IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH `A', HYDERABAD
BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.1033/Hyd/13
(Assessment year 2007-08)
Income Tax Officer, V/s. Shri P.D.Raghunatha Rao,
Ward 5(2), Hyderabad Hyderabad
( PAN - AADHR 7263 M )
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri R.Mohan Rao DR
Respondent by : Shri S.Rama Rao
Date of Hearing 26.08.2014
Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2014
ORDER
Per P.M.Jagtap, Accountant Member:
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the
order of the learned CIT(A) V, Hyderabad dated 22.3.2013 and the
grounds raised therein by the Revenue read as under-
"(1) The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and facts of
the case.
(2) The learned CIT(A) erred in holding the re-
assessment proceedings invalid when tangible
material exists for reopening.
(3) The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of
Rs.15,50,976/- made by the Assessing Officer
without going into details of the other components of
the addition which include payment of municipal
taxes, interest on unsecured housing loan and
difference of closing balance in statement of affairs
and bank statement.
(4) The learned CIT(A) is wrong in giving relief of
Rs.10,70,213/- on account of rate difference self
supervision. As per letter dated 29.12.2011 of
Executive Engineer-1, Valuation Cell, Hyderabad, the
assessee has not submitted any bills and vouchers
2
ITA No.1033/Hyd/2013
Shri P.D.Raghunatha Rao,
Hyderabad
regarding purchase of construction material and
other construction charges. In course of assessment
proceedings and also before CIT(A), no such details
are filed. Hence, the assessee is not eligible for rate
difference and supervision charges.
(5) Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of
hearing."
2. At noted at the outset, by the appellate order dated
22.3.2013, which is impugned by the revenue in the present
appeal, the learned CIT(A) has disposed off two appeals filed by the
assessee before him one against the order passed by the
Assessing Officer under S.143(3) of the Act; and the other against
the order passed by the Assessing Officer under S.143(3) read with
S.147 of the Act. By the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) thus
has disposed of two appeals filed by the assessee before him and
going by the grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal, it has
challenged the decision of the learned CIT(A) on the issues involved
in both the appeals. As per the relevant rules, the Revenue is
actually required to file two separate appeals against the common
order of the learned CIT(A) dated 22.3.2013 disposing off two
appeals by the assessee. The present appeal filed by the Revenue
is, thus, not maintainable as agreed even by the Learned
Departmental Representative, and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
3. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the court at the conclusion of
hearing on 26th August, 2014
Sd/- Sd/-
(Asha Vijayaraghavan (P.M.Jagtap)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dt/- 26th August, 2014
3
ITA No.1033/Hyd/2013
Shri P.D.Raghunatha Rao,
Hyderabad
Copy forwarded to:
1. Shri P.D.Raghunatha Rao, 5-5-548, Malakunta Raod,
Hyderabad
2. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2), Hyderabad
3. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) V Hyderabad
4. Commissioner of Income-tax IV Hyderabad
5. Departmental Representative, ITAT, Hyderabad.
B.V.S
|
