Sri BSRK Prasad, Tenali V. The ITO, Ward-2, Tenali

ITA 255/VIZ/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1679 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B JAYA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: I RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Peak credit; Source of fund; Set aside
• Section: 201; 69

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.254 TO 259/VIZAG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01 TO 2005-06 BSRK PRASAD, TENALI, VS. ITO WARD-2, TENALI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AFCPB 4596 D APPELLANT BY: SHRI I. RAMA RAO, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI B. JAYA KUMAR, DR ORDER PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSE E ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.02.2009 PASSED BY THE LD CIT (A) GUNTUR AND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000 -01 TO 2005-06. 2. IN ALL THESE YEARS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADD ED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN A SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MA INTAINED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD C IT (A). HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THOUGH THE ASSESS EE RAISED A GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESS MENT, LD AR SUBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THE GROUND AND HENCE THE SA ME IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. IN THE RESULT, THE ONLY QUESTION THAT R EQUIRES TO BE ADJUDICATED BY US IS, WHETHER THE DEPOSITS FOUND IN THE SAVING S BANK A/C WERE PROPERLY EXPLAINED OR NOT AND IF IT IS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINE D, WHETHER THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS ARE TAXABLE OR ONLY INCREMENTAL PEAK CREDI T IS TAXABLE. PAGE 2 OF 10 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SET OUT IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS RUNNING A LIQUOR BAR AND RESTAURANT UNDER TH E NAME OF M/S RAMA KRISHNA BAR & RESTAURANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REC EIVED CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, ANDH RA PRADESH RELATING TO THE DEMAND DRAFTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THEM . ON INQUIRY, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING ONE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT, BEARING NO.23 WITH BANK OF INDIA, TENALI AND THE SAME IS NO T DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT. HENCE THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 INITIALLY AND THEREAFTER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 200-01 TO 2003-04 AND 2005-06 ALSO . THE DETAILS OF DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS AND THE PORTION OF UNEXPLA INED DEPOSITS THAT WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN EACH Y EAR HAVE BEEN TABULATED IN PAGE NO.4 OF THE LD CIT (A) ORDER AS UNDER: ASST. YEAR TOTAL DEPOSIT (RS.) CASH DEPOSIT (RS.) WITHDRAWA LS (RS.) DDS (RS.) BALANCE (RS.) UN- EXPLAINED (RS.) 2000-01 3398090 3339539 2729370 2695000 703090 703090 2001-02 11601257 10798873 12344633 11037870 662812 662812 2002-03 15469559 14463532 15042501 12018650 3450909 3000969 2003-04 19808698 18192668 18988657 17307972 2500726 2500726 2004-05 19579023 16740427 19559924 12225485 7334439 5145444 2005-06 22603943 22285686 23833404 12614771 11218533 7642818 THE UNEXPLAINED AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE PORTION OF CASH DEPOSIT AND THE AO HAS ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOS ITS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE SAME IS C ONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE APPEALS. THE AO HAS ALSO ADDED T HE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS MADE OTHERWISE THAN BY WAY OF CASH, WHICH WERE NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED AND PAGE 3 OF 10 THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE SAID ADDITION. LD CI T(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, FOR THE REASON THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF DEPOSITS OR THE PURPOSES OF WITHDRAWALS. BOTH THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TO ASSESS ONLY THE PEAK CREDIT OR INCREMENTAL PEAK CREDIT. 4. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD AR ARE SUMMARIZED BE LOW. A) IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AO ACCEPTED THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS MAINTAINED AND MORE PARTICULARLY, THE AO HAS NOT PO INTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE SAID BOOKS. B) THE AO HAS FAILED TO BRING ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ANY OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME. C) FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ADDITION U/S 69 THE AC T CONFERS A DISCRETION TO THE AO NOT TO TREAT THE SOURCES OF IN VESTMENT, AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, EVEN IF THE EXPLANATION S OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P.K. NOORJAHAN (237 ITR 570) HA S HELD THAT THE AO SHOULD EXERCISE THE SAID DISCRETION KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE. D) THE AO SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH AVAILABLE IN HIS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS WAS ALSO FOR MAKING TRANSACTIONS IN THE IMPUGNED BANK A CCOUNT. E) ALTERNATIVELY, THE AO SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE C ONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONLY INCREMENTAL PEAK CREDIT SHOU LD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE TR ANSACTIONS WERE CONTINUOUS AND INVOLVES JUST ROTATION OF FUNDS BY WAY OF DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS. PAGE 4 OF 10 F) UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, ONLY THE REAL INCOME C AN BE SUBJECTED TO TAXATION AND THE NORMAL PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE INCOME THAT WAS ALREADY TAXED IS AVAILABLE FOR FUTU RE INVESTMENT. IN THIS CONNECTION THE ASSESSEE HAS PL ACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW: (A) ANANTHARAMAN VEERASINGHAIAH AND CO. V. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) (B) ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIHAR V. MOHAN ENGINEERING CO. 151 ITR 571 (PATNA) (C) CIT VS. PREM 189 ITR 320 (D) CIT VS. NABADWIP 190 ITR 133; (E) CIT VS. SREEDHARAN 201 ITR 1010; (F) SANDHU VS. CIT 196 ITR 323. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS FAILED IN HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR MA KING THE IMPUGNED DEPOSITS AND HAS ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE EARLIER DEPOS ITS WERE AVAILABLE WITH HIM FOR MAKING THE SUBSEQUENT DEPOSITS. ACCORDINGLY TH E LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERU SED THE RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE TRAN SACTIONS CARRIED OUT IN SB A/C NO.23 WITH BANK OF INDIA, TENALI IN HIS RETURNS OF INCOME. WITH REGARD TO THE DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE HAS UT ILIZED THIS BANK A/C FOR PURCHASING DEMAND DRAFTS ON BEHALF OF OTHER LIQUOR DEALERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE SAID EXPLANATION AND ACCOR DINGLY GAVE CREDIT OUT EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOUNT OF DDS PURCHASED. THE AO A LSO GAVE CREDIT OF CERTAIN DEPOSITS, WHICH WERE FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO THE REM AINING DEPOSITS MADE BY PAGE 5 OF 10 WAY OF CASH, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAI NED THAT HE HAS UTILIZED THE CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S RAMA KRISHNA BAR AND RESTAURANT FOR MAKING TH OSE DEPOSITS FROM TIME TO TIME IN THE SAID SB A/C NO.23 AND ALSO WITHDREW THE CASH FROM TIME TO TIME, AS AND WHEN FOUND NECESSARY, SINCE THE SAID B ANK BRANCH WAS LOCATED NEAR TO HIS HOUSE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED COMPUTERIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CONSISTING OF CASH BO OK, BANK BOOK, CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSI DERATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THE SAID COMPUTERIZED ACCOUNTS FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAID BOOKS HAVE BEEN PREPAR ED ONLY AFTER THE DETECTION OF EXISTENCE OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AND FURT HER THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BRING ANY INDEPENDENT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH HIS CASE THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE ONLY OUT OF T HE SURPLUS CASH IN HIS REGULAR BOOKS. THE AO HAS ALSO ADDUCED FOLLOWING FURTHER REASONS IN THIS CONNECTION. A) THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECORD THE TRANSACTIONS OF DEP OSITS MADE INTO OR WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE IMPUGNED BANK A/C , IN THE REGULAR BOOKS MAINTAINED BY HIM. B) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE SAID BANK ACCOUN T IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN OR BOOKS. C) THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED ODD AMOUNTS IN THE BANK SEVERAL TIMES IN A DAY AND FURTHER MADE THE DEPOSITS ON A D AILY BASIS. HOWEVER THE WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE ONCE IN 15 DAYS I N LARGER AMOUNTS. ALTERNATIVELY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IF AT ALL ANY ADDITION IS WARRANTED THEN, ONLY THE INCREMENTAL PEAK CREDIT SHOULD BE AD DED IN EACH YEAR. WE NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS REJECTED THIS CLAIM ALSO, FO R THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTA BLISH THAT THE WITHDRAWALS MADE EARLIER WERE THE SOURCES FOR THE D EPOSITS MADE PAGE 6 OF 10 SUBSEQUENTLY AND FURTHER THE PATTERN OF DEPOSITS AN D WITHDRAWALS SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE INITIAL WITHDRAWAL A ND SUBSEQUENT DEPOSIT. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD CIT (A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE C OMPUTERIZED BOOKS PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ON THE PEAK CREDI T STATEMENT FURNISHED BY HIM. THE AO HOWEVER, REITERATED HIS VIEW POINTS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE REMAND REPORT AND THUS DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM FOR ASSESSMENT OF INCREMENTAL PEAK CREDIT AND ALSO THE COMPUTERIZE D BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE DETAILS OF PEAK CREDIT AND INCREMENTAL PEAK CREDIT HAVE BEEN TABULATED BY THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT AS UNDER: PEAK - CREDIT WORKING ASSTT. YEARS DATE OF PEAK PEAK AMOUNT (RS.) INCREMENTAL PEAK RS. 2000-01 31-03-2000 7,44,581 7,44,581 2001-02 01-05-2000 5,98,879 NIL 2002-03 20-03-2002 7,65,896 97,177 2003-04 28-03-2003 20,65,680 12,99,784 2004-05 15-03-2004 22,38,715 1,73,035 8. THE OBJECTIVE OF AN ASSESSMENT IS TO ARRIVE AT T HE CORRECT TOTAL INCOME AND THEN LEVY THE APPLICABLE TAX THEREON. WHEN THE AVAILABLE FACTS ARE NOT CLEAR WHICH MAKES THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL INCOME A COMPLEX EXERCISE, THEN CERTAIN METHODS ARE USUALLY FOLLOWED TO DETERM INE THE INCOME. ONE OF SUCH METHODS IS THE PEAK CREDIT METHOD. THIS MET HOD IS GENERALLY FOLLOWED WHEN THERE ARE CONTINUOUS AND REPEATED TRANSACTIONS OF DEBITS AND CREDITS, THE SOURCES OF WHICH COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED. HOW EVER THE ADOPTION OF THIS METHOD PURELY DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF EACH CASE. PAGE 7 OF 10 WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO ENUMERATE BELOW THE M ETHODOLOGY THAT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED TO ARRIVE AT THE PEAK CREDIT. (A) THE PEAK CREDIT METHOD AND ALSO THE CONCEPT O F TELESCOPING ARE BASED UPON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE INCOME ALREADY TAXED OR AN AMOUNT WITHDRAWN EARLIER IS AVAILABLE FOR MAKING SU BSEQUENT INVESTMENT. (B) THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE CONTINUOUS AND RE PEATED TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT SHOULD BE DETERMINED. THE SAID PE RIOD NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE ONE YEAR AND HENCE IT MAY EXTEND OVE R SOME YEARS ALSO. (C) BY SETTING OFF THE EARLIER WITHDRAWALS AGAINS T THE SUBSEQUENT DEPOSITS, THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OR THE PEAK AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT OVER THE PERIOD IS DETERMINED. (D) THE PEAK AMOUNT SO ARRIVED AT REPRESENTS THE I NCOME OF THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT CONT INUOUSLY AND REPEATEDLY. (E) LET US TAKE THE TABLE EXTRACTED IN PARA 7 SUPR A, AS AN EXAMPLE. IN THIS CASE, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE PEAK CREDIT IS WORKE D OUT EXTENDS TO SIX YEARS. THE PEAK AMOUNT WORKED OUT IS RS.12,99, 784/- AND IT REPRESENTS THE INCOME FOR THE PERIOD FROM 2000-01 T O 2003-04. SINCE THE PEAK CREDIT WORKED OUT FOR THE YEAR 2004-05 IS LESS THAN THE PEAK CREDIT OF RS.12,99,784/- ARRIVED AT IN AN EARLIER Y EAR, THE SAME REPRESENTS ONLY A PART OF RS.12,99,784/- AND CONSE QUENTLY, THERE CANNOT BE ANY INCOME FOR THE YEAR 2004-05. THE NO RMAL PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE PEAK AMOUNT OF RS.12,99,784 /- MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN EARNED IN ONE YEAR AND HENCE THE SAME HAS TO BE SPREAD TO EARLIER YEARS ALSO ON SOME EQUITABLE BASIS, I.E. THE MAXIMUM TAXABLE AMOUNT OF RS.12,99,784/- IS SPREAD OVER THE PERIOD FROM PAGE 8 OF 10 2000-01 TO 2003-04. ONE OF THE METHODS OF SPREADIN G THE INCOME IS TO ASCERTAIN THE PEAK CREDIT IN EACH YEAR. THUS THE CUMULATIVE AMOUNT OF PEAK CREDIT TAXED IN THE YEARS 2000-01TO 2002-03 WOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM MAXIMUM PEAK CREDIT OF RS.12,99,78 4/- AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT IS TAXABLE IN THE YEAR 2003-04. AS STATED EARLIER, THERE WILL NOT BE ANY TAXABLE AMOUNT FOR THE YEAR 2 004-05. 9. WE NOTICE THAT THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH BALANCE THAT WAS AVAILABLE IN THE REGULAR BOOKS WERE ALSO USED FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE PATTERN OF DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS DO NOT SUPPORT THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THE SAID TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS TO BE NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF T HE VALUE OF DEMAND DRAFTS PURCHASED FROM THAT ACCOUNT, EVEN THOUGH THE TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO THAT WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. BA SED ON THE PATTERN OF TRANSACTIONS, THOUGH THE AO HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF ODD AMOUNT FROM UNDISCLOSED INCOME SOURCES, THER E WAS NO MATERIAL WITH THE AO TO IDENTIFY THE ALLEGED INCOME SOURCES. AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS PRESUMP TION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF INCOME. EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED, FOR A MOMENT, THAT THERE WAS SOME UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHET HER THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENT GROSS RECEIPTS OR THE NET INCOME. THOUGH THE AO HAS PRESUMED THAT THE DEPOSITS REPRES ENT NET INCOME, HE COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUN TS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE SPENT AWAY AND WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR MAKING FURTHER DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS EXPLANATION IN VIEW OF HIS OMISSION TO RECORD THE ENTRIES TRANSACTED IN THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNT IN HIS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THIS KI ND OF COMPLEX SITUATION, WHEN NO MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT BOTH THE PRESUMPTIONS, THE BEST PAGE 9 OF 10 COURSE AVAILABLE IS TO TAX THE PEAK CREDIT AMOUNT A S PER THE METHODOLOGY ENUMERATED SUPRA. IT IS PERTINENT HERE TO NOTE THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V K.SREEDHARAN , SUPRA, WHERE IN THE HIGH COURT ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT T HE AMOUNT THAT WAS TAXED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1976-77 WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT IN THE YEAR 1979-80 FOR THE R EASON THAT THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FR OM WHICH ONE CAN INFER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AS A MATTER OF FACT SPENT AWA Y THOSE AMOUNTS. THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT, IN A WAY, SUPPORTS THE PEAK CREDIT METHODOLOGY STATED ABOVE. WE ALSO FIND IT U NREASONABLE TO ALTOGETHER REJECT THE EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE UTILIZATI ON OF CASH THAT WAS AVAILABLE IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 10. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD MAKE AN OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE RE GULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, COMPUTERIZED BOOKS TO FIND OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF U TILIZING THE BOOK BALANCE FOR MAKING THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE IMPUGNED BANK AC COUNT. ON THE BASIS OF ANALYSIS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE AO MAY ALLOW CRED IT OF THE CASH IF HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE SAID CASH BALANCE WAS UTILIZED A ND ACCORDINGLY RECOMPUTED THE PEAK CREDIT. THE PEAK CREDIT SO ARRIVED AT SHO ULD BE SPREAD OVER THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AS PER THE METHODOLOGY ST ATED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT IN THE LIGHT O F THE DIRECTIONS MADE BY US ABOVE, AFTER AFFORDING NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. PAGE 10 OF 10 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10-11-2009 SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, 10 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. COPY TO 1 SHRI B.S.R.K. PRASAD, M/S RAMA KRISHNA BAR & REST AURANT, OPP: RAILWAY STATION, TANALI-522 202 2 THE ITO WARD-2, KOTHAPET, TENALI 3 THE CIT GUNTUR 4 THE CIT(A), GUNTUR 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM