Betala Venkata Krishna Rao, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward 10(3), Hyderabad

ITA 1091/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74496 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADAGIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Source of fund; Additional evidence
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.1091/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 BETALA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO SECUNDERABAD PAN AJDPB6041L VS. ITO, WARD 10(3) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE : MR. B. YADAGIRI DATE OF HEARING : 09.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.01.2014 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-VI, HYDERABAD DATED 10.05.2013. THE ASSES SEE HAS RAISED THREE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER : 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ESTIMATING THE NET INCOME FROM CONTRACTS AT 12.5% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.11,00,000/- DISBELIEVING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS WERE PAID TO THE APPELLANT BY SHRI V. PRAJESH AND SHRI RAJENDER SINGH. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT BOTH THE PERSONS WERE PRESENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCEPTED THE FACTS DURING THE COURSE OF SWORN DEPOSITION. 2 ITA.NO.1091/HYD/2013 BETALA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, SECUNDERABAD 2. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AND ALSO PARTNER IN M /S. SSV INN. ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING INCOME AT RS.2,36,240/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SEC TION 143(3), ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE INCOME @ 12. 5% ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS AND ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,99,574/-. AO ALSO ADDED AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.10 LAKHS AND UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 11 LAKHS. ASSESSEE CONT ESTED THE ISSUES BEFORE THE CIT(A). WHILE CONFIRMING THE EST IMATION OF 12.5% ON GROSS RECEIPTS, LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS. 10 LAKHS ON WHICH THERE I S NO REVENUE APPEAL. THE OTHER ADDITION WHICH WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) WAS WITH REFERENCE TO UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 11 LAKHS. ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED ON THE ABOVE ISSUES. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED D.R. 4. GROUND NO.2 PERTAINS TO THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT RS.12.5% ON GROSS RECEIPTS. ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS AT RS.44,34,850/- AND HAS SHOWN NE T INCOME OF RS.3,53,782/- AFTER CLAIMING VARIOUS EXPENSES. A.O. ASKED FOR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALSO ASKED WHY AUDIT WAS NOT COMPLETED. ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ACTUAL CONTRAC T RECEIPTS WERE ONLY AT RS.35,37,820/- BUT BY OVERSIGHT THE SAME WERE DECLARED AT RS.44,22,275/- ON WHICH ASSESSEE ESTIMATE D INCOME AT 8% ON GROSS RECEIPTS. A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS, ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 12.5% ON GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPT S DECLARED, WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS.5,54,356/-. SINCE ASSESS EE HAS ALREADY DECLARED NET PROFIT OF RS.3,53,782/- AT 8 % OF GROSS 3 ITA.NO.1091/HYD/2013 BETALA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, SECUNDERABAD RECEIPTS AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,99,574/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. 5. LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER PERUSING THE SUBMISSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. CONFIRMED THE SAME STATING AS U NDER : 5.4. FURTHER, THE A.O. ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS AT 12.5%, AS AGAINST 8% ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE, APPARENTLY ON THE GROUND THAT TH E PROVISIONS OF SEC.44AB APPLY TO THE APPELLANT AND NE ITHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED NOR AUDITED. NO SP ECIFIC REASONS WERE ASSIGNED BY THE A.O. FOR ESTIMATING THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS AT 12.5%. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE F ACTS OF THE CASE, WHERE NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED AND WHERE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 44AB FOUND APPLICABLE, THE ESTIM ATION OF PROFIT SAT 12.5% HELD TO BE REASONABLE. THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD ALSO PUT THE MARGINS OF TH E BUSINESS IN THE RANGE OF 8 TO 12.5% , DEPENDING ON T HE FACTS OF EACH CASE. IN THIS CASE, AS INDICATED, THE FACTS SUPPORT THE DECISION OF THE A.O. TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT AT 12.5%. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,99,574/-, MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATING THE PROFITS AT 12.5%, AS AGAI NST 8% ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, STAND CONFIRMED. THUS, THI S GROUND OF APPEAL, IS TREATED AS DISMISSED. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIR E ANY MODIFICATION. EVEN THOUGH LEARNED COUNSEL JUSTIFIED ESTIMATION AT 8% ON THE REASON THAT CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AT RS.1,32,871/- WAS ABOUT 3%, THEREFORE, IF DEPRECIATION I S ALLOWED, THE SAME PROFIT MARGIN WOULD BE ARRIVED AT. THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFIRMAT ION OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS, THERE IS NO OPTION THAN TO ESTIMATE THE PROFITS ON THE RECEIPTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P & L ACCOUNT. SINCE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED GROSS CONTRACT RECE IPTS AT RS.44,22,275/- WITHOUT ANY AUDIT REPORT, WE DO NOT SEE AN Y REASON TO ACCEPT 8% ESTIMATION. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OU T BY THE 4 ITA.NO.1091/HYD/2013 BETALA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, SECUNDERABAD LEARNED CIT(A), VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS CONSIDERED T HE MARGINS OF THE BUSINESS IN THE RANGE OF 8% TO 12.5%. TH E ESTIMATION DEPENDS ON FACTS OF EACH CASE. 6.2 LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. C. ESWARA REDDY & CO. IN ITA.NO.668 & 670/HYD/2009 AND OTHERS DATED 31 ST JANUARY, 2011. THE FACTS IN THAT CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS A FIRM AND ALSO HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES TOWARDS SEINIORAG E CHARGES IN RELATION TO MATERIAL SUPPLIED BY THE GOVERNME NT, WHICH REDUCED THE TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS. FURTHER BEING A FIRM, THERE WAS A CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND SALARY TO T HE PARTNERS. IN THAT CONTEXT, NET PROFIT WAS ESTIMATED AT 8% OF THE NET CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE ASSESSEES CASE. CONSIDERING THAT ASSESSEE IS OPERATI NG AS AN INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT BORROWED FUNDS, MARGIN OF 12.5% ON THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE IS REASONABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SUSTAINED AND ASSESSEES GROUND NO.2 IS REJECTED. 7. GROUNDS NO. 3 AND 4 PERTAINS TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 LAKHS. WHILE FINALIZING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSM ENT, A.O. NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE PAID THROUGH HIS BANK ACCOUNT A N AMOUNT OF RS. 11 LAKHS TO M/S. SAI GANESH BUILDERS BY WAY OF TWO CHEQUES. ON THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNI SH ANY REPLY REGARDING THE SAID PAYMENTS, THE SAME WAS TREAT ED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE I.T. AC T AND ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO SUCH A DECISION ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE THE AMOUNTS ARE PAID THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, ADDITION, BY TREATING THE SAI D PAYMENT AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IS NOT ACCORDING TO LAW. FURTHER, ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT AMOUNTS ARE ACTUAL LY PAID BY HIM ON BEHALF OF MR. V. PRAJESH AND MR. RAJEND ER 5 ITA.NO.1091/HYD/2013 BETALA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, SECUNDERABAD SINGH TO M/S. SAI GANESH BUILDERS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF AGREEMENT OF S ALE ENTERED BY MR. V. PRAJESH AND MR. RAJENDER SINGH WITH M/S. SAI GANESH BUILDERS AND OTHER RELATED EVIDENCE AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS REF ERRED TO THE A.O. AND A.O. REPORT WAS ALSO OBTAINED. CONSIDERING T HE FACTS AS ENQUIRED BY THE A.O. AND THE STATEMENTS REC ORDED FROM THE SAID PARTIES, THE A.O. CONCLUDED THAT INVESTM ENTS MADE THROUGH BANK BY THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTS HIS OWN INVESTMENTS BUT NOT INVESTMENTS OF MR. V. PRAJESH AN D MR. RAJENDER SINGH. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE S AME BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 7.3. AS PER THE REPORT OF THE A.O., IT HAS BEEN REVEALED THAT THERE ARE CASH DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT, OUT OF WHICH CHEQUES WERE GIVEN FOR RS. 10,00,000/- (27.05.2008) AND RS. 1,00,000/- (16.05.2008), BY THE APPELLANT TO THE FIRM M/S. SAI GANESH BUILDERS. AS PER THE A.C'S REPORT, M/S. SAI GANESH BUILDERS IS NOT A PROPRIETARY CONCERN AS MENTIONED IN THE COPY OF AGREEMENTS FOR SALE, BUT O NLY A FIRM CONSISTING OF 4 PARTNERS, WITH THE NAME OF M R. GANESH, AS MENTIONED IN THE SAID DOCUMENT (AGREEMEN T FOR SALE), NOT RELATABLE TO THE SAID FIRM. FURTHER, MR. GANESH IS NEITHER EXISTING NOR TRACED AS PER 'THE INFORMATION BROUGHT ON RECORD. THOUGH THE A.O RECOR DED THE STATEMENTS FROM RAJENDER SINGH AND MR. V. PRAJE SH WHO CONFIRMED TO HAVE GIVEN THE CASH OF RS. 5,50,000/- EACH TO MR. B.V.KRISHNA RAO, TOWARDS PURCHASE OF FLATS FROM M/S. SAI GANESH BUILDERS, TH EY COULD NOT FURNISH ANY FURTHER DETAILS SUCH AS THE S TAGE OF CONSTRUCTION AT WHICH AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED AN D THE REASONS FOR CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENTS ETC. BAS ED ON THE FACTS THAT HAVE EMERGED, THE SUBMISSIONS OF MR. RAJENDER SINGH, MR.PRAJESH AND MR. B.V.KRISHNA RAO, AS EMANATED FROM THEIR STATEMENTS APPEARED TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND PROVED WRONG FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 6 ITA.NO.1091/HYD/2013 BETALA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, SECUNDERABAD 1. THE CHEQUES ORIGINATED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF MR. B.V.KRISHNA RAO, THE APPELLANT AND HAVE NEVER COME BACK TO EITHER THE APPELLANT OR THE PARTIES VIZ. RA JENDER SINGH AND MR. V.PRAJESH. 2. THE AMOUNTS ARE SHOWN TO HAVE PAID AND RECEIVED IN CASH, BY MR. RAJENDER SINGH AND MR. PRAJESH AND SOURCES WERE NOT INDICATED FOR SUCH CASH, SPECIALLY IN CASES OF PENSIONERS, BEING THE RETIRED ARMY MEN. 3. THE CONCERN BY NAME M/S. SAI GANESH BUILDERS CLAIMED TO BE A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF MR GANESH, I T NOT EXISTING AND THE SAID CONCERN IN FACT PROVED TO BE A FIRM, WITH PARTNERS OF DIFFERENT BACKGROUND, WITH W HICH NO PERSON BY NAME GANESH, IS ASSOCIATED WITH. 4. AS PER THE CONFIRMATION FURNISHED BY THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM M/S. SAI GANESH BUILDERS, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 11,00,000 WAS RECEIVED FROM B.V.KRISHNA RAO AND THERE IS NO INDICATION OF REPAYMENT TO HIM. 7.5 ALL THESE FACTS PROVE CONCLUSIVELY, THAT THE SA ID INVESTMENTS, MADE THROUGH THE BANK OF MR. B.V.KRISHNA RAO, REPRESENT HIS OWN INVESTMENTS, BUT NOT THE INVESTMENTS OF MR. RAJENDER SINGH AND MR.V. PRAJESH AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THE CLAIM OF TH E INVESTMENTS BY RAJENDAR SINGH AND MR. PRAJESH, WERE NOT PROVED AND THE CLAIM OF REPAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT S BY THE APPELLANT, TO THE SAID PARTIES IN INSTALMENTS, MAY MISREPRESENT THE FACTS, SINCE THE SAID AMOUNTS ORIGINATED FROM ACCOUNT OF B.V.KRISHNA RAO AND YET T O REACH HIM FROM M/S. SAI GANESH BUILDERS. THUS THE AMOUNTS OF INVESTMENT MADE BY APPELLANT WITH M/S. SAI GANESH BUILDERS, REPRESENT THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT, AS PER TH E PROVISIONS OF SEC. 69 OF THE LT. ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.11,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O, STAND SUSTAINED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS TREATED AS DISMISSED. 8. LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED IN THIS REGARD SUBMITTED THA T M/S. SAI GANESH BUILDERS IS NOT A PROPRIETARY CONCERN BUT A FIRM CONSISTING OF FOUR PARTNERS AND ASSESSEE, ON BEHALF O F MR. V. 7 ITA.NO.1091/HYD/2013 BETALA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, SECUNDERABAD PRAJESH AND MR. RAJENDER SINGH, HAS ADVANCED THE AMOUN TS THROUGH HIS BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH, INTURN, WERE RETURNED TO THE SAID PARTIES, AS THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE DID NOT GO THROUGH. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO ROLE TO PL AY IN THIS EXCEPT HELPING HIS FRIENDS WHO ARE KNOWN TO HIM, IN BOOKING THE APARTMENTS AND WHEN THE TRANSACTIONS DID NO T MATERIALISE, THE PARTIES ON WHOSE BEHALF ASSESSEE PAID THE AMOUNTS HAVE RECEIVED THE MONEY BACK. THEREFORE, THERE IS NEITHER UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT NOR UNEXPLAINED EXPENDIT URE IN THESE TRANSACTIONS. HE REFERRED TO VARIOUS STATEMENTS AND THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE A.O. IN THIS REGARD. 9. LEARNED D.R. VEHEMENTLY ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT THE WHOLE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS MAKE BELIEVE AND THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THAT. ASSESSEE NEITH ER EXPLAINED THE INVESTMENT NOR EXPLAINED THE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY THE AUTHORITIES ARE CORRECT IN MAKING THE ADDITION. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION UNDER SE CTION 69 AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE, AS WAS DONE BY THE A.O. IN FACT, ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS. 11 LAKHS THROUGH HI S BANK ACCOUNT TO M/S. SAI GANESH BUILDERS AND THIS I S EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. ONCE THE AMOUNT HAS GO NE THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF THE OWN SOURCES OF THE ASSESSEE, HOW IT BECOMES UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IS NO T FORTHCOMING. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, ONLY WHEN THE SOURCE IS NOT EXPLAINED, THE AMOUNT CAN BE TREATED AS I NCOME FROM THE UNEXPLAINED SOURCE. IN THIS CASE, SOURCE IS THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. SO, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE TREATED AS 8 ITA.NO.1091/HYD/2013 BETALA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, SECUNDERABAD UNEXPLAINED AT ALL. IT MAY BE THAT EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE MAY NOT BE SATISFACTORY TO THE A.O. BUT THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOU T THE SOURCE OF FUNDS. THEREFORE, TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXP LAINED EXPENDITURE IS NOT AT ALL CORRECT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 11. NEXT IS, CONFIRMATION BY THE CIT(A). HE HAS CHANGED NATURE OF ADDITION FROM UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE TREATED BY THE A.O. TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE LEARNED CIT(A) COULD TREAT UNEXPLAI NED EXPENDITURE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. AS SUBMITTE D BY THE ASSESSEE HE HAS ADVANCED RS. 11 LAKHS ON BEHALF OF T WO PARTIES FROM WHOM HE RECEIVED FUNDS IN CASH TO THE SAID M/S. SA I GANESH BUILDERS BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND UPO N CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENTS, THOSE MONIES WERE PAID TO THE AGREEMENT HOLDERS DIRECTLY BY THE SAID M/S. SAI GANESH BUILDERS. WHEN THE FLOW OF THE MONEY IS EXPLAINED, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS INVESTED IN AN UNEXPLAINED WAY. EVEN FOR ARGUMENT SAK E WE ACCEPT THAT THE SAME WAS ADVANCED/INVESTED BY ASSES SEE AS DISCUSSED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 7.5 OF HIS ORDER, IT ST ILL CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED AS THE SOURCE IS ASSESSEE OWN FUNDS ON WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT, NOT ONLY IN APPRECIATING THE FACTS BUT ALSO, CONFIRMING THE ADDITION UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE AC T. SINCE THE SOURCE OF FUNDS WERE EXPLAINED AND NATURE OF TRANSACT ION WAS ENQUIRED, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT WARRANTE D AND 9 ITA.NO.1091/HYD/2013 BETALA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, SECUNDERABAD ACCORDINGLY, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN DELETING THE SA ME. ASSESSEES GROUNDS 2 AND 3 ARE ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.01. 2014. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATE 24 TH JANUARY, 2014 VBP/- COPY TO : 1. BETALA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, SECUNDERABAD. C/O.SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHERYAS ELEGANCE, H.NO.3-6-643, ST. NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 029. 2. ITO, WARD 10(3), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-VI, HYDERABAD 4. CIT-V, HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH, HYDERABAD.