Asst.CIT., Circle-7(1), Hyderabad V. Shri Aditya Goel, Hyderabad

ITA 1375/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7721 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G APARNA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: N LAXMINIWAS SHARMA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Business income; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 40A(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1375/HYD/2014 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ITA NO.1376/HYD/2014 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(4), HYDERABAD V/S. SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD ( PAN - AGKPG F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A ND ITA NO.1399/HYD/2014 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ITA NO.1400/HYD/2014 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD ( PAN - AGKPG F) V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(4), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI N. LAXMINIWAS SHARMA DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. G.APARNA RAO DR DATE OF HEARING 03 . 12 .2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 0 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 4 O R D E R PER P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE FOUR APPEALS TWO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TWO FILED BY THE REVENUE - ARE CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED THEREIN ARE COMMON AND INTERLINKED, THE SAME HAVE BEEN H E ARD TOGETH E R AND ARE BEIN G DISPOSED OF BY A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED O R DER FOR THE SAKE O F CONVENIENCE. I TA NO. 1375/HYD/2014& THREE ORS SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD 2 CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 2. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE O R DER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A) VI , HYDERABAD DATED 15.4.2014. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CA S E GIVI NG RISE TO TH E SE APPEALS ARE AS FOLLOWS . THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PR E SEN T CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO IS ENG AG E D IN THE BU S IN E SS OF TRADING IN STEEL UN D ER THE NAME AND S TYLE OF H IS PROPRIETARY CONCERN, M /S. VRINDAVAN STEELS. TH E RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007 - 08 WAS FILED BY HIM ON 5.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME O F RS .14,68,795. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINALLY COMPLETED UNDER S.143(3) BY THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2009, THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AC C EPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SAID ASSESSMENT WAS SET ASI D E BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VI, HYDERABAD VIDE ORDER DATED 21.3.2012 PASSE D UNDER S.263 HOL D IN G THE SAME TO B E ERRONEOUS AND PREJU D I C I A L TO THE IN TE RESTS OF THE RE VENUE, AND TH E ASSESSING OFFIC ER W A S DIRECTED TO COMPL E TE THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007 - 08 AFRESH , A FTER EXAMINING THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING MA D E PU R CH AS ES OF R S .3,01,58,275 F R OM M/S.NAV A YUGA TRADERS AND RS .16,92,105 FROM M/S. AR E N A STEEL CORPORAT ION , A PART FROM VERIFYING THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS.87,03,241. AS PER THE DIRECTIONS O F THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER , A FRESH ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.263 , VIDE O R DER DATED 3 0 .3.2013, WHEREIN, HE MADE ADDITIONS OF R S .16,92,105 AND RS.3,01,58,275 ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES CLAIMED TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE F R OM M/S. AR E N A ST EEL CORPORATION AND M/S. NAV A YUGA T R ADERS, TR E ATING THE SAME AS BOGUS. HE ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.38,90,462 ON ACCOUNT OF UNCONFIRMED CREDITORS, BESIDES MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OF R S .1,72,136 BEIN G 75% OF THE I TA NO. 1375/HYD/2014& THREE ORS SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD 3 VEHICLE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON AC C OUNT OF PERSONAL USER OF THE VEHICLE BY THE ASSESSEE, AND ACCORDINGLY COMPU TED THE TOTAL IN C OM E O F T HE ASSESSEE AT R S .3,93,71,773 . 4. AGAIN S T THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.263, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. MEAN WHILE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A G AIN S T THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX UNDER S.263 DATED 21.3.2012 CAME TO BE DISPOSED OF BY THE T RIBUNAL , VIDE O R DER DATED 5.4.2013. BY THE SAID ORDER, TH E TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE O R DER OF T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX P ASSED UNDER S.263 ON TH E ISSUES OF GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES CLAIMED TO BE MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE FORM M/S. NAVAYUGA T R ADERS AND M/S. ARENA STEEL CORPORATION. THE OR D ER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ON TH E ISSUE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS HOW E VE R, WAS SET ASIDE BY THE T RIBUNAL, HO LD ING THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THI S ISSUE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, AFTER APPLYING HIS MIND WAS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX WAS N O T CORRE C T IN SUBSTITUTING THE S AME BY EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURIS D IC T ION. 6. AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15.4.2013, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.58,80,462 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNCON F I R M E D CRE D ITORS, HOL D IN G THAT THE SAME WAS BEYOND THE JURI S DIC T ION OF THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.263. AS REGARDS THE SO CALLED BOGUS PURCH AS ES OF RS. 16,92,105 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. ARENA STEEL CORPO RA T ION, THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND ON VERIFICATION O F RELEVANT RECORD THAT THE SAME ACTUALLY REPRESENT ED SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. AR E N A I TA NO. 1375/HYD/2014& THREE ORS SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD 4 ST EEL CORPO RA TION, WHICH WERE VERIFIABLE WITH THE HELP OF THE PAYM E N T S REC E IVED. HE AC C O R D I NGLY DELETED THE ADDIT ION OF R S.16,92,105 M A DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AC C OUN T OF BOGUS PURCHASES ALLEGEDLY MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE F R OM M/S. ARENA ST E EL CORPO RA TION. 7. AS R E GARDS THE BOGUS PURCH AS ES OF RS.3,01, 58,2 75 ALLEGEDLY MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE F R OM M/S. NAVAYUGA TRADERS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN TH E IMPU G N E D OR D ER THAT THE SAME WERE NO T VE R IF I ABLE. HE HOWEVER, FOUN D TH A T THE GOODS CLAIMED TO BE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE F R OM M/S. N AV A YUGA TRADERS W ERE SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD AND THE VALUE OF SU CH SALE WAS DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. K EEPING IN VIEW THIS FACTUAL PO SI TION, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD T HAT THE ENTIRE PURCHASES CLAIMED TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE F R OM M/S. NAV A YUGA TRADE R S COULD NO T BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE, MEREL Y BECAU S E THE SOU R CE O F THE S AID PU R CHA S ES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T VERIFIABLE ACCOR D ING TO HIM, THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASES CLAIMED TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE F R OM M/S. NAVAYUGA T R ADERS WERE NOT VERIFIABLE WA IS SUFFICIENT TO P R OVE T HAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NO T RELIABLE. HE THEREFORE, REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING A N E T PROFIT RATE OF 10% TO THE TOTAL SALES. 8. HAVIN G ADOPTED TH E BASIS TO ESTIMATE THE INCOM E O F THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING A NET PROFIT RATE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT TH E DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF VEHICLE EXPENDITURE WAS NO T SEPARATELY CALLED FOR. HE ALSO HELD THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.58, 80, 462 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AC C OUN T OF UNP R OVED CREDITORS, WHICH WAS B EYOND THE SCOPE O F AN ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S. 1 43(3) READ I TA NO. 1375/HYD/2014& THREE ORS SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD 5 WI T H S .263 AS P E R THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL, WAS EVEN OTHERWISE NO T CALLED FOR SEPARATELY, ONCE THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE WAS ESTIMATE D BY APPLYING A NET PROFIT RATE. 9. AGGR I EVED BY THE O R DER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE RE VENUE AND THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE IN APP E AL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS - ASSESSEES APPEAL: 1 . THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS - VI) (CIT) ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW WHILE PASSING THE APPEAL ORDER. 2 . THE LEARNED CIT IS NOT CORRECT IN OPINING FOR REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ADOPTING NET PROFIT @ 10% ON TOTAL SALES WITHOUT CON S I D ERIN G THAT THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND NO DEFECT WAS FOUND BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. 3 . THE LEARNED CIT SINCE ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT : A ) THOUGH ALLOWED THE PURCHASES AMOUN T IN G TO RS.3,01,58,275/ - MADE FROM NAVAYUGA TRADER S ON THE GROUN D THAT THE N E T PROFIT I S ESTIM A TED INSTEAD OF ALLO W IN G TH E SAME ON M E RIT BASIS CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THOSE GOODS AND MADE THE PAYM E N T FOR THE SAME BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND ALSO PRODU C ED THE REL E VANT DOCUMENTS BEFORE AO. THERE CANNOT BE SALE WITHOUT PURCHASES. B ) THOUGH DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER REL A TING TO SUN D RY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO R S .5880462/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE NET PROFIT IS ESTIMATED INSTEAD O F ALLO W IN G THE SAME ON M E RIT BASIS CON S I D ERIN G TH AT ALL THE CR E DITORS ARE SUPPO R TED BY P U RCHA S E INVOICE ETC., AND PAYM E N T S ARE MADE TO CREDITORS SUBSEQUENTLY THROUGH BANK ONLY. ALSO THAT THE POINTS RAISED IN ORDER U/S. 263 BY CIT TOWARDS SUNDRY CREDITORS IS CANCELLED BY THE I TAT VIDE O R DER ITA NO.942/HYD /2012 DATED 05.04.2013. HENCE ADDITION TOWARDS THE UNCONFIRMED/DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNTS OF CREDITORS IN ASST ORDER WHICH IS PASSED ON THE BASIS OF ORDER U/S. 263 IS NOT TENABLE AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED. C ) THOUGH DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,72,136/ - MADE BY AO TOWARDS V E HICLE EXPENDITURE NOT RELATABLE TO BU S IN E S S ON THE GROUND THAT THE NET PROFIT IS ESTIM A TED INSTEAD OF ALLO W IN G TH E SAME ON M E RIT BASIS CONSIDERING THAT THE VEHICLES ARE FU L LY USED FOR BU S IN E SS PU R PO S E AND WAS ALLO WE D IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143( 3 ) ORIGINALLY HENCE AMOUN T IN G TO CHANGE OF OPINION. ALSO CONSIDERING THAT I TA NO. 1375/HYD/2014& THREE ORS SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD 6 AO HAS TRAVELED BEYOND HIS JURISDICTION IN DISALLO WI N G VEHICLE EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS NO T A PART OF ORDER U/S. 2763 WHICH IS THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4 . FOR ABOVE GROUNDS AND SU CH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL BE ALLOWED . 5 . THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APP E AL EITHER BEFORE EITHER OR AT THE TIME OF H E ARING OF THE APPEAL, IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. REVENUE S APPEAL: 1 . THE CIT(APPEALS) ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS. 2 . THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE PROFIT AT 10% ONLY AS GENERATED FROM THE SAID BOGUS PURCHASES, WHEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE SAID BOGUS PURCHASES TO BE GENUINE AND NOT PROVIDED THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO ROTATION OF PURCHASES TO SALES. 3 . THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE OTHER ADDITIONS VIZ. VEHICLE EXPENDITURE AND UNCONFIRMED CREDITORS, BY HOLDING THAT THIS IS A CASE OF ESTIMATION OF PROFIT . 4 . ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 10. GROUNDS NO.1,4 AND 5 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND GROUNDS NO.1 AND 4 OF THE R E VENUES APPEAL ARE GENERAL, SEEKING NO SPE C IFIC ADJUDICATION. 11. THE COMMON AND INTERLINKED ISSUES RAISED IN GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3 ( A ) OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND GROUN D N O.2 OF THE R E VE N UES APPEAL REL A TE TO THE DELETION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) OF THE ADDITION OF R S .3,01,58,275 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F BOGUS PURCHASE S ALLEGEDLY MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE F R OM M/S. NAVA Y UGA TRADERS AND INSTEAD ESTIMATING THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 10% TO TH E GROSS SALE S BY REJECTING THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT. I TA NO. 1375/HYD/2014& THREE ORS SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD 7 12 . WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF B OTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED TH E RELEVAN T MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OU R ATTENTION TO THE REASON S GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPHS NO.6.3 AND 6.4 OF THE IMPU G N E D ORDER FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHI C H READ AS U N D ER - 6.3 PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN STATEMENT OF FACTS, AND FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S. NAVAYUGA TRADERS, INDICATING THE PARTICULARS OF DATE OF INVOICES, QUANTITY AND AMOUNTS OF PURCHASE ALONGWITH THE PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH CHEQUES, WHILE ALSO INDICATING TH E . PARTYWISE DETAILS OF SALES MADE OUT OF SUCH PURCHASES. AS PER THE. INDICATIONS IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE PURCHASES WERE NOT VERIFIED AND SUCH WERE DISBELIEVED MERELY ON THE FACT THAT M/S. NAVAYUGA TRADERS GO REGISTERED ON 01.12.2007, WHEREAS THE PURCHASES WERE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE DURING 01.04.2006 TO 31.03.2007. FURTHER, THE BE LIEF OF THE AO WERE STRENGTHENED ON THE FINDINGS OF SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS FROM THE SAID PARTY PERTAINING TO AY 2008 - 09, WHEREIN THE FINDINGS OF INVESTIGATIONS BY SALES TAX DEPARTMENT REVEALED THAT THE APPELLANT MADE, PURCHASES THROUGH AGENTS WHEREAS BI LLS ARE ISSUED BY THIRD PARTY NAMELY M/S. NAVAYUGA TRADERS ETC. THIS PURCHASES WERE ALSO DISBELIEVED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNTS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASES WERE TRANSFERRED ON SAME DAY TO OTHER BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTA INED BY AGENTS WITH THE SAME BANK (LOB) AND TMB, WHERE ASSESSEE HAVE BANK ACCOUNT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN BY CASH AT VARIOUS STAGES AND THE DETAILS OF OPENING SUCH BANK ACCOUNTS, OPERATORS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. AS AGAINST TH IS, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT WAS THAT, NO BLAME COULD BE PUT ON THE ASSESSEE PURCHASER, FOR THE LOOPHOLES/ LAPSES IN THE SUBSEQUENT STAGES OF TRANSACTIONS OF PAYMENTS MADE. REGARDING THE BOGUS NATURE OF WAY BILLS ETC., IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPEL LANT THAT, FOR THE LAPSES ON PART OF SALES TAX AUTHORITIES, THE PURCHASING PARTY, IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT, SHOULD NOT BE PENALISED. 6.4 AS COULD BE FURTHER SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PURCHASES FROM PARTICULAR PARTIES WERE SUSPECTED, BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE NOTABLE AMONG THE SUPPLIERS WAS M/S. NAVAYUGA TRADERS. AS PER THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BEFORE THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, M/S. VRINDAVAN STEELS, PROPRIETORY CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT RECEIVED GOODS TH ROUGH AGENTS, WHILE RECEIVING THE INVOICES FROM M/S. NAVAYUGA TRADERS. M/S. NAVAYUGA TRADERS (NT), WAS SHOWN TO BE IN EXISTENCE FROM DECEMBER, 2007, WHEREAS THE PURCHASES ARE RELATED TO FY 2006 - 07. IT WAS ALSO REVEALED THAT THE BUSINESS OF M/S. NAVAYUGA TR ADERS WAS THAT OF DEALING IN COIR PRODUCTS AND NO SEMBLANCE OF STEEL TRADE, AS PER I TA NO. 1375/HYD/2014& THREE ORS SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD 8 THE TRADE LICENSE ISSUED. IT HAS ALSO BEEN REVEALED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF AY 2008 - 09 THAT THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM M/S. VRINDAVAN TRADERS, THE ASSESSEE (PR OPRIETORY CONCERN OF ASSESSEE) WERE QUICKLY TRANSFERRED O BANK ACCOUNTS OF OTHER CONCERNS NAMELY SRI SIDHI VINAYAKA ENTERPRISES(SSE),GANAPATHI ENTERPRISES (GE) AND SRI VENKATESWARA TRADERS (SVT) WHO ALSO OPENED ACCOUNTS ON SAME BANK (LOB BANK) AND TMB AND SUBSEQUENTLY SUCH AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN IN CASH, LEADING TO THE SUSPICION THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BACK BY THE APPELLANT. IT MAY BE RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT IT IS ONLY A PROBABILITY, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED, BY THE AO, CONCLUSIVELY. HO WEVER, IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWN TO HAVE CONCEDED BEFORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES THAT THE SALES TAX WAS CLAIMED AS CREDIT, BY USING THE WRONG DOCUMENTS AND NO SALES TAX REGISTRATIONS WERE THERE FOR SUCH CONCERNS. ALL THESE ACTS ON BEHA LF 0 THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE TRADE UNDER REFERENCE, AND THE NON TRACKING OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OPENING DETAILS FOR M/S. NAVAYUGA TRADERS (NT), REVEAL THAT THE TRANSACTIONS UNDER REFERENCE ARE FULLY ESTABLISHED. AS SUCH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT FULLY RELIABLE. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT IN THE BUSINESS OF STEEL TRADING, THE RACKET OF EVASION OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES - TAX ARE COMMON AND THE TRANSACTIONS UNDER REFERENCE INDICATE THE SIMILAR NATURE BY INVOLVING PURCHASES FROM NAV AYUGA TRADERS. HAVING OBSERVED THAT, IT IS ALSO FACT THAT SALES CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT PURCHASES AND THE SALES WERE NOT DISPUTED BY THE AO AND NO DOUBTS WERE RAISED ON THE QUANTITIES OF STEEL TRADED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. ALL THE INFORMATION B ROUGHT ON RECORD AND THE EFFORTS OF THE AO SOLELY INDICATE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT FULLY RELIABLE AND THE PARTICULAR TRANSACTION OF PURCHASES SHOWN FROM NAVAYUGA TRADERS, ARE HELD TO BE DOUBTFUL, AS REGARDS TO THE VERACITY AND THE CORRECTNESS OF TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THUS, THE OPINION OF THE AO ON UNRELIABILITY OF BOOKS WAS NOT EXPLICIT BUT IMPLIED AND SUCH REJECTION REVOLVED AROUND THE SUSPECTED BOGUS PURCHASES FROM M/S. NAVAYUGA TRADERS. BASED ON THE F ACTS OF THE CASE AND THE INFORMATION BROUGHT ON RECORD, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN UPHOLDING THE BOOKS TO BE UNRELIABLE. FOR THE REASONS STATED, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF APPELLANT ARE HELD TO BE UNRELIABLE AND PROFIT NEED TO BE ESTIMATED. 13. THE LEARN ED COUN S EL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI T TED T HAT THE BOOKS O F ACCOUN T O F THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YE A R UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE DULY AUDITED AND THE SO CALLED DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WERE ALL RELATED TO THE UNVERIFIABLE NATURE O F PU R CHA S ES CLA IMED TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE F R OM M/S. NAVAYUGA TRADERS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE GOODS PU R CH A SED FROM M/S. NAVAYUGA TR A D E RS WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AND THIS FACT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ADVERSE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THUS WERE REL A TED TO THE I TA NO. 1375/HYD/2014& THREE ORS SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD 9 UNVERIFIABL E NATURE O F TH E SOU R CE OF PURCHASE CLAIMED TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE F R OM M/S. NAVAYUGA TRADERS AND ON THE BASIS O F THE SAME, THERE WAS NO JU S TIFIC A TION ON THE P A RT OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO REJECT THE ENTIRE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE . 1 4 . ALTHOUGH THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS STRONGLY RELIED ON TH E ADVERSE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THI S CON T EXT IN SUPPO R T OF TH E REVENUES CASE ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIND M E RIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE RAI S ED ON THIS IS S UE. A PERUSAL O F THE RELEVANT PO R TION OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE FACT OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING PU R CHA S ED THE RELEVANT GO O DS WAS ACCEPTED BY HIM, KEEPING IN VIEW THE UNDI S PU T ED CORRESPONDIN G SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE . THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD ALSO TAKEN NO T E O F TH E FACT THAT THE GOO D S WERE RE CE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH AGENTS, BUT THE SOURCE OF THE PU R CHA S E OF GOODS CLAIMED TO BE MADE F R OM M/S. NAVAYUGA TR AD E RS WAS NO T FULLY VERIFIABLE. TH E QUANTITY OF GOODS PU R CHA S ED AS R E CORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE THUS W AS NO T IN DISPUTE AND WHAT WAS DISPUTED WAS THE VALUE OF SUCH PURCHASES ON ACCOUNT O F THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH SATISFA CTORILY THE SOU R CE THEREOF, WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE FROM M/S. N AVAYUGA TRADERS. HAVING RE G ARD TO ALL THESE FACTS O F THE CA S E, WE ARE O F THE VI E W THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE ENTIRE BOOKS O F AC C OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WERE D U LY AUDITED AND ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING A NET P R O F I T R A TE OF 10% OF GROSS SALES. W E ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENTIRE A MOUN T OF PU R CHASES CLAIMED TO B E MADE BY THE ASSESSEE F R OM M/S. NAVAYUGA TRADERS CANNO T B E DISALLOWED TR E AT IN G TH E SAME AS BOGUS AS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER KEEPING IN VIEW THE SPECIFIC FIN D IN G RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN TH E IMPUGN E D ORDER THAT THE GOODS PU R CHA S E D BY TH E ASSESSEE F R OM M/S. NAVAYUGA TRADERS, WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD AND SUCH SALES WER E I TA NO. 1375/HYD/2014& THREE ORS SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD 10 DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, IT WOULD BE FAIR AND PROPER IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE TO MAKE CERTAIN DISALLOWANCE OUT O F THE PU R CHA S ES CLAIMED TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE F R OM M/S. N A V AYUGA TRADERS, AND IT WOULD BE REAS ONABLE TO MAKE SUCH DISALLOWANCE AT 10% OF THE CO R RESPON D IN G PURCHASES, KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THE F A CTS OF THE CA S E, I N C LU D IN G THE NATURE OF THE BU S IN E SS O F THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE NET MARGIN EARNED BY HIM IN THE E A RLIER YEARS AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT YEARS, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. W E, TH E R E FOR E , MO D IFY THE IMPU G N E D ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS IS S UE AND SUSTAIN THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,01,58,275 AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF RS.30,15,825. CONSEQUENTLY, WHILE GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED , GROUND NO.3 ( A ) OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED, AND GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 15 . THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN GROUNDS NO.3 ( B ) AND 3 ( C ) OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL RELATE TO HI S ALTERNATIVE CLAIM THAT EVEN IF THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF AC C OUN T IS UPHELD, THE ADDITIONS ON AC C OUN T O F UNPROVED CREDITORS AND DISALLOW ANCE ON ACCOUNT OF VEHICLE E XPENDITURE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED ON MERITS. WHILE THE I S S UE RAISED IN G R OUN D NO.3 OF THE R E VENUES APPEAL REL A TES TO ITS CLAIM THAT EVEN I F THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN REJECTING THE BOOK S O F AC C OUN T AND ESTIMATING THE IN C OM E O F T HE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING A NET P R O F IT RATE IS UPHELD, THE ADDITIONS MA D E BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON AC C OUN T OF UNPROVED CREDITORS AND DISALLOWANCE OF VEHICLE EXPENDITURE ARE LIABLE TO B E SUSTAINED SEPARATELY. 1 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES ON THESE ISSUES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS ALREADY HELD BY US IN THE FOREGOING PO R TION OF THIS ORDER, THE LEARNED I TA NO. 1375/HYD/2014& THREE ORS SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD 11 CIT(A) WAS NO T JU S TIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF AC C OUN T O F THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATING THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING A NET PROFIT RATE. HAVING HELD SO, I T FOLLO W S THAT OTHER ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AC C OUN T O F UNPROVED CREDITORS AND DISALLOWANCE OF VEHICLE EXPENDITURE ARE REQUIRED TO B E CON S I D ERED S EPARATELY ON M E RITS. IN THIS REGARD, I T IS OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - T AX PASSED UNDER S.2 6 3 DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL , AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F UNPROVED CREDITORS WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY HI M UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.263 AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE IMPU G N E D ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETING THE SAID ADDITION. 1 7 . AS REGAR D S THE DISALLOWANCE OF VEHICLE EXPENDITURE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SAME WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AC C OUN T OF TH E P E RSONAL USE OF VEHICLE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS HO WE VER, OBSERV E D THAT THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER WAS NO T CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX IN THE O R DER PASSED UNDER S.263, AND WHIL E SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINALLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED BY HIM TO EXAMINE ALL THOSE ASPECTS ONLY, WHICH WERE DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER PASSED UN D ER S .2 6 3 . SIN C E THE I S SUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF VEHICLE EXPENDI TURE WAS NO T DISCUSSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER S .263, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME WAS BEYOND TH E SCOPE O F ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UN D ER S .143(3) READ WI TH S.263 OF THE ACT, AND IT IS THEREFORE, NOT SUS T AINABLE. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN D ELETIN G THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS POINT. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS.3 ( B ) AND 3 ( C ) OF I TA NO. 1375/HYD/2014& THREE ORS SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD 12 THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOW ED AND GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 1 8 . IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09: 1 9 . NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) VI, HYDERABAD DATED 15.4.2014. 20 . FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, THE ASSESSEE FIL E D HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.9.2008 DECLARIN G TOTAL INCOME OF R S .18,69,120. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINALLY COM P LETED UNDER S. 1 43(3) BY AN O R DER DATED 31.12.2010, THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT R S .1,59,54,567 AFTER MAKING THE FOLLO W IN G ADDITIONS (A) BOGUS P URCHASES FROM M/S. NAVAYUGA TRADERS RS. 95,99,306 (B) DISALLOWANCE OF SALES TAX RS. 14,68,476 (C) DISALLO W ANCE OF VEHICLE EXPENSE RS. 1,88,506 (D) SUNDRY CREDITORS DISALLOWED 10% OF RS. 25,49,267 RS.2,54,92,673 (E) SUPPRESSION OF COMMISSION RECEIPTS RS. 1,01,204 (F) DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) RS. 3,67,194 2 1 . A GAIN S T THE O R DER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S .143(3) ORIGINALLY ON 31.12.2010, MAKING THE ABOVE ADDITIONS, AN I TA NO. 1375/HYD/2014& THREE ORS SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD 13 APPEAL WAS P R EFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). MEANWHILE, THE SAID ASSESSMENT WAS SET ASIDE BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VI, HYDERABAD VIDE O R D E R DATED 22. 3 .2012 P A SSED UNDER S.263, H OL D IN G THE SAME TO B E ERRONEOUS AND PREJU DICIAL TO THE IN T ER E STS OF THE REVENUE ON ALL THE ISSUES IN RESPECT OF WHICH ADD I TION S WERE MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER , EX C EPT THE ISSUE S OF SALES TAX AND SUPPRESSION OF COMMISSION RECEIP T S. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AC C OR D INGLY DIRECTED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX TO COMPL E TE THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ON THESE ISSUES. AS PER THE DIRECTION S OF TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, A FRESH ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.263 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.3.2013 MA K ING INTER - ALIA THE FOLLOWING FOUR ADDITIONS ON THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX IN THE O R DER PASSED UNDER S.263 - (A) BOGUS PURCHASES RS. 95,99,306 (B) VEHICLE EXPENDITURE RS. 2,54,565 (C) U NCONFIRMED CREDITORS RS.2,04,21,545 (D) DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.40A(3) RS. 18,35,971 2 2 . AGAIN S T THE O R DER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143 READ WITH S.263 DATED 30.3.2013, AN APP E AL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNE D CIT(A), CONTESTING TH E AFORESAID FOUR ADDITIONS. 2 3 . MEANWHILE THE APPEAL FIL E D BY THE ASSESSEE A G AIN S T THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX UNDER S.263 DATED 22.3.2013 CAME TO B E DISPO S ED OFF BY THE TRIBUN A L VIDE ORDER DATED 5.4.2013. BY THE SAID ORDER , THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX PASSED UN D ER S.263 ON THE I S SUE S OF UNCONFIRMED SUNDRY CREDITORS AND DISALLOWANCE OUT OF I TA NO. 1375/HYD/2014& THREE ORS SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD 14 VEHICLE EXPENSES. THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ON THE ISSUES OF B OGUS PURCHASE S ALLEGEDLY MADE FROM M/S. NAVAYUGA T RADERS AND DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.40A(3) , HOWEVER , WAS SET ASIDE BY TH E TRIBUNAL HOL D IN G THE SAME TO BE BEYOND THE S C OPE OF THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER UNDER S.263. 2 4 . WHEN T HE APP E AL FIL E D BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER S.143(3 ) READ WITH S.263 WAS TAKEN UP BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR DISPOSAL , THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL DATED 5.4.2013 WAS AVAILABLE TO THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO DULY TOOK N OTE OF THE SAME IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER . AT THAT TIME, THE APPEAL O F TH E ASSESSEE FIL E D AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3 ) WAS ALSO PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND A REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M E RGE TH E SAID APPEAL W ITH THE APPEAL FIL E D BY HIM AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.263. THIS REQUEST OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, HE DECIDED ALL THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN TH E APPEAL O F TH E ASSESSEE FIL E D AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143 ( 3 ) AS WELL AS IN TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FIL E D AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S .143 (3) READ WITH S.263 OF THE ACT. BY THE SAID ORDER , T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED PART RELIEF TO TH E ASSESSEE AND AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, BOTH THE RE VENUE AND THE ASSESSEE H A VE PREFERRED TH E SE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 2 5 . WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS O F BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS COMMITTED A PATENT MISTAKE IN MERGING BOTH THE APPEALS O F TH E ASSESSEE ONE FILED A G AIN S T THE O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER U ND ER S.143(3) AND THE OTHER I TA NO. 1375/HYD/2014& THREE ORS SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD 15 FIL E D BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.263. THE SCOPE OF BOTH TH E SE PROCEEDINGS WAS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN AS MUCH AS THE SCOPE O F ASSESSMENT UNDER S.143(3 ) WAS REQ UIRED TO BE DETERMINED AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ISSUES NOT DEALT WITH BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX AS PER HIS ORDER UNDER S.263 READ WITH ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MODIFYING THE SAME, S IN C E THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UN DER S.143(3) SURVIVE D ONLY TO THAT EXTENT. THE SCOPE O F ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.263 , ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS DETERMINED BY THE ORD E R PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX UNDER S.263, TO THE EXTENT IT WAS UPH ELD OR SUSTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL. TH E SCOPE O F TH E SE TWO P R OCEEDI N GS THUS WAS DIFFERENT AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) , IN OUR OPINION, OUGHT TO HAVE DISPOSED OF THE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143 ( 3) AS WELL AS AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.263 BY SEPARATE ORDERS, INSTEAD OF MERGING THE SAM E . MOREOVER, TH E SE TWO PROCEEDINGS BEING IND E PENDENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPEALS ARISING OUT O F THE SAME ARE REQUIRE D TO B E FIL E D SEPARATELY BY TH E AGGRI E VED PART IES . A PERUSAL OF THE IMPU G N E D ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) , HO WE VER SHOWS THAT WHAT HE HAS DISPOSED OF AS PER THE C AUSE TITLE, IS THE APPEAL FIL E D BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORD E R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER P ASSED UN D ER S. 1 43(3) READ WITH S.263, AND CON SE QUENTLY, BOTH THE P A RTIES AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) H A VE FIL E D ONLY ONE APPEAL EACH AGAINST THE ORD E R OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHEREAS WHAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF BY THE S AID ORDER A RE TW O SEPARATE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THE IMPU G N E D ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, IN OUR OPINION, THUS IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. ACCOR D INGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IM PUGNED ORD E R OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT I TA NO. 1375/HYD/2014& THREE ORS SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD 16 YEAR 2008 - 09 AND R E STORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIM WITH A DIR E CTION TO DISPOSE OF THE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, VIZ. ONE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ORIGINALLY PASSED UNDER S.143(3) AND THE OTHER AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S. 1 43(3) READ WITH S.263 SEPARATELY, KEEPING IN VIEW THE SCOPE OF RESPECTIVE PROCEEDINGS, IN ACCORD A N C E WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 2 6 . IN THE RESULT, CROSS - APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 2 7 . TO SUM UP ( A ) OUT OF THE CROSS - APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED; AND ( B ) CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 0 T H D E C E M B E R , 2 0 1 4 SD/ - SD/ - ( ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ( P.M.JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/ - 1 0 T H DECEMBER, 2014 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI ADITYA GOEL, 10 - 5 - 12/2/30, PLOT NO.207, SILVER OAK COMPLEX, ROAD NO.1, BANJARA HILLS, OPP. KHAJA MANSION FUNCTION HALL, HYDERABAD 2 . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7 ( 4 ) , HYDERABAD I TA NO. 1375/HYD/2014& THREE ORS SHRI ADITYA GOEL, HYDERABAD 17 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) V I, HYDERABAD 4. 5. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX V , HYDERABAD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S