Smt. Boga Padmaja, Secunderabad v. Income Tax Officder, Ward-1,, Kothagudem

ITA 208/HYD/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 20822514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN ACYPB0103F
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 208/HYD/2013
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Boga Padmaja, Secunderabad
Respondent Income Tax Officder, Ward-1,, Kothagudem
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2014
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 20-02-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A' HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT.ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.206/HYD/13 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ITA NO.207/HYD/13 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 SMT. BOGA JAYSREE KOTHAGUDEM (PAN ACYPB 0103 F) V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 KOTHAGUDEM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.208/HYD/13 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ITA NO.209/HYD/13 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 SMT. BOGA PADMAJA KOTHAGUDEM (PAN AGNPB 9339 E) V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 KOTHAGUDEM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT S BY : SHRI M.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : S MT. G.APARNA RAO DATE OF HEARING 27 . 11 .2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28.11.2014 O R D E R PER P.M.JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE FOU R APPEALS FIL E D BY TWO ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST FOUR SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VIJAYAWADA ALL DATED 12.12.2012 UN D ER S.263 REVISING THE ASSESSMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11. I TA NO. 206 TO 209/H YD/20 13 SMT. BOGA JAYSREE & SMT.BOGA PADMAJA KOTHAGUDEM 2 2. BOTH THE ASSESSEES IN THE PRESENT CA S E ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE PARTNERS IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF M / S . GAYATRI JEEWELLERS. A SURVEY UN D ER S.133A WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMI S ES OF M /S. GAYATRI JEWELLERS ON 23.10.2009. DURIN G THE COU R SE OF SURVEY I T CAME TO LIGHT THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEE S H A D MADE IN V ESTM E NTS IN TH E CON ST RUCTION OF A HOUSE. DURIN G TH E COU R SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REFERENCE THEREFORE WAS M A DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION O FFICER TO ASCERTAIN THE EXAC T INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEES IN THE CON STRUCTION OF THE HOU S E. THER E AFT E R ASSESSMENTS UN D ER S.143(3 ) WERE COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CA S E OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE S FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 BY THE ORDERS PASSED UNDER S.143(3) O F EVEN DATE VIZ. 24.5.2011. IN TH E ASSESSMENTS SO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.4 86 000 WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF SMT.BOGA PADMAJA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 ON ACCOUNT O F UN E XPLAIN E D INVEST MEN T MADE IN TH E CON S TRUC T ION OF HOUSE BY TA K ING THE COST O F C ON S TRUCTION AT R S .44 96 000 AS SHOWN IN THE VALUATION MADE BY TH E APP R OVED VALUER AS AGAINST RS.40 109 00 SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CA S E OF SMT. B O GA JAYASREE NO SUCH ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 OR 2010 - 11. 3. RECORDS OF ASSESSMENTS IN THE C A S E OF THE ASSESSEE S FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION CAME TO BE EXAMINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER . ON SUCH EXAMIN AT ION HE FOUN D TH A T THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER HAD ESTIM AT ED THE TOTAL COST OF CON S TRUC T ION VIDE HI S VALUATION REPORT AT RS.70 52 195 AND RS.75 21 479 IN TH E CASES OF SMT. BO G A JAYASREE AND SM T . BOGA PA DMAJA RESPECTIVELY . HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER S.143(3 ) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CON S ID E RATION IN THE CA S E OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE S HOWE V ER WERE MA D E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.44 22 650 AND RS.44 96 00 0 I TA NO. 206 TO 209/H YD/20 13 SMT. BOGA JAYSREE & SMT.BOGA PADMAJA KOTHAGUDEM 3 RESP E CTIVELY. ACCOR D ING TO HIM THE VALUATION REPO R T FURNISHED BY THE DVO WAS A SP E CIALISED INFORMATION WHICH CONSTITUTED A BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT THE IN VE STMEN T MADE IN THE CON S TRUC T ION OF HOU S E AND THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE SAME MADE THE ASSESSMENTS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDI C I A L TO THE INTEREST S OF THE REVENUE. HE TH E R E FORE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH E CA S E OF THE ASSESSEES FOR BOTH THE Y EA RS UNDER CONSIDERATION WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE SAME DE NOVO AFTER CON S I DER ING THE VALUATION REPORT FURNISHED BY THE DVO. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER PASSED UNDER S.263 BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE PREFERRED THESE APPEALS B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE Y E ARS UNDER CONSIDERATION . 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES AT THE OUTSET TOOK US THROUGH ALL RELEVANT DOCUM E N T S FILED IN H IS PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE INVESTMENT MADE BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE WAS DULY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DVO IN THIS REGARD WAS NO T ONLY CON F RO NT ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE S BUT EVEN THE OBJ E CTION S RAIS E D BY THE ASSESSEE S IN RESPECT OF THE SAME AS WELL AS THE R E GI S TERED VALUERS REPORT FIL E D BY TH E ASSESSEE IN SUP PO RT OF THEIR CLAIM OF VALUATION W E RE CONS IDERE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . HE SUB M I TT ED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON SUCH CONSIDERATION ACCEPTED THE VALUATION MADE BY THE APPROVED VALUER FOR THE REASONS ELABORATELY GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CA S E OF SMT. BOGA PADMAJA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND SIN C E THE INVESTMENT MADE IN TH E CON ST RUC T ION OF THE HOU S E WAS SHOWN BY THAT ASSESSEE AT RS.40 10 000 THE DIFFERENCE OF R S .4 86 000 WAS ADDED BY HIM TO THE TOTAL IN C OM E O F TH AT ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UN E XPLAIN E D INVESTMENT MADE IN TH E CON S TRUC T ION OF HOUSE. HE CON T EN D ED THAT I TA NO. 206 TO 209/H YD/20 13 SMT. BOGA JAYSREE & SMT.BOGA PADMAJA KOTHAGUDEM 4 SIN C E THIS ADDITION WAS MADE FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 WHEN THE CON S TRUC T ION WAS COMPLETED THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF MA K ING ANY ADDITION ON THIS IS S UE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND ACCO RDINGLY NO SUCH ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT Y E AR. HE SUBMI T TED THAT IN TH E CA S E OF SMT. BOGA JAYASR E E THE VALUATION MADE BY THE AP P ROVED VALUER WAS RS.44 57 000 AS AGAINST TH E COST OF CONST R UC T ION OF RS .45 22 650 SHOWN BY THAT ASSE SSEE UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND ACCORD I NGLY NO ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF TH E SAID ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 BY FOLLO W IN G THE STAND TAKEN IN THE C A S E OF SMT. BOGA P ADMAJA ON SIMILAR ISSUE WH E REI N THE V ALUATION OF TH E AP PR O V ED VALUER WAS A CCEPTED BY HIM BY GIVING COGENT R E ASONS. HE CON T ENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES FOR THE YEARS UN D E R CONSIDERATION THUS WERE COM P LETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DULY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VALU A TION REPORT FURNISHED BY THE DVO AND TH E RE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENTS SO COMPL E T E D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ALSO CON T ENDED AS AN ALTERNA T IVE THAT A POSSIBLE VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE I S SUE OF IN VE STMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE S IN TH E CON S TRUC T ION OF HOU S E AFTER TA KING INTO CON S I DER ATION ALL TH E FACTS OF TH E CA S E AS WELL AS THE M A TERIAL ON RECORD IN C LU D IN G THE REPORT OF THE DVO AND HENCE IT IS NO T PERMISSIBLE FOR THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER UNDER S.263 TO SUBSTITUTE HIS VIEW IN THE PLACE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE . 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED FOR THE SAKE O F ARGUM E N T THAT THE REPORT OF THE DVO WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S.143(3) IN THE C A S E OF SMT.BOGA PADMAJA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 GOING BY THE I TA NO. 206 TO 209/H YD/20 13 SMT. BOGA JAYSREE & SMT.BOGA PADMAJA KOTHAGUDEM 5 DISCUSSION MADE IN THE ORD E R FOR THAT YEAR TH E RE IS NO SUCH DISCUSSION IN THE REMAINING THREE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ON THIS ISSUE AND THE IN V E S TMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CON S TRUC T ION OF HOU S E WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT DISCUSSING OR CON S I D ERING ANYTHING MUCH L E SS THE VALUATION REPORT FURN IS H E D BY THE DVO. SHE CONTENDED THAT SUCH NON - CON S I DE RATION OF THE RELEVANT M A TERIAL IN TH E FORM OF VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO HAS MADE AT LEAST THOSE THREE ASSESSMENTS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO B E ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJU D I C I A L TO THE INTERES TS OF THE REVENUE AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER JUSTIFYING HIS INTERFERENCE UNDER S.263. 6 . WE HAVE CON S I D ERED TH E RIVAL SUBMI S SION S AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATE R I A L ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED FORM THE PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT DOC UMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THE PAPER - BOOK THAT THE VALUATION REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE D VO WAS NOT ONLY CONF R ONTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE S BUT EVEN TH E OBJ E CTION S RAIS E D BY TH E ASSESSEE S IN RESPECT OF THE SAID VALUATION R EPO R T WERE DULY CON S ID ERE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE VALUA T ION REPO R TS O F THE APP R O V ED VALUER WERE ALSO FIL E D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO C E E DIN G S IN SUPPO R T OF THE COST OF CON S T RUCTION OF HOUSE SHOWN BY THEM AND A F TER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION A LL THE FACTS OF THE CA SE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE S AND THE M A TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE VALUATION AS SHOWN IN TH E REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER WAS AC C EPT E D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE FOLLOWIN G REASO NS GIVEN IN PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE C A SE OF SMT. B OGA PADMAJA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 : 3. IT IS SEEN FROM TH E R ECEIPTS & P AYM E N T S A CCOUN T ENCLOSED TO THE RETURN THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9 55 000/ - WAS SHOWN TO HAVE INV E STED DURING THE Y E AR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THUS THE TOTAL COST OF I TA NO. 206 TO 209/H YD/20 13 SMT. BOGA JAYSREE & SMT.BOGA PADMAJA KOTHAGUDEM 6 CON S TRU C T I ON WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.4 0 1 0 000/ - CO NSIDERING T HE CONSTRU CT ION SHOWN AT RS.30 55 000/ - I N THE STATEMENT OF AFFAI R S FOR THE A. Y . 2009 - 10. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PRO C E E DIN G S FOR THE A. Y. 2009 - 10 THE C ASE WAS REFERRED TO V ALU AT ION C ELL FOR ASCERTAINING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE DVO HAD ESTIMATED THE CO S T OF CON S TRUC T I O N AT RS.69.82 LAKH S VIDE HIS VALUATION REPORT DT.05.08 . 10. WHEN CONFRONTED THE A.R HAS SUBMITTED THE COPY O F THE VA LU AT ION REPORT PREP A RED BY THE APPROVED VALUER M /S. G.V.APPARAO & ASSOCI A TES ACCORDING TO WHICH THE V ALUE OF CON S TRUC T ION WAS MENTIONED AT RS.44 96 00 0 / - AFTER CON S ID E RIN G THE SELF SUPERVISION CH A R G ES AT 10%. THE A.R. HAS ALSO SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE I TAT ORDER NOS.624 621 622 AND 623/H/2007 IN THE C ASE OF SMT.GUNISETTY SHAMANTAKAMANI AND OTHER VS. TH E ACIT KHAMMAM. IT WAS CON T ENDED THAT AS P E R THE SAID ORDERS THE CPWD RATES C ANNOT BE APPLIED AND RATES OF APPWD ARE ONLY APPLICABLE. IT WAS FURTHER SU BMI T TED THAT THE DVO REPORT VALUED AT R S .69 82 LAKH S WAS BASED ON THE CPWD RATES WHICH WAS AGAINST THE APPLICABLE RATES OF APPWD. IN SUPPO R T OF HIS CONTENTION A COMPARA T I V E STATEMENT OF THE RATES ADOPTED BY TH E A P P ROVED VALUER DULY ADOPTING THE APPWD RAT ES WAS ALSO FURNI S H E D AND REQUESTED TO CON S I D ER THE VALUE OF RS.44 96 000 / - . 03A. THE INFORMATION FILED BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND RELYING ON THE DECISION MADE BY ITAT IN ITS ORDER CITED ABOVE IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE APPWD RATES ARE APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO 10% TOWARDS SELF - SUPERVISION CHARGES IS ALSO VERIFIED AND FOUND TO BE IN ORDER WITH REFERENCE TO THE ITATS ORDER. HENCE THE VALUATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION AS ADOPTED BY TH E APPROVED VALUER AT RS.44 96 00/ - IS CONSIDERED AS THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUATION BY APPROVED VALUER AT RS.44 96 000/ - AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION SHOWN AT RS.40 10 00/ - WORKED OUT TO RS.4 86 000/ - WHICH IS ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. A PERUSAL O F THE RELEVANT PO R TION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER P A SSE D BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH E CA S E OF SMT.B OGA P ADMAJA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE VALU A TION REPORT OF THE DVO WAS DULY TAK E N INTO CONSIDERATION BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER TAKING INTO CON S I D ERATION THE BASIS O F I TA NO. 206 TO 209/H YD/20 13 SMT. BOGA JAYSREE & SMT.BOGA PADMAJA KOTHAGUDEM 7 THE VALUATION ADOPTED THEREIN VIS - A - VIS THE BASIS ADOPTED BY THE APPROVED VALUER THE VALUATION OF TH E APPROVED VLAUER WAS A CCEPTED/ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY GIVING COGENT AND CONVINCING REASONS. IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE WAS AL S O PL A CED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE DECISIO0N OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF SMT.GUNISETTI SHAMANTAKAMANI (ITA NOS.624 621 6522 AND 62 3/HYD/2007) . ACCOR D INGLY ON THE B ASI S OF THE VALUATION MADE BY TH E AP P ROVED VALUER THE COST OF CON S TRUC T ION WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE C A SE OF SMT. B OGA PADMAJA AT RS.44 96 000 AND SIN CE THE INVESTMENT IN COST OF CON S TRUC T ION WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT R S .40 10 000 THE DIFFERENCE OF R S .4 86 00 0 WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF SMT. B OGA P ADMAJA IN THE YE A R OF COMPLETION OF CON S T R UC T ION VIZ. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AS UN E XPLAIN E D IN VE STMENT. CON SE QUE NTLY THERE W A S NO C A S E TO MAKE ANY ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY MADE NO SUCH ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IN THE CAE OF SMT.B OGA PA D M A JA. 7. I N TH E C A S E OF SMT.B OGA J AYASREE THE VALUATION OF CON S TRUC T ION WAS MADE BY TH E APP R OVED VALU E R AT RS.44 57 000 WH E REAS THE IN VE STMENT IN THE CON S TRUC T ION OF HOUSE WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER B ALANCE S HEET AS ON 31.3.2010 AT R S .45 22 650. HAVING ADOPTED THE VALUATION MADE BY THE APPROVED VALUER IN THE CASE OF SMT. BO GA PAMDAJA BY GIVING COGENT AND CONVINCING REASONS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE INVESTMENT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E C ON STRUC T ION OF HOU S E WAS MORE THAN TH E VALUATION MADE BY THE APP R OVED VALUER THE RE WAS NO CASE FOR MAKING ANY ADDIITON ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED IN V ESTMENT IN THE CON S TRUC T ION OF HOUSE IN THE HANDS OF SMT. BOGA JAYASREE AND AC C ORDINGLY NO SUCH ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN I TA NO. 206 TO 209/H YD/20 13 SMT. BOGA JAYSREE & SMT.BOGA PADMAJA KOTHAGUDEM 8 THE ASSESSMENTS C OMPL E T E D U N D ER S.143(3) BY THE ORDERS OF EVEN DATE. 8. HAVING REGARD TO ALL THESE FACTS OF THE CA S E WE ARE O F THE VI E W THAT THE VALUATION REPORTS FURNISHED BY THE DVO WERE DULY TAKEN INTO CON S I D ERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT S UNDER S.143(3) IN TH E C ASE OF THE BOTH THE ASSESSEE S FOR THE YE A RS UN D E R CONSIDERATION AND TH E RE WAS NO ER R OR IN THE SAID ASSESSMENTS AS ALLEGED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER CALLING FOR INTERFERENCE UNDER S.263 OF THE AC T. WE ALSO FIND MERIT IN THE ALT ERNATIVE CONTENTION RAISE D BY THE LEARNED COUN S EL FOR THE ASSESSEES THAT ALL THE FOU R ASSESSMENTS UNDER S.143(3) HAVING B E EN COMP L ETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY TAKING A POSSIBLE VIEW ON THE ISSUE OF INVESTMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE DULY TAKING INTO CO NSIDE RATION ALL TH E FACTS OF TH E C ASE AND THE M A TERIAL AVAILABL E ON R ECORD INCLU D IN G THE REPORTS OF THE DV O IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER UNDER S.263 TO SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN VIEW IN TH E PL A CE O F THE POSSIBLE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER PASSED UNDER S.263 AND RESTORE THE ASSESSMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. IN THE RESULT ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28 TH NOVEMBER 2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) ( P.M.JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/ - 28 TH NOVEMBER 2014 I TA NO. 206 TO 209/H YD/20 13 SMT. BOGA JAYSREE & SMT.BOGA PADMAJA KOTHAGUDEM 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. 2. SMT. BOGA JAYSREE (KOTHAGUDEM) C/O. M.ANDNADAM & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 7A SURYA TOWERS S.P. ROAD SECUNDERABAD 500 003. SMT. BOGA PADMAJA (KOTHAGUDEM) C/O. M.ANDNADAM & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 7A SURYA TOWERS S.P. ROAD SECUNDERABAD 500 003. 3 . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 KOTHAGUDAM 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VIJAYAWADA 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT HYDERABAD. B.V.S