Varalaxmi Constructions, Hyderabad V. DCIT., Central Circle-3, Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1843/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3834 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2018
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Search and seizure; Question of law; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 143(1); 132; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B , HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S.1842, 1843 & 1844 /HYD/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 06 - 07, 2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09 ITA NO S. 197 & 198/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 09 - 10 & 2010 - 11 M/S. VARALAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS , KHAMMAM. PAN: AAGFV 0744 C VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS. 170 & 171/ HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD. M/S. VARALAXMI CONSTRUCTIONS , 1 - 7 - 70, JUBLIPURA, KHAMMAM 507 002 PAN: AAGFV 0744 C ASSESSEE BY: SRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO REVENUE BY: SRI Y.V.S.T. SAI, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 0 8 .11 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 . 01 .201 9 ORDER PER BENCH : THERE ARE SEVEN APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION, OUT OF WHICH THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2 2008 - 09 ( ITA NOS. 1842, 1843 & 1844/HYD/2014 ) AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - VII, HYDERABAD AND TWO CROSS APPEALS ARE FILED FOR THE AYS 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 (ITA NOS. 197 & 198/HYD/2015) AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) - 12, HYDERABAD DATED 28/11/2015 AND THE REVENUE HAS FILED TWO APPEALS FOR THE AYS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 (ITA NOS .170 & 171/HYD/2015). SINCE THE CORE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE ASSESSEES APPEALS AS WELL AS THE REVENUES APPEALS IS IDENTICAL, THEY WERE H EARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSE D O F BY THIS COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF M/S. MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD AND GROUP CASES ON 04/02/2011. AS A PART OF SE ARCH OPERATION, THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 04/02/2011. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CARRIED OUT IN THE OFFICE PREMISES OF M/S. MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED ACCORDING TO W HICH PAGES 11 TO 13 AND PAGES 14 TO 16 OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL BELONG ED TO M/S. VARALAXMI CONSTRUCTIONS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CARRIED OUT IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SRI P.R. SRIDHAR, PAPERS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED WHICH BELONG ED TO M/S. VARALAXMI CONSTRUCTIONS. THE A.O. THEREFORE OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED BELONG ED TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THE PROVISIONS 3 OF SECTION 153C ARE ATTRACTED. THEREFORE, HE ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT O N 31/01/2012. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE AND THEREAFTER ALSO FILED THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. T HE A.O. OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND BASED ON THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS , THE STATEMENTS OF MAN AGING PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE WERE RECORDED WHEREIN HE ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE - FIRM IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH SUPPORTING VOUCHERS ON DAY - TO - DAY BASIS. HE OBSERVED THAT THE SAME ARE CREATED AFTER THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR BASED ON BANK RECORDS AND OTHER ROUGH WORKINGS. THEREFORE, HE REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE @ 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US . 3. IN ADDITION TO THE GROUNDS RAISED ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS AND THE ADDI TIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED THEREAFTER ARE AS UNDER: - 1 . THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 4 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOL DING THE VIEW OF THE A.O. IN ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT 8% ON SUB - CONTRACTS. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VIEW OF THE A.O. BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT FIRM IS HAVING ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMEMTS AND INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FIRM BASED ON THE PAST PROFITS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE ORDER OF THE HYDERABAD ITAT IN THE CASE OF MAA HIGHWAYS IN ITA NO.53/HYD/2012, 54/HYD/2013 AND ITA NO.747/HYD/2009 WHEREIN THE INCOME FROM SUB - CONTRACT RECEIPTS IS ESTIMATED AT 5%. 8. THE ASSESSEE MAY ADD, ALTER OR MODIFY OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OTHER POINT TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 9. WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONVBLE SUPREME C OURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD VS. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) THE ITAT HAS JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE THE QUESTION OF LAW WHICH THOUGH NOT AROSE BEFORE THE A.O. BUT AROSE BEFORE THE ITAT FOR THE FIRST TIME. 10. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, THERE BEING NO SATISFACTION RECORDED BY HIM AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPANY SEARCHED. 11. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ANNULLED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. APPRECIATING THAT INVOKING OF THE PROVISIONS U/S 153C WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION BY HIM AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE SEARCHED PARTY BECOMES INVALID AS HELD BY THE HONBLE AP HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. SHETTY S PHARMACEUTICALS & BIOLOGICALS LTD IN ITTA NO.662 OF 2014 DATED 26/11/2014. 12. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE PREMISE OF SEARCH PARTY DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. 5 13. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153C OF THE ACT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 14. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT NO ADD I TION CAN BE MADE U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153C OF THE ACT WHEN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) / 143(1) HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED AND NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 15. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006 - 07, THERE BEING NO SATISFACTION RECORDED BY HIM AS WELL AS BY THE A.O. HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON SEARCHED. 16. THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT INVOKING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION BY HIM AS W ELL AS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE SEARCHED PARTY BECOMES INVALID AS HELD BY THE HONBLE AP HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. SHETTYS PHARMACEUTICALS & BIOLOGICALS LTD IN ITTA NOS. 662 OF 2014 DATED 26/11/2014. 17. THE ASSES SING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THERE WAS NO SEIZED MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH HIM, THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOUT THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING MATERIAL FOUND BELONGS TO THE APPELLANT, CERTAIN UNDISC LOSED INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED AND ALSO ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C. 18. THE A.O. ERRED IN INVOLVING THE PROVISIONS U/S 153C WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AND WITHOUT HAVING ANY JURISDICTION FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. 19. THE A.O. ERRED IN MAKING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153C ON AN INVALID NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE ACT AS THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RELATING TO THE APPELLANT WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH U/S 132 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. CASE LAW: M/S. MIDWEST GOLD LTD VS. DCIT [1288 TO 1293/H/2014] 20. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE MATERIAL IN PREMISES OF M/S. MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD DOES NOT BELONG TO APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT THE PROCEEDING U/S 153C CANNOT BE INITIATED. CASE LAW: DR. N. PAWAN KUMAR VS. DCIT [ITA NO.1568 & 1569/HYD/2013] 21. THE A.O. ERRED IN MAKING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WITHOUT THERE BEING FOUND ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RELATED TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6 CASE LAW: ACIT VS. PACL INDIA LIMITED, JAIPUR, ITAT [ ITA NO. 2637/DEL/010] 22. THE A.O. ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME AT 8% ON SUB - CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 2,39,55,214/ - WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, INSTEAD OF ACCEPTING THE INCOME RETURNED. 23. THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE INCOME RETURNED OF RS. 9,39,721/ - WHICH GIVES A NET PROFIT RATE OF ABOUT 4% ON THE SUB - CONTRACT WORKS. CASE LAW: ITO VS. SRI PEDDIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA REDDY (SUB - CONTRACTOR), PEDDA CHEEPADU (V) KADAPA (DIST) IN ITA NO.304/HYD/2014 DATED 13/06/2014 FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11) . 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GRO UNDS NO. 15 TO 20 ARE LEGAL GROUNDS AND THEREFORE, SHOULD BE ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED. THEREAFTER, HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL GROUNDS NO. 21 TO 24 ARE AGAINST THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, THEY MAY ALSO BE ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS ALSO HEARD AND WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENTS U/S 153C OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED THE SATISFACT ION AS IS REQUIRED U/S 153C OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THESE ARE PURELY LEGAL GROUNDS AND THEREFORE, CAN BE ADMITTED AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC LTD VS. CIT (229 ITR 383) (SC). SINCE THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE ADJUDICATION OF THESE GROUNDS FIRST. 7 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A CHART WHEREIN THE DISCUSS ION ON THE ADDITIONAL GROUND S ALONG WITH THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES AND HIS ARGUMENTS ON EACH OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED THEREIN ARE MENTIONED . WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CHART SUPPLIED BY THE LD AR AND ALSO THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES MADE IN THE CASE OF M/S. MADHUCON GROUP AND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, W E FIND THAT THERE IS NO SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE A.O. EITHER IN THE CASE OF M/S. MODHUCON GROUP OR IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INCOME IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL BELONGED TO THE SEARCHED PERSON OR THE PERSON TO WHOM THE DOCUMENTS B ELONG ED TO. WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS ONLY RECORDED THAT THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BELONG ED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, HE INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE ACT. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISI ON OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHETTY PHARMACEUTICALS & BIOLOGICALS LTD WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN ITTA NO.662 OF 2014 DATED 26/11/2014. IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHETTY PHARMACEUTICALS (SUPRA), THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT HELD THAT SECTION 153A AND ALSO 153C OF THE ACT MANDATES RECORDING OF THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER A S A PRE - CONDITION FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION AND HELD THAT IT IS NOT A MERE FORMALITY. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT EVEN IF THE A.O. OF THE PERSON SEARCH ED 8 AND THE OTHER PERSON TO WHOM THE MATERIAL BELONGS TO IS THE SAME, IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE AND DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE ABOVE REQUIREMENT. IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT FIRSTLY THE SATISFACTION HAS TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO CONDUCTED SEARCH, THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONG ED TO BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECT ION 153A OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON, ON RECEIPT OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENT , SHALL RECORD HIS OWN SATISFACTION AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED . THIS DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE SAME A S IN THE CASE OF M/S. MADHUCON GROUP . D ULY TAKING NOTE THAT WHEN THERE IS NO SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE A.O. AS IS REQUIRED U/S 153A OR 153C, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAD SET - ASIDE THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED U/S 153A OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF M/A. MADHUCON GROUP , I N THE CASE BEFORE US ALS O WE HOLD THAT SINCE THERE IS NO SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE A.O. AS IS REQUIRED U/S 153C THE ASSESSMENTS U/S 153C OF THE ACT ARE NOT TO BE SUSTAINABLE . 9 8 . LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES ARGUMENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF BOTH THE PERSON SEARCHED AND THE OTHER PERSON TO WHOM THE MATERIAL BELONG ED TO , IS THE SAME AND THAT THERE IS EXISTENCE OF SEIZED MATERIAL BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE , ( FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED U/S 132 ) OF THE ACT AND THAT THERE IS RECORDING OF SATISFACTION TWICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BOTH IN HIS CAPACITY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE GROUP COMPANIES AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE AND FINALLY THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF TRANSFERRING OF MATERIAL BY ONE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONE AND THE SAME IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE CASES, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT EVEN THOUGH BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ARE ONE AND THE SAME, THE SATISFACTION IS NECESSARILY BE RECORDED TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE OTHER ASSESSEE TO KNOW THE REASON FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS IN HIS CASE. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH ( SUPRA) AND AFTER SEEING THAT THERE IS NO SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED OR THE OTHER PERSON TO WHOM THE MATERIAL BELONGS TO I.E.., THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE , WE SET - ASIDE THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2010 - 11. 10 9. IN VIEW OF THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE OTHER REGULAR GR OUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE NOT BEING ADJUDICATED AT THIS STAGE AS IT WOULD ONLY AMOUNT TO AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE . AS THE VERY ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN SET - ASIDE, THE REGULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE RELI EF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) , BY DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O ARE ALSO NOT ADJUDICATED AS NO PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED SINCE THE ASSESSMENTS THEMSELVES HAVE BEEN SET - ASIDE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 10 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2019 . S D/ - SD/ - (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 31 ST JANUARY, 2019 OKK COPY TO: - 1) P. MURALI & CO, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6 - 3 - 655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 82. (II) M/S. VARALAXMI CONSTRUCTIONS, 1 - 7 - 70, JUBLIPURA, KHAMMAM - 507 002. 2) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), 3 RD FLOOR, POSNETT BHAVAN, RAMKOTE, TILAK ROAD, HYDERABAD; (II) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1), HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - VII , HYDERABAD ; (II) CIT (A) - 12, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - VII , HYDERABAD ; (II) PR CIT - 12, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE