Dr. Kyasa Srinivas, Karimnagar Dist. V. JCIT, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar

ITA 1865/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2616 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2014

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1865/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DR. KYASA SRINIVAS, KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT. PAN AIPPK8456P VS. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, KARIMNAGAR RANGE, KARIMNAGAR. (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A. SRINIVAS REVENUE BY : SHRI K.J. RAO DATE OF HEARING : 20-02-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-04-2017 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) - III, HY DERABAD, DATED 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 FOR AY 2010-11. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DOCTOR BY PROFESSION RUNNING A HOSPITAL UNDER N AME AND STYLE M/S VIJAYA CHILDRENS HOSPITAL. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE AY 2010-11 ON 14/10/2010 ADMITTING AN INCOME OF RS. 13 ,20,520/-. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE ABOVE HOSPITAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 23.03.2010. CE RTAIN DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTICED DURING THE COURSE OF SUR VEY. TO COVER UP THE DEFICIENCIES, THE ASSESSEE CAME FORWARD VOLUNTA RILY TO OFFER RS. 15,00,000/- INCOME IN HIS INDIVIDUAL STATUS, RS.5,0 0,000/- IN HIS WIFE'S NAME AND RS. 5,00,000/- IN HUF STATUS. BUT ON VERIF ICATION OF RETURN 2 ITA NO. 1865/H/14 DR. KYASA SRINIVAS, KARIMNAGAR DT. OF INCOME, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED R ETURN DISCLOSING BUSINESS RECEIPTS AT RS.11,63,515/-, WHEREAS, THE A SSESSEE ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY TO FILE RETURN OF INCOM E WITH RS.15,00,000/- AS INCOME. WHEN THE AO ASKED THE ASS ESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.3,36,485/- SHALL N OT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN PRO PERLY. HENCE, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.3,36,485/- WAS ADDED BACK TO THE I NCOME RETURNED TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS BY THE AO. THE AO ALS O MADE THE FOLLOWING OTHER ADDITIONS WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER AS BELOW: 1. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TREATMENT OF RENTS FROM KARIMNAGAR PROPERTY AS PROPERTY INCOME AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE 3,25,539 2. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TREATMENT OF DIFFERENTIAL SALE PRICE IN RESPECT OF CANCELLED AGREEMENT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. 55,00,000 3. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SECURED LOANS 22,78,814 4. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TREATMENT OF FLAT SALE ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS 23,21,220 5. DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S 54F 23,75,946 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. WITH REFERENCE TO THE ADDITION OF RS.3,36,485/- ADDED AS PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT TH ERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS WITH THE AO AS THESE WE RE INCOME FROM PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVE N IN APPEAL OTHER THAN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, IT COULD NOT BE CLEARL Y EXPLAINED AS TO WHY THIS ADDITION BY THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITIO N MADE BY THE AO. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3 ITA NO. 1865/H/14 DR. KYASA SRINIVAS, KARIMNAGAR DT. 6. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE SOME DEFICIENCI ES NOTICED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY, ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY OFFE RED TO DISCLOSE RS. 15 LAKHS AS INCOME IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED RS. 11.63 LAKHS AS ACTUAL INCOME. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT RETURN OF INCOME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND NO SPEC IFIC DEFECTS WERE POINTED OUT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, HENCE, TH E ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT PROPER. 7. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 8. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTA RILY OFFERED TO DISCLOSE THE INCOME DUE TO DEFICIENCIES NOTED DURIN G THE SURVEY. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE AGREED TO STOP THE INVESTI GATION FURTHER BY ACCEPTING THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF INCOME. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE INCOME AS AGREED WITH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES DURING SURVEY. ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD OR CLARIFIED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE REVENUE NOR BE FORE US THE REASON FOR REDUCING THE PROFESSIONAL INCOME. IN OUR CONSID ERED VIEW, THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED TO DROP THE INVESTIGATION PROC EEDING ONLY BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED VOLUNTARILY TO DISCLOS E THE PROFESSIONAL INCOME. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE SHOULD HAV E DISCLOSED THE INCOME AS PROMISED TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, HENC E, GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. WITH REFERENCE TO THE ADDITION ON HOUSE PROPERT Y INCOME OF RS.3,25,539/- THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD USED THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AS HOUSE PROPERTY OF THE ASSES SEE AND INCOME FROM THE BUILDING (KARIMNAGAR) SHALL BE COMPUTED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS A 4 ITA NO. 1865/H/14 DR. KYASA SRINIVAS, KARIMNAGAR DT. DOCTOR AND THE ASSET AT GODAVARIKHANI IS USED FOR H IS PROFESSION IS CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS ASSET ON WHICH DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWED. WHEREAS, THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED AT KARIMNAGAR IS TO LET OUT AND THE RENT RECEIVED IS TO BE TREATED AS HOUSE PROPERTY IN COME. 10. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PROFESSIONAL AND NOT DOING REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TO TREAT THE HOU SE PROPERTY AS BUSINESS ASSET TO CLAIM THE DEPRECIATION AS DEPRECI ATION IS ALLOWED ONLY WHEN THE ASSET IS USED FOR OWN BUSINESS. HE OB SERVED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS LET OUT THE PROPERTY AND WAS COLLECTING RENT FROM VARIOUS TENANTS AND THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON THE PROPERTY IS NOT CORREC T. HENCE, THE RENTAL INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROPERTY AT KARIMNAGAR WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 24 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND HE DIRECTED THE AO MAY EX AMINE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION ON THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME WRONGLY AND IF SO TO EXAM INE FEASIBILITY OF INITIATING SUITABLE REMEDIAL ACTION. 11. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUND THAT INCO ME FROM RENTSIS TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. HOWEVER, AO HAS B ROUGHT ON RECORD CLEARLY THAT ASSESSEE HAS LET OUT THIS RESID ENTIAL PROPERTY ON RENT. ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERI AL TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM NEITHER BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES NO R BEFORE US. HENCE, THE FINDING THAT THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS GIVEN ON RENT IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS SUSTAINED AND THIS GROUND IS DISM ISSED. 12. WITH REFERENCE TO THE ADDITION OF RS.55,00,000 /- THE AO OBSERVED THAT ON THE BASIS OF LEGAL NOTICE FROM ONE SMT. GADE SUDHA THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO SELL THE PLOT FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,06,00,000/- TO THE SAID LADY AND RECEIVED AN ADVANCE OF RS. 5 ITA NO. 1865/H/14 DR. KYASA SRINIVAS, KARIMNAGAR DT. 25,00,000/-. THIS TRANSACTION HAD RUN INTO DISPUTE AND THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER ISSUED A LEGAL NOTICE AND SUBSEQUENTLY TH E ASSESSEE RETURNED THE SAID ADVANCE OF RS. 25,00,000/-. THE S AID OPEN PLOT WAS SOLD TO MADHURA CONSTRUCTIONS FOR A SALE CONSIDERAT ION OF RS. 51,00,000/-. THE AO CALLED FOR EXPLANATIONS IN RES PECT OF THE SAID SALE TRANSACTION AND THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT TH ERE WAS A DISPUTE WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND DOCUMENTS AND HENCE THE SA LE AGREEMENT WITH EARLIER SALE WAS CANCELLED AND ADVANCE RETURNE D. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS NEED OF FUNDS TO INVE ST IN HOUSE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE THE LAND WAS SOLD FOR A CONS IDERATION OF RS. 51,00,000/-. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PUR CHASED THE PROPERTY AT SECUNDERABAD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 77,36,000/- AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS FUNDED BY SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LTD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE AO HELD THAT THERE IS NO LITIGATION IN THE PROPERTY DOCUMENTS THAT THE ADVANCE WAS RETURNED FOR NO REASON, THE ASSESSEE IS WELL EDUCAT ED AND NOBODY WILL SELL PROPERTY FOR LESS CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE HE FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE INTENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO EVADE CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO BROUGHT TO TAX THE DIFFERENCE B ETWEEN RS. 1,06,00,000/- AND RS. 51,00,000/- I.E. RS. 55,00,00 0 AS CAPITAL GAIN, AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. 13. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO N OTE THAT WHILE THE SALE AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE DOCUMENTS NOR ESTABLISHED THE DISPUTE IN THE SAID P ROPERTY. IT WAS NOT MENTIONED EVEN AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL AS TO HOW THI S TRANSFER AS PER SECTION 2(47) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WAS NOT ATTRAC TED. THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION IN APPEAL WAS DUE TO URGENCY OF FUNDS FOR HYDERABAD PROPERTY WAS NOT ESTABLISHED AND SEEMS TO BE AN EXPLANATION AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF RS.55,00,000/- BY THE AO I S SUSTAINED. 6 ITA NO. 1865/H/14 DR. KYASA SRINIVAS, KARIMNAGAR DT. 14. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AGR EEMENT TO SELL THE PROPERTY, HOWEVER, DUE TO SOME DISPUTE WITH THE BUYER THE AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED, EVEN THOUGH, THE SALE PRIC E AS PER THE CANCELLED AGREEMENT WAS MORE THAN THE ACTUAL SALE P RICE. SINCE THE MARKET CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY WAS DIFFERENT AT THE TIME OF SALE, AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT NOR HE HAS BROUGHT O N RECORD ANYTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH RESPECT TO ON MONEY. AO HAS MA DE THIS ADDITION MERELY ON ASSUMPTIONS AND SURMISES. 15. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CANCELLED EA RLIER AGREEMENT TO SELL WITHOUT GIVING PROPER REASON AND IT IS WORTH TO NOTE THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS CANCELLED WITHIN 6 M ONTHS OF THE ACTUAL SALE TO OTHER PARTY. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE MARKET CONDITION WAS SAME AND THERE IS NO FLUCTUATION WITHIN 6 MONTHS. EVEN I F THERE IS ANY FLUCTUATION, ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD . SHE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF AO. 16. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE VALUE LESS THAN THE VALUE FOR WHICH HE ENTE RED INTO AGREEMENT TO SELL WITH ANOTHER PERSON. THE REASON FOR SELLING LESSER VALUE AND REASON FOR CANCELLATION WAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD B Y THE ASSESSEE. CITING THE ABOVE REASONS, THE AO BROUGHT TO TAX THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF BRINGING THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOM E. THE ADDITION IS ON THE DIFFERENCE OF AMOUNT IN SALE CONSIDERATIO N. IF AT ALL, AO COULD HAVE INCREASED THE SALE CONSIDERATION TO TAX AND C ALCULATED CAPITAL GAINS. HOWEVER, IN OUR OPINION, ONLY PROVISION IN T HE INCOME TAX TO BRING THE DIFFERENCE OF SALE CONSIDERATION IS SECTI ON 50C. IN THE GIVEN CASE, THE VALUE OF SRO AND SALE CONSIDERATION ARE M ATCHING, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR THE AO TO BRING THE PRESUMED DIFFERENCE ON SALE CONSIDERATION TO TAX. THE AO SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT SO ME COGENT 7 ITA NO. 1865/H/14 DR. KYASA SRINIVAS, KARIMNAGAR DT. MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS STANCE RATHER THAN PRE SUMPTION. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 17. WITH REGARD TO CASH CREDIT IN THE FORM OF UNSE CURED LOANS AND ADVANCE FOR SALE OF FLATS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED UNSECURED LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,78,814/- DURING THE PY 2009-10 RELEVANT TO AY 2010-11. THE AO CALLED FOR THE DETAI LS OF THE LENDERS. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSTRAINED FROM PROVIDING THE SAM E DUE TO TRAGIC INCIDENT IN THE FAMILY. 17.1 FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO NOTICED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 23,21,220/- AS ADVANCE AGAINST SALE O F FLATS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID CLAIMS BY WAY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE AO ADDED THE SAID AMOUNTS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. 18. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT H E WAS CONSTRAINED DUE TO A TRAGIC INCIDENT IN THE FAMILY AND ILL HEALTH FOR BRINGING ON RECORD THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE C ASH CREDIT IN THE FORM OF UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.22,78,814/- AND EVIDE NCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ADVANCE FOR SALE OF FLATS OF RS.23,21,220/- AT ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IF THERE WAS A CONSTRAINT AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE THERE WERE NO CONSTRAINTS STATED BY THE ASSES SEE'S AR TO ESTABLISH THE SAME AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL AS THIS C OULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR ADMISSION UNDER RULE 46A IF THE SAID DETAILS HAD BEEN FURNISHED IN THIS CONTEXT, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS 28/03/2013 AND THE APPELLATE O RDER IS BEING PASSED IN SEPTEMBER, 2014, I.E. A PERIOD OF ALMOST 18 MONTHS OR 1 HALF YEARS. EVEN THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCE D FACTUAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CASH CREDITS EVEN THOUGH TH ERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY AT THE FIRST APPELLATE LEVEL. HENCE, TH E ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS AND ADVANCE FOR SALE OF FLATS WERE CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 8 ITA NO. 1865/H/14 DR. KYASA SRINIVAS, KARIMNAGAR DT. 19. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE BEFORE US AND THE SAME IS CRUCIAL TO DECIDE THE ISSUE, WE ADMIT T HE SAME. AS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E FIRST TIME BEFORE US AND THE AO HAD NO OCCASION TO EXAMINE THE SAME, ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR EXAMININ G THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. THIS GRO UND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 20. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE U/S 54F, THE A O DISALLOWED THE CLAIM U/S 54F ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONSIDERAT ION WAS NOT UTILIZED FOR ACQUIRING NEW ASSET/THE ASSESSEE FAILE D TO UTILIZE THE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR PURCHASIN G NEW ASSET. THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54F WAS RS. 23,75,94 6/-. 21. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE HOUSE PROPERTY BY AVAILING BANK LOAN INSTEAD OF APPLYING THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE ABOVE PURPOSE. WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO ACCE PT THE VIEWS OF THE AO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT HAVE TO UTILISE THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE NEW PROPERTY. IT IS ENOUG H THAT THE ASSESSEE PROCURES THE NEW PROPERTY WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIM E PROVIDED IN SECTION 54F TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION. HOW THE PROPERT Y PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IRRELEVANT. IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS EXPRESSED SIMILAR VIEWS AN D OTHER RESPECTIVE BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL HAVE ALSO EXPRESSED SIMILAR VIEWS. 1. KAPIL SINGH AGARWAL VS. ACIT, 66 TAXMANN.COM 191 (P&H) 2. KAPIL SINGH AGARWAL VS. ACIT, 38 TAXMANN.COM 384 (DELHI TRIB) 3. SMT. SUMATHI GEDPUDI, [2015[ 64 TAXMANN.COM 382 (HYD.TRIB.) 9 ITA NO. 1865/H/14 DR. KYASA SRINIVAS, KARIMNAGAR DT. ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE VIEWS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 22. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST APRIL, 2017. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAH MAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 21 ST APRIL, 2017. KV COPY TO:- 1) DR. KYASA SRINIVAS, PROP.: VIJAYA CHILDRENS HOSP ITAL, LAKSHMINAGAR GODAVARIKHANI, KARIMNAGAR DIST, TELENGANA 505 209. 2) JCIT, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARIMNAGAR. 3) CIT(A) - III, HYDERABAD 4 CIT - II, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 6) GUARD FILE