Sarika Ranasaria, Sec'bad, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 793/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6467 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Search and seizure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 793/HYD/2015 & 143/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 AND 2011-12 SARIKA RANASARIA, SECUNDERABAD. PAN ADXPR 9590 C VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), HYDERABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY: SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM REVENUE BY: SHRI M. SITARAM DATE OF HEARING: 05/05/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10/06/2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) - 4, HYDERABAD FOR AYS 2010-1 1 AND 2011-12. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, THEY WERE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND, THEREFORE, A COMMON ORDER IS PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS AS EXTRACTED FROM THE AY 2011- 12 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS AND INDUSTRIAL PROD UCTS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S SARTHAK ENTERPRISES. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2011-12 ON 30 /09/2011 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 23,87,590/-. THE CA SE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS IS SUED AND AFTER EXAMINATION, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO I.T.A. NOS. 793/H/15 & 143/HYD/2016 SARIKA RANASARIA 2 BY DISALLOWING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 48,13,253/- CLAIMED AS COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO VARIOUS ALLEGED AGENTS. 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT FOR THE DETAILS OF THE PAR TIES TO WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD BEEN PAID ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY EACH PARTY TO JUSTIFY SUCH PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY DETAILS REGARDING THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE PARTIES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED THAT THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE BY CHEQUE AND TDS WAS MA DE WHEREVER REQUIRED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUM MONS AND EXAMINED RECIPIENTS OF COMMISSION ON OATH AND R ECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE STATEMENT S HAD BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGES 4 TO 17. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO EXAMINED THE PURCHASER COMPA NIES NAMED BY THE AGENTS TO ASCERTAIN NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED TO/ON BEHALF OF THEM ALSO. AFTER ANALYZING THE FACT UAL MATRIX AND LEGAL POSITION AT PARA 21 OF THE ORDER AND CONS IDERING THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OF FICER DISALLOWED THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS OF RS. 48,13,253 /- AS BEING NOT INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A), WHO HAD SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO AT APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS. THE AO HAS CONDUCTED A THOROUGH ENQUIR Y AS TO THE FACTUM OF SERVICES RENDERED AND ALLOWABIL ITY OF THE COMMISSION EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. AF TER EXAMINATION OF THE SAME THE AO HAS GIVEN HIS FINDIN GS AT PARA 21 TO 27 OF HIS ORDER WHEREIN THE LOGICAL CONC LUSIONS FLOWING FROM THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE AO ARE ANALYSED. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SERVICES RENDERED BY THE PARTIES WHO RECEIVED COMMISSION, STANDS DISPROVED. THE ASSESSEE I.T.A. NOS. 793/H/15 & 143/HYD/2016 SARIKA RANASARIA 3 HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ONUS OF PROVING THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR T HE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS T HAT THE PAYMENT IS MADE BY WAY OF CHEQUES AND TDS HAS BEEN MADE WHEREVER REQUIRED. I AM AFRAID PAYMENT BY CHEQUE AND MAKING TDS ITSELF IS NOT ENOUGH FOR ALLO WING THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE U/S. 37(1). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE COMMISSION PAYMENT IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS B OTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW TO THE EXTENT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.48,13,253/- BEING EXPENDITURE CL AIMED AS COMMISSION PAYMENTS. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN CONFIRMING. TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS.48,13,253/- ON MERE STATEMENT TH AT THE, AO CONDUCTED THOROUGH ENQUIRY WITHOUT STATING AS TO WHY THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT TENABLE WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE HIM BECAUSE OF NON ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH SUBMISSIONS BY THE AO. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AO HAS CONDUCTED ENQUIRY WITH A SINGLE MINDEDNESS OF DISALLOWANCE AND NOT TRADE ORIENTED ENQUIRY AND HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL THAT THERE IS NO PRA CTICE OF PAYING COMMISSION NOR THE MONEY PAID AS COMMISSION HAS COME BACK TO THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER HAS DISALLOWED ENTIRE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION ON THE BASI S OF STATEMENT OF TWO PERSONS WHICH DID NOT CONTAIN DETA ILS AS TO WHY THEY ACCEPTED THE PAYMENT AND WHY THEY EVEN ACCEPTED TDS AND ADMITTED IT AS INCOME AND THEREBY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE. 5. THE LEARNED CIT FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T THE DISALLOWANCE RESULTS SUCH MARGIN OF PROFIT WHICH IS UNHEARD OF IN THE LINE OF BUSINESS THAT IS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE F ACT THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PERSON WHO PURCHASED MA TERIAL TO KNOW THAT THE PERSON WHO ENQUIRED ABOUT REQUIREM ENT IS AN AGENT OF SUPPLIER AS THE AGENT MAY NOT REVEAL IT AND MAY EVEN STATE THAT HE IS FROM ASSESSEE AND THEREBY I.T.A. NOS. 793/H/15 & 143/HYD/2016 SARIKA RANASARIA 4 ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT SERVICE BY AGENT IS NOT DEMONSTRATED. 5. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN CHE MICAL BUSINESS, IT IS NORMAL IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS THA T THE AGENTS ARE APPOINTED FOR PROCURING ORDERS, FOLLOWING UP OF PAYMENTS AND IN CASES THE COMMISSIONS ARE PAID FOR EVEN PASS ING THE INFORMATION ABOUT REQUIREMENTS IN THE MARKET. ACCOR DINGLY, ORDERS ARE PROCURED. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE EXP ENDITURES ARE GENUINE AS THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CHEQUE BY DULY DEDUCTING TAXES. IT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE T RANSACTIONS WERE DONE. HE FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THREE LADIES, WHO HAD DENIED ANY BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE WH EREAS THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS AND DECLARED THE SA ME AS THEIR INCOME, ACCORDINGLY, CLAIMED THE TDS. DUE TO SOME PERSONAL DIFFERENCES, THEY HAVE BECOME HOSTILE. ASS ESSING OFFICER CANNOT RELY ONLY ON THESE STATEMENTS AND DE NY THE DEDUCTION. 5.1 LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY FINDING ON RECORD TO CLAIM THAT THESE EXPENDITU RES WERE RECORDED TO ACCOMMODATE TO INCREASE THE EXPENDITURE S OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT ON RECORD WHETHER THE RECIPIENT OF COMMISSION HAS ADJUSTED OR CLAIMED ANY BENEFIT OR MADE ANY WITHDRAWALS OF FUNDS IMMEDI ATELY OR SUBSEQUENT TO THE CREDIT OF PAYMENTS TO SUBSTANTIAT E THE CLAIM THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS DONE TO ACCOMMODATE THE AS SESSEE. 5.2 LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONS ARE PAID TO THOSE WHO PASS ON THE INFORMATION THAT THERE IS DEMAND IN SUCH COMPANY, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THEY SHOULD ACTUA LLY PROCURE THE ORDER, THIS IS THE REASON, THE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY WHO BOUGHT THE CHEMICALS, HAS NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE AGENTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TR ANSPORT I.T.A. NOS. 793/H/15 & 143/HYD/2016 SARIKA RANASARIA 5 CORPORATION OF INDIA, [2014] 110 DTR (AP) 44, THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT OF AP HELD AS UNDER: 8. THE RESPONDENT RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY [2] HIGH COURT IN C.I.T. VS. SIGMA PAINTS LTD . . IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED NOT ONLY THE DETAILS OF COMMISSI ON PAID TRANSACTION-WISE, BUT ALSO ESTABLISHED THAT IT TALL IES WITH THE TOTAL TURNOVER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE REFUSED TO FURNISH THE NAMES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM COMMISSION WAS PAID BY PLEADING THA T THE DISCLOSURE OF THE NAMES WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO ITS INTEREST. THAT PLEA DID NOT WEIGH WITH THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE A CT INCLUDING THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE REFERENCE MADE TO IT, THE BOMBAY H IGH COURT TOOK THE VIEW THAT IF THE DISCLOSURE OF THE NAMES OF THE RECIPIENTS OF THE COMMISSION IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE AS SESSEE, IT CANNOT BE COMPELLED AND THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AS LONG AS PAYMENTS ARE GENUINE AND FOR T HE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 9. THE BASIS FOR THIS COURT TO ANSWER A QUESTION AG AINST THE ASSESSEE IN TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD S CASE (ONE SUPRA) IS THAT FIRSTLY THE ITEM-WISE EXPENDITURES W ERE NOT FURNISHED IN THE RETURNS AND NO PLEA WAS RAISED TO THE EFFECT THAT DISCLOSURE OF THE NAMES OF THE RECIPIENTS OF THE COMMISSION WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTEREST. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT R EADS AS UNDER: IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS NOTICED SUPRA, FIRSTLY THE PAYMENT ITSELF IS NOT ESTABLISHED AND SECONDLY IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY THAT THE PARTICULARS OF THE PER SONS TO WHOM SECRET COMMISSION WAS PAID COULD NOT BE SUPPLIED WI THOUT DETRIMENT TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING REGARD TO TH E NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT OF CARGO CARRIED ON BY THE AS SESSEE-COMPANY. LOOKING FROM THAT ANGLE, THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS NO BEARING TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 10. IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE RESPONDENT PLEADED THA T IT HAS FURNISHED THE PARTICULARS OF NOT ONLY THE QUANTUM O F PAYMENT TRANSACTION-WISE, BUT ALSO T HE NAMES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE COMMISSION WAS PAID. 11. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLATE AUT HORITY DID NOT DEAL WITH THAT ASPECT, OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE IT RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF THE VERY ASSES SEE. NOW THAT A VIEW IS EXPRESSED BY THIS COURT THAT THE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS A MATTER OF COURSE, AND IT CAN ONLY BE ON COMPLY ING WITH THE TWO REQUIREMENTS, NAMELY (A) THE PARTICULARS OF THE AMO UNTS PAID AS COMMISSION ARE FURNISHED TRANSACTION-WISE AND ULTIM ATELY THEY ARE CORRELATED TO THE TURNOVER AND (B) THE NAMES OF THE RECIPIENTS ARE (I) FURNISHED IN THE RETURNS OR (II) A PLEA IS RAISED T O THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY THAT THE DISCLOSURE OF THE NAMES OF THE RECIPIENTS IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE AS SESSEE. THOSE TWO IMPORTANT FACTORS HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE AP PELLATE AUTHORITY. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE REMANDED FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSAL. I.T.A. NOS. 793/H/15 & 143/HYD/2016 SARIKA RANASARIA 6 HENCE, IN THE GIVEN CASE ALL THE DETAILS WERE SUBM ITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MOREOVER, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS INVESTIGATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HIMSELF WITHOUT CONSULTING THE ASSESSEE. 6. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IS F ACTUAL AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME HAS TO BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY DEMONSTRATING THAT THERE IS A LINK TO T HE ORDER PROCUREMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE AGENTS WH O ARE NOT CONNECTED TO THE CHEMICAL BUSINESS, IN FACT, ARE DE ALING IN STEEL BUSINESS. 7. CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE COUNSELS AND MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ENQUIRIES ON THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION EXPENDITURE BY HIMSELF BY CALLING DIRECTLY AGENTS, AND PROCURING COMPANIES U/S 133(1) OF THE ACT. OUT OF THE 15 AGENTS, 3 AGENTS HAVE DEN IED ANY LINKS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING ANY BUSINESS CON NECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. BUT, REST OF THE AGENTS HAVE AC CEPTED THAT THEY HAVE BUSINESS CONNECTION. IT IS WORTH TO NOTE THAT THREE LADIES, WHO HAD DENIED THE ASSOCIATION, THE STATEME NTS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS NOTICED T HAT THEIR ANSWERS ARE STEREO TYPE, THE SENTENCES, COIN OF WOR DS ARE SIMILAR, HOW THESE PEOPLE WILL GIVE EXACT/SIMILAR S TATEMENTS. SECONDLY, THE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT THE MATERIALS ALSO HAD DENIED, ANY PRESENCE OF AGENTS IN THE TRANSACTION. TO COUNTER THESE, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SERVICES UTILIZED WERE NOT PROCURING THE ORDER BUT FOR GATHERING DEMAND INFORMATION/REQUIREMENTS FROM THE MARKET. THE LD. A R HAS NOT CLARIFIED ON THE ABOVE ISSUE TO THE BENCH CONVINCIN GLY. HOWEVER, IN BUSINESS, IMPORTANT THING IS THE CONTRA CTUAL I.T.A. NOS. 793/H/15 & 143/HYD/2016 SARIKA RANASARIA 7 RELATION BETWEEN PARTIES. IN THE GIVEN CASE, THE AS SESSEE HAS UTILIZED THE SERVICES OF FEW INDIVIDUALS TO EXPAND HER BUSINESS AND THE OTHER PARTIES HAD AGREED TO ACT AS AGENTS. THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THE SERVICES BY CONFIRMING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSEE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED THE SERVICES BY WAY OF MAKING PAYMENT AFTER DEDUCTING TDS. HOWEVER, THE AS SESSEE HAS TO PROVE THE RELEVANCE OF THE EXPENSES TO THE R EVENUE GENERATED BY HIM ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF THE SERV ICE PROVIDERS. ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE LIST OF SERVI CE PROVIDERS AND SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD FULFILLED THE PRIMARY DU TY OF ONUS OF PROOF BY PAYING IN CHEQUE AND DEDUCTING RELEVANT TA XES. THIS CANNOT REPLACE THE RELEVANCE OF EXPENSES AS HELD IN THE CASE OF K. V. MINERALS (ITA NO. 1996/HYD/2011). THE ASSE SSEE HAS TO BRING COGENT MATERIAL TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTION LIKE AGREEMENTS, CONFIRMATION FROM THE SERVICE PROVIDERS AND THE CUSTOMERS AS WELL. COMING TO PRES ENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD USED THE SERVICES OF 15 AGENTS AND ONLY 3 HAVE DECLINED TO HAVE MADE ANY SERVICES TO THE ASSE SSEE. IN THE GIVEN CASE, THERE ARE CERTAIN ISSUES SUCH AS TH ERE EXIST ONLY ORAL AGREEMENTS, THE AGENTS ARE FROM DIFFERENT FIELD OF ACTIVITIES AND THE CUSTOMERS ARE DENYING THE PRESEN CE OF AGENTS IN THE TRANSACTION. AT THE SAME TIME, REVENU E HAD INVESTIGATED THIS ISSUE INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT INVOL VING THE ASSESSEE BUT IT HAS CARRIED OUT THE INVESTIGATION P ARTIALLY. THERE ARE SOME HOLES IN THIS INVESTIGATION. THE FIR ST BEING THE STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM THE 3 LADY AGENTS ARE STER EO TYPED AND THE LANGUAGES OF ALL THREE ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT WHETHER THE AGENTS WHO DENIED, HAS DONE ANY SERVICE TO ASSESSEE HAD FILED THEIR RETURN OF I NCOME, IF FILED, WHETHER THEY HAVE DECLARED THE COMMISSION AS THEIR INCOME AND TAKEN THE TAX CREDIT. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH DETAILS AND FOR THE SAKE OF FAIR JUSTICE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE CASE IS PECULIAR AND ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE DET AILS OF THE I.T.A. NOS. 793/H/15 & 143/HYD/2016 SARIKA RANASARIA 8 AGENTS, WHO HAD AGREED THAT THEY HAD PROVIDED SERVI CES, ASSESSEE MUST BE GIVEN THE ADVANTAGE, EVEN THOUGH T HERE IS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT. ACCORDINGLY WE ALLOW THE COMM ISSION TO THE EXTENT OF THOSE AGENTS WHO HAD CONFIRMED BEFORE AO TO HAVE PROVIDED THE SERVICE TO THE ASSESSEEAND AT THE SAME TIME, WE CANNOT OVERLOOK THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE D EPARTMENT THAT THE AGENTS HAVE DECLINED TO HAVE ANY BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIREC T THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO THE EX TENT OF 12 AGENTS AND UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION TO THE EXTENT OF 3 AGENTS, WHO DENIED TO HAVE DONE ANY SER VICES TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. AS THE FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE MATERIALL Y IDENTICAL IN AY 2010-11 TO THAT OF AY 2011-12, FOLL OWING THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN THEREIN, THIS APPEAL IS PARTLY AL LOWED. 10. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JUNE, 2016 SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 10 TH JUNE, 2016 KV I.T.A. NOS. 793/H/15 & 143/HYD/2016 SARIKA RANASARIA 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT. SARIKA RANASARIA, C/O K. VASANTKUMAR & AV RAGHURAM, P. VINOD, ADVOCATES, 610, BABUKHAN ESTATE , BASHEERBAGH, HYD. 2. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1 (1), TIRUPATHI 3. CIT(A), TIRUPATHI 4 CIT, TIRUPATHI 5 THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD