Sri P Prathap Reddy, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Circle-16(3), Hyderabad

ITA 693/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77895 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 147; 148; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 693/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SRI P. PRATAP REDDY, APPE LLANT HYDERABAD. (PAN AFIPP 8044 A) VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RESPONDENT CIRCLE 16 (3),HYDERABAD. ITA NO. 727/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, APPELLANT CIRCLE 16(3), HYDERABAD. VS. SRI P. PRATAP REDDY, RE SPONDENT HYDERABAD. (PAN AFIPP 8044 A) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM REVENUE BY : SHRI SOLGY JOSE T. KOTTARAM DATE OF HEARING : 21/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/05/2014 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M.: BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE CROSS APPEALS DIRECTED AGAIN ST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD, DATED 14/02/2013, FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL: ITA NOS. 693 & 727/HYD/13 SRI P. PRATAP REDDY 2 1. THE ORDER OF THE AO IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW, FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE AO OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148, BASED ON CHANGE IN OPINION WHEN IN FACT ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMEN T. 3. THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER OUGHT NOT TO HAVE HEL D THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WAS A VALID NOTICE. 4. THE AO OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DENIED EXEMPTION U/S 54 F AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPH ELD THE ORDER OF THE AO DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 54F. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1 0,92,690/- TO URBAN LAND CEILING AUTHORITIES AS PART OF EXPENSES INCURRED FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS O F CAPITAL GAINS, THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARD S ULC CHARGES DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF COST OF ACQUISITION, COST OF IMPROVEMENT OR EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECT ION WITH TRANSFER. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS MISCONSTRUED THE VIEW TAKEN BY TH E CIT VS. SHAKUNTALA KANTILAL [1991] 190 ITR 56 (BOM.) WHEREI N THE FINDINGS DOES NOT TOTALLY RELATE TO THE PRESENT CAS E. 5. THE CIT(A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS ULC CHARGES ARE NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EX CLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET. 4. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WHEREIN T HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A LEGAL GROUND PERTAINING TO REOPENING O F ASSESSMENT U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT, AS IT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MA TTER. 5. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FOR AY 20 07-08, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 17/10/2007 A DMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,13,82,340/-. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 24/12/2009 ACCEPTING THE INCOME RETURN ED. THEREAFTER, THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 AND COMPLETE D DETERMINING THE INCOME AT RS. 1,70,73,260/- AGAINST THE INCOME ADMITTED AT RS. 1,13,82,340/-. THE INCOME DETERMINED IN THE REASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS INCLUDE DISALLOWANCE OF ULC CHARGES OF RS. 10,92,690/- ITA NOS. 693 & 727/HYD/13 SRI P. PRATAP REDDY 3 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF LTCG AND DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 36,22,228/- CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT . 6. THE ASSESSEE, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD., FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ADMITTING INCOME OF RS. 1,13,82,340/-. AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS PASSED IN THIS CASE ON 24.12.200 9 ACCEPTING THE INCOME RETURNED. LATER, OBSERVING THAT INCOME CHARG EABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE CASE RECORDING THE REASONS. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 7. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT A LL THE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HE SUBSTANTIATED THE CLA IMS MADE IN THE RETURN WITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES AND ACCORDINGL Y, THE INCOME RETURNED WAS ACCEPTED. ON THE ISSUE OF CAPITAL GAIN S, IT WAS BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SPECIFIC QUERIES W ERE RAISED ABOUT HIS SHARE OF SALE CONSIDERATION AND HE FILED WRITTEN REPLIES TO SUCH QUERIES WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES. THEREFORE , IT IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT REOPENING OF THE CASE UNDER SE CTION 147 OF THE ACT BASED ON THE VERY INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD IS BAD IN LAW AND TANTAMOUNT TO CHANGE OF OPINION SINCE NO NE W TANGIBLE MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT OUT TO HOLD THAT THERE IS ESCA PEMENT OF INCOME. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE RELI ED ON THE CASE OF GMR HOLDINGS PVT LTD. V. DCLT REPORTED AS 141 TA X TRIBUNAL JUDGMENT AT PAGE 338. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT NO DISCUSSION WAS FOUND ON THE ISSUE OF ITA NOS. 693 & 727/HYD/13 SRI P. PRATAP REDDY 4 CAPITAL GAINS IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE CONCLUDING PARA OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT WAS HELD THAT AFTE R DISCUSSION AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE INFORMATION FILED, ASSESSME NT IS COMPLETED ACCEPTING THE TOTAL INCOME RETURNED. NOW COMING TO THE LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO A SPECIFIC QUERY ON THE ISSUE OF CAPITAL GAINS, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD FURNISHED THE AMOUNT OF HIS SHARE IN THE LAND SOLD, PERIOD OF RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION, ETC. THERE IS NO BREAK-UP OF THE TOT AL AMOUNT OF RS. 2 CRORES RECEIVED AS SALE CONSIDERATION, THE SHARIN G RATIO AND NAMES OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM O F 54F, IN THE SAID LETTER DATED 18.11.2009, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT WAS SPENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSE PROP ERTY. EXCEPT THIS, NO SPECIFIC INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THE T OTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED, IN WHOSE HANDS THE BALANCE OF LONG TERM C APITAL GAINS WERE OFFERED, THE DETAILS OF NEW HOUSE BEING CONSTR UCTED WITH THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED OUT OF SALE OF OLD ASSET, ETC., AR E NOT AVAILABLE. THESE ARE THE ISSUES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RAISED IN THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE CASE, WHERE THERE IS N O CLARITY ON THE ISSUES. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT NO INFIRMIT Y IN THE REOPENING OF THE CASE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. 8. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO FRESH MATERIAL CAME TO THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFT ER COMPLETION OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 24/ 12/2009. AS SEEN FROM THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FR OM STATEMENT OF INCOME AND OTHER MATERIALS AVAILABLE WITH HIM AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3). ACCORDING TO T HE LEARNED AR IT IS ONLY A CHANGE OF OPINION AND IT CANNOT BE A R EASON FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. S. RANJIT REDDY VS. DCIT, 144 ITD 461 (HYD.) ITA NOS. 693 & 727/HYD/13 SRI P. PRATAP REDDY 5 2. CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD., 328 ITR 561 ( SC) 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION REOPEN ED THE ASSESSMENT THOUGH EARLIER ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, AS THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN TH IS CASE. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: 1. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. VS. DCIT & ANR., 340 ITR 53 (DELHI) 2. DR. AMINS PATHOLOGY LABORATORY VS. JCIT, 252 ITR 673(BOM.) 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE REC ORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS C OMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 24/12/2009. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 25/02/2011 BY RECORDING R EASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AS FOLLOWS: IT IS NOTICED FORM THE STATEMENT OF INCOME, THE ASS ESSEE OFFERED INCOME OF RS. 50 LAKHS ON SALE OF LAND AT G ACHIBOWLI AFTER CLAIMING LAND COST AND ADDITION THOUGH LANDS WERE SOLD FOR RS. 2,00,00,000/- AS DETAILED BELOW: S.NO. DATE OF REGISTRATION AND EXTENT OF AREA SOLD CONSIDERATION RECEIVED 1 28.09.2006 AC 0-20.8 GTS. 52,00,000 2 28.09.2006, AC 0-21.6 GTS 54,00,000 3 28.09.2006, AC 0-21.6 GTS 54,00,000 4 28.09.2006, AC 0-08 GTS 20,00,000 5 28.09.2006 20,00,000 TOTAL 2,00,00,000 THE VENDORS TO THE ABOVE LAND WERE I) P. PRATAP RED DY, II) P. VENKATA LAKSHMI, III) P. DEEPTHI REDDY (D/O P. PRATAP REDDY), IV) DIVYA PRIYANKA (D/O P. PRATAP REDDY). VENDORS III) & IV) ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER P. VENKATA LAKSHMI. W/O P. PRATAP REDDY. THE ASSESSEE SRI PRATAP REDDY HAS SHOWN AN AMOUNT O F RS.50,00,000/- ON SALE OF LAND AND CLAIMED RS.85,08 2/- ITA NOS. 693 & 727/HYD/13 SRI P. PRATAP REDDY 6 TOWARDS LAND COST (1996-07) AND RS.10,92,690/- TOWA RDS ADDITIONS (2004-05) AND OFFERED RS.38,22,228/- AS L TCG WHICH WAS INVESTED IN CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSE PRO PERTY AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF I.T. ACT. IT WAS N OTICED THAT THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE OF LA ND WAS RS.2.00 CRORES OUT OF WHICH CAPITAL GAIN WAS OFFERE D ON ONLY RS.1 CRORE. THERE WAS NO PROOF THAT THE BALANCE OF RS.1 CRORE WAS OFFERED TOWARDS CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF VENDORS HI) AND IV) IN THE SALE DEED BEING THE CHILDREN OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO BEING REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HO LDER (MOTHER). ALSO THE ADDITION OF RS.10,92,690/- MADE / CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE TOWARDS PAYMENT OF 'URBAN LAND CEILING TAX' WAS NOT A PART OF COST OF ACQUISITION, HENCE RS.10, 92,690/- REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED. THE TOTAL VALUE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WORKS OUT TO RS.1,21,85,380/- (INCLUDING THE SHARE OF SMT P.V. LAKSHMI). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 14 7 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. HENCE, NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED'. AS SEEN FROM THE REASONS RECORDED, THE ASSESSING OF FICER NOTICED FROM THE STATEMENT OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFE RED INCOME OF RS. 50 LAKHS ON SALE OF LAND AT GACHIBOWLI AFTER CL AIMING LAND COST THOUGH THE LAND WAS SOLD FOR RS. 2 CRORES. NOW, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL IS THAT THERE IS NO TANGIBLE FRESH MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSESSMENT IS SOUGHT TO BE RE OPENED AS THE FULL DISCLOSURE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH 3 OTHER C O-OWNERS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2 CRORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 24/12/20 09 ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSM ENT AND THERE BEING NO TANGIBLE FRESH MATERIAL ASSESSMENT C ANNOT BE REOPENED. 11.1 WE COME ACROSS THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR INDIA LTD., 320 ITR 561 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF USHA INTERNATIONAL, 348 ITR 485 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: ONE NEEDS TO GIVE A SCHEMATIC INTERPRETATION TO T HE WORDS 'REASON TO BELIEVE' FAILING WHICH, SECTION 147 WOU LD GIVE ITA NOS. 693 & 727/HYD/13 SRI P. PRATAP REDDY 7 ARBITRARY POWER TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN ASS ESSMENTS ON THE BASIS OF 'MERE CHANGE OF OPINION', WHICH CANNOT BE PER SE REASON TO REOPEN. WE MUST ALSO KEEP IN MIND THE CON CEPTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POWER TO REVIEW AND POWER TO REA SSESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW; HE HAS TH E POWER TO REASSESS. BUT REASSESSMENT HAS TO BE BASED ON FULFI LMENT OF CERTAIN PRE-CONDITIONS AND IF THE CONCEPT OF 'CHANG E OF OPINION' IS REMOVED, AS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMEN T. THEN, IN THE GARB OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, REVIEW WOULD TAKE PLACE. ONE MUST TREAT THE CONCEPT OF 'CHANGE OF OPINION' A S AN IN-BUILT TEST TO CHECK ABUSE OF POWER TO BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. HENCE, AFTER 1 ST APRIL, 1989, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POWER TO REOPEN, PROVIDED THERE IS 'TANGIBLE MATERIAL' TO CO ME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT. REASONS MUST HAVE A LIVE LINK WITH THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF. OUR VIEW GETS SUPPORT FROM THE CHANG ES MADE TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, AS QUOTED HEREINABOVE. UNDE R THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987, PARLIAMENT NOT ONLY DELETED THE WORDS 'REASON TO BELIEVE' BUT ALSO INSERTED THE WORD 'OPINION' IN SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ON RE CEIPT OF REPRESENTATIONS FROM THE COMPANIES AGAINST OMISSION OF THE WORDS 'REASON TO BELIEVE'. PARLIAMENT INTRODUCED T HE SAID EXPRESSION AND DELETED THE WORD 'OPINION' ON THE GR OUND THAT IT WOULD VEST ARBITRARY POWERS IN THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. NOW, UNDOUBTEDLY AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICH H AS BEEN PASSED IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR MAY FURNISH A FOUNDATION TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT FOR AN EARLIER A SSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, THERE MUST BE SOME NEW FACTS WHICH COME TO LIGHT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE SUBSEQUEN T ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH EMERGE IN THE ORDER OF THE AS SESSMENT. OTHERWISE, A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT FOR A SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR WOULD NOT BY ITSELF LEGITIMISE REOP ENING OF ASSESSMENT FOR AN EARLIER YEAR. THE POINT, WE MAK E IT CLEAR HEREIN IS THAT WHETHER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR SUBSEQUENT YEAR CERTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS OBTAINED BY THE REVENUE WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO IT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT FOR AN EARLIER YEAR, THAT MAY LEGITIMATE LY BE UTILISED AS A GROUND FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT OF THE EARL IER YEAR. WHETHER THE REOPENING HAS TAKEN PLACE WITHIN FOUR Y EARS THAT MAY LEGITIMATELY GIVE RISE TO AN INFERENCE OF ESCAP EMENT OF INCOME. THE NEW INFORMATION WHICH HAS COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, CONSTITUTES TANGIBLE MAT ERIAL. IF THERE IS A FRESH MATERIAL THAT THAT WOULD NOT PRECL UDE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR AN E ARLIER YEAR ON THE BASIS OF FRESH MATERIAL WHICH HAS COME TO LI GHT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT FOR A SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YE AR. NOW IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT ITA NOS. 693 & 727/HYD/13 SRI P. PRATAP REDDY 8 CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISH ED A DETAILED NOTE ANNEXED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME. 11.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE QUASH THE REASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED. 11.3 SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 147 OF THE ACT, ITSELF, WE RE FRAIN FROM GOING INTO THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT O F THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 12. AS WE HAVE QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO U/S 147 OF THE ACT, IN ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON SUCH ASSESSMENT, BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND, THEREFORE , THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 13. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 693 /H/13 IS ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 727/H/13 IS DISMISS ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/05/2014. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (CHANDRA POOJAR I) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT ME MBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 21/05/2014 KV COPY TO:- 1) SRI P. PRATAP REDDY, 8-2-309/M/1-4, NAVODAYA COLONY, ROAD NO. 3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2) ACIT, CIRCLE 16(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAG H, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD 4) THE CIT-IV, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T ., HYDERABAD. ITA NOS. 693 & 727/HYD/13 SRI P. PRATAP REDDY 9 S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER