Mr.. Sunil Kumar D Shah, Hyderabad v. Dy.CIT,, Hyderabad

ITA 1708/HYD/2012 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2013 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 170822514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AANHS6941R
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1708/HYD/2012
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant Mr.. Sunil Kumar D Shah, Hyderabad
Respondent Dy.CIT,, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 10-10-2013
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 23-11-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B' HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1704/HYD/2012 A.Y. 2002-03 ITA NO. 1705/HYD/2012 A.Y. 2003-04 ITA NO. 1706/HYD/2012 A.Y. 2004-05 ITA NO. 1707/HYD/2012 A.Y. 2005-06 ITA NO. 1708/HYD/2012 A.Y. 2006-07 MR. SUNIL KUMAR D. SHAH (HUF) HYDERABAD PAN: AANHS6941R VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI A. SRINIVAS RESPONDENT BY: SRI T. DIWAKAR PRASAD DATE OF HEARING: 10 .10.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10.10.2013 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI AM: THE ABOVE FIVE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 12.9.2012 FOR A. YS. 2002-03 TO 2008-09. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APP EALS ARE COMMON IN NATURE THESE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER HEAR D TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN THESE CASES THE CIT(A) PASSED A COMMON ORDER FOR A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE FILED SEVEN APPEA LS FOR ALL THESE YEARS IN ITA NOS. 1704/HYD/2012 TO 1710/HYD/2012. AL L THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD ON EARLIER OCCASION I.E. 23.5.2 013. THE TRIBUNAL DISPOSED OF ONLY THE APPEALS IN ITA NO. 1709 AND 171 0/HYD/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 23.5.2013. HOWEVER ITA NOS. 1704 TO 1708/HYD/ 2012 WERE RELEASED VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 24. 5.2013 WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO. 1704/HYD/2012 & ORS. MR. SUNIL KUMAR D. SHAH (HUF) ========================= 2 '24/5/13. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE ADVANCED ARGUMENTS ONLY ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2005-06 WERE NOT PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND HENCE U/S. 153C OF THE IT ACT. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE REGULAR RETURNS OF INCOME COULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. THE LD. DR ALS O ARGUED ON THIS ISSUE. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS FOUND THAT THE 'A' HAS NOT RAISED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE GROUND RAISED IS ONLY AGAINST THE ME RITS OF THE ADDITION AND NO ARGUMENTS ARE ADVANCED ON TH IS ISSUE. THEREFORE THE APPEALS FOR A.Y. 2002-03 TO A.Y. 2005-06 ARE RELEASED FROM HEARD AND POSTED FOR HEARING ON 20 TH OF JUNE 2013. ISSUE NOTICE TO BOTH THE PARTIES. SD/- JM (SMC)' 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ITA NOS. 1704 TO 1708/HYD/2012 CAME UP FOR HEARING TODAY THE 10 TH OCTOBER 2013. ACCORDINGLY WE TAKE UP ITA NOS. 1704 TO 1708/HYD/2013 FOR A.YS. 2002-03 T O 2006-07. FIRSTLY WE TAKE UP ITA NOS. 1704 TO 1707/HYD/2012 F OR A.YS. 2002- 03 TO 2005-06. ITA NOS. 1704 1705 1706 AND 1707/HYD/2012: 4. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THESE APPEALS IS W ITH REGARD TO TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS REGULAR INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REGUL ARLY DECLARING AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT ON 9.10.2007 AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SEIZED MATERIAL WHAT SOEVER FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO TREAT THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME AS 'INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES' WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S . 153C OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 1704/HYD/2012 & ORS. MR. SUNIL KUMAR D. SHAH (HUF) ========================= 3 HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 27.9.2 013 IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. KISHORESONS DETERGENTS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NOS . 1817 TO 1820/HYD/2012 WHEREIN HELD AS UNDER: '13. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S PERUSED THE RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS CITED. ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTED THE NORMAL PROFI TS FROM ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AS COMPARED TO THE OTHER YEARS IN CONSIDERATION AND HAS UNDERSTATED TH E INCOMES FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS ON THE BASIS OF T HE INFERENCES DRAWN FROM THE VARIATIONS IN THE RATIO O F NET PROFITS TO THAT OF GROSS PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE. O N THE OTHER HAND THE CIT(A) BEFORE DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE GAVE CATEGORICAL FINDINGS THAT THE AO HAS NOT SHOWN ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OR METHOD OF ACCOUNTANCY ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BOOKS ARE NOT REJECTED SO AS TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT S OF BUSINESS. RATHER SUCH ESTIMATION IS RESORTED TO SUPERFLUOUS METHODS OF PERCENTAGE OF NET OF GROSS WHICH IS NOT ORDINARILY HEARD IN THE ACCOUNTING LANGUAGES/PRACTICES. FURTHER THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THEORETICAL BASIS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE S ARE DESIRED TO BE DESISTED IN SEARCH RELATED CASES WITH NO ADVERSE INFORMATION FOUND IN SUPPORT OF SUCH ESTIMATION/METHOD. 14. SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT HYDERABAD IN CASE OF M/S SPECTRUM PEARLS & EXPORTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA)WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HELD AS FOLLOWS: 8. ... THE CASE RECORDS REVEAL THAT NO INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS. THE DETERMINATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH ACTION AND FRAMING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IS DIFFERENT FROM REGU LAR ASSESSMENT OR IT IS NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR REGULAR ASSESSMENT. BEING SO THE AO SHALL FRAME ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT. THE AO WITHOUT BRINGING ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL ON RECO RD FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF UNDISCLOSED INC OME ON ESTIMATE BASIS IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OF T HE ACT. THEREFORE AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FA CTS ITA NO. 1704/HYD/2012 & ORS. MR. SUNIL KUMAR D. SHAH (HUF) ========================= 4 AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE INSTANT CASE WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN ALLOW ING THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 15. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT NO INCRIMINAT ING EVIDENCE FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN PROVING THAT UNACCOUNTED INCOMES WERE GENERATED BY SUPPRESSION OF PROFIT AND THEREFORE THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESORTING TO ESTIMATION AND ARITHMETICAL ASSUMPTION S. ACCORDINGLY WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS M ADE BY HOLDING THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BASED ON THE PERCENTAGE OF NET OVER GROSS ADOPTED BY THE AO ARE HELD TO BE WITHOUT ANY BASIS THAT CAN BE JUSTIFIED ON FACTUAL OR LEGAL GROUNDS AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) IS HEREBY CONFIRMED DISMISSING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD IN ALL THE YEA RS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 16. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS BEING ITA NO. 181 7 1818 1819 & 1820/HYD/2012 FILED BY THE REVENUE AR E DISMISSED.' 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT AS FAR AS THE APPEALS FOR THE YEARS I.E. AY 2002-03 TO 2005-0 6 ARE CONCERNED THE ONLY GROUND RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS COMMON FOR ALL THESE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE LA NDS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ORAL PARTITION WERE BARREN LANDS SITUATED AT VATTINAGULAPALLI VILLAGE WHERE NO CROPS WERE CULTIVA TED. THE AO OBTAINED REVENUE RECORDS OF THE LAND I.E. PAHANIS FROM MANDAL REVENUE OFFICE AND FOUND THAT THESE LANDS ARE VACAN T. HE REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CAS E OF SHRI SURESH KUMAR D SHAH IN ITA NOS. 420 TO 425 DATED 16-12-2011 WHEREIN SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR HEARING. BY GIVING ELABOR ATE REASONS IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE LAND WAS BARREN A ND ROCKY AND NO AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT. INCIDENTA LLY SHRI SURESH KUMAR D SHAH ALSO ENTERED INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN T WITH DAKSHIN SHELTERS PVT. LTD IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO T HE AY 2007-08. M/S. DAKSHIN SHELTERS PVT. LTD HAD ENTERED INTO DEV ELOPMENT ITA NO. 1704/HYD/2012 & ORS. MR. SUNIL KUMAR D. SHAH (HUF) ========================= 5 AGREEMENT WITH THE WHOLE FAMILY OF SHRI SURESH KUMA R D SHAH SHRI SUNIL KUMAR D SHAH AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR D SHAH AS WELL AS OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND SITUATED AT VA TTINAGULAPALLI VILLAGE. ALL THESE LANDS ARE CONTIGUOUS TO EACH OTHE R. THEREFORE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS CARRYING ON A GRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ON THIS LAND IS HIGHLY DOUBTFUL DUE TO T HE NATURE OF LAND IT POSSESSES AT VATTINAGULAPALLI VILLAGE. IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKE D TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND TO FURNISH THE DETAILS SUCH AS TYPE OF CROPS GR OWN EXPENDITURE DETAILS SALE OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ETC. IT IS ALSO ENQUIRED FROM THE ASSESSEE WHETHER THE LAND WAS CULTIVATED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF OR GIVEN ON LEASE (KOWLU) TO OTHERS. THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS REGULARLY DECLARING THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME IN THEIR INCOME- TAX RETURNS IS NOT A VALID REASON FOR ACCEPTING THE CLAIM THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON REGULAR B ASIS. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTU RAL OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT ON THIS LAND SO AS TO DERIVE THE SO CAL LED AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM YEAR TO YEAR. UNLESS REGULAR CULTIVATIO N OF LAND HAD TAKEN PLACE THE SAID ACTIVITY CANNOT BE CONSTRUED A S AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE PARTICULAR INCOME AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME THE ONUS LIES ON IT TO PROVE B EYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE INCOME SO DERIVED IS ON ACCOUNT OF A GRICULTURAL OPERATIONS CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SH OULD PROVE WITH DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF CULTIVAT ION OF LAND TILLING OF LAND SOWING TRANSPORT AND MARKETING HEADS ETC. EVEN PERUSAL OF QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISCLOSED YEAR AFTER YEAR DOES NOT INSPIRE MUCH CONFIDENCE ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN ITS HANDS. IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE DISCUSSION THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO PROVE IN ALL FOURS THE AGRICU LTURAL INCOME DISCLOSED IN THESE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS REJECTED AND THE ACTION OF THE ITA NO. 1704/HYD/2012 & ORS. MR. SUNIL KUMAR D. SHAH (HUF) ========================= 6 AO IN TREATING THE AMOUNTS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 TO 2005-06 IS SUSTAINED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE RE IS NO SEIZED MATERIAL TO TREAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS NON-AG RICULTURAL INCOME WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153 C OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION DETERMINATION OF INCOME CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH ACTION BY FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE AC T IS DIFFERENT FROM REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND IT IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR REGULAR ASSESSMENT. BEING SO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL F RAME THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL F OUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT AND OTHE R MATERIAL GATHERED SUBSEQUENT TO SEARCH ACTION. IN THE PRESE NT CASE WE ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE ON THE BASIS ON WHICH SEIZED M ATERIAL THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EA RNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN OUR OPINION IT IS APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO SPECIFY THE BASIS ON WHICH SEI ZED MATERIAL OR MATERIAL COLLECTED CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH ACTION WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF FRAMING ASSESSMENT. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT HE HAS TO CONSIDER THE JUDGEMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF GOPAL LAL BHADRUKA AVADESH BHADURKA AND AHU RA HOLDINGS VS. DCIT (346 ITR 106) (AP) WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIG H COURT OBSERVED THAT 'SECTIONS 153A 153B AND 153C WERE INSERTED IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 WITH EFFECT FROM JUNE 1 2003 IN CHAPTER XLV. THESE SECTIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO SEARCH OPERATIONS OR REQUISITIONS MADE AFTER MAY 31 2003. SIMULTANEOUSLY SECTION 158BI WAS INSERTED IN CHAPTER XIV-B. BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 158 BI OF THE ACT THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV-B OF THE ACT ARE M ADE INAPPLICABLE TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIONS 153A AND 153C OF THE ACT. THE EFFECT OF THIS IS THAT WHILE THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV -B OF THE ACT LIMIT THE INQUIRY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THOSE MATERI ALS FOUND DURING ITA NO. 1704/HYD/2012 & ORS. MR. SUNIL KUMAR D. SHAH (HUF) ========================= 7 THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION NO SUCH LIMITATIO N IS FOUND IN SO FAR AS SECTIONS 153A AND 153C OF THE ACT ARE CONCERNED. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 153A AN D 153C OF THE ACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION MA TERIAL OTHER THAN WHAT WAS AVAILABLE DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OP ERATION FOR MAKING AN ASSESSMENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE' AND DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE'S APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 1704 TO 1707/HYD/2012 ARE ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 1708/HYD/2012 A.Y. 2006-07: 7. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : (1) THE ORDER OF THE AO IS CONTRARY TO LAW FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. (2) THE AO OUGHT NOT TO HAVE TREATED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 24 000 AS REGULAR INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (3) THE AO OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2 08 63 927 AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. (4) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(A). (5) THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE CASH SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS ADJUSTED AND THUS ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(A). (6) THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE WITHOUT ADJUDICATING ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERITS. 8. FIRST WE WILL DECIDE GROUND NO. 6 WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. THIS APPEAL WAS UN-ADMITTED BY THE CIT (A) ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ADMITTED TAX. 9. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON 12 TH MARCH 2007 AND PAID ADMITTED TAX ITA NO. 1704/HYD/2012 & ORS. MR. SUNIL KUMAR D. SHAH (HUF) ========================= 8 AT RS. 32 618. HE ALSO PRODUCED COPY OF RETURN BEA RING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. 0501007093 AND CHALLAN FOR PAYM ENT OF RS. 32 618 PAID IN BANK OF INDIA ON 9 TH MARCH 2007. 10. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION THERE IS DUE PAYMENT OF AD MITTED TAX BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. BEING SO THE CIT(A) WITHOUT POINTING OUT THE NON-PAYMENT OF ADMIT TED TAX TO THE ASSESSEE HE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. ACCORDINGLY WE REMIT THE ENTIRE ISSUE B ACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IN HIS APPEAL ON MERIT. ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED ON THIS GROUND. WE DECLINE TO ENTERTAIN THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THESE GROUNDS ARE NOT AT ALL ADJUDICATED BY THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT ITA NO. 1708/HYD/12 IS PARTLY ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH OCTOBER 2013. SD/ - (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED THE 10 TH OCTOBER 2013 TPRAO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. MR. SUNIL KUMAR D. SHAH (HUF) 8 - 2 - 401/C/2 STREET NO. 1 ROAD NO. 5 BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD-500 034. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 AAYAKAR BHAVAN HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A) - I HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT (CENTRAL) HYDERABAD 5. THE DR 'B' BENCH ITAT HYDERABAD