M/s Prathima Estates Ltd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Hyderabad

ITA 1514/HYD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61929 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KOMAL KISHORE
• Assessee Lawyers: U L N PRASAD
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Rule of consistency; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER. SL. NO. ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 797/HYD/09 2005-06 M/S PRATHIMA ESTATES LTD., HYDERABAD (PAN/GIR NO. AABCP2098P/P-14) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD 2. 1149/HYD/06 2003-04 -DO- -DO- 3. 1261/HYD/06 -DO- DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 16(3), HYDERABAD M/S PRATHIMA ESTATES LTD., HYDERABAD (PAN/GIR NO. AABCP2098P/P- 14) 4. 1573/HYD/08 2004 - 05 - DO - - DO - 5. 1514/HYD/08 -DO- M/S PRATHIMA ESTATES LTD., HYDERABAD (PAN/GIR NO. AABCP2098P/P-14) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD REVENUE BY : S MT. KOMAL KISHORE ASSESSEE BY : S HRI U.L.N. PRASAD DATE OF HEARING 2 1 /0 6 /2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22 /06/2012 O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.: THESE TWO SETS OF CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004 05 AND ASSESSEE'S APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200506 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE OR DERS OF CIT (APPEALS). 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 BOTH REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE RAISED COMMON GROUNDS. ITA NOS. 797/H/09, 1149/H/06, 1514/H/08, 1261/H/06 & 1573/H/06 M/S PRATHIMA ESTATES LTD. 2 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS FOR THESE TWO YEARS REGARDING REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHIC H HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT( APPEALS). 4. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN EXECUTION OF CIVIL CONTRACT WORKS AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS CLAIMED HUGE EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF CIVI L WORKS EXECUTED DURING THE YEAR. THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD CONTRACT AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND FINANCE CHARGES. ON VE RIFICATION OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF THE MATERIALS, WAG ES AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES ETC., THE AO FOUND THAT MANY OF THE VOUCHERS ARE SELF-MADE WITHOUT SHOWING THE DESCRIPTION OF IT EMS PURCHASED, MODE OF PAYMENT AND THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PAYEE. ON MANY INSTANCES, THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE B ILLS NEXT TO THE VOUCHERS, WERE NOT DEALING WITH THE AMOUNTS SHO WN IN THE RELATED VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH VO UCHERS FOR CLAIM OF WAGES FOR THE PART OF THE AMOUNT. THE AO F URTHER NOTICED FROM THE LABOUR VOUCHERS THAT MAJORITY OF THE AMOU NTS WERE PAID TO A FEW INDIVIDUALS SHOWING PAYMENTS ON SEVERAL DA TES. FURTHER, THERE WERE NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM THE PAYEES AND T HE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN T HE FORM OF MATERIAL PURCHASED, UTILISED BY THE LABOURERS. APAR T FROM VARIOUS SHORT-COMINGS AND DISCREPANCIES IN THE VOUCHERS OF THESE EXPENDITURE, THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT FOR THE CLAIM OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY KEPT SELF-MADE VOU CHERS AND THERE WERE NO SUPPORTING BILLS. AS REGARDS THE OTHE R WORK EXPENSES THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH EVEN THE DE TAILS. THE AO SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH SITE- WISE BREAK-UP OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS AT NANDYAL AND ITA NOS. 797/H/09, 1149/H/06, 1514/H/08, 1261/H/06 & 1573/H/06 M/S PRATHIMA ESTATES LTD. 3 VISAKHAPATNAM. THE RELEVANT BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN R ESPECT OF THESE TWO SITES WERE ALSO NOT FURNISHED. ON VERIFIC ATION OF CLAIM OF SALARY, THE AO NOTICED THAT AMOUNTS SHOWN IN THE VOUCHERS WERE NOT TALLYING WITH THE STATEMENT OF SALARIES FU RNISHED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. UNDER CONTRACT EXPENDIT URE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED PAYMENT TOWARDS SUB-CONTRACT EXPEN SES TO 12 SUB-CONTRACTORS, WHO ARE ENGAGED IN SEPARATE WORK, HOWEVER, THERE WERE NO SUB-CONTRACT AGREEMENTS AND IN CASE O F SOME OF THE SUB-CONTRACTORS, THEY ARE NOT EVEN ASSESSED TO TAX. SIMILARLY, THE AO NOTED THAT SIMILAR CHARGES SHOWN UNDER OTHER WORK EXPENSES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE SAL E TAX DEDUCTION WAS WRONGLY TAKEN AS SUCH CHARGES. THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH SUPPORTING DETAILS IN RESPECT OF CLAIM MADE UNDER ASSIGNMENT COMMISSION AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT FURNISH BREAK-UP OF INVENTORIES SHOW N UNDER CURRENT ASSETS. IN VIEW OF THE HUGE DISCREPANCIES I N THE ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT ON GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS AT 12.5% CLEAR OF DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF T HE AO IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HOWEVER, THE ESTIMA TION OF PROFIT ON GROSS RECEIPTS WAS RESTRICTED TO 10% AND FURTHE R ALLOWED DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(APPEALS) SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO UPHOLDING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHEREAS THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) IN SO FAR AS ESTIMATING THE PROFIT AT 10% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AND FURTHER ALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR DE PRECIATION FROM THE SAID PROFIT AS AGAINST ESTIMATION MADE BY THE AO AT 12.5% CLEAR OF DEPRECIATION. ITA NOS. 797/H/09, 1149/H/06, 1514/H/08, 1261/H/06 & 1573/H/06 M/S PRATHIMA ESTATES LTD. 4 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS BORN OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL AND SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCIES IN THE SU PPORTING MATERIAL AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR CLA IM OF EXPENSES. THUS, IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE RECORD THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THESE TWO YEARS DO NOT REFLECT THE TRUE AND CORRECT PICTURE OF AFFAIRS AND FINANCIAL RESULTS. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS BECAUSE OF THE V ARIOUS DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN MET BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED VIEW THAT THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACC EPTED. THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE REASONS FOR NOT FURNISHING THE SUPPORTI NG EVIDENCE, DETAILS AS WELL AS NON CONCILIATION OF THE GROSS DI SCREPANCIES IN THE RECORDS. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE OR MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS UPHELD ON THIS ISSUE. AS FAR AS THE OTHER ISSUE RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL REGARDING ESTIMATIO N OF PROFIT, IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 6. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004 THE ASSESSEE H AS ALSO RAISED A GROUND AS UNDER: 6. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SEPARATE ADDI TION OF RS. 4,44,577/-, WITHOUT ANY BASIS, UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES WHILE ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLA NT. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED INCOME FROM INTEREST O N BANK DEPOSITS, INTEREST ON INCOME TAX REFUND, INTEREST R ECEIVED ON LOANS AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME TOTAL AMOUNTING TO R S. ITA NOS. 797/H/09, 1149/H/06, 1514/H/08, 1261/H/06 & 1573/H/06 M/S PRATHIMA ESTATES LTD. 5 4,44,577/- AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE AO ASSESSED THESE INCOMES AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION O F THE AO BY TREATING THE SAID INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES AND SUCH ADDITION. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE DETAILS OF THE INTEREST REC EIPTS AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME ARE GIVEN BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN PARA 8.1 AS UNDER: AS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS OF THE OTHER INCOME, GIVEN IN SCHEDULE A TO THE AUDITED PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, TH E ABOVE AMOUNT COMPRISES OF THE FOLLOWING RECEIPTS: INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSITS RS. 1,01,530 INTEREST ON IT REFUND RS. 97,460 INTEREST RECEIVED ON LOANS RS. 2,38,584 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME RS. 7,003 TOTAL RS. 4,44,577 ========= 9. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE NATURE OF THE RECEIPT THAT THE SAID INCOME CANNOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND, TH EREFORE, IN OUR OPINION THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RIGHTLY TREA TED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HENCE, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY SUBSTANCE OR MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE ON THIS ISSUE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 10. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS FOR THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS AS UNDER: 1. THE HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING APPEAL BY D IRECTING THE AO TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT AT 10% ON THE CONTRAC T RECEIPTS AND TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION. 2. THE HONBLE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE AO WHICH WAS BASED ON THE DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE ITAT, HYDERABAD B BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S KRISHNAMOHAN CONSTRUCTIONS AND OTHER CASES. ITA NOS. 797/H/09, 1149/H/06, 1514/H/08, 1261/H/06 & 1573/H/06 M/S PRATHIMA ESTATES LTD. 6 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE AS WELL AS THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDER ED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED I N THE FORGOING PARAS THAT THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 12.5% OF THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS FOR THESE TWO YEARS. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RESTRICTED T HE ESTIMATE TO 10% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AND FURTHER ALLOWED DEPRE CIATION FROM THE SAID PROFIT. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THIS I SSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE 3RD MEMBER DECISION O F THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S KRISHNAMOHAN CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD IN ITA NOS. 380 & 381/HYD/94 AS UNDER: HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BEFORE M E, I FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE STAND OF THE REVENUE . AS ALREADY MENTIONED ABOVE, IN THE EARLIER YEARS, IN S IMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, PROFIT RATE OF 12.5% WAS APPLIED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, I SEE N O REASON FOR NOT APPLYING A SIMILAR RATE. IT IS TRUE THAT IN THESE YEARS THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID SUBSTANTIAL BANK CHARGES AND FINANCIAL CHARGES. HOWEVER, THE PAYMENT WAS MADE DUE TO THE F ACT THAT IN THESE YEARS THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTMENT IN THE PLANT AND MACHINERY. IT IS WORTHY OF MENTION HERE THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS ADDITION WAS SEPARATELY MADE ON ACCOU NT OF CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST AS MENTIONED EARLIER. BOTH MEMBERS OF THE DIVISION BENCH HAVE ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT SEPARATE ADD ITION SHOULD NOT BE MADE WHILE PROFITS ARE BEING ESTIMATE D ON PERCENTAGE BASIS. THIS IS ALL THE MORE A REASON FOR HOLDING THAT THE PROFIT RATE SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED AT A LOW ER RATE THAN WHAT WAS APPLIED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. TAKING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION, I FIND MYSELF IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED ACCO UNTANT MEMBER. THUS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROFIT R ATE OF 12.5% IS REASONABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 12. THE ISSUE IS NOW SETTLED AS DECIDED BY THE 3RD MEMBER DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE M/S KRISHNAMOHAN CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD(SUPRA). HENCE, TO MAINTAIN THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, WE FOLLOW THE EARLIER DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND ITA NOS. 797/H/09, 1149/H/06, 1514/H/08, 1261/H/06 & 1573/H/06 M/S PRATHIMA ESTATES LTD. 7 ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE PROFIT RATE COULD BE AT 1 2.5% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AND FURTHER CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, WE MODIFY THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND ESTIMATE THE PROFIT RATE AT 12.5% AND FURTHER A LLOW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION FROM THE SAID PROFIT. 13. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE ASSESSEE HA S RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER DATED 26/03/2009, PASSED BY THE LEARNE D CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN SO FAR A S CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE, AT 20% OF THE TOTAL PAYMENTS MADE TO S UB- CONTRACTORS ON ESTIMATE BASIS, WHILE THE EXPENDITUR E IS NOT DOUBTED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN MAKING A DISALLOWANC E, CONTRARY TO HIS OWN OBSERVATION AS THE SAID EXPENDI TURE IS ALLOWABLE IN PRINCIPLE. 4.THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIO NS BASED ON THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE, AND ERRED IN OBSERV ING THAT THE SAME IS NOT INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF THE A PPELLANT. 5. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS ON CONSIDERING THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE, WHILE ONLY A PAR T OF THE DETAILS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED IN THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 14. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION AND ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER THE CIT(APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AT 20% OF THE TOTAL PAY MENTS MADE TO THE SUB CONTRACT ON ESTIMATE BASIS. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED AR AS WELL AS LEARNE D DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND CONSIDERED THE RELE VANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND, ITA NOS. 797/H/09, 1149/H/06, 1514/H/08, 1261/H/06 & 1573/H/06 M/S PRATHIMA ESTATES LTD. 8 THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE BEING A AD-H OC IN NATURE. ALTERNATIVELY, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS S UBMITTED THAT 20% OF DISALLOWANCE IS ON HIGHER SIDE AND THIS TRIB UNAL MAY ESTIMATE SOME REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE ON THIS ACCOU NT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 16. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE NOTE THAT THE A O DISALLOWED 20% OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE SUB CONTRACT ON THE GROUND THAT ALL THE VOUCHERS ARE SELF-MADE AND IN SOME OF THE CASES THERE WERE NO VOUCHERS IN SUPPORTING THE CLAIM. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT IN SOME OF THE VOUCHERS THE NAME OF THE RECIPIENT IS NOT THERE. IN VIEW OF THE THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES, THE INFLATION OF PAYMENT CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND, THERE FORE, THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. HO WEVER, BY TAKING A LENIENT VIEW AND PARTICULARLY WHEN THE REV ENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK THROUGH SUB CONT RACT AND THE PROFIT RATIO ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUBSTA NTIALLY LOW, WE ESTIMATE THE DISALLOWANCE AT 10% OF THE SUB CONTRAC T PAYMENTS IN STEAD OF 20% MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDI NGLY, THE ASSESSEE GOT PART RELIEF ON THIS ISSUE. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BEING 11 49/HYD/06 FOR AY 2003-04 AND 1514/HYD/08 FOR AY 2004-05 ARE D ISMISSED AND ITA NO. 797/HYD/09 FOR AY 2005-06 IS PARTLY ALL OWED AND APPEALS OF THE REVENUE BEING ITA NO. 1261/HYD/06 AN D 1573/HYD/06 FOR AY 2003-04 AND 2004-05 ARE PARTLY A LLOWED. ITA NOS. 797/H/09, 1149/H/06, 1514/H/08, 1261/H/06 & 1573/H/06 M/S PRATHIMA ESTATES LTD. 9 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22/06/2012. SD/- SD/- ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DT/- 22 ND JUNE, 2012. KV COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S PRATIMA ESTATES LTD., PLOT NO. 213, ROAD NO.1, JUBILESS HILLS, FILM NAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 096. 2. DCIT, RANGE 16(3), HYDERBAD. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-V, HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - I V , HYDERABAD 5. THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD. ITA NOS. 797/H/09, 1149/H/06, 1514/H/08, 1261/H/06 & 1573/H/06 M/S PRATHIMA ESTATES LTD. 10 S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 21/06/12 SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 21/06/12 SR.P.S/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER