M/s. Sree Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals, Medak, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-1, Sanga Reddy

ITA 997/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66532 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: YVST SAIDR
• Assessee Lawyers: D V ANJANEYULU
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 997/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S. SREE CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS MEDAK DISTRICT. .... APPELLANT PAN: ABDFS 3554 K VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY. RESPONDENT ITA NO. 921/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, -VS- . ... APPELLANT SANGAREDDY. M/S. SREE CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS MEDAK DISTRICT. PAN: ABDFS 3554 K RESPONDENT VS. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.V. ANJANEYULU DEPARTMENT BY SHRI YVST SAI(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 03-10-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-11-2012 ITA NOS. 921 AND 997 OF 2012 SREE CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS. 2 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THESE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND TH E ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31-3- 2012 OF CIT (A)-III, HYDERABAD PASSED IN ITA NO.0421/CIT (A)-II I/10-11 AND THEY PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. L ET US FIRST DEAL WITH APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ITA NO. 921/HYD/2012 (DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL) :- 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS EIGHT GROUNDS. GR OUND NOS. 1 AND 8 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEY DO NOT REQUI RE ANY ADJUDICATION. 3. SO FAR AS GROUND NOS. 2 TO 7 ARE CONCERNED, BASICALLY THE FOLLOWING TWO ISSUES EMERGE FROM THESE GROUNDS:- I) THE CIT (A) HAS ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOU T GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHIC H IS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES AND II) THE CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION WITH REGARD TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS IN ABSENCE OF ADEQU ATE EVIDENCE. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLY OF BULK DRUGS. IT FILED ITS RET URN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING AN INCOME RS.1,29, 680/-. INITIALLY, NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 25-8-2009 AN D SERVED ON ONE OF THE PARTNERS VIZ., SRI MALLIKHARJUNA RAO. THE SAI D PARTNER REQUESTED IN WRITING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHIFTED ITS BUSINES S ACTIVITY TO A ITA NOS. 921 AND 997 OF 2012 SREE CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS. 3 NEW ADDRESS, HENCE ITS ASSESSMENT RECORD MAY BE TRANSFERRED T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION AS PER THE NEW ADD RESS. ON THE ASSESSEES REQUEST, THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE TRANSFERRED TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION AS PER THE NEW ADDRESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN ISSUED A NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE CALLING FOR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER INFORMATION. EVEN THOUGH THE NO TICE WAS SERVED AND SUBSEQUENTLY LETTERS ISSUED WERE ALSO SERVED ON THE A SSESSEE, NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PARTICIPAT ED IN THE PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESORTED TO ESTIMATION OF PROFIT BY APPLYING T HE RATE OF 12.5% OF THE TURNOVER IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ALSO ADDED THE ENTIRE SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS.87,81,494/- FOR WANT OF VERIFICATION AND CONFIRMATI ON. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, FILED AN APPEA L BEFORE THE CIT (A). 5. IN COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS.87,81,494/- ARE ACTUALLY TRADE CREDITORS WHO SUPPLIED RAW MATERIALS. ALL OF THEM ARE HAVING R UNNING ACCOUNTS WITH THE ASSESSEE FROM THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THI S REGARD, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE LEDGER ACCOUNT COPIES AND PARTY WISE DETAILS TO PROVE THE FACT THAT TH E TRADE CREDITORS WERE APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FRO M EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THERE ARE NO FRESH SUNDRY CREDITORS DUR ING THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED A COMPARATIVE ST ATEMENT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 TO 2007- 08 TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE CARRI ED FORWARD FROM EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN SO FAR AS ESTIMATION O F PROFIT AT ITA NOS. 921 AND 997 OF 2012 SREE CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS. 4 12.5% IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SHOWN ANY REASON AS TO WHY HE HAS ADOPTED THE RA TE OF 12.5% WHILE ESTIMATING THE PROFIT AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ALL OWING THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED TOWARDS PARTNERS SALARY AND INTERE ST AND CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. THE CIT (A) AFTER EXAMINING THE LED GER ACCOUNTS AND THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES FOUND THAT THE CREDITORS AP PEARING IN THE BOOKS DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE ACTUALLY CARRIED FORWARD FROM THE EARLIER YEAR AND ALL OF THEM ARE R UNNING ACCOUNTS. THE CIT (A) ALSO NOTICED THAT SOME PAYMENTS DURING THE YEAR HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CREDITORS THROUGH CHEQUES. THE CIT (A) CONSIDERING THE FACT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED EX PAR TE U/S 144 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITIONS OF SUN DRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS.87,81,494/- WITHOUT MAKING P ROPER ENQUIRY HELD THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. SO FAR AS EST IMATION OF PROFIT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 12.5% IS CONCERNED, THE CI T (A) RESTRICTED THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT TO 6% OF THE TUR NOVER. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE TOWARDS SUNDRY CREDITORS WITHOUT ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER RULE 46A OF INCOME-TAX RULES. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AVING COMPLETELY NON CO-OPERATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE PROFIT AND MAKING ADDITION OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS IN ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO DERIVE ADVANTAGE ARISING OUT OF NON CO-OPERATION WHICH RESULTED IN ADDI TION OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. IT IS FURTHER CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPA RTMENTAL ITA NOS. 921 AND 997 OF 2012 SREE CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS. 5 REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED ITS PR IMARY ONUS WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. THEREFORE, THE CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT EX PARTE WITHOUT GIVING PRO PER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNE D AR EXPLAINING THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM APPEARI NG IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM BECAME COMPLETELY SICK AND WAS CLOSED DOWN AND SINCE THE SUNDRY CRE DITORS WHO WERE ONLY TRADE CREDITORS AND SUPPLIED MATERIAL WE RE PURSUING FOR RECOVERY OF THEIR AMOUNT AND THE SBI WITH WHOM CREDIT FACILITIES WERE AVAILED ALSO INITIATED LEGAL ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF TH E LOAN AMOUNT . THE PARTNERS WERE IN DISTURBED CONDITION. THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE WAS SERVED ON THE LADY PARTNER WHO IS ONLY A HOUSE WIFE, PROPER COMPLIANCE COULD NOT BE MADE. THE LEARNED AR REFERRING TO THE AUDITED BALANCE-SHEET FOR 2004-05 TO 2007-08 SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY REVEALS THE FACTS THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE ACTUALLY TRADE CREDITORS WHO WERE REGULARLY SUPPLYING RAW MATERIALS TO THE ASSESSEE. ALL OF THEM ARE HAVING RUNNING ACCOUNTS WITH THE ASSESSEE FIRM. TO DE MONSTRATE THIS FACT, THE LEARNED AR REFERRED TO THE SUNDRY CRE DITORS AS APPEARING IN ITS ACCOUNTS FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND 2008 -09. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) AFTER EXAMINI NG THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES AND OTHER DETAILS AND BEING SATIS FIED THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE CARRIED FORWARD FROM EARLIER ASSES SMENT YEARS, HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NOS. 921 AND 997 OF 2012 SREE CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS. 6 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 6% MADE BY THE CIT (A), WE A RE NOT CONCERNED WITH THIS ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMEN T. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.87,81,494/- REPRESENTING SUNDRY CREDITOR S IS CONCERNED, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U /S 144 OF THE ACT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AND PRODUCE ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS.87,81,494/- ON THE OBSERVATION THAT THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION AND NO MATE RIAL TO VERIFY THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. BEFORE THE CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE PRODU CED ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DEMONSTRATED THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WER E ACTUALLY TRADE CREDITORS WHO HAD SUPPLIED MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEY HAD RUNNING ACCOUNT FROM THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. TH E CIT (A) AFTER EXAMINING THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AND OTHER DETAILS, WAS SATISFIED THAT THERE IS NO FRESH CREDITORS INTRODUCED DURING THE YEAR UNDER DISPUTE. ALL THE CREDITORS WERE CARRIED FORWARD FROM E ARLIER YEARS AND THEIR ACCOUNTS ARE RUNNING ACCOUNTS. THE LEARNED AR RE FERRING TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AS APPEARING IN THE AUDITED BALANCE-SHE ET FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 SU BMITTED BEFORE US THAT THEY ARE ALL APPEARING FROM THE EARL IER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THERE IS NO FRESH SUNDRY CREDITORS DURING THE IMPUG NED ASSESSMENT YEAR. FROM THE SUNDRY CREDITORS GIVEN IN TABULAR FOR M FOR THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), IT IS SEEN THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS DURING THE Y EAR HAS BEEN REDUCED IN COMPARISON TO THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. SI NCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED EX PARTE U/S 144 OF THE ACT, THE A SSESSEE HAD NO SCOPE TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED ITS BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS ITA NOS. 921 AND 997 OF 2012 SREE CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS. 7 BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND THE CIT (A) AFTER EXAMINING THE BOOKS HAD FOUND THAT ALL THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE CARRIED FORWARD FR OM THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THERE IS NO NEW SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE. THE POWERS OF THE CIT (A) BEING CO- TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE AO THE CIT (A) CAN VERY WEL L EXAMINE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR FINDING OUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. WE DO NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D R THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ADMITTED EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. W HEN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITOR S WAS WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY AND THE CIT (A) HAS FOUND THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE CARRIED FORWARD FROM THE EARLIER ASSESSMEN T YEAR, IN OUR VIEW THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO.997/HYD/12 (ASSESSEES APPEAL ):- 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING TWO EFFEC TIVE GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) RESTRICTING THE PROFIT AT 6% IS FAR EXCESSIVE, UNREASONABLE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PAST RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS RATE OF PROFIT IN THE APPELLANT CASE AND ALSO COMPARABLE CASES IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS WHICH IS NOT MORE TH AN 2 TO 4% IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS. ITA NOS. 921 AND 997 OF 2012 SREE CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS. 8 2. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE MANDATO RY8 PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(B) IN ALLOWING PARTNERS REMUNERATION, INTEREST ETC., IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME. 11. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED EX PARTE U/S 144 O F THE ACT SINCE THE ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEARED NOR PRODUCED BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SPITE OF S ERVICE OF STATUTORY NOTICE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE , IN ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE PRO FIT AT THE RATE OF 12.5%. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ESTIMAT ION OF PROFIT AT 12.5% IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE CIT (A ) CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CO-O PERATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS COMPELLED TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT. THE CIT (A) HOWE VER CONSIDERED THE RATE OF 12.5% ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO BE EXCESSIVE AND THEREFORE REDUCED THE SAME TO 6 %. 12. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ESTIMA TION OF PROFIT EVEN AT THE RATE OF 6% IS ALSO ON THE HIGH SIDE CONSIDE RING THE ASSESSEES PROFIT DECLARED FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR WH ICH VARIED BETWEEN 2 TO 4%. HE THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT ESTIMATI ON OF PROFIT SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AT 4%. THE LEARNED AR FURTH ER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSED IS ENTITLED FOR TO CLAIM DEDUCTION TOWARDS REM UNERATION AND INTEREST PAID TO PARTNERS. 13. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD. ITA NOS. 921 AND 997 OF 2012 SREE CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS. 9 14. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEARED N OR PRODUCED ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO . THEREFORE, THE AO WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT WHICH HE DID BY AD OPTING THE RATE OF 12.5%. THE CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE ASPECTS D IRECTED FOR ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 6%. CONSIDERING THE FACT THA T THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE AO AND ALL E XPENSES CLAIMED BY IT COULD NOT BE VERIFIED AND THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT BY ADOPTING THE RATE OF 6% AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE CIT ( A) IS JUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED ARS CONTENTION THAT SINCE ITS PROFIT FOR TH E EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR VARIED BETWEEN 2 TO 4%, HENCE THE PROFI T FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ALSO TO BE ADOPTED AT 4%, CANN OT BE ACCEPTED. THE LEARNED AR COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WHERE THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE RATE OF 4% AFTER EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE CONTENTION O F THE LEARNED AR THAT PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION AND THE INTEREST TO THE PARTNERS IS TO BE ALLOWED U/S 40 (B) OF THE ACT ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEP TED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF INDWELL CORPORATION VS. CIT (232 ITR 776) WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IN CASE OF ESTIMATION OF PROFIT, IT IS TO BE ASSUMED THAT INCOME HAS BEEN COMPUTED U/S 29 OF THE ACT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERA TION ALL DEDUCTIONS AND NO SEPARATE DEDUCTION IS TO BE ALLOWED. IN AFORESAID VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 921 AND 997 OF 2012 SREE CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS. 10 15. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMEN T AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27-11-2012. SD/- SD /- (SANJAY ARORA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. COPY TO:- 1) C/O M/S. ANJANEYULU & CO., CAS, 30, BHAGYALAKSHM I NAGAR, GANDHI NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2)INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY. 3) THE CIT (A)-III, HYDERABAD. 4) THE CIT CONCERNED, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABA D. JMR* ITA NOS. 921 AND 997 OF 2012 SREE CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS. 11