Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Khammam V. Shri.Matcha Venkateswara Rao, Khammam

ITA 231/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 23122514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SITARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

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. 231HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, HYDERABAD VS. SHRI MATCHA VENKATESWARA RAO, KHAMMAM PAN AABHM 3491 E (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SITARAM ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 15-12-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-12-2015 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 14/12/2015, FOR THE AY 2008-09. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE, ASSESSEE IS A HUF DERIVES SHARE INCOME, INTEREST AND REMUNERATION AS A PARTNE R OF A FIRM. AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 1,24,280/- AND A GRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,60,000, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED ON A TOT AL INCOME OF RS. 99,65,881/- BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 98,41,600/ - TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND, BESIDES ACCEPTING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.1 WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASE OF LAND WORTH RS. 9 8,41,600/- AT CHEEMALAPALLY AND MADHTURU VILLAGES NEAR VISAKHAPAT NAM DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 2008-09, THE AO DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH TWELVE OTHER PERSONS PURCHASED THESE LANDS AS A JOINT OWNER, FOR THE REA SON THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT I) PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGAR D TO CASH 2 ITA NO. 231 /HYD/2013 SHRI MATCHA VENKAESWARA RAO RECEIVED AND PAID TO THE CO-OWNERS, II) ESTABLISH T HE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT OF THE OTHER CO-OWNERS AND III) PRODUCE ANY CORROBORATIVE PROOF IN SUPPORT OF THE TRANSACTIONS MADE. ACCORDIN GLY, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 98,41,600/- BY HOLDING THAT THE ASS ESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF THESE LANDS FROM UNEXPLAI NED SOURCES. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PRE FERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED T HAT THE LAND IN CHEEMALAPALLY AND MADTHURU VILLAGES OF VISAKHAPATNA M DISTRICT TO THE EXTENT OF 16 ACRES 65 CENTS WAS PURCHASED BY 13 PER SONS, INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. HE STATED THAT THE LAND WAS REGISTERE D IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND EACH O F THEM HAS INVESTED THEIR SHARE AMOUNT IN PURCHASING THE LANDS . THEY HAVE COME TOGETHER AND DECIDED TO PURCHASE THESE FERTILE LAND S FOR THE PURPOSE OF CULTIVATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED THAT SU BSEQUENTLY, THE CO-OWNERS OF THE LAND FOUND DIFFICULTY TO TRAVEL AL L THE WAY TO VISAKHAPATNAM, AND PARTICIPATE IN THE CULTIVATION D UE TO THEIR OTHER WORKS IN THEIR NATIVE PLACES AND HENCE, THEY HAVE D ECIDED TO SELL THE LAND IF THEY FOUND GOOD PRICE. THE ASSESSEE HAD STA TED THAT IN THE CURRENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER CO-OWNERS HAVE CONTRIBUTED THE CAPITAL OF RS. 98,41,600/-- AS BELOW: (I) SRI MATCHA VENKATESWARA RAO : 7.5% : RS. 5,41,600/- (II) SRI NARIKONDA RAVI : 7.5% : RS. 7,50,000/- (III) SMT. MANDADAPU TULISAMMA : 4% : RS. 4,00,000/- (IV) SRI G. RAMA KRISHNA RAO : 5% : RS. 5,00,000/- (V) SRI M. NARASIMHA RAO : 9 % : RS. 9,00,000/- (VI) SRI G. RANGAIAH : 8% : RS. 8,00,000/- (VII) SRI R VENKATESWARA RAO : 9% : RS. 9,00,000/- (VIII) SRI R SURAIAH : 10% : RS. 9,50,000/- (IX) SRI G. VENKATESWARLU : 6 % : RS. 6,00,000/- (X) SMT. R MANGAMMA : 8% : RS. 8,50,000/- (XI) SRI R RAMBABU : 9% : RS. 9,00,000/- (XII) SRI RN. KOTAIAH : 9% : RS. 9,00,000/- (XIII) SRI G. VENKATESWARLU : 8 % : RS. 8,50,000/- 3 ITA NO. 231 /HYD/2013 SHRI MATCHA VENKAESWARA RAO 4.1 THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT SHARES WERE FINAL IZED ALMOST AS NEAR TO THEIR INVESTMENT AS POSSIBLE EXCEPT ADDITIO NAL SHARE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS HE WAS ATTENDING TO THE MOS T OF THE RELATED WORKS. HE ARGUED THAT THIS FACT OF JOINT INVESTMENT WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUT INY PROCEEDINGS, HE PRODUCED ALL THE JOINT OWNERS OF LANDS AND THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THEIR SHARE OF OWNERSHIP IN THE LAND AND THEIR INVE STMENTS AND THE SOURCES. THEREFORE, HE CLAIMED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DI SCHARGED HIS RESPONSIBILITY OF CONFIRMING THE CREDIT BALANCES IN ALL RESPECTS, BEYOND ANY DOUBT. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BASED ON SOME SURMISES AND CONJUNCTURES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD SUCH AS WRITTEN COPY OF MUTUAL AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE JOINT OWNERS, THE FACT THA T ALL THE JOINT OWNERS HAVE FILED THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME AND DECLA RED THE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND. 5. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH OTHER INFORMA TION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO BY THE CIT(A) FOR VERIFICATION AND HIS COMMENTS. THE AO FILED HIS REPORT DATED 09 /04/12, WHICH WAS EXTRACTED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AT PAGE 5. TH E REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WAS SENT TO ASSESSEE FOR HIS COMMENTS AND TH E ASSESSEE VIDE HIS REJOINDER ON 30/05/12 SUBMITTED HIS COMMENTS, W HICH WERE EXTRACTED BY CIT(A) AT PAGES 6 TO 8 OF HIS ORDER. T HE ASSESSEE MADE FURTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON 12/06/12, WHICH WERE EXTRACTED BY CIT(A) AT PAGES 8 & 9. 5.1 AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF AO AND C OMMENTS OF ASSESSEE AGAINST REMAND REPORT, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 9. I HAVE SEEN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSES SEE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PERUSED ALL OTHER MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT TRANSPIRES FROM RECORDS THAT THE ASSESS EE IN ASSOCIATION WITH 12 OF HIS FRIENDS HAS PURCHASED LAND IN CHEEMALLAPALL Y AND MADTHURU VILLAGES IN VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSES SEE WITH AN AMOUNT OF RS. 98,41,600/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCO ME DECLARING THE SOURCES FROM 12 OTHER PERSONS ALONG WITH HIM. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ALL THE 13 4 ITA NO. 231 /HYD/2013 SHRI MATCHA VENKAESWARA RAO PERSONS ARE THE JOINT OWNERS OF THE LAND, THOUGH T HE LAND WAS REGISTERED IN HIS NAME. IT IS SEEN FROM RECORDS THAT THE AO SUMM ONED ALL THE INVESTORS AND ENQUIRED ABOUT THE SOURCES OF THEIR INVESTMENT S. ALL THE INVESTORS CONFIRMED THEIR INVESTMENTS AND ALSO EXPLAINED THE IR SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS. BUT, THE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CO NFIRMATIONS OF THE INVESTORS AND TREATED THE TOTAL INVESTMENT AS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO DID NOT RELY UPON THE MOU OF THE JOINT INVESTORS, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT REGISTERED. BUT, THE AR ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO ST ATUTORY REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER THE MOU. THE REGISTRATION IS VOLUNTARY. T HE JOINT INVESTORS DID NOT OPT TO GET IT REGISTERED, SINCE THEY HAVE MUTUAL C ONFIDENCE. WHEN THE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE STATEMENTS OF THE INVESTORS THAT THEY HAVE PURCHASED THE LAND JOINTLY, HE SHOULD HAVE FOUND T HE SOURCE OF THE ASSESSEE. WITHOUT DOING THAT, HE SIMPLY ADDED THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH APPEAR TO BE NOT IN T UNE WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN THIS REGARD. THE ONLY ISSUE IN APPEAL IS HOW THE SOURCE OF MONEY WAS RAISED; WHETHER IT BELONGS TO THE ASSESS EE ALONE OR IT WAS RAISED FROM ALL THE THIRTEEN PERSONS. ALL THE THIR TEEN PERSONS WERE SUMMONED AND TAKEN THEIR STATEMENTS, WHO HAVE CONF IRMED THEIR SHARE OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND. THUS, BY THEIR CON DUCT, THE 13 CO OWNERS OF THE LAND HAVE THROWN THE BALL INTO THE COURT OF THE REVENUE BY IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. NOW IT IS FOR THE REVENUE TO REFUTE THE CONDUCT OF THE CO OWNERS BY BRINGING COGENT MATERIAL, WHICH WAS NOT DONE BY THE AO. HE SIMPLY DISBELIEVED THEM AGAINST THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, WHICH IS NOT PROPER AND FOOLPROOF. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT HAS TO BE CONC LUDED THAT ALL THE 13 CO OWNERS HAVING THE EXPLAINED SOURCES AND INVESTED T HE SAME IN THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM INCL INED TO ACCEPT THE SOURCES OF THE 12 OF ASSESSEE'S ASSOCIATES AND THA T THEY DO NOT BELONG TO ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE T HE ADDITION MADE BY HIM IN THIS REGARD. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. INITIALLY, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED GROUND NOS. A TO K. THEREAFTER, FILED CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON 08/1 2/2015, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON TH E FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH E FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THOUGH THE IDENTITY OF 12 P ERSONS WAS ESTABLISHED, THE SAID 12 PERSONS WERE WHITE RATION CARD HOLDERS (BELOW POVERTY LINE) AND HENCE HAVE FAILED THE TEST OF PROVING THEIR CR EDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN IGNORING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HIGH COURTS, L.E., DHANALAKSHMI STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS VS. CIT(AP) - 228 ITR 780; MANGILAL JAIN VS. ITO (MAD) 315 ITR 105; CIT V. PRECISION FINANCE P. LTD. (CAL) 208 ITR 465; VASANTIBAI N. SHAH VS. CIT (BOM) _ 213 ITR 805; AND SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS IN THE CASES OF CIT V S. BIJU PATNAIK 160 ITR 674; SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT - 214 ITR 801 AND SR EELEKHA BANERJEE & OTHERS VS. CIT- 49 ITR 112, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD TH AT WHERE ANY SUM FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY PREV IOUS YEAR, IT MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME TAX FOR THAT PREVIOUS YEAR 'IF T HE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE, THEREOF, IS, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOT SATISFACTORY. 5 ITA NO. 231 /HYD/2013 SHRI MATCHA VENKAESWARA RAO 7. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND SUBMITT ED THAT THOUGH THE IDENTITY OF 12 PERSONS WAS ESTABLISHED, BUT, TH E CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT PROVED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO AND ALSO MOST OF THE PERSONS WERE HOLDING WHITE RATION CARD (BELOW POVERTY LINE). IT SHOWS TH AT THEY ARE LACKING CREDITWORTHINESS. HE ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDGMEN TS WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ANY SUM FOUND CREDITED IN ANY PREVIOUS YE AR, IT MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME TAX FOR THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, IF TH E EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE IS NOT SATISFACTORY IN THE OPINION OF THE AO. 8. THE LD. AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE LAND WITH THE COLLABORATION OF 12 PER SONS SUPPORTED BY THE MOU ENTERED WITH THEM. THE LAND WAS PURCHASED A ND SOLD IN THE SAME RATIO OF INVESTMENT EXCEPT ADDITIONAL SHARE OF THE PROFIT EARMARKED FOR THE ASSESSEE AS HE WAS ATTENDING TO M OST OF THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND ABOVE BUYING AND SELLIN G ACTIVITIES. EVEN THOUGH THE MOU WAS NOT REGISTERED BUT THERE IS NO S TATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR REGISTRATION SINCE ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED HAVE MUTUAL CONFIDENCE. STILL, IT IS RELEVANT DOCUMENT TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THIS TRANSACTION. LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE JOINT I NVESTMENT WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, PRODUCED THE JOI NT INVESTORS BEFORE THE AO DURING SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS AND FILED THEIR CONFIRMATION, ON OWNERSHIP, THEIR INVESTMENTS AND SHARES. HENCE, HE CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS RESPONSIBILITY OF CREDI TWORTHINESS OF THE JOINT OWNERS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF REV ENUE AUTHORITIES. WE OBSERVE THAT THE AO HAD MADE ADDITION TO THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE LAND WAS PURCHASED JOINTLY WITH 12 PERSONS ENTERING INTO MOU ON 18/03/2008. SINCE, IT WAS NOT REGISTERE D, HENCE, AO TREATED THE SAME AS AFTERTHOUGHT AND UNRELIABLE. AT THE SAME TIME, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE ABOVE ARRANGEMENT IN 6 ITA NO. 231 /HYD/2013 SHRI MATCHA VENKAESWARA RAO THE RETURN OF INCOME ITSELF. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATION OF JOINT OWNERSHIP ON LAND AND JOINT INVESTMENT. THE JOINT I NVESTORS WERE ALSO PRESENT BEFORE THE AO FOR CONFIRMATION. ON THE CONT RARY, THE AO HAD NOT BELIEVED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT, THE AO HAD NOT INVESTIGATED ON THE SOURCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR THAT THE SAID PERSONS WERE HOLDING WHITE RATION CARDS, HENCE, THEY HAVE FAILED THE TEST OF PROVING THE CREDITWORTHINESS, WE RELY ON THE RECENT DECISIO N OF THIS COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI CH. SRINIVASULU REDDY IN ITA NO. 758/HYD/12 AND OTHERS, ORDER DATED 04/12/2015 WHERE IN THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED LOANS FROM VARIOUS MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY IN CASH. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THESE CRED ITORS OWN AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THEIR VILLAGES AND HAS SHOWN THE PROCEEDS FROM THE AGRICULTURAL L AND AS THE SOURCE FOR THE CREDIT INTO THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THESE CREDITORS HAVE OBTAINED RATION CARDS ACCORDING TO WHICH, THEIR INCOME IS B ELOW POVERTY LINE. IT IS BECAUSE OF THE DISCREPANCY IN THESE TWO EVIDENCES THAT THE CIT HA S SOUGHT TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE RATION CARDS PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, WHILE THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS PROV E BOTH THE IDENTITY AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE QUESTION BEFO RE US IS, ONLY ABOUT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE CREDITORS TO OBTAIN RATION CARDS DEPENDS ON THE SELF-DECLARATION MADE BY THEM AS WE LL AS THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RELEVANT REVENUE AUTHORITIES ABOUT THE INCOME EARN ED BY THEM. THE CREDITORS BEING AGRICULTURISTS, MIGHT HAVE DECLARED THEIR INCOME B ELOW POVERTY LINE TO OBTAIN RATION CARDS. FURTHER, THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE CREDITORS F OR ISSUANCE OF THE RATION CARDS WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE TIME WHEN THE RATION CARDS ARE I SSUED AND THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE REVISED PERIODICALLY ON THE BASIS OF THEIR INCOME. THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE RATION CARDS IN FAVOUR OF THE CREDITORS HEREIN IS NOT KNOWN IN THE PRESENT CASE. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CAPACITY TO LEND THE MONEY, THE C REDITORS HAVE GIVEN THE EXTENT OF THEIR AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH IS SHOWN AS THE SOURCE OF THEIR INCOME. AS SEEN FROM THE PARTICULARS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AGRICULTURA L LANDS ARE MOSTLY IRRIGATED LANDS AND THEREFORE, THE INCOME YIELD FROM SUCH LANDS IS USU ALLY GOOD. WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS ACCEPTED DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE CREDITS AS GENUINE. BRUSHING ASIDE OF THE REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O. BY THE CIT AND PLACING R ELIANCE UPON ONLY ON THE RATION CARDS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION ABOUT THE LACK OF CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS, IS, IN OUR OPINION, NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE ALLOW THE ASSESSEES APPEALS BOTH AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) ORDER AGAINST THE CIT CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE A.O. WHIL E GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE DETAI LS OF LAND HOLDINGS OF ALL THE PERSONS AND AO IN THE REMAND REPORT CONF IRMED THE POSSESSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND THE NET AG RICULTURAL INCOME THEREFROM. THEREFORE, RELIANCE OF AO TOTALLY ON THE WHITE RATION CARDS 7 ITA NO. 231 /HYD/2013 SHRI MATCHA VENKAESWARA RAO TO DISBELIEVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTORS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD DECEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 23 RD DECEMBER, 2015 KV COPY TO:- 1) ITO, WARD 1, KHAMMAM 2) SHRI MATCHA VENAKTESWARA RAO, H.NO. 2-5-331, PSR ROAD, KHAMMAM 3) CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA 4) CIT, VIJAYAWADA 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., H YDERABAD.