DCIT, Central Circle-4, Hyderabad V. M/s. Kedia Overseas Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 396/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2943 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 115JB; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, J UDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 396 &397/HYD/11,1691/HYD/10 ASSTT. YEARS : 2004-05,2006-07 & 2005-06 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, HYDERABAD. V/S. M/S. KEDIA OVERSEAS LIMITED, MALAKPET, HYDERABAD. PAN: AABCK 3898E (APPELLANT) C.O. NO.18/HYD/2011 (ITA NO.1691/HYD/10) M/S. KEDIA OVERSEAS LIMITED, MALAKPET, HYDERABAD. PAN: AABCK 3898E ( ASSESSEE) DEPARTMENT BY ASSESSEE BY ( RESPONDENT ) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, HYDERABAD. (RESPONDENT) : SRI D. SUDHAKARA RAO : SRI K.C. DEVDAS DATE OF HEARING 09 - 5 - 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31-5-2013 . O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE CROSS OBJE CTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF C IT (A)-VII, HYDERABAD PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 20 05-06, 2006-07. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPE ALS AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT IS ALSO COMMON, THESE ARE TAKEN UP T OGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMBINED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE. ITA NOS.396,397 AND OTHERS KEDIA OVERSEAS LTD., HYD. 2 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS WITH REGARD TO CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PROPORTIONAL DISALLOWANCE OF INTER EST ON ADVANCE GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERNS. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE U/S 132 O F THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER GROUP CONCERNS ON 1-2- 2008. IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,07,49,915. FROM THE MATERIALS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DIVERTED LOAN S AVAILED BY IT TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS WITHOUT CHARGING ANY INTERE ST FROM THEM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT LOANS AVAILE D BY THE ASSESSEE WERE USED FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES, HENCE INTEREST PA ID ON THESE LOANS CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE. HE THEREF ORE ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE PROPOSING TO DISALLOW INTE REST COMPUTED FOR DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CALLED FOR DETAILS OF LOANS A VAILED AND INTEREST CHARGED THEREON, AMOUNTS GIVEN TO THE SISTER CONCERNS, LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF SISTER CONCERNS ETC. AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASST. ORDER, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED SISTER CONCERNS ACCO UNT STATEMENTS AND OTHER DETAILS BUT IT DID NOT REPLY TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICERS PROPOSAL FOR DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THEREFORE CALCULATED INTEREST @13.5% ON THE LOANS GIVEN TO THE SISTER CONCERNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT INTEREST DISALLOW ABLE AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY COMPUT ED THE INTEREST TO BE DISALLOWED FOR DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEA RS. FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT O F ITA NOS.396,397 AND OTHERS KEDIA OVERSEAS LTD., HYD. 3 RS.1,00,28,976/-. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE DI SALLOWANCE MADE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. IN COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED EXCESSIVE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TO IT S SISTER CONCERNS IS NOT CORRECT AS IN REALITY SISTER CONCERNS HAVE GIV EN MORE ADVANCES TO THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHILE TH E SISTER CONCERNS HAVE THE BALANCE OF RS.71,56,59,009/- THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED RS.68,28,56,200 TO THE SISTER CONCERNS, HENCE NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS O N RECORD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITI ONS BY CONCLUDING AS UNDER:- THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. IT IS SEEN THAT FOR THE ASST. YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS SEEN TO HAV E RECEIVED/PURCHASES AT RS.71,56,59,009 AGAINST THE A PPELLANT COMPANYS PAYMENTS/SALES AT RS.68,28,56,200. ACCOR DINGLY, THE APPELLANT COMPANY ENJOYS THE PURCHASES/RECEIPTS FROM THE SISTER CONCERNS WITH THE EXCESS DIFFERENCE BALANCE OF RS.3,28,02,809. IT IS SEEN FROM BODY OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPEARS TO HAVE WORKED O UT THE INTEREST @13.5% AND ADDED AT RS.1,28,00,076/- FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS. HE HAS MADE HUGE AD DITION WITHOUT REALIZING THAT APPELLANTS RECEIPTS/ PURCH ASES ARE MORE THAN APPELLANTS PAYMENTS AND SALES. THEREFORE, TH ERE CANNOT BE ANY INTEREST CHARGING IN SUCH SITUATION. CONSEQ UENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT PRESUMPTIVE INTERE ST ON SO CALLED EXCESSIVE PAYMENTS/PURCHASES TO SISTER CONCE RNS IN THE ITA NOS.396,397 AND OTHERS KEDIA OVERSEAS LTD., HYD. 4 BODY OF THE ORDER AT RS.1,33,70,769 AND WHILE MAKIN G THE COMPUTATION AT RS.1,00,28,076. FURTHER, IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING SUCH HUGE ADDITION, HE COULD HAVE APPRECIATED THE BASIC FACTS TO MAKE ANY ADDITI ON. FROM THE RECORDS,. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ANY EXCESS PAYMENT OR SALES TO THE SISTER CONCERNS TO CHARGE INTEREST AND TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONS. FURTHER, IT MA Y BE SEEN THAT THERE WAS A LETTER FROM THIS OFFICE DATED 11-6-2010 CALLING FOR CLARIFICATIONS FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REPLIED TO SAID LETTER. THEREFORE, TAKING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INTO CONSIDERAT ION, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO DEMANDING SITUATION F OR ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF PRESUMPTIVE INTEREST EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO EXCESS ADVANCES OR SALES MADE TO THE S ISTER CONCERNS. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELYIN G UPON THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE CONCLUSION AR RIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT AS HE HAS CONSIDERED FRESH EVIDE NCES IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES 1962. 7. THE LEARNED AR STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AT ALL CONSIDE R THE FACTS AND MATERIALS PLACED BEFORE HIM AND HAS ARBITRARILY MA DE THE DISALLOWANCE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ONLY MADE ADVANCES TO THE SISTER CONCERNS BUT HAS ALSO RECEIVED ADVANCE S FROM SISTER CONCERNS ALSO. THE LEARNED AR DRAWING OUR ATTEN TION TO THE DETAILS OF ADVANCES TO SISTER CONCERNS AND LOANS RECEIVED F ROM SISTER CONCERNS AT PAGE 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK-II AND THE DETAI LS OF INTEREST PAYABLE AND INTEREST RECEIVABLE AT PAGE 31 OF THE PAP ER BOOK-II SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO TH E SISTER ITA NOS.396,397 AND OTHERS KEDIA OVERSEAS LTD., HYD. 5 CONCERNS IS MORE THAN INTEREST RECEIVABLE. HE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT, IN FACT, THE ADVANCES TO THE SISTER CONCERNS ARE NOT LOANS BUT TRADE ADVANCES AS THE ASSESSEE HAS BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH SISTER CONCER NS. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED AR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK-II. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED, THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD ENOUGH RESERVE AND SURPLUS TO MAKE ADVANCES TO THE SISTER CONCERNS W ITHOUT HAVING TO DIVERT THE BORROWED FUNDS. IN SUPPORT OF H IS CONTENTION THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) DCIT V/S. AGARWAL GLOBAL STEEL LTD. (141 ITD 76 ) II) SA BUILDERS LTD. V/S. CIT (288 ITR 65 (SC) III) MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION V/S. CIT (298 ITR 298)( SC) 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE DO CUMENTS SUBMITTED IN THE PAPER BOOKS. FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY GIVEN ADVANCES TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS BUT HAS ALSO RECEIVED ADVANCES FROM THEM. FROM TH E ACCOUNT OF ONE OF THE SISTER CONCERN I.E., KEDIA VANASPATI LTD. , IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE IS A CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.3,28,02,809/- WITH THE ASSESSEE. IT FURTHER REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REGULAR BUSINESS TRAN SACTION WITH ITS SISTER CONCERN. IN THE AFORESAID FACTUAL SITUATION TH E DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ALLEGATION OF DIVERTIN G BORROWED FUNDS TO THE SISTER CONCERNS IS NOT BORNE OUT FROM RECORD, HENCE, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THAT BESIDES, THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BUSINE SS CONNECTION WITH ITS SISTER CONCERNS IS ALSO SUGGESTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE ADVANCES ONLY, HENCE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS LOANS. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF DCIT V/S. AG ARWAL GLOBAL STEELS. THEREFORE, LOOKED INTO FROM ANY ANGLE DISALL OWANCE OF INTEREST ITA NOS.396,397 AND OTHERS KEDIA OVERSEAS LTD., HYD. 6 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. SO FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E THAT THE CIT (A) HAS CONSIDERED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A IS CONCERNED, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN IT. IT IS EVI DENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) THAT IN COURSE OF THE APPEAL PROCEEDING THE CIT (A) IN FACT HAD SOUGHT THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON TH E ISSUE BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT RESPOND TO IT. IN AFORESAID VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE SAME. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.1691/HYD/10- ASST. YEAR 2005-06: - 9. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUES DECIDED BY US IN ITA NO.396/HYD/11 HEREINBEFOR E. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING GIVEN THERE, WE DISMISS THE GROUND RAI SED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ITA NO.397/HYD/11- ASST. YEAR 2006-07: - 10. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS WITH REGARD TO DIRECTION OF THE CIT (A) FOR NOT TO ADD DISALLOWABLE INTEREST WHILE COMPUTING MAT. 11. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME UN DER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS AND A BOOKS PROFIT OF RS.1,08,552/- UNDER SEC. 115JB OF THE ACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS US 143(3) READ WI TH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT MADE PRESUMPTIVE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPE NDITURE CLAIMED TOWARDS PAYMENT OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.1,37,88,15 5/- AND ADDED IT TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.26,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED ON ITA NOS.396,397 AND OTHERS KEDIA OVERSEAS LTD., HYD. 7 MONEY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON PURCHASE OF A PROPERTY. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER BY MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS DETERMINED T HE INCOME AT RS.2,12,04,436/- AND AFTER SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES TOTAL INCOME UNDER NORMAL PROVISION WAS DETERMINED AS NIL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER WHILE COMPUTING MAT ADDED THE AFORESAI D AMOUNTS TO THE BOOK PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED SUCH ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER BEFORE THE CIT (A). IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE CIT (A) THAT INTEREST DISALLOWANCE AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT CANNOT BE ADDED U/S 115JB TO ARRIVE AT THE BOOK PROFIT. IN SUP PORT OF SUCH CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING D ECISIONS:- 1. APOLLO TYRES LTD. (255 ITR 273) (SC) 2. A.B. HOTEL LTD. (RADISSON HOTEL) V/S. DCIT 25 SOT 368 (DELHI) 3. DCIT V/S. ROXY INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. 24 SOT 227 (DELHI ) 4. ACIT V/S. GVK INDUSTRIES LTD. 21 SOT 295 (HYD) 5. AJANTA PHARMA V/S. CIT CIT 327 ITR 305 THE CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT TO ADD THE DISALLOWABLE INTEREST FOR COMPUT ING MAT. 13. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MATERIA LS ON RECORD. A READING OF THE PROVISION CONTAINED U/S 115J B OF THE ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE BASIS FOR COMPUTATION OF BOOK P ROFIT IS THE NET PROFIT AS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND WHICH MAYBE INCREASED BY THE ITEMS PRESCRIBED IN ITEM (A) TO (I) AND REDUCED BY ITEMS (I) TO (VIII). THEREFORE ANY OF THE ITEMS WHICH ARE TO BE ADDED FOR ARRIVING AT THE BOOK PROFIT MUST FALL WITHIN THE ITEMS SPECIFIED UNDER ITA NOS.396,397 AND OTHERS KEDIA OVERSEAS LTD., HYD. 8 THE EXPLANATION. SEC. 115JB BEING A SELF CONTAINED PRO VISION, ONE HAS TO GO STRICTLY BY THE PROVISION CONTAINED THEREIN. SINCE T HE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ARRIVE AT THE BOOK PROFIT A RE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF ITEMS ENUMERATED UNDER EXPLANATION I TO SE CTION 115JB, THE COMPUTATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LEGALLY UNSUST AINABLE. WE ARE SUPPORTED IN OUR VIEW BY THE DECISIONS CITED BY T HE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND D ISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 14. DEPARTMENTS APPEAL BEING ITA NO.397/HYD/11 IS DISM ISSED. C.O. NO. 18/HYD/11 (ARISING OUT OF ITA 1691/HYD/10) A.Y. 2005-06 : - 15. THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANC E OF INTEREST AT RS.14,22,978 IS UNSUSTAINABLE ON FACTS AND IN LA W. 16. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMEN T THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED INTEREST OF RS.1,81,06,330/- O N THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE TO ITS SIST ER CONCERNS. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN APPEAL FI LED BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY ADVAN CED CERTAIN AMOUNTS TO THE SISTER CONCERNS BUT IT HAS ALSO RECEI VED ADVANCES FROM THE SAID SISTER CONCERNS. HE HOWEVER REJECTED ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE ADVANCES TO SISTER CONCERNS WERE OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT INTEREST SHOULD B E CHARGED ONLY ON THE NET DUE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM THE SISTER CONCER NS ON NUMBER OF DELAYS BASIS. ON THE BASIS OF THE WORKING SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT (A) QUANTIFIED THE DISALLOWABLE INTEREST AT R S.14,22,978/- ITA NOS.396,397 AND OTHERS KEDIA OVERSEAS LTD., HYD. 9 17. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED MA TERIALS ON RECORD. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY HAS ADVANCED AMOUNTS TO THE SISTER CONCERNS BUT THE SIST ER CONCERNS HAVE ALSO ADVANCED AMOUNTS TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO A F ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH THE SISTER CONCERNS. THAT BE SIDES THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS ACTUALLY DIVERTED INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TO THE SISTER CONCERNS WIT HOUT CHARGING INTEREST. ON THE CONTRARY, FROM THE FACTS AND MATERIA LS ON RECORD IT CAN BE ASSUMED THAT THE ADVANCES ARE MORE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE ADVANCES. IN AFORESAID VIEW OF THE MATTER THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.14,22,978/- ALSO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY WE D ELETE THE SAME. THE C.O IS ALLOWED. 18. TO SUM UP, DEPARTMENTS APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 39 6/HYD/11, 397/HYD/11 AND 1691/HYD/10 ARE DISMISSED AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IN CO NO.18/HYD/11 IS ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MAY, 2013 . SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 31 ST MAY, 2013 JMR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, HYDERABAD. M/S. KEDIA OVERSEAS LIMITED, PLOT NO.48, SAI KRUPA MARKET MAHABUB MANSION, MALAKPET, HYDERABAD. CIT (A)-VI, HYDERABAD. CIT CONCERNED, HYDERABAD. THE DR B BENCH ITAT, HYDERABAD. ITA NOS.396,397 AND OTHERS KEDIA OVERSEAS LTD., HYD. 10