M/s. SVPCL Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

ITA 549/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66396 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Source of fund; Additional evidence; Bad and doubtful debts; Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL M EMBER ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 : ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007-08 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD ( PAN - AAFCS 0765 A) V/S. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 3(3), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.MURALI MOHAN RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.SRINIVAS DATE OF HEARING 29.8.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29.10.2012 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IV, HYDERABAD DATED 13.1.2011, FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE I N THIS APPEAL RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.7,24,82,000. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF, RELATING TO THIS IS SUE, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED W RITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.7,24,82,000 AS DEDUCTION IN THE COMPUTATION OF I NCOME FILED WITH THE REVISED RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE ACCOUNT COPIES OF THE BAD DEBTS SO WRITTEN OFF, AND ALSO OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY, FIL ED ONLY A NOTE STATING THAT ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD 2 THE DEBTORS HAD BEEN WRITTEN OFF, AS IT HAD FAILE D TO RECOVER THE BAD DEBTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS FAILED TO FILE THE ACCOUNT COPIES IN RESPECT OF DEBTS CLAIMED AS WRIT TEN OFF AND DID NOT FILE ANY INFORMATION TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM. SHE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.7,24,82,000. 4. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE BAD DEBTS HAD BEEN WRITTEN OFF DURING THE YEAR AND, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM WAS TO BE ALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V/S. OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK (SAOG), AND ALSO SUBMITTED LEDGER COPIES IN RESPECT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF WITH A REQUEST TO ADMIT THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN VIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE FILED, THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FILED A REMAND REPORT DATED 15.11.2010, WHEREIN SHE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ONLY THE ACCOUNT COPIES OF T HE BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF, SHE ISSUED A LETTER TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DATED 2 8.9.2010, CALLING FOR THE CERTAIN INFORMATION, WHICH, AS EXTRACTED BY THE CIT (A) FROM THE SAID LETTER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, IS AS FOLLOWS- .. (A) ADDRESS OF THE DEBTORS WRITTEN OFF; (B) DETAILS AND COPIES OF THE BILLS RAISED; (C) ACCOUNT COPIES OF THE DEBTORS IN YOUR BOOKS FROM TH E YEAR IN WHICH THE BILLS HAVE BEEN RAISE TO THE DATE OF WRIT E OFF; (D) DETAILS OF THE DEBTORS AS ON 31.3.2006, 31.3.2007 I N YOUR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT; (E) IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE RECORD THAT THE BAD DEBTS W ERE NOT WRITTEN OFF IN YOUR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND NOT REFLE CTED IN THE ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD 3 BALANCE SHEET. THEREFORE, PLEASE JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OF. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THE SAID LETTER TILL 15.11.2000, THOUGH THE MATTER WAS POSTED FOR HEARIN G ON 8.10.2010 BY HER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE BAD DEBTS HAD NOT BEEN WRITTEN OF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE CLAIM WITH REGARD TO B AD DEBTS HAD BEEN MADE ONLY IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, AND ALSO SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE CALLED FO R TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS WITH REFERENCE TO S.36(1)(I) AND 36(1)(VII), THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR BAD DEBTS W AS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 5. THOUGH THE CIT(A) PROVIDED A COPY OF THE SAID R EMAND REPORT TO THE ASSESSEE, IT APPEARS FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE AND NO FURTHER IN FORMATION COULD BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE CLAIM F OR BAD DEBTS WAS NOT MADE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, AND IT WAS C LAIMED ONLY IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED WITH THE REVISE RETURN. THE CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE BAD DEBTS WERE NOT W RITTEN OF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, INASMUCH AS THE TOTAL DEBT ORS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET DOES NOT REFLECT THE BAD DEBTS CLAIMED AS WRI TTEN OF HAD ACTUALLY BEEN WRITTEN OFF DURING THE YEAR, SO AS TO BRING DOWN TH E TOTAL OF THE DEBTORS IN THE BALANCE SHEET. FROM THIS, THE CIT(A) CONCLUDED THA T THE CLAIM OF WRITE OFF WAS MADE ONLY SUBSEQUENT TO THE CLOSING OF THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT. THE CIT(A) ALSO REFERRED TO THE RATIO OF THE DECISION O F THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LIMITED VS.. CIT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.5293 OF 2003 DATED 9.2.2010, WHEREIN IT WAS OPINED THAT AFTER 1.4.1989, IT IS NO T NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT, IN FACT, HAS BECOME IRR ECOVERABLE AND THAT IT IS ENOUGH IF THE BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERA BLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD 4 ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED FROM THE SAID DECISION THAT WHEN A BAD DEBT OCCURS, THE BAD DEBT ACCOUNT IS DEBITED AND TH E CUSTOMER ACCOUNT IS CREDITED, THUS CLOSING THE ACCOUNT OF THE CUSTOMER, AND SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF THE COMPANIES, THE PROVISION IS DEDUCTED FROM TH E SUNDRY DEBTORS. CONSIDERED IN THE BACKDROP OF THE ABOVE DECISION, S INCE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS HAS NOT UNDER GONE ANY CHANGE ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSING OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPEC TIVE DEBTORS, WHOSE DEBTS HAVE BECOME BAD, THE CIT(A) CONCLUDING THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT WRITTEN OFF THE RELEVANT DEBTS AS BAD IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, UPHELD THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES C LAIM AND MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,24,82,000/-. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS IS SUE, ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE AMOUNTS DUE FROM THE R ELEVANT DEBTORS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DURING THE RELEVAN T FINANCIAL YEAR AND THIS FACT HAS ALSO BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE REVISED RETURN FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS FILED IN THE PAPER-BOOK SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) HAVE COME TO THEIR CONCLUSION WITHOUT PROPERLY EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASCERTAINING T HE FACT AS TO WHETHER THE BAD DEBTS WERE ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF DURING THE YEAR OR NOT. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMI TTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FACT THAT BAD DEBTS WERE ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR EVEN DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE STAG E, DESPITE SUFFICIENT ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD 5 OPPORTUNITY HAVING BEEN AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THAT BEHALF, THE DISALLOWANCE OF ASSESSEES CLAIM WITH REGARD TO BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF IS JUSTIFIED. 9. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF WAS REJECTED SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO PROV E THE FACT THAT THE BAD DEBTS WERE ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF IN ITS BOOKS OF ACC OUNT, AS PER THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN S.36(1)(VII) AND 36(2)(I) OF THE ACT. S.36(1)(VII) PROVIDES THAT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AN D PROFESSION DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR THE AMOUNT OF ANY BAD DEBT, W HICH IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE AFORESAID PROVISION IS SUBJECT TO SUB-SECTION (2) O F S.36, WHICH PROVIDES THAT NO SUCH DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED, UNLESS SUCH DEB T OR PART THEREOF HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DEBT OR PART THERE OF, IS WRITTEN OFF, OR OF AN EARLIER PREVIOUS YEAR OR REPRESENTS MONEY LENT IN T HE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS OF BANKING OR MONEY LENDING WHICH IS CARRI ED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. A CONJOINT READING OF THE AFORESAID TWO PROVISIONS MA KES IT CLEAR THAT TWO CONDITIONS HAVE TO BE SATISFIED FOR ALLOWING WRITE OFF OF A BAD DEBT. THE FIRST CONDITION BEING THAT THE DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. EVEN THE MERE WRITING OFF OF THE DEBT WILL NOT IPSO FACTO RESULT IN DEDUCTING THE SAID SUM WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. THE REQUIREMENT OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF S.36 IS TO BE ESTABLISHED EVEN I N A CASE WHERE A SUM IS WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ENQUIRY I NTO THE CONDITION REQUIRED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) IS TO BE MADE ONLY AFTER THE DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH ENTRIES M ADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE PROCESS OF EXAMINING THE CLAIM WITH RE FERENCE TO SUB-SECTION (2) OF S.36 WILL NOT COMMENCE. THEREFORE, THE FIRST R EQUIREMENT TO BE SATISFIED IS ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD 6 THAT THE DEBT MUST BE WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS AS PER S.36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. THOUGH IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE DEBTS WERE ACTUALLY WRITTEN OF F IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, NO PROOF WAS PRODUCED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OR BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO ESTABLISH SUCH FACT. EVEN DURING THE REMAND PRO CEEDINGS TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT( A), THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERIES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH THE FACT OF HAVING WRITTEN OFF THE DEBTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH HAS BEEN ENUMERATED IN PARA 10.1 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESS MENT ORDER REVEALS THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REPEATEDLY FAILED TO PRO VE THE FACT THAT THE BAD DEBTS CLAIMED HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IN SPITE OF AVAILING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A). BEFORE US ALSO, NO MATERIAL WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH COULD PROVE THAT THE DEBTS WERE ACTUALLY WRITTEN OF F IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EVEN SATISFY THE FIRST PRECONDITION ENVISAGED IN S.36(1)(VII) OF WRITING OFF OF THE DEB T IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NONE OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT COPIES SUBMITTED IN THE PAPER-BOOK SHOW NIL BALANCE, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE, IN THE EV ENT OF THE ACTUAL WRITE OFF OF THE DEBT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND FOR T HE REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS ENVISAGED IN S.36(1)(VII) AND 36(2) OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, ITS CLAIM FOR BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF HAS BEEN CORRECTLY DISALLOWED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND R EJECT THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 10. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE I N THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,18,80,000, ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD 7 WHICH HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBEL IEVING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WITH REGARD TO INCREASE IN UNSECURED CREDITOR S. 11. FACTS IN BRIEF, RELATING TO THIS ISSUE ARE THA T, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN INCREASE OF RS.2,18,80 ,000 UNDER THE HEAD UNSECURED LOANS DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEA R. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE FO LLOWING EVIDENCE/DETAILS= (A) CONFIRMATORY STATEMENTS TO VERIFY THE IDENTITY (B) COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT TO VERIFY THE GENUINENES S OF THE TRANSACTIONS; (C) EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE AND COPY OF I T RETURNS TO VERIFY THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED ONLY A LIST OF UNSE CURED LOAN CREDITORS AND THEIR CONFIRMATION STATEMENTS, BUT FAILED TO PRODUC E COPIES OF THEIR BANK STATEMENTS, DETAILS REGARDING SOURCES, AND SO ALSO COPIES OF THEIR IT RETURNS OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CREDITW ORTHINESS AND ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY OF THOSE DETAILS DESPITE ENOUGH TIME AND OPPORTUNITY G IVEN IN THAT BEHALF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKING NOTE OF THE ASSESSEES FAI LURE TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND THE GENUINENE SS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, TREATED THE TOTAL UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED DURING T HE YEAR AS UNEXPLAINED, AND ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,18,80,000 UNDER S.68 OF THE ACT IN THAT BEHALF. 12. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTA INED ALL THE DETAILS REGARDING THE INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF UNSECURED C REDITORS, SUCH AS ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD 8 CONFIRMATO0RY STATEMENTS TO VERIFY THEIR IDENTITY A ND COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS FOR VERIFYING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRA NSACTIONS. HE ALSO FURNISHED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING THE CONFIRMATI0ON LETTERS FROM ALL THE CREDITORS, DULY REQUESTING FOR ADMISSION OF THE SAM E BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION AS MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. FORWARDING THE PAPER-BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(A) CALLE D FOR A REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE REMAND REPORT DATED 10.8.201 0 SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN REQUIRED TO FURNISH CONFIRMAT IONS FROM HE LOAN CREDITORS AND INFORMATION REGARDING MODE OF RECEIPT AND THE SOURCES OF THE LOAN CREDITORS TO VERIFY THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS, TH E ASSESSEE HAD ONLY FILED CONFIRMATIONS FORM THEM ON 18.12.2009. THE CONFIRMA TION LETTERS REVEALED THAT ALL THE CREDITORS WERE NOT INCOME-TAX ASSESSEE , AND EIGHT OF THEM DID NOT HAVE PAN NUMBERS. BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FI LE ANY DETAILS REGARDING THEIR SOURCES OF INCOME, MODE OF RECEIPT ETC. FOR V ERIFICATION. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,18,80,000 HAD BEEN ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GIVEN ENOUGH OPPORTUNITY BY POSTING THE CASE ON AS MANY AS 10 DATES, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE THE REQUISITE INFORMATI ON TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND THE GENUINENE SS OF THE TRANSACTIONS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, RELY ING ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI A.K.B ABU KHAN V/S. CWT(102 ITR 757), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS FIELD DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAD ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. A COPY OF THE SAID REMAND REPORT HAD BEEN PROV IDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS. THE AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE IN REPLY TO THE SAME SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH SOME O F THE LOAN CREDITORS DID ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD 9 NOT HAVE PAN NUMBERS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED DE TAILS OF THEIR ADDRESSES AND SOURCES OF INCOME IN THE CONFIRMATIONS FURNISHE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND AVERRED THAT THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS HAD ALREADY BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 14. A COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FUR A FURTHER REPORT. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, VIDE HIS REPORT DATED 15.11.2010 SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS THE RESPONSI BILITY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S AND ALSO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS. HOWEVER, I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM AND HENCE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 15. THE CIT(A), ON CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE, NOTED THAT INITIA LLY THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY FURNISHED A LIST CONTAINING DETAILS OF ADDITIONS TO UNSECURED LOANS. THE SAID LIST CONTAINED ONLY THE NAMES OF THE 21 CREDITORS A ND PAN NUMBERS IN RESPECT OF TWELVE OF THEM. THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH EREAFTER ISSUED A QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE ASSESSEE, AND THE MATTER WAS P OSTED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSE E, AND ULTIMATELY, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ONLY INCOMPLETE CONFIRMATION LET TERS, AND EVEN THOSE WERE FURNISHED AT THE LAST STAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS. THE CIT(A) NOTED FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE W AS A CONSCIOUS ATTEMPT TO WARD OFF ANY INVESTIGATION INTO THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS AND IT WAS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED AT THE FAG END OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND EVEN THOSE DETAILS WERE ONLY INCOMPLETE AND CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED, SINCE EVEN A CONFIRMATION LETTER WITHOUT THE ADDRESSES, P AN NUMBERS, ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS ETC. IS INDEED OF NO VALUE. ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD 10 16. DEALING WITH THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM, THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS FAILURE TO FURNISH SUCH EVIDENCE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, DESPITE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAVING BEE N GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR ITS FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE REQUISITE DETAILS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF A.K.BABU KHAN V/S. CWT(102 ITR 757), WHERE IN IT WAS HELD THAT A PARTY GUILTY OF REMISSNESS AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE, IS NOT ENTITLED TO INDULGENCE BEI NG SHOWN TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE COND UCT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE INDEED SHOWS EXISTENCE OF SUCH REMISS NESS AND NEGLIGENCE AND THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE DO NOT WAR RANT ANY INDULGENCE AND ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HE ALSO REFE RRED TO THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ARJUN SINGH V/S. KARTARSI NGH (1951)(INDLAW SC 70). THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT SUBMISSION OF ADDRESSES AND PAN NUMBERS IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE CREDITORS AMOUNTED TO FURNISHING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE UNSECURED LOA NS IN QUESTION, THAT ESTABLISHED MERE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES, BUT NOT E ITHER THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS OR THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSA CTIONS. FOR THESE REASONS, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,18,80,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 17. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US ON THIS ISSUE. 18. THE LEARNED AUTHROISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE CREDITORS PRODUCED ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD 11 BEFORE HIM. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED AUTHROISE D REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS SUBMITTED IN THE PAPER-BOOK. THE LEARNED AUTHROISED REPRESENTATIVE F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS CONTAINED A LL THE DETAILS LIKE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THEIR ADDRESSES AND PAN NUMBERS E TC., AND THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT CORRECT IN STRAIGHT AWAY TREATI NG THE AMOUNTS AS REPRESENTING UNEXPLAINED CREDITS WITHOUT MAKING PRO PER ENQUIRY WITH THE CONCERNED PERSONS, TO FIND OUT THE GENUINENESS OF T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 19. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMI TTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF TH E CREDITORS, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITI ON. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELYING UPON THE DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF R.B.MITTAL V/S. CIT(246 ITR 283), SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO DISCH ARGE THE ONUS OF PROVING THE CASH CREDITS, THE ADDITION MADE IS LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED. 20. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT ADDED THE AMOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDI TS, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENTS , INCOME-TAX PARTICULARS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED CREDITORS. THE CIT(A) ALSO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTI ATE THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. FROM THE CONFI RMATION LETTERS PRODUCED BEFORE US IN THE PAPER-BOOK, WE FIND THAT DURING TH E YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ADDITIONAL UNSECURED LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS. 2,18,80,00 FROM 21 PERSONS. A LIST OF THE CREDITORS IS PLACED AT PAGE 41 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. THE ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD 12 SAID LIST REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN SUBST ANTIAL AMOUNTS OF LOANS FROM THEM IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS P RODUCED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE PERSONS WHO HAVE EXTENDED UNSECURE D LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. ON GOING THROUGH THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS, IT IS SE EN THAT IN MANY OF THE CASES, THE ADDRESS OF THE CREDITORS ALONGWITH THEIR PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER IS MENTIONED THEREIN. THUS, IN THESE CASES, SINCE THE PERSONS ARE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES, NECESSARY ENQUIRY COULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED FOR FINDING OUT THE CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE UNSEC URED LOANS SHOWN AGAINST THESE PERSONS. FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT NO ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER THE CREDITORS WHOSE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED ACTUALLY HAD ADVANCED THE MO NIES TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATION L ETTERS WITH REQUISITE PARTICULARS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, PROPER EN QUIRIES COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO FIND OUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S. THE CIT(A), AS IT APPEARS FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER, DOES NOT DISPUTE T HE EXISTENCE OF THE PERSONS, WHO WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE ADVANCED LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE OTHER TWO INGREDIENTS, VIZ. CRE DITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HOWEVER, SUCH FINDING OF THE CIT(A) WITHOUT MAKING PROPER ENQUIRY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS COME FORWARD WITH AN EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE UNSECURED LOANS AND HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM TH E CONCERNED PERSONS, GIVING OUT THEIR NAMES AND ADDRESSES AS WELL AS PER MANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHOULD HAVE CAUSED PROPER ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE ALLEGED CREDITOR, BEFORE MAK ING A HUGE ADDITION OF RS.2,18,80,000, TREATING EN-MASSE ALL THE AMOUNTS OF UNSECURED LOANS CLAIMED AS UNEXPLAINED AND BOGUS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE CONSIDER IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD 13 TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE EACH OF THE UNSECURED LOANS ALLEGEDLY OBTAI NED BY THE ASSESSEE INDEPENDENTLY, AND AFTER CAUSING NECESSARY ENQUIRIE S WHEREVER RELEVANT PARTICULARS ARE FURNISHED, MAY DECIDE THE CORRECTNE SS OR OTHERWISE OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO EACH OF THE UN SECURED LOANS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ACCORDINGLY RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, AND RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO BE MADE UNDER S.68 OF THE ACT, ONL Y TO SUCH AMOUNTS, IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER NOT FURNIS HED THE RELEVANT DETAILS, OR THE ENQUIRIES BASED ON THE PARTICULARS SO FURNISHED PROVED THE FALSITY OF THE ASSESSEE CLAIM. ASSESSEES GROUNDS ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 21. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE I N THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.11,18,376 MADE IN TERMS OF S.40A(IA) OF THE ACT. 22. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF RELATING TO THIS IS SUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURR ED THE FOLLOWING EXPENDITURE, WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE TAXES AT SOURCE AS PER CHAPTER XVII B OF THE ACT- (I) AUDIT FEE RS. 45,000 (II) RENT RS.4,65,425 (III) ADVERTISEMENT RS.6,03,951 IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF S.40A(IA) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IN RE SPECT OF THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE. ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD 14 23. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S.40(A)(IA) ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RE SPECT OF THE PAYMENTS REMAINING PAYABLE AS AT THE END OF THE PREVIOUS Y EAR. SINCE THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION HAD ALREADY BEEN PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS NOT IN ORDER. RELIANCE WA S PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 23.10.200 9 IN THE CASE OF TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS IN ITA NO.308/HYD/2009, AND OF THE JA IPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN JAIPUR VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LTD. V/S. D CIT(ITA NO.132/JP/2009). THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) REFERRING TO THE DE CISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PARNI KA CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD. V/S. DDCIT (ITA NO.1081/HYD./20099) DATED 16.7.2010 , WHEREIN SIMILAR CONTENTION URGED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED, PREFERRED TO FOLLOW THE LATER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ACCORDINGLY CONF IRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THIS ISSUE. 24. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE POIN T IN DISPUTE RELATES TO APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF S.40A(IA), WHERE THE AMOUNTS PENDING PAYABLE/PAID AS AT THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, AN D THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WAS THAT ONLY THE AMOUNTS REMAINING PA YABLE AS ON THE DATE OF BALANCE SHEET WOULD FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF S.40 (A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER, PREFERRING TO FOLLOW THE LATER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHERE IN SIMILAR CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN D ISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE RECENT DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH(VISAKHA PATNAM) OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERYLIN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORTS V/S. AC IT(136 ITD 23), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF S.40(A)(IA) ARE APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE THE ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD 15 AMOUNTS IN QUESTION REMAIN PAYABLE AS AT THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. SINCE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PAYMENTS IN THE QUE STION ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR ITSELF, WE SET A SIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE, AND REMIT T HE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY WHETH ER THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE DISALLOW ANCE UNDER S.40(A)(IA) MAY BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE AMOUNTS REMAINING PAYABLE ON THE DATE OF THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RED ECIDE THIS ISSUE ACCORDINGLY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVIN G REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEES GROUNDS ON T HIS ISSUE ARE ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 25. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE I N THIS APPEAL RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,46,57,679 ON THE GROUND OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 26. FACTS IN BRIEF RELATING TO THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM THE DETAILS OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED, AS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON RS.2, 25,50,275, BEING PLANT AND MACHINERY, WORKING OUT THE SAME AT 80%. OBSERV ING THAT THE ELIGIBLE RATE DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY IS ONLY 15 %, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE AT RS.33,82,5 41 ONLY, AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED OF RS.1, 46,57,679. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A), CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER- 12. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, HO WEVER, NO FURTHER SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORD INGLY, FINDING NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,46,57,6 79/- IS UPHELD. ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD 16 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, ASSESSEE PREFERRED THIS SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 27. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE IMPUGNED O RDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD. A T THE OUTSET, WE MAY NOTE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED A CRYPTIC AND NON-SPEAKI NG ORDER ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH WE HAVE EXTRACTED HEREINABOVE. THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE BEFORE US RELATES TO THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION APPLICABLE TO PLANT AND MACHINERY. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), WHILE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE DEPRECIA TION AT 80%, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE SAME AT 15% AND DISALLOWED EXCESS DEPRECIATION. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FAC T HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY EXCESS DEPRECIATION AND THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED WA S IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATES PROVIDED UNDER THE INCOME-TAX RULES. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE SCHEDULE-V OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, WHEREIN THE DETAILS OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON DIFF ERENT BLOCKS OF ASSETS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SCHEDULE O F FIXED ASSETS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE WITHOU T PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND, AND THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN A CRYPTIC AND NON- SPEAKING MANNER, WITHOUT PROPERLY EXAMINING THE FAC TS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE INCLINED TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS AND FIGURES. HE SHALL PASS A SPEAKING AND WELL RE ASONED ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HE ARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 28. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.549/HYD/2011 M/S. SVPCL LTD., HYDERABAD 17 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29.10.2012 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED/- 29 TH OCTOBER, 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. SVPCL LTD., C/O. M/S.P.MURALI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6-3-6755/2/3, 1ST FLOOR, SOM AJIGUDA, HYDERABAD-82 2. 3. 4 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 3(3), HYDER ABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-IV, HYDERABAD COMMISSION ER OF INCOME - TAX II I , HYDERABAD 5 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S.