ITO, Bangalore V. Smt. latha Mariyappa Reddy, Bangalore

ITA 1501/BANG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 150121114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SUNDARARAJAN
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH C BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1501 /BANG/20 1 2 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(3), BANGALORE. VS. SMT. LATHA MARIYAPPA REDDY, NO.663, 5 TH CROSS, 1 ST MAIN, VINAYAK NAGAR, HAL POST, BANGALORE-17. APPELLANT RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI A. SUNDARARAJAN. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BALRAM R. RAO. DATE OF HEARING: 26.09.2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.11.2013. O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, A.M. : THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) LTU, BANGALORE DT.19.6.2012 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2.0 THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE AS UNDER : 2.1 THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL DECLARING INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON 21.8.2006 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2,95,594. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UN DER SECTION 143(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') AND TH E CASE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN UP FOR 2 ITA NO.1501/BANG/2012 SCRUTINY. FROM THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT FIX ING HEARINGS ON 8.8.2007, 29.1.2008 AND 28.5.2008 TO WHICH THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE A SSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT DT.19.8.2008 WAS IS SUED FIXING THE HEARING ON 23.9.2008, CALLING FOR PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHE R DOCUMENTS TO WHICH ALSO THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY LETTER DT.3.12.2009 ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE LETTER TO THE ASSESSEE PROPOSING TO MAKE CERT AIN ADDITIONS TO THE ASSESSEE'S RETURNED INCOME AND COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT EX-PART E UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT; TO WHICH ALSO THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN COMPLETED THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT EX-PARTE UNDER SE CTION 144 OF THE ACT BY ORDER DT.19.12.2008 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES INCOME WAS ASS ESSED AT RS.66,83,975 AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.2,95,594 IN VIEW OF THE FOLLO WING ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES MADE : I) LIABILITIES TOWARDS ANJU GEETHA BAI, HAND LOANS AND BORROWED LOANS : RS.41,90,000. II) CAPITAL INTRODUCED : RS.2,00,000. III) EXCESS CLAIM OF INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL : RS.5,39,736. IV) REPAYMENT OF HOUSING LOAN UNEXPLAINED : RS.6,96,714. V) DISALLOWANCE OF 30% OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN P& L ACCOUNT : RS.8,61,935. 2.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07 DT.19.12.2008, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(APPEALS), LTU, BANGALORE. THE CIT(APPEALS) DISPOSED OFF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEA L BY ORDER DT.19.6.2012 ALLOWING THE 3 ITA NO.1501/BANG/2012 ASSESSEE PARTIAL RELIEF BY DELETING THE AFORESAID A DDITIONS AT S.NOS.(I) TO (V) OF PARA 2.1 WHILE UPHOLDING THE A.OS ACTION IN PASSING THE ORD ER OF EX-PARTE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), LTU, BANGALORE DT.19.6.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL B EFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS OP POSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,50 ,000 ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTS A HAND LOAN TAKEN FROM SRI NAGARA J REDDY. THE ENTIRE BORROWALS AND REPAYMENTS HAVE BEEN DONE IN CASH AMO UNTS LESS THAN R.S20,000 AND ALSO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS NEVER PRODUCE D DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE REMAND PROCEED INGS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00 ,000 WITH REGARD TO CAPITAL INTRODUCTION ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE FINANCES WERE AVAILA BLE TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE EARLIER YEARS SAVINGS WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE FOR HAVING SAVED ANY FUNDS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,39 ,736 AND RS.6,96,714 WITH REGARD TO REPAYMENT OF PRINCIPLE AND INTEREST ON HO USING LOAN ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF THE A SSESSEE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,61 ,935 WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODU CED ANY EVIDENCE AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT OR DURING THE REMAND PR OCEEDINGS. 6. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGE D AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE 4 ITA NO.1501/BANG/2012 ABOVE GROUNDS MAY BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER MAYBE RESTORED. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AM END AND / OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE. 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED AT S.NOS.2 TO 6 : ON PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS, THE COMMON THREAD OF REVENUES ARGUMENTS APPEAR TO BE THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS AND DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEAR NED CIT (APPEALS), WHICH WERE NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE WHO WAS HEARD AT LENGTH IN THE MATTER, HAS ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS RAISED WHICH ARE AS UNDER : I. GROUND NO.2 : ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000 THE AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED AS HAND LOAN RECEIPT FROM SHRI NAGARAJA REDDY. BUT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS PRODUCED BEFORE HE R. II. GROUND NO.3 : ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000 REPRESENTING CAPITAL IN TRODUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THIS AMOUNT, SINCE NO D ETAILS WERE FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCES. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (A PPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS FURNISHED DURING T HE APPEAL HEARING. III. GROUND NO.4 : ADDITION OF RS.5,39,736 AND RS.6,96,714 REPRESE NTING REPAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAME FOR WANT OF SOURCE. HOWEVER TH E LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF CASH FLOW STAT EMENT SUBMITTED BEFORE HER. IV. GROUND NO.5 : ADDITION OF RS.8,61,935 WITH REGARD TO DISALLOW ANCE OF 30% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.28,73,117 IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY DETAILS. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DETAILED THE ABOVE ADDITION O N THE BASIS OF DETAILS FURNISHED AT THE TIME OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. 5 ITA NO.1501/BANG/2012 2. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS AS STATED ABOVE HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN FA CT THE CASE WAS COMPLETED EX-PARTE UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE IT ACT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), IN HER ORDER IN P ARA 5.1 / PAGE 8, UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPLETING THE A SSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144. HOWEVER WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONS MADE TH E CIT (APPEALS) HAD OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE AN Y SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) IN THE REMAND REPORT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS REGARD IT IS SU BMITTED THAT IT IS A FACT THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FURNISH REMAND REPORT ON THE FRESH DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS ). IN OBEDIENCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT (APPEALS), THE ASSESSING OFFI CER CALLED FOR DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DT.20.4.2012. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT ON 25.4.2012. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) HAD ALSO OBSERVED IN THE ORDER IN PAGE NO.8 / PAGE 5 THAT THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO (I) THE SOURCES FOR CAPITAL INTRODUCTION OF RS.2,00,000 (II) THE PAN OF THE LOAN CREDITOR SHRI NAGARAJA RE DDY, (III) CLARIFICATION RELATING TO ADVANCE OF RS.14,40,000 RECEIVED FROM S MT. ANJU GEETHA BAI, (IV) PARTICULARS OF LOAN SANCTIONED FROM SYNDICATE BANK, COULD BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON 3.6.2012, BY WHICH TIME THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAD ALREADY SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT DT.24.5.2012. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GO INTO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIMS MADE BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). THERE FORE, IT IS RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THE MATTER AS IN GROUND NO.2 AND 3 STAT ED ABOVE, MAY BE PLEASE BE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE COPY O F THE REMAND REPORT DT.24.5.2012 IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH FOR KIND PERUSAL . 4. WITH REGARD TO THE GROUND NO.4 ON THE ADDITION, ON ACCOUNT OF REPAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, THE LEARNED CI T (APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF CASH FLOW STATEME NT FURNISHED BEFORE HER. THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS D ISCUSSED IN PARA 5.2.2 / PAGE NO.10 OF THE CIT (APPEALS) ORDER. IN THIS REGARD I T IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD, INTER ALIA, CLAIMED LOAN FROM SYNDICA TE BANK RS.25,00,000 AND ADVANCE RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF FLAT RS.14,40,000 AS ONE OF THE SOURCES AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION OF FUNDS, INCLUDING THE R EPAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL ON HOUSING LOAN RS.5,39,736 AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST RS .6,96,714. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS AVAILABLE FR OM THE RECORDS, THE ASSESSEE HAD REPAID THE AMOUNTS AS ABOVE, MUCH PRIOR TO THE SANCTION OF LOAN FROM 6 ITA NO.1501/BANG/2012 SYNDICATE BANK WHICH WAS SANCTIONED ONLY ON20.12.20 05 AND THE RECEIPT OF ADVANCE OFRS.14,40,000 (TOWARDS SALE OF FLAT) WHICH WAS RECEIVED ONLY ON 7.3.2006. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN HER ORDERS IN PARA 5.2 AT PAGE 9 HAS DISCUSSED THIS ASPECT AND REFERENCE MAY PLEASE BE M ADE TO THE EVIDENCE MARKED (A) AND (C) IN PARA 5.2 / PAGE 9. THE COPIE S OF THE LETTERS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPORT OF REPAYMENT OF LO AN ARE SUBMITTED HEREWITH. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CASH FLOW ST ATEMENT FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS), AND RELIED ON BY THE CIT (APPEAL S), IS NOT REFLECTING THE CORRECT POSITION AND SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D ALSO NOT VERIFIED CASH FLOW STATEMENT. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THIS MATTER MAY ALSO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 5. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF 30% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.8,61,935, RAISED IN GROUND NO.5, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT (COPY ENCLOSED) HAD STATED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS AND VOUCHERS HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE HIM EVEN AT THE REMAND STAGE. IT IS PERTINENT TO REFER TO PARA 5.2.3 OF THE CIT (APPEAL S) ORDER, WHEREIN THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED THAT VIDE LETTER DT.3.6.2012 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE APPELLANT HAD EXPRESSED HER WILLINGNESS TO PRODUCE BILLS / VOUCHERS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIMS. WHEN THIS IS THE FACTU AL POSITION, THE CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER AGAIN TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND CALLED FOR A FRESH REMAND REPORT. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CI T (APPEALS) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION, OBSERVING THAT ASSESSING OFFICER H AD NO JUSTIFICATION TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS NOT STATED ANYTHING AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN HER ORD ERS. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS ISSUE ALSO REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR WHIC H PURPOSE IT IS RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TO SUM UP, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLEADED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS EVIDENCING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER C OULD NOT EXAMINE THE DETAILS / DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR D E-NOVO CONSIDERATION AS PER GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 7 ITA NO.1501/BANG/2012 5.2 WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE IN THE MATTER. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WHILE SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), LTU, BANGALORE ADMITTED THAT THE DETAILS / DOCUMENTS FIL ED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) COULD NOT BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REMAND PRO CEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE EXPRESSED THAT THERE WAS NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUES RAISED ON MERITS IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE-NOVO CONSIDERATION AND ADJ UDICATION THEREIN AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND TO FILE DETAILS REQUIRED. 5.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE AND LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AT LENGTH AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DT.19.12.2008 WAS PASSED EX-PARTE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE MANY NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT AS DOCUMENTED THEREIN. ON A PERU SAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS D IRECTED TO FURNISH A REMAND REPORT ON THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNE D CIT (APPEALS). IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR DETAILS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIMS MADE BY HER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO IN THE TIME SPECIFI ED. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS, ALSO NOTED IN HER ORDER THAT WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT 8 ITA NO.1501/BANG/2012 DT.24.5.2012, THE DETAILS CALLED FOR WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON 3.6.2012. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONCUR WITH THE BASIC ARGUMENT RAISED BY REVENUE THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, ON T HE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS, DETAILS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 3.6. 2012 WELL AFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT DT.24.5.2012. THIS CLE ARLY ESTABLISHES REVENUES GRIEVANCE THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING TH E ADDITIONS / DELETIONS MADE IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT BASED ON DETAILS AND DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES WHICH WERE NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE OR MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER IN ASSESSMENT OR REMAND PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS FACTUAL MATRIX, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE, THE ISSUES RAISED I N THIS APPEAL ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS IN GROUNDS AT S.NOS.2 TO 5 THEREOF, OUGHT TO BE SET ASIDE / RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE-NOVO CONSIDERATION OF THE AFORESAID ISSUES AND FOR ADJUDICATION THEREON AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE A DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH NOV., 2013. SD/- SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) (JASON P BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER *REDDY GP