K.Hemanth Babji, Tirupathi V. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Tirupathi

CO 21/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9068 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P V RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Depreciation; Search and seizure; Source of fund; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SL.NO. ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 238/H/11 2002 - 03 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI SHRI K. HEMANTH BABJI, TIRUPATI. PAN: AHIPK0533B 2 239/H/11 2005 - 06 - DO - - DO - 3 519/H/11 200 8 - 09 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI. - DO - 4 663/H/11 2006 - 07 SHRI K. HEMANTH BABJI, TIRUPATI. PAN: AHIPK0533B ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATHI 5 66 4 /H/11 200 8 - 09 - DO - - DO - AND S.NO. C.O. NO. AY CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT 6 21/H/11 (IN ITA NO. 238/H/11) 2002 - 03 SHRI K. HEMANTH BABJI, TIRUPATI. PAN: AHIPK0533B ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATHI 7 22/H/11 2005 - 06 - DO - - DO - REVENUE BY : SHRI P.V. RAO ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 23/10/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : /11/2013 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: ALL THESE APPEALS ARE PERTAINING TO ONE ASSESSEE. A PPEALS IN ITA NOS. 238 AND 239/HYD/2011 FILED BY REVENUE A RE DIRECTED ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 2 AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-VII FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEARS 2002-03 & 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE FILED COS FOR THE S AID TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) . APPEAL IN ITA NO. 519/H/11 FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-VII, HYDERABAD DATED 12-1-11 FOR AY 2007-08. APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 663, & 664/H/11 FILED BY ASSESS EE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-VII, HYD ERABAD, DATED 12-01-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2008- 09. THE AO ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT ISSUED A NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE CALLING UPON HIM TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INC OME. ITA NOS. 238 AND 239/H/11 APPEALS BY REVENUE 2. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE A PPEALS, WE REFER TO THE FACTS FROM AY 2002-03. BRIEFLY THE FAC TS ARE, THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE I T ACT, 1961 CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SRI K.C. REDDEPPA NAIDU, T IRUPATI ON 27/09/2009. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOTIFIED TO ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATHI. THE AO ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT, ISSUED A NOTICE TO THE ASSESSE E CALLING UPON HIM TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME. 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTED FROM THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE THAT THERE WERE C ASH CREDITS OF RS. 10,000/- AND RS. 2,90,000/- ON 01-04-2001 AND 1 2-08-2001, IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE ACCOR DING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REPLY FOR THE SOURCE OF CASH CREDITS EVEN AFTER ALLOWING LOT OF TIME AND SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIE S, THE SAID AMOUNTS TOTALING TO RS. 3,00,000/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED. ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 3 4. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR THE AS SESSEE PURCHASED ONE SHOP AND SHARE IN FLAT FOR WHICH TH E ASSESSEE STATED TO HAVE TAKEN LOAN FROM SBI AMOUNTING TO RS . 5 LAKHS. HOWEVER, AS NOTED BY THE AO, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADDUCED ANY EVIDENCE SUCH AS ACCOUNT COPY ETC., IN THE ABSE NCE OF THE SAME, THE AO TREATED THE SAID LOAN AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE RETURN ED INCOME. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 6. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME DISCLO SING ALL THE DETAILS AND THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY ACCE PTING THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT CASH CREDITS WERE PERTAINING TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2001-0 2 RELEVANT TO AY UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM SBI ON 08/03/2002 WHICH WAS APPEARING IN THE C APITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE RE TURN OF INCOME AND THE AO HAD WRONGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LAKHS EVEN THOUGH THESE ASPECTS OF LOAN TAKING WAS VERY M UCH DISCLOSED AT THE TIME OF FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. HE, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAD NOT APPRECIATE D THE FACTS ON RECORD AND MADE THE ADDITIONS, WHICH IS NOT PROPER. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN S UPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE: 1. VIJAYBHAI N. CHANDRANI VS. ACIT, 231 CTR 474 (G UJ.) 2. LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. DCIY, 119 TTJ 214 (K OL.) 3. ROYAL MARWAR TOBACCO PRODUCTS LTD. VS. DCIT, 29 SOT 53 4. ANILKUMAR BHATIA VS. ACIT, ITA NO. 2660 TO 2665 /DEL/09 ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 4 5. KGR EXPORTS VS. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ITA NO. 494/V/2007, DTD. 11/09/2008 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE DECISI ONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUES WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ARE NOT NEWL Y DISCLOSED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT ISSUED B Y THE AO AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DISCLOSED ALL THE AB OVE CREDITS AND LOANS WHILE FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AN D SINCE THERE IS NO SEIZED MATERIAL CONTRARY TO THE ASSESSEES DISCL OSURE MADE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, NO ADDITION CAN BE M ADE WITHOUT ANY VALID BASIS. THE CIT(A) AFTER EXTRACTING THE G IST OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE (SUPRA) AND F OLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE SAID CASES, DELETED THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 3 LAKHS TOWARDS CASH CREDITS AND RS. 5 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE CIT( A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 9. THE LEARNED DR STRONGLY CONTENDING AGAINST THE D ELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO SUBMITTED THAT THE AO CAN T AKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANY OTHER MATERIAL APART FROM WHAT HA S BEEN SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION FOR MAKING AN ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONTEXT, LE ARNED DR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CAS E OF GOPAL LAL BHADRUKA, 346 ITR 106. 10. THE LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY SUPP ORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THERE BEING ABSO LUTELY NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTI ON OR ANY OTHER ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 5 MATERIAL TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDISCLO SED INCOME AND THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153C OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PRE-CONDITION FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 153C HAVING NOT BEEN FULFILLED IN TH E PRESENT CASE AND THE CIT(A) WAS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AN D PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OT HER MATERIALS ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO HAS PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OF THE AC T. ON A PLAIN READING OF PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 153C OF T HE ACT, IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT FOR ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER THE S AID PROVISIONS, THE AO MUST BE SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, J EWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES OR THINGS OR BOOKS OF ACCOU NT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS TO THE PERSON CONCE RNED. THEREFORE, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ASSUMING JUR ISDICTION U/S 153C IS SEIZURE OF ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACC OUNT OR ANY DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED. AS C AN BE SEEN FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HA S NOT REFERRED TO ANY SEIZED MATERIAL FOR MAKING THE ADDITIONS IN DISPUTE. IN FACT THERE IS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO LEAVE ALONE ANY SEIZED MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE AO COULD HAVE MADE THE ADDITION. THE AO HAS SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE INFORMA TION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FI LED BY HIM PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH FOR MAKING ADDITIONS IN QUEST ION. IN OUR VIEW, IN PROCEEDING U/S 153C OF THE ACT, NO ASSESSM ENT CAN BE MADE UNLESS THERE IS SEIZED MATERIAL BELONGING TO T HE ASSESSEE. AS IS VERY MUCH EVIDENT FROM THE COMPUTATION SUBMIT TED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PRI OR TO THE SEARCH, A COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGE 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK, INFORMATION RELATING TO BOTH THE LOAN TAKEN FROM SB I AS WELL AS FROM OTHERS WAS DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE. IT ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 6 IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL BEFORE TH E AO EITHER AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OR ENQUIRY MADE BY HIM SUBSEQUENTL Y, TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,000/- AN D RS. 5,00,000/- ARE UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF GOPAL LAL BHADRUKA (SUPRA) IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACT S AS IN THAT CASE THERE WAS ADMISSION MADE BY THE INDIVIDUAL PAR TNERS WITH REGARD TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THAT BESIDES T HE HONBLE HIGH COURT NEVER HELD THAT ASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE U /S 153A/153C WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL WHAT THE HOBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD IS THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A /153C OF THE ACT WILL NOT BE CONFINED TO ONLY SEIZED MATERIAL BU T CAN CONSIDER ANY OTHER MATERIAL ALONG WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT AO CAN PROCEED TO MAKE ASSESSMENT U/S 153 C OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL AT ALL. THAT APART WHEN AD MITTEDLY THERE IS NO SEIZED MATERIAL BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, TH E AO COULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED TO MAKE ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OF THE A CT. THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF VIJAYABHAI N. CHANDRANI VS. ACIT, 231 CTR 474 (GUJ. ) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AND REFERRED TO BY THE CIT(A) CLEAR LY SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE AFORESAID VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. GROUND RAISED BY THE R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. AS THE ISSUES IN AY 2005-06 ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF AY 2002- 03, FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THAT YEAR, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN AY 2005-06 ALSO. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN AY 200 2-03 AND 2005-06 ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 7 14. SINCE THE C.OS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 200 2-03 AND 2005-06 ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) AND SINCE THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) WERE UPHELD BY US WHILE DECIDING R EVENUE APPEALS, THE COS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THE SA ME ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ITA NO. 663/H/2011 APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE 15. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 19 DAYS IN FILING THE APPE AL. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A PETITION BEIN G SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY. AS PER T HE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT, THE IMPUGNED OR DER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 27.01.2011 , WHEREAS THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE ITAT ON 15.04.2011. THUS, THERE IS DELAY OF 19 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. AFTER CON SIDERING THE CAUSE OF DELAY AND ASSESSEES EXPLANATION, WE ARE I NCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON MERIT. 16. GROUND NO. 1 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE, NEED NO ADJUDICATION. GROUND NO. 2 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 75,000/- M ADE BY THE AO. 17. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RS. 75,000/- AS AGRICULTURE INCO ME. SINCE HE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE AS TO THE LAND HOLDI NGS AND SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, THOUGH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, AO MADE THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT TREATING IT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. BE FORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AR OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN HIS LAND ON LEASE AND H E RECEIVES ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 8 LEASE RENTAL OF RS. 75,000/- PER ANNUM AND THEREFOR E THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AC CEPTED BY THE AO. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT H E IS EARNING SO MUCH FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. 18. STILL AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US. 19. THE LEARNED AR REITERATING THE CONTENTIONS RAIS ED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS T HE OWNER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN QUESTION AND HAS SHOWN IT IN T HE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/03/2006 AND THE SAID LAND WAS GIVEN ON LEASE FOR ANNUAL LEASE RENT OF RS. 75,000/-. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED AR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FR OM ONE SRI K. SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE AT PAGE 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK C ONFIRMING THE LEASE RENTAL OF RS. 75,000/-. 20. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE OR DER OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) THE ADDITION WAS MADE SOLELY ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT HE W AS EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY FURNISHING PROPER DETAILS AN D EVIDENCE. THOUGH, ON A PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31/ 03/06, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE LAND AS AN AS SET AND EVEN THOUGH THE CONFIRMATION LETTER PLACED AT PAGE 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK MENTIONS ABOUT PAYMENT OF ANNUAL LEASE RENTAL OF RS. 75,000/-, BUT, THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE TO SHOW T HAT SRI K. SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE WAS CARRYING ON AGRICULTURAL O PERATION ON THE SAID LAND. FURTHERMORE, THE HOUSEHOLD CARD OF SRI K. SUBHASH ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 9 CHANDRA BOSE, A COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGE 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE MENTIONS HIS ANNUAL INCOM E AT RS. 18,000/-. THEREFORE, IT RAISES SERIOUS DOUBT AS TO HOW A PERSON HAVING ANNUAL INCOME OF RS. 18,000/- CAN PAY LEASE RENTAL OF RS. 75,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AT A LL PROVED WITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT AGRICULTURAL OPERATION WAS BEING CARRIED ON THE SAID LAND OR IT WAS GENERATING INCOME FROM A GRICULTURE. IN THE AFORESAID VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 75,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 22. GROUND NO. 3 IS PERTAINING TO THE ADDITION OF R S. 4 LAKHS BEING THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FORM HIS FA THER-IN-LAW. 23. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GIFT OF RS. 4 LAKHS FROM M. KRI SHNAMMA NAIDU, FATHER-IN-LAW. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED T O ADDUCE EVIDENCE TOWARDS THE GIFT RECEIVED, HE COULD NOT PR ODUCE ANY EVIDENCE LIKE HIS SOURCES OF INCOME, QUANTUM OF INC OME, SAVINGS, ETC. AND EVEN A CONFIRMATION LETTER IN SPITE OF BEI NG GIVEN NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES BY THE AO. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF RECEIVING GIFT FROM HIS F ATHER-IN-LAW, THE AO TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS ABOUT THE LAND HOLDING OF ASSESSEES FATHER-IN-LAW AND CO NFIRMATION FROM SRI KRISHNAMA NAIDU, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDIT ION BY HOLDING THAT THE FINANCIAL BACKGROUND OF ASSESSEES FATHER-IN-LAW DOES NOT SOLIDLY SUPPORT FOR HAVING GIVEN A GIFT OF RS. 4,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. 24. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 10 25. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AN D PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OT HER MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR BEFOR E US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE GIFT FROM HIS FATHER-IN-L AW AND IN THIS CONTEXT HE HAS REFERRED TO THE CONFIRMATION FROM SR I M. KRISHNAMMA NAIDU, AT PAGE 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID CONFIRMATION LETTER IT IS SEEN THAT SRI M. KRISHNAMA NAIDU HAS MENTIONED THAT HE IS OWNER OF 2.97 ACRES OF LAN D AND EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 80,000/- TO RS. 1 LAKH P ER YEAR. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT HIS FATHER-IN-LAW DID ACTUALLY EARN AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT MENTIONED IN THE CONFORMATION LETTER. IT IS ALSO FACT THAT THE GIFT HAS BEEN MADE IN CASH AND THE DONOR SHRI KRISHNAMMA NAIDU IS NOT AN INCOME-TAX ASSESSEE.. SI NCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER TO PROV E THE CAPACITY OF THE DONOR OR THE FACT OF EARNING AGRICU LTURAL INCOME BY HIM, THE ADDITION ON THAT ACCOUNT, IN OUR VIEW IS J USTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON T HIS ISSUE AND DISMISS GROUND NO. 3. 26. GROUND NO. 4 IS PERTAINING TO THE ADDITION OF R S. 60,000/- MADE BY THE AO BY DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE INCUR RED ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. 27. THE AO NOTED THAT WHILE ARRIVING AT SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE ASSESSEE DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 60,000/- TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, FOR WHICH NO DETAILS WERE GIVEN LIKE BILLS/VOUCHERS, NATURE OF EXPENDITU RE, MODE OF PAYMENT, DATE OF PAYMENT ETC. IN THE ABSENCE OF SAI D DETAILS, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT EXPENSES INCURRED FOR A GRICULTURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CANNOT BE ALLOWED SINCE THE SALE O F AGRICULTURAL ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 11 LAND AND PROFIT DERIVED THEREFROM CANNOT BE ASSESSE D FOR CAPITAL GAINS. 28. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSING THE FINDINGS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO I NTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE SINCE THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT PRODUCED EVEN A SEMBLANCE OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ASSESSEES CLAIM CANNOT BE ACCEPTED ON THE FACE OF IT. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ADDITION IS UPHELD AND GROUND RAISED IS DISMISSED. 29. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ITA NO. 664/H/11 BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2008-09 30. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 19 DAYS IN FILING THE APPE AL. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A PETITION BEIN G SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY. AS PER T HE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT, THE IMPUGNED OR DER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 27.01.2011 , WHEREAS THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE ITAT ON 15.04.2011. THUS, THERE IS DELAY OF 19 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. AFTER CON SIDERING THE CAUSE OF DELAY AND ASSESSEES EXPLANATION, WE ARE I NCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON MERIT. 31. GROUND NO. 1 & 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE, NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED. GROUND NO. 2 IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O OF RS. 1,27,000/- BEING THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF CAR . ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 12 32. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SET OFF LOSS OF RS. 1,27,000/- ON SALE OF CAR, BUT, HE DID NOT ADDUCE A NY EVIDENCE TOWARDS THE SALE OF CAR ON LOSS. THEREFORE, THE AO DECLINED THE SAME TO BE SET OFF AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE AO BY HOLDING THAT AS NO CONCRETE EXPLANATION O R EVIDENCES WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE LOSS C LAIMED, THEREFORE, THE LOSS CLAIMED IS WITHOUT VALID REASON S AND NECESSARY PROOFS, HENCE CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 33. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD SUSTAINED SHORT TERM LOSS ON SALE OF CAR, WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSE SSMENT YEAR. THE LEARNED AR REFERRING TO THE PURCHASE INVOICE OF CAR, A COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGE 84 OF THE PAPER BOOK, SUBMITTED TH AT THE CAR WAS PURCHASED ON 06/05/2003 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 3,65,070/- AND SOLD ON 19/07/2007 FOR RS. 2,35,000/-, HENCE, T HERE IS A LOSS OF RS. 1,27,000/-, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED B Y THE AO. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER CLAIMED ANY DEPRECIATION ON THE SAID CAR. 34. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED TH AT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ESTIMATING THE INCOME FROM BUSINE SS, DEPRECIATION IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN CLAIMED BY HIM ON THE CAR. 35. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AO HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDE NCE WITH REGARD TO SALE OF CAR. ON PERUSAL OF THE INVOICE AT PAGE 84 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A SANTRO CAR ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 13 ON 06/05/2003 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 3,65,070/- AND THE SAID CAR WAS SOLD ON 19/07/2007 FOR RS. 2,35,000/- AS PE R DELIVERY LETTER DATED 19-07-2007, AT PAGE 83 OF THE PAPER BO OK. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ESTIMATING HI S INCOME FROM BUSINESS, HENCE, THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DR T HAT DEPRECIATION IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES TO BE LOOKED INTO. WE, THEREFORE, REMIT TH IS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING AFRESH KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE ASPECTS AND AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 36. GROUND NO. 3 IS PERTAINING TO THE ADDITION OF R S. 3,78,493/-. 37. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN O F RS. 1,18,757/- ON SALE OF SITE AT SIVAJYOTHI NAGAR, TIR UPATI. WHILE ARRIVING AT SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSEE D EBITED COST OF SITE AT RS. 3,78,493/-. WHEN THE AO ASKED TO PRODUC E COPY OF PURCHASE DOCUMENT, HE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENC E AND, HENCE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME. ON APPEAL, THE C IT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO OBSERVING THAT THE A SSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN WITH RELEVANT DETAILS AND SOURCE OF THE COST INCURRED. 38. THE LEARNED AR REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY INCURRED THE COST OF RS. 3,78,493/- TOWARDS PURCHAS E OF THE SITE AND IN THIS CONTEXT HE REFERRED TO THE DETAILS OF T HE PURCHASE OF LAND MADE DURING THE FY 2004-05, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 81 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER AO NOR THE CIT(A) HAS VERIFIED THIS ASPECT AND MADE THE ADDITION IN A PERFUNCTORY MANNER. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED T HAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECI DING AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE. ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 14 39. THE LEARNED DR, THOUGH, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, SUBMITT ED THAT THE MATTER CAN BE REMITTED BACK TO THE AO FOR VERIFICAT ION. 40. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PER USING THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE OF LAND MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, W HICH HAS BEEN FURNISHED AT PAGE 81 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE ARE INCL INED TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL A S OTHER MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES THAT MAY BE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. THE AO SHALL AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASS ESSEE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 41. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 519/H/11 BY THE REVENUE 42. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OF RS. 11,19 ,560/-. 43. THE AO NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LOAN RECEIPT OF RS. 5,00,000/-, RS, 4,17,670/- AND RS. 2,01,890/- FROM SMT. SANTOSHAMMA, SRI SUDHAKAR, NRI AND SRI AN ANDA KUMAR, NRI RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO T FURNISHED THEIR SOURCES OF INCOME, SAVINGS, CONFIRMATION LETT ERS, IT PARTICULARS, THE MODE OF PAYMENT, ETC AND ALSO SINC E THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE AO DISALL OWED THE SAID ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 15 AMOUNTS TOTALING TO RS. 11,19,560/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 44. ON APPEAL, IT WAS ARGUED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE SAID LOANS THROUGH LEGAL MEANS ONLY AS SMT. SANTOSHAMMA WORKED AS HEAD NURSE AND SHE HAD G IVEN ABOVE SAID AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING C HANNEL ONLY, HENCE, THE SAME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED BY THE AO. SIMILARLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM SRI SUDHKAR (NRI) AND SRI ANANDA KUMAR (NRI) ALSO, IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT, SINCE THEY HAVE SENT THE MONEY TO THE ASSESS EE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ONLY WHICH ARE REFLECTED IN BANK AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE THE CREDITS ARE GENUINE. IN SUPPORT OF TH E ABOVE ARGUMENT, THE AR HAD FURNISHED COPIES OF BANK ACCOU NTS OF SMT. SANTHOSHAMMA AND ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT COPIES. AF TER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR OF THE ASSESS EE, AND VERIFYING THE DETAILS FURNISHED, THE CIT(A) OBSERVE D THAT THE DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM WERE ALSO SUBMITTED BE FORE THE AO. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT HAVING VERIFIED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS THE LOANS RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ONLY, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NOTHING ADVERSE FOUND WITH REGARD TO THE LOANS RECEIVED, HE NCE, DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,19,560/- MADE BY THE AO. 45. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 46. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY ACCEPTING THE LOANS MERELY ON THE R EASONING THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. HE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENTS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL CAN NOT BE THE SOLE CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTING THE LOANS UNLESS THE AS SESSEE PROVES ALL ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 16 THE THREE INGREDIENTS I.E. IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR , CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF LOAN. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TWO OF THE LENDERS ARE NON-RESIDENT INDIANS AND THE SOURCE OF THE LOAN ADVANCED BY THEM HAS NOT AT ALL BEEN VERIFIED BY TH E CIT(A) BEFORE DELETING THE SAME. HE, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WITHOUT VERIFYING ALL THESE FACTS A ND NOT CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO SHOULD NOT HAVE DELET ED THE ADDITION. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUE REQUIRES TO BE VERIFIED BY THE AO, HENCE, REQUESTED FOR REMI TTING THE MATTER TO THE AO. 47. THE LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED TH AT OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 11,19,560/- AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKHS IS NOT ACTUALLY A LOAN BUT GIFT GIVEN BY SMT. SANTHOSHAMMA , WHO WORKED AS HEAD NURSE AND THE AMOUNT WAS REMITTED TH ROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, HENCE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DOUBT W ITH REGARD TO THE GIFT GIVEN BY SMT. SANTHOSHAMMA. IT WAS ALSO S UBMITTED THAT SMT. SANTHOSHAMMA HAS ALSO CONFIRMED OF HAVING MADE THE GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HER RETIREMENT BENEFITS. TO THIS EFFECT, THE LEARNED AR REFERRED TO THE CONFIRMATION LETTER OF S MT. SANTOSHAMMA AT PAGE 82 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SO FAR AS THE LOANS OF RS. 4,17,670/- AND RS. 2,01,890/- FROM SRI SUDHA KAR AND SRI ANANDA KUMAR ARE CONCERNED, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTE D THAT BOTH OF THEM ARE CLOSELY RELATED AND NON-RESIDENT INDIA NS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT ADVANCED BY THEM HAVE COM E THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT INDEPENDENTLY CONSIDERED EACH CREDIT AND HAS MADE T HE ADDITION IN A SUMMARY MANNER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DETA ILS OF MODE OF RECEIPT FURNISHED AT THE TIME OF APPEAL HEARING WAS DULY CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) AND ON CONSIDERATION OF TH E SAME, HE ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 17 DELETED THE ADDITION, HENCE, THERE IS NO ERROR IN T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH MAY BE UPHELD. 48. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AN D PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A), HE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION SOLELY ON THE G ROUND THAT THEY ARE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. HOWEVER, THIS MAY BE CORRECT IN CASE OF SMT. SANTHOSHAMMA IN WHOSE CASE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR AS WELL AS H IS OWN BANK ACCOUNT REFLECTING THE ADVANCEMENT OF RS. 5 LAKHS. THE FACT THAT SMT. SANTHOSHAMMA WORKED AS A HEAD NURSE ALSO TO A CERTAIN EXTENT PROVES HER CAPACITY TO MAKE THE GIFT. HOWEVE R, SO FAR AS THE OTHER TWO CREDITORS ARE CONCERNED, NAMELY, SRI SUDHAKAR AND SRI ANANDA KUMAR ADMITTEDLY BOTH ARE NON-RESIDENT I NDIANS RESIDING OUTSIDE INDIA, HENCE, IN THEIR CASE STRICT PROOF OF EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED WITH REGARD TO CREDITWORTHINES S AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN. THEREFORE, IT IS REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED FROM THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS WHETHER THEY HAD SOURCE TO ADVANCE THE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE. ONLY BECAUSE THE MONEY HAS COME TO THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT, THE LOAN CANNOT BE ACCEPTE D AS GENUINE. THEREFORE, WHILE WE ACCEPT THE CIT(A)S FINDING WIT H REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKHS FROM SMT. SANTOSHAMMA BUT SO FAR AS LOAN OF RS. 4,17,670/- AND RS. 2,01,890/- FROM SRI SUDHA KAR AND SRI ANANDA KUMAR ARE CONCERNED, WE REMIT THE MATTER BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO VERIFY THE SAME AND DECIDE AFRESH AFTER LOOKING INTO THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTAB LISH GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CONCERNED CREDITORS. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS PARTLY A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 49. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR AY 200 8-09 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 238/HYD/11 AND OTHERS SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI 18 50. TO SUM UP, ITA NOS. 238 & 239/HYD/2011 AND 663/ HYD/2011 ARE DISMISSED, ITA NO. 664/HYD/2011 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, ITA NO. 519/HYD/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE COS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISM ISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.11.2013 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER HYDERABAD, DATED: 13 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. KV COPY TO:- 1) ACIT, CC, TIRUPATHI. 2) SRI K. HEMANTH BABJI, 81, KK LAYOUT, TIRUPATHI 3) CIT(A)-VII, HYDERABAD. 4) CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T ., HYDERABAD.