Smt. M. Uma Gangadhar,, Kurnool v. DCIT, Central Circle, Tirupathi

CO 16/HYD/2014 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2014

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1622523 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN ABLPM9405D
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number CO 16/HYD/2014
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant Smt. M. Uma Gangadhar,, Kurnool
Respondent DCIT, Central Circle, Tirupathi
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 25-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 25-04-2014
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 26-02-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B' HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA /C.O. NO. ASST YEAR APPELLANT /CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT /CROSS OBJECTOR 1294/HYD/2013 12 95 /HYD/2013 1296/HYD/2013 1297/HYD/2013 2006 - 07 20 07 - 08 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR (PAN ABLPM 9405 D) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE TIRUPATI 1395/HYD/2013 1 396 /HYD/2013 1397/HYD/2013 1398/HYD/2013 & C.O.NO.16/HYD/2014 (IN ITA NO.1396/HYD - /2013) 2006 - 07 20 07 - 08 2008 - 09 2009 - 10 2007 - 08 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE TIRUPATI SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR . (PAN ABLPM 9405 D) ITA NO.1391/HYD/13 & C.O. 12/HYD/2014 THEREIN 2007 - 08 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE TIRUPATI SHRI M.G. RAGHAVENDRA YEMMAGANUR (PAN AHVPM 1057 C) ITA NO.1392/HYD/13 & C.O.NO.16/HYD/2014 T HEREIN 2007 - 08 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE TIRUPATI SHRI M.G.GOPALA KRISHNA TIRUPATI (PAN A HUPM 1227 A ) ITA NO.1393/HYD/13 & C.O.NO.14/HYD/2014 T HEREIN 2007 - 08 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE TIRUPATI SHRI M.R.GANGADHAR HUF YEMMIGANUR (PAN AABHM 5719 H ) ITA NO.1394/HYD/13 & C.O.NO.15/HYD/2014 T HEREIN 2007 - 08 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE TIRUPATI SMT. M.G.VASAVI YEMMIGANUR (PAN ADNTV 8597 M) ITA NO. 1294/ HYD/20 13 & 16 ORS SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR 2 ASSESSEES BY : SHRI E.PHALGUNA KUMAR REVENUE BY : SHRI SOLGY JOSE T.KOTTARAM DR DATE OF HEARING 05 .3.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25.03.2014 O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER: THERE ARE SEVENTEEN MATTERS IN ALL IN THIS BUNCH CONCERNING FIVE ASSESSEES RELATED TO EACH OTHER. THEY COMPRIS E OF EIGHT APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT IN FIVE OF WHICH THERE ARE CROSS - OBJECTIONS AND FOUR APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEES. SINCE COMMON FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND COMMON ISSUES INVOLVED THESE MATTERS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE COMMON FOR ALL THESE APPEALS ARE THAT SHRI V.SUDARSHAN REDDY AND HIS WIFE MRS.ANNAPURNAMMA ARE THE OWNERS OF THE L A ND MEASURING 10.42 ACRES IN M ANGAS A M UDRAM VILL A GE CHITT O OR DISTRICT. SHRI V.SUDARSHAN REDDY AND SMT.ANNAPURNAMMA ARE THE PARENTS OF ONE OF THE THE ASSESSEE IN THESE APPEALS SMT. UMA GANGAHDAR. SHRI V.SUDARSHAN REDDY HAD EXECUTED WILL ALONGWITH HIS WIFE SMT.ANNAPOORNAMMA ON 21.7.1997. THE WILL STATED T H AT AFTER T H E DEAT H OF SHRI SUDARSHAN REDDY H IS PROPERTY BELONGED EQUA L LY TO HI S TWO DAUGHTERS VIZ. SMT. K.RAMA DEVI AND SMT. UMA GANGADHAR THEIR SPOUSES AND THEIR CHILDREN . IN THAT PROCESS 50% OF TOTAL SHARE IN THE PROPERTY EVOLVED ON THE FIRST DAUGHTER SMT.K.RAMA DEVI HER DAUGHTER SMT. K.SHILPA AND HER SON SHRI K. N AVIN REDDY AND THE OTHER 50% OF THE PROPERTY EVOLVED ON THE SECOND DAUGHTER SMT.M.UMA GANGADHAR ASSESSEE BEFORE US HER HUSBAND SHRI M.R.GANGADHAR HER DAUGHTER M S . M .G.VASAVI AND HER FIRST SON SHRI M.G.GOOPALA KRISHNA AND SECOND SON SHRI M.G.R A GHAVENDRA. ITA NO. 1294/ HYD/20 13 & 16 ORS SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR 3 3. SMT.ANNAPOORNAMMA TOGETHER AND HER GRANDCHILDREN APPLIED FOR PERMISSION AND CONVERTED THE ABOVE EXTENT OF LAND AT MANGASAMUDRAM VILL A GE INTO SALEABLE PLOTS. THE OWNERS THEN EXECUTED A GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF SHRI M.R.GANGADHAR BY WHICH HE HAD TO SELL THE LAND ON THEIR BEHALF AND REMIT THE PROCEEDS TO THEM. S HRI M.R.GANGADHAR IN TURN APPOINTED M/S. MG BROTH E RS AUTOMOBILES P. LTD. AS AGENT TO D EVELOP AND SELL TH E PLOTTED LAND. M/S. MG BROTHERS INCURRED DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE AND IN ITS BOOKS DEBITED THE SAME TO THE OWNERS ACCOUNT. THE VENTURE WAS NAMED AS SURENDRA GARDEN . SALE PROCEEDS WERE COLLECTED BY THE COMPANY AND WERE CREDITED TO TH E OWNERS ACCOUNT. FOR UNDERTAKING THE SALE ACTIVITY THE COMPANY M/S. MG BROTHERS WAS PAID COMMISSION. ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY AND WERE DISCLOSED IN THE RETURNS FILED BY IT . 4. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ORIGINALLY ASSESSED THE INCOME FROM SURENDRA GARDEN IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY M/S. MG BROTHERS UNDER THE HEAD P ROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS/PROFESSION . THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE OWNERS OF THE LAND SOLD THE LAND TO THE COMPAN Y AT THE PRICE OF RS.8 10 000. SIMULTANEOUSLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS IN THE HANDS OF ALL THESE ASSESSEES TAKING THE SHARE IN PROFITS OF EACH OF THE ASSESSEES AT 1/3 RD . ON APPEAL TH E CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO S.1640 AND 1645/HYD/2011 HELD VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.4.2013 THAT THE GAIN IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE OWNER AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY M/S. MG BROTHERS. 5. IN THE MEANWHILE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER S.132(1) OF THE ACT W AS CARRIED OUT ON 25.7.2008. NOTICES UNDER S.153C READ WITH S.153A WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEES CALLING FOR RETURNS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEES FILED RETURNS OF INCOME FOR EACH OF THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER S.153C ADMITTI NG INTER ALIA INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED AFTER MAKING INTER ALIA ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON THE SALE OF PLOTS BY ASCERTAINING THE ASSESSEES SHARES ITA NO. 1294/ HYD/20 13 & 16 ORS SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR 4 IN THE PROFIT FROM REAL ESTATE BUSINESS CARRIED ON THEIR B EHALF BY M/S. MG BROTHERS . 6. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE INDIVIDUAL HANDS OF THE THESE ASSESSEES BY HOLDING AS FOLLOWS - ( A ) THE INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT. ( B ) AS PER THE WILL THE OWNERS ARE NOT ONLY WIFE AND CHILDREN OF LATE SHRI SUDHARSHAN REDDY BUT INCLUDE HIS SON - IN - LAW AND GRAND CHILDREN ALSO. ( C ) THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF GPA WAS TAKEN AS THE DATE OF CONVERSION OF CAPITAL ASSET BY THE OW NERS TO THE STOCK IN TRADE I.E. BUSINESS ASSET AS PER S.45(2). ( D ) THE MARKET VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF GPA WAS TAKEN AT RS.8 10 000 FOR THE TOTAL LAND BASED ON PER ACRE RATE FOR 262597 SQ.FT. AND THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON THE DATE OF CONVERS ION WAS DETERMINED AT NIL AS INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WAS RS.8 08 867. ( E ) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE VALUE AND THE COST AS ON THE DATE OF CONVERSION OF CAPITAL ASSET INTO STOCK IN TRADE AFTER ALLOWING FOR EXPENSES INCURRED LIKE DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITUR E COMMISSION ETC. WAS TAKEN AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE OWNERS AND ALLO CA TED ACCORDING TO THEIR SHARE. 7. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEES AS WELL AS REVENUE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE US. MATTERS CONCERNING SMT. UMA GANGADHAR: ASSESSEES APPEALS :ITA NOS.1294 TO 1297/HYD/2013 DEPARTMENTS APPEALS : ITA NO.1395 TO 1398/HYD/2013 ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO.16/HYD./2014 (IN ITA NO.1396/HYD/2013) ITA NO. 1294/ HYD/20 13 & 16 ORS SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR 5 8 . LET US FIRST TAKE UP FOR CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ITA NOS.1294 TO 1297/HYD/2013. 9 . THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN HER APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 IS AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ON SALE OF PLOTS IN SURENDRA GARDEN QUANTIFYING THE SAME AT 1/3 RD OF THE TOTAL PROFIT FOR EACH OF THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. EFFECTIVE GROUNDS WHI CH ARE COMMON IN THESE APPEALS READ AS FOLLOWS - 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GOING THROUGH T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND LAW O F THE CA S E AND ERRONEOUSLY PASSED THE ORDER. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS IN REAL ESTATE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONVERTED HER PERSONAL PROP E RTY INTO BUSIN E SS ASSET AS PER SEC.45(2) OF TH E INCOME - TAX ACT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CO N CLUDIN G THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AS ON 1.4.1981 SHALL BE TAKEN IN PER ACRE MODE INSTEAD OF PER SQ. YARD MODE. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE SALE VALUE OF HOUSE PLOTS WILL BE HI G H ER THAN TH E GOVT. FIXED VALUE AS ADMITT ED IN EARLIER YE A RS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. 6. 10 . BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S SUBMIT TED THAT NONE OF THE OWNERS HAD ANY BUSINESS EXPERIENCE IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS AND WERE NOT CAPABLE OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS IN REAL ESTATE IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND HENCE THEY HAVE GIVEN GPA TO SHRI M.R.GANGADHAR TO SELL THE LAND. THE LANDOWNER S HAD MERELY OBTAINED PERMISSIONS WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO PLOT THE LAND IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THE LAND OWNERS NEVER INTENDED TO CONVERT THE CAPITAL ASSET INTO STOCK IN TRADE AS THEY NEVER INTENDED TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. HENCE TH E PROVISIONS OF S.45(2) HAVE BEEN WRONGLY INVOKED BY THE CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT REALIZED ON SALE OF ASSETS MAY BE TAXED AS CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT ITA NO. 1294/ HYD/20 13 & 16 ORS SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR 6 AS BUSINESS PROFIT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED ON CIT V/S. SURESH CHAND GOYAL (298 ITR 277)(MP); CIT V/S. SOHAN KHAN(304 ITR 194); AND CITV/S. RAJA MALWINDER SINGH (40 DTR 273)(P&H) AND B.VENU MADHAV V/S. ACIT(ITA NO.1698/HYD/2012 DATED 11.10.2013) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A REGULAR DEALER IN REAL ESTATE AND THERE IS NO IN TENTION TO BRING IT WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF STOCK IN TRADE AND HENCE THE SALE CONSTITUTED DISPOSAL OF A CAPITAL ASSET AND NOT AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND THEREFORE SURPLUS IS TAXABLE ONLY AS CAPITAL GAIN. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF CIT V/S. A.MOHAMMED MOHIDEEN (176 ITR 393) - MAD FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT PLOTTING AND DEVELOPING OF LAND BEFORE SALE BY ITSELF WOULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE PERSON CONCERNED WAS INDULGING IN TRADING ACTIVITY. 1 1 AS FOR THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.1981 THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AT THE VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981. FOR THIS PU R POSES SHE HAS OBTAINED THE VALUATION FROM THE SUB - R E GISTRAR O FFICE. THE VALUE PROVIDED BY TH E SRO WAS RS.50 PER SQ. YARD WHICH IS TH E SAME AS THE MARKET VALUE O F TH E PROPERTY ISSUED IN TERMS OF AP COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISREGARDED THE VALUE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND INDEPENDENTLY WR O TE TO THE SRO AND OBTAINED THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND WHICH W AS REPORTED TO BE RS. 1 5 000 PER ACRE I.E. RS.3 PER SQ. YARD. HOWEVER THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE PROPERTY WAS VALUED AT RS.8 10 000 ON 3.10.2005 BY THE JOINT SUB - REGISTRAR CHITTOOR WHEN THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF M.R.GANGADHAR WAS EXECUTE D. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE MARKET VALUE TO BE ADOPTED AS ON 14.5.2005 SHALL BE RS.8 10 000. 1 2 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE OPPOS ED THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE O RDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ITA NO. 1294/ HYD/20 13 & 16 ORS SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR 7 LAND WAS DEVELOPED AND SOLD BY ALL OF THEM IN THE NAME OF SURENDRA GARDEN. THE LAND WAS SOLD AS PLOTS AFTER TAKING FROM APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES AND THE S ALE OF PLOTS TOOK PLACE OVER VARIOUS YEARS VIZ. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10. THE ASSESSEES HAVE ADMITTED BY WAY OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND AS SUCH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOW ASSESSING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. AS HELD BY THE P U NJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT V/S. SUSHEELA DEVI JAIN ( 259 ITR 671) THE SALE OF INHERITED LAND IN PORTIONS BECAU S E HUGE AREA CANNO T BE SOLD IN ONE GO IS NOT AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. SIMILAR V IEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE MADRAS HIGH COU R T IN TH E CASE OF CIT V/S. MOHD. MOHIDEEN ( 176 ITR 393 ) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PLOTTING AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAN D BEFORE SALE BY ITSELF WOULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE PERSON WAS INDULGING IN TRADING ACTIVITIES. THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CA S E OF RAM SWAROOP SINGH V/S. ACIT ( 15 SOT 470)(DEL) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING ACQUIRED AGRICUL T URAL LAND BY WAY OF I NHERITANCE AND HAVING SOLD THE SAME AFTER CONVERTING IT INTO NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND AND DIVIDING IT INTO PLOTS CANNOT HOLD THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE THE INTENTION TO UNDERTAKE ANY ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER INVOLVED IN ANY REAL ESTATE BUSINESS AND THEREFORE THE SURPLUS ARISING FROM THE TRANSACTIONS IS A SSESSABLE AS CAPITAL GAINS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE PROFIT FROM SALE OF PLOTS IS TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES. AS TO WHETHER THE INCOME IS TO BE TAXED AS CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECISIONS DISCUS SED ABOVE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS NOT AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND THE ASSESSEES HAVE TO BE TAXED ONLY IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAINS DERIVED BY THEM. 14. ONCE IT IS HELD THAT IT IS TO BE TAXED AS CAPITAL GAINS THE QUESTION OF CONVE RSION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY INTO BUSINESS ASSET (STOCK - IN - TRADE) AS PER S.45(2) DOES NOT ARISE. CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT HAS TO BE SET ASIDE FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. ITA NO. 1294/ HYD/20 13 & 16 ORS SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR 8 15. IN THE MATTER OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAI NS ASSESSABLE TO TAX DETERMINATION OF THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 BECOMES RELEVANT. THE CERTIFICATE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR CHITTOOR WHERE THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.50 PER SQ. YARD HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AS AGAINST THE VALUE OF RS.15 000 PER ACRE ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A) BASED ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 15.5.2005 I.E. ON THE ALLEGED DATE OF CONVERSION OF LAND IN QUESTION WHEN THE LAND OWNER HAD APPLIED FOR APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT OF LA ND. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN ADOPTING THE RATE PER ACREAGE SINCE THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS PER SQ. YARD. AND THE LAND WAS SOLD NOT AS A SINGLE STRETCH OR IN LARGE EXTENTS IN TERMS OF ACRES BUT BY CONVERTING INTO PLOTS IN TERMS OF SQUARE YARDS. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ASPECT OF ADOPTION OF THE VALUE OF LAND AT RS.15 000 PER ACRE AS ON 15.5.2005 AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS BY ASCERTAINING AND ADOPTING THE VALUE OF THE LAND PER SQ. YARD AS ON 1.4.1981 AND ARRIVE AT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION DULY APPLYING THE INDEXATION. 16. ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED BEFORE US ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF ON MONEYS ON SALE OF PLOTS DURING THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 200 6 - 0 7 AND 200 7 - 0 8 AND ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE SALES WOULD BE MADE IN THESE YEARS AT THE SAME RATES PER SQ. FT. AS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ON APPEAL. WE FIND THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS OFFERED ADDITIONAL SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.132 PER SQ. YARD IN VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELEVANT FOR THOSE TWO YEARS ONLY FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS. BASED ON SUCH OFFER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDING ON THE SAME ANALOGY THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE SOLD AT ALMOST THE SAME PRICE AS IN E ARLIER YEAR PROCEEDED TO DETERMINE THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 AS WELL. ASSESSEE ITA NO. 1294/ HYD/20 13 & 16 ORS SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR 9 IN THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS BEFORE US OBJECTED TO THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THIS BASIS AS THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT BASED ON ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO THESE TWO YEARS. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ASPECT. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANYTHING OVER AND ABOVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER THE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS. WITHOUT BRINGING ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF ANY ENQUIRY CONDUCTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE ANY PRESUMPTION OF RECEIPT OF ON - MONEY FOR THESE TWO YEARS AS WELL AND MAKE ADDIT IONS IN THAT BEHALF BASED ON THE MATERIAL FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IN RELATION TO PRECEDING YEARS. 17. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RECOMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN EACH OF THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. HE SHALL OF COURSE GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND ADJUDICATE THE MATTER AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF OUR AB OVE OBSERVATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER ON ALL THE RELEVANT ASPECTS OF THE MATTER. 18. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEALS ITA NO.1294 TO 1297/HYD/2013 ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DEPARTMENTS APPEALS ITA NO.1395 TO 1398/HYD/2013& ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO.16/HYD/2013 19. NOW WE MAY TAKE UP THE DEPARTMENTS APPEALS VIZ. ITA NO.1395 TO 1398/HYD/2013 WHEREIN THE COMMON GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT READ AS FOLLOWS - 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF R S. 20 08 982/ - FOR THE REASON THAT TH E IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I T WAS STATED THAT THE PROFITS ON SALE OF PLOTS OF SURENDRA GARDEN ITA NO. 1294/ HYD/20 13 & 16 ORS SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR 10 HAVE BEEN QUA NTIFIED BETWEEN THE A.YS 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 IN THE HANDS OF COMPANY M/S. M.G. BROTH E RS AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. AND SUB S TAN T IVE ADDITION WAS ALSO MADE IN THE HANDS O F THE COMPANY. HOW E VER ON THE BASIS OF TH E APPLICATION MADE BY THE CO - OWNERS NAMELY I) SMT.UMA GANAGADHAR II) SMT. V.ANNA - PURNAMMA AND III) SMT.K.RAMADEVI A PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT WAS ALSO CARRIED OUT IN TH E HANDS OF LAND OWNERS BY TR E ATING 1/3 OF PRO F ITS EACH AS UN D I S CLO S ED INCOME. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RESTRI C TED THE ADDITION TO 5.33 % AS AGAINST 33.33%(1 - 3 RD AND HELD THAT THE BALANCE BUSINESS INCOME SHALL HAVE TO B E BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE OTHER CO - OWNERS OF LAND NAMELY V.ANNAPURNAMMA(46.35%) RAMADEVI K.SHIPADEVI K.NAVEEN(8.94%EACH) M.G A NGADHAR M.G.R A GHAVENDRA M.G.V ASAVI AND M.G.GOPALA KRISHNA(5.365 EACH). TH E DECISION OF TH E CIT(A) IS NO T ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THIS IS A PROTECTIVE ADDITION MADE BY T H E ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THE CA S E OF THE COMPANY M/S. M.G.BROTHERS AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. THE HONBLE ITAT HAD DELETED THE ADDITION MADE O N THIS ISSUE VIDE O R DER O F TH E ITAT IN ITA NO.1640 AND 1645/HYD/2011 DAT E D 29.04.2013. SUB S EQU E NTLY THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON BLE HIGH COU R T SIN C E THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE IS TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND THE APPEALS BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COU R T IS PENDING. . . 20. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE VERY GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE THE DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN WHOSE HANDS THE PROCEEDS ON THE SALE OF PLOTS HAVE TO BE ASSESSED AND THE HEAD UNDER WHICH THE SAME HAVE TO BE ASSESSED. THOUGH THAT ISSUE STOOD C ONCLUDED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 29.4.2013 DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE PRESENT APPEALS IS TRYING TO KEEP THAT ISSUE ALIVE IN VIEW OF THE PENDENCY OF ITS APPEALS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. IN THAT VIEW O F THE MATTER SINCE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES BEFORE US HAVE BEEN MADE IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 29.4.2013 WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ABOVE COMMON GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THESE . THESE G ROUNDS OF THE REVENUE THEREIN ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 21. IN ITA NO.1396/HYD/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 THERE IS ONE MORE GROUND BEING GROUND NO.3 WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS - ITA NO. 1294/ HYD/20 13 & 16 ORS SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR 11 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NO T JU S TIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE OF R S .40 - LAKHS FOR THE REASON THAT THE AMOUNT AS R E FUNDED TO SRI C.SUBBA REDDY AND THE JOINT DEVELOPM E N T A GRE E MENT WAS CAN C ELLED. THE DECISION OF CIT(A) IS NO T ACCEPTABLE FOR THE REASON THAT DURING TH E COU R SE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS N O T P R O D UCED ANY FRESH NEW EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF SCRUTINY PROCEE D INGS. SIN C E THE ASSESSEE HAS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE SAID AMOUNT DEPOSED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT AND TH E T RANS A CTION WAS TERMED AS AMOUN T RECEIVED OUT OF SALE OF SITE IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS ADVANCE. 22. FACTS OF THE CA SE IN RELATION TO THIS GROUND IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH FOUR OTHER MEMBERS OF HER FAMILY VIZ. M.R.GANGADHAR(HUF) SHRI M. G.RAGH UVEERA SHRI M.GOPALA KRISHNA AND SMT.M.G.VASAVI OWNED A PIECE OF LAND LOCATED AT 41 CHANGALPATTU TALUK PANDUPAKAM VILALGE KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT MEASURING 2 A C RES 52.5 CENTS. THE FIVE OWNERS RECEIV E D R S.40 LAKHS E A CH TOTALLING TO RS.2 CRORES FROM ONE S HRI C.SUBBA REDDY THROUGH ACCOUN T PAYEE CHEQUES. THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED ON 2.12.2006. ON 4.10.2007 T HE OWNERS ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGR E EME N T WITH M/S. CEE BROS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REPR E SENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI C.SUBBA REDDY WHEREIN IT WA S DECID E D THAT THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONSTRUCT A MULTI STORIE D RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BLOCK AND SHALL HAND OVER TO THE OWNERS 40% OF THE SUPER - BUILT UP AREA IN TH E FORM OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS. AS PER CLAUSE 2 OF THE DEVELOPM E N T AGR EEMNET THE DEVELOP E R HA S S T ATED THAT HE HAS ALREADY PAID RS.2 CRO R ES I.E. RS.40 LAKHS PER OWNER AS SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUNDABLE BY THE OWNERS TO THE DEVELOPER ON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. IT HAS ALSO B E EN STATED THAT ON SIGNING THE DEVELOPM E N T AGR E EMENT THE OWNERS SHALL EXEC UTE A GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOU R O F THE DEVELOPER FOR APPLYING FOR PLAN PERMISSION. AS PER CLAUSE 4 OF THE A G RE E MENT IT HAS BEEN STATE D T H AT THE OWNERS HAVE AG R EED TO HAND OVER VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY L A ND THE OW NE RS SH A LL PAY VACANT LAND TAX AND ALL OTHER PUBLIC CHAR G ES UPTO THE D A TE O F HANDING OVER OF VACANT POSSESSION TO THE DEVELOPER. ITA NO. 1294/ HYD/20 13 & 16 ORS SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR 12 23. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THOUGH TAKEN NOTE OF THE UNEXPLAINED NATURE OF THE CREDIT RECEIVED FROM SUBBA REDDY HE TREATED SIMILAR AMOUNTS IN THE CA S E OF OTHER CO - OWN E RS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON SALE OF SITE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN CREDITED AS AN AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SALE OF SITE WITHOUT ANY CONNECTED INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROPERTY PURCHASED AND SOLD AS WELL AS CAPITAL GAIN OR PROFIT OUT OF THE SAID TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCORDINGLY ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.40 - LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM SALE OF SITE IN THE HANDS OF OTHER CO - OWNERS. WHETHER ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OR AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON SALE OF SITE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ALLOWED ANY DEDUCTION THEREFROM ON ACCOUNT OF THE VALUE O F THE LAND WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2006 AT R S .22 49 500 IN T HE CASE OF E A CH CO - OWNER WITH THE AGGREGATE VALUE WORKING OUT TO RS.1 12 47 500. 24. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED NECESSARY CONFIRMATIONS FROM C.SUBBA REDDY DURING THE APPELLATE AS WELL AS REMAND PROCEEDINGS ; AND THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES FROM SUBBA REDDY WHO WAS AN INCOME - TAX ASSESSEE AND WHOSE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2007 ALSO SHOWED ADVANCES OF R S .2 CRORES GIVEN TO TH E FIVE CO - OWNERS INCLUDING THE ASSESS EE. TH E CIT(A) HELD THEREFORE THAT THE ISSUE RE G ARDING UNEXPLAINED NATURE O F THE CREDIT IS SETTLED. DEALING WITH THE ISSUE WH E TH E R THE DEVELOPMENT AGR E EMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE LAND OWNERS CONSTITUTED TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET AS PER S.2(47)(V) OF T HE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE WRITTEN SUBMI S SION S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT NO P R OPOSA L /P L ANS COULD BE SUBMI T TED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND THE AD V ANCE RECEIVED WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RET U RNED TO SUBBA REDDY ALONGWITH INT EREST BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE WHETHER POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS HANDED OVER TO THE DEVELOPER OR NOT THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THOUGH AGREEMENT SPOKE OF A REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT AS WELL AS POSSESSION WHICH SHALL BE ITA NO. 1294/ HYD/20 13 & 16 ORS SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR 13 HANDED O VE R AND A GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY TO BE EXECUTED IN FUTURE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD REGARDING HANDING OVER OF POSSESSION ; NO EVIDENCE WAS ON RECORD TO IN D I C ATE ISSUANCE OF A GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AND POSSESSION AND ULTIMATELY ON THES E FINDINGS DELETED THE ADDITION OF R S .40 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 25. AGGRIEVED REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THIS ISSUE. 26. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT POSSESSION WAS NEVER HANDED OVER TO THE DEVELOPER. THOUGH AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO NO FURTHER WORK IN PURSUANCE OF THE AGREE MENT WAS CARRIED OUT. AT PAGE 7 OF THE AGREEMENT THE DEVELOPMENT HAS UNDERTAKEN TO PAY LAND TAXES FROM THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF THE LAND TO HIM. HOWEVER WE FIND THAT SUCH TAXES ARE STILL PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY TILL DATE. THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WHICH WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER CO - OWNERS FROM SUBBA REDDY WERE RETURNED WITH INTEREST. THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THEY WERE ALSO REFUNDED BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES ONLY. IN THE CASE OF M/S. FIBRAS INFRATECH P. LTD. (ITA NO.477/HYD/2013) RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 3 RD JANUARY 2014 HAS HELD THAT WHEN THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO S HOW THAT THERE WAS ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION/DEVELOPMENT CARRIED ON IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT PROVISIONS OF S.2(47) WOULD APPLY. FURTHER WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM H AS BEEN SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZED AS ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS FOR A TRANSACTION TO BE BROUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S.53A OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE DEVELOPER WAS WILLING TO PERFORM HIS PART OF THE CONTRACT ONLY ON OBTAI NING THE APPROVALS FROM THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES AND AS THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES FAILED TO PROVIDE THE APPROVAL THE DEVELOPER REFUSED TO PERFORM HIS PART OF CONTRACT AND THE ENTIRE ADVANCE GIVEN BY HIM WAS ITA NO. 1294/ HYD/20 13 & 16 ORS SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR 14 REFUNDED TO HIM. HENCE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO TRANSFER IN TERMS OF S.2(47) READ WITH S.53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REJECT THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE. 27. IN THE RESULT ALL THE FOUR REVENUE APPEALS ARE DIS MISSED. 28. NOW WE MAY TAKE UP THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 BEING CO NO.16/HYD/2013 WHEREIN THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE MERELY SUPPORTIVE OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL. SINCE THE CO AS SUCH DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION THE SAME IS INFRUCTUOUS AND ON THAT GROUND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS IN THE CASES OF M.G.RAGHAVENDRA M.G.GOPALA KRISHNA; M.R.GANGADHAR (HUF) AND SM T.M.G.VASAVI BEING ITA NO.1391 1392 1393 & 1394/HYD/2013 RESPECTIVELY: CROSS OBJECTIONS THEREIN BEING CO NOS.12 TO 15/HYD/2013 RESPECTIVELY : 29. EFFECTIVE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN THESE APPEALS RELATE TO THE ADDITION OF RS.40 LAKHS EACH MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT DELETED BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THESE ASSESSEES FROM SHRI C.SUBBA REDDY. EFFECTIVE GROUND S RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THESE APPEALS ON THIS ISSUE FACTUAL BACKGROUND LEADING TO THE ADDITION OF R S . 40 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE REASONS FOR DELETION OF TH E SAME BY THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE CON T ENTION S O F THE P A RTIES BEFORE US ON THIS ISSUE ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE CONSIDERED BY US WHILE DEALING WITH CORRESPONDING GROUND BEING GROUND N O.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF RELATED ASSESSEE SMT.UMA GANGADHAR IN ITA NO.1396/HYD/2013 DEALT WITH BY US HEREINABOVE . HENCE FOR THE DETAILED REASONS DISCUSSED BY US IN PARA 26 HEREINABOVE WE FIND NO ITA NO. 1294/ HYD/20 13 & 16 ORS SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR 15 INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THESE APPEALS ARE ALSO REJECTED. 30. SIMILARLY IN THESE MATTERS ALSO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEES IN THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ALSO MERELY SUPPORT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEALS. HENCE THESE CROSS OBJECT IONS ARE INFRUCTUOUS AND AS SUCH THEY ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON THAT COUNT. WE DISMISS THE SAME ACCORDINGLY. 3 1 . IN THE RESULT ALL THE F OUR APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND SO ALSO THE FOUR CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THEREIN ARE DISMI SSED BEING INFRUCTUOUS. 3 2 . TO SUM UP - ( A ) AS FOR THE MATTES CONCERNING SMT.UMA GANGADHAR WHILE ASSESSEES APPEALS ITA NOS.1294 TO 1297/HYD/2013 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO S ES REVENUES APPEALS BEIGN ITA NOS.1395 TO 1398 ARE DISMISSED. THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEING CO NO.16/HYD/2013 IN 1396/HYD/2013 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ( B ) AS FOR THE MATTERS CONCERNING OTHER ASSESSEES WHILE THE REVENUES APPEALS BEING ITA NOS.1391 TO 1394/HYD/2013 A RE DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THEREIN ARE ALSO DISMISSED AS BEING INF R UCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25.4.2014 SD/ - SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI ) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT/ - 25 TH A PRIL 2014 ITA NO. 1294/ HYD/20 13 & 16 ORS SMT. UMA GANGADHAR YEMMIGANUR 16 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. SMT. UMA GANGADHAR 1/683 COOP. HOUSE BUILDING COLONY YEMMIGANUR KURNOOL DIST. SHRI M.G. RAGHAVENDRA 1/683 COOP. HOUSE BUIDLIGN COLONY YEMMIGANUR KURNOOL DIST. SHRI M.G.GOPALA KRISHNA 1/683 COOP. HOUSE BUIDL IGN COLONY YEMMIGANUR KURNOOL DIST. SHRI M.R.GANGADHAR HUF 1/683 COOP. HOUSE BUILDING COLONY YEMMIGANUR KURNOOL DIST. SMT. M.G.VASAVI 1/683 COOP. HOUSE BUILDING COLONY YEMMIGANUR KURNOOL DIST. 6 . DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE TIRUPATI 7 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) GUNTUR 8 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL RANGE I HYDERABAD 9 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT HYDERABAD. B.V.S