Sri Vinod Kumar Agarwal, Hyderabad V. Asst.CIT,Circle 6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 359/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91711 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SUDHAKAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Search and seizure; Difference of opinion; Agreed addition; Right to appeal
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.NO I.T.A. NO. AY. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 357/HYD/2014 2002 - 03 SRI VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL, HYDERABAD PAN: AHHPA2316F ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD 2. 358/HYD/2014 2004 - 05 3. 359/HYD/2014 2005 - 06 4. 360/HYD/2014 2006 - 07 5. 361/HYD/2014 2008 - 09 6. 1397/HYD/2010 2007 - 08 FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI P. MUR ALI MOHAN RA O , AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI D. SUDHAKAR RAO, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 8 - 0 5 - 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 - 05 - 2015 O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M. : ITA NO. 357/HYD/2014 (AY. 2002-03): THIS IS AN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-IV, HYDERABAD, DATED 17-01-2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2002-03 RAISING THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: '1. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT S WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 2. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN ADDING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000/- BY TREATING IT AS UNEXPLAINED OPENING BALANCE OF CAPITAL WITHO UT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IT IS A OPENING BALANCE FOR THE FY. 2002-03. ITA NOS. 357 TO 361/HYD/2014 & 1397/HYD/2010 SRI VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL :- 2 -: 3. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT T HAT THE AMOUNT PERTAINING TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT IS OPENING BALANCE F OR THE YEAR & BELONGS TO EARLIER YEARS, HENCE CANNOT BE ADDED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY INITIATING PENALTY PROC EEDINGS U/S. 271 OF THE ACT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLAN T HAS NEITHER CONCEALED INCOME NOR FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 5. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE JUDGME NT GIVEN BY ITAT, HYDERABAD IN CASE OF SRI R. RAM REDDY ITA NO. 103/ HYD/2004. 6. THE ASSESSEE MAY ADD, ALTER OR MODIFY ANY OTHER POINT TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEA RING OF THE APPEAL'. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SCRAP TRADING. SEAR CH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS WERE CONDUCTED U/S. 132 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 [ACT] IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT ON 07-11- 2007. THEREAFTER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 153A OF THE ACT CALLING UPON THE APPELLANT TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY. 2002-03 TO 2008- 09. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE APPELLANT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING INCOMES AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR RETURN FILED ON INCOME ADMITTED (RS) 2002 - 03 17 - 08 - 2009 NIL 200 3 - 0 4 17 - 08 - 2009 NIL 200 4 - 0 5 17 - 08 - 2009 1,05,570 2005 - 06 17 - 08 - 2009 4,47,730 2006 - 07 17 - 08 - 2009 17,02,670 2007 - 08 17 - 08 - 2009 18,69,630 2008 - 09 25 - 09 - 2009 4,45,340 AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY. 2002- 03, THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 6(1), HYDERABAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2 LAKHS VIDE ORDER DT. 30-11-2009 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT. THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE RETURNED INCOME AND ASSESSED INCOME IS ON ITA NOS. 357 TO 361/HYD/2014 & 1397/HYD/2010 SRI VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL :- 3 -: ACCOUNT OF ADDITION OF OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 2 LAKHS ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE EVI DENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH BALANCE AS ON 01-04-2002. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ADDITION, THE APPELLANT PREFERRED AN APPEAL BE FORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL. IT W AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT OF OPENING CASH BALANCE IN AS MUCH AS EVEN IF THE AVAILABILITY OF C ASH BALANCE IS DOUBTED, IT IS ONLY IN THE PRECEDING YEAR THE ADDITION SHOUL D BE MADE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING: I. SMT. N. SASIKALA [151 TAXMAN 42 (CHENNAI)]; AND II. CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF P. RAM REDDY (ITA NO.103/HYD/2004). THE CIT(A) PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C. PACKIRISAMY VS. ACIT [315 I TR 293 (MAD)] THE CIT(A) HELD THAT, IN CASE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO S UBSTANTIATE THE AVAILABILITY OF OPENING BALANCE, THE ADDITION CAN A S WELL BE MADE IN THE SAME YEAR AND THEREFORE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. BEIN G AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE HAD COME UP WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. AR BEFORE US THAT, NO A DDITION IN RESPECT OF OPENING BALANCE CAN BE MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION. IF AT ALL AN ADDITION IS WARRANTED, IT CAN BE MADE ONLY IN TH E PRECEDING YEAR. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWI NG DECISIONS OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL: I. SMT. SURAPU INDIRA DEVI VS. ACIT (ITA NO. 96/HYD/20 12) DT. 08-08-2013; AND ITA NOS. 357 TO 361/HYD/2014 & 1397/HYD/2010 SRI VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL :- 4 -: II. SRI GROSU MURALI KRISHNA VS. DCIT (ITA NO. 178/HYD/ 2011) DT. 05-03-2014. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. CIT-DR HAD PLACED RELIANC E ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT NO INTE RFERENCE IS CALLED FOR BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES. WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF T HE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. SURAPU INDIRA DEV I VS. ACIT (SUPRA), VIDE PARA 15, IT WAS HELD THAT: '15. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO THE AMOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH COULD BE OBTAINED FROM THE LAND AND THE LACK OF EVI DENCE PRODUCED WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME, THE ISSUE OF ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ACC EPTING THE OPENING BALANCE AND TREATING THE SAME AS NIL IS INCORRECT. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE, THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES HAVE ERRED AS THEY HAVE OVERLOOKED THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE OPENING BALANCE C ANNOT BE DISTURBED THIS YEAR. THE AUTHORITIES CAN ONLY REOPEN FOR THE EARLIER YEA R. WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF ACIT VS. SMT. N. SASIKALA (2005) 92 TTJ (CHENNAI) 1 19 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOW: 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN O F INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92 ALONG WITH CASH FLOW STATE MENT AND THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS. CUMULATIVE CASH BALANCE WAS SAVED BY THE ASSESSEE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. THE ASSESSEE EXPL AINED THE TOTAL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES POSITION AND HE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 1990- 91. IF THE DEPARTMENT DOUBTED THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH BALANCE, IT CAN GO TO THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91, AND TREAT IT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME, BUT IT CANNOT TREAT THE OPENIN G BALANCE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92 AS UNEXPLAINED. THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A). 6. .. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE A.O. HAS FAI LED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE RETURN FOR 1990-91, WHILE DECIDI NG THE ISSUE OF 1991- 92 AS THE RETURN WAS BEFORE HIM. THE OPENING BALA NCE OF CASH CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92. IN VIEW OF THIS POSITION, WE HAVE NO HESITAT ION IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUND TAKEN B Y THE REVENUE'. ITA NOS. 357 TO 361/HYD/2014 & 1397/HYD/2010 SRI VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL :- 5 -: THIS ABOVE DECISION WAS AGAIN FOLLOWED BY THIS HON' BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SRI GROSU MURALI KRISHNA VS. DCIT (SUPRA). WE ALSO FIND THAT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, AS A RESULT OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS, THERE IS NO MATERIAL INDICATING THAT THE OPENING CA SH BALANCE WAS NOT AVAILABLE. HENCE, IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW T HAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSMENTS MADE U/S. 153A, THE ADDITIONS CAN BE MA DE ONLY BASED ON THE MATERIAL SEIZED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH MATE RIAL, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REASO N GIVEN BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE CASES. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION, WE ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLA NT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED . ITA NOS. 358 TO 361/HYD/2014 (AYS. 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09) & ITA NO. 1397/HYD/2010 (2007-08): 7. THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AYS. 2004-05 TO 2006-07 AND 2008-09 AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-IV, HYDERABAD, DATED 17-01-2014 AND 10-09-2010 (FOR AY. 2007-08), RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: '1. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FAC TS WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT A T 6% FOR THE AY. 2005-06 AS AGAINST THE NET PROFIT DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLA NT AT 2% TO 5% AVERAGE. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE AT 6% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS. 4. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT T HAT WITHOUT REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE FLAT RATE APPLIED BY THE AO SHOULD CONSIDER THE PROFIT OF THE LAST YEARS OR RATE OF PROFIT EARNED BY THE OTHER ASSESSEE IN SAME TRADE. ITA NOS. 357 TO 361/HYD/2014 & 1397/HYD/2010 SRI VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL :- 6 -: 5. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE ORDER OF M/S. VARALAXMI GRANITES (P) LTD., ITA NO. 1435-1438/HYD/2010. 6. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT T HAT ASSESSEE MAINTAINS ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS & SAME SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION TO DECIDE THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE EST IMATED THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BASED ON PAST PROJECTS. 8. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT T HAT ASSESSEE HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL AGAINST THE AGREED ADDITION 'R.T. BALASU BRAMANIAM V/S. ITO 50 ITD 513 (MAD). 9. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY INITIATING PENALTY PROC EEDINGS U/S. 271 OF THE ACT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLAN T HAS NEITHER CONCEALED INCOME NOR FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 10. THE ASSESSEE MAY ADD, ALTER OR MODIFY ANY OTHE R POINT TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEA RING OF THE APPEAL'. 8. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SCRAP TRADING. SEAR CH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS WERE CONDUCTED U/S. 132 OF THE ACT IN TH E RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT ON 07-11-2007. THEREAFTE R, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 153A OF THE ACT CAL LING UPON THE APPELLANT TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY. 2002-03 TO 200 8-09. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE APPELLANT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING INCOMES AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR RETURN FILED ON INCOME ADMITTED (RS) 2002 - 03 17 - 08 - 2009 NIL 2003 - 04 17 - 08 - 2009 NIL 2004 - 05 17 - 08 - 2009 1,05,570 2005 - 06 17 - 08 - 2009 4,47,730 2006 - 07 17 - 08 - 2009 17,02,670 2007 - 08 17 - 08 - 2009 18,69,630 2008 - 09 25 - 09 - 2009 4,45,340 ITA NOS. 357 TO 361/HYD/2014 & 1397/HYD/2010 SRI VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL :- 7 -: NO ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AYS. 2002-03 A ND 2003-04 HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, FOR OTHER AS SESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, SAME AS ORIGINAL RETURNS OF INCOME W ERE FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 153A, EXCEPT FOR THE AYS. 2006-07 AN D 2007-08. HOWEVER, FOR THE AYS. 2006-07 AND 2007-08, HIGHER I NCOME WAS RETURNED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 153A. AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ACIT CI RCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD VIDE ORDER DT. 30-11-2009 AT A TOTAL INCO ME OF RS. 1,23,233/- (AY.2004-05), RS. 7,20,938/- (AY.2005-06), RS. 20,7 4,498/- (AY.2006- 07) AND RS. 15,31,487/- (AY.2008-09). 9. THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE RETURNED INCOME AND AS SESSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATING THE INCOME FROM THE BUSINE SS OF TRADING THE SCRAP AT A PERCENTAGE OF 6%. BEING AGGRIEVED BY TH E ADDITION, APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO VIDE COMMON ORDER DT. 17-01-2014, DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLA NT HAD AGREED FOR ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 6% BEFORE THE AO AND WHEN A DDITION IS BEING MADE BASED ON THE CONCESSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, TH E LD.CIT(A) HAD RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I. D. RAJA RAO (HUF) ( ITA NO. 718/HYD/02, DT. 02-09-2 004); II. MAGNI RAM LADDHA (ITA NO. 1000/HYD/03, DT. 29-09-20 04); III. M/S. KABALAVAI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., (ITA NO. 1039/H YD/05, DT. 13- 04-2006); IV. CITIZEN ESTATES (ITA NO. 484/HYD/05, DT. 31-10-2007 ) AND V. HARIKISHAN BAGRI (ITA NO. 567/HYD/09, DT. 28-08-200 9). BEING AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT HAD COME UP WITH TH E PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE US. ITA NOS. 357 TO 361/HYD/2014 & 1397/HYD/2010 SRI VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL :- 8 -: 10. IT WAS ARGUED BEFORE US THAT IN THE CASE OF ASS ESSMENTS MADE U/S. 153A, THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT IS NOT TENABLE IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY SEIZED MATERIAL INDICATING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DEFECTIVE ETC., AND FALSE PROPOSITION. HE REL IED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES: I. M/S. MIDWEST GOLD LTD., (ITA NOS. 1062 TO 1064/HYD/ 2014 AND 1288 TO 1293/HYD/2014) ; AND II. KISHORESONS DETERGENTS PVT. LTD., (ITA NOS. 1817 TO 1820/HYD/2012). 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAD PLACED RELIANCE O N THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT NO INTERFERE NCE BY THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED. 12. WE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES. ADMITTEDLY THERE I S NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL SEIZED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE O PERATIONS INDICATING THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESS EE ARE EITHER DEFECTIVE OR THE APPELLANT HAD INFLATED THE EXPENDI TURE OR SUPPRESSED THE SALE RESULTING IN A LOWER PROFIT. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT IN THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAD AGREED FOR THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT @ 6 % DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO. BUT THE FACT TO BE APPRECIATED IS THAT THERE IS NO ESTOPEL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FROM AGITATING THE ISSUE BEFORE THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IF THE ISSUE GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. SINCE IT IS TRITE LAW THAT THE ASSESSMENTS U/S. 153A CANNOT BE MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AND T HIS FORMS PART OF JURISDICTION. THEREFORE THE ISSUE CAN BE ADJUDICAT ED FOR THE FIRST TIME ITA NOS. 357 TO 361/HYD/2014 & 1397/HYD/2010 SRI VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL :- 9 -: EVEN BY THIS TRIBUNAL. HENCE, WE ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 357 TO 361/H YD/2014 AND 1397/HYD/2010 ALL ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH MAY, 2015 SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 29 TH MAY, 2015 TNMM COPY TO : 1. SRI VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL, C/O. P. MURALI & CO. CH ARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6-3-655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1 ), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(APPEALS)-IV, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT-III, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE