Pillala Ramakrishna Rao, Visakhapatnam V. THE ACIT, Visakhapatnam

ITA 32/VIZ/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9920 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SATYANADHAMDR; R GOVINDHA RAJANDR
• Keywords: Source of fund
• Section: 273B; 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 68; 69; 263; 132; 15

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.81/VIZAG/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, VISAKHAPATNAM [PAN: AAQPP9688M ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) ./I.T.A.NO.32/VIZAG/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, VISAKHAPATNAM ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. GOVINDHA RAJAN,DR & SHRI T. SATYANADHAM,DR / DATE OF HEARING : 10.08.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.08.2016 ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 2 / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIREC TED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(CENTRAL), U/S 263 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) AND CIT(A)-3, VIS AKHAPATNAM U/S 250 OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. SINCE, T HE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGE THER AND DISPOSED OFF, BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT BY PROFESSION AND PARTNER IN M/S. SUDHAK AR AND KUMAR ASSOCIATES, DERIVING INCOME FROM BUSINESS, HOUSE PR OPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES HAS FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON 30.9.2013 ADMITTING NIL TOTAL INCOME. T HERE WAS A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT, ON 20.12.2012 IN THE GAYATRI GR OUP. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION, CASH OF RS.30 LAKHS WAS FOUND AND SEIZED IN A LOCKER IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN S TATE BANK OF INDIA, KOHINOOR BRANCH, NEAR AQUA SPORTS COMPLEX, PANDURAN GAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. A STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FROM THE AS SESSEE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT AND HE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE F OR THE CASH. THE ASSESSEE WHILE DEPOSING BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION OF FICER, ADMITTED THAT ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 3 THE CASH FOUND IN THE LOCKER IS HIS INCOME FROM PRO FESSION FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 AND HE HAD EARNED PROFESSION AL INCOME IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY IN ADDITION TO REMUNERATION REC EIVED FROM HIS PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S. SUDHAKAR AND KUMAR ASSOCIATES . THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT HE WOULD ADMIT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.30 LAKHS AS HIS PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2013-14. 3. CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE CASE WAS NOTI FIED TO CENTRAL CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 15 3A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON 30.9.2013 ADMITT ING NIL TOTAL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES FR OM EARLIER YEARS. THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY , NOTICE U/S 142(1) & 143(2) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED. IN RESPONSE THERETO , THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME T O TIME AND FURNISHED RELEVANT INFORMATION. DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR CASH SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE A SSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 11.2.2015 STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH & SEIZURE OPERATIONS U/ 132 OF THE ACT CASH OF RS.30 LAKHS FO UND IN THE LOCKER NO.6 OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, JOINTLY HELD IN MY NAME AND MY WIFE SMT. P. VISHNU VANDANA. THE SOURCE FOR CASH IS OUT OF PROFE SSIONAL INCOME ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 4 EARNED BY ME IN MY INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY FOR THE FINA NCIAL YEAR 2013-14. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED EXPLANATION FOR CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS HIS PROFESSIONAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2013-14 AND HENCE, NO FURTHER ADDITION IS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S . 153A OF THE ACT AND ACCEPTED INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE CIT(CENTRAL) ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 27.11.2015 AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 11.3.2015 SHALL NOT BE REVISED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE CIT, PROPOSED TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, HAS WRONGLY ASSESSED CASH FOUND AND SEIZED DURING SEARCH UNDER THE HEAD PROFESSIONAL INCOME, WHEREAS THE ADDITION IS TO B E MADE U/S 69A OF THE ACT. THE CIT, FURTHER, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO VERIFY THE ISSUE AND APPLIED CORRECT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED RETURNED INCOME AFTER AD JUSTING SETTING OFF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS FROM THE EARLIER YEARS, IGNORI NG SPECIFIC PROVISION OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT, WHICH RENDER THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 5 WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE ASSESSMENTS ORDER DATED 11.3.2015 S HALL NOT BE REVISED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 5. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATE D 11.3.2015 IS NOT ERRONEOUS, IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN TEREST OF THE REVENUE, AS THE A.O. HAS EXAMINED CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD ADMITTED CASH FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS HIS PROFESSIONAL INCOME EARNED IN THE IND IVIDUAL CAPACITY FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 AND ACCORDINGLY, DECLARE D SUCH INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE A SSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD NOT MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR HIS PROFESSION. HAD HE MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS AND RECORDED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN CASH B ALANCE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT SEIZED DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH. MERELY BECAUSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, AN INFERENCE CANNOT BE DRAWN THAT CASH FOUN D WAS UNEXPLAINED. ONCE THE SOURCE OF CASH FOUND WAS EXPLAINED AND EVE N ADMITTED FOR TAX, THE CASH BALANCE REPRESENTED BY SUCH INCOME CANNOT ANY MORE BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED IN TERMS OF SECTION 69A O F THE ACT. THE ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A SETTLED POS ITION OF LAW THAT THE ADMISSION U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT IS BINDING ON THE A SSESSEE AND IS EVIDENT BY ITSELF. THEREFORE, THE DEPOSITION MADE I N SWORN STATEMENT CANNOT BE IGNORED TO ARRIVE AT A DIFFERENT CONCLUSI ON. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AND THE A.O. AFTER C ONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS, ACCEPTED RETURNED INCOME, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONE OUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 6. THE CIT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE HELD THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO VERIFY THE ISS UE IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND ALSO APPLIED INCORRECT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE CIT, FURTHER, HELD THAT WHEN THE CASH WAS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A O F THE ACT TO BRING UNEXPLAINED MONEY TO TAX. HOWEVER, THE A.O. HAS APP LIED INCORRECT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, IGNORING SPECIFIC PROVISION PROVIDED U/S 115 BBE OF THE ACT, WHICH IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE CIT, FURTHER, HELD THAT THE A.O. HAS F AILED TO CALL FOR NECESSARY DETAILS AND ALSO FAILED TO APPLY HIS MIND ON THE ISSUE. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH VERIFICATION AND NON-APPLICATION OF CORRECT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO FRAMED BY THE A.O. IS NOT ONLY ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 7 ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF T HE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2013-14 IS SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO THE A.O. TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH AFTER EXAMINING DETAILS AND AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT TH E LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASS UMING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 11.3.2015 IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUD ICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E CIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN OBSERVING THAT AMOUNT OF RS.30 LAKHS ADMITTED AS PROFESSIONAL INCOME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/ S 69A OF THE ACT. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN ADDITION IS MADE U/S 6 9A OF THE ACT. BUT, IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLA INED CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS HIS PROFESSIONAL INC OME WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF A SSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE A.O. HAS IGNORED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT . THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH E FACT THAT THE A.O. ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 8 HAS INITIATED ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF ABOVE ISSUE A ND AS SUCH IT IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY TO ENABLE THE CIT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF THE CIT. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE CIT ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT O RDER FOR THE REASON THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT CONDUCTED PROPER ENQUIRY BEFO RE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, THEREBY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 11.3.2015 IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE CIT , REVISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE REASON THAT THE A.O. HAS C OMPLETED ASSESSMENT BY APPLYING INCORRECT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TOWARDS CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE CIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE EXPLAINS CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH AS HIS PROFESSIONAL INCOME FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13, FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES. THE A.O. WITHO UT EXAMINING THE ISSUE, SIMPLY ACCEPTED EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY ACCEPTING CASH SEIZED D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS ASSESSEES INCOME FROM PROFESSION. THE C IT FURTHER WAS OF ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 9 THE OPINION THAT THE A.O. HAS COMPLETED ASSESSMENT WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND, AS THERE IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION IS PROVI DED BY WAY OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT TO DEAL WITH THE CASES OF SEARCH, WHEREIN IT IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME O F AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 68, SECTION 69 AN D SECTION 69A TO 69D, NO DEDUCTIONS OR ALLOWANCES IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITU RE IS ALLOWED AGAINST SUCH INCOME. THE A.O. WITHOUT EXAMINING THE APPLICA BILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT, SIMPLY ACC EPTED INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD PROFESSION AL INCOME, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 10. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A SSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS NOT ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTE NDED THAT THE ISSUE POINTED OUT BY THE CIT WITH REGARD TO CASH FOUND DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS EXAMINED BY THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSE SSMENT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAS EXPLAINED SO URCES FOR CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS HIS PROFESSIONAL INC OME, EARNED IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 AT THE TIME OF DEPOSITION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE RECOR DING STATEMENT U/S ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 10 132(4) OF THE ACT. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS O F THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE A.O. HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE DEALT THE ISSUE VIDE PARA-4.1 OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER DAT ED 11.3.2015, WHEREIN THE A.O. STATED THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN EXA MINED AND NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. WE FURTHER NOTICED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED SOURCES FOR CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS HIS PROFESSIONAL INCOME RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING AND AC CORDINGLY DISCLOSED SAID INCOME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT WAS NOT CORRECT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT EXAMINED TH E ISSUE OF CASH SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS NOT ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 11. THE CIT, ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS A LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THE P ART OF THE A.O., IN EXAMINING THE ISSUE OF CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE CIT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE A.O. HAS APPLIED INCORRECT PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT, TO DEAL WITH CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A S AGAINST SEPARATE ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 11 PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY WAY OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT. THE CIT FURTHER, OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 115BBE OF THE ACT, WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 68 TO 69D OF THE ACT, THEN NOTWITHSTA NDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS ACT, NO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF A NY EXPENDITURE OR ALLOWANCE (OR SET OFF OF ANY LOSS) SHALL BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, IN COMPUTING HIS INCOME REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 115 BBE OF THE AC T. THE CIT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE A.O. IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 115BBE OF THE ACT, ACCEPTED INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF INCOME FROM PROFESSION AND FURTHER AL LOWED SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS FROM EARLIER YEARS, WHICH REND ER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERITS IN THE FINDINGS O F THE CIT FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING C LAIMS THAT CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH REPRESENTS HIS PR OFESSIONAL INCOME EARNED IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13, ACCORDINGLY INCLUDED CASH FOUND DURING COURSE OF SE ARCH AS HIS PROFESSIONAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND FILED RETURNS OF INCOME. WE FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED ENTIRE CASH SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS HIS PROF ESSIONAL INCOME ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 12 WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY DEDUCTIONS TOWARDS EXPENDIT URE, BUT, CLAIMED SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS AGAINST SUCH ADDITIONAL INCOME. THE ALLEGATION OF THE CIT IS TH AT WHEN ANY INCOME IS ADMITTED CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, NO DEDUC TIONS TOWARDS ANY EXPENDITURE OR ALLOWANCES OR SET OFF OF LOSS SHALL BE ALLOWED AGAINST SUCH INCOME. BUT, THE FACT IS THAT AS PER THE PROVISION S OF SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2016 W.E.F. 1.4.2017 WHICH IS APPLICABLE FROM THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THERE IS A BAR ON SET OFF OF LOSS FROM A.Y. 2017-18, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO BAR TO CLAIM SET OFF OF LOSS UP TO A.Y. 2016-17. THEREFORE, EVEN ASSUMING FOR A MOMENT THA T THE A.O. HAS APPLIED INCORRECT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, TO TAX CAS H FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE CAN ALWAYS CLAIM SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS FROM EARLIER YEARS UP TO THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2016-17, EVEN IF THE SAME HAS BEEN ADDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 68 TO 69D OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, AS THERE IS NO PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE REVENUE. 12. THE CIT HAS POWER TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R U/S 263 OF THE ACT, BUT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE TWIN CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED I.E. (1) THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 13 (2) FURTHER IT MUST BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. UNLESS BOTH THE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED, THE CIT CANNOT A SSUME JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT EVERY ORD ER WHICH IS ERRONEOUS MUST BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE OR VICE VERSA. IN SOME CASES, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. MAY BE ERRONEOU S, BUT IT MAY NOT BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE OR VI CE VERSA. UNLESS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS AND ALSO PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, THE CIT CANNOT ASSUME JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS IS BECAUSE THE TWIN CONDITIO NS I.E. THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND THE SAME IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE ST OF THE REVENUE ARE CO-EXIST. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS CONDUCTED DETA ILED ENQUIRY ON THE ISSUE OF CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED T HE EXPLANATION THAT SOURCES FOR CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS HIS PROFESSIONAL INCOME. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY T HE A.O IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, AS THE ISSUE OF CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAS BEEN PROPERLY EXAMI NED BY THE A.O. AND CONSIDERED UNDER APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THOUGH, THE CIT ALLEGED THAT THE A.O. HAS IGNORED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT, THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 115BBE OF ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 14 THE ACT, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS AGAINST SUCH ADDITIONAL INCOME EVEN IF SUCH INCOME IS BROUGHT TO TAX U/S 69A OF THE ACT UP TO THE A.Y. 2016-17. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 14 3(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 11.3.2015 IS NOT ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 13. NOW, IT IS PERTINENT TO DISCUSS THE CASE LAW RE LIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF VISAKHAPATNAM TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF NU TECH E NGINEERS VS. CIT IN ITA NO.570/VIZAG/2013 DATED 10.6.2016. THE COORD INATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD THA T ONCE THE A.O. EXAMINED ISSUES ON WHICH THE CIT WANTS FURTHER VERI FICATION, THE CIT CANNOT ASSUME JURISDICTION ON THE SAME ISSUES WHICH WAS ALREADY EXAMINED BY THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, BY STATING THAT THE A.O. HAS CONDUCTED INADEQUATE ENQUIRY OR THERE IS A LACK OF ENQUIRY. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HER EUNDER: CIT(A) ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASSESSME NT ORDER ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THERE IS A LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THE PART OF THE A.O. IN EXAMINING THE ISSUES REFERRED TO IN HIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. TH E QUESTION OF LOW NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO TDS ON REN T AND HIRE CHARGES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF COM PLETION OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSES FILED A PAPER BOOK WHICH C ONTAINS THE DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT . ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ITAT FIND THAT TH E A.O. HAS ISSUED A DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE IN RESPECT OF NET PROFIT AND ALSO TDS IN RESPECT OF RENT AND HIRE CHARGES. THE A.O. AFTER SATISFIED WIT H THE EXPLANATIONS ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 15 FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE INCOME R ETURNED. THEREFORE, ITAT ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONCE THE ISSUES WHICH ARE SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, THE CIT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTER TAIN FRESH ENQUIRY ON THE SAME ISSUES, BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION ON THE ISSUES. IN ITAT CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ISSUE OF NET PROFIT AND TDS ON RENT AND HIRE CHARGES HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE A.O. AT THE TIME O F ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, THE CIT WAS NOT CORRECT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUES. 14. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE COORDINATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U /S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 11.3.2015 IS NOT ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE QUASH THE O RDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND RESTORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA 32/VIZAG/2016: 16. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL, CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-3, VISAKHAPATNAM CONFIRMING LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) R.W.S. 274 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. TH E FACTS WHICH LEAD TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT A RE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 14.11.2013, 142(1) OF T HE ACT DATED 10.9.2014 & 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 12.11.2014, REQ UIRING ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSMENT ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 16 PROCEEDINGS. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED W ITH ANY OF NOTICES, A LETTER WAS ISSUED ON 3.11.2014 REMINDING TO SUBMIT INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR VIDE NOTICES U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSE E NEITHER APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O. NOR FURNISHED ANY INFORMATION AS RE QUIRED BY THE A.O., ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT, BY ISSUING NOTICE ON 9.12.2014. IN RESPONSE T O PENALTY NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 16.12.20 14 AND SUBMITTED THAT NON-ATTENDANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING IS NOT INTENT IONAL, AS HE WAS BUSY IN COLLECTING INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE A.O. IN CON NECTION WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE A.O. SOUGHT HUGE INFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD OF 7 YEARS, AS SUCH HE COULD NOT ABLE TO GATHER ALL THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE A.O. WITHIN THE TIME GIVEN IN THE NOTICES. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT I AM ALWAYS COOPERATING WITH THE DEPARTMENT FOR SMOOTH COMPLETI ON OF PROCEEDINGS AND I DO NOT HAVE ANY INTENTION TO AVOID PROCEEDING S, HENCE, REQUEST THE A.O. TO DROP PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION FURNISHE D BY THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND ALSO FAILED TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT. THE A.O. FURTHER H ELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION FOR NOT APPEARING O N THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING, THEREFORE OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 17 STATUTORY NOTICES DATED 14.11.2013, 10.9.2014 AND D ATED 12.11.2014 AND HENCE IS LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY OF ` 10,000/- EACH FOR SUCH FAILURE. ACCORDINGLY, AN AMOUNT OF ` 30,000/- IS BEING LEVIED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR EACH FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY NOTICES. 17. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDERS, THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(B) OF THE ACT, AS HE HAS FULLY COOPERATED WITH THE A.O. FOR SMOOTH CO MPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS ISSUED ALL THESE NOTICES WITH SHORT PERIOD OF 7 DAYS TO FURNISH HUGE INFORMATION FOR A PERIOD OF 7 YEARS. SINCE, T HE INFORMATION CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. IS HUGE, HE IS UNABLE TO GATHER INF ORMATION WITHIN A SPAN OF 7 DAYS, ACCORDINGLY, COULD NOT APPEAR ON THE DAT E FIXED FOR HEARING. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NON-APPEARANCE BEFORE THE A.O. IS NOT PURPOSEFUL. BECAUSE OF VOLUMINOUS MATERIALS RE QUIRED TO BE COLLECTED, HE COULD NOT ATTEND, HOWEVER, THE FACT R EMAINS THAT HE HAD SUBMITTED ALL THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE A.O. AND THE A.O. HAS ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 18 COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. TH EREFORE, THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY NOTICES WHICH WARRANTS PENALTY U/S 271(1) (B) OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWIN G JUDGEMENTS: 1) SWARNABEN M. KHANNA & ORS VS. DCIT (2010) 132 TTJ 0 001(UO) AHD TRIB. 2) AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SANGH BHAWAN TRUST VS. ADIT (2008) 115 TTJ 0419 AHD TRIB 3) KARNAVATI CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY AIR CONDITINERS (P) L TD VS. ITO (2012) 32 CCH AHD. TRIB. 4) POLE STAR SECURITIES LTD. VS. ACIT (2014) 40 CCH 03 74 DEL TRIB. 18. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT A MERE NON-COMPLIANCE OF INITIA L NOTICES WITHOUT A DIFFERENT RECOURSE TAKEN BY THE A.O., DOES NOT WARR ANT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. THE INTENTION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE MUST PROCEED AND THOUGHT ALONE CAN GIVE INFERENCE T O THE A.O. FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THOUGH THERE WAS INITIAL FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPLIANCE OF NOTICES, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, AFTER SUPPLYING FU LL INFORMATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE A.O. THEREFORE, NON-COMPLIANCE WILL BECOME TECHNICAL AND NOTHING SERIOUS IN SO FAR AS ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, HELD THAT THE A. O. HAS GIVEN INSUFFICIENT TIME I.E. 8 DAYS FOR NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT IN SEARCH RELATED ASSESSMENTS, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DELETE PENALTY ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 19 LEVIED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2013-14. IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2013-14, THIS PLEA CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR NOTICE U/ S 142(1) OF THE ACT, WHERE THE A.O. HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME OF 15 DAYS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT, FOR NON-COMP LIANCE OF NOTICE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT( A) ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 19. THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PARTLY SUSTAINING PENALTY LEVIED U/S 2 71(1)(B) OF THE ACT, TO THE EXTENT OF ` 10,000/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE A.O. THE REASONS FOR NON-ATTENDANCE AS ON THE DATE OF HE ARING. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APP RECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT WARRANTED. 20. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. FOR THE ASSESSE E SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY NOTICES WITHOUT ANY REASON S, THEREFORE, THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY LEVIED PENALTY AND HIS ORDER SHOUL D BE UPHELD. 21. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATE RIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 20 A.O. LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT FOR FA ILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. TH E A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO OFFER PROPE R EXPLANATION FOR NON- ATTENDANCE AS ON THE DATE OF HEARING. IT IS THE CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NON-ATTENDANCE AS ON THE DATE OF HEAR ING IS NOT INTENTIONAL, AS THE A.O. HAS CALLED FOR VOLUMINOUS INFORMATION FOR 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF 7 TO 15 D AYS. THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. IS VOLUMINOUS AND HE COULD N OT GATHER ALL THE INFORMATION AND ACCORDINGLY, NOT ABLE TO APPEAR BEF ORE THE A.O. AS ON THE DATE OF HEARING. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED ON ALL TH E OCCASIONS AND FURNISHED NECESSARY INFORMATION FOR COMPLETION OF A SSESSMENT WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE A.O. HAS COMPLETED T HE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THOUGH, ASSESSEE INITIALLY NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O. IN ONE OR TWO OCCASIONS, THE REASON GIVEN BY T HE ASSESSEE FOR NON- APPEARANCE APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE AND BONAFIDE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN LEVYIN G PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. THOUGH, THE CIT(A) APPRECIAT ED THE FACTS, FAILED TO CONSIDER THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, IN VIEW OF VOLUMINOUS INFORMATION CAL LED FOR BY THE A.O. AND ALSO THE ASSESSMENT BEING A SEARCH ASSESSMENT. NORMALLY, SEARCH ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 21 ASSESSMENTS ARE DONE FOR 7 YEARS, WHEREIN THE ASSES SEE IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH INFORMATION AT ONE STRETCH FOR ALL THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS, FOR WHICH SUFFICIENT TIME IS REQUIRED. IN THE PRESENT CASE O N HAND, THE A.O. HAS GIVEN 7 TO 15 DAYS TIME. IN OUR OPINION, IT IS DIFF ICULT TO GATHER ALL THE REQUIRED INFORMATION WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD. THEREFO RE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE COULD NOT ATTEND ON THE DATES OF HEARING BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT TIM E TO COLLECT VOLUMINOUS INFORMATION APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE AND BONAFIDE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE PENAL TY LEVIED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH AUG16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 26.08.2016 VG/SPS ITA NOS.81 & 32/VIZAG/2016 PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM 22 )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT SHRI PILLALA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, FL AT NO.101, FIAR FIELDS APARTMENTS, KIRLAMPUDI LAYOUT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VIS AKHAPATNAM 3. + / THE PRINCIPAL CIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A)-3, VIAKHAPATNAM, 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 12 . (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) . , # / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM