V. Madhuri, Hyd, Hyderabad v. ITO, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 780/HYD/2016 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 78022514 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAHPU3702E
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 780/HYD/2016
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant V. Madhuri, Hyd, Hyderabad
Respondent ITO, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 28-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 20-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 20-10-2016
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 25-05-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A (SMC) : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN VICE PRESIDENT ITA.NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 776/H/2016 2008-2009 DR. V.VENUGOPAL HYDERABAD. PAN AAHPU3702E INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD-1. 777/H/2016 2009-2010 778/H/2016 2008-2009 779/H/2016 2009-2010 ITA.NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 780/H/2016 2008-2009 DR. V. MADHURI HYDERABAD. PAN ADWPG1837E INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD-1. 781/H/2016 2009-2010 782/H/2016 2008-2009 783/H/2016 2009-2010 FOR ASSESSEE : MR. A.V. RAGHURAM FOR REVENUE : MR. A. SITARAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 20.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.10.2016 ORDER THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASS ED BY THE CIT(A)-I HYDERABAD AND THEY PERTAIN TO THE A.YS. 2008- 2009 AND 2009-2010. 2. ASSESSEES HEREIN ARE MEDICAL DOCTORS BY PROFESS ION. IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES CERTAIN UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS ADDED IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WI TH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT; IN FACT IT WAS ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CASE OF DR. V. VENUGOP AL THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED IN ITS PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y. 2008- 2009 AS UNDER : IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES ISSUED SRI P. VISWANADH C .A. AND A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED TIME TO TIME AND FURN ISHED THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR. THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED 2 ITA.NOS.776 TO 783/H/2016 DR. V. VENUGOPAL AND DR. V. MADHURI HYDERABAD. COPY OF THE RETURNS FILED BY SRI G.R. RAVINDER REDD Y FOR ADMITTED INCOME AND BANK ACCOUNTS YEAR WISE INVEST MENT AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT. ON EXAMINATION OF INFORMAT ION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THE SOURCES FOR INVESTME NT MADE IN PURCHASE OF FLAT AT MADHINAGUDA TO THE EXTENT OF RS.23 13 320/- THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF DECLARED UNEXP LAINED PART OF INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7 89 800/ - AND REMAINING EXPLAINED AS INCOME FROM PROFESSION AND C ERTAIN GIFTS AND BROUGHT FORWARD CAPITALS. FURTHER THE A. R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE UNDISCLOSED INC OME OF RS.7 89 800/- ADMITTED BY SRI G. R. RAVINDER REDDY IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. THE CONTENTI ON OF A.R. HAS BEEN VERIFIED BUT THE SAID SRI G. R. RAVINDER REDDY DID NOT PAY TAX ON HIS DISCLOSURE IN THE RETURN FILED. HENCE RS.7 89 800/- IS ADDED ON PROTECTIVE BASIS SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF TAX BY SHRI G. RAJA RAVINDER REDDY TILL 31.03.2013. IF NON-PAYMENT OF TAX BY SRI G.R. RAVIN DER REDDY HAPPENED AFTER 31.03.2013 THE ADDITION BECOM ES REGULAR BASIS FROM PROTECTIVE BASIS. 2.1. IDENTICAL ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN BOTH THE YEARS N OT ONLY IN THE CASE OF SHRI VENUGOPAL BUT ALSO IN THE CAS E OF HIS WIFE SMT. DR. V. MADHURI. IN THE CASE OF SHRI VENUGOPAL T HE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED ON 16.01.2013. IN THE CAS E OF DR. V. MADHURI ALSO CONSEQUENT TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT TO BRING TO TAX UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS AND AFTER RECORDING THE CONTENTIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE AND ASSESSMENTS W ERE COMPLETED ON 26.12.2012. 2.2. SIMULTANEOUSLY PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATE D FOR BOTH THE YEARS IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIES. IN RESPO NSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT SHR I P. VISWANATH C.A. APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND SUBMITTED THAT NO CASE WAS MADE OUT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTIO N 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEES HEREIN ADMITTED DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS THAT UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT WAS 3 ITA.NOS.776 TO 783/H/2016 DR. V. VENUGOPAL AND DR. V. MADHURI HYDERABAD. DECLARED BY SHRI G.R. RAVINDER REDDY AND ONLY IN TH E EVENT OF NON-PAYMENT OF TAX BY HIM THE SAME HAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES AND ACCORDINGLY A CON DITIONAL DRAFT ASSESSMENT WAS MADE. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE PARTIES ADMITTED THAT THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT WILL BECOME REGULAR IF SHRI G.R. RAVINDER REDDY FAILS TO PAY SELF-ASSESSMEN T TAX BY 31.03.2013 AND IN FACT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITI ATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GR OUND THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN THE FORM OF INVES TMENT IN PURCHASE OF FLATS. AFTER TAKING THE QUANTUM OF INVESTMEN T MADE BY THE ASSESSEES HEREIN THE BUILDER SHRI G.R. RAVIN DER REDDY ADMITTED THE PART OF INVESTMENT IN HIS HANDS TO MINIMIZE THE TAX BURDEN TO ITS CUSTOMERS. IF THE ASSESSEES HAVE ANY EXP LANATION FOR THE ADMITTED PORTION OF INVESTMENT SHRI G.R. RAVIND ER REDDY WOULD NOT HAVE ADMITTED IN HIS HANDS. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE CONCEALED INCOME IS DETECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND BRO UGHT IT TO TAX AND IT IS ONLY AFTER THE DEPARTMENT UNEARTHED THE INVE STMENTS THAT THE ASSESSEES HEREIN HAVE COME FORWARD WITH DECLAR ATION AND THEREFORE VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE OF DISCLOSING TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEES WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. HE AL SO NOTED THAT SHRI G.R. RAVINDER REDDY DID NOT PAY SELF-ASSESS MENT TAX ON THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY HIM EITHER ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEES OR ON HIS INCOME. THEREFORE IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF CONC EALMENT OF TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY LEVIED MINIMUM PENALTY IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES FOR THE YEARS UNDER CON SIDERATION. PENALTY ORDERS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WERE PASSED O N 28.06.2013. THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THE CASE O F DR. VENUGOPAL WERE PASSED IN JANUARY 2013 AND DECEMBER 2012 4 ITA.NOS.776 TO 783/H/2016 DR. V. VENUGOPAL AND DR. V. MADHURI HYDERABAD. IN THE CASE OF DR. VENUGOPAL AND DR. MADHURI RESPEC TIVELY THE ASSESSEES DID NOT CHOOSE TO PREFER ANY APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT BE FORE THE CIT(A). IN FACT SHRI P. VISWANATH C.A. HAS APPEARE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ONLY IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS BUT ALSO IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND PENALTIES WERE LEVIED VIDE ORDERS DATED 28.06.2013. AS CAN BE NOTICED FROM FORM NO.35 FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THE CASE OF DR. VENUGOPAL APPEARS TO HAVE B EEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 22.01.2013. SIMILARLY IN THE C ASE OF DR. MADHURI THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN SER VED ON 31.12.2012. 4. SIMILARLY THE ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(C.) WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEES ON 29.07.2013. IT COUL D THUS BE NOTICED THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR PREFERRING A PPEALS ENDS ON THE FOLLOWING DATES. QUANTUM PENALTY DR. MADHURI 31.01.2013 28.08.2013 DR. VENUGOPAL 21.02.2013 28.08.2013 4.1. THE ASSESSEES HEREIN PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AFTER SUBSTANTIAL DELAY I.E. QUANTUM APPEALS ON 10.09.2014 AND PENALTY APPEALS ON 29.01.2015. IN TH E CASE OF DR. VENUGOPAL THERE IS A DELAY OF 567 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 READ WITH SECTION 147 AND IN PENALTY APPEALS THERE WAS DELAY OF 520 DAYS. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF DR. MADHURI THERE WAS A DELAY OF 589 DAY S IN QUANTUM APPEALS AND 520 DAYS IN THE CASE OF PENALTY APPEALS. BEFORE THE CIT(A) ASSESSEES APPEAR TO HAVE FILED AN A FFIDAVIT STATING THAT THEY HAVE SOUGHT AN OPINION OF ATTORNEY WHO ADVISED 5 ITA.NOS.776 TO 783/H/2016 DR. V. VENUGOPAL AND DR. V. MADHURI HYDERABAD. THEM THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT GROUND TO CONTEST THE APP EALS AND BASED ON SUCH ADVICE THEY WERE UNDER THE BONAFIDE OPINION THAT NO APPEAL NEED BE FILED ON THE ADDITIONS MADE ON P ROTECTIVE BASIS. 4.2. LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE BUSY IN TAKING OPINION BUT IT IS NOT SUPPORTE D BY PROPER MATERIAL AND THUS THE EXPLANATION IS NOT SUBS TANTIATED. THEREFORE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS WAS NOT CON DONED AND THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WERE DISMISSED AS UN- ADMITTED BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. 