KNR Construction Ltd., Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

MA 114/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9387 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMISHA S GUPTH
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 113/HYD/2012 IN I.T.A. NO. 1141/HYD/2005 A.Y. 2001-02 MA NO. 114/HYD/2012 IN I.T.A. NO. 9/HYD/2007 A.Y. 2003-04 M/S. KNR CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. HYDERABAD PAN: AAACK8316L VS. THE DY. CIT CIRCLE-2(1) HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI S. RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY: SMT. AMISHA S. GUPTH DATE OF HEARING: 14 .0 9 .2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.10.2012 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS (MAS) FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.11.2009 IN ITA NO. 1141/HYD/2005 AND ITA NO. 9/H YD/2007 FOR A.YS. 2001-02 AND 2003-04. 2. FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP THE MA NO. 113/HYD/2012. THE FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS MA IS THAT THE AS SESSEE RAISED THE GROUND IN ITS APPEAL WITH REGARD ACTION OF CIT(A) I N CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME FROM CONTRACT RECEIPTS AT 12.5 % ON RS. 33,00,04,334 WHICH INCLUDES WORKS TAKE ON SUB-CONTR ACT FROM OTHERS AGGREGATING TO RS. 21,09,35,829. AGAINST THIS GROU ND, THE TRIBUNAL GIVEN A FINDING IN ITS ORDER DATED 30.11.2009 IN IT A NO. 1141/HYD/200 AS FOLLOWS: '8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDER TAKEN ANY SUB CONTRACTS. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ARGUMENT O F THE ASSESSEE COUNSEL IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO UNDERTAKEN SUB CONTRACT FROM OTHER CONTRACTORS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER NOT 2 MA NOS. 113 & 114/HYD/2012 M/S. KNR CONSTRUCTIONS. LTD. ======================= CONSIDERED THE SAME SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FU RNISH THE AGREEMENT OR WORK ORDERS OR CONFIRMATION FROM THE S UB- CONTRACTORS TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SU B-CONTRACT. IN THE EVENT, ASSESSEE H AS EXECUTED CONTRACT ON SU B CONTRACT BASIS, THE PROFIT MARGIN CANNOT BE SAME AS CONTRACT S EXECUTED ON OWN. IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT IT H AS CARRIED OUT THE SUB CONTRACT AND ON THAT CONTRACT THE PERCENTAG E OF PROFIT TO BE ESTIMATED 8% SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FOREGO CE RTAIN PROFIT ON SUB-CONTRACT BASIS AND THE PROFIT CANNOT BE SAME AS IN THE CASE OF MAIN CONTRACTS GOT AND EXECUTED BY ASSESSEE OWN. HENCE WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE PROFIT ON MAIN CONTRACT AT 12.5% AS HELD BY TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE CITED SUPRA AND ON SUB CONTRACT 8% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIP T. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE ALLOWED PARTLY.' 3. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED AR THE ASSESSING OFFICER W HILE PASSING THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER GAVE EFFECT TO THE ITAT ORD ER CONSTRUED THAT THE RATE OF 12.5% IS TO BE APPLIED FOR THE TOTAL CO NTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 33,00,04,334 WITHOUT DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE REC EIPT ON ACCOUNT OF WORKS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS OWN OF RS. 11 ,90,68,505 AND RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF WORKS ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSE E ON SUBCONTRACT BASIS AMOUNTING TO RS. 21,09,35,829. ACCORDING TO HIM AS PER THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE RATE OF 12.5% IS APPLICA BLE ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 11,90,68,505 AND AT 8% ON THE CONTR ACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 21,09,35,829. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLI ED THE RATE OF 12.5% ON THE AGGREGATE RECEIPT OF RS. 33,00,04,334. FURT HER HE SUBMITTED THAT REGARDING THE SUBCONTRACT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSE E TO OTHER PARTIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED 6% IN ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) REDUCED IT TO 5% FROM 6%. ON TH IS ISSUE NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE DEPARTMENT RAISED ANY GROUND BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, WHILE PASSING THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED 8% AS AGAINST 5% ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED AR PRAYED FOR A SUITABLE DIRECTION ON T HIS ISSUE. 4. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE SAID TO 3 MA NOS. 113 & 114/HYD/2012 M/S. KNR CONSTRUCTIONS. LTD. ======================= HAVE CARRIED ON WORKS CONTRACT OF RS. 33,00,04,34. OUT OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE PLEA IS THAT RS. 11,90,68,505 IS EXECUTED ON ITS OWN AND THE BALANCE RS. 21,09,35,829 IS ON SUBCONTRACT BASIS. ACCORDING TO HIM RATE OF 12.5% HAS TO BE APPLIED ONLY ON RS. 11,90,6 8,505 AND ON THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 21,09,35,829 WHICH IS ON SUBC ONTRACT BASIS, THE RATE OF 8% HAS TO BE APPLIED. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL IS TOTALLY MISPLACED. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER GOING THROUG H PARA 4 OF THE CIT(A)'S ORDER WHERE HE HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH DATED 20.3.1998 IN THE CASE OF M/S. KRISHNA MOHAN CONSTRUCTIONS IN ITA NOS. 380 & 381/HYD/94 DECIDED T HE RATE OF NET PROFIT AT 12.5% ON ENTIRE CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE REGARDING TAKING UP OF SUBCONTRACT FROM ANY OTHER C ONCERN AT RS. 21,09,35,829. BEING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHIL E PASSING THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER IS JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS AT RS. 33,00,04,334 FOR DETERMINING THE NET PROFIT AT 12.5% AND THERE IS NO CLARIFICATION REQUIRED REGARDING THE RATE OF NET PR OFIT TO BE APPLIED IN RESPECT OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 33,00,04,334. 6. REGARDING DETERMINING THE RATE OF NET PROFIT ON OTH ER CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 12,20,21,402 WHERE THE CIT(A) FIXED THE RATE OF NET PROFIT AT 5% AS AGAINST 6% FIXED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY BOTH THE PART IES. BEING SO, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT DECIDE THIS ISSUE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER IF DISTURBED THE RA TE OF PROFIT ALREADY FIXED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE SUBCONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 12,20,21,402 AT 5%, THE REMEDY LIES ELSEWHERE TO THE ASSESSEE AND N OT THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO TREATMENT OF INTER EST RECEIPT ON BANK DEPOSIT SEPARATELY AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U NDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' AFTER ESTIMATING THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM BUSINESS. 4 MA NOS. 113 & 114/HYD/2012 M/S. KNR CONSTRUCTIONS. LTD. ======================= 8. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON MARGIN MONEY DEPOSITED OF RS. 2,96,42,907 AND THE JUDGEMEN T OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIDYUTH STEELS LTD. (219 ITR 30) IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. HE NCE APPROPRIATE FINDING MAY BE GIVEN. 9. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSING THE ORDER CONSI DERED THE JUDGEMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VID YUTH STEELS LTD. (CITED SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT INTEREST EARNED ON MARGIN MONEY WAS INEXTRICABLY CONNECTED WITH THE CONTRACT OF GUARANT EE ITSELF. THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE MARGIN MONEY FOR OBTAINING BANK GUARANTEE COULD NOT BE SEPARATELY ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 56 O F THE ACT. FURTHER THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE JUDGEMENT OF JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SPONGE IRON INDIA LTD. (201 ITR 770). FURTHER THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE O F VIDYUTH STEELS LTD., JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF SPONGE IRON INDIA LT D. WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE COURT. FURTHER IT IS ALSO ON RECORD THAT THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHE MICALS AND FERTILISERS VS. CIT (227 ITR 172) IS ALSO AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. BEING SO, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE US CANNOT BE A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD TO BE CONSIDERED U/ S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. BEING SO WE ARE DECLINING TO ENTERTAIN THE PL EA OF THE ASSESSEE AT THIS STAGE. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT IS A DEBATABLE ISSU E WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. 11. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE ISSUE THAT SALE OF MATERIAL REPRESENTS SALE OF SCRAP REMAINED AFTER CONSTRUCTIO N IS COMPLETED. THE MATERIAL WAS PURCHASED FOR BEING USED IN THE PROCES S OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE SCRAP LEFT OUT WAS SOLD. THIS HAS THE EFFE CT OF REDUCING THE 5 MA NOS. 113 & 114/HYD/2012 M/S. KNR CONSTRUCTIONS. LTD. ======================= EXPENDITURE AND IS NOT AN INCOME BY ITSELF. ACCORD ING TO THE AR THIS FACT WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECID ING THE ISSUE. 12. THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE RELEVAN T FACTS AND GAVE A FINDING IN PARA 11 OF ITS ORDER, AS FOLLOWS: ' 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ENTIRE EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE SCRAP ARE ALREADY GONE INTO THE PROFIT AND LOSS A/C . AND SAME SAID TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER NO DEDUCTION COULD BE GIVEN. THE PROFIT IS ESTIMATED ON THE CONTRACT RECEIPT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PROFIT FROM SALE OF SCRAP. BEING SO, THE ENTIRE VALUE OF THE SCRAP SOLD TO BE TAXED AND IN OUR OPINION, THE CIT(A) JUSTIFIE D IN HOLDING THE ENTIRE SALVE OF SCRAP TO BE TAXED AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED.' 14. NOW THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO RE-ARGUE ITS CASE WHICH I S NOT POSSIBLE U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE REMEDY LIES TO THE ASS ESSEE ELSEWHERE. THIS MA IN 313/HYD/2012 IS DISMISSED. 15. NOW COMING TO MA NO. 114/HYD/2012. IN THIS MA THE ASSESSEE FIRSTLY WANTED TO RECTIFY THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBU NAL ON THE ISSUE RELATING TO ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT 12.5% ON GROSS RECEIPTS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT COST OF MATERIAL USED IN EXECUTING THE CONTRACT HAS ENHANCED SUBSTANTIALLY. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DIS POSING THE GROUND RELATING TO ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT 12.5% OF GROSS RECEIPTS CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN THE CIT(A) DISPO SED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (THIRD MEMBER) DATED 9.12.1997 IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA MOHA N CONSTRUCTIONS IN ITA NOS. 380 & 381/HYD/2012 THEREBY CONFIRMED THE RATE OF NET PROFIT AT 12.5% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL BEFORE US IS THAT THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSE E FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E., 2003-04 IS NOT THE SAME AS IN THE A.Y. 2 001-02. FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED BASIC RATE AT 12.5%. IN RESPECT 6 MA NOS. 113 & 114/HYD/2012 M/S. KNR CONSTRUCTIONS. LTD. ======================= OF SUBCONTRACT AND OTHERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AP PROPRIATELY REDUCED THE PROFIT RATE. ACCORDING TO THE AR IT WAS THE CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON EARLIER OCCASION IN ITS APPEAL WAS TO REDUCE THE BASIC RATE OF 12.5% WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE PRAYED TO RECTIFY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ACCORDINGLY AS THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER TO THE TRIBUNAL ORD ER DATED 30.11.2009 ADOPTED A RATE OF 12.5% AND 8% ON ALL THE OWN CONTR ACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS, RESPECTIVELY, AND THEREBY THE INCOME WAS ENHANCED AS COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE SU BMITTED THAT SUITABLE DIRECTION MAY BE ISSUED ON THIS ISSUED. 16. THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 17. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ADJUDICATED GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT 12.5% ON GROSS RECEIPTS. WHILE DISPOSING THIS ISSUE THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN HE HAS ADOPTED NET PROFIT RATE AT 12 .5% ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL IN KRISHNA MOHAN CONSTRUCTIONS CITED SUPRA. THE TRIBUNAL ONLY ADJUD ICATED THE GROUND BEFORE IT WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATION OF INCOME ON GR OSS RECEIPTS AS MENTIONED IN GROUND NO. 2. IF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER PASSED THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER AND IF THERE IS ANY MISTAKE THA T CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER. THE REMEDY LIES TO THE ASSESSEE ELSEWHERE. ONCE AGAIN WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOP T 12.5% ON THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS WITH REFERENCE TO GROUND NO. 2 RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON REC ORD WHICH WARRANTS RECTIFICATION BY THE TRIBUNAL. 18. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS MA IS WITH REGARD TO ADJUDICATION OF GROUND NO. 4 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNA L GIVEN A FINDING 7 MA NOS. 113 & 114/HYD/2012 M/S. KNR CONSTRUCTIONS. LTD. ======================= THAT THE ENTIRE VALUE OF SCRAP SOLD HAS TO BE TAXED IN ADDITION TO THE ESTIMATED INCOME FROM CONTRACT RECEIPT. 19. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RAISED T HE GROUND AS FOLLOWS: '4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SEPARATELY CONSIDERING THE SAL E PROCEEDS OF READY MIX, BITUMEN, DIESEL, STEEL, CEMENT, ETC., IN THEIR ENTIRETY TO THE PROFIT ESTIMATED FROM CONTRACT ACTIVITIES. HE OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT INSOFAR AS THE SALE P ROCEEDINGS OF SUCH ITEMS ARE CONCERNED, THE APPELLANT WOULD BE DE RIVING ONLY THE NET INCOME AND THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT REALISED CANNOT BE THE PROFIT.' 20. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL CLUBBED THE GROUND RELATING TO SALE OF SCRAP IN A.Y. 2001-02 WITH THE ABOVE GROUND WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02, THE QUESTION WA S SALE OF SCRAP WHEREAS FOR A.Y. 2003-04 THE ISSUE IS RELATING TO S ALE OF READYMIX, BITUMEN, DIESEL, ETC. IT IS NOT THE SALE OF SCRAP WHICH WAS SOLD BUT THE MATERIALS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SOLD. THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE READYMIX, BITUMEN, DIESEL, STEEL, CEMENT, ETC., COU LD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS SEPARATE BUSINESS RECEIPT AND IT CANN OT BE CONSIDERED AS ON PAR WITH THE SALE OF SCRAP AS CONSIDERED IN A.Y. 2001-02. THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED AN ERROR BY CONSIDERING THAT THE SALE OF SCRAP IS AS SAME AS SALE OF READYMIX, BITUMEN, DIESEL, STEEL, C EMENT, ETC. ACCORDINGLY, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED TH AT APPROPRIATE RECTIFICATION HAS TO BE DONE. 21. THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 22. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, IN PRINCIPLE, THE SALE OF READYMIX, BITUMEN, DIESEL, STEEL AND CEMENT THOUGH CANNOT BE CONSIDERE D AS SALE OF SCRAP. THE INCOME FROM SALE OF READYMIX, BITUMEN, DIESEL, STEEL AND CEMENT CANNOT ALSO BE CONSIDERED AS CONTRACT RECEIPT SO AS TO EXCLUDE THESE COMPONENTS FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AFTER EST IMATING THE INCOME. THESE COMPONENTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS P ART OF CONTRACT 8 MA NOS. 113 & 114/HYD/2012 M/S. KNR CONSTRUCTIONS. LTD. ======================= RECEIPTS AND THE INCOME FROM THESE HAS TO BE ASSESS ED SEPARATELY. ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL GIVEN A FINDING IN PARA 1 1 BY HOLDING THAT THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME AS THIS EXPENDITURE HAS ALREADY GONE INTO THE PROFIT AND LOSS A/C. NOW THE ASSESSEE COUNSEL IS TRYING TO FIND A HOLE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUN AL WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY , THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 23. THE LAST GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS MA IS WI TH REGARD TO THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL ON TREATMENT OF INTER EST INCOME. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL IS ALREADY CONSI DERED IN MA NO. 113/HYD/2012. ON THE SAME REASON THIS CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SIMILAR. MA NO. 114/HYD/2012 IS DISMISSED. 24. IN THE RESULT, MA NO. 113/HYD/2012 AND MA NO. 114/H YD/2012 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH OCTOBER, 2012. SD/ - (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 12 TH OCTOBER, 2012 TPRAO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. KNR CONSTRUCTIONS LTD., C/O. SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, 3-6-542/4, FLAT NO. 103, INDIRADEVI NILAYAM, ST. NO . 7, HIMAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), HYDERABAD. 3 . THE CIT(A) - I II , HYDERABAD 4 . THE CIT - II, HYDERABAD. 5 . THE DR B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD