M/s Plasticon Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 751/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66191 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALKA R JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: P BALAKRISHNA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 751/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PLASTICON TECHNOLGOIES, ,.. APPELLANT HYDERABAD VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RESPONDENT WARD 16(2), HYDERABAD. APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. BALAKRISHNA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. ALKA R. JAIN DATE OF HEARING : 25/07/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/08/ 2012 ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD DATED 25/03/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2006- 07 ON 18/11/2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,32,067/- . THE ITO, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 30/12/2008 ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 6,41,5 11/-. 3. THE CIT-IV FOUND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE ERRO NEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND ISS UED NOTICE SETTING OUT THE GROUNDS OF ERROR AND PREJUDICE. ITA NO. 751/HYD/11 PLASTICON TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. 2 4. THE FIRST ISSUE WAS REGARDING THE LETTER DATED 1 7/12/2008 SUBMITTED DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS THAT THE PURCHASES FROM THE RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. ARE INCLUSIVE OF TRANSPORT CHARGES. THE CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 POINTED OUT F ROM SCHEDULE- II FORMING PART OF MANUFACTURING, TRADING AND PROFI T & LOSS A/C, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SEPARATELY DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 12,72,779/- TOWARDS TRANSPORT CHARGES RESULTING IN EXCESS DEBIT OF TRANSPORT CHARGES BY RS. 12,72,779/-, WHICH ACCO RDING TO THE CIT IS TO BE DISALLOWED AND BROUGHT TO TAX. 5. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHA SE VALUE DEBITED TO P&L ACCOUNT I.E. 4,01,77,130/- IS NET OF TRANSPORT CHARGES, EXCISE DUTY AND VAT AND, HENCE, BY DEBITIN G TRANSPORT CHARGES UNDER DIRECT EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY DOUBLE DEDUCTION. 6. FURTHER, THE CIT OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE PURCHASE COST OF RAW MATERIAL INCLUDE TRAN SPORT COST. THE CIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE VAT RETURN THE ASS ESSEE IS OBLIGATED TO STATE THE COST OF PURCHASE EXCLUDING V AT BUT INCLUDING ALL THE INCIDENTAL EXPENSES. THE AGGREGAT E FIGURE, AS PER VAT RETURN IS 3.83 CRORES AND, HENCE, THE PURCHASE FIGURE OF 3.83 CRORES MUST INCLUDE THE TRANSPORT COST BEING A PART OF PURCHASE BILL. THE CIT HELD THAT BY DEBITING TRANSPORT CHARG ES UNDER THE DIRECT EXPENSES I.E. UNDER SCHEDULE-II, THE ASSESSE E HAD CLAIMED DOUBLE DEDUCTION. FURTHER, THE CIT OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEES LEDGER IS CONTRADICTORY TO THE EVIDENCE MAINTAINED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITY. THE CIT TOOK A SAMPLE OF RETURNS FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2006 AND SHOWED THAT THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN AT RS. 52,61,633/- IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2006 IN THE ASSE SSEES LEDGER ACCOUNT WHEREAS IN THE VAT RETURN THE TOTAL PURCHAS E FIGURE IS AT RS. 9,12,742/-, WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT THE LEDGER AC COUNT ITA NO. 751/HYD/11 PLASTICON TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. 3 CONTAINS INFLATED FIGURE AND, HENCE, THE SAME IS UN RELIABLE. THE CIT ALSO NOTED THAT THE COPIES OF PURCHASE INVOICES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE CONTRADICTORY TO THE VAT RETURNS. 7. THE CIT IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECT FIGURE OF RAW MATERIALS, PURCHASE, INPUT TAX CEDIT, SENVAT CREDIT , ADDRESSED LETTERS TO JURISDICTIONAL SALES TAX AUTHORITY AS WE LL AS EXCISE AUTHORITY CALLING FOR NECESSARY INFORMATION U/S 136 OF THE IT ACT. THE SAME WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE BY LETTER DATED 15/03/2011. THE ASSESSEE MADE ITS SUBMISSIONS VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 25/03/2011. THE CIT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT W ITH RESPECT TO ONE ITEM I.E. RAW MATERIAL PURCHASE HAS BEEN SHO WN IN THREE DIFFERENT FIGURES BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE ALL DI FFERENT FROM THE PURCHASE FIGURE FURNISHED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORIT IES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE RECONCILIATION OF PURCHASES AS PER LEDGER AND AS PER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN ORDER TO RECONC ILE THE THREE FIGURES, I.E. 5.2 CRORES ( GROSS PURCHASE VALUE), 4 .75 CRORES (GOODS PURCHASED AS REFLECTED IN TRADING ACCOUNT), AND 4.01 CRORES (NET PURCHASES DEBITED TO P& LA/C). 8. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE RECONCILIATION O F PURCHASES AS PER VAT RETURNS AND AS PER IT RETURNS. 9. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURE OF RS. 4.01 CRORES AS DEBITED TO THE P& A/C AND THE PURCHASE FIGURE AS PER THE VAT RETURNS I.E. RS. 3.8 3 CRORES REPRESENTS THE VALUE OF PACKING MATERIAL AND ELECTR ICAL GOODS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE RAW MATERIALS PURCHASE FIGURE OF R S. 4.01 CRORES AS DEBITED TO THE P&L A/C IS INCLUSIVE OF COST OF PURCHASE OF PACKING MATERIAL AND ELECTRICAL GOODS. ITA NO. 751/HYD/11 PLASTICON TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. 4 10. THE CIT POINTED OUT THAT THE ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURE OF RS. 4,01,77,130/- AND RS. 3,83,53,245/- I S RS. 18,23,885/- WHEREAS THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOP TED THE FIGURE OF 18,24,284/-. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE CO ST OF PACKING MATERIALS AND ELECTRICAL GOODS HAS BEEN SEPARATELY DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD OF DIRECT EXPENSES I.E. SCHEDULE 11 TO THE P&L ACCOUNT AND THE CORRESPONDING VALUE STATED THEREIN IS RS. 19,98,718/- I.E. FOR PACKING MATERIALS. THE CIT NOT ED THAT AS IT HAS BEEN SEPARATELY DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT, THE COST OF PACKING MATERIALS, CANNOT BE PART OF PURCHASE COST I.E. RS. 4.01 CRORE AS DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT, SINCE THIS WOU LD BE TANTAMOUNT DOUBLE DEDUCTION. THUS, THE CIT HELD THA T DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PURCHASE VALUE AS DEBITED TO THE P&L AC COUNT I.E. RS. 4.01 CRORES AND RAW MATERIALS PURCHASE FIGURE AS PE R VAT RETURN IS RS. 3.83 CRORES HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE AS SESSEE. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT THAT THERE IS INFLATION IN THE PURCHASE COST AS DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT I.E. RS. 4.01 CRORES AND THIS INFLATION WORKS OUT TO RS. 18,23,885/-. 11. THE CIT, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAD NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRIES AS T O THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASE FIGURE OR AS TO THE VALIDIT Y OF THE ASSESSEES SEPARATE DEBIT OF TRANSPORT EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD OF DIRECT EXPENSES I.E. SCHEDULE 11 TO THE P&L AC COUNT. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE AO HAD NOT CALLED FOR INFORMA TION FROM THE SALES TAX AUTHORITY AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT WI THOUT APPLYING HIS MIND TO THESE ASPECTS. 12. THE CIT RELYING UPON THE GEEVEE ENTERPRISES VS. ADD. CIT AND OTHERS, 99 ITR 375 AND THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIES LTD., VS. CIT, 109 TAXMAN 66, HELD THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTERESTS OF ITA NO. 751/HYD/11 PLASTICON TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. 5 THE REVENUE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDE R THE POWERS VESTED ON HIM U/S 263 OF THE ACT, AS UNDER:- 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO BRING TO TA X THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 18,23,885/- I.E. REPRESENTING TH E INFLATION IN PURCHASE DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT. H E IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO BRING, ADDITIONALLY, TO TAX THE TRANSPORT CHARGES RS. 12,22,779/- OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD M ADE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION TWICE I.E. ONCE UNDER THE PURCHA SE FIGURE AND THE SECOND TIME UNDER THE HEAD OF DIRECT EXPENS ES I.E. IN SCHEDULE 11. AS PER THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE CONCERNED EXCISE AUTHORITY, THE TOTAL CENVAT CREDIT AVAILED OF BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE ORDER OF RS. 69,64,03 6/- AS AGAINST THE FIGURE OF RS. 66,74,967/- REDUCED FROM THE PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT. FURTHER, AS PER THE INFO RMATION FURNISHED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITY, THE VAT INPUT TAX IS OF THE ORDER OF RS. 8,92,677/- AS AGAINST THE LESSER F IGURE I.E. RS. 7,06,971/- REDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PUR CHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO TAKE THIS ALSO INTO ACCOUNT. 13. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US R AISING THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT FAILED TO APPLY PRINCIPLES OF AC COUNTING AND PROPOSED INFLATION AT RS. 18,23,885/- IN THE PU RCHASES FROM RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. 2. THE LEARNED CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES EXPLAINED BY APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO THE TRANSPORT ACCOUNT OF RS. 12,22,779/-. 3. THE LEARNED CIT FURTHER FAILED IN APPRECIATING RECONCILIATION STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT . 4. YOUR APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PRAISE THE HONBLE AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL TO CANCEL THE ORDER U/S 263 DT. 31/12/2008 . 14. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI P. BA LAKRISHNA RELIED ON THE DECISION OF RAYONS SILK MILLS VS. CIT , 221 ITR 155 AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS AN ESSENTIAL CONDITION OF EXERCISE OF THE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 THAT THE COMMISSIONER MUST FIND THAT THE ERROR WHICH IS FOUND IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE CO NCLUSION OF THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTERESTS OF THE ITA NO. 751/HYD/11 PLASTICON TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. 6 REVENUE IS NOT A MATTER OF SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER. THAT IS TO BE FOUNDED ON THE OBJECTIV E MATERIAL AFTER ASSESSING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE ON OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEING AFFORDED TO HIM BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. 15. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIE D ON THE DECISION OF CIT VS. MEHROTRA BROTHERS, 270 ITR 157 AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED REQUISITE INFO RMATION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED RECORDS BEFORE HIM AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVID ENCE FILED AND AFTER THE SATISFACTION OF THE GENUINENESS OF TH E CLAIM, THE ORDER OF REVISION UNDER 263 ON VAGUE GROUND THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND IS NOT VALID. 16. THE LEARNED DR SMT. ALKA R. JAIN, ON THE OTHER HAND, POINTED OUT FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , IT CANNOT BE GATHERED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADOPTED OR TAKEN A VIEW AFTER ANALYZING THE FACTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAD NOT AT ALL EXAMINED THE FACTS OR DISCUSSED ABOU T THE SAME FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PUT-FORTH AN ARGUMENT THAT ONE OF T HE PLAUSIBLE VIEWS, OUT OF THE TWO VIEWS, HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUS ED THE RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. IN THE CASE OF PADMASUNDARA RAO VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, 255 ITR 147, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THERE IS ALWAYS PERIL IN TREATING THE WORDS OF A SPEECH OR JUDGMENT AS THOUGH THEY ARE WORDS IN A LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT, AND IT IS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT JUDICIAL UTTERANCES ARE MADE IN THE SETTING OF THE FACTS OF A PARTICULAR CASE, SAID LORD MORRIN IN HARRINGTON VS. BRITISH ITA NO. 751/HYD/11 PLASTICON TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. 7 RAILWAYS BOARD [1972] 2 WLR 537 (HL). CIRCUMSTANTIA L FLEXIBILITY, ONE ADDITIONAL OR DIFFERENT FACT MAY M AKE A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONCLUSIONS IN TWO CASES... THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MA LABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTDS CASE (SUPRA) ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL CANNOT BE READ IN ISO LATION. THE JUDGMENT DESERVES TO BE READ IN ITS ENTIRETY TO CULL OUT THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. IF SO READ, IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE ORDERS PASSED ON AN IN CORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW OR WITHOUT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR WITHO UT APPLICATION OF MID WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED UNDER SE CTION 263 SUFFERS FROM ANY OF THE AFORESAID VICES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED, IN SUCH A N ORDER, A COURSE PERMISSIBLE IN LAW OR TAKEN A VIEW WHERE T WO OR MORE VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE. 18. IN THE CASES OF SMT. TARA DEVI AGGARWAL VS. CIT 1973 CTR (SC) 107 : (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) AND RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI VS. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC), IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT THAT THE CIT CAN REGARD THE ORDER OF THE AO AS ERRONEOUS ON THE GROU ND THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ITO SHOULD HAVE MADE FURTHER ENQUIRIES BEFORE ACCEPTING THE STATEMENTS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN. FOLLOWING THESE TWO DECISIONS OF HON'BLE SU PREME COURT, HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF SMT. L AJJA WATI SINGHAL VS. CIT (1997) 138 CTR (ALL) 320 : (1997) 226 ITR 527 ( ALL) THAT AN ASSESSMENT MADE ON INCOME SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESS EE WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY WHETHER THE SAME WAS IN FACT TAXABLE IN HIS HANDS WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. FURTHER, AS HELD BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF GEE VEE ENTERPRISES VS. ADDL. CIT 1975 CTR (DEL) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (DEL), DU GGAL & CO. VS. CIT (1994) 122 CTR (DEL) 171 : (1996) 220 ITR 456 (DEL) , IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE AO TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE FACTS STATED IN T HE RETURN WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD MAKE SUCH AN ENQUIRY PRUDENT AN D HIS ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS IF SUCH AN ENQUIRY HAS NOT BEEN M ADE. MOREOVER, AS HELD BY HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADDL. CIT VS. MUKUR ITA NO. 751/HYD/11 PLASTICON TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. 8 CORPORATION (1978) 111 ITR 312 (GUJ), AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT P ASSED BY THE AO WITHOUT MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES ON CERTAI N IMPORTANT POINTS CONNECTED WITH THE ASSESSMENT WOULD BE ERRONEOUS AN D PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. TO THE SIMILAR EFFECT IS T HE DECISION OF HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CWT VS. RAMNARAY AN BHOJNAGARWALA (1992) 104 CTR (CAL) 50 : (1992) 194 ITR 489 (CAL), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHENEVER A QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER A COR RECT AND PROPER ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE UPON DUE ENQUIRY AND IT IS FOUND THAT NO SUCH ENQUIRY WAS MADE, THE CIT HAS JURISDICTION IN SUCH A CASE TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT BY INVOKING THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON HI M UNDER S. 263. IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE SIDES , HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE PHRASE 'PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE' IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF AR T AND IS NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT. EXPLAINING FURTHER, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT THAT UNDERSTOOD IN ITS ORDINARY MEANING, THE SAID E XPRESSION IS OF WIDE IMPORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO LOSS OF TAX. 19. RELYING ON THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE CITED DECISIO NS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT WAS RIGHT IN DIRECTING THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT HAD NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRIES AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF PUR CHASE FIGURE OR AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSEES SEPARATE DEBIT OF TR ANSPORT EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD OF DIRECT EXPENSES I.E. SECHEDULE 11 TO THE P&L ACCOUNT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND BY VERIFYING FROM THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES AND FAILED TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECT FIGURES. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WITHOUT MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES ON CERTAIN IMPORTANT POINTS CON NECTED WITH THE ASSESSMENT WOULD BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO. 751/HYD/11 PLASTICON TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. 9 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHAVIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 31 ST AUGUST, 2012. KV COPY TO:- 1) PLASTICON TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD., B-10, CIE, BALANAG AR, HYDERABAD. 2) ITO, WARD 16(2), HYDERABAD, 3) THE CIT-IV, HYDERABAD 4) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABA D.