The DCIT, Central Circle, Vendra V. Sri pULIPATI cHINA sUBBA rAO, Vijayawada

ITA 171/VIZ/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2802 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRATA SARKAR
• Keywords: Block assessment; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 153A; 148; 15

Judgement Text

ITA NO.171 OF 2010 PULIPATI CHINA SUBBA RAO VIJAYAW ADA PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.171/VIZAG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA VS. PULIPATI CHINA SUBBA RAO, VIJAYAWADA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO:AJAPP 5541 L APPELLANT BY: SHRI SUBRATA SARKAR, CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY: SHRI D.L. NARASIMHA RAO, ADVOCATE ORDER PER SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11-12-2009 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER: 1) THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW 2) THE CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS RENTAL RECEIPTS. 3) THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTICED THAT TELESCOPING THE ADDITION MADE IN AN EARLIER YEAR FOR THE CASH FOUND AND SEIZED DURING A MUCH LATER PERIOD IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4) THE CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE ONU S CAST ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CLAIM MADE TOWARDS TELESCOPING THE AMOUNT OF SUPPRESSED RENT TOWARDS CASH SEIZED WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE. 5) THE CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO PUT THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENT OR HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE DURING THE INTERVENING YEARS. 6) THE CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TELESCOPING ADDI TION OF RS.9,75,559/- TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES FOUND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WITH THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ITA NO.171 OF 2010 PULIPATI CHINA SUBBA RAO VIJAYAW ADA PAGE 2 OF 8 7) ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, THE GROUND S CITED IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPH GIVE RISE TO THE FOLLOWING TWO IS SUES:- A) WHETHER LEARNED CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS RENTAL RECEIPTS. B) WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLD ING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOP ING IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 4. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUES ARE SET OUT IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN STATIONE RY, WEDDING CARDS AND NOTE BOOKS. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,96,940/-, WHICH CONSISTED OF INCOME FROM HOUS E PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE REVENUE CARRIED OUT SEARC H AND SEIZURE OPERATION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON 19-2-2007 . CONSEQUENT THERETO, THE NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN RESPONSE THERET O THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE SAME INCOME OF RS.1,96,940/- THAT WAS DISCLOSED EARLIER IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN O F INCOME. 4.1 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE DEPA RTMENT SEIZED CERTAIN RENTAL AGREEMENTS. ON COMPARISON OF THE SAID RENTAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE A SSESSEE, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUPPRESSED RENTAL INC OME TO THE TUNE OF RS.17,814/- FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE NCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SEIZED RECORD ALSO REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUPPRESSED PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,75,559/- F OR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE SAME WAS ALSO ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.171 OF 2010 PULIPATI CHINA SUBBA RAO VIJAYAW ADA PAGE 3 OF 8 5. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTESTING, INTER ALIA, ABOVE SAID TWO ADDITIONS. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE L EARNED CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE ADDITION OF RS.17,81 4/- RELATING TO SUPPRESSION OF RENTAL INCOME. INSTEAD THE ASSESSEE R EQUESTED FOR ALLOWANCE OF ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION THAT ARE AVAILABLE U/S 24 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE LEARNED CIT (A) DIRECTED THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO GRANT ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION U/S 24 OF THE ACT. THE REV ENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID DIRECTION. THE LEARNED CIT (A) CONFIRM ED THE ADDITION OF RS.9,75,559/- RELATING TO THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES MADE DURING THE YEAR CONSIDERATION. 6. BEFORE LEARNED CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS RENTAL RECEIPTS SHOULD BE TELESCOPED A GAINST THE EXCESS CASH OF RS.10,00,000/- ADDED IN THE SUCCEEDI NG ASSESSMENT YEAR. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE UNAC COUNTED PURCHASES OF RS.9,75,559/- ADDED DURING THE INSTANT YEAR SHOULD BE TELESCOPED AGAINST THE EXCESS STOCK ADDED IN THE SU CCEEDING YEAR. THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS CONVINCED WITH THE SAID PLE A OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING OF BOTH THE ADDITIONS MADE D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AGAINST THE EXCESS CASH/ STOCK FOUND IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. THE REVENUE IS CHALLENGING THE SAI D DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) RELATING TO TELESCOPING. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO THE RELIEF GRANTED IN RE SPECT OF SUPPRESSED RENTAL INCOME. AS STATED EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ADDITION OF SUPPRESSED RENTAL INCOME; INSTEAD SOUGH T THE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION AVAILABLE U/S 24 OF THE ACT. THE DIRECTIO N OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ONLY TO ALLOW ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION U/S 24. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENTITLED TO ELIGIBLE DEDUCTIONS AS PRESCRIBED U/S 24 WHILE COMP UTING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE DIRECTION OF LEARNED CIT( A) IS ON THAT ITA NO.171 OF 2010 PULIPATI CHINA SUBBA RAO VIJAYAW ADA PAGE 4 OF 8 LINE ONLY AND HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAID DIRECTION AND ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE VALIDITY OF DECISI ON REGARDING TELESCOPING OF ADDITION MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE LAW TO GIVE SUCH A DIRECTION. 9. THE CHENNAI BENCH OF ITAT HAD AN OCCASION TO CON SIDER THE POWER OF LEARNED CIT (A) FOR GIVING DIRECTIONS, IN THE CASE OF SUN METAL FACTORY (I) (P.) LTD., VS. ACIT REPORTED IN ( 2010) 124 ITD 14 (CHENNAI). IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDE D CERTAIN CASH CREDITS IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) CANCELLED THE SAM E BY HOLDING THAT THE SAID ADDITION DOES NOT EMANATE FROM THE EV IDENCE FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (A) DI RECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AND BRING TO TAX THE BOGUS ADVANCES AND F URTHER OBSERVED THAT, FOR LIMITATION PURPOSES, THE FINDING MAY BE TREATED AS FINDING/DIRECTION U/S 150. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAID ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) WITH THE CONTENTION THAT THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE DIS POSAL OF THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM AND HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE CONS IDERED AS GIVEN U/S 150 OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HEL D THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS NOT ENTITLED TO GIVE SUCH A DIRE CTION. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW THE RELEVANT OBSER VATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE: IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHE R THE COMMISSIONER (APPEAL)S ACTION IN GIVING THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 BY TREATING THE ACTION UNDER SECTION 15 0 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT?. WE FIND FOR CE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CAN GIVE FIND INGS AND DIRECTIONS ONLY IN RESPECT OF YEAR/PERIOD WHICH IS BEFORE THAT AUTHORITY AND NO DIRECTION OR FINDINGS CAN ITA NO.171 OF 2010 PULIPATI CHINA SUBBA RAO VIJAYAW ADA PAGE 5 OF 8 BE GIVEN IN RESPECT OF OTHER YEARS. IN CASE OF RAJI NDER NATH V. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 14, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT FINDING WITHIN MEANING OF SECTI ON 153(3)(II) MUST BE A FINDING NECESSARY FOR DISPOSAL OF A PARTICULAR CASE IN RESPECT OF A PARTICULAR ASSESSEE AND IN RELATION TO PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE EXPRESSION DIRECTION AS PER SECTION 153(3)(II) MU ST BE AN EXPRESS DIRECTION NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE CASE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY OR COURT. IN THE CASE OF FORAMER FINANCE (SUPRA) (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SUPREME COURT), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ISSUED AFTER A LAPSE OF MO RE THAN SEVEN YEARS WERE NOT SAVED BY SECTION 153(3)(I I) SINCE SECTION 153 RELATES TO PASSING OF AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND NOT TO ISSUING OF NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 148. SIMILAR IN THE CASE OF BANWARI LAL & SONS (P) LTD., (SUPRA) (2002) 257 ITR 518 (DELHI), THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI HELD: TRIBUNAL HAVING HELD THAT THE DIRECTIONS MADE BY THE AAC TO THE EFFECT THAT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR REGISTRATION OF ASSESSEES PROPERTY FOR THE PAST PERIOD AWARDED BY THE COURT WAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS NOT AT ALL NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE TREATED AS A DIRECTION AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 153(3)(II), PROVISIONS OF SECTION 150 WERE NOT APPLICABLE AND, THEREFORE, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED FOR ASSESSING THE SAID AMOUNT IN EARLIER YEARS WERE BARRED BY LIMITATION . IN THE CASE OF MURLIDHAR BHAGWAN DAS ((SUPRA) (1964) 52 ITR 335 (S C), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD: A FINDING CAN BE ONLY THAT WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF AN APPEAL IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT OF A PARTICULAR YEAR. THE AAC MAY HOLD, ON THE EVIDENCE, THAT THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR AND THEREBY EXCLUDE THAT INCOME FROM THE ASSESSMENT OF THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE FINDING IN THAT CONTEXT IS THAT INCOME DOES NOT BELONG TO THE RELEVANT YEAR. HE MAY INCIDENTALLY FIND THAT THE INCOME BELONGS TO ANOTHER YEAR, BUT THAT IS NOT A FINDING NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF AN APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR OF ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION. ITA NO.171 OF 2010 PULIPATI CHINA SUBBA RAO VIJAYAW ADA PAGE 6 OF 8 IN THE CASE OF PT. HAZARI LAL (SUPRA) (1960) 39 ITR 265 (ALL.), THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS HELD ANY FINDI NG WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 31(3) WOULD BE FINDING WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ANY FINDING RECORDED BY HIM, WHICH IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN ORDER COVERE D BY SECTION 31(3) WOULD BE A FINDING WITHOUT JURISDICTI ON. IN THE CASE OF RAJ KISHORE PRASAD (SUPRA) (1992) 195 ITR 4 38 (ALL.) THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED: AS REGARD THE EXPRESSION DIRECTION IN SECTION 153(3)(II) OF THE ACT, IT IS NOW WELL SETTLED THAT IT MUST BE AN EXPRESS DIRECTION NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE CASE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY OR COURT. IT MUST ALS O BE A DIRECTION WHICH THE AUTHORITY OR COURT IS EMPOWER ED TO GIVE WHILE DECIDING THE CASE BEFORE IT. THE EXPRESSIONS FINDING AND DIRECTION IN SECTION 15 3(3) (II) MUST BE ACCORDINGLY CONFINED. SECTION 153(3)(I I) IS NOT A PROVISION ENLARGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE AUTHORITY OR COURT. IN THE CASE OF RAJARAM & BROS. (SUPRA) (2005) 274 IT R 122 (MP), THE HON'BLE MP HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: IN OUR OPINION, ONCE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT FOR THE PERIOD 1 ST APRIL 1988 TO 11 TH AUGUST, 1998 WAS GONE INTO IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158B (C) AND APPROPRIATE RELIEFS BY WAY OF ADDITION AND/OR DELETION WERE GIVEN TO TH E ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND BY CIT (A) AN D LASTLY BY TRIBUNAL ON FACTS, THERE WAS NO NEED TO G IVE THIS LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO AGAIN INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 IN RESPECT OF CONCLUD ED REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 1998-99. IT WAS MUCH MORE SO, WHEN NO REASONS WERE ASSIGNED WHATSOEVER A S TO WHY AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCE AND WHAT BASIS, THIS LIBERTY IS BEING GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT AND THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 . IN ORDER TO GRANT THIS LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NECESSARY TO RECORD A FINDING T HAT A CASE FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT IS MADE OUT. IT WAS, THEREFORE, NECESSARY FOR TH E CIT (A) TO HAVE RECORDED CATEGORICAL FINDING JUSTIFYING GRANT OF THIS LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CASE, IF H E WAS SO KEEN TO DO SO. IN THE CASE OF ADBUL WAHID GEHLOT (SUPRA) (ITA APPEA L NO.722(JP.) OF 1996 DATED 21-9-2004), THE JODHPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD IN PARA 5 AS UNDER: ITA NO.171 OF 2010 PULIPATI CHINA SUBBA RAO VIJAYAW ADA PAGE 7 OF 8 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIT (A) IS CONFINED ONLY TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH IS THE SUBJECT-MATER OF APPEAL. HE CANNOT GIVE DIRECTIONS IN RESPECT OF OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 147. ON SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REOPENED THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THUS, WE HOLD THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GIVING DIRECTIONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND DELETE SUCH DIRECTIONS. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THE LAW LAID DOW N BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT AFTER HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE FOU ND DURING THE SEARCH, THE SAME CANNOT ENLARGE THE SCOPE OF AP PEAL FOR GIVING THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR R EOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. THERE FORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MP IN RAJARAM & BROS, CASE (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE COMM ISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO RECORD A CATEGORICAL FINDIN G JUSTIFYING THE DIRECTION GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN THE A SSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS NOT CHOSEN FOR REOPENING THE AS SESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY T HE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 10. THOUGH THE DECISION IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE HAS BEEN RENDERED ON A DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS, THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT WAS BROUGHT OUT IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) CANNOT ENLARGE THE SCOPE OF THE APPEAL BY GIVING DIRECTION WHICH IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL O F THE ISSUES BEFORE HIM. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ISSUES THAT WERE CONTESTED BEFORE HIM RELATED ONLY TO THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE QUESTION OF TELESCOPING, THOUGH SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE, DOES NO T ARISE IN OR RELATE TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FURTHER THE SAID PLE A DOES NOT RELATE TO THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM. IT IS ALSO NOT A CASE THAT SUCH A DIRECTION OF TELESCOPING IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO DISPOSE OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT I S BEYOND THE POWER OF LEARNED CIT(A) TO GIVE HIS DECISION ON THE PLEA OF TELESCOPING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ALSO CONSI DERING THE LEGAL ITA NO.171 OF 2010 PULIPATI CHINA SUBBA RAO VIJAYAW ADA PAGE 8 OF 8 PROPOSITION DISCUSSED IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPHS, WE HOLD THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS WRONG IN LAW IN GIVING DECISION ON THE Q UESTION OF TELESCOPING. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE HIS ORDER RELATING TO THE SAME. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PART LY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATE:28-09-2010 COPY TO 1 THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA 2 SHRI PULIPATI CHINA SUBBA RAO, D.NO.6-19-20, GANA PATHI RAO STREET, KOTHAPET, VIJAYAWADA 3 4. 5 THE CIT VIJAYAWADA THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA THE CIR, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD 6 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 7 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM