ITO, Hyderabad V. M/s. Master Minds Realtors, Siddipet

ITA 87/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6263 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: SARANG SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Assessment record; Onus to prove
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 87/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1), HYDERABAD. VS. M/S MASTERMINDS REALTORS, SECUNDERABAD. PAN AAOFM 2852Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI K.J. RAO ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SARANG SHAH DATE OF HEARING 14-07-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27-07-2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) - VI, HYD ERABAD FOR AY 2007-08. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31/07/2007 DECLARING NIL INCOME FOR THE A Y 2007-08. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 24/12/2009. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE FIRM CAME INTO EXISTENCE ON 18-8- 2006 WITH FOUR PARTNERS. DURING THE YEAR, THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM PURCHASED LANDS AND THE VALUE OF SAME IS SHOWN IN THE CURRENT ASSET S AMOUNTING TO RS.1,24,04,000/-. THIS AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS THE CAPI TAL OF THE 2 ITA NO. 87/H/11 M/S MASTERMINDS REALTORS. PARTNERS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS, THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS AND VO UCHERS, COPIES OF SALE DEEDS, BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM AND PARTNERS, SOURCES OF THE CAPITAL INTRODUCTION BY THE PARTNERS, ETC. ON VERIF ICATION OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT, T HE A.O DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.40,54,000/- OUT OF RS.1,24,04,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED SOURCE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.40,54,000/- AS UN EXPLAINED CAPITAL. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS FOUR PARTNERS AND SINCE IT WAS TH E FIRST YEAR, NO BANK ACCOUNT IS MAINTAINED BY THE FIRM AS IT HAS NO T STARTED ANY BUSINESS OPERATIONS. THE PARTNERS INVESTED IN LAND AT SHAMSHABAD AND INTRODUCED RESPECTIVE CONTRIBUTION AS CAPITAL A ND THESE ENTRIES WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN SUP PORT OF THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CAPITAL THE APPELLANT CLAIMED T O HAVE FILED BEFORE THE A.O, THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: A) COPIES OF RETURN OF INCOME OF ALL THE PARTNERS INCLUDING THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE NON-RESIDENT INDIAN PARTNER IN USA. B) AFFIDAVITS FROM ALL PARTNERS IN INDIA REGARDIN G THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF INVESTMENTS IN THE FIRM ALONG WITH T HE SOURCES THEREOF. C) COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF ALL PARTNERS AND ALSO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT BY THE NRI PAR TNER. D) CERTIFICATE FROM THE LOCAL BANK REGARDING FUNDS HAVING BEEN DEPOSITS IN SUCH BANK FROM ABROAD. D) INCOME CERTIFICATE OF NRI PARTNER FROM HIS EMPL OYERS M/S AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION, BOSTON, USA. 3 ITA NO. 87/H/11 M/S MASTERMINDS REALTORS. F) GIFT DECLARATION AND ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE OF THE MOTHER OF A PARTNER, MR. ASHOK GOUD. G) PRINTOUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. H) COPY OF THE AGREEMENT AND CONFIRMATION FOR ADVA NCE PAID FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND AT SECUNDERABAD. I) REGISTERED SALE DEED OF LAND AT SHAMSHABAD. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED THE INTRODUC TION OF CAPITAL WITH AMPLE EVIDENCE TO DISCHARGE THE INITIAL BURDEN. ONC E THE INITIAL BURDEN IS DISCHARGED BY THE APPELLANT, THE ONUS SHI FTS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS REPRESENTS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE APP ELLANT HAS PROVED A) THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON INTRODUCING TH E CREDIT, B) THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION C) THE CREDIT WORTHI NESS OF THE CREDITOR. HE FURTHER OBSERVED AS UNDER: IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORA TION PVT. LTD. 159 ITR 78, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT EVEN IF THE RE IS A DENIAL BY A CREDITOR, THAT THE CREDITS WERE NOT GENUINE AN D IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TRANSACTION IS FICTITIOUS AND BOGUS. TO DETERMINE THE SAME, NECESSARY EXERCIS E SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THA T SUCH TRANSACTION IS NOT GENUINE AND LACKS CREDITWORTHINE SS. THIS KIND OF EXERCISE IS NOT CARRIED OUT IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAS BEEN CALLE D FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT BUT DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY DEFECT OR IN CORRECTNESS IN RECORDING OF ITS ENTRIES. THESE ENTRIES WERE ALSO S UPPORTED BY THE BANK STATEMENTS. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO EXPLAINED T HE SOURCE OF 4 ITA NO. 87/H/11 M/S MASTERMINDS REALTORS. THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. THE SUM C REDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE I NCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN A CASE WHERE THE APPELLANT DOES NOT OF FER ANY EXPLANATION OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IN TH E OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFACTORY. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE WAS NOT SATISFIED BY THE D OCUMENTS OR EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO HAS NO T CATEGORICALLY CITED THE INCORRECT ENTRIES OF THE PA RTNER'S CREDIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT EXAMINE THE PERSONS O R PHYSICALLY REQUIRED THEIR APPEARANCE TO EXAMINE THAT THE PARTN ERS DID NOT HAVE THE SOURCE TO EXTEND CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S RELIANCE ON THE CASE LAWS MENTIONED IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE MISPLACED AND FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE AS SESSEE'S CASE FITS INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SAID C ASE LAWS. AS PER THE ASSESSMENT RECORD FURNISHED BEFORE ME, IT I S SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT FURNISHED ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WA S CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE CREDITS WER E GENUINE. THE A.O HAS NOT ENUMERATED AND BRING OUT ANY UNETHICAL METHODS WHICH WERE RESORTED BY THE APPELLANT AND WHICH SEEM ED SUSPICIOUS IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO DENY PART INVESTMENT AS UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL. THE A.O DID NOT IN ANY WAY EXP RESS ANY DISSATISFACTION WITH REGARDS TO THE AMOUNTS WHICH W ERE CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT SHOWING TH EM AS INCORRECT. FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O DID NOT BRING OUT ANY CLINCHING OR CORROBORATIVE EVIDEN CE TO SAY THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY THE SO URCE AND THE NATURE OF THE RECEIPT WHICH ENABLED THE A.O TO DRAW AN INFERENCE THAT THE RECEIPT IS AN ASSESSABLE INCOME OF THE APP ELLANT. THE A.O ALSO HAS NOT MENTIONED EVIDENTLY AS TO WHAT WAY THE DETAILS OR EVIDENCES ACCORDING TO WHICH, OUT OF RS.1,24,04, 000/-, AN AMOUNT OF RS.83,50,000/- STOOD EXPLAINED AND WHAT W AS LACKING IN SUCH DETAILS OR EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE APPELL ANT FOR NOT 5 ITA NO. 87/H/11 M/S MASTERMINDS REALTORS. CONSIDERING AN AMOUNT OF RS 40,54,000/- AS UNEXPLAI NED CAPITAL. FINALLY, IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O DID NOT PROVE THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 40,54,000/- IS AN UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND S UCH AN ADDITION WITHOUT ANY BASE DOES NOT SUSTAIN. IT IS A LSO SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY TRANSA CTION AND BROUGHT ON TO THE RECORD HIS DISSATISFACTION PERTAI NING TO THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND REJECTED TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE OR REJECTED THE EXPLANATIO N GIVEN BY HIM. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE CASE LAW CIT VS. MEH TA PARIK & CO. [1956] 30 ITR 181 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT FOR ANY MAJOR ADDITION THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE PROVED DECISIVELY THAT CREDITS THEREIN DO NOT COME FROM SOURCES ATTRI BUTED FOR THEM. THERE IS NO PROPER ENQUIRY WHICH IS FAIR AND JUST T O MAKE SUCH ADDITION. I ALSO PLACE RELIANCE IN THE CASE LAW CIT VS. SAHIB GUNJ ELECTRICAL CABLES PVT. LTD. [1978] 115 ITR 408 (CAL CUTTA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT NONE OF THE AMOUNTS WERE ACCEPTED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SOURCE OF TH E DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ARE EXPLAINED AND ARE CREDITED THROUGH A P ROPER AND A LEGAL CHANNEL THAT IS THE BANK. IT IS ALSO SEEN THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT COUNTER THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPE LLANT WITH ANY FACT THAT HE HAS COME ACROSS WHICH WAS INCORRECT OR FALSE AND BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO PROVE THAT THE SO URCES FOR SUCH CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION ARE BOGUS AND FACTUALLY INCORR ECT. THE AO IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO EXAMINED SOURCE FOR THE SOURC E, WHICH WAS ALSO PROVED BY THE APPELLANT I.E., THE APPELLAN T ALSO PRODUCED THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SOURCE OF THE INVE STMENT BY NRI PARTNER BEFORE ISSUING A CHEQUE TO ANOTHER PART NER IN INDIA. IN ORDER TO HAVE AN ENTIRE AND REASONABLE ASSESSMEN T OF THE SITUATION AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO THE ADDITIO N BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE FI NANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WERE SUMMON ED AND THE PRESENT ASSESSING OFFICER OF WARD-10(1), HYDERA BAD VERIFIED THE DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLAN T WITH REGARD 6 ITA NO. 87/H/11 M/S MASTERMINDS REALTORS. TO THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT AND SATISFACTORILY CONCLUDED THAT THE SOURCE OF INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL IS FULLY EXPL AINED AND IS FOUND IN ORDER. THEREFORE, SINCE THE EVIDENCE IS CR EDIBLE, ADDITIONS SHOULD NOT BE MADE ON MERE SURMISES OR DU E TO LACK OF TIME. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED IN THE CASE LAW CIT V S. SOFIA FINANCE LTD. 205 ITR 98 (DELHI) WHERE IT WAS HELD T HAT A SOURCE TO SOURCE NEED NOT BE EXPLAINED. RELIANCE IS ALSO P LACED ON THE JUDGEMENTS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAKHINDER KUMAR ( 2001 ) 250 ITR 483 (P & H), CIT VS. UPASANA HOSPITAL & NURSING HOME [1998] 229 ITR 230 (KERAL) AND CHETANA ENTERPRISES VS. ITO [1999] 238 ITR (AT) 103 (PATNA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN BEFORE THE SAID UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS CONSIDERED AS THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. DWARAKA DESH INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. WHEREIN IT WAS HE LD THOUGH THE INITIAL BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH THE ASSESSEE, YET ONCE IT PROVES THE IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS BY SHOWING HIS BOOKS EITHER BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR BY DRAFT OR BY ANY OT HER MODE, THE ONUS OF PROOF WOULD SHIFT TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. MOREOVER, IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT PROV E 'SOURCE OF SOURCE'. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I FIND THAT THERE IS AMPLE E VIDENCE THAT WAS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN AND EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CAPI TAL INTRODUCTION, BY BRINGING ON TO THE RECORD SUCH AS THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRA NSACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE CREDIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IN ANY WAY, IS UNSATISFACTORY AND MADE N ECESSARY ENQUIRIES OR EXAMINATION TO PROVE IT OTHERWISE. THE REFORE, WITHOUT ANY BASIS, SUCH ADDITION IS INFRUCTUOUS AND HENCE, I DELETE THE SAME. 7 ITA NO. 87/H/11 M/S MASTERMINDS REALTORS. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US: (I) THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LA W; (II) THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AMPLE EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED / BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN AND EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED; (III) THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH AT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR INTRODUC TION OF CAPITAL IN THE BOOKS OF FIRM; (IV) THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE PLACED RELIANCE ON SUMATHI DAYAL VS. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC), CIT VS. R.S. RATH OD (212 ITR 390)(RAJ),KALEKHAN MOHAMMED HANIF VS. CIT (50 ITR 1 )(SC) AND CIT VS. M.GANAPATHI MUDALIAR (53 ITR 623)(SC) W HICH ARE VERY MUCH RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT CASE; (V) THE C1T(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO TH E ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CAPITAL INTRODUCE D. 7. CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF R EVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVER ED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE T&AP HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. M. VENKATESWARA RAO AND OTHERS, [2015] 370 ITR 212 WHE REIN THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: S ECTION 68 OF THE ACT NO DOUBT DIRECTS THAT IF AN ASSESSEE FA ILS TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDIT ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, THE SAME CAN BE TREATED AS INCOME. IN THIS CASE, THE AMOUNT, THAT I S SOUGHT TO BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE FIRM, IS THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE PARTNERS, TO THE CAPITAL. IN A WAY, THE AMOUNT SO CONTRIBUTED CONSTITUTES THE VERY SUBSTRATUM FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE FIRM. IT IS DIFFICULT TO TREAT THE POOLING OF SUCH CAPITAL, AS CREDIT. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE ENTRIES ARE MADE DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS THAT CAN BE SUBJECTED TO SCR UTINY UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE RESPONDENT E XPLAINED THE AMOUNT OF RS.76,57,263/- AS THE CONTRIBUTION FROM ITS PARTNERS. THAT MUST RE SULT IN A SITUATION, WHERE SECTION 68 OF THE ACT CAN NO LONGER BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE. HOWEVER, IN THE NAME OF CAUSING VERIFICATION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDED TO IDENTIFY THE SOURCE FOR THE RESPECTIVE PARTNERS, TO MAKE THA T CONTRIBUTION. SUCH AN ENQUIRY CAN, AT THE MOST BE CONDUCTED AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL PAR TNERS. IF THE PARTNER IS AN ASSESSEE, THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER CAN REQUIRE HIM TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY CONTRIBUTED BY HIM TO THE FIRM. IF ON THE OTHER HAN D, THE PARTNER IS NOT AN ASSESSEE, HE CAN BE REQUIRED TO FILE A RETURN AND EXPLAIN THE SO URCE. UNDERTAKING OF SUCH AN EXERCISE, VIS-A-VIS THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM ITSELF, IS IMPERMISS IBLE IN LAW. IN THE JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF, THE PATNA HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: 8 ITA NO. 87/H/11 M/S MASTERMINDS REALTORS. IF THERE ARE CASH CREDITS IN THE BOOKS OF A FIRM IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS AND IT IS FOUND AS A FACT THAT CASH WAS RECEIVED BY THE FIRM FROM ITS PARTNERS, THEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO INDICATE THAT THEY ARE T HE PROFITS OF THE FIRM, THEY CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM, THOUGH THEY MAY BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS. CASH CREDITS IN THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS OF MEMBERS OF A JOINT FAMILY WITH THIRD PARTY CANNOT BE ASSESSED AS THE INCOME O F THE FAMILY UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT DISCHARGES THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE CONTRARY. THEREFORE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM MUST EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THE PARTNERS REGAR DING THE AMOUNT CONTRIBUTED BY THEM TOWARDS CAPITAL OF THE FIRM, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DE LETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL AND DISM ISS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHM AN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 27 TH JULY, 2016 KV COPY TO:- 1) ITO, WARD 10(1), ROOM NO. 516, AC GUARDS, IT TOWERS, HYDERABAD. 2) M/S MASTERMIND REALTORS, SHOP NO. 14, MINERVA CO MPLEX, SD ROAD, HYD. 3) CIT(A) - VI, HYDERABAD 4) CIT - V , HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 9 ITA NO. 87/H/11 M/S MASTERMINDS REALTORS. 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