The Incometax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad V. Sri Dulam Yesu Prabhu, Hyderabad

ITA 78/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6579 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIKHIL KUMAR GOVILA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 147; 68; 69; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1013/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SRI DULAM YESU PRABHU, HYDERABAD PAN AJTPD 2960 J VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 78/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), HYDERABAD. VS. SRI DULAM YESU PRABHU, HYDERABAD PAN AJTPD 2960 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI NIKHIL KUMAR GOVILA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING 10-03-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22-04-2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO AY 2005-06. ITA NO. 1013/HYD/2012 BY ASSESSEE 2. THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A)-V, HYDERABAD DATED 21/12/2011. 2 ITA NOS. 78/H/14 & 1013 /HYD/2012 SRI DULAM YESU PRABHU, DOMALGUDA 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSMEN T IN THIS CASE WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED BY THE ITO, WARD -1, TADEP ALLIGUDEMN ON 31/12/2007, WHICH WAS ANNULLED BY THE CIT(A), RAJAH MUNDRY AND CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM ON JURISDICTIO NAL DISPUTE. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 15/12/2009 AND SERVED ON HIM ON 03/02/2010. IN RESP ONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER ON 01/03/2010 S TATING THAT THE RETURN FILED ON 31/03/2007 MAY BE TREATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE. 3.1 SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 143(2), THE AO PROCEED ED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT EX-PARTE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD. 3.2 DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AO OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN, DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 98,350/ - FROM SALARY & BUSINESS. ON THE BASIS OF EARLIER ASSESSME NT RECORDS AND INFORMATION AS OBTAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED I NTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA FOR A PLOT BEARING NO.671, IN SY.NO S.403/1 (OLD) 120 (NEW) OF SHAIKPET (V) & 10211 OF HAKIMPET (M) ADMEA SURING 877 SQ.YDS. SITUATED WITHIN THE APPROVED LAYOUT OF JUBI LEE HILLS CO- OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY, HYDERABAD WITH SM T. SHAHEEN SHAHBAZ QURAISHI, FOR A SUM OF RS.48,23,500/- ON 24 .01.2005. THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS REGISTERED WITH SUB-REGISTRAR, BA NJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD ON 24.01.2005 BY PAYING REGISTRATION CHAR GES OF RS.3,85,030/-. THUS, AO OPINED THAT ASSESSEE MADE A N INVESTMENT OF RS.52,08,530/- (RS.48,23,500/- + RS.3,85,030/-) DUR ING THE YEAR IN ACQUIRING THE PLOT. NO INFORMATION AS TO THE PURCHA SE AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT ARE FURNISHED IN THE RETURN FILED. INSPI TE OF AFFORDING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COME FO RWARD TO FILE THE REQUISITE INFORMATION. THE AO, THEREFORE, TREATED T HE SAID INVESTMENT OF RS.52,08,530/- IN PURCHASE OF THE SAID PLOT AS MADE FROM OUT OF THE INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND BROUGHT TH E SAME TO TAX U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3 ITA NOS. 78/H/14 & 1013 /HYD/2012 SRI DULAM YESU PRABHU, DOMALGUDA 4. ON AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MAD E AN APPLICATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCES, WHICH WERE EXTRACTED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER IN A TABULAR F ORM AT PAGES 3 & 4. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ENTIRE PAPE R BOOK ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE SENT TO THE AO BY CIT(A) AND THE AO SUBMITTED A REMAND REPORT ON 24/11/2011, WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND COUNTER SUBMISSIONS TO THE REMAND REPO RT WERE SUBMITTED ON 13/12/2011. 5. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, DISMISSED T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5. THE FIRST POINT IS REGARDING THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THIS ENTIR E EVIDENCE WAS ON RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT FILE AND WAS NOT CO NSIDERED BY THE AO. IN SUCH CASE, THE EVIDENCE CANNOT BE STATED TO BE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN ANY CASE, SINCE THE REASON S FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FALL WITHIN THE PU RVIEW OF RULE 46A, THE SAME IS ORDERED TO BE ADMITTED. 6. COMING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE FIRST AND S EVENTH GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT CALL FOR ANY ADJUDICATION. 7. THE FIRST ISSUE PERTAINING TO GROUND NOS. 2, 3 A ND 5 IS REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO BASIS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE AND NO REASONS WERE GIVEN TO IT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE. HOWEVER, THIS ISSUE WAS NOT ARGUED DURING APPEAL PR OCEEDINGS EXCEPT FOR REITERATING THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AS BE LOW: 'WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS NO BASIS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND AS SUCH THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS IN ITSELF IS INVALID. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSM ENT IS UNTENABLE IN LAW. WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT, THE NOTICES SUBSEQUE NT TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASST . YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT BASED O N SUCH NOTICES IS INVALID AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. ' 7.1 FROM A READING OF THE FACTS, I FIND THAT THE AP PELLANT HAS NOWHERE REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE 4 ITA NOS. 78/H/14 & 1013 /HYD/2012 SRI DULAM YESU PRABHU, DOMALGUDA REASONS RECORDED. FURTHER, IT HAS NEITHER TAKEN NOR ASKED FOR AN INSPECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S FILE. THEREFO RE, ITS ASSERTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE ANY REASONS TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT IS ABSOLUTELY DEVOID OF ANY MERITS A ND ANY EVIDENCE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S CLEARLY WRITTEN THAT PROPER PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED AND PERM ISSION WAS GRANTED BY THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, ON THE BASIS OF THE FILE TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, AS BELOW : 'THE ADDL.CIT, R-4, VIDE HIS LETTER DT. 14-12-09, ON RECEIVING THE CASE ON TRANSFER, ACCORDED PERMISSION TO THE ITO, WARD-4(L), HYDERABAD, TO RE-OPEN THE CASE U/S 147. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 15-12-09 . THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DT. 01-03-2010, REPLIED THAT THE ROI FILED ON 31-03-2007 MAY BE AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148. 7.2 FROM THE ABOVE, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ISSUE OF THE NOTICE. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO GIVE A COPY OF TH E REASONS RECORDED TO THE APPELLANT EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS NEVER REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE SAME NEITHE R DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING REMAND PROCEEDING EMANATING OUT OF APPEAL. THESE GROUNDS ARE THEREFOR E, DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 8. IN GROUND NO.4., THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT T HE ISSUE OF SOURCES FOR INVESTMENT IN LAND WAS NOT PUT FORTH TO THE APPELLANT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS GROUND WAS NOT ARGUED AT ALL DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL CONTRADICTION IN THIS GROUND. ON THE ONE HAND, THE APPELLANT HAS STATED IN WRITING THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE REGARDING T HE ADDITIONS WAS PLACED IN THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS BEING STATED THAT NOTHING WAS EVER INQUIRED I NTO. IF THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED ALL THE INFORMATION IN THE ASS ESSMENT RECORD, THERE HAS TO BE BASIS OF AN ENQUIRY. SECOND LY, FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I FIND THAT INSPITE OF REPEATED N OTICES OVER A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS, THE APPELLANT DID NOT APPEAR AN D DID NOT FILE ANY DETAILS. THEREFORE, THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPE LLANT REGARDING LACK OF OPPORTUNITY IS INCORRECT AND UNTENABLE. 9. THE SIXTH GROUND OF APPEAL STATES THAT THERE WAS NO DIRECTION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4(L), HYDERABAD TO REOPEN THE CASE. IN THIS REGARD, I FIN D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WELL WITHIN HER RIGHTS AS PER LAW TO REOPEN THE CASE. SHE DID NOT REQUIRE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON 'BLE ITAT. THE HON'BLE ITAT HAD RIGHTLY IDENTIFIED WHERE THE JURIS DICTION LAY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TIME TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT AND TOOK PROPER PERMISSION FROM THE ADDL. CIT TO REOPEN THE CASE. THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE REOPENING. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS ALSO DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 5 ITA NOS. 78/H/14 & 1013 /HYD/2012 SRI DULAM YESU PRABHU, DOMALGUDA 10. A LOOK AT ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL REVEALS THA T THE APPELLANT HAS NOT QUESTIONED THE ACTUAL ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE GROUNDS RELATE TO THE LEGALITY OF ACTI ON U/S 148 AND GRANT OF OPPORTUNITY. EACH OF THESE GROUNDS HAS BEE N DULY ADJUDICATED UPON. WITH REGARD TO THE ACTUAL ADDITIO N, SINCE THERE IS NO GROUND OF APPEAL, IT IS OBVIOUSLY PRESUMED TH AT THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN QUESTION ARE ONLY TECHNICAL AND LEGAL IN NATURE. ONCE THESE HAVE BEEN DEALT WIT H, THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO ADJUDICATE IN THIS CASE. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA L: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN I NITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE IT. ACT. THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE NO TICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS NOT VALID FOR THE REASONS EXPLAINED. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER OF RS.52,08,530/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING VARIOUS EXPLANAT IONS AND EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM. 4. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. 6.1 THE ASSESSEE FILED A PETITION FOR ADMISSION OF FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ON THE GROUND THAT THE GROUND NO . 3 RAISED IN THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT CLEA RLY THE POINT AGITATED: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE GROU ND WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 52,08,530/-. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE APPE LLANT RAISED A GROUND WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 52,08,530/- AND THE SAME WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY TH E LD. CIT(A). 6.2 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ADMIT THE AD DITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6 ITA NOS. 78/H/14 & 1013 /HYD/2012 SRI DULAM YESU PRABHU, DOMALGUDA 7. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT VERIFIE D THE MERITS OF THE CASE DESPITE SEPARATE GROUNDS WERE RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAD JOINTLY INVESTED IN THE ABOVE PROPERTY WITH OTHERS AND RELEVANT PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE HIM . THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO FURTHER DATA OR INFORMATION COMES TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF AO FOR MAKING ADDITION BY REOPENING T HE ASSESSMENT. 8. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES . 9.1 AS REGARDS, THE GROUND NO.2, REGARDING REOPENIN G OF ASSESSMENT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ACT ION OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REOPENING THE AS SESSMENT AS THE AO HAD FOLLOWED PROPER PROCEDURE AND PERMISSION WAS GRANTED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 4. ALSO T HE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE AY UNDER C ONSIDERATION. 9.2 AS REGARDS, THE ADDITION OF RS. 52,08,539/-, T HE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO GROUND REGARDING THE SAID ADDITION BEFORE HIM AND HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN QUESTION ARE ONLY TECHNICAL AND LEGAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE WAS NO SCOPE TO DEAL WITH THE ADDITION. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AS CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE BY COLLE CTING ADVANCES FROM OTHERS, DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF WHICH WAS SUBMITT ED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. T HE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED COPIES OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM T HE SEVEN CREDITORS, WHO LENT ADVANCES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE EVIDENCES, WE DIRECT THE AO TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL INF ORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 78/HYD/14 BY REVENUE 10. THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CI T(A)-V, HYDERABAD, DATED 30/09/2013. 7 ITA NOS. 78/H/14 & 1013 /HYD/2012 SRI DULAM YESU PRABHU, DOMALGUDA 11. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEA L IS WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF PENALTY BY THE CIT(A), LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 12. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ACCORDIN G TO THE AO, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 52,08,530/- WAS INVESTED BY THE ASSES SEE IN A PLOT BEARING NO. 671 IN SY.NO. 403/1 (OLD) 120 (NEW) SHA IKPET VILLAGE, HAKIMPET MANDAL AND THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS NOT PRO PERLY EXPLAINED. WHEREAS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE ENTERED INTO THE TRANSACTION ON BEHALF OF SEVEN OTHERS AND PAID TH E AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR INVESTMENT AND THAT THE INVESTMENT SO MADE IS P ROPERLY EXPLAINED. THE AO PASSED AN ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT ON 24/12/2010 AND DETERMINED THE INCOME AT RS. 53,06,880/- AS AGAINST THE ADMITTED INCOME OF RS. 98,350/-. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFI RMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 13. THEREAFTER, THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDING S U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED T O COMPLY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT BY NOT FURNISHING ANY PROP ER EXPLANATION TO THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF THE PROPERT Y AND ACCORDINGLY LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS. 17,57,123/-. 14. ON AN APPEAL, BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FI LED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WHICH WERE EXTRACTED BY THE CIT(A) AT PAGES 3 & 4 OF HIS ORDER. 15. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE LETTERS OF CONFIRMATION FROM ALL THE SEVEN PARTIES; AGREEMENTS OF SALE ENTERED INTO WITH THE SAID PARTIES BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LETTERS OF CONFIRMATION MENTIONING THAT THEY ADVANCED THE MONE Y FOR ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AS THEY ARE INTERESTED IN CONSTRUCT ION OF THE FLATS. THE EXPLANATION SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONTRA DICTED BY THE AO AND IT IS ONLY BECAUSE THE AO DISBELIEVED, AN ADDIT ION WAS MADE. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISBELIEF OF AN EXP LANATION MAY BE A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS U/S 6 8 BUT NOT FOR LEVY OF 8 ITA NOS. 78/H/14 & 1013 /HYD/2012 SRI DULAM YESU PRABHU, DOMALGUDA PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) RELYI NG ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P. K. NOORJAHAN, 327 ITR 570, OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO SOURCE FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE EARNED UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ON T HE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE INVESTMENT IS FROM THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM SEVEN PERSONS. THE AO HAS NO INFORMAT ION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVED ANY UNACCOUNTED INCOME N OR DISPROVED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MONIES WERE RECEIVED FROM SEVEN PERSONS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND RELY ING ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF S.V. KALYANAM VS. ITO, 327 ITR 477 AND CIT VS. BURAMAL MANIKCHAND, 130 ITR 129, CANCELED THE P ENALTY OF RS. 17,57,123/- LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. 16. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. AS WE HAVE REMITTED THE QUANTUM APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON PENALTY ALSO MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION WITH A DIRECTION TO THE AO THAT HE MA Y INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IF SO WARRANTED, AFRESH AFTER EVALUATI ON OF THE REASSESSMENT FOR AY 2005-06. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 19. TO SUM UP, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE & REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND APRIL, 2016. (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHM AN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 22 ND APRIL, 2016 9 ITA NOS. 78/H/14 & 1013 /HYD/2012 SRI DULAM YESU PRABHU, DOMALGUDA KV COPY TO:- 1) SRI. DULAM YESU PRABHU, C/O SRI S. RAMA RAO, AD VOCATE, FLAT NO. 102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, H. NO. 3-6-643 , ST. NO. 9, HIMAYAT NAGAR, , HYDERABAD 500 029 2) ITO, WARD 4(1), 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. 3 CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD 4) CIT-IV HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.