Kushal Kumar Kankaria, Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 134/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2642 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALIK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Related party transaction; Gift; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 153A; 147; 148; 56; 132; 139

Judgement Text

ITA NO 134 OF 2016 KUSHAL KUMAR KANKARIA HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.134/HYD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) SHRI KUSHAL KUMAR KANKARIA HYDERABAD PAN:ACEPJ 2001 J VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1) HYDERABAD FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI Y. RATNAKAR FOR REVENUE : MS. SUMAN MALIK, DR O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL . 1. THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND PROVISIONS OF LAW. 2. THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WHEN ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF WHICH ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT, ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE. 3. THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.62,23,OOO/- UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAIN'. DATE OF HEARING : 13.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.04.2017 ITA NO 134 OF 2016 KUSHAL KUMAR KANKARIA HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 10 4. THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED, AS PER THE SUB REGISTRAR AND THE VALUE FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED TO HIS WIFE, IS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT AS A GIFT TO HIS WIFE. THEREFORE, THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5OC DO NOT APPLY. THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS INCORRECT IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5OC TO THE TRANSACTION WHEN THE AMOUNT OF RS.62,23,OOO/IS A GIFT BY THE APPELLANT TO HIS WIFE. 5. THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT IT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE APPELLANT TO GIFT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED TO HIS WIFE. 6. THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5OC SHALL APPLY ON THE GROUND 'ANYONE TRANSFERRING A PROPERTY FOR A VALUE BELOW SRO VALUE COULD CLAIM TO HAVE GIFTED THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT. 7. THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE GIFT BY THE APPELLANT TO HIS WIFE IS IN THE NATURE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME AND IT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO DIVERSION BY OVERRIDING TITLE. 8. THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT THE GIFTING IS POSSIBLE EVEN BECAUSE OF THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 56 WITH EFFECT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BE SET ASIDE OR MODIFIED AS MAY BE DEEMED FIT. ITA NO 134 OF 2016 KUSHAL KUMAR KANKARIA HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 10 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DERIVED INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND OTH ER SOURCES. HE FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 6.11.2007 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.11,15,450. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZ URE OPERATION IN M/S. P. MANOHARLAL JEWELLERS GROUP ON 11.09.2007 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RELATED TO THE GROUP. THE REFORE, A NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 23.06.2008 IN RES PONSE TO WHICH THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ADMITTING INCO ME OF RS.11,15,440. THE RETURN WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO. S UBSEQUENTLY, DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY FOR THE A.Y 2008-09, T HE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGRE EMENT OF SALE- CUM-GPA WITH SMT. CHAYA KANKARIA FOR THE SALE OF PR OPERTY FOR A TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.44,73,000 WHEREAS TH E SRO VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS.1,06,96,000. THE AO THEREFORE, BELIEVED THAT AS PER SECTION 50C, THERE WAS AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCO ME TO THE TUNE OF RS.62,23,000. THEREFORE, THE AO ISSUED A NO TICE U/S 148, DATED 3.5.2013. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF T HE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 4.4.2006 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY ADM EASURING 420 SQ. YARDS SITUATED AT SHAIKPET VILLAGE, ROAD NO.36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD IN FAVOUR OF HIS WIFE AND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS RECEIVED ONLY A SUM OF RS.44,73,000. IT WAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS ENTERED INTO WITH HIS WIFE TO REGUL ATE THE FAMILY FINANCES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED A SINGLE RUPEE IN EXCESS OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE S ALE DEED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE EXCESS OF THE MARKET VAL UE OVER THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION AGREED TO BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A GIFT FROM THE ASSESSEE TO HIS WIFE AND TO DISPEL ANY DOUBT, A FORMAL MOU HAD ALSO BEEN ENTERED ON 4.1.20 06 BY WHICH ITA NO 134 OF 2016 KUSHAL KUMAR KANKARIA HYDERABAD PAGE 4 OF 10 IT WAS AGREED THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MARKE T VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR AND THE AGREED PRIC E, THE SAME WOULD BE TREATED AS GIFT FROM THE ASSESSEE TO HIS W IFE. THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BEFORE TH E AO. AO HOWEVER, DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTI ONS AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY TO HIS WIFE FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS LESS THAN THE SRO VALUE AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ARE CLEARLY APPLICABL E. THEREFORE, HE TREATED THE BALANCE SUM OF RS.62,23,000 AS THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT (A) CHALLENGING BOTH THE VALIDITY OF THE RE-ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. AS REGARDS VALIDITY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT, THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS B EING DONE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS AND THAT THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FINDING THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS NEC ESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT OF HIS INCOME. THE CIT (A) HOWEVER, REJE CTED THE ASSESSEES GROUND HOLDING THAT NO REGULAR ASSESSMEN T HAS BEEN MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE AND EVEN DURING THE ASSESSM ENT U/S 153A, THERE WAS NO SEIZED MATERIAL AND THEREFORE, THE ASS ESSEES RETURNED INCOME WAS ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A AND THEREFORE, IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PERMISSIBLE TO MAKE ANY ADDITION WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE INCRIMINATING SEIZED M ATERIAL. SHE FURTHER HELD THAT THE FACT OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEE N THE SALE CONSIDERATION ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THE SRO VALUE HAS CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO ONLY DURING THE ITA NO 134 OF 2016 KUSHAL KUMAR KANKARIA HYDERABAD PAGE 5 OF 10 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y 2008-09 WHEREIN I N THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, TH E SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER THE AGREEMENT OF SALE WAS FURN ISHED AND THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE VALUE OF THE LAND AS PE R THE SRO RATE. THUS, THE CIT (A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS A DEFINITE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS FOR THE COMPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME. SHE THEREFORE, UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. AS REGARDS THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION ARE CONCER NED, THE CIT (A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CAPITAL GAI NS ARE TO BE COMPUTED WITH RESPECT TO THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONS IDERATION WHICH ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION IN RELATION TO THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS TO BE ADOPTED AND THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN RELATED OR UNRELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS. SH E FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN TH E VALUE BEING GIFT OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIS WIFE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS I T COULD ONLY BE IN THE NATURE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME AND NOT DIVE RSION OF THE SAME BY OVERRIDING TITLE. SHE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECON D APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT VALID: (I) THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED U/S 153A AND THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUE D AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT A.Y A ND THEREFORE, ITA NO 134 OF 2016 KUSHAL KUMAR KANKARIA HYDERABAD PAGE 6 OF 10 THE AO IS REQUIRED TO RECORD THE REASONS FOR REOPEN ING OF THE ASSESSMENT ALONG WITH THE FINDING THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY AL L MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR COMPUTATION OF ASSESSEES INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REASON FOR REOPENING DOES NOT DISCLOSE ANY SUCH FINDING. (II) THE AO IS ALSO REQUIRED TO RECORD SUCH A FINDI NG IN THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND AS THERE IS NO SUCH R ECORDING IN THE NOTICE, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS VOID ABI NITIO. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT C ANNOT BE DONE ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION AND ADDITIONAL REASO NS CANNOT BE LOOKED INTO TO JUSTIFY REOPENING. IN SUPPORT OF THI S CONTENTION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON VA RIOUS CASE LAW AND ALSO FILED COPIES IN THE FORM OF A PAPER BOOK. 7. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND DURING THE ASS ESSMENT U/S 153A ALSO, THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY WAS ACCEPTED AND THERE WAS NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. 8. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE RELEVANT A.Y IS 2007-08 AND THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 PROVIDES THAT WHERE AN ASSES SMENT U/S 143(3) HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT A.Y, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN U/S 147 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT A.Y, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HA S ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH A.Y BY REASONS OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN U/S 139 OR ANY RESPON SE TO A NOTICE ITA NO 134 OF 2016 KUSHAL KUMAR KANKARIA HYDERABAD PAGE 7 OF 10 ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECT ION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSA RY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF HIS INCOME, FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE RELEVANT A.Y ENDED ON 31.03.2009. THE PERIOD OF 4 YEARS THEREFROM WOULD COME TO AN END ON 31.3.2013. THE NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 3.5.2013. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS ISSUED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 4 YEARS. THE CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153 A IS NOT A REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 COULD APPLY ONLY WHERE THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) IS MADE. WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THIS FINDING OF THE CIT (A ). THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A IS MADE CONSEQUENT TO A SEARCH AND THE PROVISO TO SUB SECTION-1 THERETO PROVIDES THAT THE AO SHALL ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH A. Y FALLING WITHIN SUCH SIX A.YS AND THE SECOND PROVISO THEREOF PROVIDE S THAT THE ASSESSMENT OR RE-ASSESSMENT IF ANY, RELATING TO ANY A.Y FALLING WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX A.Y REFERRED TO IN SUB SECT ION 1 IS PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH U/S 132 OR MAKING THE REQUISITION U/S 132A, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SUCH ASSE SSMENT SHALL ABATE. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 6.11.2007 WHEREAS THE SEARCH HAD TAKEN PLA CE ON 11.09.2007. THEREFORE, THE SEARCH HAD TAKEN PLACE P RIOR TO THE ASSESSEES FILING OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 6.11.2007 AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 153A OF THE ACT IS A REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND THE AO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY AND COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF T HE ACT AND THE AO IS THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO RECORD REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND FURTHER RECORD THE FINDING THAT THERE IS AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE ASSE SSEE TO ITA NO 134 OF 2016 KUSHAL KUMAR KANKARIA HYDERABAD PAGE 8 OF 10 DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS FOR COM PUTATION OF ASSESSEES INCOME IS ALSO THE CONDITION PRECEDENT T O BE FULFILLED. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ARE REC ORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PARA 3 WHICH READ AS UNDER: DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y 2008-09, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE-CUM-GPA WITH SMT. CHAYA KANKARIA FOR SALE OF PROPERTY FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.44,73,000. HOWEVER, AS SEEN FROM THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT, THE MARKET VALUE AS PER SRO IS RS.1,06,96,000. IN VIEW OF SECTION 50C OF THE IT ACT, THERE IS AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.62,23,000/-. 9. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED A NY SUCH FINDING. IN THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE H ON'BLE COURTS THAT THE RECORDING OF THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE T O DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR COMPUTAT ION OF ASSESSEES INCOME IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INI TIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT: A) DULICHAND SINHANIA VS. ACIT 299 ITR 192 (P&H) B) HARYANA ACRYLIC MFT. CO. VS. CIT & ANR. 308 ITR 38 (DEL.) C) JSRS UDYOG LTD & ANR. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 313 IT R 321 (DEL.) D) SITA DIAMONDS P LTD VS. DCIT & OTHERS. 345 ITR 91 ( BOM.) E) DYNACRAFT AIR CONTROLS VS. SMT. SNEHA JOSHI & OTHER S, 355 ITR 102 (BOM.) F) GULF OIL CORPN. LTD. ACIT B BENCH INCOME TAX APPELL ATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ITA NO.999/HYD/2013 10. WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS TRIED TO JUSTIFY T HE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY GIVING HER OWN REASO NS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON TH E FOLLOWING ITA NO 134 OF 2016 KUSHAL KUMAR KANKARIA HYDERABAD PAGE 9 OF 10 JUDGMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS THAT THE RE ASONS FOR REOPENING CANNOT BE SUBSEQUENTLY BE IMPROVED: I) GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. B.S.SINGH, DCIT & OTHERS, 377 ITR 1 (BOM.) II) CIT VS. LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD 359 ITR 106 (DEL.) III) N.D. BHATT, INSPECTING ACIT & OTHERS. 715 ITR 714 IV) EQUITABLE INVESTMENT CO. (P) LTD VS. ITO 715 ITR 714 V) MOHINDER SINGH GILL & ANR. VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER & OTHERS. AIR 1978 (DEL.) 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS AND ALSO THE FAC T AS RECORDED BY US, THE INITIATION OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148, WITHOUT RECORDING A FIN DING THAT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE A SSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS, IS VOI D AB INITIO. IN VIEW OF THESE FINDINGS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT BEING HELD TO BE VOID AB INITIO, WE SEE NO REASON TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. THE ASSESSEES GROU ND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED AND THE OTHER GROUNDS A RE NOT ADJUDICATED AT THIS STAGE. 12. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH APRIL, 2017. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 7 TH APRIL, 2017. VINODAN/SPS ITA NO 134 OF 2016 KUSHAL KUMAR KANKARIA HYDERABAD PAGE 10 OF 10 COPY TO: 1 SHRI KUSHAL KUMAR KANKARIA C/O. VENUGOPAL & CHENO Y, CAS, 4- 1-889/16/2 TILAK ROAD, HYDERABAD 500001 2 DCIT CIRCLE 14(1) HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-6 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 6 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER