TCI Constructions Limited, Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 1767/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7166 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-01-2021
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHANA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Question of law; Assessment record; TDS
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 1766 & 1767/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 TCI CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD [PAN: AADCT1002H] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI P.MURALI MOHANA RAO, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KARDAM, DR DATE OF HEARING : 18-01-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-04-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : THESE TWO ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR AYS.2010-11 & 2011 -12 ARISE AGAINST THE CIT(A)-9, HYDERABADS SEPARATE ORD ERS BOTH DATED 31-07-2017 PASSED IN CASE NOS.0371 & 0421 / DC IT- 2(3) / 2015-16; RESPECTIVELY, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 1 43(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT, THE ACT]; RESPECTIVELY . HEARD BOTH PARTIES. CASE FILES PERUSED. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ITS 18 AND 37 SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS; ASSESSMENT YEAR-WISE, RESPECTIVELY IN SEEKI NG TO REVERSE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FINDINGS MAKING V ARIOUS ITA NOS. 1766 & 1767/HYD/2017 :- 2 -: DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS. IT HAS ALSO FILED IDENTICAL PETITION(S), SEEKING ADMISSION OF ITS ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. 3. LEARNED CIT-DR VEHEMENTLY OBJECTED TO ADMISSION THEREOF AT THIS ALLEGED BELATED STAGE BY WAY REASONS OF ITS ACT AND CONDUCT THROUGHOUT. WE FIND NO MERIT IN REVENUES TECHNICAL STAND GOING BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURTS LANDM ARK DECISION IN NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD., VS., CIT [229 ITR 383] (SC) CONSIDERED IN ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS L TD., VS. DCIT (2012) [137 ITD 217](SB) (MUMBAI) THAT ANY OF THE PARTY(IES) IN SECTION 254 PROCEEDINGS COULD RAISE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND SO AS TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT TAX LIABILITY OF A TAXPAYER PROVIDED THAT ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS FORM PART OF RECORD S. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE ALREAD Y FILED THEIR REMAND REPORTS DT.25-07-2018 AND 19-11-2018 TO ASSESSEES ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL. WE THUS A CCEPT THE ASSESSEES FOREGOING PETITION SEEKING TO RAISE ITS ADD ITIONAL GROUNDS IN BOTH THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. NOW COMES OUR ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 4. THE ASSESSEES FIRST IDENTICAL SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVAN CE IN BOTH THESE APPEALS CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF THE LEARN ED LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION ESTIMATING 8% PROFIT ELEMENT OF ITS G ROSS CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS FOLLOWED BY AN ANCILLARY ISSUE IN LATTER SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS QUA TREATMENT ON SCRAP SALES INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS/ AN OTHER SOURCES. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEES SCRAP SALES INCOME READ ASSESSMENT YEAR-W ISE SUMS RS.23,71,836/- AND RS.7,13,373/-; RESPECTIVELY. TH IS LATTER ITA NOS. 1766 & 1767/HYD/2017 :- 3 -: FIGURE HAS BEEN WRONGLY TAKEN AS RS.23,71,836/- IN A Y.2011- 12 IN ITS PLEADINGS. 5. THE ASSESSEES FIRST AND FOREMOST PLEA IN VIEW OF THE PRECEDING FACTS IS THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE INTER ALIA ADOPTED INCORRECT TURNOVER FIGURES OF RS.41,08,85,846/ - IN AY.2010-11 INSTEAD OF THE CORRECT SUM OF RS.40,42,82, 012/- AS PER ITS DULY AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICERS REMAND REPORT DT.25-07-2018 AS ALREADY ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES STAND QUA ITS ACTUAL TURNOVER FIGURES AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THAT BEING THE CASE, WE OBSERVE THAT THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES IMPUGNED ACTION ASSESSING 8 % PROFIT ELEMENT ON BOTH CONTRACTUAL AS WELL AS SUB-CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS OF RS.6,43,12,692/- (INVOLVING GHMC, RAIL W HEEL FACTORY, KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION AND SOUTH CENTRAL RAI LWAY HAVING CORRESPONDING SUMS) AND SUB-CONTRACT RECEIPTS O F RS.33,99,69,320/- DERIVED DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOU S YEAR FROM M/S.VVDPL, VARIEGATE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, SR I AMAR CONSTRUCTIONS AND PATEL ENGINEERING (AS PER PG.39 TO 77 IN THE PAPER BOOK) IN IDENTICAL LINES IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE THUS AFFIRM THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION ONLY QUA CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS ASSESSMENT @8% AT THIS STAGE. 6. LEARNED CIT-DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS REMAND REPORT(S) HAVE DECLINED TH E ASSESSEES SUB-CONTRACT RECEIPTS PLEA FOR WANT OF ORIGI NAL DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH REGISTRATION THEREOF. WE SEE NO REASON TO ACCEPT THIS MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY STAND ON THE VERY BO OKS MAINTAINED AND SUB-CONTRACT RECEIPTS IN FURTHERANCE TO THE ITA NOS. 1766 & 1767/HYD/2017 :- 4 -: CORRESPONDING CONTRACTS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT PREVIO US YEAR. AND MORE PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE GROSS TURNOVER FIGURE S IN ABOVE TERMS. THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DECIS ION IN M/S.MAA HIGHWAYS, ITA NO.761/HYD/2020 HOLDS THAT SUB- CONTRACT RECEIPTS ASSESSMENT @5% ON LUMPSUM BASIS IN THE VERY BUSINESS IS JUST AND PROPER. WE THUS DIRECT THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS THE ASSESSEES SUB-CONTRACT RECEIPTS O F RS.33,99,69,320/- @5% INCOME ELEMENT ONLY. 7. NEXT YET ANOTHER EQUALLY SIGNIFICANT ASPECT OF ASSE SSMENT ON ASSESSEES OTHER INCOME OF RS.23,71,836/- IN AY .2010-11. ITS CASE IS THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM SCRAP S ALES ONLY CONSTITUTING BUSINESS INCOME AS AGAINST THE REVE NUES STAND THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIATION THEREOF BY WAY OF FI LING OF COGENT EVIDENCE. THERE IS HARDLY ANY DISPUTE THAT SUC H SCRAP SALES EMANATES IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF CIVIL CONSTR UCTIONS AND CONTRACTOR BUSINESS AMOUNTS TO BUSINESS INCOME AS PER DCIT VS.HARJIVANDAS JUTHABHAI ZAVERI 258 ITR 785 (GU JARAT) AND ITA NO.1404/HYD/2017 M/S.J.V.K. INFRA PVT. LTD. H OLDING THE VERY VIEW. 8. LEARNED CIT-DR FURTHER FAILS TO DISPUTE CLINCHING F ACT THAT THE ASSESSEES BOOKS HAVE INDICATED THE IMPUGNED RECEIPTS FROM SCRAP SALES THAN ANY OTHER SOURCE INVI TING APPLICATION OF SECTION 57 OF THE ACT. WE CONCLUDE IN THI S FACTUAL BACKDROP THAT THE ASSESSEES SCRAP SALES INCOME OF RS.23,71,836/- DESERVES TO BE TREATED UNDER THE REGULAR BUSINESS HEAD FOLLOWED BY ASSESSMENT THEREOF @8%. WE ORDER ITA NOS. 1766 & 1767/HYD/2017 :- 5 -: ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSEES SUBSTANTIVE GROUND NOS.3 TO 6 AND 14 TO 16 IN AY.2010-11 ITA NO.1766/HYD/2017 ARE PARTL Y ACCEPTED IN ABOVE TERMS. 8.1. SAME ORDER TO FOLLOW IN ASSESSEES CORRESPONDIN G GROUND NOS.3 TO 7 AND ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.41 IN AY.2011-12 INVOLVING CONTRACTUAL, SUB-CONTRACTUAL AND SCRAP RECE IPTS OF RS.5,02,19,281/-, RS.36,55,40,382/- AND RS.7,13,373 /-; RESPECTIVELY IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINCTION OF FACTS A ND LAW THEREIN. NECESSARY COMPUTATION TO FOLLOW AS PER LAW. 9. NEXT COMES THE THIRD AND LAST ISSUE OF UN-EXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OF RS.5,53,66,019/- IN AY.2010-11. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE SAME INVOLVES FOUR INVESTORS VIZ. MR.VENKATESH (ASSESSEES MANAGING DIRECTOR), S/SHRI B.PRAVIN, T.C .RAMAIAH AND G.RAVI KUMAR HAVING CORRESPONDING INVESTMENTS OF RS.5,01,00,019/-, RS.35 LAKHS, RS.14 LAKHS AND RS.3 .66 LAKHS; FOLLOWED BY ALLOTMENT OF SHARES ON 29-03-2010 IN FIRS T AND 29- 06-2016 IN THE REMAINING THREE INVESTORS CASES; RES PECTIVELY. BOTH THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE REVEN UES STAND BEFORE US IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS THEREOF IN ALL PROCEEDINGS THROUGHOUT. 10. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL PLEADINGS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITI ON. WE COME TO THE FIRST INVESTOR PARTY HEREIN, ASSESSEES MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI M.VENKATESH, WHO HAS DULY FILE D HIS CONFIRMATION AND ALL SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS. HE CONTINUE S TO BE ASSESSED IN THE SAME RANGE JURISDICTION AS WELL. HON 'BLE ITA NOS. 1766 & 1767/HYD/2017 :- 6 -: GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN PCIT VS. GYSCOAL ALLOY S LTD. 2018 (10) TMI 1725 (GUJ) HOLDS THAT THE IMPUGNED SECTION 68 ADDITION ON EXPLAINED CASH CREDITS INVOLVING SUCH RE LATED PARTIES DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE TREATED AS UN-EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS: 'I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9,99,99,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM FROM M/S.GENERAL CAPITAL AND HOLD ING CO. PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD DURING THE YEAR. THE AO HELD THAT TH E CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TION WERE NOT PROVED BY THE APPELLANT AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE AD DITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT FOR THE ABOVE AMOUNT. THE APP ELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THREE INGREDIENTS SUCH AS, CREDI T WORTHINESS, GENUINENESS AND THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANT HAVE BEEN PROVED AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MA DE BY THE AO. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASS ESSMENT RECORDS WERE ALSO OBTAINED FROM AO AND THE SAME HAVE ALSO B EEN EXAMINED BY ME TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS CORRECTLY. THE SHARE A PPLICANT COMPANY M/S.GENERAL CAPITAL HAS BEEN DULY CONFIRMED THE FAC T OF MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE APPELLATE COMPANY. THE AMOUNTS HA VE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE SAME ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF THAT COMPANY. THE EXTRACTS OF TH E BANK STATEMENT WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE ME DURING THE COURSE O F APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS BEFORE THE AO CLEARLY SHOW T HAT THERE ARE NO CASH DEPOSITS AS MENTIONED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT THE CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSI TED AND SUBSEQUENTLY CHEQUES WERE ISSUED IS FACTUALLY INCOR RECT. THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY ALSO ATTENDED BEFORE AO AND CONFIRME D THE FACT. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT BOTH THE COMPANIES, THAT IS THE APP ELLANT COMPANY AS WELL AS THE SHARE APPLICANT ARE MANAGED BY THE SAME GROUP OF PERSONS. HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT HAS CONSI STENTLY HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT PROOF IN RESPE CT OF THE SHARE APPLICATION, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE. IF THE AO HAS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANT FURTHER INVESTIGATION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT, BUT NOT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. IT CAN THUS BE SE EN THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS BASED ON APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL ON RECOR D. CIT [A] AND THE TRIBUNAL CONCURRENTLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGES ITS BASIC ONUS. THE INVESTORS HAVE CONFI RMED THE TRANSACTIONS. SUCH TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT TH ROUGH THE BANKING CHANNEL. THE DIRECTOR OF THE INVESTING COMPANY HAD ALSO APPEARED ITA NOS. 1766 & 1767/HYD/2017 :- 7 -: BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS. THE CIT [A] AND THE TRIBUNAL ALSO DID NOT CONFIRM THE A SSESSING OFFICER'S FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE C REDITWORTHINESS OR GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. TAX APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. WE FURTHER WISH TO EMPHASISE HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE S FIRST INVESTOR IS NONE OTHER THAN ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR; TAKING ALL KEY DECISIONS COULD NOT BE TREATED AS A BOGUS ENTIT Y IN OTHER WORDS. WE THUS DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DE LETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 12. NEXT COMES THE LATTER THREE INVESTOR PARTIES (SUPRA) WHO HAVE NOT FILED CONFIRMATIONS ALL ALONG BUT THEY HAVE A LSO BEEN ALLOTTED THE ASSESSEES SHARES (SUPRA). THE REVENUE ALSO FAILS TO DISPUTE THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER FOUN D FAULT WITH ALL THIS EVIDENCE OF FILING OF CONFIRMATIONS FOL LOWED BY ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS BUT ALSO HE HAS NOT INDICATED ANY CASH DEPOSI TS OR WITHDRAWALS SO AS TO RAISE ANY SUSPICION QUA ALL OF THEM. WE HELD IN THIS FACTUAL BACKDROP THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DUL Y DISCHARGED HIS BURDEN OF PROVING IDENTITY, GENUINEN ESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE IMPUGNED SHARE APPLICATION MO NEY OF RS.55,36,609/- ON FACTS IN OTHER WORDS. WE MAKE IT CLE AR THAT ALTHOUGH BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE SOUGHT TO RELY ON A CATEN A OF CASE LAW, THE SAME DOES NOT NEED A DETAILED DISCUSSION AS THE ASSESSEE HAS VERY WELL PROVED ITS GENUINENESS OF THE INVESTOR PARTIES ON FACTS. 13. LEARNED CIT-DR STILL QUOTED HON'BLE APEX COURTS RECENT DECISION IN PCIT VS. NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD., (20 19) [103 ITA NOS. 1766 & 1767/HYD/2017 :- 8 -: TAXMANN.COM 48] / [412 ITR 161] (SC) THAT THE IMPUGNED UN- EXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OUGHT TO BE UPHELD BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL. THE SAID DECISION IS FOUND DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS S INCE THE INVESTORS THEREIN WERE NOT THE CONCERNED TAXPAYERS MANA GING DIRECTOR AS PER THE CLINCHING CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE US . WE THEREFORE ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES INSTANT THIRD SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE IN FOREGOING TERMS. ITS FORMER APPEAL ITA NO.1766/HYD/2017 IS PARTLY ACCEPTED. 14. WE NEXT ADVERT TO AY.2011-12 INVOLVING ITA NO.1767/HYD/2017. THE ASSESSEES FORMER TWIN SUBSTA NTIVE GRIEVANCES INVOLVING CONTRACTUAL AND SUB-CONTRACTUAL R ECEIPTS AS WELL AS SCRAP SALES INCOMES (SUPRA) HAVE ALREAD Y BEEN ACCEPTED IN PART IN VIEW OF OUR DETAILED DISCUSSION I N AY.2010- 11. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACT AC CORDINGLY IN ABOVE TERMS. 15. NEXT COMES THE SECOND ISSUE OF ASSESSEES SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.40 LAKHS OUT OF RS.1 CRORE TRE ATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THE CIT(A)S ORDER. WE NOTE THAT THE RELEVANT FACTS HEREIN ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THOSE IN AY.2010-11 WHEREIN ALL THESE PARTIES HAVE FILED CONF IRMATIONS AND DETAILED EVIDENCE FOLLOWED BY ALLOTMENT OF SHARES WITHOUT INVOLVING ANY CASH DEPOSITS OR WITHDRAWALS OR ANY OTHE R SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES. 16. LD.CIT-DRS CASE IN TUNE WITH THE CIT(A)S DETAILE D DISCUSSION IS THAT SOME OF THE INVESTORS HEREIN HAVE F AILED TO PROVE THE IMPUGNED SUMS GENUINENESS. THE FACT ALSO REMAINS THAT MOST OF INVESTOR PARTIES HAVE MADE INVESTMENTS OF LE SS ITA NOS. 1766 & 1767/HYD/2017 :- 9 -: THAN RS. 2 TO 5 LAKHS WHICH CANNOT BE ALTOGETHER RULED O UT AS THE CASH IN THEIR HANDS PER SE. WE THUS ADOPT THE VERY DETAILED REASONING AS IN AY.2010-11 TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDI TION OF RS.40 LAKHS. 17. THE ASSESSEES NEXT SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE IS YET A NOTHER ISSUE OF UNSECURED LOAN(S) OF RS.50 LAKHS TREATED AS UN- EXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN CASE OF M/S.NMR CONSTRUCTI ONS. THERE IS NO DENIAL OF FACT HEREIN AS WELL THAT THE IMP UGNED SUM HAS COME BY WAY OF BANKING CHANNELS ONLY THE AS SESSING OFFICERS REMAND REPORT DT.25-07-2018 HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE SAID PARTY HAS VERIFIED THE SAME AS PERFORMANC E DEPOSIT AS AGAINST ASSESSEES STAND TREATING IT AS UN-S ECURED LOAN. BE THAT AS IT MAY, ALL THIS SUFFICIENTLY PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN OF PROVING GENUIN ENESS OF THE IMPUGNED SUM PER SE AS THE THIRD PARTY CONCERNED HAS OWNED UP THE SAME IN REMAND REPORT RESULTING IN DUE RECONCILIATION. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.50 LAKHS AS WELL. 17.1. LEARNED COUNSEL LASTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EES NEXT TWIN SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS INVOLVING NOT GRANTING OF TDS CREDIT AS PER BOOKS AND FORM-26AS AND DIFFERENCE IN CONTRAC TS RECEIPTS REQUIRE THE ASSESSING OFFICERS AFRESH FACTUA L VERIFICATION AND THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE RESTORED TO HIM. THE REVENUE IS EQUALLY FAIR ON THIS RECONCILIATION A SPECT. WE THUS RESTORE THE INSTANT TWIN ISSUES BACK TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOR HIS NECESSARY VERIFICATION AS PER LAW WI THIN THREE EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING. THIS LATTER APPEAL I TA ITA NOS. 1766 & 1767/HYD/2017 :- 10 -: NO.1767/HYD/2017 IS ALSO ACCEPTED IN PART. NECESSARY COMPUTATION SHALL FOLLOW AS PER LAW IN BOTH CASES. NO OTHER GROUND HAS BEEN PRESSED BEFORE US. 18. THESE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN A BOVE TERMS. A COPY OF THIS COMMON ORDER BE PLACED IN THE R ESPECTIVE CASE FILES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06-04-2021 SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.G ODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED: 06-04-2021 TNMM ITA NOS. 1766 & 1767/HYD/2017 :- 11 -: COPY TO : 1.TCI CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD. C/O. P.MURA LI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6-3-655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD. 2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3 ), HYDERABAD. 3.CIT(APPEALS)-9, HYDERABAD. 4.PR.CIT-2, HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6.GUARD FILE.