Shri.Pylla Ananthapal Reddy, Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1219/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1898 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: M CHANDRAMOULESWARA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Peak credit
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.1046/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD. VS. MR. PYLL A ANANTHAPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. PAN AJHPP6987H (APP ELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ITA.NO.1219/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 MR. PYL L A ANANTHAPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. PAN AJHPP6987H VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD. (APP ELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : MR. M. SITARAM FOR ASSESSEE : MR.M.CHANDRAMOULESWARA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 1 3 . 1 0.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 . 1 0.2015 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. THESE TWO APPEALS, ONE FILED BY THE REVENUE BEING ITA.NO.1046/HYD/2014 AND THE OTHER FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE BEING ITA.NO.1219/HYD/2014, ARE CROSS-APPE ALS WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- VI, HYDERABAD DATED 28.02.2014. 2 ITA.NO.1046 & 1219/HYD/2014 MR. PYLLA ANANTHAPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. 2. THE MAIN COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.97,35,500 MAD E BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS FO UND TO BE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHIC H IS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.61, 58,000 AND THE SAME IS RAISED BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS : ITA.NO.1046/HYD/2014 REVENUE APPEAL 2. THE ID CIT (A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS THAT HE HAS UTILIZED THE CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM ICICI BANK ACCOUNT FOR MAKING CASH DEPOSITS IN TO THE HDFC BANK ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 12,24,000/-, EVEN THOUGH ICICI BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SHOW ANY CORRESPONDING CASH WITHDRAWALS. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS THAT HE HAS UTILIZED THE CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM HDFC BANK ACCOUNT FOR MAKING CASH DEPOSITS WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 22,34,000/-, EVEN THOUGH HDFC BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SHOW ANY CORRESPONDING CASH WITHDRAWALS. ITA.NO.1219/HYD/2014 ASSESSEE APPEAL 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE CASH DEPOSITS INTO THE HANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS TO THE EXTENT OF 61,58,000 OUT OF THE TOTAL DEPOSITS OF 97,35,000 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE AGGREGATE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE HANK ACCOUNTS IS MORE THAN THE CASH DEPOSITS. THE LD, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING T HE FACT THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT SOURCES FOR THE CASH DEPOSITS AND FURTHER, HE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING THE WITHDRAWALS MADE ONE OR TWO DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. 3 ITA.NO.1046 & 1219/HYD/2014 MR. PYLLA ANANTHAPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DERIVES INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, OTHER SOURCES AND AGRICULTURE. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY HIM ON 30.10.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,59,453 AND AGRICULTU RAL INCOME OF RS.6,63,000. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE A. O. TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF HIS ACTIVITY, THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM IN MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WIT H SOURCES, COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT AND DE-MAT ACCOUNT. THERE WAS HOWEVER, NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE INFORMATION CALLED BY THE A.O. WAS NOT FURNISHED BY HIM. THE A.O. THEREFORE, ISSUED A FINA L NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH THE DETAIL S CALLED FOR AND ALSO TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSIT S OF RS.97,34,500 FOUND TO BE MADE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH HDFC BANK. THERE WAS HOWEVER NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SAI D NOTICE. THE A.O. THEREFORE, WAS LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT EX-PARTE UNDER SECTION 144 TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATIO N AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2013, HE TREATED THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSI TS OF RS.97,35,500 FOUND TO BE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED THE SAID AMOU NT TO HIS TOTAL INCOME. 3.1. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT 4 ITA.NO.1046 & 1219/HYD/2014 MR. PYLLA ANANTHAPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED WAS DISPUTED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD AGRICUL TURAL LANDS FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.56,20,000 AND T HE PROCEEDS OF SUCH SALE WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE A. O. WHILE TREATING THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT WAS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ICICI BANK AND WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE SAID ACCOUNT AS WELL AS F ROM THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH HDFC BANK AGGREGATING TO RS.82,53,000 WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. WHILE TREATING THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH HDFC BANK AS UNEXPLAINED. IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IF ALL THESE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE TWO BAN K ACCOUNTS AND THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE HDFC BANK ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THE PEAK NEGATIVE BALANCE COMES TO ONLY RS.17 LAKHS AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.93,50,000 MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CORRESPONDING WITHDRAWALS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THIS SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE HIM ALONG WI TH THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WERE FORWARDED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) TO THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION AND SUBMISS ION OF REMAND REPORT. IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO TH E LD. CIT(A), IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. INTER ALIA THAT THE WITHDRAWALS FROM ICICI BANK WERE MADE BY THE ASSESS EE 5 ITA.NO.1046 & 1219/HYD/2014 MR. PYLLA ANANTHAPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. THROUGH CHEQUES AND NOT IN CASH. WHEN THIS REMAND REPORT WAS CONFRONTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSE SSEE, THE LATER OFFERED HIS COUNTER COMMENTS BY STATING T HAT THE WITHDRAWALS IN CASH HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSE E AND SOME INDIVIDUALS RELATED TO HIM FROM ICICI BANK ACCOUNT, THE NAMES OF THE INDIVIDUALS WERE APPEARIN G IN THE BANK STATEMENT. 3.2. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE A.O . AND COUNTER COMMENTS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. C IT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.6.5 OF HIS IMPU GNED ORDER AS UNDER : 6.5. PERUSED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE REMAND REPORT, ALONG WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD, THE CASH DEPOSITS INTO HDFC ACCOUNT WAS QUANTIFIED AT RS.93,50,000/-, AS CONFIRMED BOTH BY A.O. AND THE ASSESSEE. THE SOURCES FOR THE SAME WERE EXPLAINED TO BE THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM BOTH HDFC BANK AS WELL AS ICICI BANK. IN THIS CONTEXT, AS MUCH AS RS. 82,53,000/- WAS SHOWN TO BE THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM HDFC BANK ACCOUNT ALONE, APART FROM THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM ICICI BANK, IN THE FORM OF SELF CHEQUES A WELL AS THROUGH ATM. HOWEVER, THE CASH WITHDRAWALS, UNLESS A PATTERN IS ESTABLISHED OR EXPLAINED, CANNOT BE TREATED AS SOURCES FOR THE RE- DEPOSITING OF CASH. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED THE CASH DEPOSITS OUT OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE OUT OF THE SAID TWO ACCOUNTS AND SUCH AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR RE-DEPOSITING 6 ITA.NO.1046 & 1219/HYD/2014 MR. PYLLA ANANTHAPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. WAS PUT AT RS. 34,58,000/-, WHICH ARE ILLUSTRATED AS UNDER: DATE PARTICULARS AMOUNT WITHDRAWN IN CASH RS. AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN CASH RS. REMARKS 30.04.09 HDFC BANK 10,00,000 30.04.09 HDFC BANK 9,00,000 CASH WITHDRAWN ON 30.04.09 RE- DEPOSITED. 16.05.09 HDFC BANK 3,34,000 2,29,000 PART OF THE CASH WITHDRAWN RE- DEPOSITED ON THE SAME DAY. 17.06.09 ICICI BANK 7,00,000 19.06.09 HDFC BANK 4,00,000 WITHDRAWALS MADE ON 17.06.09, PART RE - DEPOSITED. 13.07.09 HDFC BANK 4,00,000 15.07.09 HDFC BANK 1,50,000 15.07.09 HDFC BANK 2,00,000 15.07.09 ICICI BANK 3,50,000 17.07.09 HDFC BANK 10,00,000 OUT OF TOTAL ELEVEN LAKHS WITHDRAWN, THE AMOUNT IS RE- DEPOSITED ON 1 7.07.09. 03.08.09 ICICI BANK 1,74,000 08.08.09 HDFC BANK 1,50,000 CASH WITHDRAWN FROM ICICI BANK AND RE- DEPOSITED. TOTAL 34,58,000 25,29,000 HOWEVER, IT IS RELEVANT TO OBSERVE THAT AS AGAINST THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH OF RS. 34,58,000/- ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 25,29,000/- WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RE-DEPOSITED INTO HDFC ACCOUNT, EITHER ON THE SAME DAY OR WITHIN FEW DAYS OF WITHDRAWAL. ACCORDINGLY, 7 ITA.NO.1046 & 1219/HYD/2014 MR. PYLLA ANANTHAPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. THE SOURCES FOR CASH DEPOSITS WERE EXPLAINED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25,29,000/-. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED B Y THE APPELLANT APPEARS REASONABLE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25,29,000/-, WHICH ARE HELD TO BE EXPLAINED THROUGH THE IMMEDIATE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM BOTH ACCOUNTS OF HDFC BANK AND ICICI BANK. THE APPELLANT FURTHER TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE CASH CREDIT WITH THE HELP OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AS PER THE SUBMISSIONS, RS.56,20,000/- WAS THE CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT AND THE SAME WOULD BE EXPLAINING THE CASH CREDITS INTO BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE ANALYSIS OF RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION ON SALE OF LAN DS REVEAL THAT, AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,20,000/- WAS RECEIVE D BY APPELLANT'S FATHER WHICH MEANS THE NET RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT WAS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50,00,000/-. FURTHER, AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,00,000/- WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS ADVANCE IN THE EARLIER YEAR. FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED AND FOUND THAT SUCH CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED IN CHEQUES AND SUCH CHEQUES WERE NOT DEPOSITED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNTS UNDER REFERENCE, I N ABSENCE OF WHICH THE SAID SOURCES CANNOT BE TAGGED TO THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE INTO HDFC BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADDITION. HENCE, NO CREDIT WOULD BE GIVEN FOR THE CASH CREDITS, AGAINST SUCH SALE RECEIPTS. THE APPELLANT'S FURTHER CLAIM F OR EXPLAINING THE CASH CREDIT IS THE AGRICULTURAL INCO ME OF RS.6,63,000/-. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT, FOR EXPLAINING THE CASH CREDITS INTO BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, WHICH WAS FURNISHED/SHOWN IN RETURN OF INCOME, AND WAS NOT QUESTIONED BY THE A.O. IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS AGAINST RS.93,50,000/-, WHICH WAS THE TOTAL OF CASH CREDITS INTO HDFC BANK ACCOUNT, AN AMOUNT OF RS.25,29,000/- WERE HELD TO BE EXPLAINED THROUGH CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE ON SOME DAY OR A DAY OR TWO DAYS EARLIER, WITH A FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS.6,63,000/ - THROUGH AGRICULTURAL INCOME, AGGREGATING RS.31,92,000/-, THUS LEAVING A BALANCE OF 8 ITA.NO.1046 & 1219/HYD/2014 MR. PYLLA ANANTHAPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. RS.61,58,000/-, WHICH ARE LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT OFFER ANY FURTHER CREDIBLE INFORMATION TO EXPLAIN THE CASH CREDITS INTO HDFC BANK ACCOUNT, THEREBY THE CREDITS DESERVED TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS OR INVESTMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT AS AGAINS T THE ADDITION OF RS.97,35,000/-, MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AMOUNT OF RS.61,58,000/- STAND CONFIRMED, BEING THE CASH DEPOSITS INTO HDFC BANK ACCOUNT. THE ADDITION OF RS.97,35,000 MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MA DE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE THUS WAS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.61,58,000. AGGR IEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE BOTH HAVE RAISED THIS ISSUE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON REC ORD. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNT STATE MENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US, IT IS OBSERVED THAT MANY DEBITS APPEARIN G IN THE SAID ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE CLAIMED TO BE CASH WITHDRAW ALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SHOWN IN THE NARRATION/DETAILS BY THE BANK AS CHEQUES ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE RELATED TO THE AS SESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED THAT THE CORRESPONDING CHEQUES HAVING BEE N ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE CONCERNED INDIVIDUALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF WITHDRAWING THE AMOUNTS IN CASH, THEIR N AMES ARE GIVEN IN THE NARRATION/DETAILS BY THE BANK. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. D.R. THE RELEVANT DETAILS GI VEN IN 9 ITA.NO.1046 & 1219/HYD/2014 MR. PYLLA ANANTHAPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. THE RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS HOWEVER ARE NOT SUFFIC IENT TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THIS STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHEN THIS POSITION WAS CONFRONTED TO THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE, HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF C ASH WITHDRAWALS BY PRODUCING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE I N THE FORM OF BANK CERTIFICATES ETC., HE HAS URGED TH AT AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO DO SO A ND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR THIS PURPOSE. SINCE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM HIS TWO BANK ACCOUNTS IS CRUCIAL T O THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS WHICH REQUIRES VERIFICATION TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH AND THE LEARNED D.R. HAS ALSO AGREED WITH THIS POSITION, WE SET ASIDE THE IM PUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE T HE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE BANK ACCOUN TS BY PRODUCING THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE A.O. SHALL VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH EVIDENCE AND IF THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE ACCEPT ABLE, THE ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE MAY BE RESTRICTED TO THE PEAK CREDIT AS WORKED OUT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATIO N ALL THE CASH DEPOSITS AND CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE TWO BAN K ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT GROUNDS OF T HE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10 ITA.NO.1046 & 1219/HYD/2014 MR. PYLLA ANANTHAPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. 5. AS REGARDS THE REMAINING ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL RELATING TO ASS ESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS.19 ,87,224 FROM THE RENTAL INCOME, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE REL EVANT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WERE NOT SUFFICIEN T TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CORRESPONDING LOAN WAS TAKEN AND UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HO USE PROPERTY AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. D.R. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND , HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND TH E ASSESSEE THEREFORE, WAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY T O CORROBORATE HIS CLAIM THAT THE CORRESPONDING LOAN W AS UTILIZED BY HIM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE PROPE RTY. KEEPING IN VIEW THESE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND PROPER AND IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF A.O. F OR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPOR TUNITY TO ESTABLISH ON EVIDENCE THAT THE CORRESPONDING LOA N ON WHICH THE IMPUGNED INTEREST IS PAID WAS UTILIZED FO R THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE PROPERTY. GROUND N O.4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11 ITA.NO.1046 & 1219/HYD/2014 MR. PYLLA ANANTHAPAL REDDY, HYDERABAD. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.10.2015. SD/- SD/- (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 14 TH OCTOBER, 2015 VBP/- COPY TO : 1. MR. PYLLA ANANTHAPAL REDDY, 16 - 11 - 498, BHAVANI NAGAR, DILSUKHNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), BLOCK NO.2D, INCOME TAX TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, HYDERABAD 4. 3. CIT(A) - V I , HYDERABAD. 4. CIT - V I , HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE