T Vijaya Raghavan, Secunderabad v. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1747/HYD/2014 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 174722514 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AJPPK7452C
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1747/HYD/2014
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant T Vijaya Raghavan, Secunderabad
Respondent DCIT, Central Circle-1, Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags 271(1)(c)
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 03-08-2017
Next Hearing Date 03-08-2017
First Hearing Date 03-08-2017
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 14-11-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A SMC : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN VICE PRESIDENT ITA.NO. 1747/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008 T. VIJAYA RAGAVAN HYDERABAD. PAN: AJPPK7452C VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - I HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE: SHRI V. RAGHAVENDRA RAO FOR REVENUE : SHRI B. RAMAKRISHNA DR DATE OF HEARING : 05.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .11.2017 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN VP. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2007 - 2008. 2. AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 10 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. ADMITTEDLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 05.09.2014 . THE SPECIFIED TIME FOR FILING THE APPEAL ENDS ON 04.11.2014 WHEREAS THE APPEAL PAPERS WERE RECEIVED BY THE REGISTRY ON 14.11.2014 RESULTING IN A DELAY OF 10 DAYS. 3. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER FILED AN AFFIDAVIT AND A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FO R 7 DAYS ONLY. WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ACTUAL DELAY WAS 10 DAYS A FRESH PETITION AND AN AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY ONLY FOR 9 DAYS ON THE GROUND THAT THE DATE OF FILING OF APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN WHICH EVENT THERE IS ONLY 9 DAYS DELAY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT 04.11.2014 BEING A PUBLIC HOLIDAY (MUHARRAM) THE LA ST DATE FOR FILING AN APPEAL ENDS ON 05.11.2014 AND THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS EAGER TO FILE THE APPEAL IT WAS 2 ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABSENCE OF PART - TIME SECRETARIAL ASSISTANT ATTACHED TO SHRI V. RAGHAVENDRA RAO ADVOCATE THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY WAS DUE TO A REASONABLE CAUSE . 4. ON THE OTHER HAND LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS STATIONED IN HYDERABAD AND HAVING SIGNED THE APPEAL PAPERS ON 11 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014 IT COULD HAVE BEEN FILED ON THE SAME DATE OR AT BEST ON 12 TH NOVEMBER 2014 WHEN PART - TIME SECRETARIAL ASSISTANT WAS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE WHEREAS THERE WAS A FURTHER DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT THOUGH NO PEDANTIC APPROACH CAN BE TAKEN IN THE MATTERS OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN EACH DAYS DELAY WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE DESPITE SUFFICIENT DELAY ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN INITIAT IVE TO FILE THE APPEAL ON TIME . E VEN AS PER THE PETITION THE APPEAL PAPERS WERE READY BY 11 TH NOVEMBER 2014 BUT THE SAME WERE NOT FILED IMMEDIATELY. 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT AND ALSO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS IMMEDIATELY SENT THE PAPERS BY REGISTERED POST ON 13.11.2014 WHICH W ERE IN TURN RECEIVED BY THE REGISTRY ON 14.1 1.2014 I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DELAY IS BACKED BY A SUFFICIENT CAUSE. I THEREFORE CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 6. PENALTY OF R S. 11 43 300/ - LEVIED BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAVING BEEN CONF IRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CHAIRMAN OF THE MANAG EMENT COMMITTEE OF M/S. SVS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY WAS RECEIVING PROFESSIONAL INCOME FROM M/S. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD. AND ALSO CONSULTANCY FEE FROM M/S. USHAKIRON TELEVISION. A SEARCH OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF M/S. SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST ON 07.08.2008. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CERTAIN INCRIMINATING 3 MATERIAL / DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE ASSESSE E WERE FOUND WHEREFROM IT WAS NOTICED THAT THEY ARE LOAN TRANSACTIONS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. A STATEMENT WAS TAKEN FROM THE ASSESSEE ON OATH WHEREIN HE ADMITTED THAT CERTAIN HAND LOANS WERE GIVEN TO VARIOUS PARTIES ON VARIOUS DATES AND AGREED TO OFF ER EQUIVALENT AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE FYS 2004 - 05 TO 2007 - 08 SINCE HE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THE SOURCE FOR ADVANCING SUCH SUMS. ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE INCOME WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY HIM IN THE POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE RETURN FI LED BY HIM. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY THE ISSUE BUT IN THE REPLY THE ASSESSEE MERELY FURNISHED A REVISED CASH FLOW STATEMENT WHEREIN HE HAS INTRODUCED A SUM OF RS. 35 LAKHS WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED AT THE TIME OF RECORDING THE STATEMENT. THIS CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. AS THE DIFFERENT SET OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY MAK ING CERTAIN ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE THERETO THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY ON 06.05.2010 WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT HE PRUDENTLY DISCLOSED TH E DETAILS IN THE RETURNS FILED EXCEPT FOR THE INCOME ADMITTED DURING THE SEARCH. THE ADDITIONAL INCOME HAVING BEEN OFFERED WITH A VIEW TO AVOID PROTRACTED LITIGATION AND FOR SMOOTH CLOSER OF INVESTIGATION IT CAN ONLY BE TREATED AS A VOLUNTARY ADMISSION AT THE SEARCH AND IT CANNOT BE BRANDED AS CONCEALMENT OF FACTS OR INCOME . 7. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE REASONS GIVEN THEREIN ARE FAR FROM REALITY ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO OFFER A CREDIBLE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SUBMITTED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS ADMITTED TO BUY PEACE AND ALSO TO SETTLE THE ISSUE VOLUNTARILY WITHOUT ANY PROTRACTED LITIGATION THOUGH THE LOAN AMOUNT WAS SUPPORTED BY SOURCES SUCH AS A BANK LOAN AND OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME. IT WAS ALSO 4 CONTENDED THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO IMMUN ITY FROM PENALTY WHEN THE INCOME IS ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. 8 . A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE . HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS SO AS TO CLAIM IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE CLAIM EVEN AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AND IT WAS ACCEPTED ONLY WHEN THE MODUS OPERANDI WAS REVEALED DURING THE FINALISATION OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ADMISSION WAS TO BUY PEACE AND ALSO TO SETTLE THE ISSUE VOLUNTARILY. IT WAS ALSO STATED THA T IF IT WAS TO SETTLE THE ISSUE VOLUNTARILY THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN UP THE MATTER FURTHER CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF CONCEALMENT HAVE ACHIEVED FINALITY . THUS THE CONTENTION THAT TH E ADDITION WAS MADE ERRONEOUSLY IS NOT TENABLE. 9. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE WENT BACK ON HIS STATEMENT GIVEN ON OATH AND FILED A RETURN WITHOUT ADMITTING THE INCOME AGREED TO IN THE STATEMENT . A PERSON WHO WANTED PEACE WOULD NOT GO BACK FROM HIS STATEMENT ON OAT H . THE ASSESSEE IN FACT DID NOT ADMIT THE INVESTMENT IN MONEY LENDING IN THE RETURN FILED. ON THE TOP OF IT HE TRIED TO HOODWINK THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY TRYING TO OFFER ANOTHER EXPLANATION BY INTRODUCING RS. 35 LAKHS IN THE DUBIOUS CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY HIM BEFORE THE A.O. WHICH WAS RIGHTLY ANALYSED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHO CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT IN THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS DID NOT HAVE ANY BASIS. THE ORDER OF THE A.O WAS CONFIRMED IN APPEAL AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE APPEAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO POINT IN FURTHER LITIGATION. THUS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE ADMITTED THE INCOME TO BUY PEACE WAS FOUND T O BE TOTALLY INCORRECT. 10. A.O. OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 5A IF AN ASSESSEE OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND TO BE FALSE OR NOT 5 SATISFIED IT SHALL BE DEEMED TO REPRE SENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE WAS A CONCURRENT FINDING OF FACT THAT IT WAS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND ASSESSEE TRIED TO DEVISE A SCHEME TO DEFEAT THE REVENUE BY FILING A DIFFERENT CASH FLOW STATEMENT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE THUS CONCL UDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONSCIOUSLY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ON THE STRENGTH OF FALSE EXPLANATION AND FALSE CASH FLOW STATEMENT WHICH IMPLIES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS NOT ONLY A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BUT ALS O FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY PENALTY WAS LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 11. ON AN APPEAL LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. AS COULD BE NOTICED FROM THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER THE MAIN CONTENTION IS WITH REGA RD TO IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY IN SEARCH CASES IF THE INCOME IS OFFERED TO BUY PEACE WHEREAS THIS ASPECT WAS CONSIDERED IN DEPTH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) TO HOLD THAT IT WAS NOT OFFERED VOLUNTARILY AND RATHER CONTESTED IN QUANTUM PRO CEEDINGS TILL IT WAS REALISED THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO PROVE ITS CASE FURTHER. 12. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 13. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THREE FORMAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL I.E. LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT A CCEPTING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND ALSO CONTESTED THAT THE INCOME HAS BEEN VOLUNTARILY OFFERED TO TAX THOUGH THE A.O. HAD NO MATERIAL WITH HIM EXCEPT SOME LOSE PAPERS SHOWING TRANSACTIONS. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WERE ALSO MADE PART OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ANNEXED TO FORM NO.36 WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153C DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSEES CASE BECAUSE NO BULLION JEWELLERY VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR ACCOUNT BOOKS OR DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE SEIZED AND IN THIS RE GARD IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE PAGE IN THE ANNEXURE A/SVS/PO/2 CANNOT EITHER BE TREATED AS ACCOUNT BOOKS OR DOCUMENTS THAT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH EVENT SECTION 153C IS ERRONEOUSLY INVOKED. 6 THEREAFTER ANOTHER SET OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WERE FILED BASED ON THE LATEST DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT VS. BAISETTY REVATHI DATED 13.07.2017. ACCORDING TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT IS A DUTY OF THE ASSESING OFFICER TO SPECIFY THE N ATURE OF PENALTY BY STRIKING OFF THE WORD OR IN THE STANDARD FORMAT OR BY SPECIFYING THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ON BOTH COUNTS WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE IT WAS NOT SPECIFIED AS TO WHETHER IT WAS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREBY PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS VIOLATED AND THUS THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS DESERVE TO BE QUASHED. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE DEFINITION OF INCOME U/S 2(24) DOES NOT INCLUDE DEEMED INCOME WHILE PENAL TY IS LEVIED IN RESPECT OF DEEMED INCOME. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE BRIEFLY NARRATED THE FACTS TO HIGHLIGHT THAT BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS SECTION 153C SHOULD NOT BE INITIATED AND CONSEQUENTLY PENALTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LEVIED HE FOCUSED ON ADDITIONAL GROUNDS BASED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHICH IN TURN WAS BASED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (UNREPORTED). ADVERTING THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE NOTICE ISSU ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IT WAS A STANDARD FORMAT WHICH WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT WAS NOT MENTIONED WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO RESPOND TO THE ACCUSATION OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME OR BOTH. 14. HE ALSO RELIED UPON SEVERAL DECISIONS ON THE OTHER GROUNDS URGED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 15. LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND FILED BRIEF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH CASE LAW. THE CASE OF T HE REVENUE IS THAT BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED A DETAILED STATEMENT WAS RECORDED WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 153C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED AT THIS 7 STAGE AND CONSEQUENTLY INITIA TION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT NOW BE CHALLENGED S INCE THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED AT THE TIME OF RECORDING STATEMENT THAT HE HAD ADVANCED LOANS TO VARIOUS PARTIES ON VARIOUS DATES AND WORKED OUT THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT A T RS. 48.46 LAKHS. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER ADMITTED VOLUNTARILY ; WHEN HE WAS CORNED AND THAT TOO AFTER LOSING ITS CASE EVEN BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS SECOND APPEAL WAS NOT PREFERRED AND THUS IT CANNOT BE EQUATED TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME TO BUY PEACE AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT GET IMMUNITY UNDER EXPLANATION 1 AND 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT UNDISCLOSED LOANS AND ADVANCES IS NOT A DEEMED INCOME SINCE IT IS A REGULAR INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX IN THE EVENT OF NOT PROVING THE SOURCE OF ADVANCING THE AMOUNTS AND SUCH CONCLUSION WAS BASED ON FACTS THAT WERE UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS A CASE OF NOT ONLY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BUT ALSO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY FILLING AN INCORRECT CASH FLOW STATEMENT. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE STAND OF THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A). 16. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. SINCE THE ADDITIONAL LEGAL GROUND WITH REGARD TO NON - SPECIFICATION OF THE ACCUSATION IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 - WHICH AMOUNTS TO NOT GIVING THE ASSESSEE A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER I A M OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS A PURE LEGAL GROUND AND DESERVES TO BE ADMITTED PARTICULAR LY IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE SUPREME COURT. 17. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT WAS NOT SPECIFIED AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INTENDED TO BE INITIATED ON A SINGLE COUNT I.E. FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR BOTH. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE NOTICE WHICH IS PLACED IN THE PAPER 8 BOOK IS A STANDARD FORMAT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH DOES NOT INDICATE AS TO THE REASON FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 18. NO DOUBT THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS PRECEDING THE PROCESS OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS ARE MEANT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY ON BOTH COUNTS IN WHICH EVENT IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO STRIKE OFF THE WORD OR BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT IT WAS NOT SPECIFIED THROUG H PENALTY NOTICE. 19. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN WHICH EVENT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO BE DETERMINED AS A NOTICE ISSUED IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY PENALTY LEVIED ON THE STRENGTH OF SUCH NOTICE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS QUASHED BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT. SINCE THE NOTICE ITSELF IS HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO GO INTO THE OTHER ASPECTS WHICH WERE URGED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LD DR. THEREFORE I REFRAIN FROM GOING INTO THE OTHER ISSUES. SUFFICE TO SAY THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 20 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 0 T H NOVEMBER 2017. S D / - (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD DATED: 3 0 T H NOVEMBER 2017 OKK SR.PS 9 COPY TO 1. T. VIJAYA RAGHAVAN FLAT NO.202 MARTINS SYNERGY ROAD NO.8 WEST MARREDPALLY SECUNDERABAD. 2. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 AAYAKAR BHAVAN BASHEER BAGH HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (A) - I HYDERABAD. 4. CIT (CENTRAL) HYDERABD. 5. DR ITAT HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE