DCIT, Central Circle, Tirupathi V. Sri Vemireddy Prabhakar Reddy, Nellore

ITA 382/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 38222514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K MYTHLI RANI
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B ', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AKBER BASHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.377 TO 382/HYD/11 ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2006 -07 AND 2008-09 RE SPECTIVELY DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI V/S. SHRI VEMI REDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY, NELLORE. ( PAN - ABQPV 9228 C ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.31/HYD/2011 (IN ITA NO.381/HYD/11) : AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ITA NO.335/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YE AR 2003-04 ITA NO.336/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 SHRI VEMI REDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY, NELLORE. ( PAN - ABQPV 9228 C ) V/S. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI (CROSS - OBJECTOR/APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.V.RAGHU RAM DEPARTMENT BY : S MT. K.MYTHLI RANI DATE OF HEARING 27.9.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.10.2011 O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE SIX APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND CROSS-OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DI RECTED AGAINST THE ITA NO.377/HYD/11 AND 8 OTHERS SHRI VEMI REDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY, NELLORE. 2 ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE S AKE OF CONVENIENCE. REVENUES APPEALS : ITA NO.377 TO 382/HYD/11 : ASST. YEARS 2002-03 TO 2006-07 AND 2008-09 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE RE VENUE IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE EXPENDITURE MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A). 3. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BOOKED SUBSTANTIAL EXPENDITURE IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, FOR WHICH EVIDENCE LIKE BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE NOT S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE FULL DETAILS AND EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY IT AND TH EREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 10% OF THE EXPENDI TURE WAS MOST REASONABLE. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS OPPOSE D THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED A VERY ENC OURAGING NET PROFIT PERCENTAGE OF 13.91% FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03; 1 2.50% OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04; 13.22% FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05; 12.75% FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06; 9.74% FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07; 16.51% FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08; AND 20.35% FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. HE SUBMITTED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS REGARD ING EXPENDITURE CLAIMED TAKEN FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WER E FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) AND ALSO A COPY THEREOF HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN THE COMPILATION FILED BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MA DE A SURRENDER OF RS.4 ITA NO.377/HYD/11 AND 8 OTHERS SHRI VEMI REDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY, NELLORE. 3 CRORES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND 2008-09 SEPARATELY. HE SUBMITTED THAT A SPECIAL AUDIT WAS CONDUCTED IN THI S CASE AND IN THE SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT NO ADVERSE COMMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY TH E AUDITOR. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT, CERT AIN DISALLOWANCES OUT OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST SUCH DISALLOWANCES AND THEREFORE, ON THE SAME ISSUE ANOTHER DISALLOWANCE ON AD-HOC BASIS COU LD NOT BE MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER S .143(3) READ WITH S.153 OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HA VE PERUSED THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E COMPILATION FILED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REF ERRED FOR SPECIAL AUDIT AND THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE SPECIAL AUDIT HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT OR SHORT-COMING WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS CONCLUDED THAT IN THE CAS E LIKE THIS WHERE SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND THE AUDITOR HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT WITH REGARD TO LABOUR PAYMENTS, OVER AND AB OVE ALL THESE FACTS, MAKING A LUMPSUM DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES IS NO T FINDING ANY SUPPORT. THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT OR ANY PAYMENT OF BOGUS NATURE AND T HEREFORE, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO MAKE ANY LUMPSUM DISALLOWANCE. WE FI ND THAT IN THE ORIGINAL SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES OUT OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFER RED ANY APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, THE SAID DISALLOWANCES HAVE B ECOME FINAL. WE FIND THAT ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, NO CASE OF ANY FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OUT O F THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD BE MADE OUT BY THE REVENUE. THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT IF ITA NO.377/HYD/11 AND 8 OTHERS SHRI VEMI REDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY, NELLORE. 4 THERE ARE ANY DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE ORIGINAL AS SESSMENT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GONE IN APPEAL, TO THAT EXTENT TH E DISALLOWANCES MADE ARE TO BE TREATED AS RETAINED AND THE BALANCE DISALLOWA NCES ONLY ARE TO BE DELETED. THERE BEING NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING AN Y FURTHER DISALLOWANCE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS IS SUE ARE REJECTED. 6. THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, 2003-04 AN D 2005-06 IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS UNDER THE HEAD ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF MACHINERY. 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS REL IED ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SHE HAS REFERRED T O THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REV ENUE THAT THE ADVANCES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SALE OF MACHINERY WERE NOT GENUINE. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING INFORMATION OR DOCUMENT TO SHOW TH AT THE TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SALE OF MACHINERY AND RECEIPT OF ADVANCES WERE NOT GENUINE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID TRANSACTIONS W ERE REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEETS, WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO DI SBELIEVE THE ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF MACH INES. HE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HA VE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT WAS RECEIVING SUCH ADVANCES AGAINST THE SAL E OF OLD SEMI-WORN OUT MACHINES AND THEY WERE DISCLOSED IN THE LIABILITY S IDE, AS AGAINST WHICH THE ITA NO.377/HYD/11 AND 8 OTHERS SHRI VEMI REDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY, NELLORE. 5 MACHINERY WHICH WERE TO BE SOLD APPEAR ON THE ASSE T SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET, AFTER REDUCING THE DEPRECIATION ETC. WHEN T HE MACHINES WERE SOLD, AND THE SALE WAS CONCLUDED, THE MACHINERY WILL NOT APPEAR ON THE ASSET ASIDE AND LIKEWISE, THE ADVANCES RECEIVED ALSO WOUL D NOT BE SHOWN AS LIABILITY. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING SEIZED MATERIAL OR DOCUMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEES CLAIM TO SUGGEST TH AT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GENUINE. FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS, T HE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE ADVANCE RECEIVED AS LIABILITY AGAINST THE SALE OF MACHINERY AND THUS, THE SAID MACHINES AS WELL AS ADVANCES RECEIVE D WERE APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEETS OF THE RELEVANT YEARS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ADVANCES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BOGUS. NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR DOCUMENT WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH CONDUCT ED AT THE ASSESSEES GROUP CONCERNS ON 23.1.2008. THE CIT(A) HAS CONCL UDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THE FACT THAT SUCH TRA NSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE AND WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL AS SUCH, COULD NOT SAY TH AT THE TRANSACTIONS AS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WERE NOT GENUI NE. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE ADVANCES RE CEIVED AGAINST THE SALE OF MACHINERY WERE NOT GENUINE, WE HOLD THAT THERE I S NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, AND IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. ACCORD INGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS O F APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WITH REGARD TO THIS ISSUE IN THE APPEALS FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2005-06 ARE REJECTED. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE SIX APPEALS OF THE REVE NUE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.377/HYD/11 AND 8 OTHERS SHRI VEMI REDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY, NELLORE. 6 ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO.31/HYD/2011 (IN ITA NO. 381/HYD/2011) : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 11. GROUNDS IN THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSE E ARE AS UNDER- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153A IN SP ITE OF THE FACT THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THAT AN ASSESSMENT WAS EARLIER MADE AFTER SCRUTINY U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION DIF FERENCE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT SUCH DIFFERENCE IS ARRIVED AT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE NORMAL DEDUCTION OF 15% FOR RA TE DIFFERENCE IN PLINTH AREA RATES OF DELHI AND THE PL ACE OF CONSTRUCTION AND 10% FOR PERSONAL SUPERVISION AS AG AINST 7.5% ALLOWED. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NO SUCH ADDITION COULD BE MADE IF THE DIFFERENCE IS LESS THAN 10% OF THE TOTA L VALUE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOW WELL SETTLED THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN THE PLINTH AREA RATES O F CPWD AT DELHI AND THE CONSTRUCTIONS MADE AT OTHER PLACES, AND THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT NORMAL DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE IN SUCH CASES AT 15% FOR DIFFER ENCE IN PLINTH AREA RATES APPLICABLE TO DELHI AND OTHER PLACES OF CONSTRUCTIO N IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. WITH REGARD TO TH E OTHER ISSUE OF DEDUCTION OF 10% FOR SELF-SUPERVISION OF THE CONST RUCTION OF THE PROPERTY, WE HOLD THAT THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF SELFSUPER VISION AT 10% IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THESE TWO DEDUCTIONS, AND RE-DETER MINE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, WHICH IN ANY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DETER MINED AT A FIGURE LESS THAN THE ONE ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. WE DI RECT ACCORDINGLY. 13. IN THE RESULT, CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSE E IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.377/HYD/11 AND 8 OTHERS SHRI VEMI REDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY, NELLORE. 7 ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.335/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 11. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT. 12. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONSI DERED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE M AY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRE SH ON ITS MERITS. 13. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D THE CIT(A). SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED WELL REASONED SPEAKING ORDERS ON THE ISSUE. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SOURCE WAS EXPLAINED FROM THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TRANSFERR ED FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, M/S. LAKSHMI EARTH MOVERS, WHICH WAS ASSESSED BY THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN THE CA PITAL ACCOUNT AND THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM AND COPY OF THE SAME WA S FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT SHALL BE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER PROVIDIN G REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ANY EVIDENCE WHICH MAY BE FIELD B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.377/HYD/11 AND 8 OTHERS SHRI VEMI REDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY, NELLORE. 8 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04, BEING ITA NO.335/HYD/2011, IS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.336/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 16. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.13,80,000 ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUN TED ADVANCES PAID. 17. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY AN A CCOUNTANT AND THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT. HE SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED A SUM OF RS.2.25 CRORES FOR TAXATION FO R THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.13,80,000 MA Y BE TELESCOPED AGAINST THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 18. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THE PLEA OF TELESCOPING DUR ING THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER S.132(4) OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF S EARCH ITSELF. 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE F IND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ASKED FOR TELESCOPING THE AMOUNT O F RS.13.80,000 AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE STATEMENT UNDER S.132(4) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A DISCLOSURE SEPARATELY, BUT HAD NOT MADE ANY DISCLOSURE WITH REGARD TO THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO SHRI S.NAGARJUNA PRASAD RE DDY. IN THESE FACTS, THE CIT(A) HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO SHRI S.NAGARJUNA PRASAD REDDY WERE OUTSIDE THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, AND THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPIN G WAS NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL BEFORE US TO SUGGEST THAT THE DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSE E INCLUDES THE ADVANCES ITA NO.377/HYD/11 AND 8 OTHERS SHRI VEMI REDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY, NELLORE. 9 GIVEN TO SHRI S.NAGARJUNA PRASAD REDDY OR THAT THE RE EXISTS ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE TWO AND ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE TELESCOPING BENEFIT COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE, AND CONSEQUEN TLY, GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE REJECTED. 20. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08, ITA NO.336/HYD/2011, IS DISMISSED. 21. TO SUM UP, WHILE ALL THE SIX APPEALS OF THE RE VENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2006-07 AND 2008-09 AS WELL AS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, BEING ITA NO.336/HYD/2011, ARE DISMISSED; APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, BEING ITA NO.335/HYD/2011 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES; AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, BEING C.O NO.31/HYD/11 IN REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.381/HYD/2011, IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14.10.2011 SD/- SD/- (AKBER BASHA) (G.C.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DT/- 14 TH OCTOBER, 2011 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI VEMI REDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY, ( NELLORE ) C/O. M/S. K.VASANT KUMAR, A.V.RAGHU RAM & B.PEDDI RAJULU, ADVOCATES, 403 MANISHA TOWERS, D.NO.10-1-18/31, SHY AM NAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 004. 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI ITA NO.377/HYD/11 AND 8 OTHERS SHRI VEMI REDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY, NELLORE. 10 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) VII HYDERABA D 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S.