M/s R.K. Marketing Services, Hyderabad V. The DCIT, Circle 11(1), Hyderabad

MA 1/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1833 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V CHANDRASEKHAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Depreciation; Loose papers; Corroborative evidences; Block assessment
• Section: 69C; 131; 69; 6; 263; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA L HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 1/HYD/2014 IN ITA NO. 1212/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 M/S. R.K. MARKETING SERVICES, HYDERABAD PAN: AAHFR5865R VS. THE ASST. CIT CIRCLE-11(1) HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI V. CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT BY: SMT. K. HARITHA DATE OF HEARING: 04.04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.04.2014 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA), THE ASSESS EE IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 29.4. 2013 IN ITA NO. 1212/HYD/2011 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. 2. IN THIS CASE ORIGINALLY THE REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL CHALLENGING ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) DATED 7.4.2011. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 69C IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE CIT-V, HYDERABAD DID SET ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTED TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENT BASED ON LAW AND FACT. MA NO. 1/HYD/2014 M/S. R.K. MARKETING SERVICES ======================= 2 2. THE CIT(A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD WHILE MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY AS PER PARA NO. 6(VIII) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THIS TRIBUNAL ADJUDICATED THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS ORDER, AS FOLLOWS: '10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE THERE WAS A SEARC H ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEAR CH ACTION INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND, ACCORDING TO WHIC H THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 2.75 CRORES DURING T HE PERIOD 10.5.2007 TO 3.8.2007. OUT OF THIS RS. 2.55 CRORES WAS RECEIVED BY CASH BETWEEN 10.5.2007 AND 31.7.2007 AN D RS. 20 LAKHS BY WAY OF CHEQUE ON 3.8.2007. THE TRANSAC TION OF RS. 20 LAKHS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. R.K. MARKETING SERVICES. HOWEVER, RS. 2.55 CRORES WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SRI B. RAVIKALYAN REDDY STATEMENT WAS RECORDED U/S. 131 OF THE ACT. HE DENIED THE RECEIPT OF THIS AMOUNT. THERE WAS A SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF SRI B.P. ANAND KUMAR SINGH, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. VYSHNAVI MINERALS, HOSPET ON 25.3.2008. SRI B.P. ANAND KUMAR SINGH ADMITTED THAT CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 2.55 CRORES WAS PAID TO M/S. R. K. MARKETING SERVICES. THE SAME WAS NOT ACCOUNTED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OFFERED ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF R S. 2.55 CRORES FOR A.Y. 2008-09. CONSEQUENT TO THIS VIDE L ETTER DATED 22.2.2008 THE PRESENT ASSESSEE MADE AN OFFER OF RS. 2.55 CRORES AS ADDITIONAL INCOME. HOWEVER, ON EXAMINATI ON OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE RATE OF NET PROFIT FOR A.Y. 2008-09 WAS WORKED OUT AT 0.86% ON A TURNOVER OF RS. 12,97,69,807 AFTER EXCLUDING RS. 2. 55 CRORES OF ADDITIONAL INCOME. THE NET PROFIT RATE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IS AT 11.08% ON THE TURNOVER OF RS. 9,17,16,859. IT I S APPARENT THAT IN THE GUISE OF DECLARING ADDITIONAL INCOME, THE ASSESSEE INFLATED THE EXPENDITURE FOR A.Y. 2008-09. FOR CLA RITY WE REPRODUCE THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AS BEL OW: MA NO. 1/HYD/2014 M/S. R.K. MARKETING SERVICES ======================= 3 EXPENDITURE (RS.) INCOME (RS.) DIRECT EXPENSES 12,21,95,365 GROSS RECEIPTS AS REDUCED BY CASH AMOUNT OF RS. 2.55 CRORES 11,13,20,025 OFFICE & ADMN. EXPENSES 61,16,879 SELLING EXPENSES 49,700 FINANCIAL CHARGES 2,79,311 PROFIT BEFORE INTEREST AND DEPRECIATION 2,66,28,522 OTHER INCOME 4,39,49,783 TOTAL 15,52,69,807 TOTAL 15,52,69,807 TABLE SHOWING GROSS RECEIPTS EXCLUDING RS. 2.55 CRO RES EXPENDITURE (RS.) INCOME (RS.) DIRECT EXPENSES 12,21,95,365 GROSS RECEIPTS AS REDUCED BY CASH AMOUNT OF RS. 2.55 CRORES 12,97,69,807 OFFICE & ADMN. EXPENSES 61,16,879 SELLING EXPENSES 49,700 FINANCIAL CHARGES 2,79,311 PROFIT BEFORE INTEREST AND DEPRECIATION 11,28,552 TOTAL 12,97,69,807 TOTAL 12,97,69,807 11. FURTHER IT IS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT HAS TAKEN LA ME EXCUSES TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COOPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD SHOW THAT THE PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE E IS NOT CONSISTENT AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEAR. BEING SO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REJECTED. 12. FURTHER, EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FLATED THE EXPENDITURES. BEING SO, HE WAS FORCED TO REJECT TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. S INCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO EST IMATE THE INCOME. PROFIT RATIO CANNOT BE A CONSTANT FACTOR F OR EACH AND EVERY YEAR. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROFIT RATIO WOULD FLUCTUATE DEPENDING UPON VARIOUS FACTORS SUCH AS PLACE OF BUS INESS, MARKETING CONDITIONS, AVAILABILITY OF LABOUR AND AV AILABILITY OF CAPITAL WITH THE ASSESSEE. WHILE ESTIMATING INC OME ONE HAS TO CONSIDER ALL THESE FACTORS AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY 100% PERFECT SYSTEM IN ESTIMATING INCOME. ONE HAS TO KEEP THE FACTUAL SITUATION IN MIND WHILE ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. THE REASONS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SATISFACTORY. MERELY BECAUSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES WERE NOT BOOKED ON EARLIER OCCASION AND HAVE TO ACCOUNTED ON ACCRUAL BASIS, THERE CANNOT BE FLUCTUATION OF PROFI T AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE CORRECT EXPENDITURE RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. PROFIT CANNOT BE CHANGED IN SUCH AN ABNORMAL MANNER. THE RATE OF NET PROFIT DECLARED B Y THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SUGGESTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRI ED TO MA NO. 1/HYD/2014 M/S. R.K. MARKETING SERVICES ======================= 4 MANIPULATE THE ACCOUNTS BY INFLATING THE EXPENDITUR E. FURTHER WE CLARIFY THAT THERE MAY BE CHANCE OF LEFT OUT OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURE WHILE GIVING STATEMENT DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH BUT THAT ERROR BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TO SUCH LARGE EXTENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE FACTS BROUGH T ON RECORD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT KEEPING BOOKS OF ACCO UNT TO SHOW CORRECT INCOME. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LO WER AUTHORITIES HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE TO STICK TO THE INC OME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR MADE A PL EA THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR ADMISSION IN THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY CANNOT BE CON SIDERED AS BASIS FOR ADDITION. IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS PR OVISION FOR MAKING USE OF THE MATERIAL COLLECTED DURING THE COU RSE OF SURVEY. THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF POORANMAL VS. DIT(E) (93 ITR 505) HELD THAT MATERIAL OBTAINED IN SEARCH MADE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS CAN BE USED FOR ASSESSMENT. BEING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN US E THE MATERIAL COLLECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF DR. PRATAP SING H VS. DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION (155 ITR 166) (SC) IT WAS HELD THAT ILLEGALITY OF SEARCH DOES NOT VITIATE THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED DURING SUCH ILLEGAL SEARCH. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT I S THAT THE COURT OR THE AUTHORITY BEFORE WHICH SUCH MATERIAL O R EVIDENCE BROUGHT IS TO BE CAUTIOUS AND CIRCUMSPECT IN DEALING WITH SUCH MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE. CONSIDERIN G THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE TWO CASES REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE MATERIAL COLLEC TED DURING THE COURSE OF ILLEGAL SEARCH CAN BE MADE USE OF. T HUS, IF THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE APE X COURT IS APPLIED THAN IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT EVEN IN THE C ASE OF SURVEY, MATERIAL COLLECTED CAN BE USED FOR ADDITION . WHILE DELIVERING THE JUDGEMENT THE HONBLE APEX COURT WAS CAUTIOUS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE MATERIAL COLLECTED IS COMING OUT FROM ILLEGAL SEARCH AND YET THE MATERIAL COLLEC TED WAS ALLOWED TO BE USED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE S AME ANALOGY APPLIES HEREIN FOR THE REASON THAT SO FAR A S THE PROCEDURE UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CO NCERNED, IT REMAINS THE SAME IN REGARD TO USE OF MATERIAL EI THER COLLECTED IN SEARCH OR IN SURVEY. IN VIEW OF THIS, IN OUR OPINION, THE MATERIAL COLLECTED DURING THE COURSE O F SURVEY CAN BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. 14. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE ARE INCLINED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS FOLLOWS: INCOME ON RS. 12,97,69,807 @ 11.08% AS NET PROFIT RATE IN A.Y. 2007308. RS. 1,43,78,495 ADDITION INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE RS. 2,55,0 0,000 TOTAL RS. 3,98,78,495 15. WE ARE APPLYING EARLIER YEAR RATE OF 11.08% ON DECLARED TURNOVER OF RS. 12,97,69,807 AND THEREAFTER WE ARE INCLINED TO ADD RS. 2.55 CRORES AS PER OFFER MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. MA NO. 1/HYD/2014 M/S. R.K. MARKETING SERVICES ======================= 5 16. NOW WE TAKE UP THE SECOND GROUND WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 5,20,71,441 MADE U/S. 6 9 OF THE ACT. THERE WAS A SEIZED MATERIAL AT PAGE NO. 15 MA RKED AS 'A/RK1 WHICH FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SRI RAVIKALYAN REDDY ON 26.10.2007. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, HE STATED THAT IT IS MARGIN MONEY PAID TO CONCERNED COMPANIES FROM WHOM THE MACHINERY MENTION ED ON THAT PAGE WERE PURCHASED. AS PER THE SEIZED MAT ERIALS, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 83 LAKHS IS MENTIONED AS 'MARGIN AMOUNT (APPR) RS. 83 LAKHS). LATER THE ASSESSEE STATED TH AT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF MARGIN MONEY WAS PAID AT RS. 87,17 ,423 AND WAS DULY ACCOUNTED. HOWEVER, CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER U/S. 263 THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION TOWARD S THIS AT RS. 83 LAKHS. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME ON THE R EASON THAT THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD IS NOT ENOUGH TO HOL D THAT THERE IS ANY UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT. AGAINST THIS, TH E REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 17. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FOR CLARITY WE EXTRACT CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL HEREUNDER: TOTAL INSTALMENTS .. 4,37,71,441 MARGIN MONEY (APPROX.) .. 83,00,000 -------------- TOTAL 5,20,71,441 1,50,00,000 -------------- 3,70,71,441 -------------- 18. AS EVIDENCED FROM THE ABOVE SEIZED MATERIAL, TH ERE IS NO SIGNATURE OR INDICATION TO WHOM THIS PAPER RELATED TO. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THERE IS UNACCO UNTED PAYMENT OF RS. 83 LAKHS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF MATERIA L OR ANYTHING. WITHOUT CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL, WE ARE N OT INCLINED TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, DEL ETION OF ADDITION BY THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED. THIS GROUND O F THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 19. REGARDING BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 4,37,71,441 W HICH IS BASED ON PAGE NO. 28 OF SEIZED DOCUMENT MARKED AS A /RK1 WHICH WAS FOUND AND SEIZED AT THE RESIDENCE OF SRI RAVIKALYAN REDDY ON 26.10.2007. DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION, SRI REDDY DID NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THIS REPRESENTS PAYMENT OF INSTALMENTS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF MACHINERY AND THE S AME WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME ON THE REASO N THAT THERE IS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO CONFIRM THE ADDI TION. AGAINST THIS THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 20 THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HA VING BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S. SVK AND THE SEIZED MATERIAL MA NO. 1/HYD/2014 M/S. R.K. MARKETING SERVICES ======================= 6 REPRESENTS THE PAYMENT TO THEM. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SCHEDULE-5 REFERRED TO IN THE BALANCE SHEET CONTAI NS THE ENTRY RELATING TO M/S. SVK. BEING SO, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL THAT THEY HAVE N O TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S. SVK. 21. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THA T THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,37,71,441 TALLIES WITH THE FIGURES ON PAGE NO. 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE AMOUNTS ARE THE APPROXIMATE FIGURES FOR THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 2006 TO APRIL 2007. THESE ARE THE FIGURES FO UND IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL A/RK1. THEY REPRESENT THE PROBABLE EXPENDITURE AT 'SVK SITE' IF TAKEN FOR WORK. 22. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FOR CLARITY WE REPRODUCE THE COPY OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AS FOLLOWS: MA NO. 1/HYD/2014 M/S. R.K. MARKETING SERVICES ======================= 7 23. THE ABOVE SEIZED MATERIAL DOES NOT MAKE ANY SEN SE REGARDING NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS. THE DEPARTMENT N OT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT IS INVESTME NT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF GYAN KUMAR AGARWAL VS ACIT, 60 DTR 241, ITAT, HYDERABAD WHEREIN THE TRIBU NAL HELD THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE SOLELY ON THE BAS IS OF THE SEIZED HANDWRITTEN NOTE BOOK/ LOOSE SLIPS WHICH ARE DUMB DOCUMENTS AND DISOWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE BE ING NO OTHER CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS CARRIED ON MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AS INDICATED BY T HE ENTRIES FOUND RECORDED IN THE SAID DOCUMENT. AO HAV ING NOT PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMI NE THE PARTIES WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE RELIED UPON BY THE AO , BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS SET ASIDE AND MATTER IS REMANDED TO T HE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW DETE RMINING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME VIS--VIS ALLEGED MONEY LEND ING BUSINESS ONLY IF THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENT IS SUBSTA NTIATED BY ANY OTHER EVIDENCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONFIRM THE DELETION OF ADDITION BY THE CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 24. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED.' 2. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED AR THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS ONLY WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITIO N OF RS. 2.55 CRORES AND ANOTHER DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 5,20 ,71,441. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING THESE TWO ISSUES, INADV ERTENTLY ENHANCED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON OTHER ISSUES BY ADOPTING RATE OF 11.08% AS DECLARED ON TURNOVER IN PREVIOUS YEAR AND APPLIED THE SAME PERCENTAGE ON THE RECEIPT OF RS. 1 2,97,69,807 OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THOUGH TH ERE WAS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE ISSUE RELATING TO RETURNED INCOME AND CENVAT CREDIT (RS. 1,27,97,803 + RS. 3,14,083) OF R S. 1,31,11,886, THE TRIBUNAL ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT ON TURNOVER AT RS. 1,43,79,495 BY GOING BEYOND THE GROUNDS BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAURASHTRA KACHH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. (305 ITR 227). THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE FINDING OF T HE TRIBUNAL TO INCLUDE RECEIPT OF RS. 2.55 CRORES AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF THE MA NO. 1/HYD/2014 M/S. R.K. MARKETING SERVICES ======================= 8 ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT. ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS AM OUNT OF RS. 2.55 CRORES IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL TURNOV ER. 3. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FINDI NG OF THE TRIBUNAL WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT 11. 08% OF RS. 12,97,69,807 IS NOT AT ALL REQUIRED AS THIS ISSUE W AS NOT AT ALL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL INADVERTENTLY CO MMITTED AN ERROR TO THIS EXTENT. BEING SO, WE ARE INCLINED TO DELETE PARA 14 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. NOW PARA 14 OF TRIBU NAL ORDER IS DELETED. THEREAFTER PARA 15 IS TO BE READ AS PARA 14 AND AS FOLLOWS: 14. WE ARE INCLINED TO ADD RS. 2.55 CRORES AS PER OFFER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 2.55 CRORES U/S. 69C IS SUSTAINED. TO THAT EXTENT ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS REVERSED. FINAL RESULT OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN PARA 24 HAS TO BE READ AS PARA 23 WITHOUT ANY CHANGE. THUS, THERE IS NO OTHER CHANGE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, MA OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 23 RD APRIL, 2014. SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 23 RD APRIL, 2014 TPRAO MA NO. 1/HYD/2014 M/S. R.K. MARKETING SERVICES ======================= 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. R.K. MARKETING SERVICES, 1-2-49/15, 1 ST FLOOR, NIZAMPET ROAD, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1), D BLOCK, 5 TH FLOOR, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A)-VI, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT-V, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR A BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD.