Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Mr. Audinarayana Reddy,, Hyderabad vs Department Of Income Tax on 6 December, 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH 'A', HYDERABAD
BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
and
SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012
Assessment year 2008-09
DCIT vs. Mr. A. Audinarayana
Central Circle-3 Reddy, Hyderabad
Hyderabad PAN: ADAPA6161B
Appellant Respondent
CO No. 119/Hyd/2012
Arising out of ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012
Assessment year 2008-09
Mr. A. Audinarayana vs. DCIT
Reddy, Hyderabad Central Circle-3
PAN: ADAPA6161B Hyderabad
Appellant Respondent
SA No. 176/Hyd/2012
Arising out of ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012
Assessment year 2008-09
Mr. A. Audinarayana vs. DCIT
Reddy, Hyderabad Central Circle-3
PAN: ADAPA6161B Hyderabad
Appellant Respondent
Revenue by: Sri M. Ravinder Saibaba
Assessee by: Sri A.V. Raghuram
Date of hearing: 06.12.2012
Date of pronouncement: 22.02.2013
O R D E R
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM:
The appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objection and Stay Application by the assessee are directed against the order of the CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad dated 14.5.2012 for assessment year 2008-09. Since the issues involved are 2 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== interlinked, the appeal along with the CO and SA are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The Revenue raised the ground in its appeal that the CIT(A) erred in quantifying the donation of gold to Shri Shirdi Sansthan at 114.590 kg as against 124.253 kg that the assessee himself has quantified the same.
3. The Revenue also raised a ground that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence by way of receipt from Shri Shirdi Sansthan without affording opportunity to the Assessing Officer.
4. There is one more ground by the Revenue that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the source of source was nothing but diversion of funds in the guise of subcontract to Sri N. Srinivasa Rao.
5. The assessee raised ground in the cross objection with regard to sustaining addition towards donation of gold valued at Rs. 9,82,80,246.
6. The assessee also raised a ground with regard to sustaining of addition u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at Rs. 13 lakhs received as advance against sale of agricultural produce from M/s. Lordven Enterprises and also Rs. 6 lakhs towards receipt from Mr. Veerendra Kumar.
7. Brief facts of the case are that there is a search action u/s. 132 of the Act in the group cases of M/s. AMR Constructions Ltd., on 16.12.2008. As part of this search action, the assessee was also covered u/s. 132 of the Act. Consequent to the search action notice u/s. 153A was issued. The assessee filed a return of income on 5.4.2010 3 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== for A.Y. 2008-09 wherein the assessee declared income of Rs. 1,13,87,900 which includes Rs. 90 lakhs as additional income towards failure to explain the following investments.
a) Donation to SSS - Rs. 25,00,000
b) Advance on properties -
Damodar Reddy Rs. 55,80,000
c) Purchase of Wood complex - Rs. 9,20,000
------------------
Total Rs. 90,00,000
============
8. It was also noticed during the course of search action in the case of M/s. AMR Constructions Ltd., that the Director and family members of the company have made huge donations in the form of gold to Shirdi Saibaba Sansthan. During the course of search action Sri Mahesh Reddy who looked after all the affairs of the assessee group disclosed before the Revenue authorities that the family has donated 124 kg of gold to Shirdi Saibaba Sansthan. It is also stated by him that out of the above 124 kg gold, 16kg was donated by the Director and family members and balance of the gold was collected from friends and relatives and offered the same to the temple. It is also on record that the assessee has produced few persons who have confirmed before the Revenue Authorities that they have donated gold for the purpose of donating the same to the Shirdi Saibaba Santhan. The Director of the company and family members admitted income in their returns of income to the tune of Rs. 1.82 crores towards donation of gold to the Shridi Saibaba Sansthan as they could not explain the source. The receipts collected from the Shridi Saibaba Sansthan towards show the donation received from "A.N. Reddy family and associates" and the said receipts were signed by Sri Audinarayana Reddy in the place provided for "devotee's 4 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== signature", for clarity we reproduce reprodu ce hereunder the copies of the said receipts :
(1) (2) 5 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors.Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== (3) (4) 6 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ========================
9. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to furnish the details of name and address of the friends and relatives from whom the assessee collected the gold for the purpose of donating the same to Shridi Saibaba Sansthan. According to the Assessing Officer though the assessee and the family members stated in their sworn statement that they have donated 16 kg gold and balance was collected from friends and relatives, the assessee failed to furnish the details of register maintained by the assessee for collection of such balance gold from the friends and relatives and details of the receipts issued to the donors. During the post search proceedings around 60 donors were examined by the revenue authorities on 4.6.2009, 5.6.2009, and 6.6.2009. These random 60 donors though stated that they have made donations, they failed to produce any recorded evidence to prove the genuineness of the donation. In fact, none of them filed return of income and basically they are agriculturists. From the above, the Assessing Officer drew the inference that the balance gold said to have been collected from various friends and relatives from Nellore district from where the assessee hails, as non genuine. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to file confirmation letters in support of receipt of gold as donation from various parties by the assessee. The assessee in reply to these filed a letter dated 26.4.2010 stating as follows:
"A detailed note was called for asking why an amount of Rs. 11,88,00,0001· should not be brought to tax as unexplained income on account of donation of 108 kgs of gold Simhasana to Shirdi Saibaba Sansthan. In this regard it is hereby submitted that a detailed calculation of the total donation is already given, a copy of the same is given along with this letter for ready reference.
First of all, we would like to clarify the fact that the total no., of kgs involved in the donation was 114.59 kgs and this can be verified from the receipts issued by 7 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== the Shirdi Sans than the copies of the same are enclosed for your reference.
To give a small background about this whole activity carried out, we are staunch devotees of Lord Sri Shirdi Saibaba and we regularly visit Shirdi to take his darshan and pray him regularly. Once a thought came across my father's mind that the God should have a golden throne (Simhasanam). Accordingly he shared this desire with us and our family took a decision to donate a golden throne. As this was a very costly task, we brain stormed together and finally arrived at an idea, that apart from donating some of the amount from the family alone we decided to propagate this holy task among relatives, friends and other devotees. There are numerous devotees of Sri Shirdi Saibaba like us around my native place and business place. Accordingly, we have circulated this idea and as expected many devotees like us came forward and have agreed to join hands in the holy cause. With all the support of the likeminded, we could able to donate the 'Golden Simhasanam' to the holy lord. In addition to this we in fact this gold was collected by me, my family members, friends and associates over period of time. It is a time taking task and was done over number of years.
We have in fact provided all the information and documents maintained in this connection at various stages of enquiries and even during post search proceedings. As submitted earlier as this was not a business deal and was for a holy cause without any profit or benefit motto and was a voluntary effort, the documents were not maintained to full extent as required under law. These facts were submitted to the Department by us and even by some of the donors who were summoned for during the enquiry. But the fact that it is a voluntary effort and contribution of many like minded is well explained and demonstrated before the Department.
However, to be co operative with the Department and just to purchase peace with the Department we have accepted to offer the difference amount c additional income by me and my family members. However, in order to avoid protracted litigations, to buy peace and in order to put a quietus to the whole issue, we have accepted to offer the difference amount as additional 8 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== income t me and my family members. We have taken up the issue regarding the balance contributions, we accept to make an additional declaration of Rs. 7,67,74,956/- This additional declaration made is adopted as income only for the purpose ( computing tax and is otherwise is not an income.
It is also prayed before your good self that the penalty proceedings be kindly dropped by your good self in view of the fact, elaborately explained (above, that the disclosure was made voluntarily by us without the discovery (any material, pointing to the same, during the course of search. All the disclosures were made in good faith in order to buy peace and with the hone belief and conviction that no penalty proceedings would be initiated on the assessees. Hence it is also herewith requested not to initiate any penal proceedings",
10. Thus, the assessee made an additional offer of income at Rs. 7,67,74,956 in the names of following persons:
Name FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 Total
A. Mahesh Reddy 1,63,38,890 28,54,850 1,91,93,740
A. Girish Reddy 1,63,38,890 28,54,850 1,91,93,740
A. Audinarayana Reddy 3,26,77,776 57,09,700 3,83,87,476
D. Total 6,53,55,556 1,14,19,400 7,67,74,956
11. However the assessee filed further letter on 28.12.2010 which reads as follows:
"In so far as the assessment of myself, my father, Mr. A. Audinarayana Reddy and my brother, Mr. A. Girish Reddy is concerned during the course of assessment proceedings, I have filed a letter declaring an additional income of Rs 7,67,74,956/- in the hands of myself, my brother and my father for the assessment years 2008- 09 & 2009-10. The said declaration was made in the following circumstances:
We being devotees of Shri Shiridi Saibaba Baba had decided to donate "Golden Simhasanam " to the deity. In the process, we pooled the donations from various devotees and also spent our own money and donated the said "Golden Simhasanam".
The total weight of "Golden Simhasanam" was 108 kgs, out of which the contribution from my family members was approximately 19 kgs of gold.
9 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors.Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== Originally during the course of search we declared an amount of Rs 1,90,00,000/- and also submitted that the balance of gold was pooled/donated by various persons, the list of whom was already provided.
We were asked to furnish evidence in respect of the said other devotees.
We were of the view that we should not trouble the devotees, who made voluntary contributions, who donated gold by making them appear before the authorities. Therefore, we, myself and my family members accepted to declare balance quantity of gold as well, which was quantified at Rs 7,67,74,956/-
In the above circumstances, we were of the view that if a declaration were to be made, the Department would not contact the donors and would not verify the veracity of the donations. Therefore, we thought it would be proper to purchase peace by paying tax and offered the said amount.
However, we understood that the Income-Tax authorities have already conducted verification with many/majority of the donors by recording the statements from them with regard to the donations made by them. As the Income- Tax authorities already contacted the donors and as the donors were already made to appear before the authorities, we are of the view that such an admission is not required. Therefore, I humbly submit that the earlier letter offering the amount of Rs. 7,67,74,956/- in addition to what was declared during the course of search and seizure operations may please be treated as withdrawn.
Therefore, what remains is the admission made at the time of search. Further I humbly submit that in so far as the donors of the gold for "Golden simhasaman" are concerned, they donated the gold; the list of such donors along with their addresses and the amount of donation was already provided to the Department. Some of the donors were considered by the Department and all of them accepted to have donated the gold or amount equal to the gold. Therefore, no addition on account of the donation to Shri Shiridi Saibaba Baba may be made."
10 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors.Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ========================
12. The Assessing Officer rejected this letter stating that this was filed on 28.12.2010 just before completion of the assessment i.e., on 31-12-2010 and made an addition of Rs. 11.88 crores valuing 108 kg of gold at Rs. 11 lakhs per Kg. In addition to this, the Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 57 lakhs u/s. 68 of the Act as follows:
Lordven Enterprises Rs. 13 lakhs
Sri. Srinivasa Rao Nukkala Rs. 18 lakhs
Smt. K. Subba Lakshmi Rs. 20 lakhs
Sri. Veerendra Kumar Rs. 6 lakhs
13. On appeal, the CIT(A) sustained the addition in respect of donation of gold at Rs. 9,82,80,426. The CIT(A) arrived at this figure on the basis of receipts which show that total quantity of gold donated at 1,14,590.390 grams valued at Rs. 11,72,80,426 (Rs. 1023.575 per gram). As the assessee already disclosed additional income in his return of income at Rs. 1.90 crores, the CIT(A) sustained the balance amount at Rs. 9,72,80,426. Against this sustenance and deletion both revenue and assessee are in appeal before us.
14. Regarding unexplained credit u/s 68 the CIT(A) deleted Rs. 20 lakhs received from K. Subba Lakshmi and Rs. 18 lakhs from N. Srinivasa Rao and balance unexplained amount u/s 68 in the name of Lordven enterprises at Rs. 13 lakhs and Veerendra Kumar at Rs. 6 lakhs was sustained by the CIT(A). Against the deletion of Rs. 18 lakhs in the name of N. Srinivasa Rao the Revenue is in appeal before us. Against sustaining of Rs. 13 lakhs in the case of Lordven Enterprises and Rs. 6 lakhs in the name of Veerendra Kumar the assessee is in appeal before us by way of C.O.
15. At the outset, the DR objected the taking ground by assessee by way of a Cross Objection. The objection of the 11 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== DR is overruled in view of Supreme Court judgement in the case of Hari Shankar Rastogi v. Sham Mohan (2005 AIR (SCW) 0-1712) wherein held that Cross Objection is like an appeal. It has all the trappings of an appeal. Even when the appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed, Cross Objection can still be heard and determined.
16. The learned AR submitted with regard to assessee's first ground that the assessee's son A. Mahesh Reddy while recording statement u/s 132 (4) of the Act while answering to question No. 20 has categorically stated that the entire contribution of gold was not made by assessee's family members alone. But assessee's friends and relatives who are closely related to the assessee and who have joined for the purpose of a noble cause initiated by the assessee and was the collective effort of many likeminded people. He submitted that this fact was continuously reiterated by the assessee before the lower authorities on various occasions. However, to buy peace the assessee in his letter dated 26.4.2010 admitted to disclose additional income in the name of the assessee, A. Mahesh Reddy and A. Girish Reddy. Accordingly the Assessing Officer drafted the assessment order making such addition in respective hands as offered by the assessee in the draft assessment order and sent for approval of Additional CIT in the month of May 2010 and same were approved u/s 153D of the Act. He submitted that the copies of same were furnished before the CIT(A). According the AR instead of finalising the assessment order in accordance with the offer of the assessee to the surprise of the assessee the Assessing Officer issued a fresh notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) in the month of November 2010 after a lapse of 6 months from the date of last hearing. According to the assessee's counsel it is 12 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== not the assessee has gone back from the offer but it is the Department which retracted the offer of the assessee. According to the assessee counsel the offer was made by the assessee with a request that the Department has shall not cause any other enquiry and offer of the assessee has to be accepted. However, the Department gone back and made fresh enquiry at the back of the assessee and assessee was not aware of the enquiries made by the Department in the month of June 2009 at the time of filing the initial offer letter. Further he submitted that the Department has made addition only on the basis of assessee offer letter though it caused enquiry with regard to the veracity of donation and the enquiry caused by the Department fully supports the claim of the assessee that donations are genuine as the parties whom the Department contacted said categorically that they have donated the gold. The Department denied the donations and held it as not genuine only on the reason that the donors are agriculturists. The assessee hails from a respectable family and is a big businessman having great faith in Shiridi Saibaba Baba and all the people in his village have supported this noble cause. The Assessing Officer only relied on the letter given by the assessee in the initial state. Further he submitted that even the receipts issued by the Shirdi Saibaba Samsthan show that the donor is not assessee himself and it was mentioned clearly therein that "A.N. Reddy family and associates" in the ''Devotee's Column". This fact was admitted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. He also submitted that as per sworn statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 12/1/2009 from Mr. A. Mahesh Reddy son of assessee who has clearly mentioned that it was donated by different donors in his village. Accordingly he drew our attention to the list of 13 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== donors produced before the lower authorities placed before us in Paper Book I page numbers 44 to 381. Further he submitted that during the post search enquiry, the revenue authorities have summoned 70 persons and recorded statements u/s 131 of the Act who are poor and innocent agriculturists having no knowledge of Income Tax Act and given a firsthand information that they donated gold according to their capacity for the noble cause. In spite of confirmation from those innocent agriculturists having no knowledge of Income Tax, the Department is not ready to believe the true statements of the true donors on the reason that no evidence was found during the search regarding their donations. Further he submitted that even after offer of additional income at Rs. 7,67,74,956 by the assessee, the Department started enquiry and when the enquiry report was found favourable to the assessee, the Department is not ready to accept the same. He submitted that there is a categorical statement from the donors in favour of the assessee. The Department without bringing the evidence against the assessee simply brushed aside the same. He submitted that the fact of contribution by various friends and relatives of the assessee is not disputed much less disproved by the Department. According to the AR when the assessee produced the evidence in support of the assessee's claim it cannot be brushed aside without bringing a contra evidence against the assessee. The AR submitted that addition was made u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Being so, the principle laid down in respect of the onus is not strong as in the case of section 68. According to the AR the assessee is one among the donors as suggested in the receipts given by the Shirdi Saibaba Samsthan and to the extent of the assessee's donation 14 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== assessee offered additional income in the return of income at Rs. 25 lakhs and the balance is collected from various persons. U/s 69 of the Act, the Revenue is required to show that the investment has been made in the name of the assessee. In other words, the incurring of the investment has to be conclusively established by the Department. When the incurring of the investment is itself not proved there is no question of addition in the hands of the assessee. He relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of CIT v Shahzad Lookman Quadir (3 ITR (Trib) 177) for this proposition wherein it was held as follows:
"Held, dismissing the appeal, that under the provisions of section 69C addition on account of any unexplained expenditure could be made only when the assessee had incurred any expenditure about which it had offered no explanation. The burden was on the Department to show that the expenditure had been actually incurred which was not explained. The Assessing Officer had estimated the expenses on the basis of comparison with the old unit. The assessee had given explanation regarding lower expenditure in the new unit which was a new and modern unit having advantage of economy of scale. The product and the industrial environment were also different as the two units were located in different States. While the assessee gave a reasonable explanation, the Assessing Officer failed to produce any evidence to show that the assessee had actually incurred any expenditure which was not accounted for or was diverted to the old concern. There was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the addition."
17. Further he submitted that originally the assessee made a surrender and offered income which was duly retracted by the assessee as the Department disregarded the contents therein as per which the Department cannot cause further enquiry and the Department cannot pick and choose to its convenience. He relied on the following judgements:
15 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors.Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== A. Pullangodo Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. CIT (91 ITR 18) (SC) B. TS Kumara Swamy v. ACIT (65 ITD 188) (Mad) C. Hotel Kiran (82 ITD 453)
18. Further he submitted that the offer letter made by the assessee is not u/s 132 of the Act. The offer was made subsequent to the post search enquiry. The offer is also conditional. Being so, the argument of the Department is not proper to state that the offer made by the assessee u/s 132(4) is binding on the assessee. According to the AR the offer was made on conditional basis and the condition on which the offer was made ceased to be exist. As such the assessee cannot be forced to comply with the offer letter. Once the offer is not acted upon in accordance with the offer conditions, it cannot be said to be survived. He relied on the judgement in the case of Vinod Solanki v. Union of India (239 ELT 157) wherein held that evidence brought by confession, if retracted must be corroborated by independent and cogent evidence. Further he submitted that addition made only on the basis of confession statement cannot be sustainable without corroborative material. He relied on the order of the Tribunal Chennai Bench in the case of G. Kanagaraj v. DCIT (73 TTJ 731). He also relied on the CBDT instruction No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv.) dated 10.3.2003 which is as follows:
"Circular No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv), dated 10.3.2003 (Clarification) Search & seizure - Confession of additional income during the course of search & seizure survey operation Instances have come to the notice of the Board where assesses have claimed that they have been forced to confess the undisclosed income during the course of the search and seizure survey operations. Such confessions, if not based upon credible evidence are later retracted by the concerned assesses while filing returns of income. In these circumstances, on 16 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== confessions during the course of search and seizure and survey operations do not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, advised that there should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of ...........income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the income-tax departments, similarly, while recording statement during the course of search and seizures and survey operations no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary shall be viewed adversely.
Further, in respect of pending assessment proceedings also, assessing officers should rely upon the evidences/materials gathered during the course of search/survey operations or thereafter while the relevant assessment orders."
19. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the addition was made on the basis of offer made by the assessee. He submitted that the first thing it may be noted that the addition flows out of statement made at the time of search. In fact, as remarked by the counsel in his opening remarks, the very search is attributed to this issue of donation of golden simhasan. The assessee made continuous offers - first some amount, then some more and culminating in the offer letter dt 26.04.2010. The final offer came 12 months after conclusion of enquiries and examination. So nothing to provoke by way of pressure or a noble impulse to protect other "donors". There were no enquiries by the Assessing Officer at all because this issue was considered as closed till the assessee retracted at 11th hour. Thus, department was very much prevented by this feint and last minute withdrawal. The register was not found at the time of search at all. It was produced later. As regards the averments that from the beginning it was being told that it was not the "assessee" alone, it is submitted that of course, any person will tell that rather than own up entire thing at first outing but is saying enough? What matters is conduct and evidences.
17 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors.Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ========================
20. The DR further submitted that there is no mention of register in the statement. He could have easily told that it came from many whose names are recorded and details are maintained, especially since he is the lynchpin who co-ordinated the entire thing. Instead he just says ANR-family and others. The assessee offers income towards this item to protect others and who it was protecting? Enquiries were over and dusted with in June 2009. He submitted that the Department did not doubt that agriculturalists cannot donate but the ability of a person with small income that too without getting his name registered for the same. It is different if the register was maintained by Shiridi Saibaba Sansthan or receipts were issued by Shiridi Saibaba Sansthan. More importantly when a temple issues receipt for even Rs 500/- donation, can Shiridi Saibaba Sansthan deny issue of receipt for gold of even 10 grams which is easily 15000+ ? So the receipts not being issued by Shiridi Saibaba Sansthan, and not being asked by donors is unacceptable as well as unbelievable.
21. The DR submitted that in the Indian context-where families store gold and view it as investment for future and a rainy day (where gold is valued and stored so much that we are running into current deficit problem) gold for ladies of family-for daughters marriage-so many issues would be there and on donation, a family with 4/5 members, does not even ask for a receipt or its share of contribution? This is in an age where temple walls are pasted with slabs announcing donation of even Rs 1000. Much was made of assessee owning up and offering only to protect others and how it went back because enquiries were made. This claim does not match with chronology of events as already narrated. Regarding the distinction between 68 and 69C, he submitted that-the requirement is different because one taxes credit while other taxes expenditure-and the crucial difference is this - once expenditure is 18 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== traced to "credits" (here in kind) all the requirements of section 68 come into play. This cannot be ignored. Hence the Case laws cited are very much relevant.
22. The DR submitted that the paper books filed today, ostensibly the evidences of donors, the entire papers are what Department had examined and collected-nothing new from his side. Secondly, they all pertain to May to June 2009 period when the Investigation Wing was enquiring. This disclosure was in June 2010 and withdrawal was in December, 2010 on the eve of time barring date for the assessments. The learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to pages 44 and 45- of Paper Book 1. The entire labour of the assessee and his counsel in filing 2000 pages is only to justify about 9 kg of gold and there is no evidence for the rest of 90% of gold. Accordingly, he submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and as modified by the CIT(A) may be upheld. Further he relied on the assessment order.
23. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We have carefully perused the receipts received from Shirdi Saibaba Sansthan placed on record at page Nos. 1027, 1028,1029, 1030, 1031 of the paper book. As per these receipts the gold donation was received from Sri Audinarayana Reddy family and Associates. Accordingly the assessee taken a plea before the lower authorities that he donated gold worth Rs. 25 lakhs and balance was collected from various friends and relatives from his native village. However, in order to avoid protracted litigation, the assessee made an offer vide his offer letter dated 26.4.2010 at Rs. 7.67 crores in the name of three persons i.e., A. Mahesh Reddy, A. Girish Reddy and Audinarayana Reddy.
19 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors.
Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy
========================
Name FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 Total
A. Mahesh Reddy 1,63,38,890 28,54,850 1,91,93,740
A. Girish Reddy 1,63,38,890 28,54,850 1,91,93,740
. A. Audinarayana Reddy 3,26,77,776 57,09,700 3,83,87,476
H. Total 6,53,55,556 1,14,19,400 7,67,74,956
24. This letter was retracted by the assessee vide his letter dated 28/12/2010 which reads as follows:
"In so far as the assessment of myself, my father, Mr. A. Audinarayana Reddy and my brother, Mr. A. Girish Reddy is concerned during the course of assessment proceedings, I have filed a letter declaring an additional income of Rs 7,67,74,956/- in the hands of myself, my brother and my father for the assessment years 2008- 09 & 2009-10. The said declaration was made in the following circumstances:
We being devotees of Shri Shiridi Saibaba Baba had decided to donate "Golden Simhasanam " to the deity. In the process, we pooled the donations from various devotees and also spent our own money and donated the said "Golden Simhasanam".
The total weight of "Golden Simhasanam" was 108 kgs, out of which the contribution from my family members was approximately 19 kgs of gold.
Originally during the course of search we declared an amount of Rs 1,90,00,000/- and also submitted that the balance of gold was pooled/donated by various persons, the list of whom was already provided.
We were asked to furnish evidence in respect of the said other devotees.
We were of the view that we should not trouble the devotees, who made voluntary contributions, who donated gold by making them appear before the authorities. Therefore, we, myself and my family members accepted to declare balance quantity of gold as well, which was quantified at Rs 7,67,74,956/-
In the above circumstances, we were of the view that if a declaration were to be made, the Department would not contact the donors and would not verify the veracity of the donations. Therefore, we thought it would be 20 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== proper to purchase peace by paying tax and offered the said amount.
However, we understood that the Income-Tax authorities have already conducted verification with many/majority of the donors by recording the statements from them with regard to the donations made by them. As the Income- Tax authorities already contacted the donors and as the donors were already made to appear before the authorities, we are of the view that such an admission is not required. Therefore, I humbly submit that the earlier letter offering the amount of Rs. 7,67,74,956/- in addition to what was declared during the course of search and seizure operations may please be treated as withdrawn.
Therefore, what remains is the admission made at the time of search. Further I humbly submit that in so far as the donors of the gold for "Golden simhasaman" are concerned, they donated the gold; the list of such donors along with their addresses and the amount of donation was already provided to the Department. Some of the donors were considered by the Department and all of them accepted to have donated the gold or amount equal to the gold. Therefore, no addition on account of the donation to Shri Shiridi Saibaba Baba may be made."
25. The Department is not ready to accept the retraction statement. The plea of the assessee before us is that the offer made by the assessee is conditional stating that the Department shall not cause any enquiry. The contents of the offer letter are as follows:
"To The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle-3 Hyderabad Dated 28.12.2010 Sir, Sub: Income-tax assessment - Asst. year - 2008- 09 & 2009-10 - A Mahesh Reddy -
Explanation submission of - Reg.21 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors.
Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== Ref: Assessment proceedings in the case of Sri Audinaryana Reddy, Sri A Girish Reddy and Mr. A Mahesh Reddy.
As the Assessing Officer is well aware, the Income-Tax authorities conducted search and seizure operations at the premises of the company AMR Constructions Ltd., and other sister concerns besides my residential premises. The Income-Tax authorities recorded a statement u/s 132(4) of the IT Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153A of the IT Act in response to which myself and all other group persons filed the returns of income. The Assessing officer thereafter required us to explain various items and we have filed the explanations, in response to the queries raised.
In so far as the assessment of myself, my father, Mr. A Audinarayana Reddy and my brother, Mr. A Girish Reddy is concerned, during the course of assessment proceedings, I have filed a letter declaring an additional income of Rs. 7,67,74,956/- in the hands of myself, my brother and my father for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2009-10. The said declaration was made in the following circumstances:
a) We being devotees of Shri Shiridi Saibaba Baba has decided to donate "Golden Simhasanam" to the deity. In the process, we pooled the donations from various devotees and also spent our own money and donated the said "Golden Simhasanam"
b) The total weight of "Golden Simhasanam" was 108 kgs., out of which contribution from our family members was approximately 19 kgs of gold.
c) Originally during the course of search we declared an amount of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- and also submitted that the balance of gold was pooled/donated by various persons, the list of whom was already provided.
d) We were asked to furnish evidence in respect of the said other devotees.
e) We were of the view that we should not trouble the devotees, who made voluntary contributions, who donated gold by making them appear before the 22 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== authorities. Therefore, we, myself and my family members accepted to declare balance quantity of gold as well, which was quantified at Rs.
7,67,24,956/-.
In the above circumstances, we were of the view that if a declaration were to be made, the department would not contact the donors and would not verify the veracity of the donations. Therefore, we thought it would be proper to purchase peace by paying tax and offered the said amount.
However, we understood that the Income-Tax authorities have already conducted verification with many/majority of the donors by recording the statements from them with regard to the donations made by them. As the Income-Tax authorities already contacted the donors and as the donors were already made to appear before the authorities, we are of the view that such an admission is not required. Therefore, I humbly submit that the earlier letter offering the amount of Rs. 7,67,74,956/- in addition to what was declared during the course of search and seizure operations may please be treated as withdrawn. Therefore, what remains is the admission made at the time of search. Further I humbly submit that insofar as the donors of the gold for "Golden Simhasanam" is concerned, they donated the gold; the list of such donors along with their addresses and the amount of donation was already provided to the department. Some of the donors were contacted by the Department and all of them accepted to have donated the gold or amount equal to the gold. Therefore, no addition on account of the donation made by various others for the "Golden Simhasanam" presented to Shri Shirdi Saibaba Baba may be made.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
A. Mahcsh Reddy"
26. As seen from the above letter the offer was conditional. The Department is requested not to take any enquiry and also shall not levy any penalty. However, as seen from the record, the Department instead of acting upon the offer 23 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== started enquiry with the donors and made detailed enquiry. Even in enquiry the donors confirmed the donations. When the donors confirmed the donations the Department is of the opinion that the donors are agriculturists and the donations are not genuine as they have no capacity to make such donations. However, when the donors made confirmations in favour of the assessee the Department has not brought anything on record to show that the confirmations are false. In our opinion, the evidence and the material collected by the Department is to be accepted as correct unless it is proved contrary.
27. As seen from the copies of receipts filed before us, the receipts are not in the name of the assessee himself. They are in the name of "A.N. Reddy family associates". The assessee's son Sri A. Mahesh Reddy accepted the donation and surrendered the income at Rs. 7,67,74,956 in the following names:
Name FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 Total
A. Mahesh Reddy 1,63,38,890 28,54,850 1,91,93,740
A. Girish Reddy 1,63,38,890 28,54,850 1,91,93,740
A. Audinarayana Reddy 3,26,77,776 57,09,700 3,83,87,476
Total 6,53,55,556 1,14,19,400 7,67,74,956
28. It was also made clear in the sworn statement recorded on 16.12.2008 from A. Mahesh Reddy that the entire contribution of gold was not made by the assessee himself or his family members alone but many other friends and relatives closely associated with the assessee's family. Further, it was also made clear that to avoid any inconvenience to the devotees and to purchase peace with the Department, the difference amount of Rs. 7,67,74,956 was accepted as additional income of the assessee and his family members. This amount was declared vide letter dated 24 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== 26.4.2010. However, in the meantime the Department started enquiry with the various devotees and recorded statements and collected evidences regarding donations made by them. It is also on record that about 70 donors appeared before the Department and confirmed the donation. When this was going on the assessee filed a letter dated 28.12.2010 retracting the earlier letter dated 26.4.2010 where the assessee offered additional income on the reason that many of the devotees/associates were already summoned and examined by the Department. The assessee stated the reason for retraction that the Department had not kept its promise as the offer made by the assessee is conditional that the Department shall not cause further enquiry and should not cause undue hardship to the devotees. As the basic condition and purpose for which the declaration was made ceased to be exist, the assessee went out of his earlier offer.
29. Now the question before us is whether the offer made by the assessee is to be considered or not. In our opinion, this is a case of search u/s. 132 of the Act. The Department framed the assessment u/s. 153A of the Act after the search. As per the provisions of section 153A the Assessing Officer is required to determine the income on the basis of material available on record consequent to search action u/s. 132 of the Act. The Assessing Officer is precluded from collection any confession statement in the course of search action and base the addition on that basis. The CBDT Instruction No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv.) dated 11.3.2003 strictly prohibits placing reliance on the confession statements. The Assessing Officer cannot presume the income of the assessee for the period covered by section 153A on the basis of confession statement. The Assessing 25 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== Officer is required to bring on record positive material in support of the addition. The addition made by the Assessing Officer in the present case is contrary to the evidence brought on record. The addition made on the basis of statement recorded from the assessee or from the assessee's son which is not recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act. It is recorded consequent to the post search enquiry and that statement was also retracted by the assessee. The Assessing Officer herein made the addition only on the basis of statement of the assessee's son dated 26.4.2010. The contents of this statement were retracted vide letter dated 28.12.2010. Being so, the assessment is not based on any cogent material. The assessment cannot be made on the basis of probability. It should be based on the evidence brought on record.
(a) Further in the case of Pullangode Rubber Products Co. Ltd., (91 ITR 18) (SC)) the Apex Court held that admission made by the assessee is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assessee who made the admission to show that it is incorrect and the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to show that the books of account do not disclose the correct state of facts.
(b) In the case of T.S. Kumaraswamy vs. ACIT (65 ITD
188) (Madras) wherein held that the entries in books of account found in the search operation u/s. 132 have to be accepted as true and it is not open to the Assessing Officer to turn around and say in making the block assessment that the entries in the books of account are untrue or false unless it is proved by 26 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== legally acceptable evidence that the admission involuntary and the same could not be retracted.
(c) In the case of Hotel Kiran vs. ACIT (82 ITR 453) wherein held that addition can be made on the basis of admission in the statement u/s. 132(4) in absence of any evidence indicating that the statement u/s. 132(4) was obtained under coercion, threat, duress or undue influence or that the assessee was in absolutely disturbed state of mind.
30. Further it was held in the case of CIT v. VMRP Firm (56 ITR
67) as follows:
"The doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" is only a species of estoppels" it applies only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppel, it cannot operate against the provisions of a statute. If a particular income is not taxable under the Income-tax Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equitable doctrine. Equity is out of place in tax law; a particular income is either exigible to tax under the taxing statute or it is not. If it is not, the Income-tax Officer has no power to impose tax on the said income."
31. An assessee cannot be tied down to a wrong concession made in the return. In the case of A. Venkataraimaih 57 ITR 185 V, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, affirmed the principle that merely because the assessee himself has returned the sum of Rs.79,494 under the head capital gain leads us to nowhere. " He might have done it under the advice of some 'income-tax expert'. The assessee cannot be tied down to an inadvisably made wrong statement. In the circumstances, we delete the addition. "
32. We place reliance on the judgement in the case of Bharat General RE-Insurance Co. Ltd (81 ITR 303) (Delhi), wherein held that: "It is true that the assessee itself had included that dividend income in its return for the year in question but there is no 27 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== estoppel in the IT Act and the assessee having itself challenged the validity of taxing the dividend during the year of assessment in question it must be taken that it had realized from the position which it had wrongly taken while filing the return."
33. In our opinion, tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly instructed, is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected. In the case of Vinay Chandulal Satia v. N.D. Parekh, CIT [Spl. Civil Application No. 622 of 1981 dated 20- 8-1981], and referred to the decision of the Apex Court:
"The Supreme Court has observed in numerous decisions, including Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality AIR 1972 SC 749 and Babutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte AIR 1975 SC 1297, that the State authorities should not raise technical pleas if the citizens have a lawful right and the lawful right is being denied to them merely on technical grounds. The State authorities cannot adopt the attitude which private litigants might adopt." ( S.R. Koshti v. CIT 193 CTR 518) (Guj.)."
34. Further the CBDT Circular 14(XL-35) of 1955, dated 11-4- 1955 states that, officers of the Department must not take advantage of the ignorance of an assessee as to its rights. It is settled law that CBDT Circulars are binding on Revenue authorities. This circular of the Board is in consonance with the constitutional provision that no tax can be levied without the authority of law. This also accords with the principles enunciated by the Courts.
35. If the assessee out of ignorance included income as taxable in the return and it approached the Court to direct the AO to exclude said amount from assessable income then an appropriate decision is to be taken. Plea of the revenue was that department 28 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== could not be faulted for accepting returns filed by assessee where he himself had offered the donations for tax. The plea of the department cannot be accepted in view of the judgement in the case of SDS Mongia v. CBDT (160 Taxman 101) wherein held that the Revenue is not entitled to tax the income which was offered by the assessee himself though it is not taxable and it should tax only that amount which is chargeable u/s. 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
36. In the case of Narayanan vs. Gopal AIR 1960 SC 235, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an admission in the return is not conclusive and it would be decisive only if not subsequently withdrawn or proved to be erroneous. It is well established that the object of an assessment is to determine the correct income and consequently the correct tax liability. In the light of above well settled principles, factual position of the case and AO's own observation return filed in the status of HUF should have been ignored.
37. In our opinion, the CIT(A) should have appreciated that all the incriminating evidences available in the seized documents were considered by the DDIT (Inv.) in toto in course of post search investigation in the hands of Individual and also by the Assessing officer in course of assessment proceeding and undisclosed income resulting from these seized papers were to be considered in the assessment of the assessee leaving no room for any further addition in the hands of assessee on the basis of offer by the assessee, in such circumstances there could be no undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee particularly on the basis of receipts relating to donation as the impugned receipt is not in the name of the present assessee.
29 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors.Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ========================
38. The CIT(A) should have appreciated the salutatory principle that the Income-tax is a levy on income. The substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even though there is offer by the assessee which did not materialise. Where the income can be said not to have resulted at all, there is obviously neither accrual nor receipt of income, even though an offer to that effect might, in certain circumstances, have been made by the assessee. As explained, the shifting of some transactions of some others to the hands of the assessee is not justified in view of absence of any incriminating material found in the course of search as belonging to present assessee.
39. In view of the above discussion, in our opinion, the evidence brought on record is not enough to sustain the addition in the hands of the assessee. The ground raised by the assessee in his C.O. with regard to addition towards donation of gold to Shiridi Saibaba Sansthan is allowed. Being so, the ground raised by the Revenue regarding sustaining of addition on this count is dismissed as infructuous.
40. The next ground in the Revenue appeal is with regard to deletion of addition of Rs. 18 lakhs in the name of Sri N. Srinivasa Rao u/s. 68 of the Act. Brief facts of the issue are that it has been explained by the assessee that the sources for the advances of Rs. 18,00,000 given to the assessee, are out of the withdrawals made from Reliant Metropolitan Developers Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Live-in Shelters Pvt. Ltd., who were shown to have executed some contract works for M/s. AMRCL and the same were shown to have been reflected in the income tax returns filed for the assessment year 2008-09 onwards. The assessee has made a detailed submission replying to the queries as raised by the Assessing Officer, regarding the creditworthiness of Mr. Srinivasa 30 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== Rao Nukala. It was further contended by the assessee that while coming to a conclusion that sub-contract carried by Mr. Srinivasa Rao Nukala was not genuine, the Assessing Officer did not even verify the works given on contract by M/s. AMRCL and no enquiries were carried whether the receipt on account on such contract work was accounted for or whether any expenditure of same nature .in respect of the same work was separately claimed by the company etc. and as such this observations of the Assessing Officer was solely based on suspicion, disbelieve and presumptions. The assessee also contended that Mr.Srinivasa Rao Nukala was assessed to tax in his own right and the amounts advanced by him cannot be treated as unexplained credit in the case of the assessee and the taxability if any, has to be examined in the hands of such other person who advanced money, by his Assessing Officer.
41. As regards to the application of sec. 68 in treating the said advances as unexplained credit, it was submitted by the assessee that the impugned amounts were received by the assessee by account payee cheques from the persons who are assessed to income tax by filing their returns, showing income from various sources, which is a prima facie evidence about their creditworthiness and the assessee is not expected to make any further enquiries into the exact source of their income or the amount advanced. It was further contended that though as per sec. 68, the primary onus to offer an explanation as to the nature and source of the credit is on the assessee, what would be the degree of onus and what should be the extent of an explanation in such circumstances, has been laid down in various judicial pronouncements and it is a settled principle of law that the strict rules of evidence do not apply to the income tax proceedings and the admissibility of an explanation has to be determined considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case 31 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== and human probability. It was also argued by the assessee that the assessee has been held to have discharged the primary onus where the amount representing the credit in question was received by account payee cheques, with the details of creditors, their income tax particulars and written confirmations from such persons were filed, as per the rulings of various courts. In this regard, the assessee relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in the case CIT v. Orissa Corporations Pvt. Ltd (159 ITR 78) and the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd (256 ITR 795).
42. The CIT(A) deleted this addition by observing that the Assessing Officer could not form an opinion as regards to the creditworthiness of the creditor based on the facts that have emerged and explained to him and drawn his own conclusions treating the said credits as the unexplained credits for want of more information/evidence on the issue of creditworthiness. This conclusion do not constitute the correct decision based on the ratio that have emanated from the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Pvt. Ltd reported in 256 ITR 795, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its opinion that in case where the share applicants were to be considered genuine, the right course for the Assessing Officer is to identify the real person to whom the money belong and assess him to tax instead of assessing the company and as such there was no justification for assessing the company. Further, the ratio of the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Tania Investments (P) Ltd. (322 ITR 394) is squarely applicable in this case, wherein the creditors were examined by the Assessing Officer, during the assessment proceedings, who maintained the books of accounts, which could not have been brushed aside.
32 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors.Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ========================
43. Further, it may be relevant to note that the contract works awarded by M/s AMRCL was disbelieved and the additions were made in the hands of M/s AMRCL on the said account. Further, the amount of contract receipts appears to have already suffered tax in the hands of the company, as such there is no basis for making the addition originating from the same amounts in the hands of the assessee, being the loanee. On this count, the addition of Rs. 18,00,000 made on account of amount standing in the name of Mr. Srinivasa Rao Nukala, as unexplained credit is not sustainable. Accordingly, deletion by CIT(A) is confirmed. This ground is dismissed.
44. In C.O. the assessee raised the ground with regard to sustaining of addition of Rs. 13 lakhs u/s. 68 in the name of Lordven Enterprises. Brief facts of the issue are that the assessee has furnished the confirmation for the advances received from the party during the course of the appellate proceedings, but such confirmation do not give the primary details such as the income tax assessment particulars, and the bank account extracts so as to verify the creditworthiness of the creditor along with the genuineness of the transaction. In the case, neither it has been explained by the assessee why advance was received towards the sale of agricultural proceeds of the assessee nor the details related to the agricultural income of the assessee though falling in the subsequent year. Provisions of section 68 of the IT Act put the onus on the assessee to explain the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor apart from the identity. In this case, the assessee could furnish the mere details of the identity without bringing or explaining the relevant information regarding genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor. The onus is on the assessee to prove the transaction by explaining the same with reference to the above three factors on cumulative basis. In the absence of the same, the 33 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ======================== transaction cannot be treated as genuine one and as such the credit will be treated as unexplained credit. The ratios of the case laws cited by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, more specifically the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of R.B. Mittal v.CIT (246 ITR 283) are very much relevant for the facts of the case. Accordingly, the treatment meted out by the Assessing Officer for the credit of Rs. 13,00,000/- from M/s Lordven Enterprises is held to be sustainable and as such the addition made on this count is confirmed.
45. The next ground in CO is with regard to sustaining of Rs. 6 lakhs in the name of Sri Veerendra Kumar. Brief facts of the issue are that an advance of Rs. 6,00,000 shown to have been received from Shri Veerendra Kumar towards the advance of property and the amount was returned in the same year since the transaction did not materialize. However, it has been observed that the amounts were received and repaid in cash and no confirmation in this regard was furnished either before the lower authorities. There was no indication as regard to the details of the transaction with which such amount was received and repaid. In absence of the needed explanation with evidences as regard to the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor, it is held that provisions of section 68 are applicable. Provisions of section 68 puts the onus on the assessee/assessee to explain the transactions with reference to the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor, apart from the genuineness of the transaction and we are of the opinion that the assessee had failed on this count. Hence, the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- received by Shri Veerendra Kumar which was treated by the Assessing Officer as unexplained credit is confirmed.
46. In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and assessee's CO is partly allowed.
34 ITA No. 1147/Hyd/2012 & Ors.Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy ========================
47. Since we have disposed of the Revenue appeal and assessee's CO, the Stay Application filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and dismissed accordingly.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22 nd February, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 22 nd February, 2013 tprao Copy forwarded to:
1. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central Circle-
3), 8 th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500 004.
2. Sri A. Audinarayana Reddy, Plot No. 530, Road No. 26, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
3. The CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad.
4. The CIT (Central), Hyderabad.
5. The DR - A Bench, ITAT, Hyderabad.