Sanka Venkata Rama Rao, Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward - 2, Kothagudem

ITA 1031/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0281 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SUDHAKAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 131; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1031/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-2011 MR. SANKA VENKATA RAMA RAO, NEW PALONCHA, KHAMMAM DISTRICT. PAN BASPS9712E VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 KOTHAGUDEM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. A.V. RAGHURAM FOR REVENUE : MR. D. SUDHAKAR RAO DATE OF HEARING : 27.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.06.2015 ORDER PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWADA 26.03.2014 FOR THE A.Y. 2010-2011. 2. BRIEFLY STATED MR. SANKA VENKATA RAMA RAO, IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVES INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING ON HYPOTHECATION OF GOLD/SILVER ARTICLES. A SURVEY OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON 19 TH MARCH 2010 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S. VASUNDHARA JEWELLERY, NEW PALONCHA, KHAMMAM WH EREIN THE ASSESSEE CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS OF JEWELLERY P ERTAINS TO HIS FATHER SRI S. NAGABHUSHANAM AND RUNNING THE MONEY L ENDING BUSINESS OF HIS OWN. CONSEQUENT TO SURVEY, THE ASSE SSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON 30.09.2011 ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.30,23,250 . THE 2 ITA.NO.1031/HYD/2014 MR. SANKA VENKATA RAMA RAO, PALONCHA, KHAMMAM DIST., SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 18./04.2011 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 53,59,650. 3. ON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD BY THE LD. CIT, TH E LD. CIT OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A GAP BETWEEN THE INCOME ADMITTED DURING THE SURVEY, POST SURVEY ENQUIRIES A ND THE ASSESSED INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS., IN VIEW OF THAT AND AFTER CONSIDERING RELATED MATERIAL, THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DT.18.04.2011 WAS CONSIDERED AS E RRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE WITH TH E SCOPE OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, A SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE DATED 10.10.2012 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE SUBMITT ED BY THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE AS UNDER : A SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES ON 19.03,2010, DURING WHICH THE TOTAL AMOUNT IN CIRCULATION WAS QUANTIFIED AT RS.91,60,74 5. WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR THE SAME, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS STATED TH AT OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT, A SUM OF RS.56,30,000 WAS LENT ON BEHALF OF OTHERS AND THE BALANCE REPRESENTS THE ADVANCES AS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND THOSE MET OUT OF THE TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR. THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF SUCH PERSONS WERE FURNISHED. IN THIS REGARD, THIS IS TO SUBMIT THAT THE CLAIM WITH REGARD TO THE MONIES PERTAINING TO OTHERS WAS NOT A NEW CLAIM MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT THE SAME WAS STATED BY ME IN MY STATEMENT RECORDED ON 29.03.2010. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT APART FROM FILING ALL THE DETAILS PERTAINING TO SUC H AMOUNTS, NOTORISED AFFIDAVITS FROM THE PERSONS CONCERNED, CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTIONS, AND OTHER EVIDENCES/EXPLANATIONS WERE FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, ALL THE PERSONS WERE ALSO PHYSICALLY PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION, WHO HAD ACTUALLY RECONFIR MED THE FACTS REGARDING THE TRANSACTIONS. THUS, ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE AND ACCORDINGLY I HAD DISCHARGED THE INITIAL ONUS THAT LAY ON ME, IN TERM S OF 3 ITA.NO.1031/HYD/2014 MR. SANKA VENKATA RAMA RAO, PALONCHA, KHAMMAM DIST., S .68/69. HOWEVER, AN AMOUNT OF RS.19,80,000 WAS ADDED U/S 68, ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH AMOUNTS WERE NOT EXPLAINED TO THE FULLEST SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. A SUM OF RS.3,56,400 WAS ALSO ADDED ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON SUCH DISALLOWED AMOUNT. I AGREED FOR THE SAID ADDITION ONLY TO AVOI D VEXATIONS LITIGATION AND TO BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT. FURTHER, A DETAILED BREAK-UP OF THE TOTAL INCOME DECLARED, THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2010 WERE SUBMITTED, ALONG WITH A DETAILED NOTE THERETO AND A RECONCILIATION OF THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WERE ALSO SUBMITTED FOR PERUSAL OF CIT . CAPITAL ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2010 TO DRAWINGS RS. 1,50,000 BY BAL B/D RS. 4,71,498 TO BAL C/D RS.34,16,152 BY INCOME FROM THE YEAR RS.30,94,654 RS.35,66,152 RS.35,66,152 BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2010 CAPITAL RS.34,16,152 DEBTORS* RS.35,47,954 SMT. S. RAMA DEVI RS. 1,00,000 CASH ON HAND & AT BANK RS. 1,68,195 RS.37,16,149 RS.37,16,149 *DEBTORS IS EXCLUSIVE OF RS.56,30,000/- WHICH IS LE NT ON BEHALF OF OTHERS. THUS THE ENTIRE AMOUNT ADVANCED BY ME STOOD DULY EXPLAINED AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.23,36,400/-, AS STATED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT WAS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS, IN FACT, COMPLETED BY THE A.O. AFTER MAKING DUE ENQUIRIES AND THUS, THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT THAT THE A.O. FAILED TO MAKE NECESSARY ENQUIRES IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. WITH REG ARD TO MY STATEMENT DT.08.04.2010, REFERRED TO IN THE SHOW CAUSE LETTER, THIS IS TO SUBMIT THAT THE SAID 4 ITA.NO.1031/HYD/2014 MR. SANKA VENKATA RAMA RAO, PALONCHA, KHAMMAM DIST., DISCLOSURE WAS A TENTATIVE ONE GIVEN ON THE SAID DATE, WITH A REQUEST THAT MY CLAIM SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE AT A LATER DATE, ACCORDINGLY, NECESSARY EVIDENCE WAS FILED DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AFTER CONSIDERING WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKIN G AN ADDITION OF RS.19,80, 000/- AND INTEREST THEREON. THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION OF THE AO AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE UNDER REFERENCE WAS DULY EXAMINED BY THE AO AND HE WAS SATISFIED IN RESPECT OF THE CREDITS WHICH WERE NOT SUBJECT TO ADDITION U/S 68, 'THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE UNDERTAKINGS THROUGH AFFIDAVITS FROM THE ABOVE PERSONS AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCES, EXPLANATIONS IN RESPECT OF THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS A ND GENUINENESS. ON VERIFICATION, THE CREDITWORTHINESS IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING 9 PERSONS WAS FOUND TO HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFACTORY AND CONVINCING. ' IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN QUESTION IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO REVENUE AND HENCE THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 263 MAY KINDLY BE DROPPED. 4. THE LD. CIT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AS SESSEE. THE LD. CIT OBSERVED THAT THE STATEMENT WHICH WAS R ECORDED ON 19.03.2010 WHICH IS THE DATE OF SURVEY UNDER SEC TION 133A(3) THE ASSESSEE HAD REPLIED TO QUESTION NO.14 AND THE CIT HAD EXTRACTED THE SAME. THE SECOND STATEMENT WH ICH WAS RECORDED ON 29.03.2010 BY THE A.O. WAS ALSO BROUGHT OUT BY THE CIT IN HIS ORDER. THE CIT CONCLUDED THAT FROM T HE FIRST STATEMENT RECORDED ON 09.03.2010, THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.91,09,805 AS HIS OWN CAPITAL IN CIR CULATION AND AGREED TO PAY TAX ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AFT ER VERIFICATION OF HIS RETURNS. THE CIT OBSERVED THAT HE HAD RETRACTED IN SECOND STATEMENT RECORDED ON 29.03.201 0 WHEREIN HE HAD INTRODUCED THE NEW THEORY OF SOME LOANS TO T HE EXTENT OF RS.56,30,000. THE CIT FURTHER STATED THAT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 08.04.2010 THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT HE HAD 5 ITA.NO.1031/HYD/2014 MR. SANKA VENKATA RAMA RAO, PALONCHA, KHAMMAM DIST., BORROWED AMOUNTS FROM 13 PERSONS AMOUNTING TO RS.34,30,000. THE CIT HELD AS FOLLOWS : 5.5. AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE IN HIS FIRST STATEMENT ACCEPTED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.91,09,805/- AS HIS OWN FUNDS. IN HIS STATEMENT NO..2 AND 3 INTRODUCED THEORY OF LOAN. LATER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HE HAS INTRODUCED THE THEORY OF FUNDS LENT ON BEHALF OF OTHERS TO THE EXT ENT' OF RS.56,30,000. FOR THIS, HE HAS INTRODUCED 17 PEOPLE AS OTHERS AND CLAIMED THAT RS.56,30,000 BELONGS TO THEM AND HE HAS FURNISHED A BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2010. THEREIN HE HAS ADMITTED DEBTORS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.35,47,994 AND STATING IN A SEPARATE NO TE, THAT DEBTORS ARE EXCLUSIVE OF RS. 56,30,000 WHICH I S LENT ON BEHALF OF OTHERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT, SUCH A PECULIAR TYPE OF ENTRY IN TO HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THUS, (1) THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED BOOKS FOR MONEY LENDING BUSINESS WHEREIN NO ENTRY WHAT SO EVER WAS THERE ON ANY CREDIT (2) THE ASSESSEE, IF I T ALL HE HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM ANY PERSON HE COULD HAVE DEPOSED IT ON 19.03.2010 ITSELF BUT HE HAS NOT DONE SO. (3) SURPRISINGLY, ON 29.03.2010, HE FURNISHED CERTAIN NAMES (17 PERSONS) AND SOUGHT TIME UPTO 6 TH OR 7TH APRIL TO PROVE THE CLAIM. (4) ALTHOUGH, HE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED SOME PEOPLE AND FILED CONFIRMATORY LETTERS, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT THERE. IN FACT, A!1 OF THEM H AVE EXPRESSED THEIR INABILITY TO PRODUCE AN Y SORT OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE TRANSACTION. (5) IT IS SURPRISING THAT SUCH FUNDS WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEE N GIVEN WITHOUT EVEN A SMALL RECEIPT FROM THE ASSESSE E AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT FOUND TO HAVE ANY EVIDENCE ON THE ALLEGED LOAN AT THE TIME OF SURVEY NOR HE PRODUCED ANY CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE FOR THE ALLEGED RECEIPT LATER (6) THE SURROUNDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT INVESTIGATED THE CASE PROPERLY AND ACCEPTED WHATEVER THE VERSION STAGED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5.6. BY AN ANALYSIS OF LOAN CREDITORS ON 07.04.2010, OUT OF RS.56.30 LAKHS CREDITS CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARRIVED LOAN CREDITORS AT RS.44.30 LAKHS AS NOT ACCEPTABLE. ON 08.04.2010, A STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FROM THE 6 ITA.NO.1031/HYD/2014 MR. SANKA VENKATA RAMA RAO, PALONCHA, KHAMMAM DIST., ASSESSEE, WHEREIN SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, TH E ASSESSEE ACCEPTED RS.73.10 LAKHS AS HIS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVITS FROM THE PERSONS ALONG WITH COPIES OF EVIDENCES FOR THEIR SOURCES. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT EXAMINED THOROUGHLY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE FIGURES GIVEN REGARDING THE EXTENT OF LAND AND OTHER THINGS ARE VARYING IN CERTAIN CASES. THE AFFIDAVITS FILED ARE SELF- SERVING IN NATURE WHICH REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED EXTENSIVELY BECAUSE THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT DIFFERENT INTERVALS IS VARYING. 5.7. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE MUCH BELOW THE INCOME ADMITTED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND ALSO WITHOUT EXAMINING CERTAIN VITAL ASP ECTS AND WITHOUT MAKING ANY REFERENCE TO THE CONTENTS OF THE IMPUGNED MATERIAL AND ITS EVIDENCE, IT IS CLEAR THA T THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT MADE OBJECTIVELY AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND HENCE IT IS SET ASIDE. 5. THE CIT CONCLUDED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 18.04.2011 IS ERRON EOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND DIR ECTED THE A.O. TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT DENOVO IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. A.V. RAGHURAM ADDRESSED THE BENCH WITH RESPECT TO JURISD ICTION ASSUMED BY THE CIT UNDER SECTION 263. THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAD DONE SCRUT INY ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS COMPLETED AFTER APPLICATION OF MIND AND HENCE, THE ORDER IS NOT TO BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. EVENS CLASSES VS. ITO IN 7 ITA.NO.1031/HYD/2014 MR. SANKA VENKATA RAMA RAO, PALONCHA, KHAMMAM DIST., ITA.NO.184/HYD/2012 AND ITA.NO.214/HYD/2011 FOR A.Y . 2006-07 DATED 23.04.2014. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS STATED THAT WITH REGARD TO STATEMENT DATED 08.0 4.2010, REFERRED TO IN THE SHOW CAUSE LETTER, THE DISCLOSUR E WAS A TENTATIVE ONE GIVEN ON THE SAID DATE WITH A REQUEST THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE AT A LATER DATE. ACCORDINGLY, NECESSARY EV IDENCE WAS FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND AFTER C ONSIDERING THE SAME THE A.O. COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKIN G AN ADDITION OF RS.19,80,000 AND INTEREST THEREON. 8. WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE AO THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL DETAILS AS EVIDENCED IN THE PAPER BOO K PRODUCED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS. S.NO. DESCRIPTION 1. STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT R ECORDED U/S.133A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DT.19.03.2010. 2. STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT RECORDED U/S.131 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DT.29.03.2010. 3. STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT RECORDED U/S. 131 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DT.08.04.2010 4. FURNISHING OF INFORMATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DT.11.02.2011 ALONG WITH ENCLOSURES. 5. FURNISHING OF INFORMATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DT.12.11.2010. 6. SUMMONS TO WITNESS ISSUED U/S.131 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, D T.31.03.2010. 9. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS APPLICATION OF MIND BY A.O. BEFORE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE CASE OF SPECTRA SHARES & S CRIPS PVT LTD. VS. CIT (354 ITR 35 (AP), IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: 8 ITA.NO.1031/HYD/2014 MR. SANKA VENKATA RAMA RAO, PALONCHA, KHAMMAM DIST., IF THERE WAS AN INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS U/S 263 MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER. IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY THAT SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE OPEN. AN ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNOT BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY. THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE 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 WAS JUST, HAS BEEN IMPOSED. THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER U/S 263(1) IS NOT LIMITED ONLY TO THE MATERIAL WHICH WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AND IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THE COMMISSIONER IS ENTITLED TO EXAMINE ANY OTHER RECORDS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY HIM AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EVEN THOSE EVENTS WHICH AROSE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT. 10. FURTHER WE, RELY ON THE DECISION OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT (243 ITR 83), THE SUPRE ME COURT HELD THAT THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE RESTS OF THE REVENUE HAD TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, THAT EVERY LOSS O F REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE AO CANN OT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVE NUE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN AO ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAD RESULTED IN LOSS OF R EVENUE; OR WHERE TWO VIEWS WERE POSSIBLE AND THE AO HAD TAK EN 9 ITA.NO.1031/HYD/2014 MR. SANKA VENKATA RAMA RAO, PALONCHA, KHAMMAM DIST., ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DID NOT AGREE, IT COULD NOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN TERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 11. FURTHER, WE ARE FORTIFIED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF MARUTI SECURITIES L TD VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS. 841 & 1176/HYD/2012 DATED 3.12.201 4 AND IN THE CASE OF M/S. EVENS CLASSES VS. ITO IN I TA NO. 184/HYD/2012 AND ITA NO.274/HYD/2011 FOR AY 2006- 07, DATED 23.04.2014. 12. WE ALSO RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AN AND FOOD PRODUCTS WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE AO HAS MADE INQUIRIES ON ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSES SEE HAD GIVEN DETAILED EXPLANATION BY A LETTER FURNISHI NG DATA, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE DECISION OF THE AO CAN NOT BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE DID NOT MAKE DETAILED DISCUSSION. 13. IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT MECHANICALLY ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. BUT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE A.O. AFTER NECE SSARY ENQUIRIES AND DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. HENCE, WE SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 14. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 10 ITA.NO.1031/HYD/2014 MR. SANKA VENKATA RAMA RAO, PALONCHA, KHAMMAM DIST., ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.06.2015. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 12 TH JUNE, 2015 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE DDIT (IT)-1, 3 RD FLOOR, D BLOCK, I.T. TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 2. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD., PLOT NO.2, MAITRI VIHAR, AME ERPET, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD. 4. THE DIT (IT & T.P.), HYDERABAD 5. D.R. I.T.A.T. B BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE