M/S Matrix Vet Pharma (P) Ltd, (Presently know as Cargil Matrix Feeds Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Hyderabad

ITA 1126/HYD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1364 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAGE NDRA PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: MD AFZAL
• Keywords: Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1126/HYD/2007 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2003-2004 M/S MATRIX VET PHARMA (P) LTD., HYDERABAD (AACCM205L) VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 16(2), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MD. AFZAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NAGENDRA PRASAD O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-V DATED 13.9.2007 AND IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR CIT(A) V I S AGAINST THE LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES OF CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) V, HYDERABAD ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHERE IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION FOR I NITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. NO W HERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED EITHER FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE OR FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSE SSING OFFICER WHERE IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED, THAT THE EXPLANAT ION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FALSE AND NOT A BONA FIDE EXPLANATION. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN MIXING THE FACTS OF ASSESSMEN T WITH THAT OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, AND ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHERE IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CULLED OUT ANY FURTHER FACTS, TO ESTABLISH THE MALA FIDE INTENTION AND CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT. 2 5. THE CIT(A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE PENALTY PROCE EDING ARE INDEPENDENT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ESTABLISH SOMETHING MORE, THAN THE FACTS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 6. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT MAKING FURTHER ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTIONS. 7. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE A PPEAL, IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE, THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN TH E MANUFACTURE OF VETNARY FEED SUPPLEMENTS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, IT HAS FILED RETURN OF IN COME SHOWING INCOME OF RS.48,98,495/- THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AFTER MAKING A DDITION OF 4,70,000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY SHOWN I N THE NAME OF FIVE PERSONS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESS EE HAS MERELY FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FOR THE SHARE APPLICATION MONE Y SHOWN AS RECEIVED IN THE NAME OF THE FIVE RESPECTIVE PERSONS. AS THE ASSESS EE HAS FAILED TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS AND PROVE THE CAPACITY OF THE ABOVE FIVE PERSONS, STATED TO BE AG RICULTURALIST THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED THE AMOUNTS SHOWN IN THEIR NAMES AMOUNTING TO RS.4,77,000 TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AC CORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER 271 (1) ( C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALMENT OF THE SAID AMOUNT. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICED ISSUED UNDER 217 (1) ( C) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE SAID PERSONS I N WHOSE NAMES THE DEPOSITS TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WERE HELD TO BE NOT GENUINE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED ARE NOT SUBSTANT IAL AND THOUGH THERE WAS POSSIBILITY OF EXPLAINING THE SAME SUBSTANTIALLY, D UE TO SHORTAGE OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TO THE COMPLETE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE TAKEN TO BE UNPROVED INVESTMENT. CONTENDING THAT THERE WAS NO ELEMENT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS THER EOF, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DROP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 3 2.1 FURTHER, HE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE ABOVE EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE NOTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATI ON LETTERS, IT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS OF PROVING THEIR CAPACITY TO ADV ANCE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HE O BSERVED THAT THE FIVE PERSONS IN QUESTION ARE MEN OF STRAW. HE FURTHER NO TED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS TO ADVANCE MONEY, THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS DEPOSIT TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ARE ASSESSABLE AS INCOME U/S 68 O F THE ACT. RELYING ON THE RATIO OF DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF (A) ITO VS. SKYJE T AVIATION (P) LTD. (243 ITR (AT) 1), (B) VIT VS. KORLAY TRADING CO. LTD. (232 I TR 820), (C ) SHARMA ASSOCIATES VS. ACIT (217 ITR (AT)1), (D) CIT VS. MA HIM (213 ITR 820), (E) B. TEX CORPORATION VS. ITO (202 ITR) 17) AND (F) M.A. UNNEERIKUTTY VS. CIT (198 ITR 147), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS CONCEALED ITS INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,77,000 AND THEREFORE LEVIED P ENALTY OF RS.1,72,725/- U/S 27(1) ( C ) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILE D CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE PARTIES FROM WHOM IT HAS RECEIVED APPLICATION M ONEY AND THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED THE INITIAL BURDEN CAST UPON IT. FURTHE R, ONCE THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY BURDEN CAST UPON IT, THEN IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE CREDITS ARE NOT GENUINE. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS PERSONALLY DUE TO THE INABILITY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE AN Y INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITS NEITHER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT NOR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DID NOT DISPUTE THAT THOSE PERSONS DID NOT EXIST. THOUGH THE ASSES SING OFFICER DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUCE THE PERSONS, HE FAILED TO TAKE THE MINIMUM PAIN OF ISSUING NOTICE TO ANY ONE OF THE PERSONS WHEN TH EIR DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HE SUBMITTED THAT FAILURE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISCHARGE HIS DUTY AND OBLIGATION, TO DISPUTE THE CRIME OF THE ASSESSE E TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DEPOSITORS WERE NOT GENUINE PERSONS CANNOT BE CONST ITUTE AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASER OF CIT VS. GOBI TEXTILES LTD. (294 ITR 663). FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT 4 NOTWITHSTANDING THE FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS WHICH REACHED FINALITY, WHILE DEALING WITH THE PENALTY PROCEEDING S THE MATTER HAS TO BE EXAMINED INDEPENDENTLY AS THE QUESTION OF PENALTY W OULD ARISE ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE EITHER CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR FURNISHED I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY THUMB RULE FOR DETECTION OF THE DEFAULT OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 (1) ( C) OF TH E IT ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY ORDER DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY INDEPENDENT FINDINGS REGARDING THE CONCEALMENT AND IT IS ONLY A REPLICATION OF THE CON TENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND A REFERENCE TO THE ONUS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PR OVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS AND SUBMITTED THAT FINDINGS CONTAIN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DO NOT OPERATE RES-JUDICATA IN A PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS THOUGH THEY WOULD BE RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE MATERIAL, BECAUSE THE CO NSIDERATIONS WHICH ARISE IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FOR THIS PURPOSE, HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF TRIBUNA L, CALCUTTA BENCH IN THE CASE OF EAGEL INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. ACIT (57 ITD 512). FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED, SAME DOES NOT IPSO FACTO ATTRACT PENALTY PROVISION AND BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH CONCEALM ENT OF INCOME IS ON REVENUE, ON FAILURE BY IT TO PROVE CONCEALMENT ON P ART OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY IOTA OF DOUBT PENALTY WAS, THEREFORE, TO BE DELETED . THOUGH THE SUPREME COURT HELD IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS. DHARMENDRA T EXTILE PROCESSORS (295 ITR 244) THAT THE PENALTY PROVISION IS CIVIL LIABILITY AND WILLFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT HOWEVER, ONUS TO PROVE THAT TH ERE WAS A CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WITH A VIEW TO AVOID THE TAX, IS ON DEPARTME NT. THEREFORE, FOR ATTRACTING PENALTY PROVISION, A STRICT PROOF IS REQ UIRED AND ONUS TO PROVE THE SAME IS ON DEPARTMENT. SINCE DEPARTMENT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE SAME AND DISCHARGE ITS ONUS ULTIMATELY, PENALTY IMPOSED BY D EPARTMENT WAS NOT WARRANTED AND JUSTIFIED IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHARE HOLDERS, WHOSE DETAILS ARE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FEE TO PROCEED AGAI NST THE ILLEGAL APPLICANTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND FOR THIS PURPOSE HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD. (216 CTR 195). 5 4. ON THE OTHER THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT, 1961, THE ITO HAS JURISDICTION TO MAKE ENQUIRIES WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF A SUM CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS IMMATERIAL AS TO WHETHER THE AMOUNT SO CREDITED IS GIVEN THE COLOUR OF A LOAN OR A SUM REP RESENTING SALE PROCEEDS OR EVEN RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THE USE OF THE WORDS ANY SUM FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS IN SECTION 68 INDICATES THAT THE SECTION IS VERY WIDELY WORDED AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM MAKING AN ENQUIRY AS TO THE TRUE NATURE AND SOURCE OF A SUM CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS EVEN IF IT IS CREDITED AS RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CHOOSES TO SHOW THE RECEIPT OF THE MONEY AS CAPITAL DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM GOING INTO THE QUESTION WHETHER THIS IS ACTUALLY SO. WHERE, THEREFORE, AN ASSESSEE COMPANY REPRESENTS THAT IT HAD ISSUED SHARES ON THE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION M ONEY THEN THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED WOULD BE CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE ENTITLED, AND IT WOULD I NDEED BE HIS DUTY TO ENQUIRY WHETHER THE ALLEGED SHAREHOLDERS DO IN FACT EXIST O R NOT. IF THE SHAREHOLDERS EXIST THEN, POSSIBLY NO FURTHER ENQUIRY NEED BE MAD E. BUT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS THAT THE ALLEGED SHAREHOLDERS DO NOT EXIST, THEN, IN EFFECT, IT WOULD MEAN THAT THERE IS NO VALID ISSUANCE OF SHARE CAPIT AL. SHARES CANNOT BE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF NON EXISTING PERSONS. THE USE OF TH E WORDS MAY BE CHARGED IN SECTION 68 CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WOULD THEN HAVE THE JURISDICTION, IF THE FACTS SO WARRANT, TO TREAT SUC H A CREDIT TO BE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT (FULL BENCH) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOPHIA FINANCE LIMITED (205 ITR 98) . 5. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CREDIT SATISFACTORILY. THERE WAS A PRESU MPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME. THOUGH THE PRESUMPTION WAS A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION, THAT THERE WAS A CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND IF THERE WAS COGENT MATERIAL TO REBUT THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE, THEN THE PR ESUMPTION WOULD NOT STAND. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN IN THE F ORM OF CONFIRMATION LETTER WAS NOT CONVINCING AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO P ROVE THE CREDIT SHARE 6 APPLICATION MONEY AS IT IS RECEIVED FROM GENUINE AP PLICANTS. HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS GUILTY OF CONCEALED THE INCOME AND THE PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY LEVIED. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JEEVANLAL SHAW (205 ITR 244). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, PENALTY U/S 271 (1) ( C ) LEVIED ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN IDENTITY OF PARITIES , CAPACITY OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS REGARDING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY R ECEIVED FROM 5 PARTIES AT RS.4,70,000/-. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT IN THE C OURSE ASSESSMENT, ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THESE PARTIES NA MELY (1) SHRI VENKATA RAMANA REDDY RS.15000/- (2) SMT. JAKKAMA REDDY ARUN A RS.1,50,000/- (3) SMT. JAKKAMA REDDY RATNAMMA RS.80,000/- (4) SMT. KO NDURE VENKATA RAMANAMMA RS.1,85,000/- (5) SHRI GAJENDRA KUMAR RS.40,000/-. DUE TO SHORTAGE OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE TH E PARTIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN AFTER HAVING THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES, HE OPTED NOT TO ISSUE ANY SUMMONS REQUIRIN G THE PARTIES TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MOSTLY RELIED ON THE HIS FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271 (1) ( C ) OF THE IT ACT. THOUGH PENALTY PROVISION IS CIVIL LIABILITY AND WILLFUL CO NCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING THIS LIABILITY, BUT STILL THE PENALTY PROVISIONS REQUIRES A STRICT ADHERENCE AND ONUS TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS A CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WITH A VIEW TO AVOID THE TAX, IS ON THE DEPARTMENT . THE PENALTY IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC BUT THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO ESTABLISH A FOO LPROOF CASE OF ATTRACTING THE PENALTY. MERELY BECAUSE THE ADDITION IS REACHE D FINALITY THAT ITSELF DOES NOT ATTRACTS PENALTY PROVISIONS. IN THE PENALTY PROCEE DINGS, THE WHOLE MATTER HAS TO BE SEEN IN A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFERRED BY THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES. IN T HE PRESENT CASE, THOUGH IMPUGNED THE ADDITION IS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THAT ADDITION, THAT ITSELF CANNOT BE DEEMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULAR S INCOME. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY INDEPENDENT INQUIRY AND NOT BROUGHT ON ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE CREDITS WERE BOGUS. O NCE THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER 7 COULD HAVE SUMMONED THE PARTIES AND EXAMINED THEM A ND SHOULD HAVE FOUND OUT WHETHER THE ALLEGED SHAREHOLDERS ACTUALLY EXIST ED OR NOT. IF THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE IDENTIFIED AND IT IS ESTABLISHED T HAT THEY HAVE INVESTED MONEY IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IT IS TO BE TREATED AS GENU INE CREDIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CARRYING OUT THIS TASK, HE CANNOT A UTOMATICALLY SAY THAT THEIR CREDITS ARE BOGUS AND LEVY PENALTY U/S 271 (1) ( C ) OF THE IT ACT. AS ARGUED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DID NOT TAKE MINIMUM PAIN OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT T O THE CREDITORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINATION OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE TR ANSACTION WHEN THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PARITIES ARE AVAILABLE ON RECOR D WITH HIM AND WITHOUT CARRYING OUT THE REQUISITE ENQUIRY HE CANNOT COME T O THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CREDITORS ARE BOGUS AND LEVY PENALTY. IN OUR OPINI ON, THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED BY ASSESSEE COUNSEL ARE SUPPORTING THE OUR F INDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE INCLINED TO DELETE THE PENALTY. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON: 20 .11. 2009. SD/- SD/- N.R.S. GANESAN CHANDRA POOJARI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT/- 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S MATRIX VET PHARMA (P) LTD. (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS CARGILL MATRIX FEEDS (P) LTD., 101, ASHOK KUTIR APARTMENTS, 6 -3- 668/10/63, DURGANAGAR COLONY, PUNJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD. 2 ACIT, CIRCLE 16(2), HYDERABAD 3. 4 CIT(A)- V, HYDERABAD CIT, HYDERABAD. 4. THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD. NP/