Shyamsundar Sharma, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1459/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2709 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L R AMJI RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Question of law
• Section: 153A; 68; 132

Judgement Text

ITA NO 1459 AND 1460 OF 2016 SHYAMSUNDAR S HARMA HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1459 & 1460/HYD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 & 2007-08) SHRI SHYAM SUNDAR SHARMA HYDERABAD PAN: ACQPS 2391 J VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2 HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE : SHRI L. RAMJI RAO, DR O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. BOTH ARE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE A.YS 2005-06 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT ( A)-9, DATED 30.06.2016 CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT FOR BOTH THE A.YS. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR BOTH THE A.YS: 1) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2) THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (C) OF RS.5,67,510/-. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THERE IS NEITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3) THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF DATE OF HEARING : 02.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.08.2017 ITA NO 1459 AND 1460 OF 2016 SHYAMSUNDAR S HARMA HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 9 INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BEFORE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT. 4) ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIO N U/S 132 OF THE ACT IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S. DHATRI CON STRUCTIONS PVT LTD ON 10.10.2007 DURING THE COURSE OF WHICH, CERTA IN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELATING TO ON MONEY PAYMENT M ADE BY THE SAID COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE ON PURCHASE OF CERTAIN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THE DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE FOUND AND SEIZED REVEALED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE FOR SALE OF HIS LANDED PROPERTY T O THE SAID COMPANY AND THE M.D. OF M/S. DHATRI CONSTRUCTIONS L TD, IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, ADM ITTED TO PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. IMMEDIATELY A CONSEQUENTIAL SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS ALSO CA RRIED OUT BY EXECUTING A WARRANT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. TH EREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE APPEARED IN PERSON FROM TIME TO TIME A ND FURNISHED THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR. THE AO OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2005-06 AND I T IS SEEN THERE- FROM THAT THERE WERE RECEIPT OF HUGE AMOUNTS AS UNS ECURED LOANS IN VARIOUS NAMES. HE OBSERVED THAT IN SEVERAL CASES , THE OLD BALANCES WERE INCREASED AND IN FEW CASES FRESH LOAN S WERE ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE, ASKED TO FURN ISH THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FOR THE ALLEGED LOANS TAKEN FR OM VARIOUS PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE CONFIRM ATION LETTERS IN ITA NO 1459 AND 1460 OF 2016 SHYAMSUNDAR S HARMA HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 9 RESPECT OF SOME OF THE PARTIES AND COULD NOT PRODUC E EVEN A SINGLE CREDITOR BEFORE THE AO, INSPITE OF SPECIFIC DIRECTI ON FROM THE AO FOR SUCH PRODUCTION OF THE PARTY. THE AO EXAMINED THE C ONFIRMATION LETTERS AND ALSO THE RETURNS OF INCOME OF SOME OF T HE PARTIES AND THEIR BACKGROUND TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LOAN CREDITORS ARE NOT GENUINE. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT WHICH ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) AND ALSO BY THE ITAT. THEREAFTER, THE AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE DATED 24.12.2009. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SAME AND HE LEVIED THE MINIM UM PENALTY OF RS.5,67,510 U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, BEING 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. ON APPEAL, THE CIT (A) CONFIRM ED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS REGARDING THE LOAN CREDITOR S AND COULD NOT ESTABLISH THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME WARRANTING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SSA EMERALD REPORTED IN 73 TAX MANN.COM 248 S.C WHEREIN THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (ITA NOS .2564 & 2565 OF 2005) WAS NOT INTERFERED WITH AND THE SLP F ILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED. ITA NO 1459 AND 1460 OF 2016 SHYAMSUNDAR S HARMA HYDERABAD PAGE 4 OF 9 4. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT (A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO, AFTER EXAMINING EACH AND EVERY LOAN CREDITOR, HAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AS TO HOW THE LOANS WERE NOT GENUINE. THEREFORE, ACCOR DING TO HIM, THIS IS THE CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS AND THEREBY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. AS REGARDS THE DEFECTS IN TH E NOTICE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE WAS CORRECTLY ISSUED AS T HE CASE INVOLVES BOTH THE CONCEALMENT AS WELL AS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, BY DISMISSING THE SLP, HAS NOT LAID DOWN ANY RATIO DECIDENDI AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE A PRECEDENT ON THE ISSUE. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AND PROVE THE LOAN CREDITORS INTRODUCED DURING THE RELEVANT A.Y. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CONFIRMATIO N LETTERS IN RESPECT OF FEW OF THE CREDITORS AND THE AO HAS EXAM INED EACH AND EVERY TRANSACTION AND HAS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GENUINE. THIS FINDING OF THE A O HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT. THIS IS A CLEAR CUT CASE WHE RE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS BUT ALSO THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS. IN OUR OPINIO N, THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY FURNI SHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IS NOT TO BE INTER FERED WITH. THUS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 & 2 ARE REJECTED. 6. AS REGARDS THE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS STRUCK OF THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS AS INAPPLICABLE ITA NO 1459 AND 1460 OF 2016 SHYAMSUNDAR S HARMA HYDERABAD PAGE 5 OF 9 AND HAS RETAINED THE THIRD REASON FOR INITIATING TH E PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WHICH READS AS UNDER: HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME FURNISHED, INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE VALIDITY OF SUCH A NOTICE HAD ARISEN BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY IN (2005) (ITA NOS.2564 & 2565 OF 20 05) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD IT TO BE INVALID. THE H ON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ALSO IN THE CASE OF THE P RINCIPAL CIT, VISAKHAPATNAM VS. SMT. BAISETTY REVATHI IN ITTA NO. 684 OF 2016, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 13.07.2017 HAS CONSIDERED THE I SSUE AT LENGTH AND HAS HELD AS UNDER: A COPY OF THE PROFORMA NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271 READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE ACT OF 1961 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22.03.2013 IS PRODUCED. PERUSAL THEREOF REFLECTS THAT THE IRRELEVANT CONTENTS THEREIN, WHICH HAD NO APPLICATION TO THE ASSESSEE, WERE STRUCK OUT LEAVIN G ONLY ONE CLAUSE WHICH READS AS UNDER: WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IT WOULD BE APPOSITE AT THIS STAGE TO CONSIDER THE JUDGMENT OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN M/S.MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY1. THEREIN, A DIVISION BENCH OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT SECTION 271 OF THE ACT OF 1961 IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION PROVIDING F OR IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES AND IS A COMPLETE CODE IN ITSELF REGULATING THE PROCEDURE FOR SUCH IMPOSITION . THE BENCH THEREFORE HELD THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE TO BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH, ITA NO 1459 AND 1460 OF 2016 SHYAMSUNDAR S HARMA HYDERABAD PAGE 6 OF 9 SUBJECT ALWAYS TO THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT SECTION 271 MAKES APPROPRIATE PROVISION FOR LEVYING PENALTIES ON AN ASSESSEE IN DIFFERENT EVENTUALITIES AND ONE SUCH EVENTUALITY IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IT WAS HELD THAT FOR STARTING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BE SATISFIED THAT A PERSON HAS EITHER CONCEALE D PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THE GROUNDS ON WHICH IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS PROPOSED AS HE HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST SUCH PROCEEDINGS AND SHOULD HAVE A FULL OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE CASE OF THE REVENUE SO AS T O SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) DO NOT EXIST AND THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY THE PENALTY. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE PRACTICE OF THE REVENUE IN SENDING A PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW WHEN THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE ASSESSEE NOT REBUTTING THE INITI AL PRESUMPTION IS SERIOUS IN NATURE AND HE HAS TO PAY A PENALTY RANGING FROM 100% TO 300% OF THE TAX LIABILITY. AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) HAVE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED, THE BENCH MANDATED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED SHOULD SET OUT THE GROUNDS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY, OTHERWISE TH E PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WOULD BE OFFENDED AS THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WOULD BE VAGUE. DEALING WITH CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THE BENCH OBSERVED THAT SOME CASES MAY ATTRACT BOTH THE OFFENCES AND IN SOME, THERE MAY BE OVERLAPPING OF BOTH, BUT IN SUCH CASES INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS MUST BE SPECIFICALLY FOR BOTH THE OFFENCES. DRAWING UP PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR ONE OFFENCE AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER OR FINDING HIM GUILTY FOR EITHER, THE ONE OR THE OTHER , WAS HELD TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT- III V/S. MANU ENGINEERING WORKS, A DIVISION BENCH OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST GIVE A POSITIVE FINDING AS T O ITA NO 1459 AND 1460 OF 2016 SHYAMSUNDAR S HARMA HYDERABAD PAGE 7 OF 9 WHETHER THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE EVENT THERE WAS NO SUCH CLEAR-CUT FINDING, THE PENALTY ORDER WAS HELD LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN. SMT.KIRANMAYEE, LEARNED COUNSEL, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN K.P.MADHUSUDHANAN V/S. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN . THEREIN, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, WHILE ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) , TO EXPRESSLY INVOKE EXPLANATION 1(B) APPENDED TO THE PROVISION. IT IS HOWEVER RELEVANT T O NOTE THAT EXPLANATION 1(B) MERELY ADVERTS TO A CASE OF FAILURE OF AN ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED WHEREBY THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PENALTY PROVISION SHALL BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAD BEEN CONCEALED. THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT THE STATUTORY PROVISION INCLUDED THE EXPLANATION AND ONCE THE ASSESSEE WAS PUT ON NOTICE, NO EXPRESS INVOCATION O F THE EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY. THIS JUDGMENT HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE CASE ON HAND AS WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH PRESENTLY IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE PUT ON NOTIC E AS TO WHETHER SHE IS TO BE PENALIZED FOR CONCEALMEN T OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ACTS . CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS AN ACT OF OMISSION WHILE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IS A N ACT OF COMMISSION. THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH ACTS, BEING PENAL IN NATURE, AN ASSESSEE HAS TO BE INFORMED AS TO WHAT EXACTLY IS THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM SO THAT HE MAY RESPOND THERETO. NO DOUBT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE SEEMS T O HAVE SUBMITTED HER EXPLANATION ON MERITS WITHOUT RAISING A DOUBT AS TO WHAT WAS THE PRECISE ALLEGATI ON LEVELED AGAINST HER. HOWEVER, WE ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED AND NOT JUST THE ISOLATED CASE OF ITS APPLICATION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE PENALTY ORDER DEMONSTRATES ITA NO 1459 AND 1460 OF 2016 SHYAMSUNDAR S HARMA HYDERABAD PAGE 8 OF 9 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT EVEN CERTAIN AS TO WHAT WAS THE FINDING ON THE STRENGTH OF WHICH HE IMPOSED THE PENALTY. THIS IS CLEAR FROM THE FACT TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THAT HE WAS SATISFIE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED/FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF, THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT CANNOT BE GIVEN TO THE REVENUE MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLAIN OF VAGUENESS IN THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE EARLIER. RELIANCE PLACED BY THE REVENUE UPON MAK DATA PRIVATE LIMITED V/S. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II , IS OF NO ASSISTANCE AS THE SUPREME COURT MERELY OBSERVED THEREIN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT REQUIRED TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION IN A PARTICULAR MANNER WHILE IMPOSING THE PENALTY OR REDUCE IT TO WRITING. THAT IS NOT TH E CONTROVERSY IN THE CASE ON HAND. ON PRINCIPLE, WHEN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SOUGHT TO BE INITIATED BY THE REVENUE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF 1961, THE SPECIFIC GROUND WHICH FORMS THE FOUNDATION THEREFOR HAS TO BE SPELT OUT IN CLEAR TERMS. OTHERWISE, AN ASSESSEE WOULD NO T HAVE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FORTH HIS DEFENCE. WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENAL IN NATURE, RESULTING IN IMPOSITION OF PENALTY RANGING FROM 100% TO 300% OF THE TAX LIABILITY, THE CHARGE MUST BE UNEQUIVOCAL AND UNAMBIGUOUS. WHEN THE CHARGE IS EITHER CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF, THE REVENUE MUST SPECIFY AS TO WHICH ONE OF THE TWO IS SOUGHT TO BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE AND CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO CLUB BOTH BY INTERJECTING AN OR BETWEE N THE TWO, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE. THIS AMBIGUITY IN THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE IS FURTHER COMPOUNDED PRESENTLY BY THE CONFUSED FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GUILTY OF BOTH. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER UNDE R APPEAL DOES NOT BROOK INTERFERENCE ON ANY GROUND. WE FIND NO QUESTION OF LAW, MUCH LESS A SUBSTANTIAL ONE, ARISING FOR CONSIDERATION WARRANTING ADMISSION OF THIS APPEAL. ITA NO 1459 AND 1460 OF 2016 SHYAMSUNDAR S HARMA HYDERABAD PAGE 9 OF 9 THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 7. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE BE FORE US ARE SIMILAR, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTL Y ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH AUGUST, 2017. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 9 TH AUGUST, 2017. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 SHRI S.RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHRIYA'S E LEGANCE, 3-6- 643, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500029 2 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2 AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-9 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 6 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER