M/s Infotech Infin and Trading P Limited, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 487/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74679 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P SOMASEKHAR REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Additional evidence
• Section: 37; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 487/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 M/S. INFOTECH INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. HYDERABAD PAN: AAACI8882R VS. THE DEPUTY CIT CIRCLE-2(1) HYDERABAD [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY: SRI P. MURALIMOHAN RAO RESPONDENT BY: SRI P. SOMA SEKHAR REDDY DATE OF HEARING: 18.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.03.2014 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD DATED 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: (1) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FAC TS WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL. (2) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE RENTAL I NCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS. 1,55,232/-. (3) THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FA CT THAT THE INCOME DERIVED BY APPELLANT FROM BUILDING FORM PART OF BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT RENTAL INCOME. (4) THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE CLAI M OF DEPRECIATION MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY OF RS. 66,605/-. ITA NO. 487/HYD/2013 M/S. INFOTECH INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. =============================== 2 (5) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF BUILDING OBSERVING THAT IT IS NOT A BUSINESS ASSET. (6) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 79,6111- U/S 37 OF THE ACT. (7) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 13,88,78,085/- U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61. (8) THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY REGAR DING THE SOURCE, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. (9) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INITIATION OF PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING. IT FIL ED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ON 31.3.2008 DECL ARING NIL INCOME. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 13,90,32,377: (A) INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY RS. 1,55,232 (B) DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION RS. 66,605 (C) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S. 37 RS. 79,611 (D) ADDITION UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S. 68 RS. 13,88,78,085 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN THIS CASE TH E ASSESSEE PRESENTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DURING THE C OURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS SENT TO THE AO FOR A REMAND REPORT. THE REPORT WAS RECEIVED IN HIS OFFICE ON 18 TH OCTOBER, 2012. A COPY OF THIS REMAND REPORT WAS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSE SSEE WHO ITA NO. 487/HYD/2013 M/S. INFOTECH INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. =============================== 3 GAVE ITS COUNTER SUBMISSIONS. THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER ENQUIRIES ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BUT RE QUESTED THAT SHE MAY BE ALLOWED TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRIES. SHE WAS ALLOWED TO DO SO VIDE LETTER DATED 1 ST NOVEMBER, 2012. THE AO WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE REMAND REPORT BY 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. HOWEVER, IN SPITE OF A NUMBER OF R EMINDERS NO SUCH REPORT WAS SUBMITTED. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A ) ADJUDICATED THE CASE BASED ON THE INFORMATION ON RE CORD AND REMAND REPORT ALREADY RECEIVED IN HIS OFFICE. 5. REGARDING THE FIRST ISSUE RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF RENTAL INCOME DECLARED AS BUSINESS INCOME BY THE AS SESSEE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY', THE CI T(A) OBSERVED THAT DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE ASS ESSEE ONLY STATED THAT THE RENTAL INCOME WAS TO BE CONSID ERED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND NOT FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. NO EVIDENCE OR REASONS WERE PROVIDED FOR THE SAME. TH E CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TR ADING IN VARIOUS ITEMS AND NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASING PROPERTIES AND LETTING THEM OUT. SECONDLY IN ORDER FOR RENTAL INCOME TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS, TH E ASSESSEE HAS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT CERTAIN WELL PLANN ED ACTIVITIES WERE BEING CARRIED OUT IN THAT PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROFITS SO AS TO HAVE THAT INCOME QUALI FY AS ITA NO. 487/HYD/2013 M/S. INFOTECH INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. =============================== 4 BUSINESS INCOME. NO SUCH EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION H AS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE CONTRARY FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT IS CLEAR THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS ONLY A PASSIVE RECEIVER OF RENT. HE OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY CLASSIFIED THE RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE RE VENUE. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ARGUME NT OF THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL. IN OUR OPINION, RENTAL INCOME IS RIGHTLY CLASSIFIED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. BEING SO , THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 7. THE NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMING OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 79,611 U/S. 37 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION BECAUSE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN CLAI MED WHILE ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS HAD BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. 8. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CLAIMED BUSINESS EXPENDITURE OF RS 79,611/- FOR THE A.Y. 20 07-08 UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS LIKE AUDIT FEES, BANK CHARGES , RATES & TAXES AND NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT BY T HE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 487/HYD/2013 M/S. INFOTECH INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. =============================== 5 DURING THE YEAR. THEREFORE, EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AS THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND ONLY EXPENDITURE THAT IS ALLOWABLE IS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE. IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE TERMINOLOGY US ED IN SECTION 37 OF IT ACT THAT ONLY THE EXPENDITURE THAT IS LAID OUT EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS IS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE INCO ME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS & PROFESSION. H ERE IN THIS CASE AS THE EXPENDITURE NOT INCURRED DURING TH E COURSE OF BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 79,611/- WH ICH IS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO AND A DDED BACK TO TAXABLE INCOME OF ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007-08. 9. DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ARGUE THIS ISSUE AND DID NOT PRESENT A NY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT BUSINESS HAD INDEED BEEN CARRIED OUT B Y THE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR. NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED T O SHOW THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE. THE CIT(A) WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO. HE OBSERV ED THAT NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER WAS CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSE E ITA NO. 487/HYD/2013 M/S. INFOTECH INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. =============================== 6 COMPANY DURING THE YEAR. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION. NOT A SINGLE VOUCHER OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE WAS PROD UCED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE VERACITY OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE VERACITY O F THE EXPENSES CLAIMED. WE, THEREFORE, ARE INCLINED TO C ONFIRM THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 11. THE NEXT GROUND (I.E., GROUND NO. 7) IS WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 13,88,78,085 U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. DURING THE YEAR ASSESSE E COMPANY CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED ADVANCES AMOUNTING TO .RS 13,88,78,0 85/- DETAILS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE DURING SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS SHOWED THAT ADVANCES WERE INTR ODUCED IN THE FOLLOWING NAMES: S. NO. NAME OF THE CONCERN ADVANCES RECEIVED (RS.) 1. CHARMINAR GRANITE EXPORT LTD. 600 2. FUTURE TECH INDUSTRIES LTD. 5,01,42,731 3. GB TRADING & INV. LTD. 4,98,89,100 4. GJ TRADING PVT. LTD. 4,10,000 5. GLOBAL FORGINGS LTD. 13,75,000 ITA NO. 487/HYD/2013 M/S. INFOTECH INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. =============================== 7 6. PLATINA PROPERTIES & PROJECTS LTD. 6,50,000 7. PRIME INFO INVEST LTD. 2,85,33,252 8. SAMUDRA HOSPITALS LTD. 14,87,342 9. SUJANA CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. 3,00,000 10. SWAIN FINANCE & TRADING PVT. LTD. 60,90,060 TOTAL 13,88,78,085 12. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO SUBSTANTIATE THE AMOU NTS INTRODUCED BY PROVING IDENTITY OF CREDITOR, CREDITW ORTHINESS OF CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. A NUMB ER OF OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED TO ASSESSEE TO FILE THE SAME BUT NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED, NOT EVEN CONFIRMATION LE TTERS COULD BE PRODUCED FROM ANY OF THE PARTIES. AS PER PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 68 OF IT ACT, ONUS IS ON ASSESSEE TO SUBSTA NTIATE THE AMOUNTS INTRODUCED IN ITS BOOKS TO THE SATISFACTION OF AO. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY BEING PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, MORE RESPONSIBILITY IS CAST ON IT TO PROVE GENUINENESS O F HUGE AMOUNT INTRODUCED IN FORM OF ADVANCES AS AMOUNTS WI LL NOT BE ACCEPTED FROM GENERAL PUBLIC BUT KNOWN PERSONS. THEREFORE, IT SHOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT FOR ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCES SUBSTANTIATING THE AMOUNT INTRODUCED. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE EVEN BASIC INFORMATION. THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE EVEN CONFIRMATION LETTERS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT HUGE AMOUNT INTRODUCED AS ADVANCES FROM VARIOUS PARTIES IS NOTH ING BUT UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF COMPANY. SINCE ASSESSEE FAIL ED TO ITA NO. 487/HYD/2013 M/S. INFOTECH INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. =============================== 8 DISCHARGE ONUS OF PROVING GENUINENESS OF CREDITS IN TRODUCED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT, THE AMOUNT INTRODUCED IN NAMES OF VARIOUS CREDITORS RS. 13,88, 78,085 IS CONSIDERED AS DEEMED INCOME OF ASSESSEE AND CHARGED TO TAX AS ITS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES FOR A.Y. 2007-08. 13. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED AS ADDITION AL EVIDENCE PHOTOCOPIES OF CONFIRMATION LETTERS WHICH WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY ALL THE 10 COMPAN IES WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE GIVEN THE ADVANCES TO TH E ASSESSEE. THIS EVIDENCE HAS BEEN WITH THE AO FOR M ANY MONTHS AND A DIRECTION HAD BEEN ISSUED TO THE AO TO CONDUCT ENQUIRIES AS SHE DEEMS FIT. IN VIEW OF THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THE CIT(A) DIR ECTED THE AO TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE CIT(A) OB SERVED THAT IT IS A SETTLED LAWS THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SATISFYING THE RIGOUR OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THREE C ONDITIONS NEED TO BE FULFILLED: O IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR O CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR O GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION 14. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED OR AUTHENTICATED BY IT. THESE ARE ONLY PHOTOCOPIES WITH NO AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, SINCE ALL THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS ARE MENTIONED IN THES E ITA NO. 487/HYD/2013 M/S. INFOTECH INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. =============================== 9 LETTERS THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT CAN BE GIVEN TO THE AS SESSEE AS FAR AS THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS IS CONCERNED. HOWE VER, WITH REGARD TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS ABSOLUTELY NO INFORM ATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT CLEAR AS T O WHAT BUSINESS IS BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE CREDITORS, WHA T ARE THEIR TURNOVERS AND WHETHER THEY WERE IN A POSITION TO AD VANCE SUCH HUGE AMOUNTS IN THIS PARTICULAR YEAR OR NOT. T HE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER PROVIDED ITS OWN BANK ACCOUNT COPY OR ANY DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS. THER E IS NO OTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHICH WOULD T HROW ANY LIGHT ON THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. WI TH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, ONCE AGAIN NOT HING WHATSOEVER IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD NOR HAS BEEN PROV IDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SAME. AS ALREADY STATED, NO COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS ARE AVAILABLE AND IT IS NOT EVEN C LEAR WHETHER THE AMOUNTS CAME THROUGH CHEQUE OR BY CASH. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SATISFY THE RIGOUR OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS A ND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE ABSOLUTELY UNPR OVEN. THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. AG GRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 487/HYD/2013 M/S. INFOTECH INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. =============================== 10 15. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GOT PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO PUT ITS CASE AND PRAYED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDE NCE TO SUPPORT ITS CASE AND THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE CIT (A) IS IMPROPER AND REQUESTED THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). HE ALSO PLACED REL IANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IN ITA NO. 920/HYD/2011 DATED 29.11.2013 WHER EIN HELD AS FOLLOWS: '5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUES AND EXAMINED THE RECORD. AS FAR AS VARIOUS CREDITS ARE CONCERNED, THE SAME ARE GROUP TRANSACTIONS AND THE AO HIMSELF RECORDED IN PARA 5 IN ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED CONFIR MATIONS FROM ALL CREDITOR COMPANIES. IN SPITE OF THAT, THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT DUE TO LACK OF CROSS VERIFICATION IN S OME CASES AND VARIATIONS IN SOME ENTRIES, THE AMOUNTS WERE ADDED AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE FURNISHED FURTHER INFORMATION IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE AMOUNT TO TH E EXTENT OF RS. 15.42 CRORES. THE AMOUNTS SUSTAINED TO THE EXTE NT OF RS. 3.17 CRORES ARE NOTHING BUT THE DISCREPANCIES FOUND BETWEEN THE ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AND ACCOUNTS OF OTHER PART IES, AS VERIFIED FROM THE RECORDS OF ASSESSING OFFICERS. AS SEEN FROM THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, THERE WERE TRANSFERS OF ENTRIES FROM ONE COMPANY TO ANOTHER CO MPANY, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO AT ALL. NOT ONLY THAT EVEN WHEN THE FURTHER INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED BEF ORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) REFUSED TO ENTERTAIN THE SAME AS CAN BE SEEN FROM PARA 6.1 OF CIT(A)'S ORDER. WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT ASSESSEE DESERVES ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN TH E TRANSACTIONS, PARTICULARLY, IN THE CONTEXT THAT MAN Y OF THE CREDITS PERTAIN TO EARLIER YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, WE A RE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE R EQUIRED TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE AO, AS ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN DU E OPPORTUNITY. WITH REFERENCE TO RENTAL INCOME RECEIV ED BUT ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ' AND ALSO COMPUTATION OF SHORT-TERM LOSS AND LONG TERM LOSS, WHICH EVEN THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THERE ARE MISTAKES VIDE PARA 10 OF THE ITA NO. 487/HYD/2013 M/S. INFOTECH INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. =============================== 11 IMPUGNED ORDER, ARE REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED BY THE AO WITH CLAIMS IN VARIOUS YEARS. THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT ORDERS ARE TO BE SET ASIDE AND RESTORE ALL THE ISSU ES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH EXAMINATION AND TO DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND FACTS, A FTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PUT-FORTH THE NEC ESSARY MATERIAL/EVIDENCE IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIMS. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY.' 16. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 17. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINI ON THAT THE CIT(A) THOUGH CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT IN RESPECT OF ABOVE CREDITS, THE AO FAILED TO SUBMIT THE SAME. I N OUR OPINION, WITH ALL FAIRNESS, THE ISSUE IS REQUIRED T O BE EXAMINED BY THE AO IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE IS R EMITTED BACK TO THE AO FOR RECONSIDERATION AND THE ASSESSEE SHAL L BE PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE REQU IRED MATERIAL BEFORE HIM. 18. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH MARCH, 2014. SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 12 TH MARCH, 2014 TPRAO ITA NO. 487/HYD/2013 M/S. INFOTECH INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. =============================== 12 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. INFOTECH INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD., C/O. M/S. P. MURALI & CO., CAS, 6-3-655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD-82. 2. THE DEPUTY CIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT-II, HYDERABAD 5. THE DR BENCH 'A', ITAT, HYDERABAD