ACIT., Circle-1, Hyderabad, Warangal V. Shri Y.Radhakrishna, Warangal

CO 55/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0557 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: K V CHALAMAIAH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1652/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 ACIT, CIRCLE-1 WARANGAL. VS. MR. Y. RADHAKRISHNA WARANGAL. PAN AANPY6931D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTION NO.55/HYD/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.1652/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 MR. Y. RADHAKRISHNA WARANGAL. PAN AANPY6931D VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 WARANGAL. (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : MR. RAJAT MITRA FOR ASSESSEE : MR. K.V. CHALAMAIAH DATE OF HEARING : 27.04.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.04.2015 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-VI, HYDERABAD DATED 30. 08.2013 AND THE SAME IS BEING DISPOSED OF ALONG WITH THE CR OSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING C.O.NO.55/HYD /2014. 2. IN GROUND NO.1 OF ITS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESTRICT ING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE 2 ITA.NO.1652/HYD/2013 & C.O.NO.55/HYD/2014 MR. Y. RADHAKRISHNA, WARANGAL. BY ESTIMATING HIS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF CONTRACTI NG BY APPLYING A NET PROFIT RATE OF 10%. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDU AL WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXECUTION OF CIVI L CONTRACTS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON WAS FILED BY HIM ON 30.09.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9 8,39,610. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE RELEVANT BILLS AND VOUCHERS T O SUPPORT THE VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF HIS CONT RACTING BUSINESS. SINCE THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING BILLS/VOUCHERS WERE NOT VERIF IABLE, THE A.O. PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE FROM HIS CONTRACTING BUSINESS BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 10% TO THE GROSS RECEIPTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH RESUL TED IN SUBSTANTIAL TRADING ADDITION. 3.1. THE TRADING ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AN APPEAL FILED BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND JUSTIFICATION IN THE ACTION OF THE A.O . IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING A NET PROFIT RATE AS A RESULT OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE RE LEVANT BILLS/VOUCHERS TO SUPPORT VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY HIM. HOWEVER, KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. IN A.Y. 2007-2008 AT 8%/O F GROSS RECEIPTS, HE HELD THAT THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 10% A PPLIED BY THE A.O. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ON THE HIG HER SIDE AND IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 8%. ACCORDINGLY, 3 ITA.NO.1652/HYD/2013 & C.O.NO.55/HYD/2014 MR. Y. RADHAKRISHNA, WARANGAL. THE TRADING ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. WAS RESTRICTE D BY THE LD. CIT(A. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES O N THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL O N RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE RELEVANT BILLS/VOUCHERS TO SUP PORT AND SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM FOR VARIOUS EXPENSES COULD N OT BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. FOR VERIFI CATION AND SINCE IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH VOUCHERS, IT WAS NOT P OSSIBLE FOR THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. WAS FULL Y JUSTIFIED IN RESORTING TO ESTIMATION OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE FROM CONTRACTING BUSINESS BY APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RAT E. AS REGARDS THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 10% APPLIED BY THE A.O. FOR ESTIMATING THE BUSINESS INCOME, IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-2008, A NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% WAS APPLIED BY THE A.O. TO ESTIMATE THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS INCLUDING THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINING THE SAME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JU STIFIED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 8%. WE THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) GIVING PART RE LIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE AND UPHOLDING THE SAME, WE D ISMISS GROUND NO.1 OF REVENUES APPEAL. 5. GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL AND GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 OF ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION I NVOLVE A COMMON ISSUE RELATING TO THE DETERMINATION OF INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN INCLUDING HIS CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. 4 ITA.NO.1652/HYD/2013 & C.O.NO.55/HYD/2014 MR. Y. RADHAKRISHNA, WARANGAL. 6. IN THE RETURN, INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL G AIN WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HAVING ARISEN FROM SALE OF TWO FLATS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HOWEVER, PRODUCED THE COPY OF SALE DEED OF ONLY ONE FLAT AND COULD NOT PRODUCE COPY OF SALE DEED OF THE OTHER FL AT. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE COPY OF SALE DEED OF OTHER FLAT, THE SALE CONSIDERATION THEREOF WAS TAKEN BY THE A.O. AT RS.2 2,50,000 AS AGAINST RS.14,50,000 SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND INCO ME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKED OUT BY HIM AT RS.44,82,344. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, EXEMPTION OF RS.50 LAKHS WAS CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT FOR INVESTME NT MADE IN PURCHASE OF RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION BONDS . SINCE THE CORRESPONDING CAPITAL GAIN HAD ARISEN TO THE ASSESS EE AS A RESULT OF SALE OF LAND TO BUILDER ON 25.11.2006 AND INVESTMENT IN RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION BONDS WAS MADE ON 22.12.2008, THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC IN THE ASSESSMENT COMP LETED UNDER SECTION 143(3). 6.1. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ITS CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC AS WELL A S THE ENHANCEMENT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL G AIN WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AN APPEAL FILED BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE WHICH, WAS REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPH NO. 6.2 AND 6.3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, WERE AS UNDER : 6.2. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, V IDE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THE APPELLANT STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED A PIECE OF VACANT LAND 5 ITA.NO.1652/HYD/2013 & C.O.NO.55/HYD/2014 MR. Y. RADHAKRISHNA, WARANGAL. ADMEASURING 1100 SQ. YARDS SITUATED AT BAGH AMEERI VILLAGE, BALANAGAR MANDAL, RR DISTRICT FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.18,56,250/- VIDE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO. 4639 OF 2005 DT. 15.06.2005. IT WAS STATED THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE APPELLANT ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH M/S. VIJAYA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS OF HABSIGUDA, HYDERABAD ON 25.11.2006, WHEREBY THE APPELLANT WAS TO RECEIVE 45% OF BUILT UP AREA I.E. FINISHED FLATS IN ALL RES PECTS IN LIEU OF 55% OF LAND AREA SURRENDERED TO THE BUILDER . IT WAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ALLOTTED 14 FLATS WITH A TOTAL BUILT UP AREA OF 18,000 SFT AND ON REC EIPT OF CONSTRUCTED FLATS IN THE YEAR 2007-08, AS HANDED OVER BY THE BUILDER THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD 8 FLATS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND 2 FLATS IN THE FINAN CIAL YEAR 2008-09. IT WAS ALSO ELABORATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD ONE FLAT ON 25.06.2008 WITH A PLINTH AREA OF 1000 SFT FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 14,50,000/- AND THE OTHER ON 18.03. 2009 WITH A PLINTH AREA OF 1500 SFT FOR RS. 22,50,000/-, AND ST ATED THAT THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED DURING THE FY 2008-09 WAS RS. 37 LAKHS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THA T THE APPELLANT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED AL ONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2009-10, HAD ERRONEOUSLY WORKED OUT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN O N SALE OF BUILDER'S 55% SHARE OF LAND OF 605 SQ. YARD S OUT OF 1100 SQ. YARDS AT RS. 48,02,227/- AND CLAIME D THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS EXEMPT U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT ON PURCHASE OF RURAL ELECTRIFICATION BONDS ON 01.11.20 08 TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 50 LAKHS. IT WAS FURTHER AVERR ED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE CONSIDERING THE AB OVE CLAIM, HAD MISDIRECTED HIMSELF BY OBSERVING THAT TH E APPELLANT HANDED OVER THE LAND TO THE BUILDER ON 25.11.2006 AND INVESTED IN BONDS ONLY 22.12.2008, WITH A TIME GAP OF OVER TWO YEARS AND HENCE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT. IT WA S FURTHER AVERRED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IGNO RED THE FACT THAT WHETHER CAPITAL GAINS, IF ANY, ARISIN G ON TRANSFER OF 55% SHARE OF LAND TO BUILDER WAS ASSESSABLE IN THE YEAR OF SUCH TRANSFER OR IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR, AND IF SO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY REALIS ED BY THE APPELLANT BY TRANSFER OF LAND TO BUILDER; WHETHER IT WAS 'SHORT TERM OR 'LONG TERM' CAPITAL GAINS. IT WAS STATED THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED ON 15.06.2005 AND THE SAME WAS HANDED OVER THE BUILDER ON 25.11.2006 FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THAT IN 6 ITA.NO.1652/HYD/2013 & C.O.NO.55/HYD/2014 MR. Y. RADHAKRISHNA, WARANGAL. SUCH A SITUATION, THE CAPITAL GAIN WOULD BE 'SHORT TERM AND SHOULD ARISE ONLY IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHIC H THE ASSET WAS TRANSFERRED TO BUILDER WHICH IS 2006- 07 RELEVANT FOR AY 2007-08. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THUS THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR THE APPELLANT TO DECLARE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 48,02,227/- FOR THE AY 2009-10 AND CONSEQUENTLY, DO NOT WARRANT THE AO TO DISALLOW RS. 50,00,000/- AND ADDING BACK THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME AS INADMISSIBLE CLAIM AS PER LAW. THE APPELL ANT PLEADED THAT THE DECLARATION OF INCOME AT RS. 48,02,227/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND CLAIM FO R EXEMPTION TO THAT EXTENT U/S. 54EC BY APPELLANT FOR AY 2009-10 HAVING BEEN FOUND TO BE INVALID IN THE EYE OF LAW, MAY PLEAS BE IGNORED AND THE CONSEQUENT ADDITI ON OF RS. 50 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO BE DELETED. 6.3 IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS CALCULATION, THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF 14 FLATS RECEIVED AS THE SHARE OF THE APPELLANT, 8 FLATS WERE SOLD DURING THE FY 2007-08 RELEVANT TO A Y 2008-09 AND TWO FLATS WERE SOLD IN FY 2008-09 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 37,00,000/- AND THE RESULTANT CAPITAL GAIN WAS WORKED OUT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS UNDER: I. LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF LAND OF 65 SQ.YDS @ RS.6,000 PER SQ. YARD RS.3,90,000 COST OF ACQUISITION RS.1,16,015 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS.2,73,985 II) SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF 2 FLATS (14,50,000+22,50,000) RS.37,00,000 LESS: LAND COST AS ABOVE RS.3,90,000 SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS.33,10,000 IT WAS STATED THAT THE REMAINING 4 FLATS WERE SOLD DURING SUBSEQUENT TWO FINANCIAL YEARS 2009-10 AND 2010-11 AT 2 FLATS IN EACH YEAR. THE APPELLANT PLEA DED TO CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,73,985/- AS LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN IN PLACE OF RS. 1,34,198/- DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 33,10,000/- BE CONSIDERED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAI N FOR SUBSTITUTION IN PLACE OF RS.44,82,344/- DETERMINED 7 ITA.NO.1652/HYD/2013 & C.O.NO.55/HYD/2014 MR. Y. RADHAKRISHNA, WARANGAL. BY THE AO. COPIES OF THE SALE DEEDS ETC.] WERE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS MADE. 6.2. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, T HE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.6.4 OF HIS IMPU GNED ORDER AS UNDER : 6.4. CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH THE COPIES OF SALE DEEDS ETC. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THEM IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELL ANT HAD PURCHASED LAND OF 1100 SQ. YARDS ON 15.06.2005, FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 18,56,250/- @ RS. 1688 PER SQUARE YARD. THE LAND WAS GIVEN FOR DEVELOPMENT VID E DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 25.11.2006 AND IN LIEU OF THE LAND, APPELLANT WAS TO RECEIVE 45% OF THE BU ILT UP AREA I.E. FINISHED FLATS IN ALL RESPECT 55% OF L AND AREA SURRENDERED TO THE BUILDER. THE APPELLANT WAS THUS ALLOTTED 14 FLATS WITH A TOTAL BUILT UP AREA O F 18,000 SQ.FT. THE BUILDER HAD HANDED OVER THE FLATS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 RELEVANT TO THE AY 2008- 09 AND THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD 8 FLATS DURING AY 2008-0 9 AND 2 FLATS IN THE ASST. YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I .E. 2009-10 AND BALANCE OF THE FLATS IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR S. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE SALE DEEDS FURNISHED FOR THE T WO FLATS SOLD DURING THE ASST. YEAR 2009-10 THAT THE T WO FLATS WITH MEASUREMENTS OF 1500 SFT. AND 1000 SFT. WERE SOLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 24,50,000/- AN D RS. 14,50,000/-, TOTALLING TO RS. 37,00,000/- AS AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.45,00,000/- FO R THE TWO FLATS, AS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN CALCULATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. FROM THE A BOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED THE LA ND ON 15.06.2005 AND HAD GIVEN IT FOR DEVELOPMENT VIDE AGREEMENT DT. 25.11.2006, AS SUCH THE GAINS ARISING OUT OF SUCH TRANSACTION IN THE YEAR 2007-08 ARE TO BE TREATED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. FURTHER, THE F LATS WERE HANDED OVER BY THE BUILDER TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. BY THIS PERSPECT IVE, THE GAINS ARISEN TO THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SALE OF FLATS ARE TO BE TREATED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. ON FACTS, THE AMOUNT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 45,00,000/-, FOR ARRIVING AT SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAI NS OF 8 ITA.NO.1652/HYD/2013 & C.O.NO.55/HYD/2014 MR. Y. RADHAKRISHNA, WARANGAL. RS. 48,02,227/- IS DISPUTABLE AND THERE IS MERIT IN THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF TH E PLINTH AREA OF FLATS SOLD AND THE CONSIDERATIONS RECEIVED. THE METHOD FOR ADOPTING THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION AT RS. 45,00,000/- BY THE A.O IS DEVO ID OF THE TRUTH AND HENCE NO BASIS. AS SUCH THE CAPITA L GAINS, WHICH ARE SHORT TERM IN NATURE ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED, BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WHEREI N THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS WERE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AT TWO STAGES I.E. ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER O F PROPERTY (LAND) VIDE THE AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT DATED 25.11.2006, WHICH ARE RELATABLE TO THE AY 2007-08 A ND THE FURTHER SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF FLATS RECEIVED BY APPELLANT FROM THE DEV ELOPER, IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS OF SALES OF FLATS. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE FIGURE O F RS. 35,83,950/- FOR COMPUTATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS HAS BEEN NARRATED BELOW. AS FAR AS THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC ON PURCHASE OF RUR AL ELECTRIFICATION BONDS OF RS. 50,00,000/- IS CONCERN ED, THE CLAIM IS TO BE MADE ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS DERIVED BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, AS HAS BEEN DECIDED, THE GAINS OBTAINED BY THE APPELLANT ARE ONLY SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND THE APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC. ACCORDINGLY THE CLAIM MADE U/S. 54EC TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 50,00,000/- STAND TO BE REJECTED BASED ON FACTS ABOVE AND THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUBSTANTIATED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE CASE MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE WAS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM TH E CASE PUT- FORTH BEFORE THE A.O. A PERUSAL OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AND LD. CIT(A) SHOWS THAT ALTOGETHER NEW FACTS AND FIGURES WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE ISSUE WAS DE CIDED BY HIM TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SAID FACTS AND FI GURES WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE, FIND IT FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IN TH E INTEREST OF 9 ITA.NO.1652/HYD/2013 & C.O.NO.55/HYD/2014 MR. Y. RADHAKRISHNA, WARANGAL. JUSTICE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR DECI DING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A PROPER AND SUFFI CIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 OF REVENUES APPEAL AND GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 OF ASSESSEES CROSS O BJECTIONS ARE ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND CROSS O BJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.04.2015. SD/- SD/- (G.C. GUPTA) (P.M. JAGTAP) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 29 TH APRIL 2015 VBP/- 1. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, STATION ROAD, WA RANGAL. 2. MR. Y. RADHAKRISHNA, H.NO.24-7-42, SIDDHARTHA NA GAR, KAZIPET, WARANGAL. 3. CIT(A)-VI, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT-VI, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.