ITO, Ward - 9(1), Hyderabad V. Cherukuri Mutually Aided Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., Hyderabad

CO 46/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9843 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KIRAN KATTA
• Assessee Lawyers: C P RAMASWAMY
• Keywords: Commercial expediency

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO./ C.O. NO. ASSESS - MENT YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT CROSS OBJECTOR 182/HYD/2012 2008 - 09 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD (PAN AAAAT 4393 G) 216/HYD/2012 2008 - 09 M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD (PAN AAAAT 4393G) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD 1617/HYD/2012 AND C.O. 1/HYD/13 THEREIN 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD (PAN AAAAT 4393G) 462/HYD/2014 AND C.O.46/HYD/14 THEREIN 2004 - 05 2005 - 06 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD (PAN AAAAT 4393G) ASSESSEE BY : S HRI C.P.RAMASWAMY DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI KIRAN KATTA, DR DATE OF HEARING 09 .0 9 .2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.09.2014 O R D E R PER P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THERE ARE SIX MATTERS IN THIS BUNCH. TWO OF THEM ARE BY WAY OF CROSS APPEALS ONE BY THE REVENUE AND THE OTHER BY THE ASSESSEE - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. FOR THE OTHER TWO YEARS, VIZ. ASSESSMENT YEAR S ITA NO.182 /HYD/201 2 & OTHERS M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 2 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11, REVENUE HAS FILED APPEALS, IN RESPECT OF WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS - OBJECTIONS. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE MATTERS ARE COMMON, THE SAME HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 2. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, BEING ITA NO.182/HYD/2012 (REVENUES APPEAL ) AND ITA NO.216/HYD/2012(ASSESSEES APPEAL), WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) VI HYDERABAD DATED 25.11.2011 . 3. IN ITS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE DISALLO W ANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF EXPENSE S ON COMMISSION AND B ROKERAGE, ADVERTISEMENT, SALES PROMOTION AND TRAVELLING. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A SOCIETY RE G ISTERED UNDER THE MUTUALLY A IDED CO - OPERATIVE SO C I E TIES ACT, 1995. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF ACCEPTING DEPOSITS FROM ITS MEMBERS AND ADVAN CING LOANS AT HIGHER RATE OF IN T ER E ST. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CON S I D ERATION, I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 WAS FIL E D BY TH E ASSESSEE ON 26.9.2008 DE C LARING TOTAL INCOME OF R S .3,87,860. IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FIL E D ALONGWITH THE RETUR N, THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD ADMINISTRATIVE EXPEN S ES - COMMISSION AND BROK E RAGE RS. 6,61,923 ADVERTISEMENT RS.14,35,000 SALES PROMOTION RS. 7,04,275 TRAVELLING EXPENSES RS.14,43,000 ITA NO.182 /HYD/201 2 & OTHERS M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 3 DU R IN G THE COU R SE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM FOR THE AFORESAID EXPENSE S . I N REPLY, THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION WAS OF F ERED BY TH E ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM FOR THE SAID EXPENSES - COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE: FOR THE PU R PO S E OF ACCEPTING DEPOSITS AND GIVING LOANS, THE SO C I E TY HAS BEEN ENGAGING CONSULTANTS AND AGENTS INSTEAD O F REGULAR EMPLOYE E S. TH E COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE PAID TO THE CONSUL T AN T S AND AG ENTS IS BEIN G SPENT BY THEM FOR GIVING DOOR SERVICE TO THE MEMBER AND NO T DEPOSIT MOBILIZATION. HENCE, THE P A YM E N T O F COMMISSION AND BROK E RAGE IS UNAVOIDABLE. THER E FORE, EXPENDITURE SPENT UN D ER THIS HEAD BE ALLOWED. ADVERTISEMENT & SALES PROMOTION : THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SO C I E TY ARE SPR E AD OVER 10 DISTRICTS OF AN DH RA PRADESH. GIVING IN F O R M A TION ABOUT TH E VARIOUS PRODUCTS AND SERVI C ES TO THE EXISTING MEMB E RS AND PRO S PECTIVE MEMBERS IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE DEVELOPM E N T O F THE SO C I E TY. IN THE IN T ER E ST OF THE MEMB E RS, VARIOUS PRODUCT S AND SERVI C ES REL A TIN G TO RE AL E S TATE, CON S TRU C T I ONS, DEPO S ITS, LOANS AND LOCKERS HAVE BEEN P R OMOTED BY WAY OF MEETINGS, CAMPS , AWARENESS P R OGRAMMES. DOOR - TO - DOOR PRO M OTION, WALL PAINTINGS, CHANNEL ADVERTISEMENTS, PAPER ADVERTISEMENTS ETC. ALL THI S EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED KEEPING IN V IEW OF THE COMPETITION WITH OTHER SIMILAR SOCIETIES PREVAILING THE IN THE OUTSIDE MARKET. IN THIS CONTEXT ONLY, THE SOCI E TY INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE AND HENCE MAY BE ALLOWED. TOUR /TRAVELLING EXPENESES: AS TOLD PR EVIOUSLY THE ACTIVITIES AND BRANCHES COVER ALMOST 10 DISTRICTS OF ANDHRA PRADESH. MOREOVER, DOOR SERVI C ES IS GIVEN TO ALL MEMB E RS AS MANY O F T H E M ARE SENIOR CITIZENS, RETIRED EMPLOYEES, OLD AGED, PHY S ICALL Y HANDICAPPED ETC. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GIVE SERVIC E WITHOUT TH E ABOVE EXPENDITURE BEIN G INCURRED. THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE MAY BE ALLOWED. THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND FUL L Y A C C EPTABL E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . A CCORDING TO H I M, THE ASSESSEE BEING A MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SO CIETY AND NOT BEING A BUSINESS CONCERN, IT WAS NO T REQUIRED TO AVAIL THE SERVICES OF ANY CONSULTANT S OR AGENT S TO MOBILIZE THE DEPOSITS FROM ITS MEMBERS AND THERE WAS A CLEAR CHANCE THAT SERVICES OF CONSULTANTS OR AGENTS APPOINT E D BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PROMOTION OF OTHER BUSINESSES IN WHICH PROMOTERS OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.182 /HYD/201 2 & OTHERS M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 4 SOCIE T Y WERE INTERESTED. IN THIS REGARD, H E REFERRED TO THE SURVEY CARRIED OUT IN THE C A S E OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.133A OF THE AC T ON 22.3.2010, WHEREIN IT WAS FOUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE BELONGS TO CHERUKURI GROUP WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN THE BU S IN ES S OF JEWELLERY, FINANCE, ADVERTISING, REAL ESTATE AND ALSO RUNS A SCHOOL THROUGH ITS VARIOUS CONCERNS. HE THEREFORE, DECLINED TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPENSE INCURR ED ON COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE IN TOTO AND KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE SERVICES OF CONSULTANTS AND AGENTS WERE REQUIRED BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR PROVIDING DOOR SERVICES ONLY TO SENIOR CITIZENS AND OLD AGED MEMBERS ONLY, HE ALLOWED 50% OF THE EXP E N S ES CL A IMED ON C OMMISSION AND BROK E RAGE AND DISALLOWED THE BALAN C E AMOUNT OF RS .3,30,961. 5. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM O F TH E ASSESSEE FOR EXPEN S ES INCURRED ON ADVERTISEMENT AND SALES PROMOTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY , GOING BY THE V E RY NATURE OF ITS ACTIVITY, DID NO T REQUIRE ANY ADVERTISEMENT AND SALE PROMOTION. AC C OR D ING TO HIM, THIS EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE THUS WAS CLEARLY FOR THE PROMOTION OF BU S IN E SS OF OTHER CONCERNS BELONGING TO CHERUKURI G ROUP IN WHICH THE PROMOTERS O F THE ASSESSEE WERE SUB S TA N TIALLY INTER E STED. HE , TH E R E FORE , DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF RS.14,35,000 AND R S .7,04,275 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ADVERTISEMENT AND SALES PROMOTION RESPECTIVELY. 6. AS REGARDS THE TRAVELLIN G EXPENSE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE E XPL A NATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID CLAIM WAS NOT F O UND FULLY AC C EPTABL E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCOR D ING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE SO C I E TY HAVING ITS OWN MANPOWER EMPLOYED IN THE R E SPECTIVE DISTRICTS TO O F FER THE SERVICES TO ITS MEMBERS, WAS NO T REQUI R ED TO INCUR SUCH HUGE EXPENDITURE ON TRAVELLING. HE , THEREFORE, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TRAVELLING EXPENSE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 50% AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.7,21,5 00. ITA NO.182 /HYD/201 2 & OTHERS M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 5 7. THE DISALLO W ANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ON COMMISSION AND BROK E RAGE, ADVERTISEMENT, SALES PROMOTION AND TRAVELLING W ERE DISPUTED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN TH E APPEAL FIL E D BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), AND AFTER CON S I D ERIN G THE SUBMI S SION S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DE L ETED T H E SAID DISALLO W ANCE S ENTIRELY FOR THE FOLLO W IN G REASONS G IVEN IN PARA 8.0 OF THE IMPU G N E D ORDER - 8.0 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON RECORD AND THE SUBMI S SION S OF TH E AR WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION AND BROKERA GE , ADVERTISEMENT AND SALE PROMOTION EXPENSES, AND TRAVEL EXPENSES. TH E RE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO T B R OU G HT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES ARE NO T ACTUALLY INCURRED. HE HAS DISALLOWED TH E SE EXPENSE BROADLY FOR TWO REASONS: FIRSTLY, THAT THE RE WAS NO NEED FOR THE ASSESSEE TO INCUR THESE EXPENSE AND SECONDLY, THAT THE EX PE N S ES W E RE INCURRED TO PROMO T E THE BU S IN E SS INTER E STS OF T HE OTHER CHERUKURI GROUP CONCERNS. IT I S ESTABLISHED LAW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNO T SIT IN JU D GM E NT O V ER THE MANNER IN WHI C H THE ASSESSEE SHOUL D CO N D U C T ITS BU S IN E SS. IT I S FOR TH E ASSESSEE TO DECI D E WH E THER IT WANTS TO P R O V IDE DOOR SERVI C E TO I T S MEMBERS OR WHETHER IT SHOULD ENGAGE IN A D VERTISING ITS PRODUCTS AND S ERVI C ES. INDEED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ALLO W E D 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE ON COMMISSION AND BROK E R A GE, AND TRAVEL EXPENSE IN VIEW OF DOOR SERVI C E B E IN G PROVIDED TO SENIOR CITI ZENS AND AGED MEMBERS. THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NO T EXTEND THE SAME FACILITY TO ITS OTHER MEMBERS AS WELL IF IT SO F E ELS. THE ASSERTION THAT THE PROMOTERS OF THE SOCIETY WERE UTILIZING THE SERVICES OF THE CON S ULTANTS/AGENTS FOR PROM O TING THE OTHER BU S IN E SSES OF THE GROUP IS MERELY A PRESUMPTION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WHICH NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN B R OUGHT FORTH. THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMI SS ION AND BROK E RAGE, ADVERTISEMENT AND SALE P R OMOTION EXPENSE, AND TRAVEL EXPENSE IS, TH E REFORE, DELE TED. 8. AT THE TIM E OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE R ELI E D STRONGLY ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPO R T OF THE R EVENUE S CA S E ON THIS ISSUE, WHILE THE LEARNED COUN S EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE IMPU G N E D ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLO W ING RELI E F TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS IS S UE. 9. WE HAVE CON S I D ERED THE RIVAL SUBMI S SION AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OB S ERVED THAT THE FACT UM AS WELL AS THE ITA NO.182 /HYD/201 2 & OTHERS M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 6 QUA N TUM OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE A SSESSEE ON COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE, ADVERTISEMENT, SALES PROMOTION AND TRAVELLIN G WAS NO T DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ANY STAGE. AS A MA T TER OF FACT, 50% EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON COMMISSION AND BROK E RAGE AND TRAVELLIN G E X PEN S ES WAS ALLOWED BY HIM, THEREBY ACCEPTING THAT EXPENDITURE UNDER THESE HEADS WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PU R POSE OF ITS ACTIVITY O F M O BILISING THE ADVANCES AND GIVING LOA N S AT HIGHER RATES. FIFTY PERCENT O F THIS EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS ENTIRE EXPEN DITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ADVERTISEMENT AND SALES PROMOTION HO W EVER , WAS DI S ALLO W ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAINLY ON TH E GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NO T REQUIRED TO B E IN C URRED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING A MUTUALLY AIDED COOP ER ATIVE SOCIETY AND THE S AME WAS ACTUALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE OTHER CO NC E R NS BELONGING TO THE SAM E GROUP. IN THIS REGARD, W E FIND THAT TH E RE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT A MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY TO PROMOTE ITS ACTIVITY AND AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS C ONTE X T, IT IS FO R THE ASSESSEE TO DECIDE THE MANNER IN WHICH IT SHOULD CONDUCT ITS ACTIVITY. MOREOVER, THE VERY NATURE OF THE AC T IV IT Y OF THE ASSESSEE SO C I E TY IS SUCH THAT IT REQUIRES ADVERTISEMENT AND SALES PROMOTION TO MOBILE MORE DEPO S ITS ON ONE HAND A ND MAKE THE PUBLIC AWA R E OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY IT BY PROVIDING LOANS ON THE OTHER. I N THIS PROCESS, IF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALES PROMOTION AND ADV E R T ISEMENT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY , HELPS THE OTHER GROUP CONCERNS, THE SAME IN OUR OPINION, CANNOT B E A GROUND FOR DISALLO W IN G THE EXPENSE S , WHICH OTHERWISE ARE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO PROMOTE ITS OWN ACTIVITY. WE THEREFORE FIND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY TH E ASSES SEE ON COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE, ADVERTISEMENT, SALES PROMOTION AND T R AVELLING W A S ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JU S TIFI E D IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT O F THE SAID EXPENDITURE. THE IMPU G N E D ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ITA NO.182 /HYD/201 2 & OTHERS M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 7 ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS , THEREFORE , UPHELD AND THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVE D IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLO W AN C E OF RS.42,80,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT O F IN T ER ES T PAID ON THE DEPOSITS WHICH W E RE ALLEGEDLY UTILISED BY GIVING LOANS TO OTHER GROUP CONCERNS AT LOWER RATE OF IN T ER E ST. 11. DURIN G TH E COU R SE O F ASSESSMENT P R O C EE D INGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHAR G ED INTEREST AT T H E RATE OF 9% PER ANNUM ON AD V ANCES GIVEN TO THE OTHER GROUP CONCERNS. I N THIS RE G ARD, THE CLAIM AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY W AS THAT IT HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH OTHER GROUP CON C ERNS FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS AND ADVANCES W E RE PAID IN CONNECTION WITH THESE TRANS A CTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HO W EVER FOUN D TH A T THE SO CALLED AGREEMENTS WERE NO T REGISTERED AND THE TRANSFER OF ASSETS HAD ALSO NOT TAKEN PLACE. ACCOR D ING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OUGHT TO H A VE CHARGED INTEREST AT THE MINIMUM RATE O F 12% TO THE OTHER GROUP CONCERNS AS INTEREST AT THAT RATE WAS BEIN G P A ID B Y IT ON THE DEPOSITS MOBILIZED. HE THEREFORE, REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY INTEREST TO TH E EXTENT OF 3% SHOULD NO T B E DISALLOWED. I N REPLY, TH E FOLLO W IN G EXPLANATION W AS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE - IN THE YEAR 2008, SOCI E TY DEC I D ED TO INV E ST IN RE AL ESTATES AND IN THE P R OCE S S GAVE ADVANCES TO THE PROMOTER MEMBERS. IN TH A T PARTICULAR YE A R, THE GROWTH IN REAL ESTATE WAS ABOUT 30% PER ANNUM. THE SO C I E TY EXPECT E D GOOD PROFITS IF THE PROPERTIES WERE TO B E PU R CHA S ED. HO W EVER SUDDENLY DUE TO TELANGANA IS S UE AND ECONOMIC S LOWDOWN, THERE WAS A SUDDEN FALL DOWN OF REAL ESTATE PRICES BY ( - ) 40%. IN THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION IF THE SO C I E TY HAD GONE AHEAD WITH THE RE GI S TRATION, I T WOULD HAVE INCURRED HUGE LOSS. SO, THE SO C I ET Y TACTFULLY, MADE TH E SELLERS AGREE TO PAY 9% INTEREST AND THUS COULD SAVE THE SOCIETY FROM INCURRING LOSS. IT IS WITH UTMOST DIFFICULT Y THAT THE SE L LERS AGREED FOR 9% INTEREST. INTERESTINGLY, EVEN THOUGH THE SO C I E TY COULD GET 9% INTEREST, IT ITA NO.182 /HYD/201 2 & OTHERS M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 8 COULD END UP G ETTING PROFIT FO R THAT PARTICULAR YEAR. SO, THE EXPENDITURE PAID TO DEPOSITORS MAY BE ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NO T FIND FORCE IN THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCOR D ING TO HIM, WHEN TH E TRANS A CTION WAS NO T MATERIALIZED, THE AS SESSEE INSTEAD OF GETTING THE MONEY BACK, ALLOWED THE SAME TO REMAIN WITH THE GROUP CONCERNS. HE ALSO NO T ED THAT THE PLOTS CLAIMED TO BE PU R CHA S ED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS GROUP CONCERNS WERE IN THE PR I ME LOCATION S AND THE ECONOMIC SLOW DOWN HAD A VERY LITTLE IMPACT ON THE INVESTMENT MA D E BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID PLOT. HE ALSO FOUND IT BEYOND COMPREHENSION THA T EVEN AF T ER PAYING 70% OF THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET THE AGREEMENTS REGISTERED. HE , TH E R E FORE , HELD T HAT IT WAS A CASE OF DIVERSION OF FUNDS OF THE SOCIETY TO ITS GROUP CONCERNS IN THE GUISE OF ADVANCES WITH LOW RATE O F IN T ER E ST AND ACCORDINGLY INTER E ST PAID ON DEPOSITS AT HIGHER RATE OF 3% , AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FUN D S DIVERTED , AMOUNTIN G TO RS .42,80, 00 WAS DISALLOWED BY HIM. 12. THE DISALLO W ANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST WAS CHALLENGED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN TH E APPEAL FIL E D BE F ORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND AFTER CON S ID E RIN G THE SUBMI S SION S MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE M A T ERIAL AVAILAB L E ON RECORD, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPHS 13 TO 16 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 13.0 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON RECORD AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. IN ITS STATEMENT OF FACTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN A MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, CHARGING OF INTEREST IS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF RESOLUTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON CASE TO CASE BASIS AND THAT A HUGE LOSS WAS AVERTED BY TREATING THE ADVANCE PAID FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AS A LOAN. IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHILE THE ASSESSEE MAY BE AUTHORIZED IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS BY THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE SOCIETY, THAT IN ITSELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR ALLOWING IT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. WHAT IS RELEVANT FOR ALLOWING THE EXPENSE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT IS WHETHER OR NOT THE EXPENSES HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, ITA NO.182 /HYD/201 2 & OTHERS M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 9 INVESTMENT HAD ADMITTEDLY BEEN MADE IN REAL ESTATE AND ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE PROMOTER MEMBERS TO THE EXTENT OF 70% OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS A DECLINE IN REAL ESTATE PRICES BY 50%. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS SUCH A DECLINE DURING THE F .Y. 2007 - 08 , . WHETHER BECAUSE OF THE TELENGANA AGITATION OR OTHERWISE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT IT WAS WITH UTMOST DIFF IC ULTY THAT THE SELLERS AGREE FOR 9% IN T EREST. WITHOU T ANY E VI DE N C E IN THIS ASSERTION, IT CANNO T B E ACCEPTED AT FACE VALUE, PA RTICULARLY WHEN TH E ASSESSEE WAS H A VIN G DEALING W ITH ITS OWN SISTER CONCERN. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T EVEN SPELT OUT WHAT WAS THE PRESSURE E X ERTED BY ITS S ISTER CON CERN S WHICH FO R CED IT TO AGREE TO P A Y INTEREST. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT IT WOULD H A VE INCURRED HUGE LO S S IF THE SOCIETY HAD GONE AHEAD WITH THE REGISTRATION. THIS AGAIN IS A MERE PRESUMPTION. 14. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT DECIDED TO INVEST IN REAL ESTATE DURING THE YEAR 2008, I.E. THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR . HOWEVER, THE DETAILS OF THE INVESTMENT SHOWS THAT 5 OUT OF THE 7 RELEVANT AGREEMENT WERE ENTERED INTO IN 2006 ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED WHY THE PLOTS RELATING TO THESE AGREEMENTS WERE NOT REGISTERED FOR SO LONG. FURTHER, THE OTHER TWO AGREEM ENTS WERE ENTERED INTO IN JANUARY, 2008, WHEN AS PER THE ASSESSEES OWN VERSION, THE GROWTH IN THE REAL ESTATE SECTOR WAS 30%. THERE IS NEITHER ANY SPECIFIC EXPLANATION NOR ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE SUDDEN CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES BETWEEN JANUARY, 2008 WHEN THE AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO AND MARCH, 2008 WHEN THE FINANCIAL YEAR CLOSED, THAT NECESSITATED THE ASSESSEE TO RENEGOTIATE THE TERMS WITH THE VENDORS OF THE PLOTS. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN BLISSFULLY FUZZY ABOUT THE TIME - FRAME IN WHICH THE RELEVANT EVENTS HAVE TAKEN PLACE; WHEN WAS THE DECISION TO INVEST IN LAND TAKEN, WHEN THE INVESTMENT WAS ACTUALLY MADE, WHEN THE DECISION TO NOT REGISTER THE PLOTS WAS TAKEN, WHEN W E RE THE AGREEMENTS RENEGOTIATED. GOING BY THE ASSESSEES VERSIONS OF EVENTS, IT ALL OCCURRED DURING 2008, I.E. DURING JANU A RY, 2008 TO M ARCH,2008. 15.0 IN IT ST AT EMENT OF FACTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THA T THE ADVANCE WAS TREATED AS A LO A N. THE ISSUE OF INTERESTS FREE ADVANCES, TO SISTER CONCERNS, HAS BEEN EXAMINED IN A NUMBER O F JU DI C I A L DECISION S . IN TH E C ASE OF SA B UILDERS V/S . CIT 288 ITR 1(SC), I T WAS HELD THAT WHAT IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE IS WH E THER THE AMOUN T WAS ADVANCED AS A M A TT E R O F COMMERCIAL EXPEDIEN C Y AND THAT ON C E IT IS ESTABLISHED T HAT THERE WAS NEXUS BETWEEN T HE EXPENDITURE AND THE PU R PO S E O F THE BUSINESS, I T I S ALLO WA BL E AS A REVENUE EXPENSE. 16.0 I N TH E ASSESSEE S CA S E, THE AMOUNT GIVEN TO THE SI S TER CONCERNS WAS INITIALLY A TRADE AD V ANCE, FOR THE PU R C HA SE OF PLO T S. TH E RE WAS APPARENTLY NO OBLIGATION TO PAY INT E R E ST ON IT. AT SOME POINT OF TIME, NOT SPEC I FIED BY THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSEE HAS DECIDED TO PAY INTEREST ON IT. NO COGENT REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR DOING SO. N O COMMERCIAL EXPEDIEN C Y FOR ITS DECISION HAS BEEN ESTABLI S H E D. UNDER THE CIR C UM S TANCE S, I FIND NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES PLEA AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.42,80 , 000 IS UPHELD. ITA NO.182 /HYD/201 2 & OTHERS M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 10 13. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ADVANCE FOR PU R CHA S E OF PROPERTY WAS GI V EN BY TH E ASSESSEE SOCI E TY DURING THE COURSE OF ITS R EGULAR BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND NO IN TE REST ON THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HO WE VER BACKED OUT FROM TH E SAID TRAN S AC T ION S IN ORDER TO AVOID LOSS DUE TO ADVERSE MARKET CONDITIONS AS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ADVANCE AMOUNT P A ID TO THE SELLERS HOWEVER CONTINUED TO REMAIN WITH THEM AND THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY SOMEHOW FORCED THEM TO PAY INTER E ST AT THE RATE OF 9%, DESPITE TH E FACT THAT NO SUCH INTEREST WAS PAYABLE AS PER THE AGREEMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS TH E PROP E RTY DEAL DID NOT FINALLY MATERIALIZE, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY CONVERT E D THE ADVANCE PAID INTO LOAN AS ON 1.4.2008 AND CHARGED INTER EST AT TH E RATE OF 15 TO 16% ON THE SAID LOAN. HE CONTENDED THAT T H E ASSESSEE SO C I E TY , IN TH E SE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , CANNOT B E SAID TO HAVE DIVERTED THE FUN D S TO ITS GROUP CONCERNS AT LOWER RATE AS ALLEGED BY THE AUTHO R I T I E S BELOW AND SIN C E THE TRAN SACTION INVOLV ING PAYMENT O F AD V ANCE WAS ENTERED INTO FROM THE POINT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF IN T ER E ST MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRM E D BY THE CIT(A) IS TOTALLY U NWARRANTED . IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTIONS, H E RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA S E OF SA BUILDERS V/S. CIT(288 ITR 1). 14. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE , ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED T H A T VARIOUS ASP EC TS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE TRANS A C T ION FOR PU R CHA S E OF PROPERTY FROM TH E GROUP CONCERN AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GENUINE AND IT WAS A CL E AR CASE OF DIVERSION OF FUN D S BY THE ASSESSEE SO C I E TY TO THE GROUP CONCERN AT LOWER RATE. HE SUBMITTED THAT INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% WAS B EING PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DEPOSITS OB TAIN ED BY IT, BUT STILL INTER E ST A T THE RATE OF 9% PER ANNUM WAS ONLY CH A RGE D BY TH E ASSESSEE ON THE ADVANCES ITA NO.182 /HYD/201 2 & OTHERS M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 11 GIVEN TO THE GROUP CONCERN IN THE GUI S E ADVANCE FOR PROPERTY TR A NS ACT ION. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSE SSEE SO C IETY IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE WHICH AGAIN GOES TO STRENGTH E N THE C A S E OF THE REVENUE THAT IT IS A CASE OF DIVERSION OF BORROWED FUN D S BY THE ASSESSEE SO C IETY TO ITS GROUP CONCERNS AT LOWER RATE OF IN T ER E ST IN THE GUISE OF PROPE RTY TR A NS A CTIONS. A S REGARDS THE RELIANCE PL A CED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION O F TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF SA BUIL D ERS (SUPRA), H E CONTENDED T HAT THE SAME IS NOT A P PLI C ABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE S CASE AS NEITHER THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY NOR THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS A CTION INVOLV ING PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TO GROUP CONCERN IS ESTABLISHED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. WE HAVE CON S IDERED THE RIVAL SUBMI S SION S AND ALSO P E RUSED THE RELE V ANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY CONT ENDED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, VARIOUS ASPECTS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLE A RLY ESTABLISH THAT THE TRANS A CTION S OF PROPERTY INVOLVING PAY M ENT OF AD V ANCES BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO THE GROUP CONCERNS W ERE NOT GENUINE AND THE FACT THAT THE SAID TR A NS A CTION S W ERE FINALLY CANCELL E D AND THE AMOUNT O F ADVANCE WAS CONVERTED INTO LOAN FULLY SUPPORTS THE CASE MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NO T E TH A T DEALINGS IN PROPERTIES OR MAKING INVESTMENTS IN TH E PRO PE R TIES IS NOT THE ACTIVITY REGULARLY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY, AND ALTHOUGH THE LEARNED C OUN S EL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT FROM THE BYE - LAWS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY THAT ONE OF THE ACTIVITIES ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED ON IN FURTHERANCE OF THE MAIN OBJECTIVE IS TO INVEST ITS RESOURCES INCLUDING SURPLUS FUNDS IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, THE SAME, IN OUR OPINION, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT DEALING IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES OR MAKING INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IS ONE OF THE ACTIVITIES REGULARLY CARRIED ON BY IT, WHEN ALL THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE CONSIDERED IN TOTALITY. A PERUSAL OF THE ANNUAL REPORT PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO DOES NOT SUGGEST OR ITA NO.182 /HYD/201 2 & OTHERS M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 12 INDICATE THAT SUCH ACTIVITY WAS BEING CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE REGULARLY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS RIGHTLY C ONTENDED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY OF TH E TRANSAC T ION OF PROPERTY INVOLVING PAYM E N T O F ADVAN C E BY TH E ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO ITS GROUP CONCERN AS WELL AS GENUINENESS THEREOF, T H US IS NOT E S TABLISHED, AND THIS B E IN G SO, THE RATIO O F THE DECISION OF THE HOBBLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF SA BUILDERS (SUPRA) IS NO T AP P LI C ABLE IN TH E FACTS AND CIR C UM S TANCES OF THE C ASE. HAVING REGARD TO ALL TH E FACTS OF THE C A S E, WE ARE THEREFORE, OF TH E VI E W THAT IT WAS A CASE OF DIVERSION OF BORROWED FUN D S BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO GIVE AD V ANCE TO THE GROUP CONCERNS AT LOWER RATE, AND EXCESS INTER E ST PAID AT THE RATE OF 3% ON THE BORROWED FUNDS UT ILIZED FOR GIVING SUCH ADVANCE WAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I N THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHOLD THE IMPU G N E D ORDER OF THE CIT(A), CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF IN T ER E ST AND DISMISS THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. REVENUES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 16. NOW, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 2011. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN RELATIN G TO DELETION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) OF THE DISALLO W ANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AND BROK E RAGE, A D VER T ISEMENT, SALE PROMOTION AND TRAVELLIN G EXPENSES IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE INVOL V ED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, WHICH HAS BEEN A LREADY DECIDED BY US IN THE FOREGOING PO R TION OF THI S ORDER . FOLLOWING OUR CONCLUSION DRAWN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, WE UPHOLD THE IMPU G N E D ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) , GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE , AND DISMISS THE SE APPEALS OF THE R EVENUE. ITA NO.182 /HYD/201 2 & OTHERS M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 13 ASSESSEE S CROSS OBJECTIONS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 17. AS R EGARDS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 2011, IT IS OB S ERVED THAT T HOUGH THE ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONF I RMED BY TH E LEARNED CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE INVOLVED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, THERE IS A MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE F ACTS AND CIR C UM S TANCES OF THE C A S E AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN AS MUCH AS THE AD V ANCE GIVEN TO THE GROUP CONCERNS WAS CONVERTED BY TH E ASSESSEE SOCIETY INTO LOAN AS ON 1.4.2008 AND INTEREST THEREON WAS CH A RGED AT THE RATES OF 15% AND 16% PER ANNUM FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND 20 10 - 11. ACCOR D ING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , INTEREST WAS THUS CHARGED TO THE GROUP CON C ER N S AT THE RATES HIGHER THAN THE INTER E ST RATE PAID ON TH E DEPOSITS MOBILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE SO C I E TY FROM ITS MEMBERS , A ND THE R E WAS THU S , NO REASON TO MAKE ANY DISALLO W ANCE ON ACCOUNT OF IN T ER E ST. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HOWEVER, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO FIN D ING GIVEN EITHER BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED ON THI S ASPECT,. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THIS MATTER MAY , THEREFORE , BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE . S IN C E THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPU G N E D ORDER S OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIR E CTION TO VERIFY THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE CONVERSION OF ADVANCE AMOUNT INTO LOANS AS ON 1.4.2008 AND INTEREST CHARGED ON SUC H LOAN AT HIGHER RATE OF 15 AND 16% IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 RESP E CTIVELY. IF THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ASPECT IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO D I SA LLO W ANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST SHALL B E REQUIRED TO BE MADE, AS THE IN T EREST CHARGED BY TH E ASSESSEE TO THE GROUP CONCERNS IN SUCH A CASE WOULD BE MORE THAN THE INTEREST PAID ON DEPOSITS TO ITS MEMBERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY OF ITA NO.182 /HYD/201 2 & OTHERS M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 14 H E ARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 18. TO SUM UP, WHILE THE REVENUES APPEALS FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ARE DISMISSED, CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12 TH SEPTEMB E R, 2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) ( P.M.JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/ - 12 TH SEPTEMBER , 2014 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. CHERUKURI MUTUALLY AIDED CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, 6 - 1 - 200/9, PLOT NO.29, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD 2 . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD . 3 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) VI HYDERABAD 4 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX V, HYDERABAD 8 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S