ITO, Ward-4, Nellore v. Sri Konda Balasubramanyam,, Nellore

ITA 1822/HYD/2011 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 182222514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AOYPK8773N
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1822/HYD/2011
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Ward-4, Nellore
Respondent Sri Konda Balasubramanyam,, Nellore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2014
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 24-10-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.1820 1821 & 1822/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 2008-09 & 2009-10 ITO WARD 4 NELLORE. VS. SRI KONDA BALASUBRAHMANYAM C/O. LAVANYA SILK HOUSE VINJAMURU NELLORE DIST. PAN AOYPK8773N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE MR. P. SOMASEKHAR REDDY FOR ASSESSEE -NONE- DATE OF HEARING 25.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31.07.2014 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH A.M. THESE THREE APPEALS ARE BY REVENUE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) GUNTUR DATED 12.08. 2011 FOR THE A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ON VARIOUS ISSUES. SIN CE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED THESE APPEALS ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS DOING REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. A SUR VEY UNDER SECTION 133A WAS CONDUCTED ON 27.02.2009. CONSEQUEN T TO THAT ASSESSEE FIELD REVISED INCOMES IN A.YS. 2006-0 7 2007-08 AND 2008-09 AND REGULAR RETURN WAS FILED FOR A.Y. 2 009-10. IN A.Y. 2005-06 ALSO ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN DEC LARING SAME INCOME AS IN ORIGINAL RETURN WHEREAS IN OTHER YEA RS HE HAS 2 ITA.NO.1820 TO 1822/HYD/2014 MR. KONDA BALASUBRAHMANYAM VINJAMUR NELLORE DIST. INCREASED THE INCOMES IN THE REVISED RETURNS. THESE RETURNS WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF ASSESSMENT AND A.O. MADE VAR IOUS ADDITIONS PARTICULARLY ON BUSINESS RECEIPTS/EXPEND ITURE DISBELIEVING THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HUF STATUS AN D GIFTS RECEIVED FROM BROTHER-IN-LAW THROUGH NRE ACCOUNT. T HE APPEALS IN A.YS. 2005-06 AND 2006-07 WERE ALSO SIMI LARLY CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE SAME ORDER BUT THE REVENUE HAS NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL AS THE TAX EFF ECT WAS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. THEREFORE REVENUE APPEA LS ARE ONLY FROM A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-2010. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND LD. COUNSEL IN DETAIL AND PERUSED THE PAPER BOOK PLACED ON RECORD INCLUDING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ITA.NO.1820/HYD/2011 A.Y. 2008-2008 : 4. IN THIS APPEAL REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED ON TWO ISS UES I.E. ADDITION OF RS.1 90 000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES RECEIVED AS UNPROVED CREDITS AND GIFT OF RS.3 70 0 00/- RECEIVED FROM HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW THROUGH OTHERS. 4.1. AS FAR AS ADDITION OF RS.1 90 000/- IS CONCER NED A.O. MADE ADDITION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADVANC E RECEIVED FOR SALE OF PLOTS AS UNSECURED LOAN IN TH E ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATION AS SUCH AS INCOME. IT WAS THE SUBMISSI ON BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LET TERS WHO CONFIRMED THAT THEY GAVE ADVANCES FOR PURCHASE OF P LOTS BEFORE THE A.O. MOREOVER AT NO STAGE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SUCH CONFIRMATIONS. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE LD . CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY STATING AS UNDER : 11.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO. HE RE THERE 3 ITA.NO.1820 TO 1822/HYD/2014 MR. KONDA BALASUBRAHMANYAM VINJAMUR NELLORE DIST. ARE TWO ASPECTS TO BE CONSIDERED. ONE IS THAT THE A O HAS NOT ASKED FOR THE DETAILS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM ADVA NCES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. I HAVE NOTHING TO SUSPECT THE V ERSION OF THE APPELLANT AS IT IS NATURAL TO RECEIVE ADVANCES FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS AS THE APPELLANT'S MAIN BUSINESS IS DEVELOPMENT OF LANDS INTO PLOTS AND SELLING THE SAM E TO PROSPECTIVE BUYERS. THE OTHER ASPECT IS THAT ON THE PRETEXT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF PERSONS FROM WHOM ADVANCES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED DURIN G THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WHICH IS VERY DIFFICULT TO SUPPORT. IN M Y CONSIDERED OPINION WITHOUT BRINGING ANY COGENT MAT ERIAL ON RECORD THE AO COULD NOT HAVE MADE THE ADDITION UNDER CHALLENGE. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD THAT THE AO W ANTED THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS FOR HIS EXAMINATION SO AS TO ADHERE TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS CA SUAL AND WITHOUT CITING COGENT REASONS. THE DETAILS WHI CH WERE NOT ASKED BY THE AO AT ASSESSMENT STAGE AS PE R THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. IN LIGHT OF THI S THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAME. 5. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON R ECORD THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS ADVANCE FOR SALE OF PLOT IS IN FACT UNSECURED LOAN. THERE IS CONFIRMATION ON RECORD AND THESE ADVANCES COULD HAVE BEEN SETTLED AT THE TIME OF SAL E OF PLOTS IN THE BUSINESS IN WHICH ASSESSEE IS INDULGING. ACCORD INGLY THERE IS NO MERIT IN REVENUE GROUND. 6. WITH REFERENCE TO GIFT OF RS.3 70 000/- RECEIVE D BY ASSESSEE THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. DISBELI EVING THE GIFT AND ITS CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. I T WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS RECEIVED GIF TS IN VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS DIRECTLY FROM HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW W HO IS WORKING AS SOFTWARE PROFESSIONAL IN USA AND INVESTE D IN HOUSE PLOTS OUT OF SUCH GIFTS. IN FACT HE HAS FILED CONF IRMATION FROM HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW CONFIRMING THAT HE HAS GIVEN GIF T FROM HIS NRE ACCOUNT. LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING HIS FINDINGS ON S IMILAR ISSUE IN A.Y. 2005-06 VIDE PARA 4.2 DELETED THE ADDITION . IN ORDER TO 4 ITA.NO.1820 TO 1822/HYD/2014 MR. KONDA BALASUBRAHMANYAM VINJAMUR NELLORE DIST. APPRECIATE THE REASONS OF LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4.2 IN A.Y. 2005- 06 THE SAME IS EXTRACTED WHEREIN HE HAS GIVEN DETAI LED ORDER AS UNDER : 4.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E APPELLANT GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO AND ALS O THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE ME. ABOVE ALL IT MAY BE NOT ED HERE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AND IN THIS REGARD IT MAY BE NOTED HERE THAT WHENEVER T HERE IS A GREY AREA THE SAME IS CONSIDERED IN FAVOUR OF THE R EVENUE. AN OTHER IMPORTANT MATTER TO BE NOTED HERE IS THAT IN THE RETURNS ORIGINALLY FILED THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ADM ITTED PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH TRANS ACTIONS ARE PART OF HUF STATE OF AFFAIRS. BUT HOWEVER IN THE RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO 148 PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS REFLECTED PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS ALSO. NOW COMING TO THE QUESTION OF GIFTS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR THERE I S NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE RELATION BETWEEN THE DONOR AND THE DONE E. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS COME FROM THE DONAR'S NRE ACCOUNT AT THE NATIVE PLACE OF THE DONOR. THE ONLY DISPUTE WAS THAT THE AMOUNT DRAWN W AS NOT BY THE DONEE BUT BY SOMEBODY ELSE WHICH IS NOT DE NIED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS EXPLAINED THAT THE DONEE HAS G IVEN POST DATED CHEQUES TO HIS FATHER WHO IS A SMALL TIME BUSINESSMAN. AS ADVISED BY HIS SON HE HAS SENT ONE OF HIS EMPLOYEES TO WITHDRAW THE MONEY BY SUBMITTING POST DATED CHEQUES AND THAT'S WHY THE DIFFERENCE IN SIGNATURES WHICH EXPLANATION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. EXCEPT FOR NOT ACCEPTING TH E EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT NO OTHER COGENT MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THUS IN THE GIVEN FACTUAL MATRI X I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION UNDER CONSIDERATION AND AS SUCH HE IS DIR ECTED TO DELETE THE SAME. 7. NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO COUNTER THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS CONFIRMATION F ROM THE ASSESSEES BROTHER-IN-LAW OF THE VARIOUS AMOUNTS GI VEN TO HIM. SINCE THE SOURCE AND THE IDENTITY WERE ESTABLISHED THERE IS NO NEED TO TREAT THE AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT . 5 ITA.NO.1820 TO 1822/HYD/2014 MR. KONDA BALASUBRAHMANYAM VINJAMUR NELLORE DIST. THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED ON THIS ISSUE. 8. IN THE RESULT ITA.NO.1820/HYD/2011 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA.NO.1821/HYD/2011 - A.Y. 2008-09 : 9. IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR THE REVENUE HAS RAISED GROUND NO.2 ON GIFTS RECEIVED FROM DONOR TO AN EXTE NT OF RS.3 25 000/- GROUND NO.3 ON DISALLOWANCE OF DEVEL OPMENT EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS RESTRICTED TO 10% BY THE LD. CIT(A) GROUND NO.4 DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION ON SALES TO REPRESENTATIVES AND GROUND NO.5 ABOUT UNEXPLAINED C REDIT OF RS.7 40 000/-. EACH OF THE ISSUES IS DEALT WITH AS UNDER. 10. WITH REFERENCE TO GIFTS OF RS.3 70 000/- RECEI VED FROM HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW FOR THE REASONS STATED ABO VE THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE REVENUE GROUND AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATIONS IN THIS REGARD. THE GIFT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE SAME PERSON WHO HAS BEEN GIVING IN EVERY YEAR. FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AT PA RA 4.2 READ WITH PARA-16 OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WE CO NFIRM THE SAME. GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. WITH REFERENCE TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE VIDE GROUND NO.3 ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT OF PLOTS AND SOLD SOME PLOT S DURING THE YEAR. ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.23 35 000/- AS DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE. IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY OP ERATIONS THERE WAS A STATEMENT FROM THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS SPENT ABOUT RS. 6 LAKHS APPROXIMATELY. ON THAT REASON AND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE OR PROOF FOR THE SOURCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED THE ENTIRE DEVE LOPMENT 6 ITA.NO.1820 TO 1822/HYD/2014 MR. KONDA BALASUBRAHMANYAM VINJAMUR NELLORE DIST. EXPENDITURE CLAIMED WAS DISALLOWED. LD. CIT(A) CONS IDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE SAME BY STATING AS UNDER : 17.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO AND ALSO PERUSED VARIOUS STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FR OM PURCHASE OF RAW LANDS TILL THEY ARE MADE INTO PLOTS TO BE SOLD TO PROSPECTIVE BUYERS. BUT HOWEVER THE FACT REMAINS THAT MAJOR EXPENSES WERE SUPPORTED BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS WHOSE AUTHENTICITY IS NOT FOOLPROOF. BUT THEN FOR SUCH A SITUATION DISALLOWING ENTIRE EXPENSES IS ALSO NOT CALLED FOR. IT IS SOMETHING LIKE INCOME IS EARN ED WITHOUT EXPENDING A SINGLE PAISA. SINCE MAJORITY OF EXPENSES WERE SUPPORTED BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS WITH OUT IGNORING THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE A REASONABLE APPRO ACH OF DISALLOWING A PART OF THE EXPENDITURE COULD HAVE BE EN ADOPTED BY THE AO WHICH HE HAS NOT DONE. BUT HOWE VER HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES NATURE O F THE ACTIVITIES INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND A LSO HAVING DUE REGARD TO THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY TH E AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES IN MY CONSIDERED OPINIO N ENDS OF JUSTICE ARE MET IF THE DISALLOWANCE IS REST RICTED TO 10% OF THE EXPENSES INVOLVED AND THE AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. THE DISALLOWANCE IS RS.2 33 500/- AND THE RELIEF IN THIS REGARD IS RS.21 01 500/-. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A). IN FACT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR DISALLOWING THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE WHEN ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PLO T DEVELOPMENT AND SALE THEREAFTER. CONSIDERING THE FA CTS OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) RES TRICTED THE AMOUNT TO 10% OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED. EVEN THOUGH THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IS MADE UNDER SECTION 3 7(1) NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY REVENUE WHY THE EN TIRE AMOUNT SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. THEREFORE WE UPHOLD T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS VERY REASONABLE ON THE F ACTS OF THE CASE AND GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7 ITA.NO.1820 TO 1822/HYD/2014 MR. KONDA BALASUBRAHMANYAM VINJAMUR NELLORE DIST. 13. GROUND NO.4 IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE ALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION TO SALES REPRESENTATIVES. ASSESSEE PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 80 000/- AS COMMISSION OF SALES TO REPRESEN TATIVES @ RS.20 000/- PAID TO EACH INDIVIDUAL. A.O. HAS DISAL LOWED SUCH EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRO DUCED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AND FURTHER NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF TDS AND THEREFORE THAT REASON OF THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT A.O. AT NO STAGE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASKED EVIDENCE FOR SUCH EXPE NDITURE. LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS D ELETED THE SAME BY STATING AS UNDER : 18.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E APPELLANT GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IT IS TRUE THAT PAYING COMMISSION TO AGENTS FOR BRINGING PROSPECTIV E BUYERS IS AN EXPENDITURE INCIDENTAL TO BUSINESS. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT IN EACH CASE OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION THE QUANTUM IS MORE THAN RS.20 000/- AN D ABOVE. AGAIN THE A.O. HAS NOT REFUTED THE CONTENTI ON OF THE APPELLANT THAT HE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL AND THAT HIS TU RNOVER DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS MORE THAN RS.40 00 000/- AND AS SUCH THE TDS PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS THE A.O. IS DIRECT ED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE IN THIS REGARD. 14. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A). PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IS AN INCIDENTAL EXPENDITURE IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. WITHOUT EVEN GIVING SHOW C AUSE NOTICE OR ASKING FOR THE DETAILS A.O. DISALLOWED THE EXPEN DITURE WITHOUT ANY REASON. WE CANNOT APPROVE SUCH DISALLOW ANCE. WE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE DID NOT INTEND TO INTERFE RE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.4 O F THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 8 ITA.NO.1820 TO 1822/HYD/2014 MR. KONDA BALASUBRAHMANYAM VINJAMUR NELLORE DIST. 15. GROUND NO.5 CONTESTED BY THE REVENUE IS WI TH REFERENCE TO THE ADDITION OF RS.7 40 000/- BEING AM OUNT CREDITED TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. A.O. N OTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.7 40 000/- IN HIS ACCOUNT THEREFORE TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE MAINTAINED TWO SE TS OF BOOKS VIZ. PERSONAL AND OTHER FOR THE BUSINESS. TH E INCOMES ACCUMULATED/RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR WERE CREDITED TO HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT INCLUDING THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM H IS BROTHER- IN-LAW. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNTS I.E. PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS WELL AS CAPITAL ACCOUNTS BOTH FOR HIS BUSINESS AND PERSONAL AND FILED BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THERE WERE TRANSFER OF FUND S FROM BUSINESS TO PERSONAL ACCOUNTS AND A.O. CONSIDERED T HE TRANSFER AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. CONSIDERING THE EXP LANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME BY S TATING AS UNDER : 19.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO AND ALS O ALL OTHER MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE ME. THE AMOUNT OF GIFT S AND SALE PROCEEDS OF THE PROPERTY HAVE ALREADY BEEN CON SIDERED AND ADJUDICATED. THE TOTAL OF THOSE TWO ITEMS ARE A GAIN ADDED BY THE AO UNDER MISTAKEN NOTION THAT THERE AR E NO PERSONAL ACCOUNTS AND BUSINESS ACCOUNTS IN CASE OF INDIVIDUALS WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. AS RIGHTLY POINT ED OUT BY THE REPRESENTATIVES IT TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITI ON IS ACCEPTED AND ACCORDINGLY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELE TE THE SAME. 16. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO CONSIDER THE REVE NUE GROUND AS THE A.O. AND LD. CIT SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE A.O. IN MAKING ADDITION. SOME OF THE AMOUNTS WERE ALREADY TREATED AS INCOME LIKE GIF TS RECEIVED FROM BROTHER-IN-LAW. THEREFORE THERE IS CERTAINLY DOUBLE 9 ITA.NO.1820 TO 1822/HYD/2014 MR. KONDA BALASUBRAHMANYAM VINJAMUR NELLORE DIST. ADDITION BY THE A.O. JUST BECAUSE ASSESSEE TRANSFER RED FUNDS FROM HIS BUSINESS ACCOUNT TO PERSONAL ACCOUNT THE SAME DOES NOT BECOME UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. LD. CIT SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE BEING FACTUAL. BE THAT AS IT MAY WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN REVE NUES CONTENTIONS. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.5 OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 17. IN THE RESULT ITA.NO.1821/HYD/2011 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA.NO.1823/HYD/2011 A.Y. 2009-10 18. IN THIS YEAR REVENUE HAS RAISED THE GROUNDS ON RESTRICTION OF DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE TO 10% OF RS.16 93 500/- ALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION OF RS.2 80 000/- TO SALES REPRESENTATIVES AND UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE PERSONAL CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF RS.1 22 000/-. 19. THESE ISSUES ARE SIMILAR TO THE ISSUES CONSIDE RED IN A.Y. 2008-2009 AND LD. CIT(A) ALSO PASSED ORDERS FOLLOWING HIS DIRECTIONS IN A.Y. 2008-09. FOR THE REASONS STA TED ABOVE WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDE R OF CIT(A). THERE IS NO MERIT IN REVENUE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY T HE SAME IS DISMISSED. 20. TO SUM-UP APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.07.2014. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED 31 ST JULY 2014 VBP/- 10 ITA.NO.1820 TO 1822/HYD/2014 MR. KONDA BALASUBRAHMANYAM VINJAMUR NELLORE DIST. COPY TO 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 24-2-438 GNT ROAD DARGAMITTA NELLORE. 2. SRI KONDA BALASUBRAHMANYAM C/O. LAVANYA SILK HOUSE MAIN ROAD VINJAMURU NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. CIT(A) GUNTUR 4. CIT GUNTUR 7. D.R. A BENCH ITAT HYDERABAD.