ITO, Ward-2, Warangal V. Sri Muduganti Purushotham Reddy, Warangal

ITA 1070/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91682 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMAKRISHNA BANDI
• Assessee Lawyers: T CHAITANYA KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Period of limitation; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1191/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MUDUGANTI PURUSHOTHAM REDDY (HUF), WARANGAL. PAN AAFHM3070H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, WARANGAL. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1070/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, WARANGAL. VS. MUDUGANTI PURUSHOTHAM REDDY (HUF), WARANGAL. PAN AAFHM3070H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T. CHAITANYA KUMAR REVENUE BY : SHRI RAMAKRISHNA BANDI DATE OF HEARING 19-05-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27-05-2015 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THESE CROSS APPEALS BY ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT ARE AGAINST ORDER DATED 14/05/13 OF LD. CIT(A) - VI, HY DERABAD FOR THE AY 2009-10. 2. THE ONLY COMMON ISSUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS WIT H REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. WHILE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN PAR TLY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO, THE DEPARTMENT IS CHALLENGING THE PARTIAL RELIEF 2 ITA NOS. 1191 & 1070 /HYD/2013 MUDUGANTI PURUSHOTHAM REDDY GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A) BY DELETING PART OF ADDITION. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL GROUNDS CHALLENGING THE V ALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE ISSU ED U/S 143(2) IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. 3. AT THE OUTSET, WE PROPOSE TO DEAL WITH THE ADDIT IONAL GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE. AS CAN BE SEEN, BEFORE LD. CIT( A) ASSESSEE RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND STATING THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS IT IS DAT ED 03/09/2011. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE MATERIA LS ON RECORD, DID NOT FIND THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE ACCEPTABLE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DATE OF NOTICE AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER AS 03/09/2011 IS A MISTAKE AS NOTICE WAS ACTUALLY ISSU ED ON 03/09/2010. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PLACE ON R ECORD THE NOTICE PURPORTEDLY ISSUED U/S 143(2) ON 03/09/2011. FURTH ER, LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AS ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE I NITIATION OF PROCEEDING BEFORE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDING AND RATHER HAS COMPLIED TO THE NOTICES AND COOPERATED I N COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, HE IS PRECLUDED FROM RAISING ANY OBJECTION AGAINST VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 292BB OF THE ACT. BEING AG GRIEVED OF THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISS UE BEFORE US THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. HOWEVER, ON PERUSIN G THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND GOING THROUGH THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, W E DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE. APPARENTLY, ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTI ATE ITS CLAIM THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 03/09/11. MOREO VER, IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NEVER OBJECTED TO THE VALI DITY OF THE PROCEEDING INITIATED AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AND RA THER HAS COMPLIED WITH NOTICE ISSUED BY AO AND COOPERATED IN FINALIZA TION OF THE PROCEEDING. THAT BEING THE CASE, ASSESSEE CANNOT RA ISE OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDING INITIATE D IN THE APPELLATE FORUM IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB. 3 ITA NOS. 1191 & 1070 /HYD/2013 MUDUGANTI PURUSHOTHAM REDDY ACCORDINGLY, WE REFUSE TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROU ND RAISED BY ASSESSEE. 4. AS FAR AS MERITS OF THE ADDITION ARE CONCERNED, BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, ASSESSEE, A HUF FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 12/03/2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,05,000. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, AO ON VERIFICATIO N OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE IN VESTMENTS IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. HE FOUND THAT ASSESSEE DURING THE PY HAS CONSTRUCTED SEMI-FINISHED HOUSE BY MAKING INVESTMEN T OF RS. 7,50,000 ON PLOT OF LAND PURCHASED VIDE DOCUMENT NO . 1403/08 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,79,135. HE FURTHER FOUND TH AT DURING THE RELEVANT PY, ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PLOT IN SURVE Y NO. 190 AT LAXMIPURAM VILLAGE, WARANGAL FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4 ,67,000 AND INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 3,37,575 TOWARDS IMPROV EMENT OF PLOT. WHEN AO CALLED UPON ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENTS, ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 07/12/2011 STATED THAT INVESTMENTS MADE WERE OUT OF THE CAPITAL BALANCE OF RS. 19,50,000 ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AS ON 01/04/08. AO, HOWEVER, BE ING OF THE VIEW THAT APART FROM THE CLAIM OF OPENING CAPITAL BALANC E OF RS. 19,50,000, ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADDUCED ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIVE EVID ENCE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND ALSO HAVING FAILED TO PROVE THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 19,50,000, TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 7,50,000 AND RS. 8,11,365 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. SIMILARLY, AO ALSO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO GPA WITH RAYIKANTI LAKSHM I AND RAYIKANTI AILAIAH FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN SURVEY NO. 262/ 1/1 AND 262/1/3 ADMEASURING O.20 GTS. AT BHEEMARAM FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 8,08,360 IN JUNE08. WHEN AO CALLED UPON ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT, ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 07/12/1 1 STATED THAT INVESTMENT MADE WAS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF HOUSE A T LAXIMIPURAM WHICH WAS SOLD IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST08. THE EXPLA NATION OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY AO ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE INVESTED THE SALE PROCEEDS OF A PROPERTY S OLD IN THE MONTH OF 4 ITA NOS. 1191 & 1070 /HYD/2013 MUDUGANTI PURUSHOTHAM REDDY AUGUST08 FOR ACQUIRING PLOT IN JUNE08. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SALE PROCEEDS WERE RECEIVED IN THE FORM OF CHEQUE AND WA S DEPOSITED IN ANDHRA BANK ON 01/09/08 AND OUT OF THE SALE PROCEED S, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6 LAKHS WAS WITHDRAWN BY ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPO SE OF INVESTING IN M/S MADHU CONSTRUCTIONS. ACCORDINGLY, REJECTING EXP LANATION OF ASSESSEE, AO TREATED THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 8,03,000 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THUS, IN TOTAL, AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 23,69,725 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. BEING AGGRIEVED OF SUCH ADD ITION, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 5. IN COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL, ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED BEFORE CIT(A), IT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN AGRICUL TURAL PRODUCT (MAIZE) AND FOR THAT PURPOSE IT PROVIDES ADVANCES TO FARMER S WHICH WERE REALIZED SUBSEQUENTLY. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESS EE THAT AS ON 31/03/08 ADVANCES OF RS. 13,12,000 WAS RECEIVABLE F ROM FARMERS AND AS THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR ASSESSEE UTILIZED THE SAME FOR INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. A SSESSEE SUBMITTED, BESIDES THE ADVANCES REALIZED FROM FARMERS ASSESSEE ALSO HAS FUNDS AVAILABLE FROM SALE OF CERTAIN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AS WELL AS LOANS RECEIVED IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM, ASSESSEE ALSO FU RNISHED RECONSTRUCTED CASH FLOW STATEMENT BEFORE LD. CIT(A) . LD. CIT(A) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECONSTRUCTED CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOUND THAT OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01/04/08 WAS SHOWN AT RS. 1,2 9,436. HE FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE UP TO 09/0 6/08 IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES TILL SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AT GOPAL APURAM ON 29/08/08, IF TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WITH THE AVAI LABLE CASH BALANCE, LEAVING ASIDE THE SO CALLED ADVANCES REALIZED FROM FARMERS AND THE LOAN RECEIVED, THERE IS SURPLUS INVESTMENT OF RS. 1 3,50,274. AS FAR AS THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT HE REALIZED ADVANCES FRO M FARMERS, LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM CANNOT BE ACC EPTED AS THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN DISCLOSED THE NAME AND ADDRESSES OF THE FARMERS AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH SUCH ADVANCES WERE GIVEN WITH CONFIRMATIONS. THEREFORE, IN 5 ITA NOS. 1191 & 1070 /HYD/2013 MUDUGANTI PURUSHOTHAM REDDY ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS OR SUPPORTING EVIDENCES, LD. CIT(A) REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE AMOUNTS SHOWN TOWARDS ADVANCES REALIZED FROM FARMERS. SIMILAR DECISION WAS TAKEN BY LD. CIT(A) IN SO FAR AS LOAN CLAIMED TO HAVE TAKEN FROM SMT. SULOCHANA. THUS, LD. CIT(A) FO UND THAT IF THE INVESTMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE TILL 09/06/08 WITH AVAI LABLE SOURCES OF FUND IS CONSIDERED, THE EXCESS INVESTMENT COMES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 13,50,274. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE SA ID AMOUNT HAS TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF ASSESSEE AND A DDITION TO THAT EXTENT WAS CONFIRMED OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 2 3,69,725. 6. LD. AR MORE OR LESS REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED, ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FILING RETURN O F INCOME FROM AY 2000-01, HENCE, HE HAS BUILT UP SUFFICIENT CASH BAL ANCE , WHICH AS ON 01/04/08 STOOD AT RS. 19,50,000. LD. AR SUBMITTED, ASSESSEE IS IN BUSINESS OF TRADE OF MAIZE FOR WHICH PURPOSE, HE RE GULARLY/ PERIODICALLY ADVANCES MONEY TO FARMERS FOR PROCURIN G THEIR PRODUCTS. THEREFORE, THE ADVANCES REALIZED FROM THE FARMERS A LSO FORM PART OF CAPITAL AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED, APART FROM THE ADVANCES REALIZED FROM THE FARMERS ASSESSEE HAD ALS O OBTAINED LOAN FROM SMT. SULOCHANA AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 LAKH AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2 LAKHS FROM ANDHRA BANK AS GOLD LOAN. LD. AR SUBMITT ED, WHEN ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WIT H NECESSARY EVIDENCE, ADDITION MADE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN SO FAR AS THE OBSERVATION OF LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH E VEN NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE CONCERNED FARMERS FROM WHOM ADVANC ES WERE REALIZED, LD. AR SUBMITTED, ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A STATEMENT CONTAINING NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE CONCERNED FAR MERS BEFORE THIS FORUM. IN THIS CONTEXT, HE REFERRED TO A LIST SUBMI TTED IN PAPER BOOK CONTAINING NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE FARMERS FROM WHOM ADVANCES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN REALIZED. THUS, LD. AR SU BMITTED, WHEN ASSESSEE IS HAVING SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE AVAILABL E WITH HIM TO INVEST IN PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY, TH ERE IS NO REASON TO SUSTAIN EVEN PART OF ADDITION. 6 ITA NOS. 1191 & 1070 /HYD/2013 MUDUGANTI PURUSHOTHAM REDDY 7. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED, NEITHER AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE NOR BEFORE LD.CIT(A) ASSESSEE COUL D EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THEREFO RE, IN ABSENCE OF PROPER EXPLANATION BY ASSESSEE IN EXPLAINING THE SO URCE OF INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES, ADDITION MADE BY AO IS JU STIFIED. LD. DR SUBMITTED, AS ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE T HE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE EVEN TO PARTIA L RELIEF GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A). LD. DR SUBMITTED, ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPL AINED IN WHAT MODE CAPITAL OF RS. 19,50,000 WAS AVAILABLE. IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION MADE BY AO SHOULD BE RE STORED. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF RE VENUE AUTHORITIES. AS CAN BE SEEN, OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 23 ,69,725 MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THREE IMMOVABLE PR OPERTIES, LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,50,274 AFTER EXAMINING THE RECONSTRUCTED CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE. ON A PERUSAL OF THE SAID RECONSTRUCTED CASH FLOW STATEMENT, IT APPE ARS THAT MAJOR PART OF THE INFLOW SHOWN BY ASSESSEE IS FROM THE SO CALL ED ADVANCES REALIZED FROM FARMERS WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS. 13,12,0 00. FURTHER, IT ALSO CONTAINS LOAN OF RS. 1 LAKH CLAIMED TO HAVE BE EN TAKEN FROM ONE SMT. SULOCHANA ON 01/06/08. AS IS APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), HE HAS NOT ACCEPTED ASSESSEES CLAIM WITH R EGARD TO ALLEGED ADVANCES REALIZED FROM THE FARMERS AS WELL AS LOAN FROM SMT. SULOCHANA AS A RESULT OF WHICH EXCESS INVESTMENT MA DE BY ASSESSEE UP TO 09/06/2008 WAS WORKED OUT TO RS. 13,50,274. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), HE HAS NOT ACCEPTED A SSESSEES VERSION OF ADVANCES REALIZED FROM FARMERS FOR THE REASON TH AT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN RESPEC T OF THE CLAIM MADE AND ASSESSEE HAS EVEN NOT FURNISHED NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE FARMERS FROM WHOM ADVANCES WERE REALIZED. IN TH IS CONTEXT, ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE A LIST SUBMITTED IN PAPER BOOK, A 7 ITA NOS. 1191 & 1070 /HYD/2013 MUDUGANTI PURUSHOTHAM REDDY COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGES 87 &88, WHEREIN NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE FARMERS FROM WHOM ADVANCES WERE REALIZED HAVE B EEN GIVEN. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE AFORESAID LIST WAS NOT FURNIS HED EITHER BEFORE AO OR BEFORE LD. CIT(A), BUT, FOR THE FIRST TIME ASSES SEE HAS SUBMITTED THE LIST BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID LI ST, IT APPEARS THAT, THOUGH ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED NAMES AND ADDRESSES O F THE FARMERS, BUT, HE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THE SAID FARMERS/PERSONS. IN OUR VIEW, MERELY FURNISHING A L IST CONTAINING NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF SOME PERSONS FROM WHOM ADVAN CES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN REALIZED WILL NOT BE OF ANY HE LP TO ASSESSEE UNLESS HE CONCLUSIVELY PROVES THE FACT THAT ADVANCE S WERE ACTUALLY REALIZED FROM THESE PERSONS. TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CL AIM, ASSESSEE HAS TO FURNISH EITHER CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE CONCERNED PERSONS OR MAY PRODUCE THEM FOR EXAMINATION. AS ASSESSEE FOR THE F IRST TIME HAS DISCLOSED THE DETAILS OF THE FARMERS BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL NEITHER AO NOR LD. CIT(A) HAD ANY OCCASION TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BY CONDUCTING ANY ENQUIRY. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FA CT THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED AT LEAST NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THESE PERSONS, EVEN THOUGH AT BELATED STAGE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AS SESSEE DESERVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THE FACT THAT ADVANCES OF R S. 13,12,000 WERE REALIZED DURING THE YEAR FROM THE CONCERNED FARMERS . FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING ASSESSEE TO PROVE SUCH CLAIM, WE ARE IN CLINED TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH BY VERIFYING ASSESSEES CLAIM AND CONDUCTING ENQUIRY ON THE BASI S OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES GIVEN BY ASSESSEE IN THE LIST FURNISH ED BEFORE US. ASSESSEE ON ITS PART MAY ALSO FURNISH SUPPORTING EV IDENCES EITHER BY WAY OF CONFIRMATION FROM CONCERNED PERSONS OR MAY P RODUCE CONCERNED PERSONS BEFORE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLA IM THAT ADVANCES GIVEN EARLIER WERE REALIZED DURING THE RELEVANT PY. AO MAY ALSO EXAMINE THE LOAN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM SM T. SULOCHANA SINCE A CONFIRMATION LETTER HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSES SEE. AS FAR AS GOLD LOAN IS CONCERNED, ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEME NT, IT IS CLEAR THAT SUCH LOAN WAS OBTAINED BY ASSESSEE IN JANUARY09, H ENCE, IT WILL BE 8 ITA NOS. 1191 & 1070 /HYD/2013 MUDUGANTI PURUSHOTHAM REDDY OF NO HELP TO ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING INVESTMENTS M ADE PRIOR TO 09/06/2008. AS FAR AS THE OBJECTION OF THE DEPARTME NT WITH REGARD TO RELIEF GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A), IT IS SEEN FROM RECO NSTRUCTED CASH FLOW STATEMENT THAT INVESTMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE POST 09 /06/08 ARE CLEARLY OUT OF SURPLUS FUND AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, AS INVESTMENTS MADE ARE FULLY EXPLAINED FROM AVAILABLE SOURCES, IN OUR VIEW, LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THESE I NVESTMENTS. THEREFORE, GROUNDS RAISED BY DEPARTMENT ARE WITHOUT ANY MERIT. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1191 /HYD/13 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND REVENUE S APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1070/HYD/13 IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH MAY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 27 TH MAY, 2015 KV COPY TO:- 1) ITO, WARD 2, WARANGAL 2) MUDUGANTI PURUSHOTHAM REDDY (HUF), C/O B. NARSIN G RAO & CO CAS, PLOT NO. 554, ROAD NO. 92, JUBILEE HILLS, H YD. - 96 3 CIT(A)-VI, HYDERABAD 4) CIT-VI, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.