M/s Raj Constructions, Nellore v. DCIT, Nellore

ITA 1008/HYD/2008 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 100822514 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAEFR7666R
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1008/HYD/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant M/s Raj Constructions, Nellore
Respondent DCIT, Nellore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 05-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 05-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 18-01-2010
Next Hearing Date 18-01-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 28-05-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A' HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR ITA/ CO NO. ASST. YEAR APPELLANT/ CROSS-OBJECTOR RESPONDENT 1008/HYD/08 2004-05 M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTIONS DAGADARTHI NELLORE DIST. (PAN AAEFR 7666 R) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1 NELLORE. 1109/HYD/08 2004-05 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1 NELLORE. M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTIONS DAGADARTHI NELLORE DIST. (PAN AAEFR 7666 R) C.O.NO.17/HYD/08 (IN ITA NO.1109/- -HYD /08) 2004-05 M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTIONS DAGADARTHI (PAN AAEFR 7666 R) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1 NELLORE. 1108/HYD/08 2004-05 INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-4 NELLORE. M/S. PSR CONSTRUC- TIONS JAGADEVIPET VILL. INDUKURPET MANDAL NELLORE DIST. (PAN AAFFP 4773 G) C.O.NO.16/HYD/08 (IN ITA NO.1108/- -HYD /08) 2004-05 M/S. PSR CONSTRUC- TIONS JAGADEVIPET VILL. INDUKURPET MANDAL NELLORE DIST. (PAN AAFFP 4773 G) INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-4 NELLORE. ASSESSEES BY : SHRI T.SRINIVASULU DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI H.PHANIRAJU ITA NO.1008/HYD/08 AND OTHERS M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTIONS DAGADARTHI & ANR. 2 O R D E R PER G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT: THESE APPEALS AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. IN THE MATTERS OF M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTIONS DAGADARTH I NELLORE DIST. ITA NO.1008/HYD/08(ASSESSEE'S APPEAL) ITA NO.1109/HYD/08(REVENUE'S APPEAL) 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL READ AS UNDER- '1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS 9BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. DETERMINATION OF INCOME OF THE APPELLATE AS RS23 60472/0 BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AS AGAINST RS.48 14 060/- DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO AN ESTIMATED AND HYPOTHETICAL FIGURE CALCULATED AT A F IXED PERCENTAGE ON MATERIAL AND LABOUR DISREGARDING THE BOOKS AND FACTS AND HENCE NOT JUSTIFIED. 3. HAVING REJECTED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE BOOK RESUL T. 4. HON'BLE ITAT'S DECISION IN 'VISHAL INFRASTRUCTUR E VS. ACIT (104 ITD 537) OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) FULLY AND COMPLETEL Y WITH REGARD TO THE FACTS AND DECISION.' 3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL RE AD AS UNDER- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO CASE F OR REJECTING ITA NO.1008/HYD/08 AND OTHERS M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTIONS DAGADARTHI & ANR. 3 THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIM ATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IS A FIT CASE FOR REJECTION OF BOOK S OF ACCOUNT AND FOR ESTIMATION OF PROFIT. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DETERMINING THE INCOME AT RS.23 60 472 AFTER DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE AT 5% UNDER THE HEAD 'MATER IAL' AND 10% UNDER THE HEAD 'LABOUR'.' 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTE D THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEADS LABO UR MATERIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ARE SUPPORTED ONLY BY SELF-MADE VOUCHERS AND THERE WERE VARIOUS DEFICIENCIES IN THEM IN AS MUCH AS THEY WERE NOT CONTAINING FULL NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PAYEE MAKING PAYMENTS TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE THROUGH A SINGLE VOUCHER NO INFORMATION REGARDING NATURE OF EXPENSES AND THE QUAN TUM OF THE WORK DONE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS MENTIONED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS QUANTIFIED THE PROPORTION OF SUCH EXP ENDITURE SUPPORTED ONLY BY SELF-MADE VOUCHERS AT 41% OF THE TO TAL EXPENDITURE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE LEARNED DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN THESE FACTS THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATING THE INCOME AT 12.5% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS DECLA RED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION THAT THERE WERE A NUM BER OF DEFECTS IN THE SELF-MADE VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TH EREFORE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LO SS ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX CO URT IN THE CASE OF S.L.NAMASIVAYAM CHETTIAR V/S. CIT MADRAS(38 I TR 579). ITA NO.1008/HYD/08 AND OTHERS M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTIONS DAGADARTHI & ANR. 4 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER H AND OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED THE MAINTENANCE OF ONLY SELF-MADE VOUCHERS W ITH REGARD TO LABOUR EXPENDITURE AND ALSO SOME OF THE PURCHASES MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD 'MATERIAL'. HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E SUB- CONTRACT WORK WAS LABOUR INTENSIVE AND THEREFORE INCRE ASE IN THE LABOUR PAYMENTS IS INEVITABLE DURING THE RELEVANT PER IOD. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFO RT TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OR THE REASONABLENESS OF THE CLAIM OF EX PENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF 2 6 HEADS OF EXPENDITURE EXPENSES UNDER THREE HEADS ONLY HAD TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH SELF-MADE VOUCHERS ON ACCOUNT OF TH E NATURE OF EXPENSES UNDER THOSE HEADS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECI SIONS OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO FILED ELABORATE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RE ITERATING THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A ). WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED FOR THE ASSE SSEE. WE FIND THAT ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ONLY SELF-MADE VOUCHERS WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENSES UNDER THREE HEADS VIZ. LA BOUR MATERIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. THERE ARE CERTAIN DEFICIENCIE S IN THESE VOUCHERS AS DETAILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER SUCH AS THESE VOUCHERS DOE NOT CONTAIN FULL NAME AND ADDR ESS OF THE PAYEE; SOME VOUCHERS ARE WITH REGARD TO MAKING PAYMEN T TO GROUP OF PEOPLE THROUGH SINGLE VOUCHERS; DETAILS REGARDING THE N ATURE OF EXPENDITURE AND QUANTUM OF WORK DONE WAS NOT MENTIO NED IN THE ITA NO.1008/HYD/08 AND OTHERS M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTIONS DAGADARTHI & ANR. 5 VOUCHER AND SO ON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS QUANTIFIED TH E PROPORTION OF SUCH EXPENDITURE SUPPORTED BY ONLY SELF-M ADE VOUCHERS AS 41% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE DEBITED TO THE PROFI T & LOSS ACCOUNT. WE FIND THAT APART FROM THE DEFECT OF MAINTAINING ON LY SELF-MADE VOUCHERS WITH REGARD TO A PORTION OF EXPENDITURE CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE NO OTHER DEFECT COULD BE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE STATED TO BE MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS. PROPER V OUCHERS AND BILLS FOR OTHER EXPENSES FALLING UNDER 23 HEADS WERE M AINTAINED AND PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DERI VING INCOME FROM CONTRACTS AND DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD SUB-CONTRACT WORK CONSTITUTED 70.39% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON ACCOU NT OF NOT MAINTAINING PROPER VOUCHERS WITH REGARD TO EXPENSES CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THREE HEADS. HOWEVER WHILE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO CASE FOR REJECT ING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE BY APPLYING A FLAT RATE TO ARRIVE AT THE NET PROFIT WE FIND THAT SINCE THE THREE HEADS OF EXPENSES VIZ. MATERIAL LABOUR AND MISCE LLANEOUS EXPENSES ARE SUPPORTED ONLY BY SELF-MADE VOUCHERS AND TH EREFORE THERE IS SCOPE FOR ESCALATION SOME DISALLOWANCE OUT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER THESE THREE HEADS OF EXPENSES IS JUSTIFIED. WE FIND THAT IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS DISALLOWED 5% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD 'MATERIAL' AND 10% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD 'LABOUR'. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE CIT(A) OUT OF LABOUR A ND MATERIAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THEY A RE NOT SUPPORTED BY PROPER VOUCHERS WAS WHOLLY JUSTIFIED AND C OULD NOT BE ITA NO.1008/HYD/08 AND OTHERS M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTIONS DAGADARTHI & ANR. 6 CALLED EXCESSIVE. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) I N MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF 5% OF MATERIAL EXPENSES AND 10% OF LAB OUR EXPENSES IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF BOTH THE ASSE SSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE BEING DEVOID OF MERIT ARE REJECTED. ASSESSEE'S CROSS OBJECTION NO.17/HYD/08: (IN ITA NO.1109/HYD/08) 7. GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CROSS-OBJECTION ARE ME RELY SUPPORTIVE OF THE GROUNDS TAKEN IN THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL AND AS SUCH THEY DO NOT CALL FOR INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. ACCORDIN GLY THIS CROSS- OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. IN THE MATTERS OF M/S. PSR CONSTRUC- TIONS JAGADEV IPET VILL. INDUKURPET MANDAL NELLORE DIST. ITA NO.1108/HYD/08 (REVENUE'S APPEAL) ASSESSEE'S C.O.NO.16/HYD/08(IN ITA NO.1108/HYD/08) 8. GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL AR E AS UNDER- '1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO CASE F OR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF A/C AND DIRECTING THE AO TO ACCEPT THE BOOK RESULTS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IS A FIT CASE FOR REJECTION OF BOOK S OF ACCOUNT AND FOR ESTIMATION OF PROFIT. 5. THE CASE LAW REFERRED BY CIT(A) IE. M/S. VISHAL INF RASTRUCTURE V. ACIT (104 ITD 537) HAS NOT REACHED ITS FINALITY. ' 9. ASSESSEE'S GROUNDS IN THE CROSS-OBJECTION ARE AS FOLLOWS- '1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ONLY ERRED B OTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE RESPONDENT BUT ALSO ER RED ITA NO.1008/HYD/08 AND OTHERS M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTIONS DAGADARTHI & ANR. 7 IN APPEALING THAT THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN APPEALIN G AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX(APPEALS) HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO CASE FOR REJE CTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO ACCEPT THE BOOK RESULTS BASED ON THE FACTS AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN APPEALIN G THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE HON'BLE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UP HELD THE ASSESSMENT BUT IN FACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FIRST INSTANCE ERRED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS AND ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF TH E RESPONDENT. 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN APPEALIN G THAT HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT TH AT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IS A FIT CASE FOR REJECTION OF BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS AND OF ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AS THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HIMSELF FAILED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 144 AND SECTION 145 IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AN D ALSO BASING ON THE CASE CASE-LAWS FOR ESTIMATION OF INCO ME WHICH ARE NEITHER RELEVANT NOR RELATED TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RESPONDENT'S CASE. 5. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN APPEALIN G THAT THE CASE LAW REFER3ED BY CIT(A) I.E. M/S. VISHAL INFRASTRUCTURES VS. ACIT(104 ITD 537) HAS NOT REACH ED ITS FINALITY AS THE CASE LAW IS VERY MUCH RELEVANT TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE RESPONDENTS CASE AN D ALSO DISCUSSED IN DETAIL ALL THE CASE LAWS THAT WE RE MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMEN T ORDER FOR ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE RESPONDENT BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT.' 10. BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF MS. RAJ CONSTRUCTIONS WITH THE ONLY DIFFERENCE THAT THE ENTIRE TRADING ADD ITION IN THIS CASE WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A ). WE FIND THAT ALTHOUGH THE MAJOR FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF RAJ CONSTRUCTIONS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE THE TOTAL E XPENDITURE ITA NO.1008/HYD/08 AND OTHERS M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTIONS DAGADARTHI & ANR. 8 UNDER THE HEADS 'LABOUR' 'MATERIAL' AND 'MISCELLANEOU S EXPENSES' CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS EVIDENCED ONLY BY THE SELF-MADE VOUCHERS HAS BEEN QUANT IFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 14% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE . WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT NO CASE OF REJECTION OF BOOK S OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COULD BE MADE OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT AS THE DEPA RTMENT HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS EXCEPT FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF SELF-MADE VOUCHERS ONLY WITH REGARD TO T HREE HEADS OF EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) ON THE ISSUE THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) IN THIS CASE HA S DELETED THE ENTIRE TRADING ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND HAS NOT MADE ANY SUITABLE ADDITION OUT OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THREE HEADS VIZ. WHICH ARE SUPPORTED ONLY BY SELF-MADE VO UCHERS. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF 5% OF THE M ATERIAL EXPENSES AND 10% OUT OF LABOUR EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAJ CONSTR UCTIONS. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT IN THIS CASE THE TOTAL EX PENDITURE UNDER THE THREE HEADS OF EXPENSES I.E. 'LABOUR' 'MATERIAL' AND 'MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES' HAVE BEEN QUANTIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A T A LESSER PERCENTAGE OF 14% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE. CONSIDE RING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FACT TH AT THE PERCENTAGE OF THE EXPENSES UNDER THREE HEADS IN RESPECT OF WHICH PROPER VOUCHERS WERE NOT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE COMES TO ONLY 14% OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIE S IN THE BILLS/VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE NATURE O F BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED THE MAINTENANCE OF ONLY SELF-MADE VOUCHERS ITA NO.1008/HYD/08 AND OTHERS M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTIONS DAGADARTHI & ANR. 9 UNDER CERTAIN HEADS OF EXPENDITURE WE HOLD THAT IN T HE ENDS OF JUSTICE SHALL BE MET IF A TRADING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NON-P RODUCTION OF PROPER VOUCHERS FOR CERTAIN EXPENDITURE IS SUSTAINED AT R S.3 00 000/- AS AGAINST TRADING ADDITION OF ABOUT RS.12 LAKHS MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL O F THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEING MERELY SUPPORTIVE OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT WHILE IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAJ CON STRUCTIONS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE AND THE CR OSS- OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED IN THE CASE OF M/S. P SR CONSTRUCTIONS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND CROSS- OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 5.2.2010 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (G.C.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DT/- 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTIONS (DAGADARTHI NELLORE DIST.) C/O. M/S. T.SRINIVASULUL & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 15/414 VENKATARAMAPURAM VIJAYAMAHAL CENTRE NELLO RE 524001 A.P. 2. M/S. PSR CONSTRUCTIONS (JAGADEVIPET VILL. INDUKUR PET MANDAL NELLORE DIST). C/O. M/S. T.SRINIVASULUL & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 15/414 VENKATARAMAPURAM VIJAYAMAHAL CENTRE NELLORE 524001 A.P. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) GUNTUR. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX GUNTUR RANGE GUNTUR. 5. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1) HYDE RABAD. B.V.S.