLD THAT THERE IS A TRANSFER IN DISTINGUIS HED BY THE VERY SAME TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE RELIED UPON BY T HE APPLICANT ON SIMILAR FACTS. IN THE OTHER CASE RELIE D UPON OF HOTEL HARBOUR VIEW ALSO THE ITAT HELD THAT CAPIT AL GAINS DOES NOT ARISE WHERE THE AGREEMENT IS CANCELL ED SUBSEQUENTLY, AS IN THE APPLICANTS CASE. THE HONB LE ITAT, IN THEIR ORDER HAS MERELY HELD THAT THE DECIS IONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPLICANT ARE NOT IS A MISTAKE I N NOT CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE FACTS THOUGH BROUGHT TO NOTICE OF TH E HONBLE ITAT BY FILING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. 3. WE FIND THAT THIS WILL AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF OUR DECISION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. UNDER SEC 254(2) ONLY PATENT MISTAKES ARE LIABLE TO BE RECTIFIED AND NOT A REVIE W OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE FIRST POINT FOR RECTIFICATION IS DISMISSED. 4. THE SECOND POINT OR RECTIFICATION IS AS UNDER: THE APPLICANT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS ANOTH ER MISTAKE IN NOT CONSIDERED THE PRAYER TO DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW COST OF THE LAND WHICH IS NOT CONSIDERED B Y THE HONBLE ITAT. THE APPLICANT INVITED KIND ATTENTION TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AT PAGE 20 WHERE SUMMARY OF THE PRAYER IS MADE AND WHERE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT T HE AO HAS CONSIDERED ENTIRE RECEIPT TO BE CAPITAL GAIN S WITHOUT ALLOWING COST OF ACQUISITION. THE PRAYER WA S TO DIRECT FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 54F AND COST OF ACQUISITION. THE HONBLE ITAT WAS KIND ENOUGH TO DI RECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF 54F IN PARA 46 OF THE ORDER. 5. WE FIND FROM PARA 46 OF OUR ORDER, WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF THE 4 M.A. NOS. 96 TO 102/HYD/2012 POTLA NAGESWARA RAO AND OTHERS PROPERTY UNDER DISPUTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND G IVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO WAS ALSO SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO CONSIDER ALLOWABILITY OF R ELIEF U/S 54F. WHEN RECOMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS, NO DOUBT THE AO HAS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL COMPONENTS INCLUDING COST OF ACQUISITION, DEDUCTION U/S 54F AND OTHER RELATED PR OVISIONS FOR ARRIVING AT TAXABLE CAPITAL GAINS. WE THEREFORE DO NOT THINK THAT ANY FURTHER RECTIFICATION IS REQUIRED IN OUR ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT MA NO 96/H/12 IN ITA NO 1521/H/11 FOR THE AY 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF SHRI. POTLA NAGESWARA RAO , IS DISMISSED. MA NO 97/H/12 IN ITA NO 1523/H/11 FOR AY 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF KUM. POTLA SHANTHI: 7. THIS MA IS AGAINST ITA NO 1523/H/11 FOR AY 2008 -09 IN THE CASE OF KUM POTLA SHANTHI. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER FOLLOWED ITS OWN ORDER IN ITA 1521/H/11 FOR THE SAM E AY IN THE CASE OF SHRI. POTLA NAGESWARA RAO. THE PRESENT ASSESSEE HAS NOW FILED MA ON THE SAME ISSUES AS HAS BEEN RAI SED BY SHRI. POTLA NAGESWARA RAO IN MA 96/H/12. THE ASSESS EE HAS PRAYED THAT THE PETITION FILED IN 1521/H/11 MAY BE TREATED AS PART OF THIS PETITION. 8. THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN MA 96/H/12 SUPRA. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 5 SUPRA WE DISMISS THE MA NO 97/H/12 IN ITA NO 1523/H /11 FOR AY 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF KUM. POTLA SHANTHI. 5 M.A. NOS. 96 TO 102/HYD/2012 POTLA NAGESWARA RAO AND OTHERS MA NO 100/H/12 IN ITA NO 1522/H/11 FOR AY 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF SHRI. POTLA NISHANTH: 9. THIS MA IS AGAINST ITA NO 1523/H/11 FOR AY 2008 -09 IN THE CASE OF SHRI. POTLA NISHANTH. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER FOLLOWED ITS OWN ORDER IN ITA 1521/H/11 FOR THE SAM E AY IN THE CASE OF SHRI. POTLA NAGESWARA RAO. THE PRESENT ASSESSEE HAS NOW FILED MA ON THE SAME ISSUES AS HAS BEEN RAI SED BY SHRI. POTLA NAGESWARA RAO IN MA 96/H/12. THE ASSESS EE HAS PRAYED THAT THE PETITION FILED IN 1521/H/11 MAY BE TREATED AS PART OF THIS PETITION. 10. THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN M A 96/H/12 SUPRA. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 5 SUPRA WE DISMISS THE MA NO 100/H/12 IN ITA NO 1522/ H/11 FOR AY 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF SHRI.. POTLA NISHANTH . MA NO 98/H/12 IN ITA NO 1529/H/11 FOR AY 2007-08 AND MA99/H/12 IN ITA NO 1530/H/11 FOR AY 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF KUM POTLA SHANTHI: MA NO 101/H/12 IN ITA NO 1531/H/11 FOR AY 2008-09 AND MA 102/H/12 IN ITA NO 1568/H/11 FOR AY 2007- 08 IN THE CASE OF SHRI. POTLA NISHANTH: 11. AS THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE FOUR THE MAS ARE IDENTICAL BUT FOR TWO ASSESSEES AND TWO DIFFERENT A SSESSMENT YEARS THEY ARE DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER. 12. MA 98/H/12 IS AGAINST THE OUR ORDER IN ITA NO 1529/H/11 DT 22.3.12 IN THE CASE KUM POTLA SHANTHI FOR AY 6 M.A. NOS. 96 TO 102/HYD/2012 POTLA NAGESWARA RAO AND OTHERS 2007-08. THE GROUND SEEKING FOR RECTIFICATION OF OU R ORDER IS AS UNDER: THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THAT AS FAR AS DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE DISTANCE FROM ANY MUNICIPALITY THERE CAN NOT BE ANY GRIEVANCE. BUT GIVING DIRECTION TO VERIFY TH E NATURE OF LAND IS NOT ARISING OUT OF THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT, AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE GROUND THAT I S RE-PRODUCED ABOVE. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR APPEAL IS THAT THE LAND LOSES I T CHARACTER ONCE IT IS GIVEN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TOWNS HIP. THE APPLICANT, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBL E ITAT HAS GONE INTO QUESTION THAT IS NOT RAISED AND ISSUED DIRECTIONS ON THE SAME. THE APPLICANT SUBMIT TED THAT THIS IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE ORDER AND PRAYED FOR CONSIDERING THIS PETITION AND PASSING APPROPRIATE ORDER. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE INV ITED ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF KERALA HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CHOCHIN REFINERIES LTD., 173 ITR 461 WHEREI N THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD THAT A RELIEF NOT SOUGHT FOR C ANNOT BE GRANTED BY THE ITAT. 13. THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HENCE THE PROFIT ARISING THEREFROM IS TAXABLE AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. T HE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) CONTENDING THAT AS THE LAND HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR DEVE LOPMENT IT HAS LOST ITS CHARACTER AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN PARA 83 OF OUR ORDER , THE ISSUE WAS REMITTED TO THE FILES OF THE AO TO RE-EXAMINE AFRESH WHETHER THE LAND CAN BE CLASSIFIE D AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND WHETHER THE LAND IS BEYOND 8 KMS FROM ANY MUNICIPALITY. 14. THE ISSUE ON APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS WHE THER THE PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND IS EXEMPT ON THE GROUND THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATE BEYOND 13 KMS FROM MUNICIPALITY. THE BASIC ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHET HER THE 7 M.A. NOS. 96 TO 102/HYD/2012 POTLA NAGESWARA RAO AND OTHERS LAND IS AGRICULTURAL AND NOT MERELY ITS DISTANCE FR OM THE MUNICIPALITY. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT DECIDE WHETHER PR OFIT ON SALE OF LAND IS EXEMPT FROM CAPITAL GAINS ON THE GR OUND THE LAND IS AGRICULTURAL LAND, WITHOUT FIRST ESTABLISHI NG THAT THE LAND WAS IN FACT AGRICULTURAL LAND. THIS FACTUM DOE S NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES. WHILE THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER FOR ENHANCEMEN T OF ASSESSMENT, IT CERTAINLY HAS THE POWER AND IN FACT IT IS OBLIGED TO ENQUIRE INTO ALL ASPECTS AN ALLOWANCE WH ICH IS QUESTIONED BEFORE THEM. WE CANNOT HOLD THAT PROFIT ON SALE OF IMPUGNED IS EXEMPT FROM CAPITAL GAINS WITHOUT FI RST BEING CERTAIN THAT ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROVISION S OF THE ACT ARE SATISFIED. IF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NO T CONSIDERED ONE OF THE ASPECTS REQUIRED TO BE SATISF IED FOR ALLOWANCE, THE TRIBUNAL IS WELL WITHIN RIGHTS TO RE MAND THE MATTER TO THE FILES OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATI ON IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 15. IN THE CASE OF COCHIN REFINERIES LTD (173 ITR 4 61), THE KERALA HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS NO T RIGHT IN GRANTING DEVELOPMENT REBATE WHICH WAS SPECIFICALLY REFUSED BY THE CIT(A) AND WAS NOT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THAT CASE IT WAS A S EPARATE AND DISTINCT RELIEF WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUN AL WITHOUT THE ASSESSEE RAISING THE GROUNDS FOR ALLOWANCE OF DEVELOPMENT REBATE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE FACTS A RE DIFFERENT. THE ISSUE ON APPEAL IS WHETHER PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND IS EXEMPT ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS AGRICULTURA L LAND SITUATE BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED DISTANCE FROM A MUNIC IPALITY. THE EXEMPTIONS WILL BE APPLICABLE ONLY IF BOTH THE CONDITIONS 8 M.A. NOS. 96 TO 102/HYD/2012 POTLA NAGESWARA RAO AND OTHERS ARE SATISFIED. THE BASIC ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHE THER THE LAND WILL CONSTITUTE A CAPITAL ASSET. IF THE TRIBUN AL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT EXAMINE D ALL THE ASPECTS TO BE COMPLIED BEFORE A RELIEF CAN BE GRANT ED, THEY CANNOT CLOSE THE EYES AND GRANT RELIEF ONLY ON THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO N OT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN OUR DIRECTIONS AND ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 16. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES MA NO 98/H/12 IN I TA NO 1529/H/11 FOR AY 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF KUM POTLA S HANTHI IS DISMISSED. MA NO 99/H/12 IN ITA NO 1530/H/11 KUM POTLA SHANTHI AY 2008-09 17. THE MA BY THE ASSESSEE IS SIMILAR TO THE MA NO 98/H/12 IN ITA NO 1529/H/11 FOR AY 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF T HE SAME ASSESSEE. 18. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN MA N O 98/H/12 SUPRA. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN MA NO 98/H /12 IN ITA NO 1529/H/11 FOR AY 2007-08 AT PARAGRAPHS 4AND 5 SUPRA, THE MA NO 99/H/12 IN ITA NO 1530/H/11 FOR AY 2008- 09 IN THE CASE OF KUM POTLA SHANTHI IS DISMISSED. 9 M.A. NOS. 96 TO 102/HYD/2012 POTLA NAGESWARA RAO AND OTHERS MA NO 101/H/12 IN ITA NO 1531/H/11 FOR AY 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF SHRI. POTLA NISHANTH 19. THE MA BY THE ASSESSEE IS SIMILAR TO THE MA NO 98/H/12 IN ITA NO 1529/H/11 FOR AY 2007-08 IN THE C ASE OF KUM. POTLA SHANTHI AND THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED T HIS PETITION TO BE PART OF THE OTHER PETITION AS RECTIF ICATION IS SOUGHT ON IDENTICAL ISSUE. 20. FURTHER, IN THIS M.A. WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS BE EN FILED AS FOLLOWS: WHILE MAKING SUBMISSION IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD URGED THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL TO RECTIFY ONE MORE ERROR WITH RES PECT TO NOT DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF RECOMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS WHICH WAS IN THE GROUNDS FILED BY TH E REVENUE. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF THIS IS SUE WAS OF THE IMPRESSION THAT IT HAD DEALT WITH THE IS SUE OF RECOMPUTATION IN THE APPEAL OF SRI POTLA NISHANT IN ITA NO. 1522/HYD/2011 AND REMITTED IT BACK. HOWEVER , IN THE SAID APPEAL, HONBLE TRIBUNAL AGAIN REFERRED TO THE APPEAL OF SRI POTLA NAGESWARA RAO IN ITA NO. 1521/H/2011 WHEREIN SUCH ISSUE WAS NOT DECIDED. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF RECOMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS IS NOT DECIDED B Y THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE FIL ED IN THE CASE OF THIS ASSESSEE (ITA NO. 1531/H/2011) AND SO ALSO IN THE CASE OF SRI POTLA NAGESWARA RAO (ITA NO. 1567/H/2011 FOR AY 2008-09). 21. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE ISSUE IN M.A. NO. 96/HYD/2012 IN ITA NO. 1521/HYD/11 AT PARAS 4 & 5 (SUPRA). FOR THE REASONS STATED IN M.A. NO. 96/H/12 (SUPRA), THE M.A. NO. 101/H/12 IN ITA NO. 1531/H/11 FOR THE AY 10 M.A. NOS. 96 TO 102/HYD/2012 POTLA NAGESWARA RAO AND OTHERS 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF POTLA NISHANT IS DISMISSED O N THIS ISSUE. MA 102/H/12 IN ITA NO 1568/H/11 FOR AY 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF SHRI. POTLA NISHANTH: 22. THE MA BY THE ASSESSEE IS SIMILAR TO THE MA NO 98/H/12 IN ITA NO 1529/H/11 FOR AY 2007-08 IN THE C ASE OF KUM. POTLA SHANTHI AND THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED T HIS PETITION TO BE PART OF THE OTHER PETITION AS RECTIF ICATION IS SOUGHT ON IDENTICAL ISSUE. 23. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN MA N O 98/H/12 SUPRA. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN MA NO 98/H /12 IN ITA NO 1529/H/11 FOR AY 2007-08 AT PARAGRAPHS 4 AND 5 SUPRA, MA NO 102/H/12 IN ITA NO 1568/H/11 FOR AY 2 007- 08 IN THE CASE OF SHRI. POTLA NISHANTH IS DISMISSED . 24. TO SUM UP, ALL THE M.AS. UNDER CONSIDERATION AR E DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/02/2013. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHA VIJAYARAGH AVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R HYDERABAD, DATED: 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2013. KV 11 M.A. NOS. 96 TO 102/HYD/2012 POTLA NAGESWARA RAO AND OTHERS COPY TO:- 1) POTLA NAGESWARA RAO, POTLA SHANTI, AND POTLA NISHAH TH, C/O A. RAGHURAM, ADVOCATE, 610, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. 2) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4, HYDERABAD 3) THE CIT (A)-VII, HYDERABAD 4) THE CIT, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE I N T L S 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/ APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER