Urmila Singh,, Hyderabad v. ITO,Ward 6(2),, Hyderabad

ITA 920/HYD/2014 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2015 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 92022514 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN ANTPS4204J
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 920/HYD/2014
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant Urmila Singh,, Hyderabad
Respondent ITO,Ward 6(2),, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 28-01-2015
Next Hearing Date 28-01-2015
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 13-05-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI P.M. JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.920/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 MRS. URMILA SINGH HYDERABAD 500 018 PAN ANTPS4204J VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (2) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. V. RAGHAVENDRA RAO FOR REVENUE : MR. D. SUDHAKAR RAO DATE OF HEARING : 27.04.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2015 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT-III HYDERABAD DAT ED 25.02.2014 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDU AL WHO FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION ON 25.09.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5 31 360 . IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE ORDE R DATED 27.12.2011 THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DET ERMINED BY THE A.O. AT THE SAME FIGURE AS DECLARED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE RECORD OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT SUBSEQUENTLY CAME TO BE EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT AND ON SUCH EXAMINATION HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 143(3) SUFFERED FROM THE FOL LOWING MISTAKES. 2 ITA.NO.920/HYD/2014 MRS. URMILA SINGH HYDERABAD. (I) THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.54F TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME. TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.54F THE DEPOSIT SHOULD BE MADE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME WAS 31.07.2009. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME ON 11.09.2009. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEPOSITED THE MONEY WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED U/S.139(1) THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.54F WHICH HE FAILED TO DO. (II) THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.2 02 675/- TOWARDS INTEREST ON BANK OVERDRAFT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE OVERDRAFT OF RS.20 LAKHS WAS UTILIZED FOR THE ADDITIONAL CAPITAL IN M/ S. RAJ MINERAL WORKS. BUT AS PER THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 31.03.2009 THE CLOSING DEBIT BALANCE IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM WAS RS.13 52 168/- SHOWING THAT THERE WAS NO NEXUS EITHER WITH THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OR WITH FDRS. THEREFORE THE INTERE ST CLAIM OF RS.2 02 675 MADE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS TO BE DISALLOWED WHICH THE A.O. FAILED TO DO. 2.1. THE LD. CIT ACCORDINGLY ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 143( 3) SHOULD NOT BE REVISED WITH RESPECT TO THE ABOVE ISSUES BY TREATING THE SAME AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F THE REVENUE. IN REPLY THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSION WAS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST ERROR ALLEGEDLY PO INTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. UNDER S ECTION 143(3). (I) RS.65 00 000/- WAS DEPOSITED ON 13.11.2007 BY WAY OF FD WITH ALLAHABAD BANK BALANAGAR BRANCH. OUT OF TH IS AMOUNT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED RS. 50 LAKHS IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME ON 11.9.2009. IT WAS SUBMITTED 3 ITA.NO.920/HYD/2014 MRS. URMILA SINGH HYDERABAD. THAT SINCE THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAD BEEN DEPOSITE D IN A BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE DUE DATE AND WAS NOT USED F OR ANY OTHER PURPOSE THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE TO CLA IM DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. (II) THE DEPOSIT IN THE CAPITAL GAINS SCHEME COULD BE MA DE BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING RETURN U/S. 139(4) WHICH IS UP TO ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASST. Y EAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE DEPOSIT COULD BE MADE BEFORE 31.3.2010 TO QUALIFY FOR DEDUC TION U/S 54F OF THE I. T. ACT 1961. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN THE CAPITAL GAINS SCHEME ON 11.9.2009 SHE WAS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJESH KUMAR JALAN (286 ITR 274) WHEREIN THE COURT HAD HELD THAT THE DEPOSIT INTO TH E CAPITAL GAINS SCHEME ACCOUNT COULD BE MADE BEFORE T HE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN U/S. 139(4) OF THE I. T. ACT 1961. HENCE THE AR CONTENDED THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 5 4F SHOULD BE ALLOWED. (III) AS THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS HELD THAT THE DEPOSIT COU LD BE MADE UP TO THE TIME AVAILABLE U/S. 139(4) FOR FILIN G OF THE RETURN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F WAS NOT ERRONEOUS. IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT FOLLOWING JUDICIAL DECISIONS ARE APPLICABLE: 1. MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO LTD VS CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. CIT VS MAX INDIA LTD 295 ITR 282 (SC) 3. CIT VS SIMON CARVES LTD 105 ITR 212 (SC) 4. CIT VS MAPCO INDUSTRIES 294 ITR 121 (MAD) (IV) THE ASSESSEE'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO SUBMI TTED THAT THE LAND SOLD WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND WAS SI TUATED MORE THAN 8 KMS AWAY FROM HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL LIMIT S. THEREFORE IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE QUESTION OF CAPIT AL GAINS LIABILITY WOULD NOT ARISE IN ANY CASE. 2.2. AS REGARDS THE SECOND ERROR ALLEGEDLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. PASSED UNDE R SECTION 143(3) IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT INTER EST OF RS.2 02 675 WAS PAID ON THE OVERDRAFT OF RS. 20 LAK HS TAKEN FROM BANK WHICH WAS UTILIZED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S. RAJ MINER AL WORKS WHERE SHE WAS THE PARTNER. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SI NCE THE 4 ITA.NO.920/HYD/2014 MRS. URMILA SINGH HYDERABAD. INTEREST ON THE SAID CAPITAL ACCOUNT WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS THE BUSINESS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE I NTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.2 02 675 WAS ALLOWABLE AS A BUSIN ESS EXPENDITURE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ALTHOUGH THERE W AS A MISTAKE IN CLAIMING THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES THE SAME WAS NOT PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE CALLING FOR REVISION UN DER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON THIS ISSUE. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE LD. CIT FOUND THAT THE FIRST ISSUE RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F WAS SQUARELY COVERED AG AINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF TARAN VEER SINGH SAHANI VS. DCIT 11(1) DEL HI WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE APPROPRIATION OF NET CONSIDE RATION TOWARDS PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE PROPERTY W AS NOT MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN AS MEN TIONED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT AND ALSO NOT DEPOSI TED IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F. RELYING ON THE S AID DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HE HEL D THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IN ALLOWING T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F WHICH WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE CALLING FOR REVISION UNDER SECTION 263. 3.1. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ISSUE RELATING TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.2 02 675 THE LD. CIT HELD THAT THE SAME WAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE A.O. BY MAKING SUFFICIENT ENQUIRY AND THE ORDER OF THE A.O. PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) THEREFORE WAS ERRONEOUS ON TH IS ACCOUNT 5 ITA.NO.920/HYD/2014 MRS. URMILA SINGH HYDERABAD. ALSO. HE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 143(3) EXERCISING THE POWERS CONFERRE D UPON HIM UNDER SECTION 263 WITH A DIRECTION TO THE A.O. TO C OMPLETE THE SAME AFRESH ON THE ISSUES DISCUSSED IN HIS ORDER PA SSED UNDER SECTION 263. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE HAS PR EFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 AS ALLEGEDLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263. HE SUBMITT ED THAT THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 50 LAKHS HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED FOR FILING THE REVISED RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(4) THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F WAS RIGHTL Y ALLOWED BY THE A.O. HE CITED ATLEAST 8 DECISIONS OF THE DIF FERENT HIGH COURTS AND THE VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL WHER EIN A VIEW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN ON THIS ISSUE H OLDING THAT THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 APPLIES FOR ALL SUB-SECTIONS I.E. (1) (2) (3) AND (4) AND THER EFORE THE UTILISATION OF CAPITAL GAIN UP TO THE DATE OF FILIN G OF REVISED RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(4) WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPT ION. HE FILED THE COPIES OF ALL THE RELEVANT 8 ORDERS AND CONTEND ED THAT THE RATIO OF THESE DECISIONS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE VIE W TAKEN BY THE A.O. WHILE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE F OR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F WAS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND IT WAS NO T PERMISSIBLE FOR THE LD. CIT TO SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN V IEW FOR SUCH POSSIBLE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O. IN THE GUISE OF POW ERS VESTED WITH HIM UNDER SECTION 263. 4.1. AS REGARDS THE ALLEGATION OF THE LD. CIT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF I NTEREST 6 ITA.NO.920/HYD/2014 MRS. URMILA SINGH HYDERABAD. EXPENDITURE OF RS.2 02 675 WAS ALLOWED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) WITHOUT MAKING PROPER AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRIES THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF LETTE R DATED 25.11.2011 FILED BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO POINT OUT THAT ALL THE RE LEVANT DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTIO N OF INTEREST WERE CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. AND ONLY AFTER HAVING S ATISFIED WITH THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THE CLAIM FO R DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST WAS ALLOWED BY HIM. HE CONTE NDED THAT THERE WAS THUS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ON THIS ISSUE AS ALLEGEDLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT. 5. LEARNED D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 263. HE CONTENDED THAT THE RELEVANT PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 54F ARE VERY CLEAR AND SINCE THERE IS NO AM BIGUITY THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F IS ALLOWABLE ONLY I F THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN IS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SE CTION 139(1) THE ORDER OF THE A.O. PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) A LLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 5 4F FOR THE DEPOSIT MADE AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LD. CIT CALLING FOR REVISION UNDER SECTION 263. 5.1. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ERROR POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT IN ORDER OF THE A.O. IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST THE LEARNED D .R. SUBMITTED THAT PROPER AND SUFFICIENT ENQUIRIES AS CALL FOR IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WERE NOT C ONDUCTED 7 ITA.NO.920/HYD/2014 MRS. URMILA SINGH HYDERABAD. BY THE A.O. WHILE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST. HE CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 26 3 HAS FINALLY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO MAKE SUCH ENQUIRIES BE FORE ALLOWING THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE BEING NO DECIS ION RENDERED ON MERIT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO H AVE ANY GRIEVANCE ON THIS ISSUE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON R ECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 54F ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN DEPOSITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT SCHEME AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETU RN UNDER SECTION 139(1) BUT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(4) WAS ALLOWED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSES SMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND SINCE THE SAID D EPOSIT WAS MADE ONLY AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETUR N UNDER SECTION 139(1) THE LD. CIT CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. TO BE ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF TH E DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF TARAN VEER SINGH SAHAN I (SUPRA) WHEREIN A VIEW AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN BY TH E TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED THE FOLLOWING 8 CASES WH EREIN A VIEW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THIS IS SUE HOLDING THAT THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING RETURN UNDER SECTIO N 139 APPLIES TO ALL SUB-SECTIONS I.E. (1) (2) (3) AND ( 4) AND THEREFORE THE UTILISATION OF CAPITAL GAIN BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE REVISED RETURN UNDER SECTION 134(4) WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION. 8 ITA.NO.920/HYD/2014 MRS. URMILA SINGH HYDERABAD. 1. CIT VS. RAJESH KUMAR JALAN (2006) 286 ITR 274 (H C) GAU.) 2. CIT VS. JAGTAR SINGH CHAWLA (2013) 259 CTR 388 ( P&H) (HC) 3. ITO VS. SMT. SAPANA DIMRI (2012) 50 SOT 96 (DEL. ) (TRIBU.) 4. KISHORE H. GALAIYA VS. ITO (2012) 137 ITD 229 (M UM.) (TRIBU.) 5. VINITA AWASTHEE INDORE ITA.NO.311/IND/2010 DT.20.07.2011. 6. P.R. KULKARNI & SONS (HUF) VS. ADDL. CIT (2011) 135 TTJ 630 ITAT (BANG.) 7. SRI PRASAD NIMMAGADDA VS. DCIT (2013) 27 ITR 63 (HYD.) (TRIBU.) 8. CIT VS. SMT. DEBBIE ALEMAAO (2011) 331 ITR 59 (B OM.) (HC). 7. THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE AFORESAID CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS T HAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE ALL OWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 5 4F WAS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND THIS BEING SO WE FIND MERIT IN T HE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE LD. CIT TO SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN VIEW FOR THE POSSIBLE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O. IN THE GUISE OF POWERS VESTED WIT H HIM UNDER SECTION 263. 8. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ERROR ALLEGEDLY POINTED OU T BY THE LD. CIT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. UNDER S ECTION 143(3) IN ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR D EDUCTION OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE WITHOUT MAKING PROPER AND ADEQ UATE ENQUIRIES IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE LETTER DATED 25. 11.2011 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE RELEVANT DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THIS CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. AND ONLY AFTER HAVING SATISFIED WITH THE SAID DETAI LS AND ON APPLICATION OF MIND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY 9 ITA.NO.920/HYD/2014 MRS. URMILA SINGH HYDERABAD. THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. AS SUC H CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THERE WERE NO ERRORS IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. PASSE D UNDER SECTION 143(3) AS ALLEGED BY THE LD. CIT IN HIS IMP UGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 CALLING FOR ANY REVISION. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 AND RESTORE THAT OF THE A.O. PASS ED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.04.2 015. SD/- SD/- (G.C. GUPTA) (P.M. JAGTAP) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED 30 TH APRIL 2015 VBP/- COPY TO 1. MRS. URMILA SINGH 8-4-316 ASHOK MARG ERRAGADDA P SANATH NAGAR HYDERABAD 500 018. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2) 6 TH FLOOR I.T. TOWERS HYDERABAD. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III HYDERABAD. 4. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-6 HYDER ABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.