Srinivas Sashidhar Chaganty, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-2(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1420/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6401 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: D V ANJANEYULU
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Source of fund
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1420/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 SRINIVAS SASHIDHAR CHAGANTY, HYDERABAD. PAN ABBPC4713E VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. D.V. ANJANEYULU FOR REVENUE : MR. M. SITARAM DATE OF HEARING : 22 .0 3 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 .06.2016 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD AND IT PERTAINS TO THE A.Y. 2007-2008. 2. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE FILED STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ELABORATE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE-8 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RU LES AND THEREFORE, HE FILED REVISED SET OF GROUNDS ON 16.03.2016 WHICH WERE TAKEN ON RECORD. BRIEFLY, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE CHALLENGED BEFO RE US CONTENDING INTER ALIA, THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAV E NOT 2 ITA.NO.1420/HYD/2015 MR. SRINIVAS SASHIDHAR CHAGANTY, HYDERABAD. PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING OF AFFLUENTS (INDUSTRI AL WASTE CHEMICALS). FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HE ADMITTED INCOME OF RS.1,25,741 WHICH WERE ORIGINALL Y PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT BUT LATER ON, IT WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND NOTICE UND ER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON THE ASSESSE E AND THEREUPON, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE A.O. COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.15,17,105. WE ARE CONCERNED HEREIN WITH THE UNEXPLAINED CREDITS UNDER SECTION 68 AND UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT OF RS.1,74,644. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL CASH DEPOSI TS IN THE VIJAYA BANK ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOS ITS AS WELL AS THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAN D IN KOTHAPALLI. WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPOSITS IN VIJAYA BANK ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE PERS ON LOANS FROM CITY BANK, GE COUNTRYWIDE AND SOME OTHER LOANS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES WHICH WERE DEPOSIT ED IN THE BANK. ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND B ANK STATEMENT OF BANK OF BARODA INTO WHICH THE LOANS FR OM CITY BANK AND GE COUNTRYWIDE ARE CREDITED. HOWEVER, THE 3 ITA.NO.1420/HYD/2015 MR. SRINIVAS SASHIDHAR CHAGANTY, HYDERABAD. A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF AGRICULTU RAL LAND FOR A SUM OF RS.11.18 LAKHS. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT T HERE ARE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.4,37,000 AND RS.3,50,000 IN VIJAYA BANK ON 10.05.2006 AND 14.06.2006 RESPECTIVE LY. THE SOURCE FOR THE DEPOSIT OF RS.4.37 LAKHS WERE ST ATED TO BE OUT OF WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK OF BARODA OF RS.1,82,000 (ON 09.05.2006) AND RS.2,55,000 FROM HA ND LOANS FROM 12 PERSONS. THE WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK OF BARODA COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED PROPERLY SINCE THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION REGARDING BALANCE CASH DEPOSITS IN T HE BANK ON VARIOUS DATES. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE A.O. CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ENTIRE LOAN AMOUNT FROM GE COUNTRYWIDE AND CITY BANK ARE WITHDRAWN BY WAY OF S ELF- CHEQUES WHICH INDICATES THAT THEY HAVE BEEN UTILISE D FOR SOME PURPOSE OR INVESTMENT AND HENCE, CLAIM OF AVAILABILITY OF THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM BANK OF B ARODA FOR DEPOSIT IN VIJAYA BANK, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE, IS NOT TENABLE. EVEN WITH REGARD TO CASH LOANS FROM 14 PARTIES, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT NONE OF THEM MAINTAI NED ANY RECORD ON TRANSACTIONS AND HENCE, THE CLAIM OF CASH LOANS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES WAS REJECTED. ACCO RDINGLY, HE TREATED THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.4,37,000 AND RS.3,50,000 AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. EVEN OUT OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OUT OF RS.11,71 ,400, THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT GIVEN PROPER EXPLANATION TH E ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.3,84,400 WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLA INED CREDIT. 4 ITA.NO.1420/HYD/2015 MR. SRINIVAS SASHIDHAR CHAGANTY, HYDERABAD. 4.1. SIMILARLY, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED LAND ALONG WITH HIS WIFE AT KOTHAPALLI AN D HIS SHARE OF INVESTMENT WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.11.18 LAK HS. HERE ALSO THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE TAKEN LOANS FROM SEVERAL BANKS BUT ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS IT IS SEEN THAT LOAN OF RS.5.18 LAKHS FROM ICICI BANK IS TAKEN IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2007 AND HENCE, IT WAS NOT TAKEN AS THE SOURCE FOR PURCHASE OF THE LAND IN THE MONTH OF MAY , 2006. SIMILARLY, THE CITY BANK LOAN, REFLECTED IN T HE BALANCE SHEET WAS UTILISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSIN ESS AND HENCE, CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A SOURCE FOR INVESTME NT. HE ACCORDINGLY ADDED A SUM OF RS.1,74,644 REFERRABL E TO DEFICIT OF SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF LAND (RS.11,18,000 (-) RS.7,87,000 + RS.1,56,356). 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL CASH DEPOSITS ON VARI OUS DATES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH VIJAYA BA NK AND A SUM OF RS.4,37,000 DEPOSITED ON 10 TH MAY, 2006 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH VIJAYA BANK, ORIGINATED FROM CASH WITHDRAWALS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,82,000 FROM THE BANK OF BARODA ACCOUNT ON 6 TH MAY, 2006 AND HAND LOAN FROM 12 PERSONS AGGREGATING TO RS.2,55,000. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT CONFIRMATIO N LETTERS FROM THE CREDITORS WERE FILED BEFORE THE A. O. AS WELL WHICH WERE NOT PROPERLY LOOKED INTO BY THE A.O. 5.1. WITH RESPECT TO CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.3,50, 000 IT WAS CONTENDED THAT A SUM OF RS.1,75,000 WAS WITHDRA WN 5 ITA.NO.1420/HYD/2015 MR. SRINIVAS SASHIDHAR CHAGANTY, HYDERABAD. FROM THE BANK OF BARODA ACCOUNT IN JUNE, 2006 AND ANOTHER SUM OF RS.1,22,000 WAS WITHDRAWN ON 14 TH JUNE 2006. THESE AMOUNTS CAME TO THE BANK OF BARODA ACCOUNT OUT OF CITI BANK LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.3,07, 443 WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN 2 ND JUNE, 2006. REMAINING AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED AS CASH LOAN FROM TWO PERSONS AND OUT OF PERSONAL SAVINGS. 5.2. WITH RESPECT TO OTHER CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS.3,84,400, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E WAS THAT THEY ARE OUT OF SALES MADE ON VARIOUS DATES AN D THESE DEPOSITS WERE UTILISED FOR REPAYMENT OF BANK LOANS, MONTHLY CREDIT CARD BILLS ETC., IN RESPECT OF SEPAR ATE ADDITION OF RS.1,74,644, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SEPA RATE ADDITION IS NOT WARRANTED SINCE IT WAS PART OF THE INVESTMENT OF RS.11,21,000 EXAMINED BY THE A.O. 5.3. LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF CASH TRANSACTION, THERE IS NO AUDIT TRAIL TO LINK A PART ICULAR WITHDRAWAL WITH A PARTICULAR INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PROXIMITY OF THE DATES, HE ASSUMED THAT RS.8,26,000 WITHDRAWN ON 15 TH MAY, 2006 MIGHT HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF LAND AS THE LAND REGIS TRATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE SAME DAY. 5.4. REGARDING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.4,37,000 ON 10 TH MAY, 2006, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS, A SUM OF RS.1,82,000 WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK OF BARODA WAS DEPOSITED. HERE ALSO CONSIDERING THE PROXIMITY OF T HE DATES OF DEPOSITS, THE LD. CIT(A) ASSUMED THAT CASH 6 ITA.NO.1420/HYD/2015 MR. SRINIVAS SASHIDHAR CHAGANTY, HYDERABAD. WITHDRAWN FROM BANK OF BARODA MIGHT HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH VIJAY A BANK. THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.2,55,000 WHICH WAS TAKEN AS HAND LOAN FROM 12 PERSONS WAS HELD TO BE N OT SUPPORTED BY PROPER EVIDENCE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FURNISHED PAN ETC., HE ALSO OBSERVED IN THIS REGARD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY CASH BOOK FOR C ROSS- VERIFICATION OF THESE INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTIONS. 5.5. WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.3,50,000, THE LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED THE SOURCE OF RS.2,97,000 W HICH IS WITHDRAWN FROM BANK OF BARODA ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.53,000, CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS HAND LOAN FROM 2 PERSONS AND ALSO OUT O F PERSONAL SAVINGS WAS REJECTED. WITH REGARD TO BALAN CE AMOUNT OF RS.3,84,400, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED AS U NDER : 4.5. BESIDES ABOVE CASH DEPOSITS THERE ARE SEVERA L CASH DEPOSITS ON VARIOUS DATES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THESE DEPOSITS AR E OUT OF CASH SALES. IN THIS RESPECT ALSO I DO NOT FIND A NY CREDIBLE EVIDENCES PRODUCED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER. A PECULIAR FEATURE OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS ARE THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DEPOSITS, THERE ARE TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF EQUIVALENT AMOUNT AND THESE WERE UTILISED FOR M ONTHLY CREDIT CARD BILLS OR REPAYMENT OF BANK LOANS. APPAR ENT MUST BE CONSIDERED REAL UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT THER E ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT THE REA L AND THAT THE TAXING AUTHORITIES ARE ENTITLED TO LOOK IN TO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY A ND THE MATTER HAS TO BE CONSIDERED BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES. IT APPEARS THAT WHENEVER THERE IS REQUIREMENT OF FUND IN BANKING CHANNEL THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITS UNACCOUNTED CASH IN THE ACCOUNT TO CARRY O UT THE BANK TRANSACTIONS. THUS, I AGREE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.3,84,400/- IS NOT EXPLAINED. 7 ITA.NO.1420/HYD/2015 MR. SRINIVAS SASHIDHAR CHAGANTY, HYDERABAD. 5.6. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN LAND, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPIN ION THAT CASH WITHDRAWALS OF RS.7.66 LAKHS AND RS.60,000 FRO M THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH VIJAYA BANK CAN BE LINKED WITH INVESTMENTS MADE IN CASH TOWARDS PURCHA SE OF LAND AND FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE A.O. ACCOUNTED F OR THE LOAN TAKEN FROM DCB AMOUNTING TO RS.1,56,356 THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.1,35,644 WAS HELD TO BE NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 6. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE, FILED PAPER BOOK AND A BRIEF CHART TO SUBMIT THAT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE HAS TO P ROVE THE SOURCE OF FUNDS AND IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR WHICH WAS ALSO PROVED IN THIS CASE AND HENCE, ADDITION SUSTAI NED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AS RE GARDS HAND LOANS TAKEN FROM 14 PARTIES, THE CASE OF THE L D. A.R. IS THAT CONFIRMATION LETTERS WERE FILED ALONG WITH THE DETAILS. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE S OURCE OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS AND PERSONAL LOANS TAKEN WHEREAS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO SUCH EFFORT WAS MADE BY THE A. O. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO CASH SALES TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,84,400, HE ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 6 T O 8 TO SUBMIT THAT THE DATE OF WITHDRAWALS AND DATE OF DEP OSITS HAVING BEEN EXPLAINED, THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN 8 ITA.NO.1420/HYD/2015 MR. SRINIVAS SASHIDHAR CHAGANTY, HYDERABAD. SURMISING THAT THE MONEY WITHDRAWN IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR FRESH INVESTMENT. IN THIS REGARD, HE ADVERTED OUR A TTENTION TO PAGES 4 TO 9 AND PAGES 33 ONWARDS. SIMILARLY, WI TH REGARD TO THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,35,644, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADVER TED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 27 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS WELL AS PAGE 32 TO SUBMIT THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDITI ON, BEING DIFFERENCE IN INVESTMENT OF RS.11.18 LAKHS AN D CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.7,87,000, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE A.O. TO C ROSS- VERIFY THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FURNISHED BY THE PA RTIES EVIDENCING DEPOSITS MADE WITH THE ASSESSEE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED A SUM OF RS.11.18 LAKHS FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IN PROOF OF THE SOURCE IT WAS MENTIONED THAT HE HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES BUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME COULD NOT BE FURNISHED. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DATES OF DEPOSIT AFTE R THE DATE OF PURCHASE WERE RIGHTLY NOT TAKEN INTO CONSID ERATION BY THE CIT(A). IN THIS CASE, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED TH AT EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT G IVEN ANY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE BALANCE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,84,400 AND FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED CASH LOANS DURING T HE PERIOD APRIL TO JUNE, 2006 WHEREAS THE REGISTRATION OF THE LAND WAS CARRIED OUT ON 15 TH MAY, 2006 AND TO THE EXTENT 9 ITA.NO.1420/HYD/2015 MR. SRINIVAS SASHIDHAR CHAGANTY, HYDERABAD. OF PROXIMITY OF DATES OF WITHDRAWAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAVING ALREADY GRANTED RELIEF, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE O UT A CASE AS TO HOW THE LOANS TAKEN MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OR THE DEPOSITS AFTER THE DATE OF REGI STRATION ARE CONNECTED TO THE PURCHASE OF LAND. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. MOST OF THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK OF BARODA AND OTHER BANKS WERE HELD TO BE AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT IN THE LAN D AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DEPOSITS MADE IN VIJAYA BANK WERE ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WITH REGARD TO HAND LOA NS TAKEN FROM 14 PERSONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN GI VEN PAN ETC., AND IN THE ABSENCE OF MAINTENANCE OF BOOK S OF ACCOUNT IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO CROSS- VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS. EVEN BEFORE US , NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PR OVE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE LOAN AMOUNTS FROM 14 PARTIES. W E ARE THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUST IFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT REFERABLE TO THE ALLEGED LOANS TAKEN FROM 14 PARTIE S. HOWEVER, PERSONAL SAVINGS TO THE TUNE OF RS.13,000, HAVING REGARD TO THE VALUE OF TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISPUTED BY TH E LD. CIT(A). SIMILARLY, SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.3,84,400 IS ALSO NOT WARRANTED SINCE IT IS A RUNNING ACCOUNT HAVING CASH DEPOSITS. NO DOUBT THERE ARE SOME INSTANCES WHICH P ROVE THAT SOME OF THE AMOUNTS WERE UTILISED FOR MONTHLY CREDIT CARD BILLS OR REPAYMENT OF LOANS BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY 10 ITA.NO.1420/HYD/2015 MR. SRINIVAS SASHIDHAR CHAGANTY, HYDERABAD. PROOF THAT ASSESSEE UTILISED THE ENTIRE INCOME EARN ED FROM THE BUSINESS ONLY FOR PAYMENT TOWARDS CREDIT CARDS BILLS ETC., IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR MAKING SEPARATE ADDI TION OF RS.3,84,400. AS REGARDS THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE LAND, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,35,644 FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNIS H ANY EVIDENCE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.1,35,644 SUSTAINED BY THE L D. CIT(A) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN SHORT, THE CAS H LOANS TAKEN FROM 14 PERSONS WERE RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE A.O . AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THUS, CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING A FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.1,35,644. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TREATED A S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.06.2016. SD/- SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD DATED 21 ST JUNE, 2016 VBP/- COPY TO 1. MR. SRINIVAS SASHIDHAR CHAGANTY, HYDERABAD. C/O. M/S. ANJANEYULU & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 30, BHAGYALAKSHMI NAGAR, GANDHI NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A) - 5 , HYDERABAD. 4. PR. CIT - 5 , HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE