M/s Rajendra Constructions, Kakinada V. THE DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE, Rajahmundry

CO 140/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2245 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P PRABHAKARA MURTHY
• Assessee Lawyers: G GURUSAMY
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Fair market value; Valuation report; Documents seized

Judgement Text

ITA NO628/VIZAG/2013 M/S. RAJENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KAKINADA 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.628/VIZAG/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE RAJAHMUNDRY VS. M/S. RAJENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS KAKINADA [PAN: AA PFM6404P ] ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.140/VIZAG/2013 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.628/VIZAG/) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) M/S. RAJENDRA CONS TRUCTIONS KAKINADA VS. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE , RAJAHMUNDRY ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. GURUSAMY, DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.PRABHA KARA MURTHY, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 17.02.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.02.2016 ITA NO628/VIZAG/2013 M/S. RAJENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KAKINADA 2 / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTI ON FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), GUNTUR DATED 25.7.2013 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09. SINCE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, THEY A RE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDE R, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMEN T OF APARTMENTS & FLATS. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE GROUP CASES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 3.2.2009. CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH, THE CASE WAS CENTRALIZED TO CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAJAHMUNDRY VIDE NOT IFICATION FNO.62/JURIS/CIT/RJY/2009-10 DATED 29.6.2009 AND AC CORDINGLY, A NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER CALLED AS 'THE ACT') DATED 3.3.2010 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 26.3.2010 DECLAR ING A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 2,68,110/-. THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTI NY AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUE D. IN RESPONSE TO THE ITA NO628/VIZAG/2013 M/S. RAJENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KAKINADA 3 NOTICE, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESS EE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS/DO CUMENTS CALLED FOR. 3. THE ASSESSEE PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHICH IS ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT HAS VENTURED INTO FIRST REA L ESTATE PROJECT IN THE YEAR 2007 IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. RAJENDRA T OWERS, AT KAKINADA. THIS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSIST OF 25 F LATS OF WHICH 10 ARE 3 BED ROOM FLATS AND REMAINING 15 FLATS ARE 2 BED ROO M FLATS. THE LAND ON WHICH THE SAID BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED BELONGS TO 5 MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY OF THE PARTNERS INCLUDING SOME OF THE PARTNE RS THEMSELVES. THE ASSESSEE FIRM ENTERED INTO A JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGRE EMENT WITH THE LAND OWNERS, WHEREIN IT IS CONSTRUCTING THE FLATS, AND T HE CONSIDERATION PERTAINING TO THE UNDIVIDED PORTION OF LAND IS RECE IVED BY THE LAND OWNERS AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT A SEPARATE SALE DEED FOR UNDIV IDED PORTION OF LAND IS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE LAND OWNERS AND THE BUYERS OF FLATS, WHILE THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS EXECUTING A REGISTERED SALE DEED O NLY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PART OF THE BUILDING WITH THE BUYERS. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN INCRIMINATI NG DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED VIDE ANNEXURE A/RJM/3, INDICATE TH AT THE ACTUAL VALUATION OF THE FLATS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS AT R S.1,200/- PER SQ.FT. AS ITA NO628/VIZAG/2013 M/S. RAJENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KAKINADA 4 PER THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT SHR I BADAM SUNDARA RAO, KAKINADA, APPROVED VALUER FOR BANKS AND FINANC IAL INSTITUTIONS HAVE VALUED 3 FLATS IN THE NAME OF SMT. LALITHA, SHRI BH AWARLAL & SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR AND ARRIVED AT A FAIR MARKET VALUE O F THE FLAT AT ` 1,200/- PER SQ.FT. BASED ON SUCH VALUATION REPORT, THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE FINANCIAL RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT RELIABLE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD THE TOTAL SALE RECEIPTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS. THEREFORE, ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE VALUE OF ` 1,200/- PER SQ.FT. SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED FOR THE TO TAL BUILT UP AREA OF PROJECT TO ARRIVE AT SALES FOR THE YEAR. IN RESPON SE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY AND STATED THAT THE VALU ATION REPORT OBTAINED BY THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS FROM THE REGISTERED VALUE R CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR ASCERTAINING THE SALE VALUE OF THE FLATS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THESE VALUATION REPORTS ARE NOT OBTA INED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE VALUATION REPORT OBTAINED BY THE BUYERS AND THE VALUE ASSESSED BY THE VALUER IS A FAIR MARKET VALUE AND NOT COST OF C ONSTRUCTION OR SALE PRICE OF THE APARTMENT. 5. THE A.O., HOWEVER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANA TION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM COULD NOT PRODUCED RELEVANT ITA NO628/VIZAG/2013 M/S. RAJENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KAKINADA 5 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR EXPENSES CLAIMED, SUCH AS MATERIAL & LABOUR EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THOU GH ASSESSEE DISOWNED THE VALUATION REPORT FOUND IN ITS POSSESSI ON, THE VALIDITY OF SUCH REPORT CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. KEEPING THIS I N VIEW AND THE PREVAILING MARKET CONDITIONS AT KAKINADA AND ALSO C ONSIDERING THE QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION ETC., HAS ADOPTED SALE PRICE OF RS. 1200/- PER SQ. FEET. FURTHER, THE A.O. HAS ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTIO N OF ` 850/- PER SQ.FT. AND ARRIVED PROFIT OF ` 350/- PER SQ. FT . DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 21302 SQ.FT. THEREFORE, BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT TOTAL AREA SOLD AND THE NET PROFIT MAR GIN OF ` 350/- PER SQ.FT., ARRIVED AT A NET PROFIT OF ` 74,55,700/-. FINALLY, THE A.O. HAS MADE ADDITIONS OF RS. 71,87,590/-, AFTER DEDUCTING NET PROFIT OF ` 2,68,110/-DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUATION REPORT FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ONE OF THE PARTNER CANN OT BE TAKEN AS BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT THE SALE PRICE OF THE FLATS. THE V ALUATION REPORT OBTAINED BY THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAIN ING BANK LOAN IS ITA NO628/VIZAG/2013 M/S. RAJENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KAKINADA 6 VALUED BY TAKING INTO FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROJ ECT WHICH IS NOT THE REAL CONSTRUCTION COST OR THE SALE PRICE OF THE PRO JECT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS MAINTAINED REGULAR BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHEREIN RECORDED THE COMPLETE SALES WHICH IS SUPPOR TED BY SALE DEEDS REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF SUB-REGISTRAR. THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED BY A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND FOUND THAT TH ERE ARE NO IRREGULARITIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. UNDER THE SE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN ADOPTING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE FLAT ESTIMATED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AS THE SALE PRICE OF THE A PARTMENTS. 7. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE VALUATIO N REPORT ISSUED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER CANNOT BE TREATED AS EVIDENCE FOR THE SALE PRICE. HOWEVER, AFTER ANALYZING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE FURTHER HELD THAT THE SALES RECEIPTS RECORDED BY THE ASSESS EE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS IN LINE WITH THE VALUATION REPORT ISSUE D BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. THE VALUER HAS ARRIVED AT A FAIR MARKET VAL UE OF THE FLAT AT ` 1200/- PER SQ.FT., WHEREIN HE DETERMINED COST OF UN DIVIDED LAND AT ` 700/- PER SQ.FT. AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT ` 500/- PER SQ.FT. ON VERIFICATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, IT IS SEEN T HAT THE PRICE OF THE UNDIVIDED AREA OF LAND IS AT ` 889/- PER SQ.FT., WHICH IS HIGHER THAN THE ITA NO628/VIZAG/2013 M/S. RAJENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KAKINADA 7 AMOUNT ESTIMATED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. SIMILAR LY, THE ASSESSEE HAS REPORTED AVERAGE SALE PRICE OF RS. 560/- PER SQ. FE ET IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION COST OF APARTMENT, AS AGAINST THIS, TH E VALUER HAS ARRIVED AT A COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF ` 500/- PER SQ. FT., WHICH IS LESS THAN THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD T HAT THOUGH THE VALUATION REPORT ISSUED BY REGISTERED VALUER IS NOT THE BASIS FOR ESTIMATION OF SALE PRICE, COMPARED THE SALE VALUE D ECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF 3 FLATS FOR WHICH THE VALUAT ION REPORT WAS SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ARRIVED AT A DIFFERENCE OF ` 8,65,000/- IN RESPECT OF 3 FLATS. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE CIT(A) DIR ECTED THE A.O. TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 8,65,000/ - AND DELETE THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 65,84,620/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 8. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O., AS THE ADDITION WAS BAS ED ON A SEIZED DOCUMENT. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, THE VALUATION REPORT ISSUED BY REGISTERED VALUER SEIZED AND AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT, THE VALUE O F THE FLAT IS DETERMINED AT ` 1200/- PER SQ. FT. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED ITS BOOK RESULTS, THE A.O. HAS ESTIMA TED THE INCOME FROM ITA NO628/VIZAG/2013 M/S. RAJENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KAKINADA 8 THE PROJECT BY ADOPTING THE VALUE ARRIVED BY THE RE GISTERED VALUER. THEREFORE, THE A.O.S ORDER SHOULD BE UPHELD. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT T HE VALUATION REPORT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CANNOT BE BASIS FOR ESTIMATION OF SALE PRICE OF THE APARTMENTS. THE LD. A.R. FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUATION REPORT OBTAINED BY THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING BANK LOAN IS NOT A VALID DOCUMENT TO ARRI VE AT THE SALE PRICE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHER EIN IT HAS RECORDED THE SALE RECEIPTS FROM THE PROJECT WHICH IS SUPPORT ED BY REGISTERED SALE DEEDS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MISTAKES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN ESTIMATING THE SALES BY ADO PTING THE VALUATION REPORT, WHICH IS NOT AT ALL PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSE E. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATE RIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, IS THAT DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH IN THE GROUP CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE, A SEIZED DOCUMENT RE VEALS THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS AT ` 1200/- PER SQ. FT. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE NOT RELIABLE, THEREFORE, HE HAS ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT FROM THE PROJECT BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE TOTAL BUILT UP AREA SOLD MULTIPLIED BY VALUE ARRIVED BY THE ITA NO628/VIZAG/2013 M/S. RAJENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KAKINADA 9 REGISTERED VALUER. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE THAT THE REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS BASIS TO ARRIVE AT A SALE PRICE OF THE PROJECT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDE D THAT IT HAS MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BILLS & VO UCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED BY A C HARTERED ACCOUNTANT U/S 44AB OF THE ACT AND FOUND NO ERRORS, WHICH IS E VIDENT FROM THE AUDIT REPORT ISSUED BY THE AUDITOR. THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT TH E VALUATION REPORT ISSUED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. 11. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CIT(A) DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL. THE CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY GIVEN HIS FINDINGS THAT TH E VALUATION REPORT IS NOT THE BASIS FOR ESTIMATION OF THE SALE PRICE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT THE BOOK RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN LINE WITH THE VALUE ARRIVED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. THOUGH, VALUATION DONE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER CANNOT BE TREATED AS EVIDENCE FOR DETERMINING THE SALE PRICE, THE CIT(A) HAS COMPARED THE SALES REPORTED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR THE 3 FLATS, FOR WHICH THE VALUATION REPORT WAS FOU ND DURING THE COURSE ITA NO628/VIZAG/2013 M/S. RAJENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KAKINADA 10 OF SEARCH AND FINDS THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETW EEN SALE PRICE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF 3 FLATS AND THE VALUE ARRIVED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. THEREFORE, QUANTIFIED THE DIFFER ENCE AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS. 12. THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS AND ALSO MAINTAINED BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF EXPENDI TURE CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE A.O. ONE SIDE STATED TH AT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED WITH ANY BILL S & VOUCHERS AND ANOTHER SIDE AGREED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED SOME BILLS & VOUCHERS. THERE IS A CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT FROM THE A.O. ON THE FACTS. THOUGH, ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCED BILLS & VOUCHERS TO SUP PORT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED, THE A.O. CANNOT ESTIMATE THE SALES BASED O N THE VALUATION REPORT. THE SALES DECLARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE SUPPORTED BY SALE DEEDS REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGI STRAR. THE A.O. DID NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKES IN THESE DOCUMENTS. THE RE GISTERED VALUER VALUED THE BUILDING BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, FAIR MA RKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS BASED ON PREVAILING MARKET RATE A VAILABLE AS ON THE DATE OF VALUATION. THE SAID VALUATION REPORT WAS IS SUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING BANK LOAN BY THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS. ITA NO628/VIZAG/2013 M/S. RAJENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KAKINADA 11 13. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, ON PERUSAL OF FACT S, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEME NT WITH LAND OWNERS. AS PER THE SAID JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN T, SEPARATE SALE DEEDS ARE EXECUTED BY RESPECTIVE PARTIES FOR UNDIVI DED INTEREST IN LAND AND CONSTRUCTION COST. THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FO R CONSTRUCTION COST AND ACCORDINGLY, RECOGNIZED REVENUE FROM CONSTRUCTION C OST OF APARTMENTS, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY VALID SALE DEEDS. THE CIT(A) CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE SALE PRICE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN LINE WITH VALUATION ARRIVED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY IS DONE KEEPING IN VIEW OF PREVAILING MARKET PRICES OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS SALE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE VALUATION REPORT ISSUED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR ESTIMATION OF SALE PRICE, WHE N THE A.O. COULD NOT POINTED OUT ANY ERRORS OR MISTAKES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE SALES IS SUPPORTED BY VALID S ALE DEEDS. THE CIT(A) HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE. WE DO NOT SEE A NY REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). HEN CE, WE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT TH E A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS. ITA NO628/VIZAG/2013 M/S. RAJENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KAKINADA 12 14. THE ASSESSEE FILED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND CHALLENGED THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT HE DID NOT PRESS THE C.O. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE C.O. AS NOT PRESSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH FEB16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 25.02.2016 VG/SPS )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAJAHM UNDRY 2. / THE RESPONDENT M/S. RAJENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, 5- 3-25, SURYARAOPET, KAKINADA 3. + / THE CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A), GUNTUR 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 12 . (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) . , # / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM