Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad V. Sri M Malakondaiah, Hyderabad

ITA 520/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 52022514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B RAMA KRISHNA
• Assessee Lawyers: K C DEVADAS
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained investment; Deemed dividend; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 520 /HYD/201 3 (ASS ESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 0 8 ) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 3(1) , HYDERABAD V/S. SHRI M.MALAKONDAIAH, HYDERABAD ( PAN - A DUPM 0073 H ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.RAMAKRISHNA, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.C.D EVADAS DATE OF HEARING 01 . 1 0.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01.10.2014 O R D E R PER P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS), VIJAYAWADA DATE D 24.1.2013 AND THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS PROJECTED IN THE FOLLOWING G R OU N DS RAISED THEREIN. 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REASON FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 WAS FOUND TO BE NON - EXISTING. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE REASON FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS TO EXAMINE THE SOURCES FOR INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY, WHICH IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS EXPLAINED TO BE ADV ANCE RECEIVED FROM THE COMPANY, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. AS SUCH, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY IS EMBEDDED IN THE ADDITION MADE I TA NO. 520/HYD/2013 SHRI M.MALAKONDAIAH, HYDERABAD 2 U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY SHO ULD HAVE UPHELD THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.147. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ADVANCE GIVEN BY COMPANY TO ASSESSEE IS A GENERAL ADVANCE AS WAS CATEGORIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY AND AS SUCH THE SAME FALLS WITH IN HE AMBIT OF S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT EXPRESSION BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY WAS ROPED IN TO ESCAPE THE RIGORS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 2(22)(E) AND 147 OF THE ACT. 5. .. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PR E SENT CA S E IS AN IN D I VI DUAL, WHO DERIVES INCOME FROM REMUN ER ATION, RENT S AND CAPITAL GAINS. THE R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CON S I D ERATION WAS FILED BY HIM ON 2.4.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT R.29,80,060 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINALLY COMPL E TED UNDER S.143(3) ON 31. 1 2.2009, THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME WAS ACCEP T ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH E REAFTER, IT CAME TO THE NO T I C E O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE RETURNING OF F ICER OF E LECTION S THAT A PROPERTY ADMEASURING 690 SQ. YAR D S WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AT VIJAYAWADA DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR RS.1,34,47,500 SINCE THE SAID TRANSAC T ION OF PU R CH AS E OF PROPERTY WAS NO T REFLECTED IN TH E R E TURN OF IN C OM E FILED B Y TH E ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UN D ER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UN D ER S.147 IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE SOU R CE OF THE SAID INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCOR D INGLY A NOTICE UNDER S.148 WAS ISSUE D BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON 8.3.2010 IN R E SPON S E TO WHI C H A REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FIL E D BY HIM MAY BE TREATED AS A RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER S.148. DU R IN G THE COURSE OF RE - ASSESSMENT PROCE E DIN G S, THE SOU R CE FOR MA K IN G THE IN VE STMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT VIJAY A WADA WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADVANCE S I TA NO. 520/HYD/2013 SHRI M.MALAKONDAIAH, HYDERABAD 3 O F RS .1,07,40,375 RECEIVED F R OM M/S. R.K. TOWNSHIP (P) LTD. , IN WHICH TH E ASSESSEE WAS A MAJOR SHAREHOLDER ; AND OF RS.26,46,000 FROM VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS TOW ARDS SALE OF LAND. THE CON F IRM A TIONS FROM THE CON C ERNED PARTIES WERE ALSO FIL E D BY THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A COPY O F THE ADVANCE ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF M/S., R.K. TOWNSHIP (P) LTD. IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF HAVING REC E IVED THE AD VANCE F R OM THE SAID COMPANY. AFTER VERIFYING TH E SAID DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FIL E D BY TH E ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SOU R CE O F FUNDS UTILISED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY AT VIJAYAWADA. HE HOWEVER NOTICED FROM THE COPY OF THE ADVANCE ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. R . K . TOWNSHIP (P) LTD. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT A TOTAL SUM OF RS.2,66,07,339 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID COMPANY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE , THEREFO RE , PROCEEDED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF S.2(22)(E) TO THE SAID AMOUNT AND HELD FINALLY THAT THE ADVANCE OF RS.2,66, 07, 39 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S.R.K.TOWNSHIP (P) LTD. WAS COVERED BY TH E SAID PROVISION. ACCOR D INGLY, H E TR E ATED THE SAID AMOUNT AS DEEM E D DIVIDEND UNDER S.2(22)(E) AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F T H E ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.147 BY THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2010. 3. AGAIN S T THE ORD E R PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.147, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) C H ALL E NGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS DISPUTING THE ADDITION MADE THEREIN ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER S.2(22)(E) ON MERITS. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) . IT W A S SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE - OPEN E D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SOU R CE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT VIJAYAWADA, WHICH ACCORDING T O HIM , WAS I TA NO. 520/HYD/2013 SHRI M.MALAKONDAIAH, HYDERABAD 4 NO T DISCLOSED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME . I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SOU R CE OF THE SAID IN VE STMENT AS EXPLAINED BY TH E ASSESSEE DURING THE COU R SE OF RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN G S WAS ACCEPTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE WAS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F TH E ASSESSEE . IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ORIGIN A L GROUND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE P R OCEE D INGS UNDER S.147 WERE INI TI ATED THUS DID NO T SURVIVE AND IN TH E SE FACTS AND CIR C UM S TANCES OF TH E CASE, IT WAS NO T PERMISS IBLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE UP A NEW ISSUE RELATING TO THE DEEMED DIVIDEND U N DER S.2(22)(E) AND MAKE THE ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S. 1 47. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAV E DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS IN I TIATED BY HIM UNDER S.147, AFTER HAVING SATISFIED THAT THE ORIGINAL G R OUND ON WHICH THE PROCE EDI NGS UNDER S.147 WERE INITIATED DID NO T SU R VIVE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND MERIT IN TH E SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THI S PRELIMINARY ISSUE AND HELD RELYING INTER ALIA ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. JET AIRWAYS INDIA LTD. (331 ITR 236) THAT WHEN THE REASON FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER S.147 WAS FOUND TO BE NOT EXISTING THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PURSUE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 1 47 AND TO MAKE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT O F A DIFFERENT ISSUE R E L A TING TO THE DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER S.2(22)(E). THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO H E LD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER UN D ER S.2(22)(E) ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVI D END EVEN OTHERWISE WAS NO T SUSTAINABLE ON MERITS, AS THE TRAN S ACTI O N S INVOLVING PAYMENT OF AD V ANCES TO THE ASSESSEE BY M/S. R.K. TOWNSHIP (P) LTD. INVOLVE D BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND THE SAME WERE IN THE NATURE O F COMMERCIAL TRAN S AC T ION S , WHICH DO NO T FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF S.2(22)(E) OF THE AC T. I TA NO. 520/HYD/2013 SHRI M.MALAKONDAIAH, HYDERABAD 5 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) , R EV ENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALS O PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF TH E LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE REASON FOR RE - OPENIN G O F THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 1 47 HAVING BEEN FOUN D TO BE NON - EXISTENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS AND IT W AS NO T PERMISSIBLE FOR HIM TO MAKE ADDITION ON OTHER ISSUES RELATING TO DEEM E D DIVIDEND UNDER S.2(22)(E), THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RAISED A CONTENTION THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER S.2(22)(E) IS VERY MUCH CONNECTED TO THE MAIN ISSUE REL A TING TO THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE PU R CHA S E OF PROPERTY IN VIJAYAWADA ON THE B A SIS OF WHICH THE RE - ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT WHILE EXAMINING THE SAID ISSUE REL A TING TO THE IN V ESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PROPERTY AT VIJAYAWADA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE HUGE ADVANCES RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE F R OM M/S. R.K. TOWNSHIP (P) LTD. AND SIN C E THE PROVISION S OF S.2(22)(E) WERE CLEARLY APPL ICABLE TO THE SAID ADVAN C E AMOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WITHIN HIS POW E R TO MAKE THE ADDITION UNDER S.2(22)(E) IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPL E TED UNDER S.143(3) R E AD WITH S.147. WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO AGREE WITH THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, KEEP I NG IN VI E W THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY H IGH C OU R T IN TH E CASE OF CIT V/S. J ET AIRWAYS I NDIA L TD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN A SIMILAR ISSUE RELATING TO SCOPE O F RE - ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 1 47 WHEN THE R E ASON FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT IS FOUN D TO BE NON - EXISTENT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND D I S CUSSED BY TH E IR L ORDSHIPS AT LENGTH AFTER TAKING INTO COSNIDRATION THE REL E VANT PROVIS I ON O F TH E ACT BEFORE IT WAS FINALLY HELD AS FOLLOWS - I TA NO. 520/HYD/2013 SHRI M.MALAKONDAIAH, HYDERABAD 6 EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (N O.2) ACT OF 2009, WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL, 1, 1989. THE EFFECT OF THE EXPLANATION IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE THAT HAS BEEN ISSUED U/S.148 CONTAINING THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT DOES NOT CONTAIN A REFERENCE TO A PARTICULAR ISSUE WITH REFERE NCE TO WHICH INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, WHEN SUCH ISSUE COMES IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, WHEN SUCH ISSUE COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. PARLIAMENT HAVING USED THE WORDS ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THE WORDS AND ALSO CANNOT BE READ AS BEING IN THE ALTERN ATIVE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION WOULD BE TO REGARD THOSE WORDS AS BEING CONJUNCTIVE AND CUMULATIVE. IT IS OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE THAT PARLIAMENT HAS NOT USED THE WORD OR. THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT REST CONTENT BY MERELY USING THE WORD AND . THE WORDS AND AS WELL AS ALSO HAVE BEEN USED TOGETHER AND IN CONJUNCTION. EVIDENTLY, WHAT PARLIAMENT INTENDS BY USE OF THE WORDS AND ALSO IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, UPON THE FORMATION OF A REASON TO BELIEVE UNDER SECTION 147 AND THE ISSUANCE O F A NOTICE U/S.148(2) MUST ASSESS OR REASSESS: (I) SUCH INCOME; AND ALSO (II) ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SECTION. EXPLANATION 3 DOES NOT AND CANNOT OVERRIDE THE NECESSITY OF FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE SUBSTANTIVE PART OF SECTION 147. AN EXPLANATION TO A STATUTORY PROVISION IS INTENDED TO EXPLAIN ITS CONTENTS AND CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO OVERRIDE IT OR RENDER THE SUBSTANCE AN D CORE NUGATORY. SECTION 147 HAS THIS EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME (SUCH INCOME) WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE FORMATION OF BELIEF AND IF HE DOES SO, HE CAN ALSO ASSESS OR REASSESS ANY O THER INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, IF AFTER ISSUING A NOTICE U/S.148, HE ACCEPTS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLDS I TA NO. 520/HYD/2013 SHRI M.MALAKONDAIAH, HYDERABAD 7 THAT THE INCOME WHICH HE HAS INITIALLY FORMED A REA SON TO BELIEVE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HAS AS A MATTER OF FACT NOT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT IS NOT OPEN TO HIM INDEPENDENTLY TO ASSESS SOME OTHER INCOME. IF HE INTENDS TO DO SO, A NOTICE U/S.148 WOULD BE NECESSARY IN ANY EVENT OF CHALLENGE BY THE ASSESSEE 7. A CAREFUL READING OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OU R T IN TH E CASE NOTED ABOVE REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO A SSESS OR RE - ASS ESS THE INCOME UNDER S.147 WHICH ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT AND WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF FORMATION OF B ELI E F AND THEN ONLY H E CAN ALSO ASSE S S O R REASS ESS ANY OTHER INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE COU R SE OF TH E P R OCEEDIN G S. HOW E V E R, IF AFTER ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER S.148, HE ACCEPTS THE CONTENTIONS O F TH E ASSESS EE AND HOL D S THAT THE INCOME WHICH HE HAS INITIALLY FO R MED R E ASON TO B E LI EVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, AS A MATTER OF FACT, NO T ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT IS NO T OPEN TO HIM INDEPENDENTLY TO ASSESS SOME OTHER INCOME. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE, TH E ASSESSMENT WAS RE OPENED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UN D ER S.147 TO ASSESS OR RE - ASS ES S THE E S CAPED ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF UN E XPLAIN E D IN VE STMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PU R CH A SE OF LAND AT VIJAYAWADA, BUT THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE SOU R CE OF THE SAI D INVESTMENT WAS AC C EPTED BY HIM DURING TH E COU R S E OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.147, ACCEPTING THEREBY THAT THERE WAS NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOM E ON THE ISSUE WHICH FORMED TH E INITIAL REASON TO BELIE VE . THE GROUND ON WHICH THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 1 47 WERE INITI A TED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS DID NOT SURVIVE AND , IN OUR OPINION, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INDEPENDENTLY AS S ESS SOME O T H E R INCOME, SUCH AS DE E M E D DIVIDEND UNDER S.2(22)(E), AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LEARNED CI T(A) RELYING ON THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE BOMBAY H IGH C OU R T IN TH E CASE OF JET I TA NO. 520/HYD/2013 SHRI M.MALAKONDAIAH, HYDERABAD 8 A IRWAYS I NDIA LTD. (SUPRA). AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT IT I S PERMISSIBLE TO MAKE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CONNECTED ISSUES, SUCH A S DEEMED DIVIDEND UN DE R S.2(22)(E) IN TH E ASSESSMENT UNDER S.147, I T IS OB SE RVED THAT THERE IS NO CASE - LAW CITED BY HIM TO SUPPORT THE SAME. MO REOVER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO ADDITION ON ACC O UNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER S.2(22)(E) CANNO T B E SAID TO BE CONNECTED WITH THE ISSUE OF INVESTMENT MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE PU R CH AS E OF PROPERTY AT VIJAYAWADA, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS INITIALLY REOPENED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UN D ER S.147. WE TH E R E FORE, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNE D ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACC O UNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER S.2(22)(E) BY HOL D IN G TH AT T HE SAME WAS BEYOND THE SCOP E OF ASSESSMENT UNDER S.147, AFTER HAVING FOUND THAT THE ORIGINAL GROUND ON WHICH TH E ASSESSMENT WAS INITIALLY RE O PEN E D, DID NO T EXIST. 9. KEEPING IN VIEW OUR DECISION RENDERED ABOVE, WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO CONSIDER AND DEAL WITH THE OTHER ISSUES RELATING TO DELETION BY THE CIT(A) OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER S.2(22)(E) ON M E RITS. THE SAME IS KEPT OPEN. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 1ST OCTOBER, 2014 ( P.MADHAVI DEVI) ( P.M.JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/ - OCTOBER , 2014 I TA NO. 520/HYD/2013 SHRI M.MALAKONDAIAH, HYDERABAD 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI M.MALAKONDAIAH, NO.65, JOURNALIST COLONY, JBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD 2 . DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 3(1), HYD ERABAD 3. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) VIJAYAWADA COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX V IJAYAWADA 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S 1. DATE OF DICTATION 1 . 10 .2014 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 3. / DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SENIOR P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 1 . 10 .2014 5. / DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER GOES TO THE SR. P.S. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 9. DATE OF THE DESPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER