M/s Tejaswini Engineering Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward 2(2), Hyderabad

ITA 407/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8960 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMAKRISHNA BANDI
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SL.NO. ITA NO. AY ASSESSEE RESPONDENT 1 407/H/14 2009- 10 M/S.TEJASWINI ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN- AABCT6421A INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), HYDERABAD 2 546/H/14 2009- 10 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), HYDERABAD M/S.TEJASWINI ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN- AABCT6421A ASSESSEE BY SHRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO REVENUE BY SHRI RAMAKRISHNA BANDI DATE OF HEARING 03/03/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11/03/2015 O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M.: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- III, HYDERABAD, DATED 15 TH JANUARY, 2014 FOR AY 2009-10. 2. ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING AND STEEL PRODUCTS. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME F OR AY 2009-10 ON 31/03/2010, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 20,71,880 . AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 30/12/2011 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, DETERMINING INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS. 3,54,1,850. 2 ITA NOS. 407 & 546/HYD/2014 M/S TEJASWINI ENGG. PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 407/HYD/2014 BY ASSESSEE 3. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 8 GROUNDS. G ROUNDS NO. 1 & 8 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE, NO ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED FOR THE SAME. GROUND NOS. 2 TO 5 ARE PERTAINING TO ONE ISS UE, WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS BY THE AO. 3. THE LD CIT(A), HYD. ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE INCO ME AT 0.7% OF THE TURNOVER WHICH IS VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE IN THE L INE OF TRADE OF APPELLANT. 4. THE LD. CIT(A), HYD OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH E FACT THAT THE APPELLANTS AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT FOR TH E PRECEDING THREE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS VERY LESS I.E. 0.04% FOR A Y 2006-07 TO AY 2008-09 AND IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE ESTIMATED I NCOME @ 0.7% WHICH IS VERY HIGH. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS ARE, DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO INVESTIGATED INTO THE PU RCHASES AND SALES AND FOUND CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES. KEEPING IN M IND THESE DISCREPANCIES, THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT 1 % OF THE TURNOVER BY RECORDING THE FOLLOWING REASONS WERE GIVEN FOR THIS ACTION:- 11 ON VERIFICATION OF THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE / PURCHASES AND SALES FROM APRIL TO OCTOBERS WITH NO MAJOR GAIN OR LOSS. HOWEV ER FROM NOVEMBER 2008 ONWARDS THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED PURCHASE AND SALES AS UNDER: PURCHASE SALE DIFFERENCE OUANTITV VALUE OUANTITV VALUE NOVEMBER 7525.26 36,35,86,287 7525.26 33,54,45,642 - 28140645 DECEMBER 5490.33 408038118 5490.33 41 6769098 8730980 JANUARY 11790.82 509778422 11790.82 529457858 1 9679,436 FEBRUARY 10300.82 4326 69 153 ! 10300.82 432854828 185675 MARCH 11387.98 674830627 ! 71 1600054 36769427 FROM THE ABOVE IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED HUGE LOSS OF RS.2.81 CRORES IN THE SPAN OF ONLY ONE MONTH I.E. NOVEMBER. 3 ITA NOS. 407 & 546/HYD/2014 M/S TEJASWINI ENGG. PVT. LTD. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AT CHENNAI FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY PURCHASED 792.44 MT FOR RS.2,28,22,301/- WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.28,800/- PER TON. SIMILARLY, DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH ASSESSEE PURCHASED 100.220 MT FOR RS.32,07,892/- WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.32,009/- PER TON. HENCE THE AVERAGE COST OF MATERIAL PURCHASED DURING THE MONTHS OF FEBRUARY AND MARCH WORKS OUT TO RS.29,109/- PER TON. HOWEVER , ASSESSEE ADMITTED CLOSING STOCK AT THE RATE OF RS.33,004/- PER TON WHICH IS MORE THAN THE COST PRI CE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF PROFITS, ON PURCHASES AND SALE OF COMPUTER PARTS MADE IN JULY AND AUGUST. , THE PURCHASES AS PER ASSESSEE FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, IS RS.67,48,30,627/- ONLY. WHEREAS AS PER VAT RETURN IT IS SHOWN AT RS.71,52,30,627/-. SIMILA RLY THE SALES FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH AS PER BOOKS IS RS.71,16,OO,054/-WHEREAS AS PER VAT THE SALES ARE RS.71,53,67,397/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCREPANCIES AND AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE FULL DETAILS CALLED FO R, THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AND HENCE /' REJECTED. THE GROSS INCOME IS ESTIMATED AS @1% OF THE SALES. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESS EE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS WAS NOT IN ORDER. ASSESSEE .ARGU ED THAT ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN PROPERLY AUDITED' AN D NO- FAULT HAS BEEN FOUND WITH THE AUDIT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING THE SAME METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE IN THE ACCOUNTING POLICIES OR METHODS IN THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT IT WAS INCORRECT TO REJECT T HE BOOKS ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTIONS AND SUSPICION. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT EVEN IF THE BOOKS HAD BEEN REJE CTED, THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT AT 1 % WAS VERY HIGH BECAUSE THE APPELLANT IS A TRADER IN STEEL PRODUCTS AND THE HON OURABLE ITAT HYDERABAD HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY HOLDING THAT I N SUCH 4 ITA NOS. 407 & 546/HYD/2014 M/S TEJASWINI ENGG. PVT. LTD. CASES THE NET PROFIT SHOULD BE MUCH LOWER. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E, CIT(A) DISCUSSED THE ISSUE ELABORATELY VIDE PARAS 4.2 TO 4 .8 OF HIS ORDER AND CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS: 4.9 IT IS CLEAR FROM ABOVE THAT THE WAY IN WHICH TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN WRITTEN, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EITHER DETERMINE PURCHASES OR THE SALES OR THE EXPENSES. THE BOOKS ARE NOT AMENABLE ANY SORT OF VERIFICATION AND THE ENTRIES MENTIONED ARE WRONG, I ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS IS ABSOLUTELY IN ORDER. 4.10 COMING TO THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT 1 % OF THE TURNOVER, ONCE THE BOOKS HAVE BEEN REJECTED, THE O NUS NOW SHIFTS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT IS HIS D UTY TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON COGENT REASONING AND FACTS ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD EVEN A SINGLE COMPARABLE CASE OF ASSESSEES WHO ARE IN SIMILAR LIN E OF BUSINESS, HE HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY OTH ER INFORMATION FROM WHICH IT CAN BE INFERRED AS TO WHA T SHOULD BE THE ACTUAL NET PROFITS OF SOMEONE WHO IS IN SIMI LAR LINE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME HA S NOT BEEN DONE ON THE BASIS OF CONCRETE INFORMATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT ITS OWN AVERAGE NET PROFIT OF THE LAST THREE YEARS IS LESS THAN 1 % AND THIS IS IN LINE WITH OTHER SIMILAR BUSINESSES I N THE MARKET. THE APPELLANTS NET PROFITS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HOWEVER WITH REGARD TO OTHER BUSINESSES WHO HAVE SI MILAR SETUPS, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY INFO RMATION ON RECORD. BASED ON THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I FIND TH AT THE ESTIMATION .OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ON THE HIGH ER SIDE AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE' BOOK , RESULTS EVEN FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS FOR THE APPELLANT ARE NOT RELIABLE BECA USE OF VARIOUS FALSE ENTRIES AS DISCUSSED SUPRA. THEREFORE , IT WOULD MAKE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF THE NET PROFIT IS ESTIMATED AT 0.7% OF TURNOVER. THE APPELLANT WILL GET RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WHILE THE REVENUE ALSO PREFERRED APPEAL IN ITA N O. 546/HYD/2014 AGAINST RELIEF GRANTED BY CIT(A) TO ASSESSEE RAISIN G THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS: 5 ITA NOS. 407 & 546/HYD/2014 M/S TEJASWINI ENGG. PVT. LTD. 2. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISTURBING T HE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT DONE BY THE AO EVEN WHEN THE E STIMATION IS ONLY @ 1% OF THE TURNOVER WHICH IS NOT VERY HIGH. 3. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN STATING THAT THE ONUS LIES ON THE AO TO ESTIMATE PROFIT BY GIVING COGENT REASO NS, EVEN WHEN HE HIMSELF REDUCING THE ESTIMATION TO 0.7% OF THE TURNOVER WITHOUT CITING ANY COGENT REASONS WHICH IS NOTHING BUT CONTRADICTION OF HIS OWN ARGUMENT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS MATERI AL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE COORDINA TE BENCHES OF ITAT, HYDERABAD. COPIES OF THE ORDERS HAVE BEEN PLA CED ON RECORD. IN THE CASE OF M/S SUJANA TOWERS LTD. VS. ACIT IN I TA NO. 1360/HYD/2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 16/07/2014 WHILE DEA LING SIMILAR ISSUE, THE COORDINATE BENCH HELD AS FOLLOWS: 7. ELABORATE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE, CONTENDING THAT THE RATE OF 1% ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A ) FOR ESTIMATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE HIGH ER SIDE, SINCE ADOPTION OF A RATE OF 0.5% WOULD BE REASONABL E; AND NON- ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION FROM SUCH ESTIMATED INCOM E IS AGAINST THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT AND THE DECISI ONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR MATTERS. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME O F HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLEADED FOR ONE MO RE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, TO FURNISH BOOKS OF AC COUNT AND OTHER DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND FOR THE RE- EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER AT THE LEVEL OF ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE US A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13.8.2013, IN CROSS APPEALS IN THE CASES OF M /S. SUJANA UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIES LTD., HYDERABAD (ITA NO.304 & 475/HYD/2013); AND M/.S SUJANA METAL PRODUCTS LTD. (ITA NO.305 AND 474/HYD/2013), WHERE CONSIDERING SIMILAR ADDITIONS, AND SIMILAR PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, MATTER WAS RESTOR ED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION, SET TING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IMPUGNED THEREIN. 8. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE CONT RARY, OPPOSING THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE GR OUND THAT THE RATE OF 1.5% ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS I N LINE WITH THE TREND IN THE MARKET IN ASSESSEES LINE OF BUSIN ESS, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER B E RESTORED. 6 ITA NOS. 407 & 546/HYD/2014 M/S TEJASWINI ENGG. PVT. LTD. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE SP ECIFIC PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR FURNIS HING THE RELEVANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DETAILS, IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR F RESH CONSIDERATION. WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE C ONTEXT OF ADDITIONS MADE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONSIDERIN G SIMILAR PLEAS OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE CASES OF ASSESSEES O WN GROUP, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 13.8.2013, RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE FOLLOWING MAN NER- 10. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ALLOW O NE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PRODUCTION OF ITS B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM AND ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO ASSESSMENT AFTER EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS . WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL ITS BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS, DOCUMENTS, BILLS, INVOICES AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND COOPERATE IN FINALISATION OF THE PROCEEDING. IN THE EVENT, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CO-OPERATE BY PRODUCING THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER INFORMATION CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FINDS THAT THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO TAKE AN INDEPENDENT DECISION IN THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R SHALL AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. CONSIDERING TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE SPECIFIC PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE IN THIS CASE ALSO, WE ARE INCL INED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MA TTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIO NS. WE DO SO AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PR ODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER INFORMATION, AND RE-DETE RMINE THE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE ORD ER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 13.8.2013, EXTRACTED ABOVE, APPLY MU TATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS CASE AS WELL. ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND COMPLY WITH THE NOTI CES, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO COMPLETE THE ASSES SMENT 7 ITA NOS. 407 & 546/HYD/2014 M/S TEJASWINI ENGG. PVT. LTD. AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. AS THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS MATERIALLY IDEN TICAL TO THE ONE DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF M/S SUJA NA TOWERS LTD. (SUPRA), WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND R ESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH. THE GROUND R AISED BY ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN GROUND NOS . 6 & 7 ARE AS UNDER: 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION O F DEPRECIATION OF RS. 10,57,816 ON COMPUTERS BY CONSI DERING THAT THE ASSETS WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE ON THE BASIS OF PRE VIOUS YEAR. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FAC T THAT ONCE INCOME IS ESTIMATED, NO OTHER ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE TO THE INCOME OF APPELLANT COMPANY. 10. AO HAD DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 10,57,81 6 ON COMPUTERS FOLLOWING THE DECISION TAKEN IN EARLIER YEARS. ON A PPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ORIGINAL CLAIM WAS NOT ALL OWED BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE PURCHASE OF COM PUTERS. IN OTHER WORDS THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE ASSETS IN QUESTION WAS UNPROVEN. THEREFORE, IT WAS ONLY LOGICAL THAT FURTH ER CLAIMS ON THE SAME NON-EXISTENT ASSETS HAD TO BE DISALLOWED. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVEN DURING THE CURRENT YEAR, THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE COMPU TERS. HE, THEREFORE, UPHELD THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT IN ASSE SSEES CASE, THE INCOME WAS DETERMINED ON ESTIMATION. THEREFOR E, ONCE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ESTIMATED, NO SEPARATE D ISALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTIONS CAN BE MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS CONTAIN ED UNDER 8 ITA NOS. 407 & 546/HYD/2014 M/S TEJASWINI ENGG. PVT. LTD. SECTIONS 30 TO 44 OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH C ONTENTION, THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE A.P . HIGH COURT IN CASE OF INDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. CIT (232 ITR 776 ). 12. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED TH E ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AN D PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS ORDERS OF THE REVENU E AUTHORITIES. SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSETS WERE NON-EXISTENT, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF THE COMPUTERS AND ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. ACCO RDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 407 /HYD/2014 AND APPEAL OF REVENUE IN ITA NO. 546/HYD/2014 ARE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH MARCH, 2015 SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (ASHA VIJAYARAGH AVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 11 TH MARCH, 2015 KV 9 ITA NOS. 407 & 546/HYD/2014 M/S TEJASWINI ENGG. PVT. LTD. COPY TO:- . 1. M/S TEJASWINI ENGG. PVT. LTD., C/O SHRI P. MURALI & CO., CAS., 6-3-655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 500 082 2. ITO, WARD 2(2), HYDERABAD 3. CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD 4. CIT-II, HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD