Sri Kakarla Ramakrishna Prasad., Pedapadu V. The ITO, Ward-2., Eluru

CO 31/VIZ/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5796 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J SIRI KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

ITA 97&CO31/V/2008 KAKARLA RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, PEDAPADU IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 97 /VIZAG/ 20 08 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 - 05 ITO WARD - 2 ELURU KAKARLA RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD PEDAPADU (APPELLANT) VS . (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AGJ PK 6099G CO NO.31/VIZAG/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 - 05 KAKARLA RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD PEDAPADU ITO WARD - 2 ELURU (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI J. SIRI KUMAR , SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT CIT(A) S OBSERVATION THAT ALL UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES ARE CREDIT PURCHASES IS INCORRECT AS FOUND AND DISCUSSED BY THE A.O. IN HIS ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE CROSS OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD. THE FACTS BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.20,15,212/ - ARE THAT IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF TOTAL PURCHASES OF FERTILISERS AND MANURES FROM ONE M/S. RAMANJANEYA MANURES COMPANY, E LURU (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS RMC ) DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR , A COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE ITA 97&CO31/V/2008 KAKARLA RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, PEDAP ADU 2 ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF RMC WAS OBTAINED FROM RMC FOR THE PERIOD OF 1.4.2003 TO 31.3.2004. ON A CROSS VERIFICATION OF SUCH ACCOUNT WITH THE ACCOUNT OF RMC AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S OF THE ASSESSEE , IT CAME TO LIGHT THAT CERTAIN PURCHASES MADE FROM AND CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE TO RMC WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WERE RECORDED I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE , BUT NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF RMC. VIDE OFFICE LETTER DATED 19.10.2006, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES FROM AND UNACCOUNTED PAYMENTS TO RMC, REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAI N THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE TRANSACTIONS WITH RMC AS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND ALSO IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF RMC. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED EXPLANATION VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 3.11.2006 STATING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE REASON FOR DIFFERENCES OR DISCREPANCIES IN THE PURCHASES, THEREBY GIVING IMPRESSION OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AND PAYMENTS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE, BEING A RETAIL TRADER IN MANURES AND PESTICIDES AT PEDAPADU VILLAGE, FARMERS FROM SURROUNDING AREA USED TO BUY FROM HIM SUCH PRODUCTS FOR THEIR USE, THAT WHEN A PARTICULAR VARIETY OF FERTILIZER OR PESTICIDE WAS NOT READILY AVAILABLE, AS REQUIRED BY THE FARMERS AT CERTAIN TIMES, HE USED TO DIRECT SUCH F ARMERS TO THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF RMC WITH A REQUEST TO RMC TO SUPPLY THE REQUIRED GOODS TO THE FARMERS ON CREDIT, ON HIS ASSURANCE AND GUARANTEE, UPON WHICH, RMC USED TO SUPPLY THE NECESSARY GOODS TO THE FARMERS. IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS, RMC, WI THOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE, USED TO RAISE INVOICES IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS IN THE NAME OF MANIKANTA AGENCIES (THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE) AND DEBIT THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT WITH THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE SAID INVOICES, AND, L ATER, WHEN THE RESPECTIVE FARMERS PAID THE AMOUNTS TO RMC, IT USED TO CREDIT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THAT EXTENT, AND THAT SINCE SUCH PURCHASES AND PAYMENTS DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT TO THE RESPECTIVE FARMERS, SUCH TRANSACTIONS WERE KEPT OUT OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, AND, ACCORDINGLY, THERE WAS NO REASON TO INFER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INDULGED IN UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AND PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF RMC. VIDE ANOTHER LETTER DATED 14.12.2006 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESS EE STATED THAT ITA 97&CO31/V/2008 KAKARLA RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, PEDAP ADU 3 IN ORDER TO HAVE PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND TO EXTENT COOPERATION FOR SPEEDY FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT NO PENAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST HIM, HE VOLUNTARILY OFFERS THE GROSS PROFIT ELEMENT ON THE ALLEGED UNA CCOUNTED SALES OF RS.25,60,971/ - @ 0.9%, BEING THE AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT RATE ON THE SALES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND, SUCH VOLUNTARY OFFER IS MADE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY CONTENTION OR CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. H AS NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE WORKED OUT THE PEAK OF PAYMENT AT RS.20,15,212/ - AND ADDED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO RMC. 4. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND REITE RATED ITS CONTENTIONS. THE CIT(A) RE - EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND BEING CONVINCED WITH IT HE DELETED THE ADDITIONS. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: (I) AT THE OUTSET, IT MAY BE STA TED THAT IT NEEDS NO EMPHASIS THAT AN AFFIDAVIT BY ITSELF CONSTITUTES NO EVIDENCE UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT; IT IS MERELY AN ASSERTION OF CERTAIN FACT WHICH, UPON VERIFICATION ABOUT ITS VERACITY AS CORROBORATED BY FURTHER EVIDENCE, THAT ITS EVIDENTIARY VALUE BE RECKONED, OTHERWISE NOT. HENCE, THE 34 AFFIDAVITS FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS DO NOT QUALIFY TO BE TREATED AS EVIDENCES, AND, ACCORDINGLY, NOT TECHNICALLY ADMISSIBLE AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46(A) OF THE I.T. RULES. NEVERTH ELESS, ASSUMING, BUT NOT ACCEPTING, THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SOUGHT TO ADMIT PROPER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT MAY, HOWEVER, BE STATED THAT THE SAME DO NOT QUALIFY TO BE ADMITTED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN TERMS OF RUL E 46(A)(1)(C) OF THE I.T. RULES, IN AS MUCH AS, NO CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT TO ESTABLISH AND CONVINCE SUCH APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. UPON BRINGING TO THE NOTICE OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES FROM AND PAYMENTS TO RMC THAT WERE NOT RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, HE HAD MERELY SUBMITTED THAT SUCH DISCREPANCIES AROSE O N ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN FARMERS HAVING PURCHASED THE NECESSARY MATERIALS DIRECTLY FROM THE SUPPLIER OF THE MATERIALS TO THE APPELLANT, ON BEING FORWARDED BY HIM TO RMC. HOWEVER, THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF THE ALLEGED FARMERS HAD NOT B EEN FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO ITA 97&CO31/V/2008 KAKARLA RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, PEDAP ADU 4 AS TO ENABLE HIM TO MAKE SUITABLE ENQUIRIES, IF HE DEEMED FIT. THE BURDEN AS WELL AS THE ONUS THEN LAY WITH THE APPELLANT TO NOT ONLY FURNISH CONVINCING EXPLANATION, BUT ALSO COGENT EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CLA IM THAT THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES PERTAIN TO SOME OTHER PERSONS, AND NOT THE APPELLANT. PRECIOUS NOTHING WAS DONE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO ESTABLISH THE VERACITY OF SUCH CLAIM, DESPITE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROVIDING AMPLE TIME TO THE APPELLAN T. INSTEAD OF DOING SO, THE APPELLANT CAME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE PLEA, VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 14.12.2006, THAT HE VOLUNTARILY OFFERS THE GROSS PROFIT ELEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES, WHICH DEMONSTRATED THE AMBIVALENCE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT. NOT BEING SURE OF WHETHER HE WOULD SUCCEED IN CONVINCING THE PURCHASES TO CERTAIN UNNAMED AND UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS, THE APPELLANT CAME OUT WITH THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA WITH AN INTENTION TO GET AWAY WITH A LIGHTER TAX BURDEN IN RESPECT OF TH E UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. NEVER EVER BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, DID THE APPELLANT PLEAD FOR FURTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDUCING THE NECESSARY AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS EXPLANATION THAT THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES RELAT ED TO SOME OTHER PARTIES, AND NOT HIMSELF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING MADE OUT A CAST - IRON CASE AGAINST THE APPELLANT WITH DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES, THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PURCHASES OF RAW - MATERIALS AGGREGATING TO RS. 25,60,971 AND PAYMENTS THEREOF AGGREGATING TO RS.23,27,252 AS TABULATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REPRESENTED UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AND UNACCOUNTED PAYMENTS, RESPECTIVELY. (II) HAVING HELD SO, IT IS DESIRABLE TO IDENT IFY AND BRING TO THE CHARGE OF INCOME - TAX THE INCOME ELEMENT IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR THE PEAK FIGURE OF PAYMENTS OF RS.20,15,212 TO RMC, AND, THEREFORE, T HE WHOLE OF SUCH PEAK PAYMENT AMOUNT WAS REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS HAVING BEEN MET FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. BUT A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES AND PAYMENTS AS TABULATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REVEALS THE FACT THAT THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES BEGUN ON 9.6.2003 AND, THEREAFTER, WENT ON CONTINUOUSLY WITHOUT ANY PAYMENT RELATING TO SUCH PURCHASES TILL 16.10.2003 WHEN THE AGGREGATE OF SUCH PURCHASES WORKED OUT TO A SUM OF RS.19,12,262/ - . THE FIRST PAYMENT TOWARDS SUCH UNACCOUNTED PURCHA SES WAS MADE ON 17.10.2003 AND, THEREAFTER, FURTHER PAYMENTS WERE MADE INTERSPERSED WITH CERTAIN PURCHASES. THE PEAK FIGURE OF PURCHASES OF RS.20,15,212 REACHED ON 30.10.2003 WITH A PURCHASE WORTH OF RS.43,010 ON THAT DATE. THEREAFTER, THE NUMBER OF PURC HASES DECLINED BUT THE PAYMENTS WENT ON INCREASING TILL 31.3.2004. THEREFORE, THE FIGURE OF RS.20,15,212 REPRESENTS NOT THE PEAK UNACCOUNTED PAYMENTS, AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT THE PEAK UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO DISPUT E ITA 97&CO31/V/2008 KAKARLA RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, PEDAP ADU 5 ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES ARE CREDIT PURCHASES, IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF SUCH UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES STOCKS WERE UTILIZED TO MEET THE PAYMENTS TO RMC, AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE SOURCES OF SUCH PAYMENTS STOOD EXPLAINED. (III) AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE TABULAR CHART IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE CREDIT PURCHASES STARTED FROM JUNE, 2003 AND WENT ON TILL THE MID OCTOBER, 2003, AFTER WHICH, THE PAYMENTS THEREOF HAVE BEEN MADE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMS TANCES, THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MET FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE PURCHASES AND KEPT WITH THE APPELLANT, CAN NOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. HAD THERE BEEN ANY SUSPICION COULD HAVE BEEN PO INTED AT THE APPELLANT, ON THE REASONING THAT NO PURCHASE OF UNACCOUNTED MATERIAL HAVING BEEN MADE BEFORE THE DATE OF ADVANCE PAYMENT THEREOF, THE SOURCES OF PAYMENT WOULD NATURALLY HAVE BEEN ATTRIBUTABLE TO SOME UNEXPLAINED SOURCES OF THE APPELLANT. BUT, SUCH IS NOT THE CASE HERE. FURTHERMORE, THE PAYMENTS NOT HAVING BEEN MADE IN A LUMPSUM, BUT STAGGERED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME STARTING FROM OCTOBER, 2003 TILL THE END OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR, THERE APPEARS TO BE SOME PLAUSIBILITY ABOUT THE EXPLANATION OF TH E APPELLANT THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE RMC WERE SOURCED FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE MATERIALS. IT MIGHT BE ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO ADDUCE ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF HAVING REALLY SO LD SUCH UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE RAW - MATERIALS. IN THIS REGARD, IT MAY BE STATED, THAT ONCE THE APPELLANT HAS CHOSEN TO INDULGE IN UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AND PAYMENTS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, HE COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE FOR HAVING SOL D SUCH UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE MATERIALS. AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE FACTORS OF LOGIC AND HUMAN PROBABILITIES COME INTO PLAY, SO AS TO GIVE RISE TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT, BEING A TRADER IN FERTILIZERS AND MANURES, COULD ONLY HAVE SOLD FOR PROFIT, THE MATERIALS REPRESENTING UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES , AND NOT SIMPLY STOCK THEM UP IN SOME GODOWN. THE PROFIT ELEMENT WOULD ARISE ONLY AFTER SETTING OFF THE COST ELEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE STOCKS. THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE ERRONEOUS TO HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MET THE PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE PEAK FIGURE OF PURCHASES OF RS.20,15,212 (INCORRECTLY HELD AS THE PEAK FIGURE OF PAYMENTS) A S INVESTMENT FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. HOWEVER, THE INCOME ELEMENT BY WAY OF GROSS PROFIT IN RESPECT OF THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AGGREGATING TO RS.25,60,971 IS BOUND TO HAVE ARISEN WITH THE LOGICAL INFERENCE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SOL D THEM FOR PROFIT. AS ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ONLY THE GROSS PROFIT ELEMENT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN AS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE ITA 97&CO31/V/2008 KAKARLA RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, PEDAP ADU 6 UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. IT COULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RETURNED AN AVERAGE GROS S PROFIT RATE OF ABOUT 1% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS APPELLATE ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD DO WELL TO WORK OUT THE INCOME ELEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AT 1% OF THE TURNOVER RELATING TO SUCH PURCHASES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE WOULD BE SUSTAINED TO THAT EXTENT, AND THE BALANCE WOULD STAND DELETED. 5 . NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE AND SALES. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAS CORRECTLY COMPUTED THE PEAK PAYMENT AND MADE THE ADDITION OF THE SAME. 6 . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHATEVER PURCHASES WERE MADE, IT WERE ON CREDI T FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD AND THEREAFTER THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE CONCERNED PARTY. MOREOVER, IF THE PURCHASES AND SALES ARE MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, ONLY THE PROFITS ELEMENT CAN BE TAXED. THE PROFIT HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSE E DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 7 . WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY BROUGHT OUT ON RECORD THAT TH E PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ON CREDIT BASIS AND THE COST PRICE WERE NOT PAID IMMEDIATELY. AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME, THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE AS AND WHEN IT IS CLEARED FROM THE FARMERS. 8 . NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT ON PURCHASES ASSESSEE HAS MADE SOME UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS OFFERED THE PROFIT ON UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES AND SALES OF THE FERTILIZERS. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE REVENUE AS THE ENTIRE PURCHASE CANNOT BE ADDED. ONL Y THE PROFIT ELEMENT CAN BE TAXED AND THE SAID PROFIT HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY ITA 97&CO31/V/2008 KAKARLA RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, PEDAP ADU 7 IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS CORRECTLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE HIM. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. C.O. 31 OF 2008: 10 . THE C.O. IS FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). SINCE WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE C.O. BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND THEREFORE WE DISMISS THE SAME. 11 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL AS WELL AS THE C.O. ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.2 .20 1 1 SD/ - SD/ - (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 10 TH FEBRUARY , 20 1 1 COPY TO 1 ITO WARD - 2, VISAKHAPATNAM 2 SRI KAKARLA RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, PROP: SRI MANIKANTA AGENCIES, PEDAPADU 3 THE CI T, RAJAHMUNDRY 4 THE CIT (A) , RAJAHMUNDRY 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM