Movva Srinivasa Rao, Ponnuru V. The Dy. Commossioner of Welth Tax , Vijayawada

WTA 13/VIZ/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3880 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S MURTHY
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 205

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER W. T . A . NO. 1 1 TO 14 / VIZ /201 7 (ASST. YEAR : 20 0 7 - 0 8 TO 20 1 0 - 1 1 ) MOVVA SRINIVASA RAO, HOUSE NO. 14 - 1 - 117, GBC ROAD, PONNURU, GUNTUR DISTRICT. VS. DCWT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA. PAN NO. AKNPM 1139 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.L. NARASIMHA RAO ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI P.S. MURTHY SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 19/02/2018. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 /03/2018. O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE ARE THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S OF COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (APPEALS) - 3 , VISAKHAPATNAM , EACH DATED 09 /0 1 /201 7 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 20 1 0 - 11 . ITA NO. 11/VIZ/2017 2. GROUND NOS. 1 & 3 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, OUR ADJUDICATION IS NOT REQUIRED, THEREFORE , SAME ARE DISMISSED. 2 W TA NO. 11 - 14 /VIZ/2017 ( MOVVA SRINIVASA RAO ) 3 . THE GROUND NO.2 , WHICH IS ONLY THE GROUND INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS RELATING TO THE LAND AT NAGARAM ADMEASURING ABOUT 1.09 ACRES . 4 . T HE LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 1.0 9 GUNTAS AT NAGARAM VILLAGE WAS VALUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF WEALTH TAX AT RS. 14 , 86 ,700/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT THE SAME TO SECTION 2(EA)(B) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE LAND WAS CONVERTED INTO NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND. 5. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CW T(A) , IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS LAND WAS CONVERTED INTO STOCK - IN - TRADE UNDER SECTION 2(EA)(B) OF THE ACT . THE LD. CWT(A) GAVE A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE LAND AT NAGARAM VILLAGE WAS ALREADY CONVERTED INTO NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND AND AFTER CONVERSION, TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED ANY INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7 . THE LD. CWT(A) HIMSELF ACCEPTED THAT THE LAND HAS ALREADY BEEN CO N VERTED INTO NON - AGRICULTURAL AND THE SAME HAS SHOWN AS STOCK - IN - TRADE . ONCE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE LAND WHICH IS IN DISPUTE IS STOCK - IN - TRADE , IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS ASSET. SIMPLY BECAUSE ASSESSEE IS NOT OFFERED INCOME FROM REAL ESTATE, 3 W TA NO. 11 - 14 /VIZ/2017 ( MOVVA SRINIVASA RAO ) NATURE OF THE ASSET CANNOT BE CHANGED. T HEREFORE, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. W. T . A . NO. 12/VIZ/2017 8 . GROUND NO.1 IS GE NERAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE, OUR ADJUDICATION IS NOT REQUIRED, SAME IS DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO. 2 IS RELAT ING TO THE HOUSE SITE AT TENALI TO THE EXTENT OF 1400 SQ.FT. 10 . T HE ASSESSEE HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY AT RS. 11.50 LAKHS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE MARKET VALUE , BASED ON THE SROS VALUE OF RS. 34,02,000/ - . ON APPEAL, LD. CWT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT WHY SRO VA LUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CWT(A) . THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 11 . REGARDING GROUND NO.3, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS THIS GROUND. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED . 12 . GROUND NO.4 RELATING TO THE LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 2. 0 8 ACRES AT KALAKKAL , MEDAK DISTRICT . THE ASSESSEE HAS VALUED THE LAND AT RS. 8,88,549/ - AND CLAIMED IT AS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SOUGHT EX EM PTION . IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE LAND IS SITUATED BEYOND 8 4 W TA NO. 11 - 14 /VIZ/2017 ( MOVVA SRINIVASA RAO ) KM. AWAY FROM KAMA REDDY MUNICIPAL LIMITS . ON THE OTHER HAND, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED RS. 8 LAKHS PER ACRE , BASED ON THE SRO RATES , AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,64,000/ - , WHICH WAS BROUGHT UNDER THE WEALTH TAX . BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY PERMISSION FOR CONVERSION OF LAND INTO NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE AMENDMENT MADE IN THE FINANCE ACT, 2013 RETROSPECTIVELY , THE LAND CLASSIFIED AS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE RECORDS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE S ; OR THE LAND ON WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER ANY LAW , IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF URBAN LAND AND ACCORDINGLY IT IS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT . HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. DCM LTD. 290 ITR 615 (DEL) AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF WEALTH TAX VS. LT. GENERAL (RETD.) R.K. MEHRA REPORTED IN (2010) 2 84 CTR 205 AND ALSO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CWT V. E. UDAYAKUMAR (284 ITR 511) . 13 . ON THE OTHER HAND, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5 W TA NO. 11 - 14 /VIZ/2017 ( MOVVA SRINIVASA RAO ) 14 . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LAND , WHICH IS IN DISPUTE , IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NO CONVERSION HAS TAKEN PLACE, THEREFORE, AS PER THE AMENDMENT MADE IN THE FINANCE ACT , 2013 RETROSPECTIVELY , THE LAND WHICH IS IN DISPUTE IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE URBAN LAND AND IS ACCORDINGLY EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED WHETHER THE LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH IS REGARD. INSOFAR AS NON - CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS CONCERNED, THIS ASPECT IS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL HAS TO BE RE - EXAMINED AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CWT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADJUDICATE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DENOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RELEVANT DETAILS, SUCH AS, PATTADAAR PASSBOOK AND OTHER REVENUE RECORDS. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15 . GROUND NO.5 , WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE GROUND NO.4 OF THIS APPEAL . THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF 6 W TA NO. 11 - 14 /VIZ/2017 ( MOVVA SRINIVASA RAO ) THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER AFRESH. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16 . GROUND NO .6 RELATING TO LAND AT NAGARAM . THE LAND WHICH IS IN DISPUTE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY AS ON 31/03/2008 AT RS. 22 LAKHS AND ARRIVED AT RS. 23,93,000/ - TO THE TOTAL EXTENT OF LAND 1.09 GUNTAS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THIS LAND IS CONVERTED INTO NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE SAME IS TREATED AS STOCK - IN - TRADE , T HEREFORE WEALTH TAX PROVISIONS HAVE NO APPLICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S NOT ACCEPTED AND ACCORDINGLY ADDITION IS MADE. 17 . ON APPEAL, LD. CWT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED ANY INCOME FROM REAL ESTATE. 18. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 19. THE LD. CWT(A) HIMSELF ACCEPTED THAT THE LAND HAS ALREADY CO N VERTED INTO NON - AGRICULTURAL AND THE SAME HAS SHOWN AS STOCK - IN - TRADE. ONCE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE LAND WHICH IS IN DISPUTE IS STOCK - IN - TRADE, IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS ASSET. SIMPLY BECAUSE ASSESSEE IS NOT OFFERED INCOME FROM REAL ESTATE, NATURE OF THE ASSET CANNOT BE CHANGED. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7 W TA NO. 11 - 14 /VIZ/2017 ( MOVVA SRINIVASA RAO ) 20 . GROUND NO.7 RELATING TO THE LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 1 3.61 CENTS IN NIZAMPATNAM . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LAND SITUATED IN A RURAL AREA AND IS AGRICULTURAL LAND . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS TO PROVE THAT THE LAND IS AGRICULTURAL LAND. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION IS MADE. 21 . ON APPEAL, NO DETAILS ARE FILED, HENCE, LD. CWT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 22. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND IS AGRIC ULTURAL LAND AND IT HAD NOT BEEN CONVERTED INTO NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND . THEREFORE, IT IS NOT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF DEFINITION OF 2(EA) OF WEALTH TAX AS AMENDMENT MADE IN THE FINANCE ACT, 2013 . THIS GROUND IS SIMILAR TO THE GROUND NO.4 OF THIS APPEAL. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN GROUND NO.4 , THE ISSUE IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 23. GROUND NO.8 RELATING TO THE LAND OF 12.39 CENTS AT KOTHAPET . THIS GROUND IS SIMILAR TO THE GROUND NO.4 OF THIS APPEAL. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER AFRESH. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8 W TA NO. 11 - 14 /VIZ/2017 ( MOVVA SRINIVASA RAO ) 24 . GROUND NO.9 REL A TING TO THE FLAT SITUATED AT CHANDANAGAR . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSESSED THE MARKET VALUE OF FLAT NO. 7, SURVEY NO. 361 SITUATED AT CHANDANAGAR, SERILINGAMPALLY MANDAL AT RS. 17,31,000/ - AND AS PER THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, RENTAL INCOME HAS BEEN CALCULATED AT RS. 6,000/ - PER SQ.YRD. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID FLAT WAS LET OUT FOR 300 DAYS AND THE SAME IS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 5 & 6 OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED IS NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 5 & 6 OF THE WE A LTH TAX ACT. 25 . ON APPEAL, LD. CWT(A) SCALED DOWN THE MARKET VALUE OF RENT AT 5,000/ - PER SQ.YARD IN RELATION TO STRUCTURE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VALUE THE SAME AT RS. 14,40,000/ - . BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 5 & 6 OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT . THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT ONCE THE PROPERTY WAS LET OUT FOR MORE THAN 300 DAYS, THE REVENUE WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FACT, BROUGHT TO TAX THE VALUE OF THE ASSET. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO SEN D THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE FACTS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE 9 W TA NO. 11 - 14 /VIZ/2017 ( MOVVA SRINIVASA RAO ) ASSESSEE. THUS, THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 26. GROUND NO.10 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, TH EREFORE, OUR ADJUDICATION IS NOT REQUIRED, SAME IS DISMISSED. W.T.A.NO. 13/VIZ/2017 27 . GROUND NO. 1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE , THEREFORE ADJUDICATION IS NOT REQUIRED, SAME IS DISMISSED. 28. GROUND NO.2 RELAT ES TO THE SITE OF 1400 SQ.YDS. AT TENALI , WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED IN WTA NO.12/VIZ/2017 AS GROUND NO.2 . HENCE, OUR DECISION AT PARA NO.10 OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS GROUND ALSO. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 29. REGAR D IN G G ROUND NO.3 , LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , AT THE TIME OF HEARING , HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE DOES N O T WANT TO PRESS THIS GROUND. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 30 . GROUND NO.4 RELATING TO THE LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 2.08 ACRES AT KALAKK A L, MEDAK DISTRICT, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED IN WTA NO.12/VIZ/2017 AS GROUND NO. 4 . HENCE, OUR DECISION AT PARA NO.1 4 OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS GROUND ALSO . THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10 W TA NO. 11 - 14 /VIZ/2017 ( MOVVA SRINIVASA RAO ) 31. GROUND NO. 5 IS SIMILAR TO THE GROUND NO.4 IN W.T.A.NO. 12/VIZ/2017 , HENCE, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO REM ITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION . THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 32 . GROUND NO.6 IS RELATING TO THE LAND AT NAGARAM , ADMEASURING ABOUT 1.09 ACRES , WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED IN WTA NO.1 1 /VIZ/2017 AS GROUND NO.2. HENCE, OUR DECISION AT PARA NO. 7 OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS GROUND ALSO . THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 33 . GROUND NO.7 REL A TING TO THE LAND OF 13.61 ACRES AT NIZAMPATNAM , WHICH HAS ALREA DY BEEN ADJUDICATED IN WTA NO.1 2 /VIZ/2017 AS GROUND NO.7 AT PARA NOS. 20 TO 22 WHEREIN ISSUE HAS BEEN REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AFTER EXAMINING 10(1) ADANGAL & PATTADAAR PASSBOOK AND OTHER DETAILS . HENCE, OUR DECISION AT PARA NO. 22 OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS GROUND ALSO . THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 34. GROUND NO.8 REL A TING TO THE LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 12.39 ACRES AT KOTHAPET , T HIS GROUND IS SIMILAR TO THE GROUND NO.4 IN W.T.A.NO. 12/VIZ/2017 , WHEREIN WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE 11 W TA NO. 11 - 14 /VIZ/2017 ( MOVVA SRINIVASA RAO ) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDER ATION. THEREFORE THIS ISSUE IS ALSO REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER AFRESH. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 35 . GROUND NO.9 RELATING TO THE FLAT AT CHANDANAGAR, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED IN WTA NO.12/VIZ/2017 AS GROUND NO. 9 . HENCE, OUR DECISION AT PARA NO. 25 OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS GROUND ALSO . THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 36. GROUND NO.10 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED, THEREFORE, SAME IS DISMISSED. W.T.A.NO. 14/VIZ/2017 37 . GR O UND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED, THEREFORE, SAME IS DISMISSED . 38 . GR O UND NO.2 RELATING TO THE SITE AT TENALI ADMEASURING 1400 SQ.YARDS , WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED IN WTA NO.12/VIZ/2017 AS GROUND NO.2. HENCE, OUR DECISION AT PARA NO.10 OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS GROUND ALSO . THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12 W TA NO. 11 - 14 /VIZ/2017 ( MOVVA SRINIVASA RAO ) 39. REGARDING GROUND NO.3, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS THIS GROUND. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED . 40. GROUND NO.4 RELATING TO THE LAND OF 2.08 ACRES AT KALAKKAL, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED IN WTA NO.12/VIZ/2017 AS GROUND NO. 4 . HENCE, OUR DECISION AT PARA NO.1 4 OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS GROUND ALSO . THUS, THIS GROUND OF AP PEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 41 . GROUND NO.5 IS SIMILAR TO THE GROUND NO.4 OF THIS APPEAL. T HEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER AFRESH . THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 42 . GROUND NO.6 RELATING TO THE LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 1.09 ACRES AT NAGARAM, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED IN WTA NO.1 1 /VIZ/2017 AS GROUND NO.2. HENCE, OUR DECISION AT PARA NO. 7 OF TH IS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS GROUND ALSO . THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 43 . GROUND NO.7 RELATING TO THE LAND OF 13.61 ACRES AT NIZAMPATNAM, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED IN WTA NO.12/VIZ/2017 AS GROUND NO. 7 . HENCE, OUR DECISION AT PARA NO.22 OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS GROUND 13 W TA NO. 11 - 14 /VIZ/2017 ( MOVVA SRINIVASA RAO ) ALSO . THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 44. GROUND NO.8 RELATING TO THE LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 12.39 A CRES AT KOTHAPET VILLAGE, T HIS GROUND IS SIMILAR TO THE GROUND NO.4 OF W.T.A.NO. 12/VIZ/2017 . THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION . THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 45. GROUND NO.9 RELATING TO THE FLAT SITUATED AT CHANDANAGAR, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED IN W TA NO.12/VIZ/2017 AS GROUND NO.9 . HENCE, OUR DECISION AT PARA NO.25 OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS G ROUND ALSO . 46. GROUND NO.10 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED, THEREFORE, SAME IS DISMISSED 47. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON TH IS 2 8 T H DAY OF MARCH , 201 8 . S D / - S D / - ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 2 8 T H MARCH , 201 8 . VR/ - 14 W TA NO. 11 - 14 /VIZ/2017 ( MOVVA SRINIVASA RAO ) COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE - MOVVA SRINIVASA RAO, HOUSE NO. 14 - 1 - 117, GBC ROAD, PONNURU, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DCWT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE PR. C W T (CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE C W T(A) - 3, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. THE D.R. , VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (VUKKEM RAMBABU) SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM.