Sri D.Shiva Nagi Reddy, Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward-1, Nandyal

ITA 1109/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 110922514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SUDHAKAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Deduction for capital gain; Capital asset
• Section: 143(3); 2(14); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1109/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 SRI D. SHIVA NAGI REDDY (HUF), NANDYAL PAN: AADHD1092G VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, NANDYAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI K.A. SAI PRASAD RESPONDENT BY: SRI D. SUDHAKAR RAO DATE OF HEARING: 0 9 . 1 0.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.10.2014 ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-III, HYDERABAD DATED 24.03.2014 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.8.201 1 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 14,28,675. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AS THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED IN R ESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 30.12.2011 BY DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 29,28 ,267. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS . 32,85,870 AFTER CLAIMING EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF SELLING PADDY PRODUCED FROM HIS ANCESTRAL LANDS WHICH HAD B EEN STACKED FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS. THE PADDY WAS ST ACKED IN THE GODOWN AT HIS RESIDENCE IN KAKANUR VILLAGE. THE PA DDY WAS SOLD OUT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER, 2008 AND MARCH, 2009. THE A SSESSEE 2 ITA NO. 1109/HYD/2014 SRI D. SHIVA NAGI REDDY =================== DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS HAD STATED T HAT HE HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM HIS ANCESTRAL PROPERTY AND DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS FILED DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE REGARDING CULTIVA TION OF LAND, YIELD FROM THE LAND AND PREVAILING MARKET RATES OF PADDY. SUBSEQUENTLY, CONFIRMATORY LETTERS FROM THE MIDDLEM EN WHO HAD PURCHASED THE PADDY WERE ALSO SUBMITTED. THE ASSES SING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE RATE PER ACRE FOR THE SALE OF PADDY AND ALSO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS AGRICULTURAL OPERATION S AND HELD THAT A SUM OF RS. 15 LAKHS IS TO BE DISALLOWED FROM THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE RETUR NED INCOME. 4. A NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 22.1.201 4 TO BRING TO TAX THE CAPITAL GAINS RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND, NOT ADMITTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND NOT ASSESSED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS FOLLOWS: 'IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE RECORDS THAT AS PER THE CONFIRMATION LETTER GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE STATING T HAT HE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE WITH SRI. D. RAMACHANDRA REDDY FOR TRANSFER OF LAND ADMEASURING 5 ACRES IN S. NO. 273/8 SITUATED AT KAKUNUR VILLAGE F OR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 15,00,000/- IN THE MONTH OF MARCH ,2009. IN THIS CONNECTION THE ASSESSEE RECEIV ED ADVANCE OF RS. 13,00,000/- ON 30-3-2009. IN CASH. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE SAME AS CAPITAL GAIN IN RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 30.08.201 0. THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT TAKEN AS CAPITAL GAIN EVEN THOU GH THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE RECEIPTS OF ADVANCES AS CA PITAL GAINS. THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HAS N OT BROUGHT THE SAME AS INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS'. 5. THE REPLY BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE T O THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE IS AS FOLLOWS: 'THE ASSESSEE IN THE HUF STATUS HAS FILED HIS RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 ON 30-8-2010. IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ADVANCE RS. 13,00,000/- RECEIVED ON 30.03.2009 TOWARDS SALE OF RURAL AGRICULTURAL LA ND IN S. NO. 273/B ADMEASURING 5 ACRES SITUATED AT KAKUNU R 3 ITA NO. 1109/HYD/2014 SRI D. SHIVA NAGI REDDY =================== VILLAGE. IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR RETURN OF INCOME I .E. ASST. YEAR 2010-11 THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED BALANC E SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2,00,000/- THE TOTAL ADV ANCE OF RS. 15,00,000/- IS ADMITTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. AS THE ASSET SOLD IS RUR AL AGRICULTURAL LAND NO CAPITAL GAIN WAS ADMITTED IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE A.YS. 2009-10 AND 20 10- 11. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILS TO SHOW THAT THE LAND SOLD IS RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ADMITT ED AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED THE DETAILS FILED AN D ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CAPITAL GAIN EXEMPTION ON THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR RS. 15,00,000/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAS INSISTED THA T THE EXCESS AMOUNT RECEIVED OVER AND ABOVE THE SUB REGISTRAR VALUE OF RS. 6,55,000/- IS THE INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES IN THE A.Y 2010- 2011. AND THE SAME WAS OFFERED AND ASSESSED ACCORDINGLY. THE TAX WAS LEVIE D ON THE OTHER SOURCES INCOME OF RS. 8,45,000/ (15,00,00 0 - 6,55,000). HENCE IT IS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT-III, THAT A) THE LAND IN QUESTION IS AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED IN A VILLAGE AND HENCE THE SALE PROCEEDS ARE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS EITHER FOR ASST. YEAR 2009-10 OR FOR ASST. YEAR 201 0- 11. B) THE FACT THAT THE SALE AGREEMENT INDICATES POSSESSION BEING HANDED OVER ON 30.03.2009 WILL NOT ALTER THE POSITION OF NON TAXABILITY SINCE THE LAND, AS STATED EARLIER/ABOVE, IS AGRICULTURAL LAND , ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT. C) THE ASSESSED DID NOT ADMIT ANY CAPITAL GAINS TO TAX AS INDICATED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE REFERRED TO ABOVE. D) SIMPLY BECAUSE, THE INCOME TAX OFFICIALS DID NOT BELIEVE THAT HE HAD REALIZED RS. 15 LAKHS ON SALE O F LAND FOR WHICH THE SRO RATE IS RS.6,55,000, THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTEERED TO ADMIT RS. 8,45,000 FOR ASST . YEAR 2010-11 AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE AND PAID TAXES AT HIGHER RATE. IT WAS OFFERED TO TAX IN THE ASST. 4 ITA NO. 1109/HYD/2014 SRI D. SHIVA NAGI REDDY =================== YEAR 2010-11 BECAUSE THE FINAL PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED IN THAT YEAR. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE NEITHER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE NOR ERRONEOUS.' 6. HOWEVER, THE CIT WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY REMANDING THE ISS UE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE WHETHE R THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS NOT LIABLE TO CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO ENQUIRE INTO THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 8, 45,000 WAS RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND AND WAS OFFERED TO TAX AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE A.Y. 2010-11. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND TO ALL THE ISSUES AND THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISD ICTION U/S. 263 IS, THEREFORE, UNJUSTIFIED. IT WAS FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT SINCE THE IS SUE OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND DOES NOT AR ISE, NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT HAD FAILED TO PROPERLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2 LA KHS IN THE SUBSEQUENT A.Y. I.E., 2010-11 AND OFFERED RS 8,45,0 00 AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES (15,00,000 6,55,000). THE LEA RNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTIN G THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRIES WITH REGARD TO AG RICULTURAL LAND EVEN AFTER SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS I.E., PATTA PASSBOO K, POPULATION CERTIFICATE, TRANSLATED SALE AGREEMENT COPY. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORD ER OF THE CIT. 5 ITA NO. 1109/HYD/2014 SRI D. SHIVA NAGI REDDY =================== 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE A SSESSEE IN HUF STATUS HAS FILED IT RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y . 2009-10. IN THE BALANCE SHEET ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ADVANCE OF RS. 13 LAKHS RECEIVED ON 30.3. 2009 TOWARDS SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN SY. NO. 273/B ADMEASURING 5 ACRES SITUATED AT KAKUNUR VILLAGE AND IN THE SUBSEQ UENT YEAR FOR A.Y. 2010-11 IT WAS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2 LAKHS. THE TOTAL ADVANCE OF RS. 15 LAKHS WAS ADMITTED IN T HE BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AS THE ASSET SOLD IS A RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND, NO CAPITAL GAIN HAD BEEN ADMITTE D FOR THE A.YS. 2009-10 AND 2010-11. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT THE LAND SOLD IS A RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THAT ALSO TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED CAPITAL GAIN EXEMP TION ON THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON THE GROUND THAT THE LA ND IS SITUATED IN A VILLAGE WHICH IS NOT WITHIN 8 KM OF A MUNICIPA LITY OR PANCHAYAT AND EXEMPTED U/S. 2(14) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONVINCED THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS ARE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS EITHER FOR A.Y. 2009-10 OR F OR A.Y. 2010- 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE EXCESS CASH RECEI VED OVER AND ABOVE THE SUB-REGISTRAR'S VALUE OF RS. 6,65,000 AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN A.Y. 2010-11. TAX WAS LEVIED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS. 8,4 5,000 (RS. 15,00,000 RS. 6,65,000). 11. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT EXIGIBLE TO CAPITAL GAINS AS THE LA ND WAS SITUATED IN AN AREA IN THE VILLAGE KAKUNUR WHERE THE POPULAT ION IS ONLY 1537 AND NOT WITHIN 8 KM FROM A MUNICIPALITY OR PAN CHAYAT. 6 ITA NO. 1109/HYD/2014 SRI D. SHIVA NAGI REDDY =================== THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO OFFERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES A SUM OF RS. 8,45,000 WHICH ONLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS THOROUGHLY VERIFIED THE TRANSACTION OF THE ASSE SSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HAS TA KEN A CONSCIOUS VIEW AFTER APPLICATION OF HIS MIND. HENCE THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 12. TWO CIRCUMSTANCES MUST EXIST TO ENABLE THE COMMISSIONER TO EXERCISE THE POWER OF REVISION UNDE R THIS SUB- SECTION VIZ., (I) THE ORDER SHOULD BE ERRONEOUS; AN D (II) BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS PREJUDICE MUST HAVE BE EN CAUSED TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. AN ORDER CANNOT BE TE RMED AS ERRONEOUS UNLESS IT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SECTION 263 DOES NOT VISUALIZE A CASE OF SUBSTITUTION OF THE JU DGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THAT OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WHO PASSED THE ORDER, UNLESS THE DECISION IS HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER TO BE TERMED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVEN UE, THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY ELIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED. THE HO N'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GABRIEL INDIA LTD. (203 ITR 108) (BOM), HAS LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLES FOR EXERCI SING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 AS FOLLOWS: 'TWO CIRCUMSTANCES MUST EXITS TO ENABLE THE COMMISSIONER TO EXERCISE THE POWER OF REVISION UNDE R THIS SUB-SECTION VIZ., (I) THE ORDER SHOULD BE ERRO NEOUS; AND (II) BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS PRE JUDICE MUST HAVE BEEN CAUSED TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENU E. AN ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS UNLESS IT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS SECTION DOES NOT VISUA LIZE A CASE OF SUBSTITUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THAT OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WHO PASSED THE ORDER, UNLESS THE DECISION IS HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. CASES MAY BE VISUALIZED WHERE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WHILE MAKING AS ASSESSMENT EXAMINES THE ACCOUNT, MAKES ENQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE F ACTS 7 ITA NO. 1109/HYD/2014 SRI D. SHIVA NAGI REDDY =================== AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINES THE INCOME EITHER BY ACCEPTING THE ACCOUNTS OR BY MAKIN G SOME ESTIMATES HIMSELF. THE COMMISSIONER, ON PERUSA L OF RECORDS, MAY BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE OFFICER CONCERNED WAS ON THE LOWER SIDE AND LEFT TO THE COMMISSIONER HE WOULD HAVE ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT A HIGHER FIGURE THAN THE ONE DETERMINED B Y THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER. THAT WOULD NOT VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH POWER TO RE-EXAMINE THE ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINE THE INCOME HIMSELF AT A HIGHER FIGURE . THIS IS BECAUSE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAS EXERCISE D THE QUASI- JUDICIAL POWER VESTED IN HIM IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW AND ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION AND SUCH A CONCLUSI ON CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT FEEL SATISFIED WITH THE CONCLUSION. IT MAY BE SAID IN SUCH A CASE THAT IN T HE OPINION OF THE COMMISSIONER THE ORDER IN QUESTION I S PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. BUT TH AT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TO VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH THE POWER OF SUO MOTU REVISION BECAUSE THE FIR ST REQUIREMENT, NAMELY, THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, I S ABSENT. SIMILARLY IF AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THEN T HE POWER OF SUO-MOTU REVISION CANNOT BE EXERCISED. ANY AND EVERY ERRONEOUS ORDER CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT-MAT TER OF REVISION BECAUSE THE SECOND REQUIREMENT MUST BE FULFILLED. THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FADE MATERIAL O N RECORD TO SHOW THAT TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED. WHEN EXERCISE OF STATUTORY POWER IS DEPENDENT UPON THE EXISTENCE OF CERTAIN OBJECTIVE F ACTS, THE AUTHORITY BEFORE EXERCISING SUCH POWER MUST HAV E MATERIALS ON RECORD TO SATISFY IN THAT REGARD. IN T HE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITY IS CHALLENGED. BEFORE THE C OURT IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE COURTS TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE RELEVANT OBJECTIVE FACTORS WERE AVAILABLE FROM THE RECORDS CALLED FOR AND EXAMINED BY SUCH AUTHORITY. 13. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. (243 ITR 83) (SC) THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS CLEARLY LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLE AS FOLLOWS: 'WHEN AN ITO ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN WHICH HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE PLAUSIBLE AND THE ITO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE 8 ITA NO. 1109/HYD/2014 SRI D. SHIVA NAGI REDDY =================== INTERESTS OF REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE I TO IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW.' 14. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND AFTER NECESSARY ENQUIRY, HE HAD PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, IT WAS H ELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE PROPER ENQUIRY AND EXAMI NED ACCOUNTS, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS NON-A PPLICATION OF MIND BY HIM. HENCE, THE ACTION UNDER SECTION 263 WA S HELD INVALID: (A) ANTALA SANJAYKUMAR RAVJIBHAI V. CIT 135 ITD 506 (RA JKOT) (TRIB.), (B) ROSHAN LAL VEGETABLE PRODUCTS (P) LTD. V. ITO, 51 S OT 1 (URO) (ASR.)(TRIB.), (C) FINE JEWELLERY (INDIA) LTD. V. ACIT, 19 ITR 746 (MUM.)(TRIB.) (D) BHARAT OVERSEAS BANK LTD. V. CIT, 152 TTJ 546 (CHEN NAI) (TRIB.) 15. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. [2012] 343 ITR 161 (BOM) THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HEL D THAT IN AREAS WHERE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPLIED MIND THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 ARE NOT VALID AS HELD. 16. FURTHER, THE CIT HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RE CORD CONTRARY TO THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT IS HEREB Y QUASHED. 17. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH OCTOBER, 2014 SD/ - (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 29 TH OCTOBER, 2014 TPRAO 9 ITA NO. 1109/HYD/2014 SRI D. SHIVA NAGI REDDY =================== COPY TO: 1. SRI D. SHIVA NAGI REDDY (HUF) , C/O. CH. PARTHASARATHY & CO., 1-1-298/2/B/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOWBHAGYA AVENUE, ST. NO. 1, ASHOKNAGAR, HYDERABAD-500 020. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NANDYAL. 3. THE CIT - III , HYDERABAD . 4. THE ADDL. CIT, KURNOOL RANGE, KURNOOL. 5. THE DR, B - BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD.