ITO., Ward-11(4), Hyderabad V. Sri Pandala Lingam, Hyderabad

ITA 326/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 32622514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADAGIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 142(1); 148; 144; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.326/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 ITO, WARD 11(4) HYDERABAD. VS. SRI PANDALA LINGAM HYDERABAD PAN AHEPP 7826Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : MR. B. YADAGIRI FOR ASSESSEE : MR. S. RAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 27.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.03.2014 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS IS REVENUE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A)- VI, HYDERABAD DATED 28.12.2012. THE REVENUE HAS RAI SED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 2. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT NOTICE U/S.142(1) WAS ISSUED BEY OND THE PRESCRIBED TIME AND IN HOLDING THE ASSESSMENT A S NOT LEGALLY TENABLE AND NULL AND VOID. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE AMENDMEN T BROUGHT IN SECTION 142(1) W.E.F. 01.04.2006. 5. THE CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING DECISION OF THE ITAT, A-BENCH IN THE CASE OF V. CHAITANYA IN ITA.NO.334/HYD/2009 DATED 20.06.2006. 2 ITA.NO.326/HYD/2013 SRI PANDALA LINGAM, HYDERABAD 2. BRIEFLY STATED, A.O. ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 142(1) ON 27.08.2007 CALLING FOR RETURN OF INCOME F OR THE A.Y. 2005-06 ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION THAT ASSESS EE HAD INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.17,15,020/- IN CANARA BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE F.Y. 2004-2005. SINCE ASSESSEE D ID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE, A.O. PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE I.T. ACT AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS . 17,15,020/- BRINGING THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRE D AN APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) QUESTIONING THE EX-PARTE AS SESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE I.T. ACT AND ALSO RAISING AN ISSUE THAT A.O. ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) TO FILE RET URN OF INCOME WHEN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME WAS ALREADY FILED. LD. C IT(A) INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING THE ISSUE ON THE ABOVE GROUN D, TOOK-UP THE ISSUE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE BEYOND ONE YEAR FRO M THE END OF THE A.Y. AND HELD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECT ION 142(1) WAS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME. HIS FINAL CONCLUSIO N IN PARA 4.4. TO 5. IS AS UNDER : 4.4. IN THE CASE OF BHAGWATI PRASAD KEDIA VS. CIT, 248 ITR 562 (CAL), THE HONBLE KOLKATTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT A STATUTE IS A CREATURE OF THE LEGISLATURE. EVERY STA TUTE HAS ITS PREAMBLE, IT HAS ITS OBJECTS AND REASONS FOR WHICH IT WAS ENACTED. TO FIND OUT THE CORRECT MEANING OF A PARTI CULAR PROVISION OF THE STATUTE, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COU RT OF LAW TO EXAMINE NOT ONLY THE WORDS OF THE SAID PROVISION BU T ALSO THE BACKGROUND IN WHICH SUCH LAW IS ENACTED. EVERY STAT UTE MUST BE GIVEN A LOGICAL MEANING AND HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCT ION. WITH THIS BACKGROUND, THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING SUCH NOTICE U/S. 142(1) CAN BE INFERRED IN VIEW OF THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 139,143, 144, 147 & 153 OF THE I.T. ACT. SE CTION 148 CLEARLY SPELLS OUT THAT RETURNS FILED IN COMPLIANCE TO THESE PROVISIONS SHALL BE TREATED AS IF FILED U/S. 139(4) . THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE IN ENACTING THI S PROVISION. 3 ITA.NO.326/HYD/2013 SRI PANDALA LINGAM, HYDERABAD MOREOVER, SECTION 139(4) REFERS TO NOTICE U/S 142(1 ) AS ALREADY DISCUSSED ABOVE. THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING OF RETURN UNDER THIS PROVISION IS ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF T HE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. REFERRING TO NOTICE U/S. 142(1) W ITHIN THIS PROVISION IMPLIES THAT ANY SUCH NOTICE WILL NECESSA RILY HAVE TO BE ISSUED WITHIN THE AFOREMENTIONED TIME FRAME. THU S, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING OF NO TICE U/S. 142(1) IS ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FOLLOWING DATES ARE NOTEWO RTHY : A.Y. IN QUESTION 2005-06 TIME LIMIT FOR FILING RETURN 31.07.2005 TIME LIMIT FOR NOTICE U/S.142(1) 31.03.2007 DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.142(1) 27.08.2007 5. SINCE THE NOTICE U/S.142(1) WAS ISSUED BEYOND T HE PRESCRIBED TIME, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT LEGALLY TENABLE AND IS NULL AND VOID. 4. REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED. LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED TH AT THE HONBLE ITAT, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. V.CHAITANYA HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE SIMILAR TO THE ABOVE AND HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE. 5. LD. COUNSEL, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF V. CHAITANYA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS IN T HAT CASE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME WHEREAS, AS SESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN THIS CASE AND SO THE PRIN CIPLES THEREIN DO NOT APPLY. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. THE SHORT QUESTIO N TO BE CONSIDERED ON REVENUE GROUNDS IS WHETHER THE CIT(A) IS CORRECT OR NOT IN HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUE D BEYOND THE 4 ITA.NO.326/HYD/2013 SRI PANDALA LINGAM, HYDERABAD PERIOD OF TIME LIMIT. THIS ISSUE WAS ALREADY DECIDE D BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACI T VS. V. CHAITANYA IN ITA. NO. 334/HYD/2009 WHEREIN THE PRIN CIPLES WERE ELABORATELY DISCUSSED AND HELD AS UNDER : 6. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON FACTS. WE FIND THAT THE NOTICE UNDER S.142(1) OF THE ACT ISSUED ALLEGED LY BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER S.142(1) OF THE ACT , IS ALSO VALID IN VIEW OF THE DEEMING PROVISIONS, VIZ. PROVI SO TO S.142(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE SAID PROVISO READ S AS FOLLOWS: '142(1) ...... PROVIDED THAT WHERE ANY NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED UNDE R THIS SUBSECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1990 TO A PERSON WHO HAS NOT MADE A R ETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SE CTION 139 OR BEFORE THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, ANY SUCH NOTICE ISSUED TO HIM SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN S ERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUB-SECTION. '' FROM THE ABOVE EXTRACTION OF THE PROVISO TO S.142(1 )(I) OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT ANY NOTICE SERVED ON THE ASSE SSEE AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR SHALL BE DE EMED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF S.142(1) OF THE ACT,. LEARNED COUNSEL MENTIONED THA T IN THE INSTANT CASE NOTICE WAS SERVED ON 29.8.2007. THE DE LAY IS OF MORE THAN 15 MONTHS, SINCE THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ENDED ON 31.3.2006. THUS, THE IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER S.142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AFTER EXPIRY OF 15 M ONTHS FROM THE END OF THE DUE DATE 31.3.2006 PROVIDED IN S.142(1) OF THE ACT. SUCH A DELAY OF 15 MONTHS CANNOT BE CAL LED REASONABLE DELAY, COVERED UNDER THE DEEMED PROVISIO NS OF THE PROVISO TO S.142(1)(I) OF THE ACT. PER CONTRA, THE REVENUE ARGUES THAT THE SAID PROVISO DOES NOT SPECIFY ANY O THER TIME LIMITS AND THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED AFTER 15 MO NTHS DELAY SHOULD ALSO BE DEEMED VALID. WE AGREE WITH THE ARGU MENT OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REV ENUE. PROVISIONS CONTAIN THE OPERATIVE EXPRESSION, I.E. ' ANY NOTICE 5 ITA.NO.326/HYD/2013 SRI PANDALA LINGAM, HYDERABAD HAS BEEN SERVED..., SUCH NOTICE ISSUED TO HIM' . TH IS EXPRESSION ONLY QUALIFY THE CONDITIONS ISSUE AND SE RVICE OF ANY NOTICE. THE EXPRESSION 'ANY' IN OUR OPINION SHO ULD COVER THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED WITH THE DELAY OF 15 MON THS OF THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THE DATES MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED OR DERS AND THE DATES OF THE AMENDMENT TO S.142(I) PROVISO, VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2006, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CI T(A) DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS. 7. REGARDING THE OTHER ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED COUNSE L ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF S.148 OF T HE ACT, IN OUR OPINION, THESE ARE SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS AND IT IS NOT THE CASE HERE THAT PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.144 READ WITH S. 142(1)(I) OF THE ACT ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY INITIATED, WHILE THE OTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.148 ARE IN FORCE OR VICE VERSA. THEREFORE, THE CITATION RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI S.RAMA RAO, IS INAPPLICABLE. 8. IN SPIRIT, THE ISSUE RAISED IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF KAUSARI BEGUM (SUPRA). PARA 3 OF THE SAID DECISION, RELIED UPON BY LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE US, READS AS FOLLOWS- '3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER NOTICE U/S 142(1) ISSUED AFT ER END OF ONE YEAR FROM THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS BARRE D BY LIMITATION OR NOT. AT THIS STAGE, IT IS NECESSARY T O LOOK INTO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. '142 (1) FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN ASSESSMENT UN DER THIS ACT, THE AO MAY SERVE ON ANY PERSON WHO HAS MA DE A RETURN (UNDER SECTION 115WD OR SECTION 139 (OR IN W HOSE CASE THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECT ION 139] FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN HAS EXPIRED] A NOTICE REQ UIRING, ON A DATE TO BE THEREIN SPECIFIED- (I) WHERE SUCH PERSON HAS NOT MADE A RETURN (WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 (OR BE FORE THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR] TO FURNISH A R ETURN OF HIS INCOME OR THE INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON IN RES PECT OF WHICH HE IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THIS ACT, IN THE PRESC RIBED FORM 6 ITA.NO.326/HYD/2013 SRI PANDALA LINGAM, HYDERABAD AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND SETTING F ORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, OR [PROVIDE D THAT WHERE ANY NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED UNDER THIS SUB-SEC TION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE AFTER THE END OF THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1990 TO A PERSON WHO HAS NOT MADE A RETURN W ITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 1 39 OR BEFORE THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, ANY SUCH NOTICE ISSUED TO HIM SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN S ERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUB-SECTION' THE PROVISO TO SECTION 142(1) WAS INTRODUCED BY FIN ANCE ACT, 2006 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1-4-1990. THE A FORESAID AMENDMENT AS EXPLAINED IN THE NOTES ON CLAUSES TO T HE FINANCE BILL, 2006 IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 'CLAUSE 35 OF THE BILL SEEKS TO AMEND SECTION 142 O F THE INCOME- TAX ACT RELATING TO INQUIRY BEFORE ASSESSME NT. THE EXISTING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SAID SECTION PROVIDE THAT WHERE A PERSON HAS NOT MADE A RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SU B-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139, THE AO MAY SERVE A NOTICE ON HI M REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS PROPOSED TO AMEND THE SAID CLAUSE (I) SO AS T O PROVIDE THAT WHERE A PERSON HAS NOT MADE A RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE HT END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE AO MAY SERVE A NOTICE UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION ON HIM AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH RETURN OF INCOME. THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 200 6. IT IS FURTHER PROPOSED TO PROVIDE THAT THE NOTICE REFERRE D TO IN SAID SUB-SECTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SAID CLAUSE SERVED AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON O R AFTER 1ST APRIL, 1990 SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A NOTICE SERV ED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE AFORESAID SUB -SECTION. THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT RETROSPECTIVELY FRO M 1ST APRIL, 1990.' A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 142(1) ALONG WITH ITS PR OVISO AND EXPLANATIONS TO NOTES MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IN A CASE WHERE NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED WITHIN THE TIME ALL OWED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, THE AO IS VESTED WITH POWER TO I SSUE NOTICE 7 ITA.NO.326/HYD/2013 SRI PANDALA LINGAM, HYDERABAD U/S 142(1) EVEN AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSES SMENT YEAR. WHEN THERE IS NO EXPRESS PROVISION LIMITING I SSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FRO M THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO SUCH LIMITATION CAN BE READ INTO THE PROVISION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE D O NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANTIAL FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNE D AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NOTICES U/S 142(1) CANNOT BE ISSU ED WHEN NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED. THE PROVISION U/S 14 2(1) IS VERY MUCH CLEAR IN THIS RESPECT. THE DECISION OF IT AT, CALCUTTA BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHAW WALLACE & CO. LT D. VS. DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ 258 RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AR IS OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE AS IT WAS RENDERED PRIOR TO THE INSERTION OF PROVISO TO SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT (A) WAS NOT CORR ECT IN HOLDING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) TO BE AB INITIO VOID. SINCE THE CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL ON TECHNIC AL ISSUE WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS OF THE CASE, WE THINK IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) AND DIRECT HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD T O THE ASSESSEE.' THE ABOVE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT.KAUSARI BEGUM (SUPRA), WHICH CLINCHES THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME WAS NOT AVAILABL E TO THE CIT(A), AS IT WAS PRONOUNCED SUBSEQUENTLY ON 18.5.2 012. IN VIEW OF THE NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE ASPECTS RELATI NG TO INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELATING TO S.142(1) WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BEYOND THE TIME SPECIFIED BY THE STATUTE, AND ALSO NON-CONSIDERATIO N OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH COVERS THE ISSUE ON MERITS, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED OR DER OF THE CIT(A), AND AS INDICATED IN THE BENCH, RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSAL OF TH E APPEAL BEFORE HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER ON ALL ASPECTS OF THE MATT ER. 7. THEREFORE, ON LEGAL PRINCIPLES AS ANALYSED ABOV E, CIT(A) DECISION HOLDING THAT NOTICE WAS NULL AND VO ID IS NOT CORRECT AND THEREFORE, HIS ORDER TO THE EXTENT ON T HIS ISSUE HAS TO BE SET ASIDE. ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THIS CONTE NTION AT ALL. WHAT WE FURTHER NOTICE IS THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT C ONSIDERED 8 ITA.NO.326/HYD/2013 SRI PANDALA LINGAM, HYDERABAD THE ISSUE ON MERITS AS WELL. ASSESSEE STATES THAT H E HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME, BUT WHEN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM IT IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY T O INFORM THE A.O. THAT RETURN HAS ALREADY BEEN FILED. THIS FACT WAS NOT INFORMED TO THE A.O. NOR ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE T HE A.O. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED ON 14.09.2007 AND 15.10.2007. THEREFORE, A.O. HAD PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSE SSMENT ON THE BASIS OF SECTION 144 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF L AW. AS THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE TO EITHER THE N OTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) OR TO THE SUBSEQUENT NO TICES ISSUED, WE CANNOT AT THIS POINT OF TIME HOLD THAT A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW. THEREFORE, IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT PASSED UND ER SECTION 144 AND RESTORE THE ISSUE OF EXAMINATION OF DEPOSIT S IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WHO SHOULD GIV E PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETE THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE COPY OF T HE RETURN WITH THE A.O. AND NECESSARY DETAILS EXPLAINING THE SOURC E OF THE FUNDS, ON WHICH NOTICE CALLING FOR THE RETURN WAS I SSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1). A.O. SHOULD GIVE DUE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE SHOULD COOPERATE IN FURNISHING NECESSA RY EXPLANATIONS, SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE A.O. PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 IS ALSO SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSMENT IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO DO IT AFRESH AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. ASSESSEE IS FREE TO R AISE ANY CONTENTIONS/ OBJECTIONS IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT , IF SO REQUIRED. REVENUES GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. 9 ITA.NO.326/HYD/2013 SRI PANDALA LINGAM, HYDERABAD 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.03. 2014. SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 07 TH MARCH, 2014 VBP/- COPY TO : 1. IT O , WARD 11(4), D BLOCK, 5 TH FLOOR, I.T. TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 2. MR. PANDALA LINGAM, D.NO.19-85/17 RUKMINIPURAM, ECIL, KAPRA, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-VI, 6A, I.T. TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, HYDERA BAD 500 004. 4. CIT-V, HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT, A BENCH, HYDERABAD.