IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1033/HYD/13 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08) INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 5(2) , HYDERABAD V/S. SHRI P.D.RAGHUNATHA RAO, HYDERABAD ( PAN - AADHR 7263 M ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S HRI R.MOHAN RAO DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.RAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING 26 .0 8 .2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.08.2014 O R D E R PER P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) V, HYDERABAD DATED 22.3.2013 AND THE GROUNDS RAISED THEREIN BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER - (1) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CA S E. (2) T H E LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INVALID WHEN TANGIBLE MATERIAL EXISTS FOR REOPENING. ( 3 ) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF R S .15,50,976/ - MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAILS O F THE O T H E R COMPONENTS OF THE ADDITION WHICH IN C LU D E PAYMENT OF MUNICIPAL TA X ES, INTER E ST ON UNSECURED HOUSING LOAN AND DIFFERENCE OF CLOSING BALANCE IN STATE MENT OF AFFAIRS AND BANK STATEMENT. ( 4 ) THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS WRONG IN GIVING RELIEF OF RS.10,70,213/ - ON ACCOUNT O F RATE DIFFERENCE SELF SUPERVISION. AS PER LETTER D A TE D 29.12.2011 OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - 1, VALU A TION CELL, HYDERABAD, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY BILL S AND VOU C HERS I TA NO. 1 033 /H YD/201 3 SHRI P.D.RAGHUNATHA RAO, HYDERABAD 2 REGARDING PURCHASE OF CONST R UC T ION MATERIAL AND OTHER CONSTR U CT I ON CHARGES. IN COU R SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO BEFORE CIT(A), NO SUCH DE T AILS ARE FIL E D. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBL E FO R RATE DIFFERENCE A ND SUP E RVISION CHARGES. (5) ANY OTH E R GROUND(S ) THAT MAY BE U R GED AT THE TIM E O F HEARING. 2. AT NOTED AT THE OU T SET, BY THE APPELL A TE ORDER DATED 22.3.2013, WHICH IS IMPUGNED BY THE R E VENUE IN THE PRESENT APPE A L, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OFF TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM ONE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT ; AND THE OTHER AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.147 OF THE ACT. B Y THE IMPUGNE D ORDE R , THE LEARNED CIT(A) THUS HAS DISPOSED OF TWO APPEALS FIL E D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AND GOING BY THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REV ENUE IN THIS APPEAL, IT HAS CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE I S SUES INVOL V ED IN BOTH THE APP E ALS. AS PER T HE RELEVANT RULES, THE R E VENUE IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO FILE TWO SEPARATE APPEALS AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 22.3.2013 DISPOSING OFF TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PRESENT APPEAL FIL E D BY THE REVENUE IS , THUS , NOT MAINTAINABLE AS AGREED EVEN BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE , AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 2 6 TH AUGUST, 2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ( P.M.JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/ - 2 6 TH AUGUST, 2014 I TA NO. 1 033 /H YD/201 3 SHRI P.D.RAGHUNATHA RAO, HYDERABAD 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI P.D.RAGHUNATHA RAO, 5 - 5 - 548, MALAKUNTA RAOD, HYDERABAD 2 . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 (2), HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) V HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX I V HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S