Shri. Attaur Rahman, Hyderabad v. The Income Tax , Ward -1, Warangal

ITA 1411/HYD/2012 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 141122514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AEYPR5835G
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1411/HYD/2012
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant Shri. Attaur Rahman, Hyderabad
Respondent The Income Tax , Ward -1, Warangal
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 12-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 12-11-2014
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 14-09-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A' HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND S MT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1334/HYD/12 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 WARANGAL V/S. SHRI ATTAUR RAHMAN WARANGAL (PAN AEYPR 5835 G ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1411/HYD/12 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.144/HYD/12 (IN ITA NO.1334/HYD/12) : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SHRI ATTAUR RAHMAN WARANGAL (PAN AEYPR 5835 G ) V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 WARANGAL (APPELLANT/ CROSS - OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D. V. ANJANEYULU DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI I B.RAMAKRISHNA DR DATE OF HEARING 10 . 11 .2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.11.20 14 O R D E R PER P.M.JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE TWO APPEALS ONE FIL E D BY THE REVENUE BEING ITA NO.1334/HYD.2012 AND THE OTHER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING I TA NO.1411/HYD/2012 ARE CROSS APPEALS WHICH ARE DIRE C TED A G AIN S T THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) VI HYDERABAD DATE D 25.6.2012 A N D THE S AME ARE BEING DISPOSED OF ALONGWITH TH E CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE B E ING CO N O.144/HYD/2012 BY THIS COMMON ORDER . I TA NO. 1334 & 1411/H YD/20 12 & CO 144/HYD/2012 SHRI ATTAUR RAHMAN WARANGAL 2 2. GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE I S GENERAL IN NATURE AND REQUIRES NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 3. THE COMMON ISSUE INVOL V ED IN GROUND NO S . 2 TO 4 RELATES TO THE DELETION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) OF THE ADDITION OF R S .26 10 000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 4 . THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ENGAGED IN B EEDI L EAVES CONTRACT BUSINESS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE Y E AR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FIL E D BY HIM ON 29.9.2009 DECL A RING TOTAL INCOME OF RS .6 22 850. DURIN G TH E COU RS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN A TOTAL AMOUNT O F R S .26 10 000 FROM HIS SAVINGS B ANK A CCOUNT MAIN T A INED WITH SYNDICATE BANK DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL 2008. SIN C E THE SAID CASH WITHDRAWALS WERE NOT FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO OFFER HIS EXPLANATION IN THE MATTER. IN REPLY IT WAS SUBMI T TED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM SYN D ICATE BANK WAS LO S T AND SIN C E TH E S AME WAS NO T UTILI S ED FOR ANY USEFUL PU R PO S E I T WAS NO T RECORD ED IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WA S NOT FOUND AC C EPT A BL E BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT A POLICE COMPLIANT WAS LO D GED FOR THE AMOUNT LO S T. HE TH E R E FORE TREATED THE AMOUNT O F RS .26 10 000 AS UN E XPL A IN E D EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE S AME TO HIS TOTAL INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER S.143(3) VIDE O R DER DATED 30.12.2011. 5. A G AINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3 ) AN APP E AL WAS PREFERRED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISPUTING IN T ER - ALIA THE ADDITION OF RS .26 10 0 00 M A D E BY THE I TA NO. 1334 & 1411/H YD/20 12 & CO 144/HYD/2012 SHRI ATTAUR RAHMAN WARANGAL 3 AS SESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AND AFTER CON S I DE RIN G TH E SUBMI S SION S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE M A TERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE FO L L O W IN G REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPHS 4.2 AND 4.3 OF HIS I M PUGN E D ORDER - 4.2 THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW A SUM OF RS.26 10 000 FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT BETWEEN THE PERIOD 10.04.2008 TO 18.04.2008. THE BANK BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2008 AND 01.04.2008 IN THE BOOKS OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS SHOWN AS RS.9 630/ - I.E. THE AVAILABLE BALANCE AND THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.26 10 000/ - WAS NOT TAKEN TO BE PART OF THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AT ALL. IT IS RELEVANT TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAS AN ID ENTITY DISTINCT FROM THAT OF HIS PROPRIETORSHIP. IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO WITHDRAW FUNDS FROM HIS BUSINESS FOR HIS PERSONAL PURPOSES IN WHICH SITUATION THE FUNDS WOULD CEASE TO BE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE BUSINESS AND CONSEQUENTLY THE BALA NCE SHEET. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE BANK BALANCE IN THE BOOKS MERELY MEANS THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THE SPHERE OF BUSINESS AFFAIRS TO HIS PERSONAL SPHERE. 4.3 IN ANY EVENT WHAT IS UNEXPLAINED IN THIS CASE IS NOT THE SOURCES FOR AN EXPENDITURE (SINCE THE FUNDS HAVE ADMITTEDLY BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK AND THE SOURCES FOR THE DEPOSIT ITSELF INTO THE BANK HAS NOT BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER) BUT HOW THE SUM OF RS.26 10 000/ - HAS BEEN EXPENDED. IT IS QUITE LIKELY THAT THE AMOUNT HAS NOT ACTUALLY BEEN LOST BUT USED FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSES. HOWEVER THAT IS NOT THE SITUATION WHICH SEC.69C DEALS WITH AND IN WHICH AN ADDITION CAN BE MADE TO THE ASSESSEES INCOME. THE ADDITION IS DELETED AND THE ASSESSEE S GROUND IS ALLOWED. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION THE AMOUNT O F RS .26 . 10 LAKHS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS BANK AC C OUNT CANNOT B E TRE A TED AS HIS INCOME MERELY B EC AU S E THE SAME WAS NO T RECORDED IN I TA NO. 1334 & 1411/H YD/20 12 & CO 144/HYD/2012 SHRI ATTAUR RAHMAN WARANGAL 4 THE BOOK S O F ACCOUNT AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) . MO R EOVER TH E SAME CAN N OT BE TREATED AS UN E XPLAIN E D EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE SIN C E THE SOU R CE OF THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN WAS ASSESSEES OWN BANK ACCOUNT AS A D MITTE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIM S EL F AND THERE WAS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN THAT BANK ACCOUNT. ALTHOUGH THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AT THE TIME OF H E ARING BEFORE US HAS RELIED ON THE O R DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPO R T OF THE REVENUES CASE ON THIS ISSUE HE HAS NO T BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE AMOUN T WIT HD RAWN BY THE ASSESSEE F R OM HIS BANK ACCOUNT REGULARLY MAI NT AIN E D CAN B E TREATED AS INCOM E O F THE ASSESSEE AND THAT TOO AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE UNDER S.69C OF THE AC T . WE TH E R E FORE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE I M PUGN E D ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETING THE A D D I TION MA D E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE AND UPHOLDING THE SAME WE DI SMI SS THE GROUND NO S .2 TO 4 OF THE R E VENUES APPEAL. 7. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO . 5 O F THE REVENUE S APPEAL REL A TES TO THE DELETION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) OF THE ADDITION OF RS .9 50 000 MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS .9 50 000 FROM SHRI AJAY AGARWAL DURING THE Y E AR UNDER CONSIDERATION AN D TH E SAM E WAS REPAID ON 15.12.2008. ON FURTHER VERIFICATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OUND THAT THE AMOUNT O F RS .9 50 000 CLAIMED TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHRI AJAY AGARWAL ON 15.12.2008 WAS ACTUALLY CRE D ITED TO THE ACCOUNT O F ONE SHRI S.SARAIAH. I N THI S REGARD THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS .9 50 00 0 WAS PAID TO SHRI S.SARIAH AS PER THE INSTRUCTION OF SHRI AJAY AGA R WAL AND THE SAM E WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PAID BY SHRI SARIAH TO SHRI AJAY AGARWAL. A I TA NO. 1334 & 1411/H YD/20 12 & CO 144/HYD/2012 SHRI ATTAUR RAHMAN WARANGAL 5 CONFIRMATION LETTER ISSUED BY SHRI AJAY AGA R WAL WAS ALSO FI E LD BY TH E ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE HIS EXPLANATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOW E VER DID NO T ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR T H E FOLLOWIN G REASONS - (I) THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT BALANCE IN HIS ACCOUNT AND HE COULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY MADE THE PAYMENT TO SRI AJAY AGARWAL. (II) THE ASSESSEE WITH A CLEAR INTENTION TO SUPPRESS THE RECEIPT HAS RECORDED THE ENTRY AS PAID TO SRI AJAY AGARWAL. (III) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT SRI S.SARAIAH HAS PAID THE AMOUNT TO SRI AJAY AGARWAL. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENT ION HAS FILED A COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER ISSUED BY SRI AJAY AGARWAL CONFIRMING THAT HE HAS RECEIVED THE AMOUNT FROM SRI MOHD. ATTA UR REHMAN ON 10 TH JANUARY 2009. HOWEVER AS PER THE COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER GIVEN BY SRI AJAY AGARWAL IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LETTER IS FAXED ON DATE 27 TH JANUARY 2008 (ECNLOSED AS ANNEXURE). (IV) FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ENCLOSED COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF SRI S.SARAIAH MAINTAINED AT VIJAYA BANK FOR THE PERIOD 01 - 04 - 2008 TO 31 - 03 - 2009 AS PER WHICH IT IS SEEN THAT SRI S.SARAIAH HAS TAKEN A D.D FOR AN AMOUNT RS.8 50 000/ - ONLY AND NOT RS.9 50 000/ - . FOR THE REASON S GIVEN ABOVE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.9 50 000 AS UN E XPLAIN E D CREDIT AND ADDED THE SAM E TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. I TA NO. 1334 & 1411/H YD/20 12 & CO 144/HYD/2012 SHRI ATTAUR RAHMAN WARANGAL 6 9. T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UN E XPL A I N ED CREDIT WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AN APPEAL FILED B E FORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND AFTER CON S I DE RIN G THE SUBMI SS IONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON S GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH 5.3 OF THE IMPUGNED OR D ER - 5.3 THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED (AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THIS CLAIM) THAT THE REPAYMENT TO SRI AJAY AGARWAL HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH SRI S.SARIAH AT THE EXPLICIT INSTRUCTIONS OF SRI AJAY AGARWAL. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT SRI AJAY AGARWAL HAS DENIED BEING REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE SINCE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO SRI S.SARIAH AS PER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF SRI AJAY AGARWAL HIMSELF. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OBSE RVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE INTENDED TO SUPPRESS HIS RECEIPT IS WITHOUT BASIS AND NOT FOUNDED ON FACTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT SRI S.SARIAH HAD PAID THE AMOUNT TO SRI AJAY AGARWAL. THIS AGAIN IS OF NO RELEVANCE SO LONG AS THE PAYMENT OF SRI S.SARIAH HAD BEEN MADE AS PER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF SRI AJAY AGARWAL AND SRI AJAY AGARWAL HAS TREATED IT AS THE REPAYMENT OF THE DEBT. FURTHER AS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF SRI S.SARIAH HAD INDEED MA DE A PAYMENT OF RS.8 50 000/ - FROM HIS ACCOUNT AT VIJAYA BANK. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE DO NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY HIM. THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM IS THEREFORE DELETED AND THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 10. WE HAVE HE ARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OB S ERVED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS .9 50 000 REC E IVED FORM SHRI A J AY AGARWAL WAS CLAIMED TO B E I TA NO. 1334 & 1411/H YD/20 12 & CO 144/HYD/2012 SHRI ATTAUR RAHMAN WARANGAL 7 REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER HIS INSTRUCTION TO SHRI S.SARIAH AND THIS C LAIM WAS DULY SUPPO R TED BY THE CONFIRMATION LETTER ISSUED BY SH R I AJAY AGARWAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HO W EVER DID NO T ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT SHRI S.SAIARA H HAS SUBSEQUENTLY PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS .9 50 000 TO SHRI AJAY AGARWAL. AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THIS REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS OTHER REASONS GIVEN BY HIM TO REJECT TH E CLAIM O F TH E ASSESSEE W E RE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT AS THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING REPAID THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION TO SHRI S.SARIAH ON BEHALF OF SHRI AJAY AG ARWAL WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE CON F IRM A TION LETT E R ISSUED BY S HRI AJAY AGARWAL HIM S ELF WHEREIN HE ACCEPTED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE TO SHRI S.SARAIAH AS PER HIS IN S TRUCTIONS. IN OUR OPINION IT WAS THUS NO T A CA S E OF ANY UNE X PLAIN E D CREDIT AS ALL E GED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS FULLY JU S TIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9 50 000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS ACCOR D INGLY UPHELD AND GROUND NO.5 OF THE R E VENUES APPEAL I S DISMISSED. 11. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEIN G IT A NO.141 1 /HYD/2012 WHICH I NVOLVES A SOLITARY ISSUE REL A TIN G TO ADDITION OF R S .4 80 550 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) UNDER S.40A(3) OF THE ACT. 12. DURIN G T HE COU RS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS I T WAS NO T I C ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS MADE PAYM E N T OF R S .4 80 550 IN CASH AGAINST PURCHASE OF BARDAN FROM M/S. SHANKAR TRADING CALCUTTA. SIN C E THE SAID PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION S O F S.40A(3) THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUI R ED THE ASSESSEE TO OFFER HIS EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.4 80 550 INCURRED ON AC C OUN T O F PURCHASE OF BARDAN SHO U LD NO T BE I TA NO. 1334 & 1411/H YD/20 12 & CO 144/HYD/2012 SHRI ATTAUR RAHMAN WARANGAL 8 DISALLOWED. IN REPLY IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT T HE AMOUN T O F RS .4 80 550 WAS PAID BY DEMAND D RAFT FROM THE AMOUNT O F RS .7 5 0 000 0 WI T H D RA W N FROM THE B A NK ACCOUNT. NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AND SUB S TA N TIATE THIS EXPLANATION HO W EVER WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO FOUN D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE P A YMENT OF RS.4 80 550 AGAINST PURC HASE OF BARDAN W A S MA D E IN CASH. HE TH E R E FORE INVOKED THE P R OVIS I ON S OF S.40A(3) AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4 80 550. ON APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) CON FI RM E D THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.40A(3) OB S ERVIN G THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PRO D UCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS .4 80 550 AGAINST PU R CHA S E OF BARDAN WAS PAID BY DEMAND DRAFT. 1 3 . WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REI T ERATED BEFORE US THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHO R I T I E S BELOW THAT THE AMOUNT IN QU E STION AGAINST TH E PU R CH A SE OF BARDAN WAS PAID BY DEMAND DRAFT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PLACED EVEN BEFORE US TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED A NEW CONTENTION THAT BARDAN BEING A FOREST PRO D U C E THE PAYMENT MADE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE S A ME IN CASH IS COVERED BY THE EXCEPTION S GIVEN IN RULE 6DD(E)(I). HE HOW E VER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH OR SHOW AS TO HOW THE BARDAN CAN BE REGARDED AS A FOREST PRODUCE. W E TH E R E F O RE FIND NO MERIT EVEN IN THI S NEW CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUN S EL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HENCE UPHOL D IN G TH E I M PU G N E D ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) CON F IRMIN G T H E DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.40A(3) WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL. 1 4 . CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEING ONLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS IN VIEW OF THE I TA NO. 1334 & 1411/H YD/20 12 & CO 144/HYD/2012 SHRI ATTAUR RAHMAN WARANGAL 9 DISMISSAL OF THE REVENUES APPEAL HEREIN ABOVE AND HENCE THE SAME IS ALSO DISMISSED. 1 5 . IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COUR T ON 12 TH NOVEMBER 2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) ( P.M.JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/ - 12 TH NOVEMBER 2014 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI ATTAUR RAHMAN (WARANGAL) C/O. ANJANEYULU & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 30 BHAGYALAKSMI NAGAR GANDHINAGAR HYDERABAD 500 080 2 . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 WARANGAL 3. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) V I HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - V HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT HYDERABAD. B.V.S