B. Purushotham Naidu, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

ITA 760/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 76022514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Business income; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICAL MEMBER ITA.NO.760/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 MR. B. PURUSHOTHAM NAIDU HYDERABAD. PAN ACVPB-8315-N VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 3(3) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. K.A. SAI PRASAD FOR REVENUE : MR. SOLGY JOSE T. KOTTARAM DATE OF HEARING : 04.09.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.09.2014 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD DATED 30.03.2012. A SSESSEE HAS RAISED 12 GROUNDS OUT OF WHICH, GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 1 2 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE, IT NEED NOT BE ADJUDICATED . GROUND NO.10 IS WITH REFERENCE TO LEVY OF INTEREST WHICH IS MAND ATORY. GROUND NO.11 IS OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WHICH IS PREMATURE IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE A NY ADJUDICATION. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. COUNSEL AND LD. D.R. AND PERU SED PAPER BOOK PLACED ON RECORD. THERE ARE THREE ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE REST OF THE GROUNDS. BRIEFLY S TATED, ASSESSEE IS 2 ITA.NO.760/HYD/2012 MR. B. PURUSHOTHAM NAIDU, HYDERABAD. A DIRECTOR OF M/S. SWAGRUHA ESTATES & CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD., FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.16,69,790 AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF R S.1,85,000. A.O. COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) MAKING INTER ALIA VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,83,84,400. ONE OF THE ADDITION MADE WAS ABOUT VARIOUS LOANS/CASH CREDITS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE BUT TREATED AS INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 TO AN EXTENT OF RS.1,54,99,612. IN ADDITION, WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS, A.O. DISALLOWED PART O F THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND COST OF IMPROVEMENT CLAIMED AT RS.1 0,25,000. AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED AT RS.1,85,000 WAS ALS O DISALLOWED AND TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED CALL ED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. AND ON EXAMINATION OF REMAND R EPORT AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITIONS TO AN EXTENT OF RS.1,43,49,612, WHILE CONFIRMING THE TWO CASH CR EDITS TO AN EXTENT OF RS.11,50,000. THIS ISSUE IS CONTESTED FRO M GROUNDS NO. 2 TO 4. WITH REFERENCE TO DISALLOWANCE OF COST OF IM PROVEMENT OF RS.10,25,000 LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF A.O. ON THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE. HE CO NFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ON AGRICULTURAL INCOME ALSO. 4. WITH REFERENCE TO CASH CREDITS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,00,000 FROM MR. V. GOPINATH AND RS.4,50,000 FR OM SMT. T. SYAMALA DEVI. LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE CASH CRE DIT OF MR V GOPINATH BY STATING AS UNDER : 3 ITA.NO.760/HYD/2012 MR. B. PURUSHOTHAM NAIDU, HYDERABAD. 10.2. AS REGARDS SRI VIDADALA GOPINATH, THE ASSES SING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT FURNISHED A CO NFIRMATION REGARDING ADVANCING OF RS. 7 LAKHS THROUGH CHEQUES AND THE CREDITOR CONTENDED HAVING GIVEN THE SAID SUM OUT OF HIS BUSINESS INCOME FROM M/S. SIFY BROADBAND AND INTERN ET CONNECTION SERVICES, BESIDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME, N O PROOF REGARDING SUCH SOURCES WAS PROVIDED. ACCORDINGLY, I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR WAS NOT PROVED. BESIDES, IT WAS ALSO SEEN THAT THE AMOUNT H AD BEEN ADVANCED OUT OF CASH DEPOSITS. 10.2.1. FROM THE FACTS SUBMITTED IN THE REPORT OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEE N ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SRI VIDADALA GOPI NATH. IT COULD NOT BE DEMONSTRATED THAT SUCH AMOUNT WAS GIVEN BY H IM OUT OF HIS INCOME FROM THE SOURCES STATED ABOVE. BESIDES, IT IS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED AS TO WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT ED BY HIM IN HIS ACCOUNT FOR ADVANCING THE SAID LOAN. ACCORDI NGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE REGARDING CREDITWORTHINESS, THE CREDIT OF RS. 7 LAKHS SHOWN IN THE NAME OF SRI VIDADALA GOPINATH IS HELD AS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED. 4.1 ON CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE O F THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS RESPONSIBI LITY IN PROVING RS.7,00,000. AS FAR AS THIS CREDIT IS CONCERNED, TH ERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AMOUNT BY WAY OF CHEQUES AND THE CREDITOR MR. V. GOPINATH HAS CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS GIVEN OUT OF HIS BUSINESS INCOME FROM M/S. SIFY BROADBAND AND INTERN ET CONNECTION SERVICES. ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION . WHAT THE A.O. AND LD. CIT(A) WANTED IS THE SOURCE OF THE SOU RCE WHICH IS 4 ITA.NO.760/HYD/2012 MR. B. PURUSHOTHAM NAIDU, HYDERABAD. NOT IN THE DOMAIN OF ASSESSEE. SINCE IDENTITY OF TH E CREDITOR IS ESTABLISHED WITH PAN ADZPD2013Q, WE DO NOT FIND ANY THING TO DISBELIEVE THIS TRANSACTION. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE AR E UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE SAID CREDIT IS TO BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED CREDIT AND THEREFORE, DELETED. 4.2. COMING TO THE OTHER CREDIT OF RS.4,50,000 IN THE NAME OF SMT. T. SYAMALA DEVI THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 10.6 ARE AS UNDER : 10.6. IN AS MUCH AS THE LOAN OF RS.4,50,000/- FROM MRS. T. SHYAMALA DEVI IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS REPORTED THAT THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FILED BY HER STATES ABOUT THE ADVANCING OF SUCH LOAN THROUGH CHEQUE, OUT OF THE R ETIREMENT BENEFITS OF HER SPOUSE SRI T. VENKAT SAI RAMANA RAO , A RETIRED DY. SUPTD. OF POLICE. HOWEVER, SHE HAS STATED THAT NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM WAS GIVEN. BESIDES, SHE NO TED THAT THE SAID LOAN WAS GIVEN BY HER, OUT OF CASH DEPOSITS. 10.6.1. IN THIS REGARD IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE LOAN AMOUNT WAS LATER REP AID BY THE APPELLANT ON 9.3.2011. HE AVERRED THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR AND THE FACT OF ADVANCING OF LOAN HAD ALSO BEEN DULY ESTABLISHED. 10.6.2. ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, I AM OF TH E VIEW THAT EVEN THOUGH MRS. T. SHYAMALA DEVI CONFIRMED HAVING GIVEN THE LOAN OF RS.4,50,000/- AND SUCH LOAN AMOUNT WAS EVEN RETURNED TO HER LATER, NOTHING COULD BE FURNISHED TO SUBSTAN TIATE THE CLAIM THAT SUCH AMOUNT WAS GIVEN OUT OF THE RETIREMENT BE NEFITS OF HER SPOUSE. THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH IN HER ACCOUN T BEFORE ADVANCING OF THE LOAN COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED. IT WA S ALSO NOT SUBSTANTIATED THAT SUCH CASH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF T HE RETIREMENT BENEFITS RECEIVED BY HER HUSBAND. ON THE OTHER HAND, SMT. SHYAMALA DEVI IS NOT HERSELF ASSESSED TO TAX. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS TO BE CONCLUDED THAT THE APPEL LANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF MRS. T. SHYAMALA DEVI. THE ADDITION OF RS.4,50,000/- SHOWN AS UNEXPL AINED CREDIT IS, THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO BE UPHELD. 5 ITA.NO.760/HYD/2012 MR. B. PURUSHOTHAM NAIDU, HYDERABAD. 5. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE SUST AINED. AS PER THE CONFIRMATIONS GIVEN BY ASSESSEE PLACED IN PAPER BOOK, THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF CHEQUE DRAWN O N SYNDICATE BANK, HABSIGUDA BRANCH. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE S OURCE OF FUNDS ARE FROM THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS FROM HER HUS BAND MR. T.VENKATA SAI RAMANA RAO, RETIRED DY. SUPERINTENDEN T OF POLICE, INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD. WE ARE UNABLE T O UNDERSTAND FROM WHERE THE LD. CIT(A) CAME TO THE FINDING THAT IT WAS CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. AS SEEN FROM THE CONFI RMATION LETTER FILED BY ASSESSEE THIS IS WHAT ASSESSEE HAS CONFIRM ED. 1. I GAVE AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,50,000 AS UNSECURED LOAN ON THE REQUEST OF MR. B. P. NAIDU R/O. KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD. THE DETAILS ARE AS UNDER : A. RS.4,50,000 VIDE CH.NO.795209 DATED 17.04.2007 DRAWN ON SYNDICATE BANK (ACCOUNT NO.30452010034405), ST.NO.8, HABSIGUDA BRANCH, HYDERABAD. 2. THE SOURCES FOR THE SAME ARE OUT OF RETIREMENT BENE FITS RECEIVED FROM MY HUSBAND MR. T. VENKATA SAI RAMANA RAO, WHO IS RETIRED AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POL ICE, INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD. 3. MY HUSBAND PAID INCOME TAX THROUGH THE UNIT OFFICER S IN FORM OF FORM 16. HIS PAN NO.ABGPT-8903-L. THE REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O. DATED 26 TH MARCH, 2012 INDICATES AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTER OF T. S YAMALA DEVI, WHEREIN THE LOAN CREDITOR CONFIRMED HAVING AD VANCED AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,50,000/- THROUGH CHEQUE BEARING NO.7 95209 DT.17.04.2007 DRAWN ON SYNDICATE BANK, GUNTUR BRANC H. THE SOURCES FOR ADVANCEMENT OF LOAN WERE SAID TO BE OUT OF THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF HER SPOUSE T. VENKATA SAI RA MANA RAO, RETIRED DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. NO EV IDENCE OF THIS IS GIVEN. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED STATEMENT OF BANK 6 ITA.NO.760/HYD/2012 MR. B. PURUSHOTHAM NAIDU, HYDERABAD. ACCOUNT NO.30452010034405 OF T. SYAMALA DEVI HELD W ITH SYNDICATE BANK, JSN COLONY, STREET NO.8, MAHESWARI NAGAR, HABSIGUDA, HYDERABAD 500 007 AND STATEMENT OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT NO.515010100007863 HELD WITH AXIS BANK, BAN JARA HILLS, HYDERABAD AS EVIDENCE, BUT IT IS SEEN THAT T HIS IS FROM CASH DEPOSIT. COPY OF ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT STATE MENT SHOWING REPAYMENT OF RS.4,09,500/- ON 09.03.2011 OU T OF THE LOAN AMOUNT AND THE LEDGER ACCOUNT THEREOF HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. 5.1. THUS AS CAN BE SEEN ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED H IS DUTY OF NOT ONLY PROVIDING THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SAID CREDITOR IN SYNDICATE BANK BUT ALSO HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN AXIS BA NK, BANJARA HILLS WITH REFERENCE TO EVIDENCE OF BOTH RECEIPT AN D PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT ON 09.03.2011. GIVEN THIS FACT SITUATION, WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS CREDIT CAN BE TREATED AS UNEXPL AINED. THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE MONEY HAS COME FROM SMT. T. SY AMALA DEVI TO ASSESSEE BY WAY OF BANK CHEQUE ON 17.04.2007 AND AS SESSEE ALSO REPAID THE AMOUNT TO HER ON 09.03.2011. THEREFORE, NOT ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR BUT ALSO GENUINENESS OF TH E TRANSACTION STANDS ESTABLISHED. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE MODIFY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THAT THIS CREDIT WAS TO BE TREATE D AS EXPLAINED. THE ADDITION ON THIS COUNT IS STANDS DELETED. GROUN DS NO. 2 TO 4 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE CONTESTED IN GROUNDS NO. 5 AND 6 IS WITH REFERENCE TO DISALLOWANCE OF COST OF ACQUISITI ON OF RS.6,45,210 AND COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS.10,25,000 STATED TO H AVE BEEN INCURRED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND WHICH RESULTED IN SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.18,50,000 AND CLAIMED EXPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS.16,70,210 WHICH COMPRISES OF COST OF ACQUISITION ON 13.12.200 5 AT RS.6,45,210 AND COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS.10,25,000 . A.O. WHILE CALCULATING THE COMPUTATION EVEN THOUGH NOTED DOWN THAT THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS RS.6,45,210, HOWEVER, CO NSIDERED 7 ITA.NO.760/HYD/2012 MR. B. PURUSHOTHAM NAIDU, HYDERABAD. ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,50,000. ASSESSEE RAISED GROU ND BEFORE LD. CIT(A) STATING THAT A.O. HAS NOT TAKEN THE REGISTRA TION CHARGES INTO CONSIDERATION. LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DID NOT ADJUDIC ATE THIS ASPECT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT VIDE PAR A-8. IT WAS ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT COST OF ACQUISITION OF P ROPERTY AS PER THE PURCHASE DEED ITSELF WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,55 ,000 AND REGISTRATION CHARGES OF RS.49,870 AND ALSO OTHER FE ES OF RS.2775 AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE OF RS.80, TOTALING TO RS.6,07,725 AND WITH INCIDENTAL EXPENDITURE AT THE TIME OF REGI STRATION, ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS.6,45,210. IT WAS THE CONTEN TION THAT THIS AMOUNT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. 6.1. HAVING SEEN THE DOCUMENTS AND THE AMOUNTS STA TED THERE IN THE SECOND PAGE OF THE DOCUMENT REGISTERED , THERE IS EVIDENCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.49,870 + RS.2725 BEING THE REGISTRATION CHARGES AND THEREFORE, THESE AMOUNTS A RE TO BE ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE AS COST OF ACQUISITION, APART F ROM COST OF PURCHASE. A.O. IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THESE ABOVE TWO AMOUNTS ALSO. FURTHER, WITH REFERENCE TO THE BALANCE AMOUNT IN CASE ASSESSEE FURNISHES ANY EVIDENCE, THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER. GROUND NO 5 IS A LLOWED. 7. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT CLAI MED, ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,25,000 AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT. A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE DETAILS FURNIS HED AND NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A DEVELOPED PLOT NOS. 1 82, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187 AND 188 FROM SAI PAVANI HILLS, ONE OF ASSESSEES DEVELOPEMENT COMPANY AND WAS OF THE OPINION THAT TH ERE IS NO NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT ON THE DEVELOPED PLOTS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT, LD. CIT(A) CON FIRMED THE SAME. 8 ITA.NO.760/HYD/2012 MR. B. PURUSHOTHAM NAIDU, HYDERABAD. 7.1. LD. COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK AND SU BMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS LAID A ROAD AND LEVELLED THE PLOT AND LABOUR CHARGES INCURRED WHICH WERE NOTED DOWN IN NOTE BOOK OF SITE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COS T OF RS.10,25,000 COMPRISES OF FILLING OF GRAVEL RS.4,03 ,200, SPREADING RS.89,670, DIGGING AND REMOVING STONES AT RS.2,19,7 05 AND LAYING OF ROADS RS.3,12,425. 7.2. HAVING SEEN THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD AN D THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE, WE NOTICE THAT THER E ARE ALREADY ROADS ADJACENT TO THE PLOTS WHEN ASSESSEE HAS PURCH ASED. ALL THESE PLOTS ARE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ROAD INTERNALLY. SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY IMPROVEMENT OTHER THAN THE ROUGH NOTINGS IN A NOTE BOOK, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. THE ENTRIES IN NOTE BOO K DO NOT ESTABLISH THAT EXPENDITURE WAS GENUINELY INCURRED. WE UPHOLD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE A.O. AND LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGA RD . THIS COST OF IMPROVEMENT CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED W HILE COMPUTING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDINGLY, GRO UND NO.6 OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 8. GROUND NO.7 PERTAIN TO THE TREATMENT OF AGRICUL TURAL INCOME OF RS.1,85,000 AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED EVIDENCE BEFORE THE A.O. THAT HE HAS TAKE N LANDS ON LEASE AND HAS EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. EVEN THOU GH REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR, A.O. DID NOT AGREE AND LD. C IT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. 8.1. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E WAS EARNING THE INCOMES REGULARLY IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO AND ON RECORD, PLACED THE STATEMENTS OF INCOME OF EARLIER YEARS AD MITTING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOMES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E HAS DISCLOSED 9 ITA.NO.760/HYD/2012 MR. B. PURUSHOTHAM NAIDU, HYDERABAD. INCOME OF RS.1,95,500 IN A.Y. 2006-07 AND RS.1,98,0 00 IN A.Y. 2005-06 AND RS.1,92,000 IN A.Y. 2004-05. SINCE ASSE SSEE IS DISCLOSING CONSISTENTLY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN EARL IER YEARS AND ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE LEASE DEEDS WHICH WE ARE NOT CONTROVERTED, WE UPHOLD THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION A ND ACCORDINGLY, WE MODIFY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO ACCEPT THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AS DECLARED B Y THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.09.2014. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 VBP/- COPY TO 1. MR. B. PURUSHOTHAM NAIDU, HYDERABAD C/O. MR. B. NARSING RAO & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, PLOT NO.554, ROAD NO.92, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD 96. 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 3 (3), HYDERABAD 3. CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD 4. CIT-III, HYDERABAD 5. D.R. B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD.