Subham Estcon (P) Ltd, Bhubaneswar V. DCIT, Bhubaneswar

ITSSA 116/CTK/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7521 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Tax effect; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INC O ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE : SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM , AND SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JM IT (SS) A NO S . 116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 (A YS2003 - 04, 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06,2006 - 07,2007 - 08,2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10) SUBHAM EST CON (P) LTD., HIG - B/128, BDA DUPLEX, BARAMUNDA, BHUBANEWAR 751 003 PAN: AAHCS 4353 C VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2), BUBANESWAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT (SS) A NO. 149/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) ( C.O.FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE) ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2), BHUBANESWAR. VERSUS SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LTD., HIG - B/128, BDA DUPLEX, BARAMUNDA, BHUBANEWAR 751 003 PAN: AAHCS 4353 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE ASSESSEE: SHRI S.C.BHADRA, AR FOR THE DEPARTMENT: SMT. PARAMITA TRI PATHY, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.05.2012 ORDER PER BENCH : IT(SS)A NOS.116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGITATING THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A R.W.S. 144 OF THE I.T.ACT,1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04, 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08, 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10. IT(SS)A NO.149/CTK/2011 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENU E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AGITATING THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF 8,20,91.690 ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REITERATED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHOSEN TO BRING TO TAX THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIALS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION BEING C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 IN REVENUES A PPEAL SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS HAVE BEEN NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. IT(SS)A NOS.116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 IT(SS)A NO.149/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LLTD (ASSESSE E) 2 2. ALL THESE APPEALS AND THE C.O. WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY ON THE MERIT ADDITIONS INDIVIDUALLY AS HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS SUMMARILY CONFIRMED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT BEFORE HIM. 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS A S HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD A RE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED IN MAY, 2002 FOR EXECUTING WORK OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND CONTRACTORS . THE HUSBAND AND WI FE ARE THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY HOLDING PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL OF 1 LAKH. THE MAI N BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY WAS THAT FOR PURCHASING BIG CHUNKS OF LAND FROM THE LAND OWNERS/ FARMERS, DEVELOPING THE SAME, DIVIDE THE SAME INTO SUITABLE SMALL PLOTS AND SHAPES AND SALE THE SAME TO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS. A VERY FEW CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WA S UNDERTAKEN BUT ALL THE SAME CUSTOMERS PATRONIZED THE COMPANY IN HUGE NUMBERS LEADING TO A TURNOVER OF MORE THAN 40 CRORES TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH WHICH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 24.7.2008. THE DEPARTMENT SEIZED BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS WHICH WERE NOT COMPLETE ALONG WITH THE CASH AMOUNTING TO 29.58 LAKHS AND THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE EXAMINED AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.153A. THE ASSESSEE FOUND ITS INABILITY TO COMPLETE THE ACCOUNTS AS ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THREE AYS WERE ALSO TAKEN AWAY BY THE DEPARTMENT WHEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD CONDUCTED NO MAJOR BUSINESS FROM THE DATE OF ITS INCEPTION TILL 31.3.2004. INSPITE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING ISSUED NOTICE U/SD.153A, THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT FILE RETURNS ON TIME WHEN THE LIMITATION PERIOD RESULTED IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/SS.144/153A. IT(SS)A NOS.116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 IT(SS)A NO.149/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LLTD (ASSESSE E) 3 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INITIATED HIS ARGUMENTS BY SUBMITTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FA C T INCORP ORATED THE INCOMES WHICH WERE SOUGHT TO BE SURRENDERED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI SARADA PRASANNA PANDA UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4) WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE RETURNS ON ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.153A. ALL THE INCOMES WHICH WERE DEALT WITH BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 , AFTER THE RETURNS HAVING BEEN FILED , THEREFORE DO NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION TO THE EXTENT THAT THE AOS ENDEAVOR WAS TO BRING TO TAX THE AMOUNTS SO DISCLOSED BY THE MANAGING D IRECTOR U/S.132(4) SPREAD OVE R THE PERIOD OF ALL OF THE AYS 2 006 - 07,2007 - 08, 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10.THELEARNED COUNSEL ARGUED THAT SO WAS THE ENTHUSIASM OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE EVEN PROPOSED TO TAX THE AMOUNT OF WORK - IN - PROGRESS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31.3.2009 UNDER THE BELIEF THAT THE AMOUNT STOOD DECLARED FOR TAXATION BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR WHEN HE ON OATH HA D AGREED FOR DISCLOSURE OF THE SAME ON DEPOSITION MADE ON 12.8.2008. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS 24.7.2008 AND BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN THE AMOUNT BE HELD AS AN ASSET ON 31.3.2009 TO BE TAXED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED HIS SUBMISSIONS BY INDIVIDUALLY POINTING OUT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WISE ADDITION S, WHICH WERE BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.144/153A. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED BY THE HUSBAND - WIFE TEAM HAS BEEN TAXED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REGULARLY FILING ITS RETURNS FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 003 - 04. HE ALSO ASSUMED ON ESTIMATE 9 % AMOUNT ADVANCED BY THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS AS THE AMOUNT PURPORTED TO BE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIALS WHICH RELATED IT(SS)A NOS.116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 IT(SS)A NO.149/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LLTD (ASSESSE E) 4 TO THE LATER AYS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05, HE TRIE D TO BIFURCATE THE AMOUNT OF INCOME FROM THE SALES ON THE BASIS OF DISCLOSURE BY MANAGING DIRECTOR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO GENERATE 25% OF THE TURNOVER AS INCOME WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO DEVELOP THE PARTICULAR PLOT OF LAND ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SOLD TO THE INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS NOT THOSE WHO HAD ALREADY GIVEN ADVANCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RENDERING COMMISSION INCOME ON THE BASIS OF THOSE PLOTS WHICH LAND OWNERS DID NOT TRANSFER THE LAND IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE SEIZED MATERIALS WERE LYING WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF , HE TRIED TO COMPUTE THE TOTAL AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM THE CUSTOMERS UP TO 24.7.2008 WHEN THE ASSESSEE RENDERED INCOME FROM THE COLLECTION AMOUNTING TO 82.47 CRORES AS ON 31.3.2009. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RENDERED INCOME FROM A HIGHER FIGURE OF COLLECTION AS AGAINST COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED BOOKS AND SEIZED MATERIALS AT 64.1 4 CRORES ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE REFUNDS AND ALSO DID NOT CONSIDER THE TRANSFERS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD TO FOREGO IN VIEW OF PROPOSAL OF CUSTOMERS CLAIMING CHANGE OF PLOT OF LAND TO ANOTHER WAS NOT POSSIBLE RESULTING IN REFUND. H E SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTUAL FIGURES FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WHICH WERE RENDERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE SALES OF 39.08 CRORES WAS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 24.52 CRORES ONLY WHICH WAS ACTUALLY COMPUTED AND WORKED OUT TO INDICATE THE AOS COMPUTING EXCESS LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF THE CUSTOMERS ADVANCES LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO 8.21 CRORES. THIS EXACTLY WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHEN HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE SAME FROM THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FO R THE AY 2009 - 10 AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT(SS)A NOS.116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 IT(SS)A NO.149/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LLTD (ASSESSE E) 5 6. COMING BACK TO THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR 2005 - 06 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAVING ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN PURSU ANCE TO NOTICE U/S.153A TRIED TO CONTINUE ESTIMATING THE INCOME FROM SALES PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN UNDISCLOSED BY BRINGING TO TAX THE SUM OF 4 2 ,16,994 WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED SALES @25% BASED ON AUDITED BALANCE SHEET. HE ARGUED THAT THE DISCLOSUR E BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO 25 LAKHS HAD ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED WHICH HE HAD ACCEPTED THEREFORE COULD NOT BE TAXED AS A PERCENTAGE ON THE VERY SALES WHEN HE THOUGHT THE DIFFERENCE OF THE SALE FIGURES AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT VIS - A - VIS AS PER HIS OW N COMPUTATION ON THE BASIS OF ADVANCE RECEIVED WERE TO BE COMPARED . THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO DID NOT CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT BEFORE HIM AND CONFIRMED THE SAME WHEN HE DIRECTED THE SUM OF 4 2 ,16,094 TO BE DELETED. 7. FOR THE FINAN CIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 , THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED SUPPRESSION OF SALES AMOUNTING TO 1.25 CORES AND ALSO RECONFIRMED THE SALE SUPPRESSION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 WHEN THE ADVANCE TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSE E COMPANY WERE RETURNED OR NOT HAVING BEEN INCURRED FOR EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID CONSIDER THE DISCLOSURE IN THE RETURN FILED U/S.153A BUT CHOSE TO TAX THE SAME AGAIN IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SET OFF THE CARRY FORW ARD LOSSES OF THE EARLIER YEARS. 8. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007 - 08 THE TOTAL DISCLOSURE WAS 1.5 CRORES WHEN THE AO TRIED TO TAX THE VERY APPLICATION OF THE SAME ROUTED THROUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEING ADVANCE TO SRAVANI CONSTRUCTIONS AND PAYMENT TO BAIKUNTHAVIHAR PROJECT THE LAND BELONGING TO THE SELLERS. THE AMOUNT PAID TO LAND OWNERS OF SUB HAM PALACE AMOUNTING TO 1.1 CRORES WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO IT(SS)A NOS.116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 IT(SS)A NO.149/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LLTD (ASSESSE E) 6 TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSPITE OF THE ASSESSEE BRINGING TO HIS NOTICE THAT THE SAID SUM STOOD DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ARGUED THAT ONCE HAVING DECLARED THE INCOME THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN ADDING THE APPLICATION THEREOF AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES BY THE AO. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON INSPITE OF THE ASSESSEE - APPELLANT BRINGING THIS TO ITS NOTICE. 9. FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, THE DISCLOSURE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 3.5 CRORES WHICH WAS O N THE BASIS OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS DULY INCORPORATED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. COMMISSION INCOME AMOUNTING TO 46 LAKHS WAS ALSO DECLARED IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE U/S.153A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HERE AGAIN BROUGHT TO TAX THE INCOME WHEN THE AMOUNTS WERE GIVEN AS ADVANCE FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN FILM BUSINESS. THE WORK - IN - PROGRESS AS ON 31 ST MARCH WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH COULD NOT BECOME INCO ME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AS THE ASSESSEE HAD TO JUSTIFY THE HOLDING OF CASH ON THE DATE OF SEARCH THE INCOME GENERATED WAS ALSO DECLARED AS ON 31.3.2008 WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT TO TAX EVEN OTHERWISE . 10. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ENTHUSIASM HAS TRIED TO TAX THE VERY LIABILITY WHICH INCOME ON ESTIMATION HAS BEEN TAXED , RATHER LEANS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE , TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CUSTOMERS HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED FROM THE ADVANCE THAT HAD BEEN RECEI VED WHEN THE SUM TOTAL OF THE TOTAL COLLECTION BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS LESS THAN THE SUM TOTAL DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DULY AUDITED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME OF 1 .36 CRORES INCLUDING 1 CRO RE DECLARED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR WHICH WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS WORK - IN - PROGRESS ON 31.3.2009 AND INVESTMENT IN THE IT(SS)A NOS.116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 IT(SS)A NO.149/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LLTD (ASSESSE E) 7 FILM BUSINESS AMOUNTING TO 35, 00, 000 CANNOT BE TAXED U/S.153A BUT UNDER REGULAR ASSESSMENT ONLY. THE AO TRIED TO TAX THE VERY SAME AMOUNTS WHEN THE INCOME HAS BEEN RENDERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR UP TO THE DATE OF SEARCH BUT HOLDING IT AS EMANATING FROM 8.2 CRORES AS A PERCENTAGE FOR ESTIMATION OF SUPPRESSED SALES. THIS AMOUNT IS PRAYED FOR TOTAL DEL ETION . 11. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED VOLUMINOUS PAPER BOOK FOR THE RESPECTIVE AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH INDICATE THE BASIS FOR FORMULATING THE BIASED VIEW OF BRINGING TO TAX ESTIMATION OF INCOME ON THE BASIS OF COLLECTIONS FROM TH E CUSTOMERS AND THE PAYMENTS TO THE LAND OWNERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE NO EFFORT TO CORRELATE THE SAME WHEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS CONSIDERATE ENOUGH TO CONSIDER THAT THE COLLECTIONS AND THE PAYMENTS TO THE LAND OWNERS WERE WRONGLY COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE LIABILITY OF 8.21 CRORES AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BASICALLY IS ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH MATERIAL WHICH THE LEARNED DR HAS FILED IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK. 12. THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAPER BOOK INCLUDES DOCUMENTS SEIZED WHICH WERE TO BE DECIPHERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE BASICALLY JOTTINGS AND NOTINGS OF THE ACCOUNTANT KEEPING IN VIEW THE MAGNITUDE OF THE CUSTOMERS VISITING THE ASSESSEE WH EN THE REGISTERS MAINTAINED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME , IN A MANNER WHICH HAS RESULTED IN DUPLICATION OF TAXATION OF THE VERY INCOME WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD RENDERED POST SEARCH. HE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE COMBINED BLOCK PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN RENDERING INCOME TILL 31.3.2009 DECLARING PROFIT OF 2.76 CRORES WHEN ON THE BASIS OF DECLARATION , POS T - SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE FILED IT(SS)A NOS.116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 IT(SS)A NO.149/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LLTD (ASSESSE E) 8 RETURN IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE U/S.153A HAVING CUMULATI VE INCOME OF 2.56 CRORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DUPLICATING THE ADDITIONS AS OTHERWISE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 6 CRORES HAS COMPUTED THE TAXATION OF INCOME OF 17.37 CRORES. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SERVED WITH DEMAND NOTICE OF TAX OF 10.4 8 CRORES WHEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ONLY CONSIDERED THE DELETION OF 8.21 CRORES WHICH IS PATENTLY A CLERICAL MISTAKE ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WERE ALSO AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING CUMULATIVE TOTAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ENTIRE ESTIMATION WAS BASED . THE INDIVIDUAL ASSES SMENTS AND THE ASSESSMENT OF SUBHAM FILMS (P) LTD., ALSO WILL BE DEALT WITH LATER ON THE ASSESSEES APPEALS WHEN THE ISSUES BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACTUALLY ARE BORNE BY THE FACT THAT THEY A RE THE INCOMES WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN RENDERED TO TAX BY THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. 13. CONCLUDING HIS ARGUMENT, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO TAX ON INCOMES WHICH CANNOT BE H ELD AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE AS NO CO NTROVERTING MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF A LIABILITY CREATED , BEING AMOUNT PAYABLE TO LAND OWNERS AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS , HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOTTED WITH PLOT CAN LEAD TO TAXATION OF INCOME @25% OR 9 %.WHENTHEACTUAL AMOUNTS RELATE TO REAL INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE PICK ED AND CHOSE N INDIVIDUAL ITEM FOR TAXATION BEING THE AMOUNTS INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH IN THE FORM OF ACQUIRING ASSETS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DI SPOSAL AND DEVELOPMENT. HE PRAYED THAT THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BE ACCEPTED AS THEY INCORPORATE THE INCOMES AS WERE DECLARED FOR TAXATION ON THE BASIS OF DEPOSITION MADE BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN AUGUST, 2008. IT(SS)A NOS.116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 IT(SS)A NO.149/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LLTD (ASSESSE E) 9 14. THE LEA RNED CIT - DR HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO INDICATE THAT THE DECLARATION OF INCOME POST SEARCH WERE RENDERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING RETURNS U/S.153A FOR THE IMPUGNED AYS. SHE HIGHLIGHTED THE REASON FOR THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO PASS ASSESSMENTS U/S.144 WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE THE RETURNS ON TIME INSPITE OF HAVING GRANTED SUFFICIENT TIME. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TAKING A PLEA THAT THE IMPOUNDED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE SEIZED MATERIALS WERE NOT RELEASED OU GHT NOT TO HAVE COME IN THE WAY OF THE ASSESSEE FILING THE RETURNS ON TIME AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO MAKE THE ADDITIONS INSOFAR AS THE PURPORTED ADDITIO NS WERE NOT PART OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO ADJUST THE DEPRECIATION AND BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES WHICH IT HAD CLAIMED AS PURCHASES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . PAYMENTS AND ADVANCE TO DIFFERENT PERSONS THEREFORE, WAS THE ONLY BAS IS WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS NOW TRYING TO ADJUST AGAINST THE ASSET CREATED OR A LIABILITY BEING ACCRUED. THE BASIC FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN DECLARING TRUE INCOME FROM ITS BUSINESS FOR THE AYS WHICH HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE VARIOUS PROJECTS AND THE NUMEROUS CUSTOMERS WHICH WERE DEALT WITH THE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE HUGE AND AS NO COOPERATION FROM THE ASSESSEE CAME FORTH WAS CONSTR AINED TO PASS THE ORDERS U/S.144/1 53A. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE RIGHTLY CONSIDERED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS INSOFAR AS THE ONLY ADDITION WAS HELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS AN EXCESS LIABILITY NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009 - 10. SHE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEES MANAGING D IRECTOR HAD DECLARED INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION132(4 ) WAS ADJUSTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURNS FILED IN PURSUANCE IT(SS)A NOS.116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 IT(SS)A NO.149/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LLTD (ASSESSE E) 10 TO NOTICE U/S.153A WERE JUSTIFIABLY CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADDITION THEREFORE CANNOT BE DELETED FROM TAXATION AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL AS DOUBLE TAXATION. INCORPORATING EXPENDITURE ON PURCHASE OF ASSETS ARE EXPLICITLY TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A AND SECTION 69C.THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO JUSTIFY TH E ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BRINGING TO TAX THE SPECIFIC ITEMS WHEN HE HAS TRIED TO COVER UP THE ACTUAL FIGURE OF AMOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES BY HOLDING THE SAME EITHER HAVING BEEN SPENT OR HAVING BEEN USED TO ACQUIRE ASSETS WHICH BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION COULD BE CONSIDERED AS ADJUSTMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS WAS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF VDIS,1997. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REDUCING THE LIABILITY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT BEFORE IT VIS - A - VIS THE INCOME COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO BRING TO TAX THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE U/S.153A WHEN THE ASSESSEES MANAGING DIRECTOR HAD AGREED FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT T HE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALES AND COMMISSION EARNING HAD NOT BEEN DECLARED ON THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED BOOKS AND SEIZED MATERIAL WHICH WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO IT LATER. THE LEARNED CIT - DR HAS RIGHTLY POINTED O UT THAT IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE TO ADJUST THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF VDIS,1997. THE ASSESSMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR BRINGING TO TAX THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS AN EFFORT TO INDIVIDUALLY CONSIDER IT(SS)A NOS.116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 IT(SS)A NO.149/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LLTD (ASSESSE E) 11 THE ISSUES WHICH COULD NOT BE ADJUSTED AS BALANCING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OR SECTION 69C. THE EFFORT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TO GIVE JUSTIFICATION OF THE INCOME SURRENDERED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR IN A DEPOSITION UNDER THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 132(4), WAS A EXERCISE TO HO LD THE SAME EITHER AS WORK - IN - PROGRESS OR ASSETS WHICH WERE PART OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE WHEN THE CUSTOMERS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHO HAD PAID ADVANCE AND WAS THOROUGHLY SCRUTINIZED WHEN THE LEARNED C IT(A) DIRECTED THE APPELLANTS LIABILITY OF THE CUSTOMERS AMOUNTING TO 8.21 CRORES FOR DELETION . THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SUPPRESSED SALES INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES INABILITY TO COMP LETE THE ACCOUNTS AS THE SAME STOOD IMPOUNDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT TO BE TAKEN SHELTER OF BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INCORPORATING UNDISCLOSED INCOME SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MATCHING THE SAME WITH THE ESTIMATION OF SUPPRESSED SALES ON THE BASIS OF CUSTOMERS LIABILITY. 16. WE WILL INDIVIDUALLY CONSIDER THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE AYS INSOFAR AS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04, THE SHARE CAPITAL AND THE ADVANCE TO LAND OWNERS @9% OF 11,97,830 AMOUNTING TO 1,07,028 CANNOT BE TAXED WHEN THE ASSESSEE NEVER HAD ANY INCOME. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTORS BEING THE ONLY SHARE HOLDERS AND ARE OF PERSONS OF MEANS COULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAXATION ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF SHARE CAPITAL IN THE ASSESSEE SIMPLY BECAUSE THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN TAXED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TAKING SHELTER OF THE HONBLE APEX COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE CIT V. LOVELY EXPORTS P LTD [216 CTR (SC) 195], HOLDING THAT IF THE CAPITAL INTRODUCTION IS HELD AS BOGUS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TILL SUCH TIME THE ASSESSING IT(SS)A NOS.116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 IT(SS)A NO.149/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LLTD (ASSESSE E) 12 OFFICER HAS EXHAUSTED HIS REMEDIES TO TAX THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS ALONE. THEREFORE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL CANNOT BE TAXED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS NO INCOME HAD BEEN GENERATED THE 9% ADVANCE TO THE LAND OWNERS CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 IS, THEREFORE, DIREC TED TO BE DELETED. 17. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05, THE LEARNED COUNSEL INDICATED THAT THE BASIS FOR TAXATION OF 25% OF 37,38,280 THE SUPPRESSION OF SALES AND 9% OF 86,18,108 AS PAYMENT TO THE LAND OWNERS WAS ON THE BASIS OF LATER YEARS CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR INSOFAR AS NO BUSINESS HAD BEEN CONDUCTED FOR GENERATING INCOME IN THE SAID YEAR. AS TH E ISSUE WILL BE DEALT WITH IN DETAIL IN THE LATER YEAR, THE AMOUNT OF 17,10,200 IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AS OTHERWISE CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. 18. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR INSOFAR AS THE SUPPRESSION OF SALES ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALES RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS OTHERWISE COMPUTED B Y HIM HAVE BEEN WRONGLY INDICATED WHEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM SALE SUPPRESSION AMOUNTING TO 25,00,000 HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07.THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY PAID TO THE THREE DIRE CTORS NAMELY SHRI S.P.PANDA, P.K.MARTHA AND R.K.PALAR FOR INCURRING BUSINESS EXPENSES WHICH THEY DID NOT DISCLOSE AND ULTIMATELY WAS RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. THE SAME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED A S INCOME IN THE SAID YEAR THEREF ORE WAS A DUPLICATION FOR TAXATION OF THE SAME INCOME, WHICH IT(SS)A NOS.116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 IT(SS)A NO.149/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LLTD (ASSESSE E) 13 WILL BE DEALT WITH IN INDIVIDUAL CASES OF THE THREE DIRECTORS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE, THE REFORE, DIRECT DELEATION OF 42 ,16,954 SEPARATELY COMPUTED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED COUNSELS SUBMISSION THAT THE SAME STOOD EXISTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEREFORE OUGHT TO BE TAXED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 WHEN THE ADMITTED DISCLOSURE MADE IN THE ASSE SSM ENT YEAR 2006 - 07 WAS ADJUSTMENT. 19. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO DECLARE A SUM OF 1.5 CRORES BEING SUPPRESSION OF SALES AMOUNTING TO 1.25 CR O RES AND ALSO THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE PAID TO THE DIRECTORS RECEIVED BACK UNSPENT BY THEM 25 LAKHS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHOSE TO TAX THE SAME BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED PAYMENT TO LAND OWNERS AT BAIKUNTHAVIHAR AND SUBHAM PALACE WAS PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO STOOD UNDISCLOSED THEREFORE CANNOT BE CLAIMED A S AN EXPENDITURE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION69. ADVANCE TO SRAVANI CONSTRUCTIONS AMOUNTING TO 38 LAKHS REMAIN ED UNEXPLAINED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CUSTOMERS LIABILITY TO THAT EFFECT HAD NOT BEEN ENHANCED THEREFORE RENDERED THE APPLICATION OF PERCENT AGE OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES WAS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISONS OF SECTION 153A. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS EFFORT TO CORRELATE THE SALE SUPPRESSION THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SAHADEV PATRA AND DINBANDHU PANDA AND PAID TO SRAVANI CONSTRUCTIONS THE REFORE COULD NOT BE TAXED AGAIN INSOFAR AS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD AGREED TO PAY TAX ON THE SUPPRESSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF OSCAR CITY PROJECT INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO 1.25 CRORES AND ALSO TO B R ING TO TAX THE AMOUNT WHICH SUPPRE SSION OF SALES INCOME WAS HELD AS ADVANCE WITH DIRECTORS OF COMPANY BUT NOT UTILISED WAS REFUNDED BY THEM. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IT(SS)A NOS.116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 IT(SS)A NO.149/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LLTD (ASSESSE E) 14 THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TO BE TAXED IS 1.5 CRORES AS AGAINST 3.20 CRORES BEING A DOUBLE TAXATION EFFECT G IVEN TO THE INCOME BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.144/153A. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM CANNOT BE ALLOWED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A AND 69C INSOFAR AS INVESTMENT FROM UNDIS CLOSED SOURCES CANNOT BE DEDUCTED UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS. 20. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN TO DECLARE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES ON DIFFERENT PROJECTS TOTALING 3 .04 CRORES AND ALSO EARNING OF COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO 46 LAKHS TOTALINGRS.3.5 CRORES WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF APPLICATION OF THE INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNS FILED IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S.153A BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHOSEN TO TAX THE DECLARATION AMOUNT AS WELL AS THE APPLICATION BEING ADVANCE TO SRAVANI CONSTRUCTION OF 3 LAKHS, PAYMENT TO LAND OWNERS AT BAIKUNTHAVIHAR AMOUNTING TO 26.5 LAKHS, UNACCOUNTED FILM BUSINESS OF 37.5 LAKHS, UNACCOUNTED WORK - IN - PROGRESS BEING SUBHAM PALACE, A - H BLOCKS AMOUNTING TO 6 CRORES AND HOLDING OF ASSETS IN THE FORM OF CASH ETC., AMOUNTING TO RS.1.23 CRORES. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW WE ARE INCLINED TO HO LD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO TAX THE SUM OF 4.28 CRORES AS AGAINST 3.5 CRORES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOLDING OF ASSETS FROM UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND INCURRING EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY DISALLOWED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C THEREFORE GET RESTRICTED FOR ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TO 3.5 CRORES AGAINST WHAT HAS BEEN COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 4.28 CRORES AND HENCE, THE BALANCE ADDITION IS DELETED. 21. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 BEING THE SEARCH YEAR , WE ARE UNABLE TO SATISFY OURSELVES WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE RIVAL PARTIES THAT DECLARATION OF IT(SS)A NOS.116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 IT(SS)A NO.149/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LLTD (ASSESSE E) 15 INCOME BEING SALE SUPPRESSION AMOUNTING TO 1 CRORES COULD LEAD TO ADDITION OF 9.01 CRORES WHEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS HIMSELF DIRECTED THE DELETION OF 8.21 CRORES BEING AN ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE IN CALCULATION OF THE TOTAL L IABILITIES ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS ON WHICH THE PURPORTED PERCENTAGE OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES HAS BEEN COMPUTED. THE ASSESSEE INDICATES LIABILITY MORE THAN WHAT THE I.T. DEPARTMENT HAS COMPUTED INSOFAR AS THE DEPARTMENT HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE SEARCH MATERIAL AS WELL AS THE INCOMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHEN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR WAS YET TO CLOSE AFTER EIGHT MONTHS. PAUC ITY OF TIME FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS ORDERS STOOD RECTIFIED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR ADJUDIC ATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE UNDISPUTED WORK - IN - PROGRESS AND ADVANCE TO SUBHAM FILMS AS ON 31.3.2009 OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAXED BY WAY OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND NOT U/S.153A. THIS, AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL, WAS FROM THE NET PROFIT DECLA RED AT 1.36 CRORES THEREFORE CANNOT BE TAXED AGAINST THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN FILM BUSINESS THERE FORE WAS NOT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REDUCING THE SUPPRESSION OF SALES INSOFAR AS NO INCOME HAD BEEN DECLARED IN THE HANDS OF SUBHAM FILMS P LTD., WHO PURPORTED TO HAVE RECEIVED THIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME EARLIER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DIRECT THE DELETION OF A SUM OF 1 CRORE FROM THE RESIDUAL INCOME CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) INSOFAR AS INCOME DECLARED UP TO THE SEARCH DATE WAS REN DERED TO TAX IN THE NET INCOME RENDERED AND ASSESSED AT 1.36 CRORES STOOD INCLUDED AND UTILISED UP TO 31.3.2009. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AYS 2003 - 04 , 2004 - 05 AND 2009 - 10 ARE ALLOWED AND THAT FOR THE AYS 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07,20 07 - 08, AND 2008 - 09 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT IT(SS)A NOS.116,117,118,119,120,121 AND 122/CTK/2011 IT(SS)A NO.149/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.34/CTK/2011 SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LLTD (ASSESSE E) 16 YEAR 2009 - 10 IS DISMISSED AND THE C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REVENUES APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. SD/ - SD/ - (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (K.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 11.05.2012 H.K.PADHEE, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE A SSESSEE : SUBHAM ESTCON (P) LTD., HIG - B/128, BDA DUPLEX, BARAMUNDA, BHUBANEWAR 751 0 03 2. THE DEPARTMENT : 1. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2), BUBANESWAR. 2. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2), BHUBANESWAR. 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY.