Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Jhansi Rani Raju Byrraju, Hyderabad, ... vs Acit, Central Circle-8, Hyderabad, ... on 6 December, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH 'B', HYDERABAD
BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO,
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sl.No. WTA No. AY Appellant Respondent
1 13/Hyd/17 2007-08 Nandini Raju Asst.
Byrraju, Hyd. Commissioner
PAN- of Income-tax,
ABHPB6782G Central Circle -
8, Hyd.
2 14/Hyd/17 2007-08 Teja Raju -do-
Byrraju, Hyd.
PAN-AFSPB
9531G
3 15/Hyd/17 2007-08 Radha Raju -do-`
Byrraju, Hyd.
PAN-AFSPB
9528F
4 16/Hyd/17 2007-08 Jhansi Rani -do-
Raju Byrraju,
Hyd.
PAN-AGSPB
2233J
5 17/Hyd/17 2007-08 Rama Raju -do-
Byrraju Jr.,
Hyd.
PAN-AGNPB
1463D
Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas
Revenue by: Shri Kiran Katta
Date of hearing: 05/12/2019
Date of pronouncement: 06/12/2019
O RDE R
PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.:
All these appeals filed by different assessees are directed against the orders of CWT(A) - 12, Hyderabad, all dated 31/10/2016 for the AY 2007-08.
2 I.T.A. Nos. 13 to 17H/17Nandi ni Raj u B. and others.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal, which are common in all the appeals under consideration, except the quantum of addition.:
1. The order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (CWT(A) dated 31/10/2016 in taxing the value of exempted asset at RS.18,83,31,527/ -
is wholly unsustainable both in law and on facts.
2. The learned CWT(A) failed to note that the entire exempted assets as claimed were excluded as such in the past assessments of the appellant and therefore, the CWT(A) erred in holding that they are taxable.
3. The order of the CWT(A) erred in enhancing the value of the plot at Nandi Hills from Rs.6, 000 per sq. yd. as declared by the appellant to Rs.35, 000 per sq. yd. adopted by the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax and in the process of making an enhancement of its value by Rs.2,90,00,000/- is totally contrary to the facts and evidence on record and therefore, the addition made is unsustainable and must be deleted.
4. Any other ground that may arise at the time of hearing."
3. As regards ground Nos. 1 & 2 relating to assets exempt from Wealth Tax, it is observed that when the appeals are taken up for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has not filed any de tails either before the AO or before the CIT(A). Now he has filed documentary evidence in the form of Google Map and submitted that the disputed property is 8 kilometers away from the municipal limits, therefore, the assets are exempt from Wealth Tax u/s 2(ea) of the WT Act.
4. The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee has not filed this Google Map evidence neither before the AO or before the CIT(A).
5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue involved in this appeal is in 3 I.T.A. Nos. 13 to 17H/17 Nandi ni Raj u B. and others.
respect of the assets, which are exempt from the WT Act u/s 2(ea). We find that the Google Map filed before us is an additional evidence, which is neither filed before the AO nor before the CIT(A), as it is material eviden ce to decide the issue in dispute. Therefore, the assessee filed the said evidence for the first time before us and since the AO or CIT(A) never had an occasion to consider the same, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter back to the file of the AO to consider the evidence submitted by the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
6. As regards ground No. 3 relating to the enhancement of the value of the plot, the case of the assessee is that the AO has not given valuation officer's report and therefore, the enhancement is not valid.
7. The DR, on the other hand, submitted that the a ssessee has not cooperated before the AO.
8. Before us, both the parties agreed tha t this issue also may be remitted back to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the issue back to the file of AO with a direction to give an opportunity to the assessee to raise any objections against the valuation report. We direct the assessee to cooperate with the AO in this regard.
9. The assessee has filed another paper book dated 04/06/2018 and submitted that there is a property situated at village Panjari Lodhi, Nagpur, which is 8 kilo meters away from the municipal limits. We find that the assessee has not filed any petition to admit this paper book as additional evidence 4 I.T.A. Nos. 13 to 17H/17 Nandi ni Raj u B. and others.
and he has not explained as to why the same was not filed before the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, we reject to admit th e same.
9.1 However, we direct the assessee to file the same before the AO and the AO is of the opinion that it is a material document to consider the issue, the same shall be admitted and decide the issue accordingly.
10. As the facts and grounds are raised in other appeals in WTA nos. 14, 15, 16 & 17/Hyd/2017 are materially identical to that of WTA No. 13/Hyd/2017, following the decision therein, we remit these appeals to the file of AO with identical directions.
11. In the result, all the appeals under consideration are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on 6 th December, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (V. DURGA RAO)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Hyderabad, dated 6 th December, 2019.
kv
Copy forwarded to:
1. B. Nandini Raju, 2) B. Teja Raju, 3) B. Radha Raju, 4) B. Jhansi Rani Raju and 5) B. Rama Raju, C/o. Fortune Monarch Mall, 3 rd Floor Flat No. 306, Plot No. 707-709, Road No. 36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
6. DCWT, Central Circle - 8, Hyderabad.
7. CWT(A) - 12, Hyderabad.
8. Pr. CWT (Central), Hyderabad
9. The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad
10. Guard File