THE DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE, Vijayawada V. M/s Sri Venkataramana Engineering, Visakhapatnam

ITA 552/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 55225314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K V N CHARYA
• Keywords: Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Deemed dividend; Retraction
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.489 TO 492 & 552/VIZAG/2013 SRI VENKATARAMANA ENGINEERING, VSKP IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.489 TO 492/VIZAG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 TO 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY SRI VENKATARAMANA ENGINEERING VISAKHAPATNAM VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE VIJAYAWADA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.ABCFS 4407L ITA NOS.552/VIZAG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE VIJAYAWADA VS. SRI VENKATARAMANA ENGINEERING VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY: SHRI K.V.N. CHARYA, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 28.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.03.2014 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE ARE BUNCH OF 5 APPEALS. APPEALS FOR ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 ARE BY THE ASSESSEES, WHEREAS T HERE ARE CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEALS. SINCE FACTS ARE COMMON, WE WILL DEAL WITH THE FACTS AS INVOLVED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE FIRST ISSUE WHICH IS COMMON IN ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSEE IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ADVANCES RECEIVED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMED BY T HE CIT(A). BRIEFLY STATED THE ASSESSEE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITY OF HANDLING AND TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS AT VISAKHAPATNAM AND CONSIGNM ENT AGENT AT NAGPUR. ITA NOS.489 TO 492 & 552/VIZAG/2013 SRI VENKATARAMANA ENGINEERING, VSKP 2 3. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSES SEE FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 1.11.2007 DECLARING INCOME RS.5 1,84,150/-. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUC TED IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OTHER GROUP CONCERNS ON 4.2.201 0. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SEARCH NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF IN COME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME WHICH WAS SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF IN COME. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM CONSTITUTED BY TWO PARTNERS NAMELY SRI A. SATY A MURTHY AND SMT. A. RAMA DEVI. THE AFORESAID PARTNERS ARE ALSO SHAREHO LDERS IN M/S. MAHA MARUTI LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. W.E.F. 12.4.2006 WITH THE FOLLO WING SHAREHOLDING: A. SATYA MURTHY 32% A. RAMA DEVI 3% 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT SRI A. SATYA MURTHY WHO IS ONE OF THE PARTNER OF ASSESSEE FIRM IS HOLDING MORE THA N 10% SHARES IN M/S. MAHA MARUTHI LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. WHICH IS A CLOSELY HELD COMPANY IN WHICH PUBLIC IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED. HE NOTED T HAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE SAID COMPANY IS HAVING ACCUMULATED PROF ITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,57,92,888/-. ON EXAMINATION OF THE LEDGER ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITS VARIOUS BRANCHES IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. MAHA MARU THI LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IT IS HAVING DEBIT BAL ANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,01,61,196/- WHICH MEANS THAT THERE IS OUTSTAND ING LOAN OF M/S. MAHA MARUTHI LOGISTICS TO THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE CO NCLUDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IS ATTRACTED TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO AOS VIEW OF CONSIDERING THE L OAN AMOUNT AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEGATED SUCH OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT BY TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,01,61,196/- AS DEEMED D IVIDEND TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT AND ADDED IT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE A LSO MADE FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS. ITA NOS.489 TO 492 & 552/VIZAG/2013 SRI VENKATARAMANA ENGINEERING, VSKP 3 5. BEING AGGRIEVED OF SUCH ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED SUCH ADDITION BY UPHOLDING THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD. THE LD. A.R. HAS CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED TO THE LOANS AND ADVANCES AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A SHARE HOLDER OF M/S. MAHA MARUTI LOGISTICS PVT. LTD . IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONTENTION, THE LD. A.R. HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWIN G DECISIONS: 1. ACIT VS. BROTTO AMUSEMENT PRIVATE LTD. (2014) 3 60 ITR 544 (BOM) 2. CIT VS. KRUPESHBHAI N. PATEL (2013) 359 ITR 504 (GUJ) 3. CIT VS. ANKITECH PRIVATE LTD. & ANR. (2012) 340 ITR 14 (DEL) 4. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR VS. ANDHRA TRADE DEVEL OPMENT CORPORATION ORDER DT.4.6.2010 OF HONBLE TAT, VI SAKHAPATNAM 7. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORD ERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 8. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. A.R. , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER OF THE COMPANY. AS WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E ) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ATTRACTED TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY BECAUSE ONE OF THE P ARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS ALSO A DIRECTOR IN MAHA MARUTI LOGISTICS PV T. LTD. HOLDING MORE THAN 10% SHARE. IN OUR VIEW, THAT CANNOT BE A REASON TO TAX THE LOANS AND ADVANCES BY TREATING IT AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22 )(E) OF THE ACT AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. A PLAIN READING OF THE STAT UTORY PROVISION AS WELL AS THE LAW PROPOUNDED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. ANKITECH PRIVATE LTD. & ANR. (SUPRA) AND OTHER DECI SIONS CITED (SUPRA) CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE PROVISIONS U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IS ONLY ATTRACTED TO SHAREHOLDERS AND NOT TO ANYONE ELSE. SINCE THE ASS ESSEE ADMITTEDLY IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER OF THE COMPANY ADVANCING LOAN, THE PROV ISIONS CANNOT BE ATTRACTED TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITI ONS MADE BY TREATING THE ITA NOS.489 TO 492 & 552/VIZAG/2013 SRI VENKATARAMANA ENGINEERING, VSKP 4 LOANS AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT CA NNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE TH E SAME. THIS GROUND FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED. 9. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ONE MORE ISSUE FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 AND 2010-11 RELATING TO ADDITIONS OF RS.34,44,69 5/- AND RS.8,10,370/- RESPECTIVELY TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS. 10. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WHILE EXAMINING THE SEIZED MATERIAL BEING A COMPUTERIZED LEDGER ACCOUNT DEPICTING THE DETAILS OF OTHER INCOME, THE AO NOTED THAT SAID DOCUMENT DISCLOSED CERTAIN INCOME BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. MANAGIN G PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE SRI A. SATYA MURTHY WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL ADMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT SHOWS INCOME OTHER THAN THE NORMAL BU SINESS ACTIVITY OF THE FIRM. HOWEVER, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.34,44,695/- AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENT HAS NOT B EEN SHOWN AS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE, HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN. TH E ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEALS IN BUSINESS WITH SAIL AND OTHER REPUTED COMPANIES WHERE AMOUNT IS PAID ONLY BY WAY OF ACCOU NT PAYEE CHEQUES AND ANY SCOPE OF GENERATING UNACCOUNTED INCOME TO THE E XTENT SPECIFIED IN THE LETTER IS NOT POSSIBLE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED T HAT IN THE YARD OF SAIL THE PLANT AND MACHINERY TOGETHER WITH INFRASTRUCTURE IS SITUATED AND AS SUCH DEALING WITH OUTSIDE PARTIES DIRECTLY BY FIRM FOR G ENERATING UNACCOUNTED INCOME IS NOT POSSIBLE. IT WAS THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.34,44,695/- AND RS.8,10,370/- CANNOT BE CONSIDER ED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER REJECT ED SUCH CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT MANAGING PARTNER HAS ID ENTIFIED THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AS BELONGING TO THE FIRM AND HAS ALSO EXPL AINED THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT AS INCOME EARNED FROM OTHER THAN REGULAR B USINESS ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, CONSIDERING AFORESAID FACT AND IN ABSENCE OF A PROPER EXPLANATION TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.34,44,6 95/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE. SI MILAR ADDITION OF RS.8,10,370/- WAS ALSO MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS.489 TO 492 & 552/VIZAG/2013 SRI VENKATARAMANA ENGINEERING, VSKP 5 CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CI T(A) HOWEVER CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IALS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE LD. A.R. APART FROM REITERATING THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS AS TH E ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON TRANSACTION WITH PUBLIC SECTOR COMPANIES ALSO MA DE AN ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION THAT IF AT ALL THE AMOUNTS ARE TO BE TRE ATED AS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THEY ARE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS A ND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ESTIMATED PROFIT ON S UCH UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONTENTION, THE LD. A.R. RELIED U PON THE FOLLOWING TWO DECISIONS: 1. CIT VS. PANNA CORPORATIN 74 DTR (GUJ) 89 2. CIT VS. GURBACHHAN SINGH JUNEJA 302 ITR 63 (GUJ ) 12. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT S INCE THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN PROVED, THE ADDITIONS ARE PERFEC TLY JUSTIFIED. 13. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AFRESH CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE RECEIPTS ARE STATED T O BE FROM PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING. IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN THE PAYMENTS CAN BE VERIFIED BY CONDUCTING NECESSARY ENQUIRY WITH THE CONCERNED ORG ANIZATION I.E. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED. WE THEREFORE REMIT THI S ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION AND TAKING A DEC ISION IN THE MATTER. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL AFFORD A REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.552/VIZAG/2013: 15. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMEN T IS WITH REGARD TO THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) TO VERIFY AND DELETE THE AD DITION OF RS.41,68,920/- IN CASE THE INCOME OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IS THE SAME AS THE INCOME DECLARED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.489 TO 492 & 552/VIZAG/2013 SRI VENKATARAMANA ENGINEERING, VSKP 6 16. BRIEFLY THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE, DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WHILE EXAMINING THE MATERIALS ON RECORD THE AO NOTICED THAT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT, THE A SSESSEE HAS OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.41,68,920/-. WHEREAS IN THE RETURN FI LED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED CAPITAL G AINS ON SALE OF LAND BUT OMITTED TO OFFER RS.41,68920/- TO TAX AS COMMITTED BY HIM IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESS EE THAT THE INCOME DECLARED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 PERTAINS TO RE GULAR TAXABLE INCOME ESTIMATED WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN RETURNED AND INCOM E DECLARED ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1 CRORE IS ALSO DECLARED. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY ST ATING THAT IF RS.41,68,920/- REPRESENTS THE REGULAR BUSINESS INCOME THEN DISCLOS URE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT NEED NOT BE GIVEN IN RESPECT OF THAT INCOME. HE FU RTHER NOTED THAT THE SEARCH IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONDUCTED ON 4.2 .2010 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE INCOME OF RS.41,68,920/- ON 23.3.2010 AFTER GAP OF ALMOST 1 MONTH FROM THE DATE OF SEARCH WHICH WOU LD SHOW THAT THE DECLARATION GIVEN BY HIM WAS AFTER MUCH THOUGHT AND DELIBERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING OFFERED THE AMOUNT OF RS.41,68,920/- IN THE STATEMENT U/S 132 (4) OF T HE ACT AND SINCE THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY IT, THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX AND ACCO RDINGLY ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGE S SUCH ADDITION BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL BEFORE T HE CIT(A), IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AT THE TIME OF GIVIN G THE DEPOSITION THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED COMPUTA TION OF INCOME PERTAINING TO THE DECLARATION OF RS.41,68,920/- ACCORDING TO S UCH ESTIMATED STATEMENT THE DECLARATION OF RS.41,68,920/- IS THE ESTIMATED INCOME ACCOUNTED FOR AS REVEALED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR WHICH A RET URN WAS FILED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING I NCOME OF RS.42,85,610/- WHICH IS INCLUSIVE OF THIS DECLARED AMOUNT OF RS.41 ,68,920/-. THEREFORE, WHEN THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN IS MORE THAN WHAT IS OFFERED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, THERE IS NO NEED FOR FURTHER ADDITI ON OF THE AMOUNT WHICH IS ITA NOS.489 TO 492 & 552/VIZAG/2013 SRI VENKATARAMANA ENGINEERING, VSKP 7 ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE INCOME RETURNED. THE CIT(A ) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD AS UNDER: 11.2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS.41,16,920/- HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT, DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDING S. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO RELIED ON SEVERAL CASE LAW, WHICH UPHELD ADDITIONS MADE BASED ON INCOME BY ASSESSEES U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT AND DID N OT APPROVE OF THE RETRACTIONS BY BY THE ASSESSEES FROM SUCH DECLARATI ON. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAD CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.41,68,9207- HAD IN FACT B EEN OFFERED TO TAX IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF RS.41,68,920/- IS TALLYING WITH THE AMOUNT DECLARED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. THERE APPEARS TO BE CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT DECLA RED U/S 132(4) HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND TAXING THE SAME ONCE AGAIN AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TA XATION. UNLESS THERE ARE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME DECLARED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT OF RS.41,68,920/- IS DIFFERENT FROM THE INCOME OFFERED TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF RS.41,68,920/-, THERE WOULD BE NO JUSTIFI CATION IN BRINGING THE SAME TO TAX ONCE AGAIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TH EREFORE DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD AND DELETE TH E ADDITION MADE IN CASE THE INCOME OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IS THE SAME AS THE INCOME DECLARED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT AND GIVE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. GROU ND NO.10 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 17. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES AND PE RUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A). AS WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE OBSERVATION MADE BY CIT(A) HE HAS PRIMA FACIE FOUND THAT THE COMPUTATION INCOME OF RS.41,68,920/- IS TALLYIN G WITH THE AMOUNT DECLARED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE DIR ECTION OF THE CIT(A) TO VERIFY THIS AND DELETE THE ADDITION CANNOT BE FAULT ED WITH. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME BY DISMISSING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 18. TO SUM UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NOS.489 & 490/VIZAG/2013 ARE ALLOWED AND IN ITA NOS.491 & 492/VIZAG/2013 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IN ITA NO.552/VIZAG/2013 IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN COURT ON 6 TH MAR14 SD/- SD/- ( J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ) ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 6 TH MARCH, 2014 ITA NOS.489 TO 492 & 552/VIZAG/2013 SRI VENKATARAMANA ENGINEERING, VSKP 8 COPY TO 1 SRI VENKATARAMANA ENGINEERING, C/O MAHA MARUTI LO GISTICS PVT. LTD., D.NO.50-48-20, P&T COLONY, SEETHAMMADARA, VISAKHAPA TNAM. 2 DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA 3 THE CIT, GUNTUR 4 THE CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 5 THE ACIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM 6 THE CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM 7 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 8 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM