Shashikala Madhuri, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 176/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2479 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2018
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N SWAPNA; SUNKU SRINIVAS DRS
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record; Revised return; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 147; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NOS 175 AND 176 OF 2017 AMARNATH MADDURI HYDERABAD. PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.175/HYD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) SHRI MADDURI AMARNATH HYDERABAD PAN: AFJP M 9616 C VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 ( 2 ) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.176/HYD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) SMT.SHASHIKALA MADDURI HYDERABAD PAN: AIDPM 6229 J VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 ( 2 ) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI K.A. SAI PRASAD FOR REVENUE : SMT. N. SWAPNA & SHRI SUNKU SRINIVAS, DRS O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. BOTH ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES FOR THE A.Y 2007-08. THE ASSESSEES BEFORE US ARE HUSBAN D AND WIFE AND SINCE COMMON ISSUES UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES ARE INVOLVED, THE APPEALS WERE CLUBBED AND HEARD TO GETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORD ER. DATE OF HEARING: 04.01 . 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.02.2018 ITA NOS 175 AND 176 OF 2017 AMARNATH MADDURI HYDERABAD. PAGE 2 OF 10 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE AN D HIS WIFE SMT. M. SHASHIKALA PURCHASED A PROPERTY IN HYD ERABAD. A FORMAL LETTER WAS ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEES HEREIN SEEKING THEIR I.T. RETURNS. THEY REPLIED THAT THEY HAVE ALR EADY FILED THE I.T. RETURNS FOR THE A.Y 2007-08 AND DECLARED THE SOURCE S FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY IN THE CASE OF SHRI M. AMARNATH FOR THE A.Y 2007-08, R ELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES EXPL AINED THE SOURCES FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE PROPERTY AS FROM THE ADVANCES RECEIVED AGAINST THE SALE OF LAND AT SURVEY NO.176, 177 & 178 AT JANAWADA (V) & SHANKARPALLY (G.P), R.R. DISTT. AND SALE OF JEWELLERY AND SUBMITTED THE SALE RECEIPTS. THE AO, ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF SHRI M. AMARNATH, NOTICED THAT THE AGREEMENT OF SALE OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.176, 177 & 1 78 AT JANAWADA (V) SHANKARPALLY, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT WAS IN FAVOUR OF SHRI Y. NAGESWARA RAO AND SHRI V. RAMA RAO AND T HE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CASH OF RS.26.50 LAKHS AND RS.21,50,00 0 FROM THE AGREEMENT HOLDERS AND INCOME FROM SALE OF JEWELLERY WAS ALSO ACCEPTED AS SOURCES FOR INVESTMENT OF RS.100.00 LAK HS IN PURCHASE OF HOUSE PROPERTY AT D.NO.3-4-251/1/C, LIN GAMPALLY, HYDERABAD IN THE JOINT NAMES OF HIS WIFE AND HIMSEL F. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE LANDS WERE ACTUALLY SOLD ON 9.5.2 012 VIDE DOCUMENT NO.1686/12, 1688/12, 1684/12, 1685/12 TO S OME OTHER PARTY BY GIVING AGPA TO SHRI K.V. KRISHNAM RA JU VIDE DOCUMENT NO.1600/12 AT SRO SHANKERPALLY. THEREFORE, THE AO BELIEVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE FAKE SA LE AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS TO SHOW THE SOURCES FOR AN INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY AND THEREBY, THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESS MENT. HE, ITA NOS 175 AND 176 OF 2017 AMARNATH MADDURI HYDERABAD. PAGE 3 OF 10 THEREFORE, REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE A CT IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES. 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES U/S 148, 142(1) AND 1 43(2) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED AND REQUESTED FOR REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE AO SUPPLIED THE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEES. THE ASSES SEES SUBMITTED COPIES OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 9.5 .2002 AND STATED THAT THEY SOLD 3 ACRES OF LAND @ RS.25.00 LA KHS PER ACRE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 RELATING TO A.Y 2 013-14. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE EVIDENCE FOR SOURC E AND FOR SUBSEQUENT EVENTS LIKE REPAYMENT OF ADVANCES TO THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT HOLDERS ETC., SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T FURNISH THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY TREATING SUM OF RS.45.00 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED SOURC ES OUT OF WHICH RS.35.00 LAKHS WAS TAKEN AS UNEXPLAINED SOURC ES OF PROPERTY PURCHASED BY HIS WIFE AND MADE AN ADDITION IN HER ASSESSMENT AND BALANCE OF RS.13.00 LAKHS TAKEN AS U NEXPLAINED SOURCES FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THE CASE OF SHR I M. AMARNATH. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEES PREFERRED APPEALS BEFOR E THE CIT (A) CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE RE-ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND ALSO THE ADD ITIONS MADE BY THE AO. THE CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESS EES CONTENTIONS AT LENGTH, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS NOT RS.48.00 LAKHS AS HEL D BY THE AO, BUT IT IS RS.97,70,441. HE ATTRIBUTED 50% IN THE HA NDS OF EACH OF ITA NOS 175 AND 176 OF 2017 AMARNATH MADDURI HYDERABAD. PAGE 4 OF 10 THE ASSESSEES AND ENHANCED THE ADDITION TO RS.48,85 ,220. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ADDITION, THE ASSESSEES ARE IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US, BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, CONTRARY TO LAW AND OPPOSED TO NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING AND ENHANCING THE ADDITION OF RS.48,85,220/- AS DIFFERENCE IN COST OF PURCHASES OF PROPERTY BY TAKING CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNT AS SALE CONSIDERATION, IGNORING WIFE SALE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT TO ARRIVE HALF OF THE COST OF PURCHASES OF THE PROPERTY, IGNORING EARLIER YEARS INCOMES AND ARRIVED THE CONCLUSION WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FULL RECORDS SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED WHEN THE APPELLANT DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT AND THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SE TO DISCLOSE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT WARRANT THEM TO DO SO. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN WITHOUT NOTING THE POINT THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE VIS 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITH SUSPICIOUS GROUNDS LIKE ASSESSEE WAS PRODUCED FAKE SALE AGREEMENT, NO CONFIRMATION FROM THE AGREEMENT HOLDER, NO CASH RECEIPTS, ETC. AND FAILED TO PROVE WITHOUT ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME WAS ESCAPED FROM THE ASSESSMENT WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ITA NOS 175 AND 176 OF 2017 AMARNATH MADDURI HYDERABAD. PAGE 5 OF 10 5. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 48,00,000/- (RS. 13,00,000 IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT AND RS. 30,00,000/- IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT WIFE) AS UNEXPLAINED SOURCES FOR INVESTMENT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE APPELLANT PLEA BY SUSPECTING GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION MERELY BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT HOLDER NAMES ARE DIFFERENT WITH THE REGISTERED AGPA/SALE DEED HOLDERS NAME AND FAILS TO NOTE THE PREVAILING MARKET PRACTICE OF THI S TYPES OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. 6. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED AND COMMITTED VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTIC E BY STATING THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO SUBMIT IDENTITY OF SRI. Y. NAGESHWAR RAO AND SRI V. RAMA RAO AND COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY OF THE AGREEMENT TO SALE COPIES OR ANY IDENTITY PROOF OF EXISTENCE OF THESE TWO PERSONS WITHOUT ASKING THE SAME THOUGH THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF AGREEMENT OF SALE. 7. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN ARRIVING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.33,37,006.25 AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL RECEIPT OF RS.75,02,500/- EVEN AFTER SUBMITTING THE AGPA/SALES AGREEMENT COPIES, BANK STATEMENTS AND WORKING STATEMENT WHICH SHOWS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) PASSED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT VERIFYING OUR SUBMISSION DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN IGNORING ONE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHERE THE APPELLANT DEPRIVED FOR GIVING OPPORTUNITY FOR SUBMITTING THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE SAME IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO OR AMEND THE AFORESAID GROUNDS BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. ITA NOS 175 AND 176 OF 2017 AMARNATH MADDURI HYDERABAD. PAGE 6 OF 10 IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AS THERE IS NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. 5. IN ADDITION TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESS EES HAVE ALSO RAISED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL: IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ENHANCEMENT MADE BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 6. AS GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IS AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT AFTER EXPIRY OF FO UR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE A.Y IN WHICH THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FI LED, AND IT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, WE SHALL DEAL WITH THIS GROUND FIRST. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2007-08 ON 17.05.2007 WHEREIN THERE IS NO DISCL OSURE OF THE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN. SUBSEQUENTLY, VIDE REVISE D RETURNS DATED 16.01.2008, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF JEWELLERY. THE AO HAD ISSUED A NOTICE U/ S 143(2) OF THE ACT VIDE LETTER DATED8.7.2009. THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED HIS REPLY AND VIDE LETTER DATED 3.11.2009, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE COPIES OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ALSO COPIES OF THE SALE OF JEWELLERY. VIDE LETTER DATED NIL, THE ASSES SEE HAS ALSO GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR PURCHASING THE PLOT AT YAPRAL VILLAGE. THE COPIES OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE ARE FILED AT PAGES 11 TO 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH ARE DATED 8. 12.2006 AND 17.4.2006 RESPECTIVELY. AS SEEN FROM THESE DOCUMENT S, THE DATE OF THE PURCHASE OF THE STAMP PAPER AND ALSO THE DATE O F THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT OF SALE IS ON THE SAME DAY. ON 4.12.2009, THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED EXPLANATION ON CAPITA L GAIN ON SALE OF ITA NOS 175 AND 176 OF 2017 AMARNATH MADDURI HYDERABAD. PAGE 7 OF 10 JEWELLERY AND ALSO A NOTE ON WEALTH TAX ON JEWELLER Y. VIDE ORDERS DATED 29.12.2009, THE AO PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/ S 143(3) OF THE ACT, ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE AS PER THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. 7. IT APPEARS THAT AFTER THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3), THE AO HAS ISSUED A NOTICE U/ S 142(1) DATED 13.11.2013 IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 27.11.2013 SUBMITTED TO THE AO THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 17.05.2007 AND THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME DATED 16.01.2008 AND THAT THE ASSE SSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND VIDE LETTE R DATED 16.11.2013, THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DROPPING OF THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. ON 16.01.2014, THE ITO INFORMED THE AS SESSEE, THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 3.9.2011, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMIT TED ONLY COPIES OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BUT H AS NOT SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE SALE DEED AND REGARDIN G THE JEWELLERY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE ITEM-WISE PURCHA SE OF JEWELLERY. HE REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE R EGISTRATION DEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ITEM-WISE PURCHA SE OF JEWELLERY FAILING WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE REOPENED U/S 1 47OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF THE SALE DEED DATED 24 .11.2012 AND AFTER THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS ISSUED THE NOTI CE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 20.02.2014. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DAT ED 21.03.2014, REQUESTED THE AO TO TREAT THE RETURNS OF INCOME ALR EADY FILED AS THE RETURNS U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND ALSO SOUGHT FOR THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE AO, VIDE LETTER DA TED 24.06.2014, INFORMED THE ASSESSEE THAT IN RESPECT O F THE LAND SOLD ITA NOS 175 AND 176 OF 2017 AMARNATH MADDURI HYDERABAD. PAGE 8 OF 10 BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE E NTERED INTO AGREEMENT OF SALE ON 17.4.2006 & 8.12.2006 WITH SHR I Y. NAGESHWARA RAO AND SHRI V. RAMA RAO RESPECTIVELY, W HEREAS THE LANDS WERE ACTUALLY SOLD ON 9.5.2012, BY GIVING AGP A TO SHRI K.V. KRISHNAM RAJU VIDE DOCUMENT NO.1600/12 AT SRO SHANK ERPALLY AND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD LIKE CONFI RMATION LETTERS FROM AGREEMENT HOLDERS, CASH RECEIPTS ISSUED ETC., FROM LAND PURCHASED, FROM WHOM AN AMOUNT OF RS.25.50 LAKHS AN D RS.26.50 LAKHS WAS ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED. THEREFORE, H E HELD THAT HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EES HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT FROM THESE DOCUMENTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS NO T RECEIVED ANY FRESH INFORMATION FROM ANY SOURCE THAT THE AGREEMEN TS OF SALE ARE NOT GENUINE OR THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ACTED UPON. IN FACT, ON THE BASIS OF THE VERY SAME MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD , THE AO HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH FURTHER INFORMATION A ND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE REGISTERED SALE DEED WHICH ARE IN THE N AMES OF THE PERSONS OTHER THAN THE AGREEMENT OF SALE HOLDERS, T HE AO HAD SOUGHT TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. ADMITTEDLY, THE RE OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS AFTER FOUR YEARS AND THEREFORE, THE P ROVISIONS OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 148 WOULD APPLY AND THE AO IS RE QUIRED TO RECORD THAT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE MATERI AL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THEIR INCOME. SINCE THE ASSES SMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS BEING MADE AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE A.Y ITA NOS 175 AND 176 OF 2017 AMARNATH MADDURI HYDERABAD. PAGE 9 OF 10 IN WHICH THE RETURN WAS FILED, WE FIND THAT THE REO PENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULL Y AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT OF THEIR IN COME. THE AGREEMENTS OF SALE AND THE INVOICES FOR SALE OF JEW ELLERY WERE ALL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO, WHO ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WAS SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND H AS THEREFORE, ACCEPTED THE SOURCES FOR INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ONLY IN REPLY TO THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RE GISTERED SALE DEED OF 2012 WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR THE AO TO REOPE N THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE P ART OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT I.E. 29.12.2 009, TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. THE RE GISTERED SALE DEEDS ARE OF THE YEAR 2012 WHICH ARE MUCH LATER TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2009. THEREFORE, IT CA NNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OR HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTS. AS RIGHTLY P OINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE MIGH T HAVE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2006 BUT THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN CANCELLED AND SUBSEQUENTLY SOL D TO OTHER PERSONS IN THE YEAR 2012. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEES T O DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSME NT OF THEIR INCOME AND THE NOTICES U/S 148 ARE BAD IN LAW IN BO TH THE CASES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE AC T R.W.S. 148 HAVE NO LEGS TO STAND. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. SINCE, THE VERY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ITA NOS 175 AND 176 OF 2017 AMARNATH MADDURI HYDERABAD. PAGE 10 OF 10 ACT ARE HELD TO BE VOID, THE OTHER GROUNDS ARE NOT ADJUDICATED AT THIS STAGE. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEB. 2018. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 28 TH FEB.2018. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 C/O M/S. VIKRAM & ANIL, CAS, NO.8-2-350/3/C ROAD NO.3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 500034 2 ITO WARD 4(2) HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A) - 1 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 1, HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER