Shri Mir Mazharuddin, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

ITA 1183/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1471 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M RAVINDER SAI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Business income; Depreciation; Search and seizure; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record
• Section: 153A; 68; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, APPE LLANT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD VS. MIR MAZHARUDDIN, RESPONDENT HYDERABAD (PAN ADYPM 1436 O) ITA NOS. 1183 TO 1188/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04 TO 2008-09 MIR MAZHARUDDIN, APPELLANT HYDERABAD (PAN ADYPM 1436 O) VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RESPOND ENT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD REVENUE BY : SHRI M. RAVINDER SAI ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MOHD. AFZAL DATE OF HEARING : 05/12/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/01/2 013 ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M.: THESE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 BEING ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/HYD/2012 AND THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 2 YEARS 2003-04 TO 2008-09 BEING ITA NOS. 1183 TO 1188/HYD/2012 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER O F CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD, DATED 31/05/2012. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THEY WERE CLU BBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND THEREFORE A CONSOLIDATED ORDER I S PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/HYD/2012 APPEALS OF REVENUE 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF HYDERABAD HOUSE PVT. LTD. HE IS ALSO HAVING HIS OWN CATERING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAM E AND STYLE OF MBA CATERING SERVICES. SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS U/S 132 OF THE ACT WERE CONDUCTED ON 12/ 12/2007 IN THE CASE OF HYDERABAD HOUSE PVT. LTD. AND AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WE RE FOUND AND SEIZED AND STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED FROM THE AS SESSEE AND HIS STAFF. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 153A WAS I SSUED AND THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09. BASED ON THE EVIDENCES FO UND, THE AO MADE SEVERAL ADDITIONS. THE DETAILS OF YEAR- WISE INCOME ADMITTED IN THE RETURNS AND THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED BY THE AO ARE AS FOLLOWS:- A.Y RETURNED INCOME ASSESSED INCOME 2002-03 3,21,150 13,23,810 2003-04 4,40,886 28,68,510 2004-05 3,61,721 29,23,266 2005-06 3,41,473 2,04,82,853 2006-07 15,59,508 3,88,66,761 2007-08 30,71,736 2,21,16,055 2008-09 24,74,399 2,74,25,799 ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 3 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ACTION OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITU RE ON ACCOUNT OF DUPLICATION MADE BY THE AO FOR THE AYS 2 002-03 TO 2005-06. 5. BRIEFLY THE FACTS RELATING TO RAISE THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PROPRIETOR OF MBA CATERING SERVICES DOING OUTDOOR CATERING SERVICES AND SUPPLY OF FOOD TO THE VST EMPLOYEES. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 132, ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THE KITCHEN FACILITIES OF HYDERABAD HOUSE PVT. LTD. WAS UTILIZE D BY MBA CATERING SERVICING AND THAT MBA CATERING SERVICES I S NOT HAVING SEPARATE KITCHEN. FOR THIS REASON, THE AO FE LT THAT THERE WERE DUPLICATION OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE BUSINESS OF MBA CATERING SERVICES A ND FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 002-03, HE DISALLOWED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE. THE AO DISALLOWE D THE PAYMENTS OF ELECTRICITY METERS IN THE NAME OF THE A SSESSEE, RENT PAID FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, ETC. AND THE E NTIRE EXPENDITURE ON DIFFERENT HEADS WERE DISALLOWED PURE LY BASED ON THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASS ESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE A SSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON OUTDOOR CATERING SERVICES, INCURRIN G OF EXPENDITURE NECESSITATED. THE AO ALSO DISALLOWED TH E ENTIRE DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 4 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN AP PEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A). 7. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT THE AO MERELY FOLLOWED THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY ONE OF THE EMPLOYEE WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND H AD MADE AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE S. HE, THEREFORE, PLEADED FOR DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANC ES MADE. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E, THE CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 5.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. VARIOUS LEDGER EXTRAC TS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDIT URE CLAIMED WERE PERUSED AND THE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEADS ELECTRICITY, RENT DIESEL CHARGES, TELEPHONE E TC. WERE FOUND TO BE CHEQUE PAYMENTS. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE SAME EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED TWICE ON CE IN THE CASE OF HYDERABAD HOUSE PVT. LTD. AND FOR TH E SECOND TIME IN THE CASE OF MIR MAZHARUDDIN, THE APPELLANT. THE STATEMENT OF SRI AFTAB PASHA EXTRACT ED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ALSO EXAMINED. AS SEEN THEREFROM, SRI AFTAB PASHA HAD ALSO STATED THAT FOR LARGE CATERING ORDERS, THE FOOD ITEMS ARE PREPARED AT THE SITE AND NOT AT THE KITCHEN AT TOLICHOWKI. RAW MATERIALS WERE PURCHASED BY APPELLANT ONLY. APART F ROM THE SAME, THE AO COULD NOT BRING IN ANY MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE SAME EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED IN TH E CASE OF HYDERABAD HOUSE PVT LTD. TO SUPPORT HIS FIN DING OF DOUBLE CLAIM OF EXPENSES. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURNS OF INCOME DISCLOSING THE BUSINESS PROFITS ON CATERING SERVICES AND CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPENSES. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT NO EVIDENC E EXCEPT THE STATEMENT OF THE MANAGER WAS FORTHCOMING ON THIS ISSUE AT THE TIME OF ACTION U/S 132. CONSID ERING TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES I AM OF THE OPINION T HAT THE EXPENSES DISALLOWED BY THE AO ARE GENUINELY ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 5 INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS OF MBA CATERING SERVICES AND AS SUCH THE FINDING OF CLAIM OF DUPLICATION OF EXP ENSES IS NOT PROPERLY SUPPORTED. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIR ECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER THIS HEAD RS. 4,13,197/- FOR THE AY 2002-03, RS. 4,20,029/- FOR A Y 2003-04, RS. 6,21,397/- FOR THE AY 2004-05, AND RS. 7,88,825/- FOR THE AY 2005-06. 9. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES , PERUSED THE RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE ARE IN CONFIRMITY WITH THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) AS THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERI AL TO SUGGEST THAT THE SAME EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED IN TH E CASE OF HYDERABAD HOUSE PVT. LTD. TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE DOUBLE CLAIM OF EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND HAS DISCLOSED PROFIT ON CATERING SERVICES AFTER CLAIMING VARIOUS EXPENSES. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MBA CATERING SERVICES AND THERE IS NO DUPLICATION OF THE EXPENSES IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) ON THIS COUNT AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN AY 2002-03 TO 2005-06. 11. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GROUND IS RAISED BY THE REVE NUE IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE AS FOLLOWS:- THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE ADD ITION TO 8% MADE TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN T HE ABSENCE OF VOUCHERS. ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 6 12. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED A GROUND IN ALL THE YE ARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AS FOLLOWS: THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIF IED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES @ 8%. 13. THE AO DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES ON THE GROUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHER S FOR MOST OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AND FOR THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPENSES INCURRED. THE AO MADE ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ON ACC OUNT VARIOUS EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO YEAR-WISE ARE AS UNDER:- ASSESSMENT YEAR TYPE EXPENDITURE % OF DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT TOTAL 2002-03 DIRECT INDIRECT 2370344 699087 15% 10% 355552 69909 425461 2003-04 DIRECT INDIRECT 2087110 665091 15% 10% 313067 66628 379576 2004-05 DIRECT INDIRECT 2510855 476500 15% 10% 376628 47650 424278 2005-06 DIRECT INDIRECT 1472705 574182 15% 10% 220906 57418 278324 2006-07 DIRECT & INDIRECT 3392561 15% 508884 508884 2007-08 DIRECT & INDIRECT 5526172 10% 552617 552617 2008-09 DIRECT & INDIRECT 4947348 10% 494735 494735 14. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGU ED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY FILING INCOME-TAX RETURNS AND ACCORDINGLY FILED RETURNS OF INCOME FOR ALL THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS UNDER DISPUTE AND DISCLOSED THE FACT OF EXPEN SES IN THOSE RETURNS AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THESE EXPENSES FOR THE AO TO RESORT TO SUCH DISA LLOWANCE. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF EXP ENSES INCURRED IN CASH AND THROUGH CHEQUE PAYMENTS. HE AL SO ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 7 RAISED A GROUND THAT WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS GENERAL DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISION IN SUP PORT OF HIS ABOVE CLAIM I) LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. DCIT, 119 TTJ 214, II) DCIT VS. PLATINA PROPERTIES PROJECTS LTD., ITA NO. 1622; 573 TO 576/H/08, ITAT, HYD. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT IN THE CASE OF HYDERABAD HO USE PVT. LTD., IN ITA NOS. 727 TO 729/H/10, EXAMINED THE SIM ILAR ISSUE AT LENGTH WHEREIN THE HONBLE ITAT GAVE CLEAR FINDINGS IN THE MATTER OF DECIDING THE ISSUE. HE HAD FILED A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER OF ITAT. 15. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE, THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MR. AN WARUDDIN, DIRECTED THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 8% OF THE CASH EXPENSES CLAIMED AND ALLOW THE BALANCE OF EXPE NDITURE FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. 16. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVEN UE IS IN APPEALS BEFORE US RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO 8 % AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 8%. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF IT AT, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF HYDERABAD HOUSE PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 727/HYD/2010 AND OTHERS ORDER DATED 29/02/2012 WHEREIN VIDE PARAS 35 & 36, THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UN DER:- ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 8 35. WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE DEBI TED TO PROFIT AND LOSS A/C THE AO HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE PREMISE THAT THERE IS A CHANCE OF INFLATION OF EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD PRODUCTION EXPENDITURE, EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITT ED THAT MAJORITY OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED THROU GH BANKING CHANNEL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN SUPPORT O F THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED A DATA FOR ONE ASST. YEAR 2 007- 08 SEGREGATING THE PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH CASH. DURING THE COURSE OF FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE HAVE FILED DETAILS SEGREGATING THE EXPENSES. AS PER THE SAID DETAILS OF PRODUCTION EXPENSES, ONLY PARTIAL PAYMEN T IS BY CASH AND THE BALANCE IS BY CHEQUES. SIMILARLY, F OR THE EMPLOYEES BENEFITS LESS DIRECTOR'S REMUNERATION PARTIAL PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CHEQUE TOWARDS PF AND ESI CONTRIBUTION AND BALANCE PAID BY WAY OF SALARIE S COVERED BY PF AND ESI. AS REGARDS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LESS SALES TAX AMOUNTING TO A PORTION INCL UDES STATUTORY PAYMENTS LIKE ELECTRICITY CHARGES, PROPER TY TAX, FOOD LICENCE, LABOUR LICENCE, TRADE LICENCE ET C. THIS APART PAYMENT OF FRANCHISE COMMISSION, SALES TAX APPEAL ETC. WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY CHEQUE S. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON PAYMENT OF RENT , FRANCHISE COMMISSION AND SECURITY SERVICES, IN FACT TDS WAS ALSO DEDUCTED. 36. THE AO HIMSELF HAS OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN A BREAK UP OF PRODUCTION EXPENDITURE DIVIDING INTO PURCHASE OF RA W MATERIALS AND PACKING MATERIAL. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY EACH AND EVERY BILL AND VOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF THE PRODUCTION EXPENDITURE. THEREAFTER, HE MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF 15% OF THE PRODUCTION EXPENDITURE PRESUMING THAT THERE IS ALWA YS A CHANCE OF INFLATION OF EXPENDITURE UNDER THIS HEA D. THE AO HAS NOT PINPOINTED ANY SPECIFIC ITEM WHERE THERE HAS BEEN INFLATION OF EXPENDITURE. NEITHER AN Y INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RELATING TO INFLATION OF ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 9 EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN FOUND AND DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, IN MY VIEW, A FLAT DISALLOWANCE OF 15% ON THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE IS UNWARRANTED. IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS, THE MAJORITY OF THE PRODUCTION EXPENDITURE RELATES TO PURCHASE OF PROVISION, FIRE, BREAD, VEGETABLE, MUTTON, CHICKEN, FISH ETC WHICH ARE PROCURED FROM THE OPEN MARKET FROM UNORGANIZED SECTOR. THERE IS ALL LIKELIHOOD OF PAYM ENT OF CASH DUE TO INSISTENCE OF THE SELLER FOR SUCH PROCUREMENT. AT THE SAME TIME, IT ALSO CANNOT BE RU LED BE CERTAIN INFLATION OF EXPENDITURE ESPECIALLY WHER E THE PAYMENT IS CASH. CONSIDERING THE LINE OF BUSINESS, AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT NO SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF INFLATION OF EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, DISALLOWANCE OF 15% FLAT IS ON HIGHER SIDE AND EVEN SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) THE SAID DISALLOWANCE AT 7% ON THE CASH EXPENDITURES IS ALSO HIGHER SIDE. 18. THE TRIBUNAL FINALLY CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- IN OUR OPINION, THE DISALLOWANCE AT 5% OF CASH EXPENSES OTHER THAN STATUTORY PAYMENTS AND PAYMENTS TO GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AND THE AMOUNT SUBJECTED TO TDS IS SUFFICIENT IN VIEW OF THE DISCREPANCIES NOTI CED BY THE AUTHORITIES. FOR THIS PURPOSE WE PLACE RELIANCE ON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S GSP INFRAT ECH DEVELOPMENT LTD., HYDERABAD IN ITA NOS. 1396/HYD/2011 AND OTHERS VIDE ORDER DATED 27TH DECEMBER, 2011 WHEREIN WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE AT 5% OF SUCH EXPENSES BY HOLDING AS FOLLOWS IN PARA-9 :- 'WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS A SUBCONTRACTOR. ASSESSEE IS ENGAGING LABOUR AT SITE AT FAR FLUNG PLACES. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO HAVE DOCUMENTS FOR SUCH EXPENDITURE, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO DIFFICULT TO VERIFY THE IDENTITY OF THE LABOUR , AFTER LAPSE OF MANY YEARS. THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN AUDITED AND AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 44AB HAS ALSO BEEN ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 10 FURNISHED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ANALYSED THE EXPENSES COMPARED TO THE TURNOVER FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. A SEARCH HAS BEEN MADE IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN FOUND. ONLY AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MADE. HOWEVER, FROM THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT FULL DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY DOCUMENTED. HENCE, THE POSSIBILITY OF SOME INFLATION OF SUCH EXPENSES CANNOT BE RULED OUT. CONSIDERING TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT DISALLOWANCE OF 5% OF LABOUR AND SITE EXPENSES ARE REASONABLE.' 19. SINCE THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS IDENTICA L TO THAT OF M/S HYDERABAD HOUSE PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE SAME , WE DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT T HE DISALLOWANCE TO 5% OF CASH PAYMENTS. 20. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE AD DITION MADE TOWARDS AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE AYS 2002-0 3 TO 2005-06. 21. THE AO MADE THIS ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT NO AGRICULTURE LANDS WERE RECORDED IN THE BALANCE SHEE T AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. HE ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE CL AIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: 2002-03 RS. 1,64,000/- 2003-04 RS. 1,68,000/- 2004-05 RS. 1,83,000/- 2005-06 RS. 1,94,000/- ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 11 22. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE AR OF THE ASSE SSEE ARGUED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDIN GS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO AND HE REFERRED TO PAGES 3 TO 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS A REPLY TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTIC E ISSUED BY THE AO. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE DETAILS OF TH E LAND HOLDINGS ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT NUMBERS WERE FURNI SHED BEFORE THE AO; AND THAT THEY HAVE ALSO OFFERED CAPI TAL GAINS TO TAX ON SALE OF AGRICULTURE LANDS IN THE FY 2005- 06, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE FACT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN TH E ORIGINAL RETURNS AND NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH PARTICULARLY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL ABOUT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE, THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT EXAMINING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. HE ARGUED THAT WITHOU T ANY REFERENCE TO SEIZED MATERIAL, SUCH TYPE OF ADDITION S IS NOT CALLED FOR. 23. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THIS SORT OF ADDITION CANNOT BE MA DE IN ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 153A WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE SEIZED MATERIAL. HE FURTHER HELD THAT IT IS ALS O NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL IF ANY SUGG ESTED INFLATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE, THEREFORE, CO NCLUDED THAT SUCH TYPE OF ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE AS SESSMENT U/S 153A DEHORSE THE MATERIAL FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND MOREOVER, IN THE AY 2006-07, SALE PROCEEDS OF T HE AGRICULTURAL LAND WERE DISCLOSED AND OFFERED TO CAP ITAL GAINS ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 12 WHICH CLEARLY SUGGESTED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF AGRIC ULTURAL LAND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVA NT YEARS UNDER REFERENCE. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TH E AO TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THIS GROUND FOR THE AY S. 2002- 03, 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2005-06. 24. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 25. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT AGRICULTURAL INC OME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 -07 THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SOLD AND WAS OFFERED TO C APITAL GAINS, WHICH PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING AGRICULTURAL LAND TILL THE DATE OF SALE. 26. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSING THE R ECORD, AND AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL LAN D HOLDING AND DOCUMENT NOS. AND RELEVANT RECORDS, WE FIND THA T THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) A ND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS RE GARD. 27. THE REVENUE RAISED COMMON GROUNDS AS GROUND NO. 5 & 6 IN AY 2002-03 TO 2005-06, WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 5. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION STATING THAT THERE WAS NO FINDING OF THE AO THAT HI S DECISION WAS BASED ON ANY MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COU RSE OF ACTION U/S 132(1) SINCE THE INSERTION OF SECTION 158BI OF THE IT ACT, THE AO CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERA TION THE MATERIAL OTHER THAN WHAT WAS AVAILABLE DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION. ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 13 6. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING INCOME U/S 153A/153C OF THE ACT, THE AO I S REQUIRED TO CONFINE HIMSELF ONLY TO THE MATERIAL FO UND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION IS CONTRARY T O THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF AHURA HOLDINGS VS. DCIT, CC-2, HYDERABAD, DTD. MAY 11, 2012. 28. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING AS F OLLOWS: THAT HE HAS CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THIS SORT OF ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 153A WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE SEIZED MATERIAL. HE FURTHER HELD THAT IT IS ALSO NO T THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL IF ANY SUGGESTED INFLATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED THAT SUCH TYPE OF ADDITION CAN NOT BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A DEHORSE THE MATERIAL FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. 29. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE LEARNED DR STRONGLY REL IED ON DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF AHURA HOLDINGS VS. DCIT, CC-2, HYDERABAD DATED MAY 11, 20 12 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 153A/153C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN TAK E INTO CONSIDERATION MATERIAL OTHER THAN WHAT WAS AVAILABL E DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION FOR MAKING AN ASSE SSMENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 30. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT TH E CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN TREATING THE INCOME AS AGRICULTURAL IN COME AND NOT THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED A LETTER DATED 24/11/2009 EXPLAINING THAT THE OWNER SHIP OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 1986 & 87 VIDE 1005/96 AND 745/96. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 14 SUBSTANTIATED THE FACT OF HOLDING AGRICULTURAL LAN D BY WAY OF PROPER EVIDENCE AND THE REQUIREMENT OF MATERIAL FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION OR OTHER THAN WHAT WAS AVAILABLE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION IS NOT OF ANY RELEVANCE. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL IF ANY SUGGESTED INFLAT ION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HENCE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 RAISED IN AY 2002-03 TO 2005-06 ARE DISMISSED. 31. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ASSES SEES APPEALS(ITA NO. 1183 TO 1188/HYD/2012):- 32. GROUND NO. 1 THAT THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED I N SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES @ 8% RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN DECIDED IN REVENUE APPEALS VIDE PARA 19 (SUPRA). SINCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CON SIDERATION HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS GROUND NO.1 IN IT A NO. 1183 TO 1188/HYD/2012, BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 33. GROUND NO. 2 THAT THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE HELD T HAT EVEN ON MERITS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTU RAL INCOME CANNOT BE SUSTAINED, RAISED IN AYS. 2003-04 TO 2005- 06 HAS BEEN DECIDED IN REVENUE APPEALS VIDE PARAS 2 0 TO 26 (SUPRA) WHEREIN WE HAVE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE CI T(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THUS, THIS GR OUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 34. THE FOLLOWING GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION: ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 15 THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIF IED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT IGNORI NG THE FACT THAT THE LOANS WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNE LS. 35. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CERTAIN UNSECURED LOANS. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER S AND OTHER DETAILS IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE CREDITORS A ND IN RESPECT OF OTHER CREDITORS THE INFORMATION FILED WA S EITHER INCOMPLETE OR NO INFORMATION IS FILED AT ALL. WHERE VER THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE INFORMATION TO HIS SATISFACT ION, THE AO HELD SOME OF THE CREDITS AS GENUINE AND IN RESPECT OF OTHER CREDITS HE HAS TREATED THEM AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 36. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DISCUSSED THE ISSUE FOR E ACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IN HIS ORDER. HOWEVER, ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM WAS ADMITTED AND REMANDED TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS AND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR IN THIS REGARD. THE AO AFTER EXAMINING THE ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED HIS REPORT AND EXPRESSED HIS SATISFACTION FOR SOME OF THE CREDITS AND STATED THA T THE SAME MAY BE CONSIDERED FAVOURABLY. THE REMAND REPORT WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE FOR PERUSAL AND HIS COMMENTS. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THOSE CREDITS RECOMMENDED BY THE AO ARE TO BE HELD AS GENUINE, AND THE ADDITION MADE A GAINST THEM U/S 68 SHOULD BE DELETED. AFTER CONSIDERING TH E REMAND REPORT AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 8.3 I HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE, THE REMAND REPORT AN D THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THEREON. AS REPORT ED ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 16 BY THE AO, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05 THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY CONFIRMATIO N AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCES TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS OBTAINED, THE ADDITIONS SO MADE OF RS. 14,60,000/- FOR AY 2003-04 AND RS. 5,82,870/- FOR A Y 2004-05 FOR THE CASH CREDITS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. SOME OF THE CREDITS ARE OBTAINED FROM NON-RESIDENTS STAYING ABROAD. THEREFORE, THEIR IDENTITY ALSO HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS SO MADE FOR T HE AYS. 2003-04 OF RS. 14,60,000/- AND RS. 5,82,870/- FOR AY 2004-05 IS CONFIRMED. 37. FOR AY 2005-06, THE AO HAD MADE TWO ADDITIONS U NDER UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS RS. 32,32,000/- AND RS. 1,42,79,929/- AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS APPEARING UNDE R M/S EXCELLENCE ESTATES. THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1,75 ,11,929/- REPRESENTED CASH CREDITS RECEIVED FROM 22 PARTIES. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE AO RECOMMENDED FAVOURABLY IN RESP ECT OF 9 CREDITORS AFTER EXAMINING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN RESP ECT OF BALANCE 13 CREDITORS IN THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT A ND REASONABLE EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE, THE AO HELD THESE CREDITS WERE BOGUS AND UNEXPLAINED. THE CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS:- THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW A SUM OF RS. 1,05,72,83 3/- AS EXPLAINED CREDITS AND THE SAME SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WHILE DOING SO, ANY AMOUNT CLAIMED AS INTEREST ON THESE LOANS SHOUL D BE DEDUCTED AS THE SAME IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE ALLOW ED AS DEDUCTION DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE LOANS ARE OBTAINED FOR ACQUIRING ASSETS BUT NOT FOR UTILIZING THE SAME FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. 38. IN RESPECT OF AY 2006-07, THE CIT(A) CONCURRIN G WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE AO, HELD THAT THE ADDITI ON IN SO ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 17 FAR AS SUM OF RS. 52,18,369/- IS SUSTAINED AND THE BALANCE OF RS. 2,14,30,000/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. WHI LE DOING SO, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DISALLOW ANY CLAIM OF THE INTEREST ON ALL THE LOANS IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE LOANS ARE NOT MEANT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. 39. IN RESPECT OF AY 2007-08, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IS SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,10,01,749/- AND TH E BALANCE OF RS. 62,20,000/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND WH ILE RECOMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, ANY C LAIM UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST ON THE LOANS IS TO BE DISAL LOWED AS THE SAME ARE NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINE SS. 40. IN RESPECT OF AY 2008-09, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IS SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 89,10,000/- AND THE BALANCE OF RS. 43,00,000/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND WH ILE RECOMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, ANY C LAIM UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST ON THE LOANS IS TO BE DISAL LOWED AS THE SAME ARE NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINE SS. 41. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 42. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE INCOME IS ESTIMATE THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION WHATSOEVER. FOR THIS PURPOSE, HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF INDW ELL CONSTRUCTIONS (232 ITR 776) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THA T WHERE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REJECTED BY THE REVENUE CANNOT RELY ON THE SAME BOOKS FOR ADDITION OF EXACT ITEM IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS A/C. ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 18 43. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 44. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION U /S 68 IS THAT NO ADDITION MUST BE MADE AS INCOME IS ESTIMATE D. WE FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ESTIMATED. THE INCOME IS DETERMINED AFTER CO NSIDERING THE RETURNED INCOME AND MAKING FURTHER DISALLOWANCE FOR DISCREPANCIES IN VOUCHER/BILLS PRODUCED BY THE ASSE SSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE, WHEN INCOME IS ESTIMATED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, ADDITION U/S 68 IS POSSIBLE. FOR THIS PURP OSE, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MADURI RAJAIAHGARI KIS TAIAH, 120 ITR 294 IS IN SUPPORT OF THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. FURTHER, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEVI PRASAD VISWANATH PRASAD, 72 ITR 194 HELD THAT ON RE JECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WHEN BUSINESS INCOME IS ESTIMA TED, EVEN THEN ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT CAN B E SEPARATELY VALUED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NO T EXAMINED THE ISSUE RELATING TO SECTION 68 IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE. THEREFORE, WE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND THE A SSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT. 45. IN AY 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUND OF APPEAL:- THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 35,65,240/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN ITA NOS. 1153 TO 1159/H/2012 &1183 TO 1188/H/2012 SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN 19 JEWELRY IGNORING THE BALANCE SHEET FILED AND PARTY TAKEN IN THE CONSIDERATION BY THE AO. 46. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THIS GROUND OF APP EAL, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 47. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED AND THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH JANUARY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: JANUARY, 2013. KV COPY TO:- 1) SHRI MIR MAZHARUDDIN, 6-1-628, KHAIRTABAD HYDERABAD. 2) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD 4) THE CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD.