ITO., Ward-2(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. Sri Kunduru Ramana Reddy, Hyderabad

ITA 1655/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6521 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: C P RAMASWAMY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Deemed dividend; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1655/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), HYDERABAD. VS. KUNDURU RAMANA REDDY, HYDERABAD. PAN AHVPK 8799 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI M. SITARAM ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.P. RAMASWAMY DATE OF HEARING 26-04-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31-05-2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) - I II, HYDERABAD FOR AY 2009-10. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ABS INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT L TD. HE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-1 0 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 5,61,130/-. THE RETURN WAS FIRSTLY PR OCESSED U/S 143(1) AND THE LATER THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY BY ISSUE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 23.8.2010. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLET ED U/S 143(3) ON 27.12.2011 ACCEPTING THE INCOME RETURNED. THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) THAT THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR. HE HAS AL SO MENTIONED THAT 2 ITA NO. 1655/H/14 KUNDURU RAMANA REDDY AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FURNISHE D AND THE INFORMATION PLACED ON FILE, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED. LATER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 14 8 ON 30.7.2012 AS HE HAD 'REASON TO BELIEVE' THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE T O TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 9.8.2 012 STATING THAT THE RETURN ALREADY FILED MAY BE TREATED AS THE RETU RN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148. DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS FILED HIS OBJECTIONS ON 23.12.20 13. THE REASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 10.01.2014 DETERMININ G THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,11,78,004/-. IN THE REASSESSMENT, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED A SUM OF RS.1,06,16,874/- AS DEEM ED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2.2 THE REASON FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WAS BE CAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN FROM TIME TO TIME AN AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.2,93,83,424/- FROM ABS INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT LTD DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 IN WHICH HE HAD 60% VOTING R IGHTS AND THE AO PROPOSED TO BRING TO CHARGE AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,06,1 6,874/- BEING THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE VARIOUS OBJECTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE T IME OF ASSESSMENT WERE NOT ACCEDED TO AND THE AO PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON 10.01.2014 BRINGING TO CHARGE AN AMOUNT OF R S.1,06,16,874 AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE CONSEQUENTIAL INTEREST U/S 234 B HAD ALSO BEEN LEVI ED. 3. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APP EAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAR ED AND ARGUED AGAINST NOT ONLY THE ILLEGALITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, 3 ITA NO. 1655/H/14 KUNDURU RAMANA REDDY BUT ALSO AGAINST TREATING THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BY T HE ASSESSEE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E). 4.1 FIRSTLY, WITH REGARD TO REOPENING OF ASSESSMEN T, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT DISCUSSED IN DETAIL ABOUT THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSES SMENT WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED U/S 143(3), EXCEPT STATING THA T AS DEEMED DIVIDEND HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED. FROM COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET TAKEN AT THE TIME OF APPELL ATE HEARING, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PROPOSED AN ADD ITION OF DEEMED DIVIDEND AND THE SAME WAS OBJECTED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTION WAS NOT ADMIT TED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4.2 THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPLETED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 1 43(3) AFTER VERIFICATION OF ALL THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE AS SESSEE. THE AR DREW ATTENTION TO THE LETTER FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, WHICH WAS IN RES PONSE TO THE SUBMISSIONS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS IN WHICH HE HAD SUBMITTED THE LEDGER EXTRACT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ABS INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT LTD, THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE ETC., THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THA T THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE COMPANY WAS PART OF RECORDS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) HAS BEEN COMPLETED AFTER VERI FICATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER INFORMATION ON FILE. THERE WAS NO TANGIBLE FRESH MATERIAL TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 BY ISSUE OF NOTI CE U/S 148 IS BAD IN LAW AND THEREBY VOID ABINITIO. FOR THIS PROPOSITION , HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD., [2010] 320 ITR 561 AND HO NBLE DELHI HIGH 4 ITA NO. 1655/H/14 KUNDURU RAMANA REDDY COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD ., [2012] 348 ITR 485. 4.3 THE LD. AR RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE A .P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TECUMSEH PRODUCTS INDIA PVT. LTD VS. AC IT 361 ITR 429 (AP) AND ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORIENT CRAFT LTD., [2013] 354 ITR 536 SUBMI TTED THAT THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASES APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED ALL THE DETAILS CALLED FOR AND THEREBY DISCHARGED THE ONUS BY MAKING FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS. SINCE THERE WAS O NLY CHANGE OF OPINION, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF REASSES SMENT IS ABINITIO BAD AND HAS TO BE ANNULLED. 5. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE CONCLUDING THE ORIGINAL ORDER HAD, OBTAINED THE PARTICULARS LIKE B ALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE BALANCE SHEET, ASSESSEE HAD DRAW N SALARY AS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHER RELEVANT DETAILS. THE A SSESSEE FURNISHED ACCOUNT COPY OF THE ASSESSEES LEDGER IN THE COMPAN Y IN WHICH HE IS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVI DED PRIMARY FACTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE WAS NOTHI NG AT THIS STAGE WHICH PREVENTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM CAUSING ANY ENQUIRIES AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AS TO ASK FURTHER P ERTINENT QUESTIONS, IF ANY, WITH RESPECT TO THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE. HENCE, IT IS NOT COMPREHENSIBLE HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD IGNORE SUCH INFORMATION IF AT ALL HE WANTED TO INVOKE THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 2(22)( E) AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THAT THERE WAS NO CONSCIOUS CONSIDERAT ION OF THE POINTED FACTS AT THE TIME OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMEN T IS NOT LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A ) RELYING ON THE 5 ITA NO. 1655/H/14 KUNDURU RAMANA REDDY JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD. VS. ITO (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC ) AND ALSO RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TAMIL NADU TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPOR ATION [2007] 212 CTR (MAD) 53, HELD AS FOLLOWS: 16 I, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AD NO FRESH TANGIBLE MATERIAL AUTHORISING HIM TO MAKE A REASSES SMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT TAKE RECOURSE TO REVIEW HI S ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF REOPENING OF AN ASSESSMENT. THE REOP ENING OF ASSESSMENT BASED OF CHANGE OF OPINION IS ERRONEOUS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTI ON 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE SRI KUN DURU RAMANA REDDY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS ANNULLED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE ISSUE, BY ADMI TTING FRESH GROUND AS TO THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S,14 8, WHICH WAS NEVER SUBJECT MATTER IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, W ITHOUT REFERRING THE ISSUE UNDER RULE .46A. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS NO FRESH TANGIBLE EVIDENCE TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S.148 CONTRARY TO THE FA CTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED ALL THE PRIMARY FACTS WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS SINCE THE INFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAV ING MORE THAN 10% SHARE HOLDING IN M/S. ABS INFRASTRUCTURE ( INDIA) PVT. LTD, AND THE COMPANY WAS HAVING ACCUMULATED PROFITS OF RS.1,06,16,874/- WERE NOT PROVIDED DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT THE SAME WAS REVEALED TO THE A.O B Y THE DCIT- 1(1), HYDERABAD ON 23-04-2012,ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. 7. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, FILED WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS WHEREIN IT WAS STATED AS FOLLOWS: A) THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT HAS NEVER BEEN CHAL LENGED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS BEING A FRESH GROUND NOT CO NSIDERED BY THE 6 ITA NO. 1655/H/14 KUNDURU RAMANA REDDY AO, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE GIVEN AN OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. B) IT IS NOT A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF BRINGING TO TAX THE DEE MED DIVIDEND, IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS HE WAS NOT INFORMED ABOUT THE BENEFICIAL SHARE HOLDING IN THE COMPANY M/S ABS INFRASTRUCTURES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. C) FROM THE PLAIN READING OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER CONTENDED THAT THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS HAVE BEEN UTILISED FOR PURCHASING CAPITAL/F IXED ASSETS AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO ACCUMULATED PROFITS WITH THE COMPANY. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ITAT, AND WAS NOT URGED BEFORE THE AO. D) AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR THERE WAS CREDIT BA LANCE OF RS. 1,70,23,226 IN THE LEDGER A/C OF THE ASSESSEE, WHER EAS IT BECAME DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.2,93,83,424/- AS ON 31-03-2009 . E) THE ORDER SHEET NOTINGS (PAGE NOS.1 0 TO 15 OF P APER BOOK) CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(2 2)(E) WAS NEVER CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS. F) THE ENTIRE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T FILED ANY LETTER DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH IN DICATES THE SHARE HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE IN EXCESS OF 10% IN THE COM PANY. HE HAS FILED ONLY LEDGER ACCOUNTS SHOWING THE SHARE APPLIC ATION MONEY. G) THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(22)(E.) WAS NEVER EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID T HAT THE AO HAD FORMED AN OPINION AT THE FIRST INSTANCE IN THE ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT 7 ITA NO. 1655/H/14 KUNDURU RAMANA REDDY PROCEEDINGS, AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THERE IS CHANGE OF OPINION. H) AS PER EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 147, 'PRODUCTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ACCOUNT BOOKS OR OTHER EVIDENC E FROM WHICH MATERIAL EVIDENCE COULD WITH DUE DILIGENCE HAVE BEE N DISCOVERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL NOT NECESSARILY AMOUNT T O DISCLOSURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE (LAST)PROVISO' TO SECTION 147. I T NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME INDICATION THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS DISCLOSED THE FACT THAT HE HAS A SHARE HOLDING MORE THAN 10% IN THE COMPANY AND HE IS NOT HIT BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) . I) FURTHER IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WAS WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. J. THE FACT OF THE BENEFICIAL SHARE HOLDING CAME TO THE NOTICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ONLY AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMUNICAT ION FROM THE ADDL. CIT. K. FURTHER, THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS MAKE IT AMPLY C LEAR THAT THE REOPENING IS CORRECT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY. A) RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS, 291 ITR 500 (SC) B) YUVARAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA, [2009] 315 ITR 84 ( BOM.) C) KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. JCIT & ANR., [ 2009] 308 ITR 434. D) CIT & ANR. VS. RINKU CHAKRABORTHY [2011] 242 CT R (KAR.) 425 E) CIT VS. BEST WOOD INDUSTRIES & SAW MILLS [2011] 331 ITR 63 F) SUMITRA GUPTA, NEW DELHI VS. DEPARTMENT OF INC OME-TAX, ITA NO. 3482/DEL/2010. G) EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. VS . ADDL. CIT, 350 ITR 651 (BOM.) 8 ITA NO. 1655/H/14 KUNDURU RAMANA REDDY L. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JU STIFIED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR BESIDES RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE PROVIDED COLLATERAL SECURITY TO THE COMPANY AND IN EXCHANGE COMPANY ALLOWED THE DRAWAL OF FUNDS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INCOME TAX DUE S PARTLY AND THE AMOUNT WAS USED IN HIS BUSINESS BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE LOAN WAS REPAID BY 31/03/2010. 11. CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF T HE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. ON CAREFUL VERIFICATION OF THE NOTING SHEET AND BALANCE SHEET SUBMITTED, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO TRACE OF ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE OF SHARE HOLDING PATTERN OR WE FIND ANY I NFORMATION WHICH PROMPTS THE CLEAR DISCLOSURE ON THE BALANCE SHEET, ABOUT THE SHAREHOLDING OF THE COMPANY. ALSO, IN THE SCHEDULE WHICH GIVES THE DETAILS OF ADVANCES, IT IS ONLY MENTIONED AS K. RA MANA REDDY. THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD MADE ANY ENQUIRY ON THIS POINT. THE BALANCE SHEET AND RELATE D SCHEDULE DO NOT DISCLOSE THE DETAILS OF SHAREHOLDING PATTERN NOR IN DICATE THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON NAMED K. RAMANA REDDY. THE RECORD SHOW S THAT THE INFORMATIONS WERE SUBMITTED WITHOUT PROPER DISCLOSU RES. WE AGREE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TO FORM OPINION BEFO RE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. BUT IN THIS CASE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT FORMED ANY OPINION ON THE ISSUE OF DEEMED DIVIDEND NEITHER DID HE INTEND TO FORM ANY OPINION. THIS CASE IS SIMILAR TO THE CASE, WHER E THE AUDIT COMMITTEE BRINGS FACTS TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER APPLICATION OF MIND, R ECORDS HIS SATISFACTION, HERE ALSO, DCIT-I(1), HYDERABAD, HAD PASSED THE INFORMATION IN THIS CASE AND THEREAFTER. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE ABOVE INFORMATION AND RECORDED HIS S ATISFACTION. IN OUR 9 ITA NO. 1655/H/14 KUNDURU RAMANA REDDY CONSIDERED VIEW, THIS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CHANGE OF OPINION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RIGHT IN INITIATING THE REASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON RECEIPT OF INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE DURING ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 12. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE REMIT THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON THE MERITS. ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MAY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHM AN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 31 ST MAY, 2016 KV COPY TO:- 1) D. PRABHAKARA RAO, ITO, WARD 2(1), HYDERABAD, 8 TH FLOOR, B-BLOCK, ROOM NO. 827, IT TOWERS, AC GUARD, HYD ERABA 500 004 2) SRI KUNDURU RAMANA REDDY, 8-2-22/68/V16, 19, F.N O. 301, MAHALAKSHMI NIVAS, ROAD NO. 2, SAGAR SOCIETY, B ANJARA HILLS, HYD. 3 CIT(A) - III, HYDERABAD 4) CIT II, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 10 ITA NO. 1655/H/14 KUNDURU RAMANA REDDY S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S./ P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER