Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad V. Sri Venu Gopal Reddy, Hyderabad

ITA 103/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 98561 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMAKRISHNA BANDI
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.103/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9 (2) HYDERABAD. VS. MR. VENUGOPAL REDDY HYDERABAD PAN AALPY0505E (APP ELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : MR. RAMAKRISHNA BANDI FOR ASSESSEE : MR. S. RAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 25 .0 8 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 .0 9 .2015 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD DA TED 30.09.2013 AND THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED THEREIN RE LATES TO THE DELETION BY THE LD. CIT(A) OF THE ADDITION OF RS.47,86,800 MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED CASH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS STATED TO BE CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS CONTRACTOR. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY HIM ON 29.01.2010 DECLAR ING 2 ITA.NO.103/HYD/2014 MR. VENUGOPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,50,240. ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER CASS, THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPO N BY THE A.O. TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS.47,86,800 FOUND TO BE MADE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER DID NOT COMPLY WITH T HE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT OFFER ANY EXPLAN ATION AS REGARDS THE CASH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN HI S BANK ACCOUNT. THE A.O. THEREFORE, WAS LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT EXPARTE UNDER SECTIO N 144 TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN SUCH ASSESSMENT MA DE VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2011, HE ADDED THE ENTIRE AM OUNT OF RS.47,86,800 OF CASH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE I N THE BANK ACCOUNT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TR EATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 144, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FOLLOWING SUBMISSION WAS MADE IN WRITING BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN HIS B ANK ACCOUNT. 'THE APPELLANT HEREIN IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INC OME FROM SMALL AND PETTY CONTRACTS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE TOTAL TURNOVER WAS RS.15,02,400 AND THE APPELLANT ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT 10% OF SUCH RECEIPTS OR AT RS.1,50,240. HE FILED THE RETUR N OF 3 ITA.NO.103/HYD/2014 MR. VENUGOPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. INCOME ON 29-01-2010 ADMITTING AN INCOME OF RS.1.50,240. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT MAINTAINED THE ACCOUNTS WITH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD., A BIDS, HYDERABAD. CERTAIN DEPOSITS WERE MADE INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT BY THE STUDENTS GOING TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES FOR PURCHASE OF D.DS. TO BE SENT TO THE UNIVERSITIES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. IN THE PROCESS, THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAVE DEPOSITED THE AMOUNTS IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AS MENTIONED HEREUNDER : SL. NO. NAME OF THE DEPOSITOR AMOUNT DEPOSITED/ DATE DD NO. DD DATE DD FAVOURING DD AMT 1. RAMIDI SRINATH REDDY RS.4,02,005 16 10.08.2008 UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX 5000 POUNDS 2. MD. KHALID MOHIUDDIN RS.2,91,100 17 11.08.2008 UNIVERSITY OF TEESSIDE 3625 POUNDS 3. MD.IKRAMUDDIN RS.2,91,100 18 11.08.2008 UNIVERSITY OF TEESSIDE 3625 POUNDS 4. ICHAPURAM SRIKANTH RS.2,85,000 45 14.08.2008 UNIVERSITY OF TEESSIDE 3625 POUNDS 5. RASHID HUSSAIN SAYEED RS.3,28,000 44 14.08.2008 UNIVERSITY OF TEESSIDE 3625 POUNDS 6. PRASANTH KUMAR KANDUKURI RS.3,50,000 2036 14.08.2008 UNIVERSITY OF TEESSIDE 3625 POUNDS 7. HAQ MOHD. ANWAR UL RS.3,50,000 118 09.09.2008 MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY 4200 POUNDS 8. JULURU PANDURANGA RS.2,98,000 1703 19.11.2008 UNIVERSITY OF TEESSIDE 3625 POUNDS 9. NADDI KARTHIK KUMAR RS.2,77,350 1737 03.12.2008 UNIVERSITY OF TEESSIDE 3625 POUNDS 10. SUMAN MOTHUKURI RS.2,73,350 1738 03.12.2008 UNIVERSITY OF TEESSIDE 3625 POUNDS 11. BOKKA PRASANTHA REDDY RS.2,25,500 1268 05.12.2008 UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD 3000 POUNDS NOTE: THE DEPOSITORS AT SRI. NOS. 1,2 AND 3 TOGETHE R HAVE PAID A CONSOLIDATED AMOUNT OF RS. 9,84, 205 AND CHEQUE NO.379616 WAS ISSUED FOR PURCHASE OF 3 NOS. DDS FOR THEM. FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED BY THE PERSONS INTERESTED IN LEAVING INDIA FOR HIGHER STUDIES FOR PURCHASE OF DEMAND DRAFTS IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPECTIVE 4 ITA.NO.103/HYD/2014 MR. VENUGOPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. UNIVERSITIES IN WHICH THEY INTEND TO ADMIT FOR HIGH ER STUDIES. IN FACT, THE DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK OFFER S DDS WITHOUT ANY COMMISSION. THE PERSONS CONCERNED HAVE USED THE APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT FOR TRANSFERRING THE AMOUNTS TO THE CONCERNED UNIVERSITIES. THIS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE AMOUN T DEPOSITED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE APPELLANT HEREIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT EX-PARTE WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND TREATED ALL THE CASH DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RS. 47, 86, 800/- AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 12,27,955 WAS BY WAY OF PRIVATE MISCELLANEOUS WORKS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT AND THIS WAS ALSO DEPOSITED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. THIS AMOUNT WAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTH ER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE OBSERVED THE FA CT THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED AND ON THE SAME DAY OR ON THE NEXT DAY DDS WERE PURCHASED IN FAVOUR OF THE RELEVANT UNIVERSITIES WHICH WOULD CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE STUDENTS HAVE DEPOSITED THE CASH INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND PURCHASED DDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT IT IS ONLY TO FACILITATE THE PURCHASE OF DDS BY THE SAID STUDENTS, THE APPELLANT ALLOWED HIS BANK ACCOUNT TO BE OPERATED BY OUTSIDERS. IF THIS WAS TO BE CONSIDERED, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT THE SAID INFORMATION MAY KINDLY BE TAKEN ON RECORD AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DELETED. 3.1. THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE A.O. SEEKIN G THE LATTERS COMMENTS. IN HIS REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED T O THE LD. CIT(A), THE A.O. STATED THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE ANY SATISFACTORY REASO NS FOR 5 ITA.NO.103/HYD/2014 MR. VENUGOPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. ALLOWING HIS BANK ACCOUNT TO BE UTILIZED BY THE STU DENTS FOR DRAWING THE DEMAND DRAFTS. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CASH DE POSITS BEING THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM STUDENTS FOR TAKING THE DEMAND DRAFT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY COGENT EVIDEN CE. WHEN THESE COMMENTS MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT WERE CONFRONTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASS ESSEE, THE FOLLOWING FURTHER SUBMISSION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN WRITING : IN CONTINUATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND IN CONTINUATION OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE APPELLANT MAY BE PERMITTED TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FURTHER DETAILS. THE APPELLANT RECEIVED THE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-9, HYDERABAD AND THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO AN ADDITION OF RS.47,86,800/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING THE DEPOSITS MADE INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT STATED THE FOLLOWING FACTS: THE APPELLANT WAS IN RECEIPT OF PETTY CONTRACTS OF RS.15, 02, 400/THE APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT I.E. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD., ABID ROAD, HYDERABAD WAS UTILIZED BY 11 DIFFERENT PERSONS WHO WERE PROPOSING TO PROSECUTE THEIR STUDIES IN FOREIG N UNIVERSITIES. THEY DEPOSITED ON VARIOUS DATES, THE AMOUNTS BELONGING TO THEM AND THE APPELLANT FACILITATED ISSUE OF DEMAND DRAFTS IN POUNDS. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED A DETAILS STATEMENT PROVIDING INTIMATION LIKE THE NAMES OF THE DEPOSITORS, AMOUNT S DEPOSITED, DEMAND DRAFTS AND THE AMOUNT IN POUNDS. THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED COPIES OF THE DEMAND DRAFTS OBTAINED FROM THE DCB LTD., BY THE APPELLANT 6 ITA.NO.103/HYD/2014 MR. VENUGOPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. HEREIN. A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DCB LTD., WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. AS THE ABOVE MATERIAL COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE APPELLANT SUBMITT ED SUCH DETAILS AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. WHEN THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ADDL. CI T THEY COMMENTED THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NEED NOT BE ADMITTED. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT HUMB LY SUBMITS THAT AS STATED ABOVE THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT BY VARIOUS PERSONS PROSECUTIN G THEIR STUDIES IN FOREIGN UNIVERSITIES. TO ASCERTAIN THE DETAILS FROM THE PERSONS CONCERNED, IT TOOK SUBSTANTIAL TIME AND IN THE MEANTIME THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT EX-PARTE. IT CAN B E SEEN FROM THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD., THAT THE CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED A T A LATER DATED ON 01-10-2012 AFTER THE COMPLETION OF T HE ASSESSMENT. SIMILARLY, THE DEMAND DRAFTS AND THE OTHER DETAILS OF THE RECEIPTS WERE TO BE OBTAINED F ROM THE CONCERNED WHICH TOOK SUBSTANTIAL TIME. THEREFOR E, THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT REASON IN NOT FILING THE DETAILS AT THE TIME OF REGULAR ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT MAY KINDLY BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROVIDE D ABOUT THREE MONTHS TIME AND THE APPELLANT COULD NOT OBTAIN THE DETAILS FROM THE BANKS AND VARIOUS PERSONS WITHIN THE LIMITED TIME. THEREFORE, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS AUTHENTIC BEING THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGH T TO HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BE ADMITTED. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ADDL. CIT IS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO REASON AS TO WHY THE STUDENTS HAVE DEPOSITED THE AMOUNTS WITH THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPEL LANT SUBMITS THAT IT IS ONLY TO FACILITATE SOME OF THE STUDENTS IN OBTAINING THE DEMAND DRAFTS AT CHEAPER RATE. THEREFORE, THE ADDL. CIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN STATING THAT THERE IS NO REASON FOR OBTAINING THE DDS FROM THE APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT. 7 ITA.NO.103/HYD/2014 MR. VENUGOPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. THE APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED BY VARIOUS PERSONS. THE DDS WERE PURCHASED WITH. THE AMOUNTS SO DEPOSITED AND THE SAID DDS WERE SENT TO THE UNIVERSITIES OF ESSES, TEESSIDE ETC. OF UNITED KINGDOM. THE DD NOS., THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH DD WAS DRAWN FROM THE BANK AND THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED ARE ALSO FURNISHED. NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER N OR THE ADDL. CIT HAVE DOUBT ABOUT THE ACTUAL FACTS ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED MY KINDLY BE ADMITTED. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RS.47,86,800/-. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT TH E TOTAL DEPOSITS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF DEMAND DRAFTS AMOUNTED TO RS.30,79,415/-. THE PETTY CONTRACTS TURNOVER WAS RS.15,02,400/-. THE AGGREGATE OF THE AMOUNT WOULD BE RS.45,81,815/-. THERE WAS ALSO AN OPENING BALANCE OF RS.1,05,989/- OUT OF WHICH RS.1,00,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN ON 02/04/2008. THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED AGAIN ON VARIOUS DATES. SIMILARLY, THE APPELLANT WITHDREW AN AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/- ON 07-07-2008 AND RS.35,000/- ON 18- 07-2008 WHICH WERE ALSO AVAILABLE FOR RE-DEPOSIT. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ANY ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT REQUESTS THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) TO KINDLY ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR. 3.2. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE CASH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AS ACCEPTABLE AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.47,86,800 MADE BY THE A.O. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH 7.1 AND 7.2 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER : 8 ITA.NO.103/HYD/2014 MR. VENUGOPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. 7.1. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED, IT IS CLEAR THA T THE STUDENTS UTILIZED THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT FOR PURCHASE OF THE DEMAND DRAFTS AND THE SAID AMOUNT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED OR AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. I ALSO FIND FROM TH E RETURN OF INCOME FILED THAT THE GROSS CONTRACT AMOU NT RECEIVED WAS RS.14,62,790/-. IF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY THE STUDENTS AND THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THE TOTAL DEPOSITS WOULD BE RS.48,34,195/-. 7.2. I ALSO FIND THAT THERE WERE CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AND CASH DEPOSITS MADE INTO THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DO NOT REPRESENT THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS THEY ARE PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION OF RS.47,86,800 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED T HIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON REC ORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECO RD BEFORE US A COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH IC ICI BANK AT PAGE NOS. 5 TO 8 TO POINT OUT THAT THE AMOU NTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH FROM DIFFERENT STU DENTS WAS FIRST DEPOSITED IN THE SAID ACCOUNT AND THE SAM E WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK FOR DRAWING THE DEMAND DRAFTS TOWARDS FEES PAYABLE IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE BY THE SAID STUDENTS TO DIFFERENT FOREIGN 9 ITA.NO.103/HYD/2014 MR. VENUGOPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. UNIVERSITIES. HE HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BAN K PLACED AT PAGE NO.20 OF HIS PAPER BOOK TO SUPPORT A ND SUBSTANTIATE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DEPO SITS MADE IN BANK ACCOUNT WITH ICICI WERE FINALLY UTILIZ ED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DRAW THE DEMAND DRAFTS ON BEHALF OF THE CONCERNED STUDENTS. IT IS HOWEVER OBSERVED THAT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THERE WAS N O REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH ICICI BANK AND THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE SAID ACCOUNT INITIALLY IN CASH FROM THE AMOUNTS CLA IMED TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE STUDENTS. IN THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), A REFERENCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY TO HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE WAS DIRECTED BY US TO FILE COPY OF THE BA NK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED WITH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD., IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS B ETWEEN THE AMOUNTS STATED TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE I N CASH FROM THE STUDENTS AND THE DEMAND DRAFTS DRAWN IN FA VOUR OF VARIOUS FOREIGN UNIVERSITIES. HE HOWEVER HAS FIL ED A LETTER STATING THAT THERE IS NO BANK ACCOUNT MAINTA INED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD. A PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DEVELO PMENT CREDIT BANK LTD., PLACED AT PAGE NO.20 OF THE PAPER BOOK HOWEVER SHOWS THAT THE SAID CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED A T THE REQUEST OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER I.E., ASSESSEE. KEEPI NG IN VIEW OF THESE CONTRADICTIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT THE MATTER HAS TO GO BACK TO THE A.O. FOR VERIFYING THE TRAIL OF 10 ITA.NO.103/HYD/2014 MR. VENUGOPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. FUNDS STATED TO BE RECEIVED FROM DIFFERENT STUDENTS BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH AND DRAWING OF DEMAND DRAFTS BY TH E ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE SAID STUDENTS. EVEN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE CASH DEP OSITS OF RS.14,62,719 HAVING BEEN MADE FROM THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF HIS BUSINESS REQUIRES VERIFICATION BY T HE A.O. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A. O. FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO OBSERVE THAT THE A.O. SHA LL AFFORD PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THIS ISSUE FINALLY IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.09.2015. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 04 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 VBP/- COPY TO : 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(2), HYDERABAD. 2. MR. VENUGOPAL REDDY, H.NO.18 - 4 - 542, SHAMSHEER GUNJ, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A) - V, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT - VI, HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE