Shri RPK Estates (India) Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-3(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1025/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7624 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2019
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIVEDITA BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Depreciation; Reasonable cause; Assessment record; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR ITA NO. 1025/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S RPK ESTATES (INDIA) PVT LTD., 19-2-226, MIRALAM TANK ROAD, BAHADURPURA, HYDERABAD. PAN AAECR3092A VS. ITO WARD 3(2), HYDERABAD. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SRI K.A. SAI PRASAD REVENUE BY : SMT. NIVEDITA BISWAS DATE OF HEARING : 30-01-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-04-2019 ORDER PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT- 3, HYDERABAD U/S 263 OF THE ACT DATED 28.01.2015. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 123 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND IT IS STATED THEREIN THAT THE COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD HAD SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECTED THE A.O TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT IN THE LIGHT OF FINDINGS, OBSERVATIONS AND 2 ITA.NO. 1025/HYD/2015 SHRI RPK ESTATES (INDIA) PVT LTD., HYD. DIRECTIONS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE A.O WOULD DO THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COME TO KNOW LATER THAT THE CITS OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS WERE IN THE NATURE OF DIRECTIONS BINDING OF THE A.O AND THEREFORE THE A.O HAD NO DISCRETION BUT IS BOUND BY THE CITS FINDINGS AND THEREFORE AFTER OBTAINING PROPER LEGAL ADVICE, IT FILED THIS APPEAL WITH A DELAY AND SOUGHT CONDONATION OF THE SAME. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE CONDONATION PETITION AND PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE M/S. EVENS CLASSES IN ITA NOS. 184/HYD/2012 AND ITA NO. 274/HYD/2011 FOR THE A.Y 2006-07, WHEREIN, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL HAD CONDONED THE DELAY OF 296 DAYS. A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS FILED BEFORE US. 2.1 THE LD. DR HOWEVER OPPOSED THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. 2.2 WE FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AT PARAS 6 TO 9 OF ITS ORDER WAS HELD AS UNDER: 6. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A DELAY OF 296 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE FILED A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY STATING THAT THE CIT VIDE ORDER DATED 26.3.2010 SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DIRECTING THE AO TO REDO THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY HIM. BECAUSE OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE AO WOULD REDO THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH 3 ITA.NO. 1025/HYD/2015 SHRI RPK ESTATES (INDIA) PVT LTD., HYD. IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT AND IT COULD FILE APPEAL CONSEQUENT TO PASSING OF ORDER BY THE AO. HOWEVER, HE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE CIT OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS WERE IN THE NATURE OF DIRECTIONS BINDING ON THE AO AND THE AO, THOUGH DIRECTED TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH, HE HAD NO DISCRETION AND HE IS BOUND BY THE CIT FINDINGS IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. BEING SO, IT IS WARRANTED TO FILE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S. 263 OF THE ACT WITH A DELAY OF 296 DAYS AND IT HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON 21.2.2011 BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WITH THE MATERIAL AFTER RECEIPT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT ON 31.12.2010. 7. FURTHER, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BONA-FIDE AND REASONABLE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF M/S. GREENFIRE AGRI. COMMODITIES LTD. IN ITA NO. 516/HYD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 27.11.2013 CONDONED THE DELAY BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF KEWALKUMAR JAIN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PUNE (2013) (37 TAXMANN. 248) (PUNE-TRIB) WHEREIN HELD THAT 'ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS SET ASIDE BY COMMISSIONER IN EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER SECTION 263. AGAINST SAID REVISIONAL ORDER, ASSESSEE FILED INSTANT APPEAL BELATEDLY ALONG WITH AN APPLICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY. IT WAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE MISCONSTRUED LAW BY ASSUMING THAT SINCE MATTER WAS REMITTED BACK TO ASSESSING OFFICER, HE COULD AGITATE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER TO BE PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ONLY. THUS ASSESSEE ENTERTAINED A BELIEF THAT AS ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN SET ASIDE, THERE WAS NO NECESSITY OF CHALLENGING REVISIONAL ORDER OF COMMISSIONER BEFORE TRIBUNAL. WHETHER ON FACTS, MISCONSTRUCTION OF ORDER OF COMMISSIONER BY ASSESSEE AND NOT FILING AN APPEAL AGAINST IT WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME WAS WRONG BUT SAME COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE MALA FIDE OR WITH ANY ULTERIOR PURPOSE. HELD, YES, WHETHER, THEREFORE, A CASE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL WAS MADE OUT. HELD YES'. 8. THE LEARNED DR HAS NO OBJECTION FOR ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL. 9. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE EXISTS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME AS THE ASSESSEE MISUNDERSTOOD THE CONTENTS OF THE CIT ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT AS NARRATED IN ITS PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IN 274/HYD/ 2011 IS TAKEN UP FOR ADJUDICATION. 4 ITA.NO. 1025/HYD/2015 SHRI RPK ESTATES (INDIA) PVT LTD., HYD. 2.3 THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE US BEING SIMILAR WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 123 DAYS AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AS UNDER. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 05.03.2011 ADMITTING NIL INCOME. THE ASSESSMENT WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O CALLED FOR THE DETAILS AND AFTER EXAMINING THE CAPITAL GAINS ADMITTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, COMPUTED THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 7,05,30,880/-. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2013. THEREAFTER, THE CIT ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THE FOLLOWING 3 GROUNDS. (1) THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCONTINUED THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY, IT HAS CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION OF RS. 7,75,698/- WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED; (2) THE CLOSING STOCK WAS SHORT ADMITTED; AND (3) NO DETAILS WERE FILED FOR CLAIMING COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF ASSET. ACCORDINGLY, HE ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 01.12.2014 U/S 264 OF 5 ITA.NO. 1025/HYD/2015 SHRI RPK ESTATES (INDIA) PVT LTD., HYD. 0THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY BEFORE THE CIT STATING THAT (1) THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS STOPPED THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY, SOME PART OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY WERE USED FOR STORAGE OF STOCKS AND HENCE THE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON THE SAME; (2) DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10, THE COMPANY SOLD MAJORITY OF ITS STOCKS AS SCRAP /SPOILED AND REALIZED VERY LOW VALUE AND THE REMAINING STOCK IS VALUED AT NET REALIZABLE VALUE AND HENCE THE CLOSING STOCK VALUE HAS COME DOWN WHEN COMPARED TO OPENING STOCK AS ON 01.04.2009; (3) THAT THE DETAILS OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF ASSET I.E LEDGER COPY & VOUCHERS/BILLS WERE ALREADY PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SCRUTINY HEARINGS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S PREMIER INDUSTRIES LTD., IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE DEPRECIATION ON IDLE MACHINERY IS ALSO TO BE ALLOWED. 4. THE CIT HOWEVER, WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS. HE HELD THAT THE A.O HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUES IN DETAIL BEFORE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED MECHANICALLY WITHOUT VERIFYING THE CLAIMS VIS-A-VIZ THE 6 ITA.NO. 1025/HYD/2015 SHRI RPK ESTATES (INDIA) PVT LTD., HYD. EVIDENCES AND THAT THE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AT FACE VALUE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE CIT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BECOME ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE A.O TO VERIFY THE FACTS AND DECIDE THE ALLOWABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETAILS OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT BEFORE THE CIT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ALONG WITH FIXED ASSET SCHEDULE FOR THE A.Y 2011-12 AND BILLS AND VOUCHERS HAVE ALSO BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO ERROR COMMITTED BY THE A.O WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS AND TAKING THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT INTO CONSIDERATION. AS REGARDS THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATION ON MACHINERY, WHICH WAS IDLE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, HE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD., AND OSWAL CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD., REPORTED IN 341 ITR 461 (DEL). AS FAR AS THE UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK IS CONCERNED, HE RELIED UPON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A DETAILED 7 ITA.NO. 1025/HYD/2015 SHRI RPK ESTATES (INDIA) PVT LTD., HYD. REPLY BEFORE THE CIT BUT THE CIT, WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES HAD HELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS AND HAD SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O FOR REASSESSMENT AND ACCORDING TO HIM, THE CITS ORDER, WITHOUT ESTABLISHING AS TO HOW THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IS BAD IN LAW. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, HE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LIMITED, REPORTED IN 203 ITR 108. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. SOUTHERN REALITIES AND TOWERS PVT LTD., IN ITA NO. 607/HYD/2018 DATED 06.12.2018, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE CIT CANNOT DIRECT THE A.O TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT POINTING OUT THE ERRORS COMMITTED BY THE A.O AND WITHOUT GIVING A FINDING AS TO HOW THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. THUS, HE PRAYED FOR THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE CITS ORDER. 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURNISHED THE COMMENTS OF THE A.O VIDE LETTER DATED 06.02.2017 ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON VARIOUS CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE REVISION ORDER OF THE CIT. 8 ITA.NO. 1025/HYD/2015 SHRI RPK ESTATES (INDIA) PVT LTD., HYD. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT TO HOLD AN ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, THE CIT HAS TO GO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE CIT HAD POINTED OUT 3 DEFICIENCIES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, (1) THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION BEING ALLOWED ON PLANT AND MACHINERY THOUGH THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY HAD BEEN STOPPED; (2) UNDER VALUATION OF A CLOSING STOCK; (3) NON VERIFICATION OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT THOUGH HAS POINTED OUT THESE 3 FACTORS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE A.O, HAS FAILED TO BRING OUT AS TO HOW NON CONSIDERATION OF THESE FACTORS HAS PREJUDICED THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT, WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE CIT IN HIS ORDER, THE CIT HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES IN THE REVISION ORDER BUT HAS ONLY DIRECTED THE A.O TO RELOOK INTO THE FACTS WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LTD., (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 12. FROM THE AFORESAID DEFINITIONS IT IS CLEAR THAT AN ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS UNLESS IT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF AN INCOME-TAX OFFICER ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MAKES A CERTAIN ASSESSMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE 9 ITA.NO. 1025/HYD/2015 SHRI RPK ESTATES (INDIA) PVT LTD., HYD. COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY THIS SECTION DOES NOT VISUALISE A CASE OF SUBSTITUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THAT OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WHO PASSED THE ORDER UNLESS THE DECISION IS HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. CASES MAY BE VISUALISED WHERE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WHILE MAKING AN ASSESSMENT EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES ENQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINES THE INCOME EITHER BY ACCEPTING THE ACCOUNTS OR BY MAKING SOME ESTIMATE HIMSELF. THE COMMISSIONER, ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, MAY BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE OFFICER CONCERNED WAS ON THE LOWER SIDE AND LEFT TO THE COMMISSIONER HE WOULD HAVE ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT A FIGURE HIGHER THAN THE ONE DETERMINED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER. THAT WOULD NOT VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH POWER TO RE-EXAMINE THE ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINE THE INCOME HIMSELF AT A HIGHER FIGURE. IT IS BECAUSE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAS EXERCISED THE QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER VESTED IN HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ARRIVED AT CONCLUSION AND SUCH A CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT FEEL SATISFIED WITH THE CONCLUSION. IT MAY BE SAID IN SUCH A CASE THAT IN THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSIONER THE ORDER IN QUESTION IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. BUT THAT BY ITSELF WILL NOT BE ENOUGH TO VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH THE POWER OF SUO MOTU REVISION BECAUSE THE FIRST REQUIREMENT, VIZ., THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, IS ABSENT. SIMILARLY, IF AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THEN ALSO THE POWER OF SUO MOTU REVISION CANNOT BE EXERCISED. ANY AND EVERY ERRONEOUS ORDER CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF REVISION BECAUSE THE SECOND REQUIREMENT ALSO MUST BE FULFILLED. THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE ON AN INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION A LESSER TAX THAN WHAT WAS JUST HAS BEEN IMPOSED. 8. THUS, THE CIT HAS NOT ONLY TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT ON TWO OF THE ISSUES I.E THE COST IMPROVEMENT AND UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK, THE A.O HAD VERIFIED THE FACTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT 10 ITA.NO. 1025/HYD/2015 SHRI RPK ESTATES (INDIA) PVT LTD., HYD. PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. AS FAR AS THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. OSWAL AGRO MILLS AND OSWAL CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD., IS VERY MUCH APPLICABLE AND THE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON IDLE PLANT AND MACHINERY, AND THEREFORE ALLOWING OF SUCH DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS ORDER. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR ARE ALL DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS, THEREFORE, THEY ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US. IN THE RESULT, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH APRIL, 2019 SD/- SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 24 TH APRIL, 2019 11 ITA.NO. 1025/HYD/2015 SHRI RPK ESTATES (INDIA) PVT LTD., HYD. KRK 1) SHRI RPK ESTATES (INDIA) C/O. CH. PARTHASARATHY & CO. 1-1-298/2/B/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOWBHAGYA AVENUE, ST. NO.1, ASHOKNAGAR, HYDERABAD 20. 2) ITO, WARD 3(1) HYDERABAD. 3) CIT-3, HYDERABAD. 4) ADDL.CIT-3, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE.