M/s Lotus chocolate Company Limited, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Hyderabad

ITA 788/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66570 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMISHA S GUPT
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 45(2); 43B; 143(3)

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 NOS. 788 & 789/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S LOTUS CHOCOLATE COMPANY LTD., A PPELLANT ROAD NO. 10, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. (PAN AAACL1891R) VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RESPONDENT CIRCLE 16(1), HYDERABAD. APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM RESPONDENT BY : SMT. AMISHA S. GUPT DATE OF HEARING : 21/11/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/12/ 2012 ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M.: BOTH THESE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-V, HYDE RABAD, DATED 19/03/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 200 5-06. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS , THEY WERE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND, THEREFORE, A COMMON ORDER IS PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 6 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL S BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. TO THIS EFFECT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFI DAVIT AFFIRMING THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHEREIN THE DIRECTOR OF THE ITA NOS. 788 & 789/HYD/2010 M/S LOTUS CHOCOLATE COMPANY LTD. 2 COMPANY MR. G. SUBRAMANYA RAM STATED THAT SINCE HE WAS OUT OF STATION AND UNABLE TO SIGN THE INCOME TAX DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY AS HE IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SAME AN D HENCE, THE APPEALS WERE FILED ON 28/05/2010 WITH A DELAY OF 6 DAYS. HE, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE DELAY OF 6 DAYS MAY BE CONDONED AND APPEALS MAY BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 3. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT C AUSE TO SUBMIT THE APPEALS BEFORE THE DUE DATE, WE CONDONE THE DEL AY AND ADMIT THE APPEALS FOR ADJUDICATION. ITA NO. 788/HYD/2010 FOR AY 2004-05. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE FIRM ORIGINALLY HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT O RDER DATED 22/09/2006 PASSED U/S 143(3) FOR THE AY 2006-07 BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), HYDERABAD. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THA T HIS PREDECESSOR VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO. 406/DC-16(1)/CIT( A)-V/2006-07, DATED 12/12/2007, TREATED THE APPEAL AS BEING INVAL ID AND NOT ADMITTED SINCE FORM NO. 35, STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAD NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE AUTHORIZED PERSON AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 45(2) OF IT ACT, 1962 R.W.S. 140 A OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, A FRESH APPEAL WAS FILED ON 14/12/2007 WITH A REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND T HE DELAY WAS CONDONED BY THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) ADJUDICATED UPON THE GROUNDS PERTAINING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEFERRED SALES TA X MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,68,553/-, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 5.1THE APPELLANT WAS ALLOWED DEFERMENT OF S ALES TAX BY THE ORDER OF ASST. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES FO R A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS FROM 18/03/1992 TO 17/03/2002. ACCORDINGLY , THE AO FOUND THAT THE SALES TAX FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 31/03 /1994 WAS ITA NOS. 788 & 789/HYD/2010 M/S LOTUS CHOCOLATE COMPANY LTD. 3 PAYABLE DURING THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR. THIS AMO UNTED TO RS. 8,68,553/-. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PAID THAT A MOUNT, THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME. DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT ADMITTED THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED AMOUNT W AS TO BE PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELATING TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05. HOWEVER, HE STATED THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED AMOUNTS COULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNPAID SALES TAX LIABILITY BUT SHOULD BE TREATED AS UNPAID INSTALLMENT OF SALES TAX DEFERRED LOAN. 5. THE CIT(A) FURTHER DISCUSSING THE ISSUE VIDE PAR AS 5.2 TO 5.3 IN HIS ORDER, HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADE SH DID NOT HANDOVER ANY ITEM OR AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN , WHICH WAS TO BE REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE CONTRARY, IN ORDE R TO GIVE A FILLIP TO INDUSTRY IN THE BACKWARD AREAS IT FOLLOWED THE A SSESSEE TO DEFER ITS SALES TAX LIABILITY FOR 10 YEARS. AS ALREADY DI SCUSSED, THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS A LOAN IS MISP LACED AND CONTRARY TO FACTS. THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE AGREED BECAUSE THE AFOREMENTI ONED AMOUNT DEFINITELY REFERS TO AN UNPAID SALES TAX LIABILITY AND NOTHING ELSE. THEREFORE, HE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAK ING THE ADDITION. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI A.V. R AGHURAM FILED A CIRCULAR NO. 496 DATED 25/09/1987 CLARIFYING THE SALES TAX DEFERRAL SCHEME PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE IT ACT., 1961, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:- 1. SEVERAL STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE INTRODUCED SALES TA X DEFERRED SCHEMES AS A PART OF THE INCENTIVES OFFERED TO ENTREPRENEURS SETTING U P INDUSTRIES IN BACKWARD AREAS. UNDER THESE SCHEMES, ELIGIBLE UNITS ARE PERMITTED TO COLLECT SALES TAX AND RETAIN SUCH TAX FOR A PRESCRIBED PERIOD. AFTER THIS PERIOD, T HE SALES TAX IS TO BE PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT EITHER IN LUMP SUM OR IN INSTALMENTS. 2. SECTION 43B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1983, WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1984 PROVIDES, INTER ALIA, THAT A DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF TAX OR DUTY UNDER ANY LA W FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE SHALL BE ITA NOS. 788 & 789/HYD/2010 M/S LOTUS CHOCOLATE COMPANY LTD. 4 ALLOWED FROM THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WH ICH SUCH SUM IS ACTUALLY PAID IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE LIA BILITY TO PAY SUCH SUM WAS INCURRED. SINCE THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS PROVISION, THE ASSE SSEES WHO COLLECT SALES TAX, BUT DO NOT PAY THE AMOUNTS TO THE GOVERNMENT DURING THE PREVI OUS YEAR, UNDER THE DEFERRAL SCHEMES PROVIDED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION FROM THEIR INCOME. 3. REPRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS STA TE GOVERNMENTS AND OTHERS THAT CASES OF DEFERRED SALES TAX PAYMENTS SHOULD BE EXC LUDED FROM THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 43B AS THE OPERATION OF THIS PROVISION HAS THE EFFECT OF DILUTING THE INCENTIVE OFFERED BY THE DEFERRAL SCHEMES. 4. THE MATTER HAS BEEN EXAMINED IN CONSULTATION WITH T HE MINISTRY OF LAW AND THE VARIOUS STATE GOVERNMENTS. THE MINISTRY OF LAW HAS OPINED THAT IF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS MAKE AN AMENDMENT IN THE SALES TAX ACT TO THE EFFE CT THE SALES TAX DEFERRED UNDER THE SCHEME SHALL BE TREATED AS ACTUALLY PAID, SUCH A D EEMING PROVISION WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 43B. 5. THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HAVE BY THE BOMBAY S ALES TAX (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987, MADE THE AMENDMENT ACCORDINGLY. THE BOARD HA VE DECIDED THAT WHERE AMENDMENTS ARE MADE IN THE SALES TAX LAWS ON THESE LINES, THE STATUTORY LIABILITY SHALL BE TREATED TO HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED FOR THE PURPOSES O F SECTION 43B. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO FILED A G.O. NO. 108, D ATED 20 TH MAY, 1996 OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE (IP) DEPARTMENT OF A. P. WHERE THE GOVERNMENT HAVE INTRODUCED A LIBERALIZED STATE INCE NTIVE SCHEME FOR SETTING UP NEW INDUSTRIES IN THE STATE OF ANDHR A PRADESH AND ITS STATES AT 6.03) OF THE ORDER THAT SALES TAX DEFERME NT LIMITED TO 135% OF FIXED CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN A PERIOD OF 14 YEARS. THE DEFERRED AMOUNT WILL BE TREATED AS DEEMED LOAN ON M AKING AVAILABLE SECURITY OF FIXED ASSETS OF THE INDUSTRY, PARI-PASS U WITH FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND ON FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT BY T HE COMMERCIAL TAX AUTHORITIES FOR EACH YEAR. 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRING TO THE ABOVE SUBMI TTED THAT THE LEARNED DCIT HAS NOT DISTINGUISHED THE SALES TAX DE FERMENT LOAN INSTALLMENT PAYABLE FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31/03/2004 FROM THE SALES TAX LIABILITY PAYABLE FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31/03/200 4 AND ASSUMED THAT THE UNPAID SALES TAX DEFERMENT LOAN TAKES THE COLOUR OF SALES TAX PAYABLE FOR THE YEAR. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THA T THE LEARNED ITA NOS. 788 & 789/HYD/2010 M/S LOTUS CHOCOLATE COMPANY LTD. 5 CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE UNPAID INST ALLMENT SALES TAX DEFERMENT LOAN SHALL ALTER THE INCOME/LOSS FOR THE YEAR, WHILE, THE UNPAID SHALL NOT ALTER THE INCOME/LOSS, SINCE, THIS UNPAID LOAN INSTALLMENT WAS NOT DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. WHENEVER THE LOAN INSTALLMENT IS PAID THE LOAN GETS REDUCED BUT SHALL NOT ALTER THE SALES TAX PAYABLE FOR THAT YEAR . 10. THE LEARNED DR SMT. AMISHA S. GUPT BESIDES RELY ING UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO ARGUED THAT THE SALES TAX PAYABLE F OR THE YEAR ENDED 31/03/1994 IS PAYABLE DURING THIS YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,68,553/- AND THE ASSESSEE BY ITS LETTER DATED 18/04/2006 STA TED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT PAID HENCE, THE SAME IS DEDUCTED FRO M THE LOSS RETURNED. HE, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT AS THE ASS ESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED THIS SALES TAX PAYMENT FROM LOSS RETURNED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL RETURN, THE SAME IS DEDUCTED FROM THE LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJA STHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEVENDRA UDHYOG, 264 ITR 701 . 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B TO DISALLOW UNPAID INSTALMENT OF DEFERRED SALES TAX OF AMOUNT RS. 8,68,553/-, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE SCHEME OF INDU STRIES AND COMMERCE (IP) DEPARTMENT OF A.P (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE AP GOVT. FORMULATED AS A SPECIAL MEASURE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIES IN THE BACKWARD AREAS OF A.P. AND IN PARTICULAR THE SCHEME STATES THAT THE SALES TAX EVEN THOUGH COLLECTED FOR A PARTICULAR YE AR BY AN ASSESSEE CAN BE PAID TO THE GOVT. AFTER 10 YEARS. THIS SCHEM E WAS BROUGHT OUT AS INCENTIVE BECAUSE DEFERMENT AS SALES TAX LIA BILITY. UNLIKE THE ITA NOS. 788 & 789/HYD/2010 M/S LOTUS CHOCOLATE COMPANY LTD. 6 NORMAL SALES TAX REGULATIONS, IF THE TAXES ARE NOT PAID IN TIME INTEREST IS TO BE CHARGED. IN THIS SCHEME THE GOVER NMENT NOTIFIED THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR INTEREST CHARGES WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE SALES DEFERMENT SCHEME. IN VIEW OF THE SAID SCH EME, THE SALES TAX DEFERRAL AMOUNT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED AS DONE BY THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON THESE LINES, THE G ROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 12. THE NEXT GROUND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALES TAX OF RS. 16,4 24/-, WHICH WAS CLAIMED ON PAYMENT BASIS. 13. THE AO DISALLOWED THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,42 4/- TOWARDS SALES TAX ON THE GROUND THAT THE SALES TAX PAID REL ATED TO EARLIER YEARS AND THE SAME IS NOT RELATED TO THE YEAR OF AC COUNT. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS OBVIOUSLY REFERRED TO SHO RTFALL IN THE PAYMENT OF SALES TAX BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. 14. ON APPEAL BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALES TAX OF RS. 16,424/- MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AS THE SAME WAS CLAIMED ON PAYMENT BASIS. 15. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSING THE R ECORD, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE WH ETHER THE SALES TAX HAS BEEN PAID ON PAYMENT BASIS OR NOT AND THERE AFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ITA NOS. 788 & 789/HYD/2010 M/S LOTUS CHOCOLATE COMPANY LTD. 7 16. THE LAST ISSUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 91 ,106/- ACTUALLY INCURRED DURING THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 17. THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAID CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 91,106/- STATING THAT THE SAME PERTAINED TO PREPAID EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEAR 2002-03. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENDITURE PERTAINS TO CURRENT FY, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MA DE BY THE AO. 18. ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDI TURE OF RS. 91,106/- DID NOT ACTUALLY INCUR DURING THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 19. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSING THE R ECORD, WE FIND THAT NO DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE ARE AVAILABLE BEFORE US, THEREFORE, WE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO GIVE ONE M ORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCES WITH RESPECT TO T HE EXPENDITURE AND THEREAFTER THE AO SHALL DECIDED THE ISSUE IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW. 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 789/HYD/2010 FOR AY 2005-06. 21. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 4 GROUNDS OF APPEAL, TH E SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF WHICH IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF D EFERRED SALES TAX MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AMOUNTIN G TO RS. 30,25,723/-. ITA NOS. 788 & 789/HYD/2010 M/S LOTUS CHOCOLATE COMPANY LTD. 8 22. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE R EVISED RETURN THE ASSESSEE DISALLOWED SALES TAX UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 30,25,723/- ALONG WITH OTHER ITEMS . AFTER THE DISALLOWANCE, ITS INCOME WAS ARRIVED AT RS. 98,68,4 63/- AND LOSS FOR AY 1997-98 OF AN EQUAL AMOUNT WERE SET-OFF AND INCO ME DECLARED AT NIL. DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE ST ATED THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED AMOUNT HAD BEEN WRONGLY ADDED BACK B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT IT AMOUNTED TO NON-PAYMENT OF SALES TAX LIABILITY AND WAS THUS COVERED U/S 43B OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT ACTUALLY WAS A LOAN IN THE FORM OF SALES TAX DEFERMENT LOAN AND NOT WAS A SALES TAX LIABILITY. FURTHER SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE EXTRACTED BY THE C IT(A) IN HIS ORDER AT PAGES 3 & 4 OF HIS ORDER. 23. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT FIRSTLY THERE IS NO REQUEST BY THE ASSESS EE TO RECONSIDER THE ABOVE MENTIONED DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 30,25,723/- MADE TO THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT IT HAD MADE ON ORAL REQUES T, BUT NOT PROVIDED ANY DETAILS OR THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH REQU EST WAS MADE. HE POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OF SUCH REQ UEST EVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS INCORRECT AND UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO DELETE THE A DDED BACK UNPAID SALES TAX LIABILITY OF RS. 30,25,723/-. 24. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 25. SIMILAR GROUND HAS BEEN DECIDED BY US IN AY 200 4-05 VIDE PARA 11(SUPRA). SINCE THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS M ATERIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF AY 2004-05, RESPECTFULLY FOLLO WING THE ITA NOS. 788 & 789/HYD/2010 M/S LOTUS CHOCOLATE COMPANY LTD. 9 CONCLUSIONS DRAWN THEREIN WE HOLD THAT THE SALES TA X DEFERRAL AMOUNT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED AS DONE BY THE CIT(A) I N THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN TH IS REGARD. 26. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 27. TO SUM UP, APPEAL FOR AY 2004-05 BEING ITA NO. 788/HYD/10 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APP EAL FOR AY 2005-06 BEING ITA NO. 789/HYD/10 IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/12/2012. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHA VIJAYARAGH AVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R HYDERABAD, DATED: 14 TH DECEMBER, 2012. KV COPY TO:- 1) M/S LOTUS CHOCOLATE COMPANY LTD., C/O AV. RAGHURAM, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 403, MANISHA TOWERS, SHYAM NAGAR, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD 500 014. 2) DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERBAD. 3) THE CIT (A)-V, HYDERABAD 4) THE CIT-IV, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.