Sri A. Nagaraju, Visakhapatnam V. The WTO, Ward-1, Srikakulam

WTA 7/VIZ/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3841 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V APPALA RAJU
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Set aside

Judgement Text

WTA NOS.5 TO 8 /VIZAG/2016 SRI A. NAGARAJU, SRIKAKULAM 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . .. . . . . . ' , % BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./W.T.A.NOS.5 TO 8/VIZAG/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 TO 2007-08) SRI A. NAGARAJU SRIKAKULAM WTO, WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM [PAN NO. AAHHA3781Q ] ( ' / APPELLANT) ( ()' / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI Y.A. RAO, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V. APPALA RAJU, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 24.04.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.05.2018 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE WEALTH TAX APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (APPEALS)-2 , GUNTUR VIDE WTA NOS.166, 167, 168 & 169/11-12 DATED 31.10.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08. WTA NOS.5 TO 8 /VIZAG/2016 SRI A. NAGARAJU, SRIKAKULAM 2 2. ALL THE APPEALS ARE RELATED TO WEALTH TAX ASSESS MENTS. IN THIS CASE, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S 16(3) O F THE WEALTH TAX ACT (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) ON 26.12.2008 DE TERMINING THE NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR TOTAL ( `) 2004-05 24,91,222/- 2005-06 31,88,525/- 2006-07 56,24,290/- 2007-08 58,37,928/- THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONE R OF WEALTH TAX (APPEALS)-2, VISAKHAPATNAM AND THE LD. CWT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISMISSED THE A PPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING VACANT URBAN PLOTS WHICH ARE SUBJECTED TO WEALTH TA X BUT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LANDS AR E USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, THE A.O. HELD THE SUBJECT LANDS AS URBAN LANDS AND ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT TO WEALTH TAX. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL B EFORE THE ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM AND ADMITTED THAT HE DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE A.O. TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND FURTHER STATED THAT HE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CWT(A) WHICH W AS NOT CONSIDERED BY WTA NOS.5 TO 8 /VIZAG/2016 SRI A. NAGARAJU, SRIKAKULAM 3 THE LD. CWT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE CASE AND HENCE RE QUESTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY. THE ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM IN ITS COMMON ORDER DATED 1801.2011 SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE CWT(A) AND RE STORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUES AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE MATE RIALS THAT MAY BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. TAKEN UP THE CA SE FOR ASSESSMENT IN SECOND ROUND TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE HON BLE ITAT AND ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE E VIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE OWNED PLOTS RANGING FROM 126.445 SQ.YDS. T O2323.2 SQ.YDS IN VARIOUS SURVEY NUMBERS OF SRIKAKULAM. THE LAND HOL DING IS AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN AS UNDER: 1 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT GAJARAPATHI, SRIKAKULAM 130 PART 126.445 725 91672.6 2 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 144-1C 168 385 64680 3 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 144-1A 220 385 84700 4 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 144-1A 220 385 84700 5 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 144-1A 220 385 84700 6 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 144-1A 220 285 84700 7 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 144-2B 220 385 84700 8 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 144-1A 220 385 84700 9 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 147/13 188 385 72380 WTA NOS.5 TO 8 /VIZAG/2016 SRI A. NAGARAJU, SRIKAKULAM 4 3. THE LAND IS URBAN LAND AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE LANDS AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERAT IONS. BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LANDS IN QUESTION WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOS ES IN THE 2 ND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT ALSO. HENCE, THE A.O. HELD THAT THE LAN DS IN QUESTION ARE NON AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT TO WEALT H TAX. 10 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 147/13 138 385 72380 11 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 144-1D 196 385 75460 12 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 144-1D 220 385 84700 13 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 144-1D 220 385 84700 14 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 144-1D 220 385 84700 15 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 144-1D 220 385 84700 16 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 144-1D 220 385 84700 17 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 144-1D 217 385 83545 18 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIKAKULAM 167/5 387.2 725 280720 19 VACANT SITE SITUATED AT P.N. COLONY, HAITHINAGARAM, SRIK AKULAM 100/3 2323.2 300 696960 WTA NOS.5 TO 8 /VIZAG/2016 SRI A. NAGARAJU, SRIKAKULAM 5 4. THE A.O. ASSESSED THE NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSE E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR TOTAL ( `) 2004-05 24,91,222/- 2005-06 31,88,525/- 2006-07 56,24,290/- 2007-08 58,37,928/- 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CWT(A). BEFORE THE LD. CWT(A) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE LANDS IN QUES TION WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THEREFOR E, THE LD. CWT(A) UPHELD THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY THE RELEVANT PART OF THE LD. CWT(A) ORD ER IN PAGE NO.11 IS EXTRACTED WHICH READS AS UNDER: - IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO BE FORE THE UNDERSIGNED THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE B Y WAY OF PATTADAR PASS BOOK WHICH EVIDENCES THAT THE SAID LANDS ARE AGRICULTURA L LANDS. - VROS CERTIFICATES REGARDING AGRICULTURAL USAGE OF THESE LANDS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED, BUT VRO IS NOT AN AUTHORITY TO CERTIFY. - IN OTHER CASES OF THE SAME GROUP I.E. IN THE CASE S OF VISHNU MURTHY, UMA SHANKAR, LAKSHMANA RAO ETC. THE ASSESSEES COULD PRO DUCE EVIDENCE OF COMPENSATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TOWARDS LOSS OF CROP , WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE FORTIFY THE CONTENTION THAT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE CO NDUCTED. BUT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THAT EVIDENCE ALSO. WTA NOS.5 TO 8 /VIZAG/2016 SRI A. NAGARAJU, SRIKAKULAM 6 AS THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE EVEN T HE BASIC EVIDENCE REGARDING CLASSIFICATION OF LAND AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ALS O THE EVIDENCE THAT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE CONDUCTED, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIO N IS HEREBY REJECTED AND AO'S ORDER IS UPHELD FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CWT(A), THE AS SESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, TH E LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE, CONSISTING OF SALE DEED RELATED TO THE LAND LOCATED IN SURVEY NO.100/3 FOR 726 SQ. YARDS OUT OF TOTAL LAND OF 2323.20 SQ.YDS. AND REQU ESTED TO ADMIT THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENCL OSED XEROX COPIES OF TWO SALE DEEDS AND REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE SAME AS A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND ARGUED THAT NON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD WOULD CAUSE IRREPARABLE LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE ALSO ENCLOSED THE ORDER OF THE CWT(A) RELATING OTHER MEM BERS OF THE FAMILY IN RESPECT OF SURVEY NUMBERS COVERED BY 144, 145 & 146 STATING INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ACCEPTED THE SAID LANDS WHICH ARE ADJOIN ING LANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. THE APPEAL IS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007 -08. IN THE FIRST ROUND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 26.12.2008 AND T HE TRIBUNAL HAS WTA NOS.5 TO 8 /VIZAG/2016 SRI A. NAGARAJU, SRIKAKULAM 7 REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSE E ON HIS SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION OF THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES IN ITS ORDER DATED 18.1.2011. INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE CASE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCES, IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASS ESSMENT ORDERS AND THE THE LD. CIT(A) ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURN ISH ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO. BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED XEROX COPIES OF SALE DEED AND TH E APPEAL ORDERS OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS AND REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE CWT(A) ORDERS IN THE CASE OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS ARE NOT RELEVANT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE T HAT THE LANDS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THE FACTS IN HIS CASE INDEPENDENTLY WITH REGARD TO USAGE OF LAND. THE FACTS OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS LANDS CANNOT BE IMP ORTED IN ASSESSEES CASE TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. IN RESPECT OF SALE OF AG RICULTURAL LAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED XEROX COPIES OF SALE DEEDS. THE FIRST DOCUMENT NO.2234 IN C.S NO.2307 IS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF SUB HISHNA, S/O LATE PEDADA SANYASAIAH OF KUSALAPURAM VILLAGE, THE LAND SOLD WAS 145.20 SQ.YARDS IN SURVEY NO.100-3P AND IT WAS VACANT HOUS E SITE. THE 2 ND DOCUMENT 2236 WAS REGISTERED IN FAVOUR OF SMT PEDAD A AMMAYI W/O ANANDA RAO AND SMT PEDADA SUSEELA W/O POLI NAIDU IN SURVEY NO.100-3P WTA NOS.5 TO 8 /VIZAG/2016 SRI A. NAGARAJU, SRIKAKULAM 8 1452.SQ YARDS VACANT HOUSE SITE. THE ASSESSEE DID N OT PRODUCE CERTIFIED COPY FROM OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR AND NO AFFIDA VIT HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY. THERE WAS MISMATCH OF SURVEY NOS., IN WEALTH TAX RETURN THE SURVEY NO. GIVEN WAS 100/3 AND IN SALE DEED THE SURVEY NO WAS 100-3P. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING ALL THE WHILE THE NATURE OF LAND AS AGRICU LTURAL LAND WHERE AS THE NATURE OF LAND SOLD WAS VACANT HOUSE SITE. FURTHE R, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT SALE CONSIDE RATION WAS DECLARED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURNS IN YEAR IN WHICH THE PROPERT Y WAS SOLD. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD ADMITTED THE PROPERTY IN HIS H ANDS AND THERE ARE MISMATCH OF FACTS WITH REGARD TO NATURE OF THE LAND AND THE SURVEY NUMBERS. IN ENGLISH TRANSLATION CERTIFIED COPY IT W AS MENTIONED AS PADADA ANNAPURNAMMA AND EXTENT OF LAND SOLD WAS 726 SQ YAR DS. THE LD. AR COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE ABOVE INCONSISTENCIES AND REA SONS FOR NON SUBMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LO WER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO ENTERTAIN T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE HENCE THE REQUEST FOR ADMI SSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS REJECTED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. THE WTA NOS.5 TO 8 /VIZAG/2016 SRI A. NAGARAJU, SRIKAKULAM 9 ASSESSEE OWNS VACANT LANDS IN SRIKAKULAM URBAN AREA . THE PLOTS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE RANGING BETWEEN 126 SQ.YDS TO 2 20 SQ.YDS. ONLY ONE PIECE OF LAND SITUATED AT KUSHALAPURAM, SRIKAKULAM WAS 2323.26 SQ.YDS. THE REMAINING PLOTS ARE LESS THAN 220 SQ.YDS. THOUG H THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE IMPUGNED LANDS AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LANDS AR E AGRICULTURAL LANDS BY PRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS FROM LAND REVENUE AUTHO RITIES HENCE THE AO TREATED THE LANDS AS URBAN LANDS AND ASSESSED TO WE ALTH TAX. THE CASE WAS REMITTED TO THE A.O. IN THE SECOND ROUND BY ITA T FOR PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT THE LANDS IN QUESTION WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON AGRICULTURAL OPERATION S. BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE SUCH AS PATTADAR PAS S BOOK, ADANGAL ETC. IN THE 2 ND ROUND ALSO. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDE NCE HAVING CARRIED ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE LANDS WITH THE LAND DOCUMENTS. SINCE THE LANDS IN QUESTION ARE SMALL IN SIZE RANGING FRO M 163 TO 240 SQ.YDS IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED ON A GRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. THE A.O. OBSERVED FROM JOINT SUB REGISTRAR, SRIKAKULAM THAT CERTAIN ADJOINING PLOTS WERE SOLD RANGING FROM 165 TO 220 SQ.YDS. BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS AFTER PARTITION AS VACANT HOUSE SITES. THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PLOTS SOLD IN SURVEY NO. 100-3P ALSO ESTABLISH WTA NOS.5 TO 8 /VIZAG/2016 SRI A. NAGARAJU, SRIKAKULAM 10 THAT THE SAID PLOTS WERE VACANT HOUSE SITES. THE A SSESSEE ALSO DID NOT SUBMIT THE EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF WATER SUPPLY TO THE LAND COVERED BY SURVEY NO.144. DURING THE SECOND ROUND, THE A.O. H AS SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCES REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE LAND FROM TAHSILDAR AND EVIDENCE FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND O PERATION IN THE SAID LAND BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE NECESSA RY EVIDENCES. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED LANDS ARE URBA N LANDS AND EXIGIBLE TO WEALTH TAX. ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASO N TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CWT(A), AND THE SAME IS UP HELD. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH MAY18. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . .. . . . . . ' ) (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' /VISAKHAPATNAM: & /DATED : 4.5.2018 VG/SPS )' *' /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT M/S. ROWE & PAL, CHARTERED ACCOU NTANTS, 14-36-1, KRISHNANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE ITO, WARD-1,SRIKAKULAM 3. + / THE PR. CWT-2, VISAKHAPATNAM WTA NOS.5 TO 8 /VIZAG/2016 SRI A. NAGARAJU, SRIKAKULAM 11 4. + ( ) / THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (APPEALS)-2, GUN TUR 5. ' . , . , ' / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM