Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Bhavya Anant Udeshi, Hyderabad vs Assessee on 18 February, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH "A", HYDERABAD
BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011
Assessment year 2008-09
Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi vs. The Income Tax Officer
Hyderabad (International taxation)-I
PAN: AALPU3857A Hyderabad
Appellant Respondent
Appellant by: Sri Ajay Gandhi
Respondent by: Sri B. Yadagiri
Date of hearing: 18.02.2014
Date of pronouncement: 04.04.2014
ORDER
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M.:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-V, Hyderabad dated 28.10.2011 for assessment year 2008-09.
2. The assessee raised the following grounds:
1. The order of the CIT(A) is in gross violation of the provisions of law and hence is bad in law.
2. The CIT (A) has erred in sustaining addition made section 50C of the Income Tax Act for the sale of Jubilee Hills Property.
3. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the adoption of Rs. 2,55,50,000 as sale consideration of the Jubilee Hills Property.
4. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the computation of Long term capital gains on sale of Jubilee Hills Property at Rs. 2,54,58,000
5. The CIT (A) has erred in upholding the assessment 2 ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011 Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi ===================== of total income at Rs. 2,57,64,625.
6. The CIT (A) has erred in upholding the rejection of submissions made by G Srinivas Reddy, the buyer of the property during the course of assessment proceedings.
7. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the demand of Rs. 86,72,524 raised by the assessing officer.
8. The CIT(A) has erred in not giving a finding on the allowability of claim of indexation while computing long term capital gains on sale of Jubilee Hills property.
9. The CIT(A) has erred in not giving a finding for the claim of set off long term capital loss on sale of Sundale property against the long term gains from Jubilee Hills property.
10. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty proceedings initiated by the assessing officer u/s 271(1)( c )
3. The crux of the above grounds is with regard to taxability of capital gain on transfer of property situated at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act.
4. There is only one issue in appeal before us and that relates to invoking of provisions of section 50C with respect to the property in Jubilee Hills and the resulting computation of long term capital gains at Rs. 2,54,58,000. The facts are that the assessee filed her return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 31.7.2008 admitting an income of Rs. 3,18,567 out of which Rs. 3,06,625 pertained to short term capital gains from sale of shares and Rs. 8,000 pertained to short term capital gains from sale of property. The AO found that the assessee had sold plot No. 213, K III, Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., in favour of Sri G. Srinivasa Reddy as vendee with one 3 ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011 Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi ===================== Smt. Neeraja Reddy as consenting party on 23.10.2007 vide a registered sale deed. As per the AO, it was mentioned in the sale deed itself that the assessee in the year 1994 itself agreed to sell the property to the consenting party i.e., to Smt. Neeraja Reddy for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000. Accordingly, the assessee claimed receipt of sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000 and set off her cost of acquisition at Rs. 92,000 offering the balance of Rs. 8,000 to tax as short term capital gains for A.Y. 2008-09. However, the AO noticed that the SRO held the market value of the property on the date of sale at Rs. 2,55,50,000 and charged a stamp duty of Rs. 24,27,350 which was paid, accordingly, provisions of section 50C were applied and the addition in question was made.
5. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the fundamental issue is that the assessee claimed that the property was transferred in the year 1994 itself. Therefore, there were no capital gains in her hands in the current year. The CIT(A) observed the following discrepancies in the explanations and evidence submitted by the assessee:
(i) If the property was sold in the year 1994, why was the application made to the Jubilee Hills Cooperative Society for transfer of shareholding in the year 1997. What took 3 years to move this petition?
(ii) A sale is completed when all the rights of the seller are extinguished in that property and the purchaser obtains all the rights. In the present case, not a single right of the assessee ever extinguished in the said property and Smt. 4 ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011 Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi ===================== Neeraja Reddy never obtained a single right in that property.
(iii) There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the payment of Rs. 1,00,000.
(iv) The assessee has stated that the possession of the plot was given to Smt. Neeraja Reddy. However, it is seen that throughout this time, the possession remained with the assessee. The plot of land was ultimately registered in the name of the assessee. Surprisingly, the assessee also decided to construct a house in the society in the year 2006 and filed for municipal permissions.
(v) Further, if the story of the assessee is to be taken as true, then the moment the plot was registered in her name, it could immediately have been sold and registered in the name of Smt. Neeraja Reddy. However, it took a long time and ultimately the plot was registered in the name of Sri G. Srinivasa Reddy .
(vi) It is also difficult to understand that when the sale was supposed to have been made to Smt. Neeraja Reddy, how the ultimate registration got done in the name of Sri G. Srinivasa Reddy. He is in no way related to Smt. Neeraja Reddy.
(vii) The assessee stated that Rs. 74.20 lakhs were received from Sri Srinivasa Reddy towards payment of capital gains under section 50C. It is difficult to understand why Sri Srinivasa Reddy would pay this amount in the first place.
Moreover, when no capital gains arose in the hands of the assessee, why was the capital gains tax paid?
(viii) The assessee got an NOC issued for construction of a building and submitted blueprints of the proposed plan, the building and produced sworn 5 ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011 Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi ===================== affidavits and certificates from the architects regarding her proposal to build a property on the land in question. Does it mean that all the sworn affidavits given by the assessee were false and meant to deceive the law?
(ix) Further, if the plot were to be ultimately sold to Sri G. Srinivasa Reddy, why is it that the applications were made to the society by Smt. Neeraja Reddy? It is also interesting to note that in the sale deed dated 23.10.2007 it is clearly mentioned that Smt. Bhavya Udeshi, is the absolute owner and possessor of the property as on 23.10.2007. No date of receipt of Rs. 1 lakh from Smt. Neeraja Reddy is mentioned in the Sale Deed.
(x) It is categorically mentioned in the sale deed that the vendor i.e., the assessee has absolute right, title and full authority to convey the scheduled property and that she never entered into any agreement or arrangement for the purpose of transfer or any other similar arrangement of the property. It is also further mentioned that there are no tax attachments with regard to the property.
(xi) Further, the Assessing Officer has rightly pointed out that the assessee had made false affidavits stating that Smt. Neeraja Reddy is a sister of the assessee whereas, they are unrelated. During enquiries, she could not even give the address or phone numbers of Smt. Neeraja Reddy.
6. The CIT(A) observed that the plot was purchased by the assessee and the same was in her possession until 23.10.2007 until it was sold to Sri G. Srinivasa Reddy. The assessee has deliberately provided false assertions, unsubstantiated claims and has falsified information even in her sworn affidavits as 6 ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011 Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi ===================== discussed above. It is clear that she had purchased the plot and no right in the said plot was alienated to anyone right up to the date of transfer as per the registered sale deed. The entire web of false affidavits and wrong statements had been made only to escape tax liability. Accordingly, he held that the Assessing Officer has rightly applied the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. He found no infirmity in the same. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.
7. The learned AR submitted that the assessee is an NRI, resident of Sri Lanka. The subject matter is a plot of land bearing No. 213, K III, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad which is governed by Jubilee Hills Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.
The plot was allotted to one G. Geetha Lakshmi by the Society. There was no sale deed executed in favour of the said Geetha Lakshmi. On an application made by Geetha Lakshmi, the plot was transferred in favour of the assessee by the Society by letter dated 9.12.1991. The assessee paid Rs. 92,000 as consideration. The assessee was made a member of the Society and acquired rights over the plot. Transfer of plot was done by Society from Geetha Lakshmi to assessee on submission of letter/affidavit and request for transfer and without an agreement to sell. This was accepted practice for transfer of plots. Assessee sold the plot to Smt. Neeraja Reddy on 20.4.1994 for a consideration of Rs. 1 lakh. She received the entire sale consideration and handed over possession of the plot at the same time. She had no taxable income in 1994 and so did not file returns showing this income of Rs. 8000.
7 ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi ===================== Regarding transfer of the plot in 1994 the AR submitted that transfer letter/ application addressed to Society handed over to Smt. Neeraja Reddy on April 20, 1994 which Smt. Neeraja Reddy submitted to Society on 22/11/1997 under acknowledgment. Reasons for delay in submission to Society by Neeraja Reddy were probably procedural, but inconsequential to the assessee. Special Power Of Attorney given to G. Yeshwanth Reddy, brother-in-law of Smt. Neeraja Reddy on 12/04/1994, notarised in Sri Lanka. Power of Attorney was submitted before Sub Registrar, Hyderabad for stamp duty and endorsed by him on April 22, 1994. The power of attorney was given as required by Smt. Neeraja Reddy. In the meanwhile, Smt. Neeraja Reddy sold the property to G. Srinivas Reddy (probably because she was finding it difficult to get past the procedural hurdles). Eventually transfer took place in favour of Sri G. Srinivas Reddy at the request of Smt. Neeraja Reddy. This is a private transaction between the two, the assessee having nothing to do with it.
8. The AR submitted the Sub-Registrar issued orders to the Society vide RC No. 3588/92-C dated 13.3.1997 restricting transfer of ownerships. Smt. Neeraja Reddy (along with some third parties) filed a writ petition and got favourable order from the High Court in WP No. 24802 of 1998. By order dated 19th July 2000, the Sub-Registrar's directions were set aside.
The assessee was not party to the Writ Petition. This is evidence that Smt. Neeraja Reddy was acting on her own to clear the hurdles of transfer of title. The WP judgment 8 ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011 Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi ===================== confirms that they have filed composite application for admission as members and for transfer of membership together with interest in the plot allotted to the other existing member. On 12.3.2001, Smt. Neeraja Reddy requested the Society to affect the change of ownership after the High Court order. To fulfil the regulatory and procedural requirements, the Society executed a sale deed in favour of the assessee in 2006 and gave an NOC to go ahead with construction. On Oct 23, 2007, sale deed was executed on from the assessee to Sr. G. Srinivas Reddy, the nominee of Smt. Neeraja Reddy. Smt. Neeraja Reddy executed this as a Consenting Party. The sale deed confirms that transactions were completed in 1994, possession was handed over in 1994.
• Preamble, para 3, page 30 APB; page 32, last para; para 3, page 33.
• Consenting party paid entire consideration and took possession of property APB 32 para 1 • Purchaser's obligations mentioned: page 32
9. The AR submitted that to cover-up a potential tax liability, an amount of Rs. 74,20,000 was taken as advance from G Srinivas Reddy and advance tax was paid to avoid possible penal consequences. This amount was claimed as refund. The valuation of the property for stamp duty purposes was challenged before the Collector cum District Registrar as the delay in execution of the document and registration was beyond the control of the assessee. This puts the case of the assessee in the exception provided in section 50C(2)(b) and 9 ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011 Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi ===================== outside the ambit of sec 50C. Smt. Neeraja Reddy had borne all expenses after 1994 and none were borne by the assessee, nor has the AO found any evidence to the contrary. All efforts to clear hurdles were done by Smt. Neeraja Reddy, not assessee. This is evidence of Smt. Neeraja Reddy acting as owner. Sri G. Srinivas Reddy made following statements to the AO on 29.12.2010, when an enquiry was made (page 18-19 of assessment order):
o He purchased the plot from Neeraja Reddy for Rs. 100000 and paid the amounts in two instalments to Smt. Neeraja Reddy .
o He pursued the matter for 8 years and got it out from litigation.
o He paid Rs. 74.20 lakhs to Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi.
o He paid stamp duty of Rs. 20.80 lakhs, transfer duty to Society of Rs. 1,26,826, building permission fees of Rs. 1,27,750
10. The AR submitted that in these private enquiries the AO made with Sri Srinivas Reddy, important evidence in favour of the assessee comes out. There is no evidence to hold facts against the assessee. Assessment Order is only presumptuous.
No evidence that consideration more than Rs. 1 lakh passed between the parties. AO does not even suggest it. After the agreement of 1994, purchaser gets pre-emptive rights over the property. Its value does not remain the same thereafter. Delay in execution of sale deed and registration sufficiently explained and is beyond the control of the assessee. No 10 ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011 Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi ===================== evidence that possession or payment was not given in 1994 but in 2007. Ownership of Jubilee Hills Society is governed by the Society by-laws. The ownership is attached to the membership of the Society and gets transferred along with the transfer of membership. Registration of documents is incidental and consequential. Since the final registration is only in fulfilment of the contractual obligation, the conclusion is that the provisions which do not apply at the time of entering into the transaction initially would also not apply at the time the transaction is completed. Section 50C came into existence only in 2003. All events happening after 1994 relate back to that date,
11. Regarding year of transfer, the learned AR submitted that all the evidence discussed above of the transaction points clearly to the fact that the transfer of the plot by way of delivery of possession, receipt of consideration along with necessary documentation was completed in 1994. As such, the transfer can be considered to have happened only to be taxable in assessment year 1995-96 and not 2008-09. The assessee disclosed/declared the capital gains in 2008-09 only as a matter of precaution and not as admission of transfer having happened in the relevant previous year. Even if the assessee made a mistake, it ought to be ignored and corrected. The AR relied on the following case-law:
(i) Chaturbhujdas Dwarkadas, 260 ITR 491 (Bom)
(ii) Jasbir Singh Sarkaraia, 164 Taxmann 108 (AAR New Delhi)
(iii) G Sreenivasan vs DCIT, 28 taxmann.com 200 (Cochin) 11 ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011 Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi =====================
(iv) ACIT vs Sri Ravindra Singh Arora, ITA No. 58/Hyd/2011
(v) Dr. Maya Sheony vs ACIT, 124 TTJ 692 (Hyd)
(vi) Smt. Sandhyaben A Purohit vs ITO, 35 taxmann.com 472 (Ahd)
12. The learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A).
13. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The main contention of the assessee's counsel is that the assessee has sold the plot No. 212-K-3 in Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad which was acquired by her in the year 1992 within two years for a consideration of Rs. 1 lakh to Smt. Neeraja Reddy by executing Special Power of Attorney in favour of nominee of Smt. Neeraja Reddy in the year 1994. Being so, there is no capital gain to be assessable in A.Y. 2008-
09. As a proof of this the assessee placed on record a copy of Special Power of Attorney executed in favour of Smt. Neeraja Reddy on 22.4.1994. The AR also submitted that Smt. Neeraja Reddy has paid an amount of Rs. 1 lakh towards sale consideration but there is no evidence of whatsoever to suggest that there was exchange of sale consideration of Rs. 1 lakh between the parties herein. It was also submitted that the assessee extinguished her right over the property in favour of Smt. Neeraja Reddy in the year 1994. On perusal of the Special Power of Attorney we find there was no extinguishment of any right by the assessee in favour of Smt. Neeraja Reddy. For clarity we extract the contents of the Special Power of Attorney executed in favour of Smt. Neeraja Reddy herein below:
12 ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi ===================== "SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME I, SMT. BHAVYA UDESHI (wife of Anant Udeshi - Aged 31 years) of 8-2-686/B/12, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, India, and presently of No. 12/1, Pedris Road,Colombo 3, in the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka SENDS GREETING:
WHEREAS I, the said Smt. Bhavya Udeshi am the owner of the Plot bearing No. 212K Phase-III bearing Survey No. 403/1 of Shaikpet Hyderabad Urban District admeasuring 730 sq. yards situated at Road No. 74, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, India, more clearly described in the Schedule here under.
AND WHEREAS I am going to Transfer my Plot, amount and membership to Smt. Neeraja Reddy wife of G. Rajeshwar Reddy R/o. 2-2-118/3/6/1 New Nallakunta, Hyderabad, India more clearly described in the Schedule hereto.
AND WHEREAS the said Smt. Neeraja Reddy w/o. G. Rajeshwar Reddy aged 28 years R/o. 2-2- 118/3/6/1, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad, India required me to execute a Special Power of Attorney in favour of her nominees viz., Shri G. Yashwent Reddy s/o. G. Ram Reddy aged 32 years, Occupation: Business R/o. 2-2- 118/3/6/1, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad, India in connection with the above said plot.
AND now by this Special Power of Attorney I the said Smt. Bhavya Udeshi wife of Anant Udeshi about 31 years, Occupation House Wife R/o. 8-2- 686/B/12, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, India do hereby appoint SHRI G. YESHWANT REDDY S/o. G. RAM REDDY aged 32 years R/o. 2-2-118/3/6/1, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad, India, as my Attorney in my name and on my behalf to do or execute all or any of the following acts or things in connection with the said Plot.
1. To prepare Plans, Sketches, Drawings, Designs, etc., and layouts for the construction in the Schedule mentioned property and to submit the same for 13 ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011 Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi ===================== approval of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and other appropriate authority(ies).
2. To apply for permission(s), exemption(s), sanction(s) before any authority in connection with any matter relating to the sale of the Schedule mentioned property.
3. To make application(s) for copies of documents for inspection of the documents in any court, office or institution.
4. To appoint Advocates, Vakils, etc., in connection with any matter either relating to any suit or litigation or otherwise in respect of the Schedule mentioned property.
5. To obtain all the necessary permissions for transferring my membership in the name of Smt. N. Neeraja Reddy and to get the NOC to construct the house on my behalf from the Jubilee hills Co-
operative House Building Society Ltd., Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
AND I hereby agreed that all acknowledgements, deeds and things done shall be construed as acts, deeds and things done by me and I undertake to rectify and confirm by virtue of the power hereby given.
SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY ALL that plot of land bearing No. 212K, Phase-III bearing Survey No. 403/1 (Old) and 120(1) (New) of Shaikpet and 102/1 of Hakimpet Village of Hyderabad Urban Taluk, Hyderabad in Phase III of Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-24, bound by:
North: 30 feet wide road East: Plot No. 222 South: Plot No. 212L West: Plot No. 212J IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have signed this Special Power and to two others of the same tenor and date with my own will and consent before the witnesses on this Twelfth (12) day of April. One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Four (1994)."14 ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011
Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi =====================
14. Further, it was submitted by the AR that possession of the property was handed over to Smt. Neeraja Reddy on 22.4.1994 by the above Special Power of Attorney. As seen from the contents of the Special Power of Attorney, there is no handing over of possession of property to Smt. Neeraja Reddy by the assessee. On the other hand, the lower authorities brought on record that the assessee herself submitted necessary application to the Municipal Authorities in the year 2006 seeking permission for construction of a house on the impugned property. The assessee is not able to controvert this finding of the lower authorities. The AR also made a plea before us that there is an order from the Hon'ble High Court of AP in Writ Petition No. 24803 of 1998 dated 19.7.2000 in favour of Smt. Neeraja Reddy & Others wherein the Hon'ble High Court set aside the proceedings in Rc. No. 3588/92-3 dated 13.3.1997 of Sub-Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hyderabad and directed the Jubilee Hills Society to consider Smt. Neeraja Reddy's transfer request as per the bye-laws of the society. By this order it was not held by the Hon'ble High Court that transfer of the impugned plot had taken place between the assessee and Smt. Neeraja Reddy. The High Court only directed the Jubilee Hills Society to consider transfer of membership together with the interest in the plot allotted to another existing member of the society i.e., the present assessee Smt. Bhavya Udeshi. So it cannot be said, as per the High Court order, that there is absolute transfer of the property in favour of Smt. Neeraja Reddy so as to hold that the transfer took place in the year 1994. Further, it is an 15 ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011 Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi ===================== admitted fact that in this case finally the property was not registered or transferred in favour of Smt. Neeraja Reddy by the assessee. On the other hand, the property was sold to one Mr. Srinivasa Reddy by the assessee along with Smt. Neeraja Reddy as a consenting party. Even from this point of view also, we are not in a position to hold that the registration of sale seed dated 23rd October, 2007 would relate back to the date on which the Special Power of Attorney was executed by the assessee in favour of Smt. Neeraja Reddy so as to hold that there was deemed transfer of property in the year 1994. To hold that there was a transfer u/s. 2(47)(v) of the Act, there should be contract for consideration; it should be in writing; it should be signed by the transferor and transferee; it should pertain to the transfer of immovable property, the transferee should have taken possession of the property; and lastly the transferee should be ready and willing to perform the contract.
The provisions of section 2(47)(v) and section 53A of Income- tax Act, 1961 are as under:
Section 2 (47) of the IT Act: As per the definition n transfer in relation to a capital asset includes
(i) ------------
(ii) ------------
(iii) ------------
(iv) ------------
(iva) ------------
(v) Any transaction involving the allowing of the
possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the transfer of property Act 1882.
Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act 1882 In order to attract 53 A of T.P. Act 1882 the following conditions are to be fulfilled 16 ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011 Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi =====================
(i) There should be a contract for consideration
(ii) It should be in writing
(iii) The contract should be signed by the transferor
(iv) It should pertain to transfer of immovable property
(v) The transferee should have taken possession of the property
(vi) The transferee should be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
15. In the present case, there is no evidence regarding payment of consideration by the transferee and also taking possession of the impugned immovable property immediately after the execution of the agreement. The transferor had at any time not ceased to be the owner of the property by virtue of any agreement entered by the assessee and Smt. Neeraja Reddy. It is also pertinent to mention herein that though the assessee executed Special Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Neeraja Reddy by her nominee, the transfer of the immovable property is not completed as on date and evidence brought on record by the assessee does not suggest transfer of property took place in the year 1994. The assessee miserably failed before us to prove the transfer of property in the year 1994. Considering the argument of both the parties in the light of the documents placed before us and the precedents relied upon, it is evident that the impugned immovable property is sold only on 23rd October, 2007 to Sri G. Srinivasa Reddy by way of sale deed. In our opinion, Smt. Neeraja Reddy has not derived any control over the ownership of the property in the year 1994 through the Special Power of Attorney executed by the assessee. The Special Power of Attorney is only a facilitator to perform certain actions and things on behalf of 17 ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011 Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi ===================== the assessee. Being so, various case-law relied on by the AR is not applicable to the facts of this case.
16. In view of the above discussion, in our opinion, the transfer took place in this case vide sale deed executed on 23.10.2007 in favour of Sri G. Srinivasa Reddy and the lower authorities are justified in invoking the provisions of section 50C to determine the sale consideration and to bring the capital gain to tax. We find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue.
17. Regarding initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the ground raised by the assessee at this stage is premature and preposterous and we decline to entertain this ground.
18. Being so, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the CIT(A) and the grounds taken by the assessee are rejected.
19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in Open Court on 4th April, 2014 Sd/- Sd/-
(SAKTIJIT DEY) (CHANDRA POOJARI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, dated the 4th April, 2014
tprao
18
ITA No. 2100/Hyd/2011
Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi
=====================
Copy to:
1. Smt. Bhavya Anant Udeshi, c/o. M/s. Gandhi & Gandhi, Chartered Accountants, 1007, Paigah Plaza, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500 063.
2. The Income Tax Officer (International Taxation-I), Hyderabad.
3. The CIT(A)-V, Hyderabad.
4. The DIT (International Taxation), Hyderabad
5. The DR, A Bench, ITAT, Hyderabad.