5. ASSESSEES PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND CONTENDED B EFORE ME THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE A REASONABLE CAUSE IN PREFERR ING THE APPEALS BELATEDLY. 6. AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEES PAID INSTITUTION FEES OF RS.500 ONLY IN EACH APPEAL O N THE GROUND THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) WOULD FALL WITHIN SECTION 253(6)(D) OF THE ACT AND IN THIS REGARD RELIED UPON TH E DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJAKAMAL POLYMERS (P) LTD. VS. CIT 291 ITR 314 WHEREIN THE COURT OBSERV ED THAT IF AN APPEAL IS REJECTED ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION SUC H ORDER FALLS WITHIN SECTION 253 (6) (D) OF THE ACT AND HENCE ONLY A SUM OF RS.500 IS PAYABLE AS INSTITUTION FEES. LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONTESTI NG THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON MERITS AND THUS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SQUARELY APPLIES HEREIN. 7. LD. D.R. DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION IN THIS REGAR D. 6 ITA.NOS.776 TO 783/H/2016 DR. V. VENUGOPAL AND DR. V. MADHURI HYDERABAD. 8. HAVING REGARD TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE INSTITUTION FEES PAID IS SUFFICIENT AND THEREFORE WE PROCEED TO CONSID ER THE MATTER ON MERITS I.E. WITH REGARD TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). 9. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEES HAVE PAID FINAL TAX ON PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT OPINION OF AN OTHER COUNSEL WAS SOUGHT WHO ADVISED THEM THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT GROUND TO CONTEST THE APP EALS AND THEY WERE UNDER THE BONAFIDE OPINION THAT THEY NEED NOT CONTEST THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE APPELLATE AU THORITY. SUBSEQUENTLY THERE WAS FINANCIAL PRESSURE ON THE ASS ESSEES IN DISCHARGING THE TAX LIABILITY AND THEREFORE APPEALS W ERE PREFERRED AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDERS ALSO. AFFIDAVIT OF DR. VENU GOPAL DATED 2 ND MARCH 2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 READS AS UNDER : 3. THAT AS THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 AN D PENAL ORDERS WERE PASSED AGAINST ME I HAD SOUGHT T HE OPINION OF MR. CA NVR BADARINATH HYDERABAD FROM TI ME TO TIME REGARDING POSSIBILITY OF FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THAT REGARDING 271(1)(C) IN HIS WRITTEN OPINION DATED 28-07-2013 HE ADVISED ME THAT THERE W ERE NO SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO CONTEST IN THE APPEAL. RELYIN G ON THE OPINION OF MR. CA NVR BADARINATH ON PROTECTIVE ASSE SSMENT PASSED U/S 143(2) I DID NOT FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES ON TIME AND PAID ALL THE TAXES ASSESSED IN PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT. THAT MY INCOME TAX RETURN FO R THE AY 2012-13 WAS FILED ON 30.03.2014. DURING THE FINALI ZATION OF MY TAX RETURN FOR THE AY 2012-13 I HAD DISCUSSED T HE MATTER WITH MY AUDITOR CA P. VISWANADH ABOUT THE OPINION G IVEN BY CA NVR BADARINATH REGARDING THE AY 2008-09. THAT I HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY THE CA P. VISWANADH THAT BY SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY APPEAL CAN BE FILED AGAINST TH E PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO ON PENAL ORDER AS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT OF RAIDED PARTY WAS NOT COMPLET ED BEFORE EITHER ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 274 OR FINALISING PENAL ORDER 7 ITA.NOS.776 TO 783/H/2016 DR. V. VENUGOPAL AND DR. V. MADHURI HYDERABAD. BY THE ITO-4(2). HENCE RELYING ON THE OPINION OF C A NVR BADARINATH I COULD NOT FILE APPEALS ON TIME BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THAT BASED ON THE OPINION OF CA P. VISWANADH I AM CONVINCED TO FILE AN APPEAL THROUGH CA P. VISWANADH AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) ISSUED FO R THE YEAR 2008-09 BY SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY. THAT CA P. VISWANADH WAS BUSY WITH HIS AUDIT AND TAX ASSIGNMEN TS AND COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL IMMEDIATELY AND THE A PPEAL WAS FILED ON 29.01.2015. IDENTICAL EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF OTHER A SSESSEE ALSO. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUBMITTED TH AT DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS BASED ON A BONAFIDE OPINI ON GIVEN BY C.A CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A REASONABLE CAUSE AND IN THIS REGARD RELIED UPON SEVERAL CASE LAW. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE C.A. WHO HAS BEEN ENGAGED BY THE ASSESSEES DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONTINUE TO RENDER PROFESSIONA L SERVICES EVEN IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT SHRI P. VISWANATH C.A. HAS GIVEN AN OPIN ION TO THE ASSESSEES THAT IT WAS A MERE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT AND I N FACT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS CLEARLY REFLECT THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS AND THEY WERE AGREED ADDITIONS. I N FACT THE ASSESSEES HEREIN HAVE SIGNED THE ORDER SHEETS BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITTING THAT IT IS AN UNEXPLAINED I NVESTMENT. WHEN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ASSESSEES C OULD HAVE CONTESTED THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS WHEREAS NO SUCH CLAIM WAS EVER MADE WHICH CLEARLY S HOW THAT THEY ARE FULLY AWARE THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON SUB STANTIVE BASIS AND THEREAFTER PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATE D. IN FACT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED ON 29.07.2013. 8 ITA.NOS.776 TO 783/H/2016 DR. V. VENUGOPAL AND DR. V. MADHURI HYDERABAD. 10.1. THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING APPEALS AGAINST THE O RDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) EXPIRED BY EARLY 2013 A ND THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT BEFORE THE DUE DATES THE ASSESSEES HAD TAKEN ANY OPINION FROM ANY OTHER PERSO N. LD. D.R. ALSO ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE-14 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHICH IS ANNEXED TO THIS ORDER. LD. D.R. SUBMITS THAT THE SO-CALLED OPINION IS UN-DATED AND IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHEN THE ASSESSEES HAVE TAKEN OPINION AND WHEN HE HAD ULTIMATEL Y SIGNED. A C.A WITH A REASONABLE LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF L AW WOULD APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED ARE NO LON GER PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND IN FACT PENALTY WAS AL SO LEVIED AND IN FACT ADDITIONS WERE ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEES SU BJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHICH WERE ALSO FU LFILLED THE MOMENT SHRI RAJA RAVINDRA REDDY HAS NOT TAKEN THE SAME INCOME IN HIS RETURNS BEFORE 31.03.2013. HE ALSO AD VERTED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 12 AND 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SUBMIT TH AT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM TO HAVE APPROACHED THEIR C.A. P. VISW ANATH IN CONNECTION WITH THE FINALISATION OF TAX RETURNS FOR THE A.Y. 2012- 2013 AND IN FACT THE RETURNS WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN FI LED ON 30.03.2014. ATLEAST AT THAT STAGE WHEN THE C.A. ADVISED THEM TO FILE APPEALS WITH A DELAY CONDONATION PETITION IMMEDIA TE ACTION COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BUT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL DELAY EVEN RECKONED FROM THE SAID DATE. THUS THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE. 11. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. I HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUG H THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. VENUGOPAL AS WELL AS THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSES SMENTS NO LONGER REMAIN PROTECTIVE AFTER 31.03.2013. IT IS ALSO NOT IN 9 ITA.NOS.776 TO 783/H/2016 DR. V. VENUGOPAL AND DR. V. MADHURI HYDERABAD. DISPUTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEES HAD TAKEN ANY OPINION BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR PREFERRING APPEALS. AS PER THE ADMISSION OF DR. VENUGOPAL IN HIS AFFIDAVIT SHRI P. VISWANATH C.A. HAS BEEN CONSULTED BEFORE 30.03.2014 WHO HAS ADVISED THEM TO PR EFER APPEALS AT THE EARLIEST BUT EVEN AFTER THE SAID DATE THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN PREFERRING APPEALS WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY VALID EXPLANATION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I AM OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEALS BY THE CIT(A) O N THE GROUND THAT THE APPEALS ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER ACCORDINGLY PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 .10.2016. SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD DATED 28 TH OCTOBER 2016 VBP/- COPY TO 1. DR. V. VENUGOPAL HYDERABAD SHRI A.V. RAGHU RAM ADVOCATE 610 BABUKHAN ESTATE BASHEERBAGH HYDERABAD 1. 2. DR. V. MADHURI HYDERABAD. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2) AAYAKAR BHAVA N BASHEERBAGH HYDERABAD 1. 4. CIT(A)-1 2 ND FLOOR ANNEXE AAYAKAR BHAVAN BASHEERBAGH HYDERABAD 500 004. 5. PR. CIT-1 HYDERABAD. 6. D.R. ITAT A (SMC) BENCH HYDERABAD. 7. GUARD FILE