ITO, Ward-4(1), Hyd, Hyderabad V. Krishna Yadav Potail, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 328/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6682 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: G KALYAN DAS
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.328/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD. VS. MR. KRISHNA YADAV POTAIL HYDERABAD. PAN AFCPP7867D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA.NO.325/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 MR. KRISHNA YADAV POTAIL HYDERABAD. PAN AFCPP7867D VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : MR. M. SITARAM FOR ASSESSEE : MR. G. KALYAN DAS DATE OF HEARING : 16.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 .0 4 .2016 ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE CROSS-APPEALS FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL (ITA.NO.328/HYD/15 ), IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS RS.23,81,398 AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRANTED ONLY PA RTIAL RELIEF AND THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS ONLY RS .4.67 LAKHS. IN VIEW OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10 TH 2 ITA.NO.325 & 328/HYD/2015 MR. KRISHNA YADAV POTAIL, HYDERABAD. DECEMBER, 2015, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED A S WITHDRAWN BY THE DEPARTMENT. 2. IN THE RESULT, ITA.NO.328/HYD/2015 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA.NO.325/HYD/2015 : 3. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL. WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 10 GROUNDS OF AP PEAL, GROUND NO.10 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 5 ARE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,8 8,000 OUT OF THE ADVANCE OF RS.21 LAKHS RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE ON AGREEMENT OF SALE WHILE GROUNDS 6 TO 9 ARE AGAIN ST THE DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST OF RS.2.34 LAKH S ON LOANS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CHEQUES FROM THREE PERSONS NAMELY MR. M. SRINIVAS, MR. M. RAMULU AND SMT. P. RUKMINI YADAV IN THE EARLIER YEARS. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELE VANT A.Y. ON 07.09.2011 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.3,55,469. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON 15.10.2012 THE ASSESSEE FILED A RE VISED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.4,72,081 ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT DECLARE THE SALARY AND INTEREST ON CAPITAL RECEIVED FROM M/S. VENKATADRI ENTERPRISES IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. THERE AFTER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE I.T. ACT, THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS OF THE 3 ITA.NO.325 & 328/HYD/2015 MR. KRISHNA YADAV POTAIL, HYDERABAD. ASSESSEE WERE OBTAINED AND VERIFIED. ON VERIFICATIO N OF THE SAME, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE C ASH DEPOSITS INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN ING VYSYA BANK (RS.25,66,035) AND ALSO KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK (RS.6,50,000) IN TOTAL RS.32,16,035. THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF T HESE CASH DEPOSITS. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE RECEIPT AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2011 FROM WHICH THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A N AMOUNT OF RS.21 LAKHS TOWARDS ADVANCE FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE ASKE D TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS SUCH A S COPY OF AGREEMENT OF SALE, MODE OF RECEIPT OF ADVANCE OF RS.21 LAKHS, DETAILS OF THE PURCHASER INCLUDING INCOME TA X RETURNS ETC., IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE UN-REGISTERED AGREEMENT O F SALE DATED 08.06.2010 ACCORDING TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE H AS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH ONE MR. SURENDRA YAD AV SON OF G. SIVAIAH, AGED 55 YEARS, FOR SALE OF AGRIC ULTURAL LAND ADMEASURING AC.2.00 IN SURVEY NO.1356 SITUATED AT NANDIGAM (V), KOTTUR (M), MAHABUBNAGAR DISTRICT FOR SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.21 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUB MITTED A CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 08.11.2013 ISSUED BY MR . SURENDRA YADAV CONFIRMING THAT THEY PAID AN ADVANCE OF RS.21 LAKHS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND U NDER CONSIDERATION. 4.1. THE A.O. CALLED FOR CERTAIN DETAILS FROM MR. SURENDRA YADAV WHICH WERE ALSO FILED. IT WAS FURTHE R 4 ITA.NO.325 & 328/HYD/2015 MR. KRISHNA YADAV POTAIL, HYDERABAD. SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID SURENDRA YADAV DERIVES INCO ME FROM MAINTENANCE OF SHE-BUFFALOES AND SALE OF MILK WHICH FORMS PART OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY AND HENCE, HAS NOT FILED ANY INCOME TAX RETURNS TILL DATE. TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND TO VERIFY THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SAID PARTY, THE A.O. ISSUED SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE I.T. ACT AND A STATEMENT DATED 26.12.2013 WAS RECORDED. IN THE SAI D STATEMENT, MR. SURENDRA YADAV CONFIRMED THAT THE SU M OF RS.21 LAKHS IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IN CASH IN THREE INSTALLMENTS AND THAT HE HAS MOBILIZED THE AM OUNT FROM HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND HAS GIVEN IT TO THE ASS ESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF AC.2.00 OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT NAN DIGAM (V) OF KOTHUR (M), MAHABUBNAGAR DISTRICT. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT MOBILIZED OVER A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR ALONE BUT WAS OUT OF SAVINGS FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS. IN AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHY THE AGREEMENT WITH MR. K.Y. PATIL WAS CANCELLED AFTER M AKING HUGE ADVANCE OF RS. 21 LAKHS, IT WAS ANSWERED THAT MR. SURENDRA YADAV HAS CANCELLED THE AGREEMENT SINCE HE WAS IN NEED OF MONEY TO MEET THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF HIS THIRD DAUGHTER AND ALSO THE HOSPITAL EXPENDITUR E OF HIS MOTHER WHO HAD MET WITH AN ACCIDENT. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT MR. SURENDRA YADAV HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLA IM OF SAVINGS, THE SOURCE FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT OF RS. 2 1 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO CONFRONTED WITH THE STATEMENT OF MR. SURENDRA YADAV TO WHICH THE ASSESS EE FILED A REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 02.01.2014 RATIFYIN G THE 5 ITA.NO.325 & 328/HYD/2015 MR. KRISHNA YADAV POTAIL, HYDERABAD. STATEMENT OF MR. SURENDRA YADAV ABOUT THE AGREEMENT OF SALE AS WELL AS THE CANCELLATION OF THE SAID AGREEM ENT AND REFUND OF THE ADVANCE AMOUNT. THE A.O. WAS HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND HELD THAT IT IS AN ATTEMPT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO BRING HIS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY INTO THE BOOKS. HE, THEREFORE, AD DED IT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE AS SESSEE AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,88,000 AGAINST W HICH, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. G. KALYANDAS, SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE A.O. HAD DOUBT ED THE EXISTENCE OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE ITSELF, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE SAID AGREEMENT OF SALE AND ALSO TH E DEPOSIT OF SUM OF RS.15,12,000 IMMEDIATELY AFTER TH E DATE OF AGREEMENT BUT HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.5,88,00 0 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED AFTER A PERI OD OF TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS A BUSINESSMAN AND HAD EVERY RIGHT TO WITHHOLD THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR HIS BU SINESS PURPOSES AND SUBSEQUENTLY, DEPOSITED IT INTO THE BA NK ACCOUNT. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PERIOD OF TWO MO NTHS IS NOT A HUGE GAP BETWEEN THE RECEIPT AND DEPOSIT A ND THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. 6 ITA.NO.325 & 328/HYD/2015 MR. KRISHNA YADAV POTAIL, HYDERABAD. 6. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT REVENUE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE AGREEMENT OF SALE TO BE A GENUINE TRANSACTION AND THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) BUT DU E TO CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, THE REVENUES APPEAL WAS DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LO W TAX EFFECT. THEREFORE, HE OBJECTED TO THE ASSESSEES CO NTENTIONS BY PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND A LSO THE FACTUM THAT THE AGREEMENT OF SALE WAS UN-REGIST ERED. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASER COULD NOT ESTA BLISH HIS CREDITWORTHINESS TO HAVE ADVANCED A SUM OF RS.2 1 LAKHS ON THE DATE OF ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT OF SAL E. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE A .O. OUGHT TO BE SUSTAINED. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN REBUTTAL DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS STATEMENT FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK TO DEMONSTRATE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD REFLECTED THESE PAYMENTS IN ITS STATEM ENT AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A ARE NO T APPLICABLE, TO WHICH, THE LD. D.R. REBUTTED STATING THAT THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS STATEMENT IS NOT PART OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED NOR FURNISHED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR VERIFICATION BY THE A.O./LD. CIT(A). 8. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT SECTION 69A OF THE ACT APPLIES, WHERE AN ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE OWNER OF ANY 7 ITA.NO.325 & 328/HYD/2015 MR. KRISHNA YADAV POTAIL, HYDERABAD. MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE WHICH IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF ANY, MAIN TAINED BY HIM FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE OF FERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF ACQUI SITION OF MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTI CLE OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION O F THE A.O., SATISFACTORY, THEN THE MONEY AND THE VALUE OF THE BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MEN TION OF ANY MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR FURNISHING OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN OR HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINING HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY COMMENT ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, WHETH ER THE MONEY HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS A MATTER OF FACT WHICH NEEDS VERIFICATION. FURTHER, A S FAR AS ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED T HE CASH INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND THE A.O. HAS SOUGHT TO EXAMINE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PURCHASER. THE STATEMENT OF THE PURCHASER MR. SURENDRA YADAV HAS B EEN RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE I.T. ACT WHEREIN THE SAID PURCHASER HAS CONFIRMED THAT HE HAS ENTERED IN TO AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AT NANDIGAM (V) OF K OTHUR (M), MAHABUBNAGAR DISTRICT AND ALSO PAID A SUM OF R S.21 LAKHS IN CASH IN THREE INSTALLMENTS. THE SOURCE OF THE SAID AMOUNT IS ALSO STATED TO BE HIS INCOME AS WELL AS T HE INCOME OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. THE 8 ITA.NO.325 & 328/HYD/2015 MR. KRISHNA YADAV POTAIL, HYDERABAD. STATEMENT OF MR. SURENDRA YADAV HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE INCORRECT BY THE A.O. THE A.O. HAS DISBELIEVED T HE STATEMENT ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE SAID PERSON H AS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT THE NET INCOME OF THE FAMILY PER MONTH A FTER MEETING ALL THE EXPENDITURE RELATED TO DAIRY IS ABO UT RS.40,000 TO RS.45,000. THE LD. D.R. HAD ARGUED THA T IF THE INCOME OF THE SAID FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE SAID P ERSON WAS RS.40,000 TO RS.45,000 PER MONTH, THEN THEY OUG HT TO HAVE FILED RETURNS OF INCOME. WE CANNOT AGREE WI TH THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. BECAUSE MR. SURENDRA YAD AV AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE ALL ENGAGED IN AGRICULTU RAL ACTIVITIES AND ANY INCOME ARISING FROM SUCH ACTIVIT Y IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX. THEREFORE, THEY ARE NOT R EQUIRED TO FILE THE RETURNS OF INCOME. SINCE THE RECEIPT BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED BY MR. SURENDRA YADAV HAVE N OT BEEN REFUTED BY THE REVENUE WITH ANY COGENT MATERIA L, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON NOT TO ACCEPT ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AS TRUE AND CORRECT. FURTHER, THE LD. C IT(A) HAVING ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISALLOWED RS.5,88,000 ON THE SOL E GROUND THAT THE SUM WAS DEPOSITED AFTER A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT UNDER THE LAW THAT UNDER THE ACT ASSESS EE HAS TO DEPOSIT THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION INTO H IS BANK ACCOUNT IMMEDIATELY. THE ASSESSEE MAY RETAIN SOME AMOUNT FOR HIS PERSONAL OR BUSINESS NEEDS AND CAN SUBSEQUENTLY MAKE THE DEPOSIT AS PER HIS CONVENIENC E. THEREFORE, THE REASON ON WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS M ADE 9 ITA.NO.325 & 328/HYD/2015 MR. KRISHNA YADAV POTAIL, HYDERABAD. THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,88,000, IS, IN OUR OPINION , NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF D.YASODAMMA VS. CIT REPORTED IN (1968) 70 I TR 515 WAS SEIZED OF A SIMILAR ISSUE AND HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN TWO MONTHS BACK MUST BE CONSIDERED TO BE AVAILABLE WITH HER FO R DEPOSIT SUBSEQUENTLY. THUS, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUSTAINABLE. THOUGH THE REVENUE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT, WE FIN D THAT IT IS ALSO NOT MAINTAINABLE ON MERITS. ASSESSEES G ROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 TO 5 ARE ALLOWED AND ADDITION OF RS.5,88,000 IS ALSO DELETED. 9. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.2.34 LAKHS ON THE LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FR OM THREE PERSONS ALLEGEDLY FOR ALTERNATION, MODIFICATI ON, REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROPERTY NO.1-3- 183/40/81, GANDHINAGAR, HYDERABAD, WE FIND THAT THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOW ANCE ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE A NY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. 10. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE LOANS WERE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALTERATION AND MODIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY AND NON E OF THE AUTHORITIES HAVE VERIFIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE WHETHER THE SAME PERTAINS TO THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PLEADED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE I.T. ACT. H E 10 ITA.NO.325 & 328/HYD/2015 MR. KRISHNA YADAV POTAIL, HYDERABAD. THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION AND RE-ADJUDICATION. 11. THE LD. D.R. HOWEVER, OPPOSED THE SAID CONTENTION BY SUBMITTING THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM WITH DUE EVIDENCE AND IN THE CASE BEFORE US SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DIS CHARGE HIS ONUS, THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 12. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED THE INTEREST PORTION AS AGAINST THE INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES AND HAS NEVER CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 24 OF T HE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY EVID ENCE WHATSOEVER IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW OR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, WE DO NOT SEE ANY RE ASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFO RE, GROUND NOS. 6 TO 9 ARE REJECTED. 13. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL NO.325/HYD/2015 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. TO SUM-UP, ITA.NO.328/HYD/2015 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND ITA.NO.325/HYD/2015 OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.04.2016. SD/- SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 06 TH APRIL, 2016 VBP/- 11 ITA.NO.325 & 328/HYD/2015 MR. KRISHNA YADAV POTAIL, HYDERABAD. COPY TO : 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(1), 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEER BAGH, OPP. L.B. STADIUM, HYDERABAD. 2. MR. KRISHNA YADAV POTAIL, GANDHINAGAR, HYDERABAD. C/O. M/S. KALYANDAS & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 15, VENKATESHWARA COLONY, NARAYANAGUDA, HYDERABAD 500 029. 3. CIT(A) - I, HYDERABAD. 4. PR. CIT - I, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE