Narender Kumar Gupta, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Hyderabad

ITA 161/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 16122514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Salary income; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3); 132; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA HYDERABAD. PAN: AEZPG9653A VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.C. DEVDAS REVENUE BY : MS. K. HARITHA DATE OF HEARING : 05-11-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-11-2013 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-VII HYDERABAD, DATED 18-11-2010 FOR THE AY 2 008-09 ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.1,09,76,800/- MADE ON T HE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF OTHER PARTIES AND DISALLOWANCE OF INTE REST CLAIMED OF RS. 15,83,105/-. 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND FACT S OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADD ITION MADE OF RS. 1,09,76,800/- WHICH WAS MADE MERELY BAS ED ON STATEMENT OF OTHER PARTIES WITHOUT CORRELATING T HE FACTS WITH SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE. 2 ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW BY NOT CONSIDERI NG THE FACT THAT IN THE TOTAL LAND OF 2.10 ACRES APPELLANT IS CO- OWNER OF THE ALONG WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS, WHERE AS E NTIRE ADDITION WAS MADE IN HIS ASSESSMENT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW BY NOT CONSIDERI NG THE FACT THAT THE AO FAILED TO OBTAIN ON RECORD THE COR ROBORATIVE EVIDENCE RELATING TO RECEIPT OF CEHQUE OF RS. 60 LA KHS, WHICH WERE REFERRED IN THE AOS ORDER WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW BY NOT CONSIDERI NG THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTION DONE BY OTHER PARTY WITH THE APPELLANT WAS ONLY OF RATIFICATION OF TITLE OF LAND ACQUIRED 14 YEARS AGO AND WHICH WAS IN HIS CONTINUOUS POSSESSIO N. HENCE MAKING THE ADDITION BASING ON MARKET VALUE OF LAND IS TOTALLY ERRONEOUS IN LAW. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN NOT ACCEPTING THE EVIDENCE OF JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO FILED BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT OF RANGA REDDY DSITRICT, A JUDICIAL AUTHORIT Y. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW & FACTS BY DISRE GARDING THE GLARING INCONSISTENCIES OF FATS NARRATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO. 8. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW & FACTS IN NOT D ELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,83,105/- TOWARDS INTERES T PAYMENT INSPITE OF GIVING CLARIFICATION IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION ALONGWITH ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE NEXUS BETWEEN BORROWED FUNDS & UTILIZATION OF FUNDS. 2.2. IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, ASSESS EE FILED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS: 1. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4, HYDERABAD, IS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW AS IT HAS BEEN PASSED RELYING ON THE STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM MR. SURESH AND MR. P. PRABHAKAR REDDY, BEHIND THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 1, TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4, HYDERABAD IS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW AS IT HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE MR. SURESH AND MR. P. PRABHAKAR REDDY INSPITE OF A SPECIFIC RE QUISITION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 3 ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, THE ADDITIONAL G ROUNDS FILED BY ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ADMITTED. 4. ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR OF VNJ AGRO FOODS (P) LTD ., DERIVING SALARY INCOME, INCOME FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM, RENTAL INCOME, INTEREST FROM ADVANCES ETC. ASSESSEE FILED RETURN O F INCOME DECLARING NET TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 3,97,670/-. THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, CONSEQUENT TO S EARCH OPERATION CONDUCTED U/S 132 IN THE CASE OF P. PRABH AKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE ON 21-12-2007 AND BASED ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY, IT WAS CONSIDERED BY AO THAT ASSE SSEE PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1.20 CRORES FOR SETTLEMENT OF DISP UTE BETWEEN PARTIES AND AS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,23,200/- WAS PA ID BY WAY OF CHEQUE, REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 1,09,76,800/- WAS T REATED AS UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE AMOUN T, ASSESSEE CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 15,83, 105/- OUT OF INTEREST EARNED ON ADVANCES AND THE SAME WAS DISALL OWED BY THE AO FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE NEXUS BETWEEN INTEREST PAID AND INTEREST RECEIVED. 5. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT HE IS OWN ING ONLY 2519 SQ. YARDS, OUT OF TOTAL OF 2.10 ACRES AT SURVE Y NO. 387, ATTAPUR VILLAGE, RAJENDRA NAGAR MANDAL, R.R. DISTRI CT PURCHASED ALONG WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS ON 5 TH AUGUST, 1994 FROM HEIRS OF SHRI D. SATTAIAH AND THE SAME WAS IN HIS CONTINUOUS POSS ESSION. ASSESSEE GROUP CONCERN M/S VNJ AGRO FOODS (P) LTD., IS RUNNING FROM THIS PLACE FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS. IN 2003, ONE MR. M. SURESH (ASSOCIATE OF SHRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY) CLAIMED THAT HE IS ERSTWHILE OWNER OF THE LAND AND WHEN THE DISPUTE RE ACHED TO HONBLE HIGH COURT, FINALLY IT WAS SETTLED BY WAY O F COMPROMISE 4 ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA WHEREIN ASSESSEE AND HIS CO-OWNERS PAID AN AGGREGAT E SUM OF RS. 10.23 LAKHS TO SRI SATISH AND THROUGH A RECTIFI CATION DEED HE RELINQUISHED THE RIGHTS. THIS COMPROMISE DEED DULY EXECUTED WAS FILED BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT ON 28-02-2007 WHEREIN M R. M. SURESH ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED RS. 10.23 LAKH ON LY. 6. SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON SH RI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY WHEREIN CASH OF RS. 54 LAKHS WAS FO UND AT HIS RESIDENCE. SHRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY SEEMS TO HAVE ST ATED THAT ASSESSEE PAID RS. 60 LAKHS TOWARDS RECTIFICATION DE ED AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR ANOTHER RS. 60 LAKHS CHE QUES WERE GIVEN. THE AO DID NOT ALLOW ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAM INE THE SAID SHRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY AS WELL AS MR. M. SURESH AN D MADE THE ADDITION. IN PARA 3, THE AO MENTIONED THAT MR. M. S URESH, IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD LONG BACK TO SRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA AND HIS BROTH ERS. THE AO ALSO FURTHER REPRODUCED THE STATEMENTS OF MR. M. SU RESH AND SHRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY IN PARAS 5 & 6 OF HIS ORDER, WHI CH ARE AS FOLLOWS: 5. ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LAKHS PAID IS BY CHEQUE CAN BE ACCEPTABLE, AT THE SAME TIME DENYI NG THE PAYMENT OF 60 LAKHS IN CASH TO THE M. SURESH TOWARD S RATIFICATION DEED CAN NOT ACCEPTABLE. IT CAN BE CON CLUDED BASED ON THE BELOW FACTS: I) SRI M. SURESH DEPOSED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT 60 LAKHS HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN CASH FROM SR. NARENDER KUMAR G UPTA TOWARDS THE LAND. IN HIS REPLY FOR QUESTION NO. 15 OF THE STATEMENT R ECORDED ON 22-12- 2007, SURESH STATED THAT' I HAVE SOLD THE LAND TO SRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTHA R/O H.NO. 72, ROAD NO. 11, BANJARA HILLS, HYD FOR SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1. 20 CRORES. I HAVE RECEIVED RS. 60 LAKHS IN CASH FROM MR. NAREN DER GUPTHA. THE REMAINING AMOUNT WAS PAID BY GUPTHA IN 5 ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA CHEQUES. THESE CHEQUES ARE POST DATED CHEQUES'. SIMILARLY, IN HIS REPLY FOR QUESTION NO. 18 OF THE STATEMENT SURESH STATED THAT ' I CONFORM THAT THE ENTIRE CASH FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE OF SRI PRABHAKAR REDDY, IT IS ONLY PA RT PAYMENT RECEIVED BY ME. I STILL HAVE TO RECEIVE RS. 60 LAKHS FROM SRI. GUPTHA ON ACCOUNT OF THESE SALE TRANSACTI ON. II) SRI P.PRABHAKAR REDDY CLEARLY DEPOSED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT 60 LAKHS HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN CASH F ROM SR. NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA TOWARDS THE LAND. IN HIS REPLY FOR QUESTION NO. 4 OF THE STATEMENT RE CORDED ON 03-01-2008, P.PRABHAKAR REDDY STATED THAT 'NEGOTIAT ION WERE TAKEN UP WITH MR. NARENDER KUMAR GUPTHA AND OT HERS WHO ARE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND...IN THE RESU LT M. SURESH HAS TO RELINQUISH HIS OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OVER THE LAND IN THEIR FAVOR FOR WHICH THEY AGREED TO PAY AN AMOU NT OF RS. 1.20 CRORES. III) FURTHER, IN THE LETTER RECEIVED BY THIS OFFICE ON 21-12-09, PRABHAKAR REDDY REITERATED HIS VERSION TOWARDS THE AMOUNT OF 1.20 LAKHS THAT THE ULTIMATE DEAL WAS SETTLED AT RS. 1.20 CRORES TOWARS THE SAME LAND IN BETWEEN M. SURESH AN D NARENDER KUMAR GUPTHA. 6. THE ABOVE FACTS WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE ASSESSE E. ASSESSEE SIMPLY DENIED THE FACTS. ASSESSEE STATED T HAT HE HAS PAID ONLY RS.10,00,000/- TOWARDS THE RATIFICATI ON DEED AND SAID THAT THE MATTER WAS SETTLED AT LOK ADALATH BY PAYING THE 10 LAKS TO SURESH. ASSESSEE VERSION IS N OT ACCEPTABLE, SINCE, THE TOTAL TRANSACTION MUCH MORE THAN 10,00,0001-, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED BASED ON THE FACTS . I) REAL-ESTATE VALUES WERE VERY HIGH AT THAT PERIOD . FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND IS AT RS. 75,00,000/- PER AC AS PER DEEDS MADE DURING THAT PERIOD AND FOUND IN THE SEAR CH OPERATION. II) LAND OWNER M. SURESH WON THE CASE ON THE LAND DISPUTE. THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION TO THE ASSESSEE, EXCEPT TO COMPROMISE WITH THE SURESH BY PAYING THE DEMANDED AMOUNT BY THE SURESH. AND THE NEGOTIATION WAS SETTL ED WITH AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1.20 CRORES. III) MORE OVER, PRABHAKAR REDDY & SURESH MENTIONE D THAT FOUND AMOUNT OF RS. 54,00,000/- - BELONGS TO NAREND ER REDDY. THE SETTLEMENT WAS DONE AT LOK ADALTH IS AFTER THE DATE SEARCH. IT MEANS THAT THE MATTER SETTLED BEFORE THA T DATE SEARCH. TO GIVE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE SETTLEMENT, BOT H THE PARTIES COMPROMISED BEFORE THE LOK ADALATH. IV) THE SAID LAND IS PART OF THE AC. 4.33 GUNT AS SITUATED AT SURVY NO 387, ATTAPUR VILLAGE. OTHER PA RTIES WHO WERE PURCHASED OTHER PART OF THE SAME LAND FROM M.S URESH, LAND OWNER PAID WITH HIGHER RATE WHICH ALSO WERE MA DE AT THE SAME TIME. SRI T. SHANKAR SING PAID RS. 41,00,000/ - TOWARDS THE 20 GUNTS; K. PRABHAKAR REDDY AND PENTA REDDY PA ID RS. 34 LAKHS FOR 28 GUNTAS; LOTUS DEVELOPERS PAID 50,00,00 0 - FOR THE LAND 22 GUNTAS; ANKIT DEVELOPER PAID 5.5 LAKHS TOWA RDS 7 GUNTAS AND 25 LAKHS TOWARDS 32 GUNTS. THE ABOVE SAL E DEEDS WERE MADE ON 20.12.2007 ALONG WITH ASSESSEE'S THE RATIFICATION DEEDS. V) ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO RATIFICATION DEEDS FOR TOTAL LAND AC.2. 04 GUNTAS. AS PER MARKET VALUE THE TRANSACTIO N WOULD BE 1,50,00,000/- AS PER THE OTHER ABOVE MENTIONED DEED S THE AVERAGE CONSIDERATION PER ACER IS 67.90 LAKHS. ( TO TAL REMAING LAND AC.2.29 GUNTAS AND TOTAL CONSIDERATION 155.5LA KHS.) BASED ON THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT CAN BE CONCLUDED T HAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE LAND OWNER FOR THE LAND AC 2.04 FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1 ,20,00,0 001 - AND PAID THE SAME AND MADE RATIFICATION DEEDS. BUT ASSE SSEE STATED THAT HE HAS PAID ONLY 10 LAKHS. ASSESSEE PRO DUCED PAYMENT OF CHEQUES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 10,23,2001-. HENCE THE REAMING AMOUNT OF THE RS. 1,09,76,8001 - IS TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT FROM THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME AND IT AT TRACT PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE I.T. ACT,1961. 7. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), ASSESSEE CONTENDED TH AT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CHEQUES SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN ISS UED NOR THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MONEY WAS PAID BY S HRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SHRI M. SURESH HAS ENTERED INTO SALE AGREEMENTS WITH VARIOU S OTHER 7 ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 SHRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA PEOPLE AND THE MONEY COULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS SALE DEEDS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT RELYING ON THE ST ATEMENTS ALONE, WHICH WERE NOT CORRECT, AO COULD NOT HAVE CO ME TO A CONCLUSION TO MAKE ADDITION UNLESS ASSESSEE WAS GIV EN CROSS- EXAMINATION TO CONTEST ALLEGATIONS MADE. IT WAS ALS O FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE BEING OWNER OF THE LAND FOR SO MANY YEARS AND HAVING BEEN USING IT FOR THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE AS WELL, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED BY WAY OF COMPROMISE B Y PAYING THE AMOUNTS THROUGH CHEQUE AND SINCE ALL THESE FACTS WE RE ACCEPTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BY SHRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY A ND SHRI M. SURESH, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION THAT TOO AT A HIGH PITCHED VALUE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 7.2 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE , THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE GROUND BY STATING AS UNDER: 3.2 THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD BOUGHT THE LAND NEAR ATTAPUR VILL AGE SOME 14 YEARS AGO. NOW, AFTER LAPSE OF 14 YEARS, WH EN THE PRICES OF THE PROPERTY HAVE GONE UP, THE ALLEGED LA ND OWNER OF THE PROPERTY MR. M. SURESH HAD TRIED TO GET SOME GAINS FROM THE SAID SOLD PROPERTY. THEREFORE, MR. M. SURE SH APPROACHED LEGAL ADVISER AND ADVOCATE MR. P. PRABHA KAR REDDY AND THROUGH HIM THE APPELLANT WAS FORCED TO P AY MORE TOWARDS THE PROPERTY PURCHASED 14 YEARS BACK. THE APPELLANT CLAIMS TO HAVE PAID ONLY RS. 10,23,200/- BUT MR. P. PRABHAKAR REDDY AND MR. M. SURESH HAVE DISCLOSED THAT THE PAYMENTS IN CASH WAS RS. 60 LAKHS AND THE BALAN CE IN CHEQUES SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY POST DATED CHEQUE S. IT APPEARS THAT BOTH OF THEM HAVE VERY CLEARLY MADE A STATEMENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PAID IN TOTAL RS. 1.20 CRORE FOR PURCHASE OF AC. 2.10 GUNTAS OF LAND AT SURVEY N O. 387, ATTAPUR VILLAGE, RANGA REDDY DT. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT WHEN THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE IN THE CASE OF MR. P. PR ABHAKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE, THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOTICED THAT TH ERE WAS A CASH OF RS. 54 LAKHS AND IT WAS CLAIMED TO HA VE BEEN BELONGING MR. NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA. IF THE APPELLAN T HAD NOT PAID RS. 60 LAKHS IN CASH AS DEPOSED BY MR. M. SURESH AND MR. P. PRABHAKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE, THEN WHY MR. M. 8 ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 SHRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA SURESH HAVE SAID THAT RS. 60 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FRO M THE APPELLANT TOWARDS LAND. ACCORDING TO MR. M. SUESH A ND MR. P. PRABHAKAR REDDY, THEY HAD TO GET ANOTHER RS. 60 LAKHS BY CHEQUES. LATER, IT IS NOT KNOWN THAT WHETHER THE APPELLANT PAID THE SAME EITHER IN CHEQUE OR IN CASH . 3.3 FURTHER, IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE AR THAT TH E APPELLANT HAD PAID ONLY RSA. 10,23,200 FOR RATIFICA TION AT LOK ADALAT AND NOT THE BALANCE AMOUNTS AS ALLEGED. 3.4 IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. M . SURESH AND MR. PRABHAKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE WHEN THEY HAVE DEPOSED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THE AO CANNOT M AKE ANY ADDITION BASED ON THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE T HIRD PARTY, WITHOUT BEING CROSS EXAMINED BY THE APPELLAN T. THEREFORE, HAVING EXAMINED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE APPELLANT TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. M. SURESH AND MR. P. PRABHAKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE WITH REGARD TO THE ALLEGED PAYMENTS OF RS. 1.20 CRORES AND DECIDE THE CASE ACCORDINGLY. SUBJECT TO ABOVE DIRECTIONS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT AS HE HAS N OT DELETED THE ADDITION BUT RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE AO SUBJECT T O DIRECTIONS FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THERE IS NO PURPOSE WHEN THE ISSUE WAS NOT SET ASIDE BUT REST ORED TO THE AO WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS. ACCORDINGLY ASSESSEE IS CONTESTING THE ADDITION, SO MADE. 9. COMING TO THE CROSS-EXAMINATION, ASSESSEE NOT O NLY RELIED ON THE GROUNDS TO SUBMIT THAT IN SPITE OF REPEATED REQUESTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE PARTIES CONCERNED AND BASED ON THIS CONTENTION, LEARNED CIT(A) ACKNOWLEDGED AND GAVE DIRECTIONS TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAM INE AND THIS ACTION OF THE CIT(A) CANNOT BE SUPPORTED AS IT IS O F NO 9 ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 SHRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA CONSEQUENCE. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE COORD INATE BENCH OF ITAT, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF B. RAMAKRISHNAIAH VS. ITO [2010] 39 SOT 379 TO SUBMIT THAT REQUIREMENT OF NAT URAL JUSTICE DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE NO RMAL PRINCIPLE IS THAT ORDINARY CROSS-EXAMINATION HAS TO BE GRANTED WHEN ASKED FOR. IF THE DEPARTMENT WAS TO RELY ON AN Y EXCEPTIONS, THE BURDEN IS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH THAT E XISTENCE OF ANY EXCEPTIONS, THAT NON-PROVIDING OF CROSS-EXAMINA TION OF WITNESS CLEARLY CONSTITUTES INFRACTION OF THE RIGH T CONFERRED ON ASSESSEE AND THAT VITIATED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSM ENT MADE AGAINST ASSESSEE. 10. ON MERITS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSEE HAS PURCHASED ONLY 2519 SQ.YARDS AND THE AO OBSERVE D THAT ASSESSEE PURCHASED 2.4 ACRES OF LAND FOR A CONSIDER ATION OF RS. 1.20 CRORES, WHICH IS A FACTUAL ERROR COMMITTED BY THE AO. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SHRI M. SURESH IS NOT THE OW NER OF THE LAND AS STATED BY THE AO IN PARA 3 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS ALSO ANOTHER FACTUAL ERROR COMMITTED. IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE LAND WAY BACK IN 1994 AND SHRI M. SUR ESH AND SHRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY TRIED TO DISPOSE OF THE LAN D BY MAKING FALSE ALLEGATIONS DUE TO WHICH, THE PROCEEDINGS HAV E REACHED UP TO HONBLE HIGH COURT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO POI NTED OUT THAT OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO THAT ASSESSEES LAND CASE WE NT AGAINST BEFORE THE JOINT COLLECTOR, RR DT. IS NOT CORRECT A ND REFERRED TO THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS WHERE THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES ASKED THE PARTIES TO SETTLE THE MATTER AS CIVIL DISPUTE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRED THE FACTS BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT TO SUBMIT THAT ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHERS PAID ONLY AN AMOUNT OF R S. 10 ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 SHRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA 10,23,200/- AND HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY LAND AS ALLEG ED BY THE AO. WITH REFERENCE TO AVAILABILITY OF CASH WITH SHR I P. PRABHAKAR REDDY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT MONEY COULD BE OF OTHE R SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY SHRI M. SURESH AND SHRI P. PRABHAKAR RE DDY BEING LEGAL COUNSEL AND FURNISHED COPIES OF THE DEED DOCU MENTS IN WHICH BOTH CONSIDERATION OF CASH AND CHEQUES WERE R ECEIVED BY SHRI M. SURESH AS UNDER: CONSIDERATION PAGE NO. 1. SALE DEED (2650 SQ.YARDS) OR 22 GUNTAS 50 LAKH S 1 TO 11 (CASH) 2. SALE DEED (20 GUNTAS) 41 LAKHS 11 TO 23 (CASH) 3. AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA (GUNTA) 5.5 LAKHS 24 TO 32 (CHEQUE) 4. AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA (32 GUNTAS) 25 LAKHS 33 TO 41 (CHEQUE) THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO VARIOUS SALE AGREEM ENTS ENTERED INTO BY SRI SURESH BEFORE SEARCH AND RECITALS THERE IN, TO SUBMIT THAT THIS CASH RECEIVED COULD BE OF THOSE SALE TRAN SACTIONS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY AND SHRI M. SURESH CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS T HEY HAVE CHANGED THEIR STAND BEFORE THE REVENUE AND FURTHER THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ASSESSEE WAS TO PAY SO MUCH AMOUNT AS ALLEGED BY THE REVENUE. 11. THE LEARNED DR, IN REPLY, SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION, WHICH W AS DONE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSE E DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. WITH REFERENCE TO ADDITIO NS SO MADE, THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND C IT(A). 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE, EXAMINED THE FACT S AND VARIOUS DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE FORM OF THREE PAPER BOOKS. FIRST 11 ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 SHRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA OF ALL, WE ARE UNABLE TO JUSTIFY THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING ADDITION ON CERTAIN FALSE STATEMENTS AND MIS-CONSID ERATION OF FACTS. MR. M. SURESH MAY HAVE INDIRECT RIGHT IN THE LAND BEING ONE OF THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ORIGINAL OWNERS BUT T HIS PROPERTY HAS ALREADY SOLD WAY BACK IN 1994 TO ASSESSEE AND HIS B ROTHERS AND ASSESSEES SHARE IS BEING 2519 SQ.YARDS. EVEN IF IT WERE TO BE CONSIDERED THAT ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE LAND, THE SH ARE OF ASSESSEE IS ONLY 2591 SQ.YARDS AND NOT THE ENTIRE L AND OF 2.04 ACRES AS CONSIDERED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, ESTIMATIN G THE LAND VALUE AT RS. 1.20 CRORES ITSELF IS NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE OR FACTS. SECONDLY, THE AO WAS IN POSSESSION OF VARIOU S SALE DEEDS ENTERED BY SHRI M. SURESH BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH AND AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL, ABOUT 121.5 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED OUT OF WHICH 91 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AS PER THE DOCUMENTS. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SAID MONIES IN THE HANDS OF SHRI M. SURESH OR IN THE HANDS OF SHRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY, WERE NEVER BROUGHT ON RECORD NOR CONFRONTED TO ASSESSEE. THE POSSIBILITY OF THOSE MONIES BEING ATTRIBUTED TO ASS EESSEE WAS NOT RULED OUT BY ANY ENQUIRY BY AO OR INVESTIGATION UNIT. 13. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF ALLEGED PAYMENT OF RS. 5 4 LAKHS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE BASIS WAS ON LY A STATEMENT FROM SHRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING EVIDENCE. AS SEEN FROM THE SEQUENCE O F EVENTS AND AS PER THE RECITALS OF RECTIFICATION DEED ENTER ED ON 20 TH DECEMBER, 2007 (ALSO BEFORE SEARCH) PLACED ON RECOR D AT PAGE 10 OF PAPER BOOK. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE FACTS AS ST ATED THEREIN: I) ASSESSEE BEING PARTY OF SECOND PART HAD PURCHASE D THE LAND TO AN EXTENT OF 2519 SQ.YARDS IN SURVEY NO. 3 87 12 ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 SHRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA THROUGH A REGISTERED SALE DEED BEARING NO. 6975/94 , DATED 05-08-1994. II) ON THE BASIS OF OWNERSHIP RIGHTS AND TITLE IN P OSSESSION OF ASSESSEE, HE HAS APPLIED FOR MUTATION AS CONTE MPLATED UNDER R.O.R. ACT, 1971 AND MRO RAJENDRA NAGAR MANDA L CONDUCTED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR MUTATION EFFECTING TH E CHANGES IN RECORD OF RIGHTS. III) THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BECAME NON-AGRICULTURAL A S ASSESSEE RAISED STRUCTURES BEARING PREMISES NO. 04- 06- 1973/2 AND ASSESSED TO PROPERTY TAX ON THE BUILDING AND LANDED PROPERTY WAS MUTATED IN THE MUNICIPAL RECORD S ESTABLISHING THAT ASSESSEE IS ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. IV) ONE SHRI SRINIVASA RAO, WHO IS ORIGINAL PATTEDA R OF 4.33 ACRES IN SURVEY NO. 387 OF ATTAPUR VILLAGE DIED AND LEFT BEHIND HIS ONLY LEGAL HEIR SHANTA BAI, WHO SOLD THE SAID LAND TO D. SATTAIAH BY UNREGISTERED SALE DEED ON 16 -12- 1979. V) SRI D. SATTAIAH WAS IN POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE LAND AND HE ALSO DIED AND LEFT BEHIND HIS LEGAL HEI RS D. SRI HARI, D. NAGENDAR, D. PRAMEELA, D. RAMEELA AND SMT. D. MANEMMA, WHO GOT THE UNREGISTERED SALE DEED REGULAR ISED THROUGH MRO VIDE PROCEEDING NO. ROR/3908/90, ON 24- 03- 1999 AFTER DUE ENQUIRY AND NOTICES TO ALL CONCERNED PARTIES AS PER THE RECORD OF THE MRO. AS PER THE ENQUIRY/PANCHANAMA DT. 12-03-90, WHILE PASSING REGULARIZATION ORDERS THE DECEASED SHANTHA BAI WAS THE OWNER AND ONLY LEGAL HEIR OF SRINIVASA RAO. VI) WHEREAS SRI M. SURESH, PERSON OF FIRST PART H AD FILED APPEAL IN THE YEAR 2003 IN CASE NO. C/3836/2003 U/S . 5-B 13 ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 SHRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA OF ROR ACT AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE MRO IN PROCEED INGS ROR/3908/90, DT. 20-03-1999, THE RDO ON 05-07-2006 PASSED ORDERS SETTING ASIDE THE MRO ORDER. ASSESSE E AND OTHER PURCHASERS FILED REVISION PETITION WHICH WAS ADMITTED AND STAY WAS GRANTED ON 18-08-2006 AND THAT ASSESSE E ALONG WITH OTHER PURCHASERS AND FAMILY MEMBERS OF T HE ORIGINAL LEGAL HEIRS WERE CONTENDED BEFORE THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES AND ALSO BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND BEFORE THE CITY CIVIL COURT IN VARIOUS PROCEEDINGS THAT THE FIRST PERSON OF THE FIRST PART (I.E. M. SURESH) HAS NO CLAIM AT ALL AND ALL THE SCHEDULED PROPERTY AND THEN THE COM PROMISE DEED ALLOWS ASSESSEE TO HAVE TITLE OVER THE PROPERT Y, WHICH ASSESSEE IS STILL HAVING IN HIS POSSESSION. 14. AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE RECTIFICATION DEED, I T IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF THE LAND AND RECTIF ICATION DEED ONLY ALLOWS HIM COMPLETE RIGHTS, AS SHRI M. SURESH QUESTIONED THE OWNERSHIP ON THE LAND. AS SEEN FROM THE PROCEED INGS BEFORE LOK ADALAT ALSO, THERE WAS COMPROMISE BETWEEN ASSES SEE, WHO PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10,23,200/- THROUGH DDS DATED 19-12- 2007 AND OTHER PARTIES. EVEN THOUGH, THE AO REJECTE D THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT ON THE REASON THA T THESE HAVE HAPPENED AFTER THE SEARCH, THE FACT THAT DDS WERE TAKEN IN THE NAME OF SRI M. SURESH DATED 19-12-2007 AND COMPROM ISE WAS EFFECTED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH CANNOT BE REJECT ED. 15. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT SALE DEEDS ENTERED BY SHRI M. SURESH AS SIGNING PARTY BEFORE THE SEARCH AND THOSE RECITA LS ALSO MENTION VARIOUS PROCEEDINGS AND SETTLEMENT THEREIN. IN VIEW OF 14 ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 SHRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA THIS, THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REFERENCE TO ASSESSE E HAVING PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,23,200/-. 16. AS STATED EARLIER, WHAT ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY WAS ONLY FOR GETTING THE FULL RIGHTS OVER THE PROPERTY, WHICH W AS ALREADY PURCHASED EARLIER, IS IN HIS POSSESSION, AND ON WHI CH THERE WERE STRUCTURES AND ASSESSEE WAS PAYING MUNICIPAL TAXES AS WELL. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPROACH OF THE AO AS WELL AS CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE PURCHASED LAND THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS A ND PAID MARKET CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.20 CRORES IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION. 17. COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT NO CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE TO QUESTION S/SHRI P.PRABHAKAR REDDY AND M. SURESH AND ALSO KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE SAID TW O PERSONS SOLD THE BALANCE OF LAND TO VARIOUS PEOPLE AND RECE IVED CONSIDERATION IN CASH, IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 54 LAKHS FOUND WITH SHRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS PAID BY ASSESSEE ALONE. MOREOVER, THE SO-CALLED POST DATED CHEQUES SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY P ARTIES WERE NEVER BROUGHT ON RECORD DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDIN GS OR SUBSEQUENTLY. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PAID SUBSEQUENTLY THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 60 LAKHS, AS STATED BY SHRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY ALSO IS UNBELIEVABLE/ UNVER IFIABLE. 18. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AS STATED ABOVE, WE ARE O F THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE PAID ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10 ,23,200/- ALONG WITH OTHERS IN ORDER TO SETTLE THE PROCEEDING S AND GET A CLEAR TITLE OF LAND OF RS. 2.04 ACRES, OUT OF WHICH ASSESSEES SHARE OF PROPERTY IS 2519 SQ.YARDS. CONSIDERING THE PROCEEDINGS 15 ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 SHRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT, WHICH IS ALSO ANOTHER JUDICI AL BODY, THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FROM SHRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SUCH AVERMENT S ARE CONTRARY TO THE AVERMENTS MADE IN AFFIDAVITS FILED BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT. FOR THESE REASONS THE VERACITY OF STATEMENT CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED AS SUCH. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY EV IDENCE AND CONSIDERING THAT ASSESSEE IS ALREADY IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND AND AS THERE IS NO NEED TO PAY ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WAS PAID FOR THE COMPROMISE/RECTIFICATION DEED, THE SO-CALLED ADDITION MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AT ALL AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DELETED. 19. AS ALREADY STATED EARLIER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) I N FACT ALLOWED THE GROUND WITHOUT DELETING THE ADDITION BY DIRECTI NG THE AO TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION. WE ARE NOT SURE THAT PURPO SE WOULD BE SERVED BY THE SAID DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS FOR THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITI ON. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ALLOW ASSESSEES CONTENTI ONS AND DELETE THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED. 20. THE NEXT ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION AS CONTESTED I N GROUND NO. 8 IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,83,105/- TOWARDS INTEREST PAYMENT. AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER, T HE AO WITHOUT ISSUING ANY SHOW CAUSE LETTER, ASKED ASSESS EES COUNSEL ON THE LAST DATE FOR ESTABLISHING NEXUS BETWEEN INT EREST CLAIM AND INTEREST RECEIVED. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NEXUS BETWEEN INTEREST BEARING B ORROWINGS AND THE INCOME YIELDING ASSETS CAN BE VERIFIED FRO M COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS 16 ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 SHRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA AND FURTHER OFFERED TO SUBMIT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED BY THE AO. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS ADE QUATE TIME AVAILABLE TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT UPTO 31-12-201 0, BUT, THE AO WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY COMPLETED ASSESSM ENT ON 31- 12-2009. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED TH E ACTION OF THE AO BY HOLDING THAT DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT CLARIFICATION FROM THE AR W ITH REGARD TO THE INTEREST EXPENSES DISALLOWED BY THE AO AND IT I S NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE BORROWED FUNDS ARE UTILIZED FOR BUSINES S PURPOSE. 21. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS AND HAS BORROWED AMOUNTS AND ADVANC ED TO VARIOUS FIRMS AND OTHERS AND ACCORDINGLY HAVE BEEN CLAIMING INTEREST BY OFFERING INTEREST INCOME. THE LEARNED C OUNSEL REFERRED TO STATEMENTS PLACED BEFORE THE AO AT PAGES 30 & 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND DETAILED EXPLANATION GIVEN TO SUBMIT THAT THERE IS NEXUS BETWEEN BORROWED FUNDS AND ADVANCES AND INTE REST PAID THEREON AND INTEREST EARNED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN AY 2009-10 ON THE BASIS OF SAME SET OF FACTS, THE AO HAS ACCEP TED THE CLAIMS IN THE ORDER U/S 143(3) AND THERE WAS NO DIS ALLOWANCE OF THIS AMOUNT. THE CLAIM IN THAT YEAR WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 17,24,281/-. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE TH E ISSUE IS SIMILAR IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ADDITI ON SHOULD BE DELETED. 22. THE LEARNED DR, HOWEVER SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AO. 23. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND EXAMINED THE F ACTS PLACED ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REFERENC E TO THE FACT THAT THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO ASSES SEE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM. ALL THE DETAILS WERE PLACED BEFORE THE A O, WHICH WERE 17 ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 SHRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA NOT EXAMINED BY THE AO. BEFORE THE CIT(A) ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FURTHER EVIDENCE WILL BE FILED IF REQUIRED. T HESE HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER PLACED ON RECORD IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REFERENCE TO THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND CLAIM AGAINST INTEREST RECE IVED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE AGREE WITH ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE AMOUNT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED. HOWEVER, A O HAS NOT EXAMINED THE STATEMENTS FILED BY ASSESSEE, MAY BE, FOR WANT OF TIME AND MAY BE HE MIGHT HAVE PRE-DETERMINED TO DIS ALLOW THE AMOUNT. BE THAT AS IT MAY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION TH AT THIS ASPECT IS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO AND IF HE FOUND THERE I S NEXUS BETWEEN PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS AND RECEIPT OF INTEREST ON ADVANCES, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW T HE INTEREST CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF INTEREST IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DO TH E NEEDFUL. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 24. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (B. RAMAKO TAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. KV 18 ITA NO. 161/HYD/2011 SHRI NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA COPY TO:- 1) SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR GUPTA, C/O SRI MADHU SUDAN MANTRI, MADHU MANTRI & ASSOCIATES, 3-5-873, C-103, MATRUSHREE APARTMENTS, HYDERGUDA, HYD. 500 029. 2)ACIT, CC - 4, HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A)-VII, HYDERABAD. 4) CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A .T., HYDERABAD.