The ITO, Ward -2(1), Guntur, Guntur V. Sri Thota Satyanarayana, Guntur

ITA 11/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 1125314 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y SURYACHANDRA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: B BABU RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.10&11/VIZAG/2012 SRI THOTA SATYANARAYANA, CHILAKALURIPET IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 10 /VIZAG/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 ITO WARD - 2(1) GUNTUR VS. SRI THOTA SATYANARAYANA CHILAKALURIPET GUNTUR DIST. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.ABBPT6243J CO NO.3/VIZAG/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.10/VIZAG/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 SRI THOTA SATYANARAYANA CHILAKALURIPET GUNTUR DIST. VS. ITO WARD - 2(1) GUNTUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.11/VIZAG/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 ITO WARD - 2(1) GUNTUR VS. SRI THOTA SATYANARAYANA CHILAKALURIPET GUNTUR DIST. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO NO. 4 /VIZAG/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.11/VIZAG/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 SRI THOTA SATYANARAYANA CHILAKALURIPET GUNTUR DIST. VS. ITO WARD - 2(1) GUNTUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B. BABU RAO, JCIT REVENUE BY : SHRI Y. SURYA CHANDRA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 10.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .12.2013 ITA NO.10&11/VIZAG/2012 SRI THOTA SATYANARAYANA, CHILAKALURIPET 2 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH:- THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006- 07 AND 2007-08 AGAINST ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) GUNTUR DATED 24.11.11. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE COMMON GROUNDS IN BOTH THE YEARS AS UNDER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN ESTIMATING MARRIAGE EXPENSES AT RS. 20 LAKHS @ RS. 10 LAKHS EACH FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2006-07 & 2007 -08 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED BEFORE A COU RT OF LAW THAT HE HAS GIVEN A DOWRY OF RS. 65 LAKHS BY TAKING LOAN FROM ( LATE) MR, SUDHA VENKATESWARLU 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE MARRIAGE EXPEN SES AT RS. 20 LAKHS WITHOUT ANY BASIS WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON A COGENT AND CONCLUSIVE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS CROSS OBJECTIONS HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(1). (GUNTUR PASSED UNDER SEC 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE A CT. DT.15-12-2010 IS ERRONEOUS BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT S OF THE CASE: 2. GOING BY THE FACT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN 'PAINTS & HARDWARE WERE FREE FROM ANY DEFECTS EVEN ACCORDING TO THE LD. A.O.. AS TRANSPIRED BY THE IMPUGNED ASST. ORDER, INVOKING OF ACTION U/S. 147 R EAD WITH SEC.148 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UND ER REVIEW MERELY BY PRESUMPTIONS AND SURMISES, MAY NOT APPEAR TO BE IN ORDER: 3. THE LD. A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE NOTICED THAT IN V IEW OF THE DEATH OF THE CREDITOR. SRI S. VENKATESWARLU FROM WH OM THE MAJOR PART OF THE BORROWALS WAS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FURNISH ANY 'CONFIRMATORY LETTER' AND THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDEN CE WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE FORM OF 'DEPOSITIONS GIVE N BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE COURT ETC.' WOULD BY ITSEL F STAND TO TESTIFY THAT WHAT IS CLAIMED H\ THE APPELLANT IS NOT ITA NO.10&11/VIZAG/2012 SRI THOTA SATYANARAYANA, CHILAKALURIPET 3 'FICTITIOUS' AS VIEWED BY THE LD. A.O: AND THAT THE ABOVE CREDIT IS GENUINE: 4. THE LD. A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME AND SHORT NOTICES ALLOWED TO HIM WH ICH IS COUPLED WITH THE LACK OF EFFECTIVE GUIDANCE AND INI TIATIVE OF THE A.R. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT RESPOND TO THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED B\ HIM ON 6-12-2010 AND THERE IS NO WILLFUL ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE APPE LLANT AND ,! OPPORTUNITY IS AFFORDED, THE APPELLANT WOULD FURNISH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE POSSESSED BY HIM, AS ENUMERATED IN THE 'ANNEXED STATEMENTS OF FACTS. 5. GOING BY THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT PRODU CED THE SON OF SRI S. VENKATESWARLU (1 ST SON-IN-LAW OF THE APPELLANT) BEFORE THE LD. A.O. AND HIS NON-REBUTTAL OF THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT HE WAS IN RECEIPT OF FUNDS F ROM HIS FATHER IN THE GUISE OF LOAN WOULD BY THEMSELVES STA ND TO TESTILY THE REAL NATURE OF THE 'CREDIT' AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT MAY NOT APPEAR REASONABLE TO HOLD THE SAME AS -FICTITIOUS': 6. THE LD. A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT DUE TO COMMUNICATION GAP ONLY, HE COULD NOT EFFECTIVELY ESTABLISH THE CREDITS TO THE REMAINING EXTENT OF RS.2.20.000. - AND AS HE IS PREPARED TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT DETAILS WITH EVIDENCE, IT MAY NOT APPEAL REASONABLE TO HOLD THE VIEW THAT THOSE CREDITS ARE FICTITIOUS 3. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF IRON, CEMENT AND PAINTS AND FILED RETURNS OF INCOME. ON A COMPLAINT RECEIVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID LARGE AMOUNT OF DOWRY AND OTHER E XPENSES, CONSEQUENT TO CERTAIN CIVIL DISPUTES BETWEEN ASSESSEES FAMILY AN D SON-IN-LAW, ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT AN D BROUGHT TO TAX AN AMOUNT OF RS.67,20,000/- STATED TO HAVE BEEN BORROWED FROM SUDHA VENKATESWARLU (SINCE DECEASED) AND FRIENDS AND RELATIVES IN A.Y. 2006-07 AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.13,92,160/- IN A.Y. 2007-08. 4. THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME BEFORE THE C IT(A) AND FURNISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND COMMENTS WHICH WERE SENT T O AO FOR EXAMINATION. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS PLEADI NGS DELETED THE ADDITIONS ITA NO.10&11/VIZAG/2012 SRI THOTA SATYANARAYANA, CHILAKALURIPET 4 MADE BY THE AO, BUT HOWEVER SUSTAINED AN AMOUNT OF RS.20 LAKHS AT RS.10 LAKHS IN EACH OF THE YEAR STATING AS UNDER: 4.4 THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THEM ARE TWO-FOLD; I N THAT WHILE OBJECTING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.65,00,000/- MADE UNDER SEC.68 OF THE ACT, THEY ALSO VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE VERY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U NDER SEC.148 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO FORMULATED HIS 'BELIEF WH ILE INVOKING SUCH ACTION UNDER SEC.147 OF THE ACT, EXCLUSIVELY RELYING UPON THE FACTS WHICH ARE NOT YET ADJUDICATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT WHERE THE 'DOWRY CASE' WAS INITIATED BY THE APPELLANT'S THIRD DAUGHTER AND WHEN THOSE ISSUES RE MAIN SUB-JUDICE. IT IS TRUE THAT THERE WAS A CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND HI S DAUGHTER BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY WERE OBLIGED TO INCUR AN AGGREGATE EXPENDITURE OF ABOUT RS.65 LAKHS TO MEET THE 'DOWRY 1 AND ALSO THE ADDITIONAL DEMANDS RAISED AFTER THE MARRIAGE OF HIS THIRD DAUG HTER; AND THAT SUCH A CLAIM WAS REBUTTED BY HIS SON-IN-LAW IN THE FORM OF A COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE COURT. IT MAY ALSO BE EVIDENT FROM THE CROSS EXAMINATION DT.27-01 -2010 UNDERTAKEN BY THE HON'BLE MAGISTRATE THAT THE APPELLANT CATEGORIC ALLY AND EMPHATICALLY AFFIRMED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE OF RS.65 LAKHS WAS MET FROM OUT OF THE BORROWALS MADE FROM HIS 'VI YYANKUDU' VIZ., THE FATHER OF HIS FIRST SON-IN-LAW. IT MAY ALSO BE A FACT THAT THOSE CLAIMS AND RIVAL CLAIMS ARE SUB-JUDICE BEFORE THE ABOVE COURT OF LAW, BUT T HE FACT REMAINS IN THE INSTANT CASE, IS THAT THERE IS A CLEAR AFFIRMATION MADE BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF IN A COURT OF LAW SAYING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SPEN T AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.65,00,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER REVIEW TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF HIS 3RD SON-IN-LAW AND HIS PARENTS AND SISTERS. THERE IS NO MANDATORY PROVISION CONTAINED IN THE IT LAW RESTRAINING THE ASSESSING O FFICER FROM INVOKING APPROPRIATE ACTION IN A CASE WHERE A PARTICULAR LIT IGATION IS PENDING IN ANY COURT OF LAW OR BEFORE ANY OTHER FORUM AND IT IS SUFFICE, IF THERE IS ANY MATERIAL AVAILABLE AT HIS POSSESSION BY WHICH HE COULD ARRIV E AT A REASONABLE BELIEF FOR PURPOSES OF ACTION UNDER SEC.147 READ WITH SEC.148 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID MANDATORY PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE LAW , I AM UNABLE TO CONVINCE MYSELF WITH THE PLEADINGS PUT-FORTH BY THE APPELLAN T IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND WITH THE ARGUMENTS PUT-FORTH BY HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES DURING THE COURSE OF HEARINGS WHICH TOOK PLACE BEFORE ME ON 02 -05-2011 AND ON ABOVE FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND, I AM LEFT WITH NO ALT ERNATIVE EXCEPT TO REJECT THEIR VARIOUS PLEADINGS OPPOSING THE ACTION UNDER SEC,147 AND ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED, 4.5. AS REGARDS THE SCOPE OF FORMULATION OF ADDITIO N OF RS.65 LAKHS UNDER SEC.68 OF THE ACT, THE MAIN OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE CLAIM OF INCURRING OF AN AGGREGATE EXPENDITURE TOWARDS DOWRY AND OTHER DE MANDS OF HIS SON-IN-LAW IS SUB-JUDICE IN A COURT OF LAW. IT IS ALSO URGED I N BY HIM TO THE EFFECT THAT HIS SON-IN-LAW REBUTTED THIS CLAIM OF DEMANDS FOR DOWRY / ADDITIONAL DOWRY. IT IS FURTHER CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT VEHEMENTLY THAT THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE WAS MET FROM OUT OF THE FUNDS BORROWED FROM SUDHA VENAKTESWARLU, HIS VIYYANKUDU, WHO TOOK INITIATIVE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF PERFORMING THE MARRIAGE OF THE APPELLANT'S THIRD DAUGHTER. ITA NO.10&11/VIZAG/2012 SRI THOTA SATYANARAYANA, CHILAKALURIPET 5 4.6. NO DOUBT THERE WERE CLAIMS AND RIVAL CLAIMS FR OM BOTH THE SIDES, I.E., IN BETWEEN THE APPELLANT ON ONE SIDE AND THE SON-IN-LA W OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS PARENTS ON THE OTHER SIDE ABOUT THE DEMANDS TOWARDS DOWRY AND ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS AND APPARENTLY THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE AND COGENT MATERIAL TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIMS OF EITHER SIDE. THERE MAY ALSO FIE A SUB STANCE IN THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT WOULD BE UNFAIR ON THE PART OF TH E AO TO RELY UPON THE COMPLAINT PENDING IN A COURT OF LAW WHILE ARRIVING AT THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF ABOUT RS.65 LAKHS IN CONNECTION WITH THE MARRIAGE OF HIS 3RD DAUGHTER AND TO IGNORE THE AFFI RMATION MADE BY THE APPELLANT ON OATH BEFORE THE HON'BLE MAGISTRATE WHI CH SPEAKS ABOUT THE 'SOURCE' FOR MEETING THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE. THUS, GOING BY T HE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION PREVALENT IN THE RECORD OF THE INSTANT CASE, IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO ARRIVE AT A DEFINITE VIEW AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ISSUE IS SUB JUDICE BEFORE A COURT OF LAW. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM NOT INCLINED TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS EITHER ACCEPTING THE CLAIMS OF THE APPE LLANT AS CONTAINED IN THE COURT PROCEEDINGS OR THAT OF THE RIVAL CLAIMS MADE BY HIS SON-IN-LAW IN THE SAME PROCEEDINGS. 4.7. HOWEVER, GOING BY THE CONCEPT OF 'PREPONDERANC E OF PROBABILITY' THE ELEMENT OF INCURRING OF SOME EXPENDITURE FOR PERFOR MING THE MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER ON 15.06.2005 CANNOT BE RULED OUT. AS IS B ROUGHT ON RECORD, HIS SON- IN-LAW IS A SOFTWARE ENGINEER OCCUPYING A POTENTIAL EMPLOYMENT IN USA AND GIVING DUE WEIGHT TO THE FACT OF HOLDING MATRIMONIA L ALLIANCE FOR HIS DAUGHTER WITH A WELL-ESTABLISHED AND FINANCIALLY SOUND BRIDE -GROOM, INCURRING OF CONSIDERABLE EXPENDITURE CANNOT ALSO BE RULED OUT. THUS, GOING BY THE CONCEPT OF 'PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY', IT WOULD APPEAR FAIR AND REASONABLE TO IDENTIFY THE 'MARRIAGE EXPENDITURE' OF HIS DAUGHTER DURING T HE YEAR UNDER REVIEW, VIZ., DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND OTHER INDIVI DUAL COMMITMENTS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AT RS.10 LAKHS. 4.8. FURTHER, TO MEET THE OTHER OBLIGATORY EXPENSES WHICH MAY BE NECESSITATED TO SEND HIS MARRIED DAUGHTER TO THE HOUSE OF HER IN -LAWS, AND ALSO TO MEET THE EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF FIRST DELIVERY OF HIS DAUGH TER AND ALSO TO MEET THE OTHER CUSTOMARY EXPENSES, IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE REASONABL E TO ESTIMATE THE PROBABLE EXPENDITURE FOR THE A.Y.2007-08 AT RS.10 LAKHS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE DISCUSSED IN MY ORDER FOR THE A.Y.2007- 08. THUS, GOING BY THE CONCEPT OF 'PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY' IT MAY APPEAR TO BE REASONABLE TO IDENTIFY THE AGGREGATE EXPENDITURE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER REVIEW AT?20 LAKHS. 4.9. THUS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE TOTALITY OF FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS ENVISAGED ABOVE, 1 AM INCLINED TO HOLD THAT RESTRICTION OF ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OFF 10 LAKHS_U/S. 58 OF THE ACT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE FOR THE A.Y.2006-07 AS AGAINST THE ADDIT ION OF RS.65 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO ON THIS COUNT. ITA NO.10&11/VIZAG/2012 SRI THOTA SATYANARAYANA, CHILAKALURIPET 6 5. THE REVENUE IS NOT CONTESTING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY AO IN EITHER OF THE YEARS BUT CONTESTING THE ESTIMATION OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES AT RS.20 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS CROSS OBJECTION IS CONTESTING T HE JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF AMOUNTS BY THE CIT(A ). 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE REVENUE GROUNDS. THE GROUND ITSELF ADMITS THAT ASSESSEE ADMITTED BEFORE COURT OF LAW THAT DOWRY OF RS.65 LAKHS WAS GIVEN BY TAKING LOAN FROM LATE MR. SUDHA VENKATESWARLU. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE GAVE DOWR Y OR NOT IS SUBJECT MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A COURT OF LAW, AS RIV AL PARTIES ARE CONTESTING THE VERACITY OF THE STATEMENTS, BUT EVEN ADMITTING THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DOWRY, IT WAS ADMITTED IN THE SAME STATEMENT THAT H E HAS TAKEN A LOAN FROM MR. SUDHA VENKATESWARLU. THUS THE LOAN CANNOT BE CO NSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE AMOUNT BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. A S SEEN FROM THE GROUNDS, REVENUE IS ALSO NOT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE ISSUES. THE ISSUE IS BEING CONTESTED IS ON ESTIMATION OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES AT RS.20 LAKHS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. WE ADMIT THAT TO CERTAIN EXTENT, THE REVENU ES CONTENTIONS ARE CORRECT. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR CIT(A) TO ARRIVE AT RS.20 LAK HS AS MARRIAGE EXPENSES. IN FACT THE VERY BASIS FOR CONFIRMING THE ABOVE AMO UNT IS PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY EVIDENCE ON RE CORD. EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND MATTERS ARE PE NDING BEFORE COURT OF LAW AND PENDING ADJUDICATION NOTHING CAN BE STATED WHE THER ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DOWRY OR NOT. WITHOUT EXAMINING, WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS SPENT ANY AMOUNT FROM HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT FOR THE MARRIAGE OF THE D AUGHTER, CIT(A) CANNOT ESTIMATE THE EXPENDITURE AND CONFIRM PARTLY THAT TO O IN AN YEAR IN WHICH EVEN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION TOWARDS THE UNEXPLAINED MARRIAGE EXPENSES. AS SEEN FROM THE ORDERS, THE AD DITIONS ARE MADE ON THE BASIS OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OF VARIOUS LOANS CLAIMED, WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN OUR VIEW, HE HAS TR AVERSED BEYOND THE JURISDICTION TO ESTIMATE THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES, WHI CH IS NOT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE AO AT ALL. ACCORDINGLY, ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE S CROSS OBJECTIONS, WE HOLD THAT ESTIMATION MARRIAGE EXPENSES BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT BOTH ON LAW ITA NO.10&11/VIZAG/2012 SRI THOTA SATYANARAYANA, CHILAKALURIPET 7 AND FACTS. THESE ARE ACCORDINGLY DELETED. AO IS D IRECTED TO DELETE THE AMOUNTS OF TEN LAKHS IN EACH OF THE YEAR AS CONFIRM ED BY THE CIT(A). CONSEQUENTLY, WE HOLD THAT REVENUE HAS NO MERIT IN THEIR CONTENTIONS AS SUCH. ACCORDINGLY, REVENUE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISS ED AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH DEC13. SD/ - SD/ - ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) ( B. RAMAKOTAIAH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 13 TH DECEMBER, 2013 COPY TO 1 ITO WARD - 2(1), GUNTUR 2 THOTA SATYANARAYANA, D.NO.3 - 196, 7 TH LANE, PANDARIPURAM, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR 3 THE CI T, GUNTUR 4 THE CIT (A) , GUNTUR 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM