Raghavuloo Manchiryala , Nizamabad v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nizamabad

ITA 1122/Hyd/2019 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2021 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 112222514 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN ACIPM5642G
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1122/Hyd/2019
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant Raghavuloo Manchiryala , Nizamabad
Respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nizamabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted DB-B
Tribunal Order Date 26-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 05-11-2020
First Hearing Date 08-02-2021
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 10-07-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT A NO . 1122 /H/201 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 11 - 12 RAGHAVULOO MANCHIRYALA NIZAMABAD. PAN ACIPM 5642G VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER WARD 1 NIZAMABAD. (APPELLANT S ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.C. DEVDAS REVENUE BY : SHRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR DATE OF HEARING: 0 8 /0 2 /2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26 / 0 3 /2021 O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU A.M. : TH IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 20 1 1 - 12 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE C I T(A) - 1 HYDERABAD S ORDER DATED 2 2 / 0 3 /201 9 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ; IN SHORT THE ACT ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 HYDERABAD ERRED ON FACT IN FAILING TO NOTE THAT DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAD DULY I TA NO. 1122 HYD/1 9 RAGHAVULOO MANCHIRYALA NIZAMABAD. : - 2 - : EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 43 08 600 INTO ING VYSYA BANK NO. 42058 KAMAREDDY WHICH FAC T HAD BEEN DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARAGRAPH NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER; HE FURTHER FAILED TO NOTE THAT ALL ATTENDING ISSUES HAD BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE A.O. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 HYDERABAD FAILED TO NOTE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CALLED FOR ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS WITH RESPECT TO YOUR APPELLANT'S TRANSACTIONS OF SPECULATIVE NATURE IN MULTI COMMODITY EXCHANGE AND THAT ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS H AD BEEN DULY FILED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD BROUGHT ON RECORD THE LOSSES SUFFERED BY YOUR APPELLANT IN THE SAID ACTIVITY. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 HYDERABAD FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TREATED THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.43 08 600 AS THE SALES RELATING TO THE JEWELRY BUSINESS OF YOUR APPELLANT THERE BEING NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME FOR YOUR APPELLANT AND HAD INCLUDED THE SAME IN THE TOTAL SALES OF YOUR APPELLANT AND R ESORTED TO ESTIMATION AT 8% WHICH IS IN CONSONANCE WITH UNDERLYING FACTS. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF LNCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 HYDERABAD FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE BUSINESS SALES BEING THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.43 08 600 DID NOT FORM PART O F THE TOTAL SALES AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF YOUR APPELLANT AND FOR THIS REASON THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND HAD REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF YOUR APPELLANT AND RESORTED TO ESTIMATION . 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF LNCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 HYDERABAD FAILED TO NOTE THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE APPEALS COMMISSIONER HAS NO POWER I TA NO. 1122 HYD/1 9 RAGHAVULOO MANCHIRYALA NIZAMABAD. : - 3 - : TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT BY DISCOVERING A NEW SOURCE OF INCOME NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 HYDERABAD HAS ACTED TOTALLY AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY YOUR APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) COULD NOT CONSIDER A NEW SOURCE OF INCOME WHILE EXERCISING THE POWER OF ENHANCEMENT. 7 . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I HYDERABAD HAS ERRED O N FACT AT PARAGRAPH NO 5.5 OF RHE APPEAL ORDER WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT INVESTED RS.225.43 CRORES IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS IN MULTI COMMODITY EXCHANGE; THIS OBSERVATION CONTRADICTS THE EARLIER OBSERVATION THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED OF RS.43 08 600 HAD BEEN INVESTED IN MULTI COMMODITY EXCHANGE AND T HER EF ORE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RESTS ON WRONG FOUNDATION AND NON APPRECIATION OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS LEADING TO AN ADDITION OF RS.I8 00 01 632 .WHIC H IS UNSUSTAINABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 8.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I HYDERABAD ERRED ON FACT IN NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE APPELLANT'S ACCOUNT COPY IN RHE BOOKS OF MIS. B N RATHI COM MODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED WHICH CLEARLY BROUGH T OUT THE FACT THAT THE INVESTMENT IN MULTI COMMODITY EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.43 08 600 AND THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SUFFERED A LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.( - ) 17 69 956 FROM THE TRANSACTIONS ; WITHOUT CONSIDERING THIS FACT ON RECOR D THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ENTIRE TURNOVER IN MULTI COMMODITY TRANSACTIONS OF RS.225.43 CRORES IS TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. I TA NO. 1122 HYD/1 9 RAGHAVULOO MANCHIRYALA NIZAMABAD. : - 4 - : 9. CONSEQUENT TO THE APPEAL ORDER DATED 22.03.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - L HYDERABAD THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (3) NIZAMABAD HAS PASSED A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER DATED 10.01.2020 GIVING EFFECT TO THE APPEAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND WHICH IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RAISING A DEMAND OF RS 5 69 43 420 WHICH HAS NO LEGS TO STAND. 10. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 HYDERABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW IN NOT MAKING AVAILABLE TO YOUR APPELLANT A COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT OBTAINED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST ON MORTGAGE LOAN AND OTHER ISSUES RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT FOR DUE CONSIDERATION AND REBUTTAL AND THIS ACTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS AG AINST THE PRINCIPLES OF THE NATURAL JUSTICE. 11. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 HYDERABAD FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE PROCEEDS OF YOUR APPELLANT'S CHIT ACCOUNT WITH M / S. S RI RAM CHITS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED SOLELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES; AND THAT THE BANK MORTGAGE LOAN HAS ALSO BEEN UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND HENCE ONCE ESTIMATION IS RESORTED TO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE RELATING TO INTEREST ON MORTGAGE LOAN AND THE TREATMENT OF CHIT DIVIDEND AS ADDITIONAL BUSINESS INCOME IS NOT ONLY INCOR RECT BUT AGAINST LAW. 12. ANY OTHER GROUND/GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING . 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GOLD AND SILVER TRADING E - FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2011 - 12 ON I TA NO. 1122 HYD/1 9 RAGHAVULOO MANCHIRYALA NIZAMABAD. : - 5 - : 05/07/2012 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3 36 200/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS CO MPLETED BY THE AO ON 14/02/2014 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 17 45 288/ - . WHILE DOING SO THE AO ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 8% ON THE TURNOVER OF RS. 1 01 32 284/ - . FURTHER RS. 5 65 498/ - CLAIMED TOWARDS INTEREST PAID ON MORTGAGE LOAN AND OD FACILITY WAS DISALLOWED RS. 1 62 203/ - BEING THE DIVIDEND RECEIVED ON CHIT WAS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME RETURNED AND RS. 14 230/ - CLAIMED TOWARDS INCOME TAX PAID WAS ALSO DISALLOWED. 3. WHEN THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO REDUCE RS. 43 08 600/ - FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 225.43 CRORES (TOTAL OF THE TRANSACTIONS THROUGH MULTI COMMODITY EXCHANGE) AND TO ESTIMATE THE BALANCE SALES AT THE RATE OF 8% AND TREAT RS. 43 08 600/ - AS UNE XPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. FURTHER THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5 65 498/ - MADE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON OD I TA NO. 1122 HYD/1 9 RAGHAVULOO MANCHIRYALA NIZAMABAD. : - 6 - : FACILITY AND MORTGAGE LOAN AND ADDITION OF RS. 1 62 203/ - MADE IN RESPECT OF DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ACCORDINGLY THE AO PASSED CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER DATED 10/01/2020 GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) REGARDING ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT BY DISCOVERING A NEW SOURCE OF INCOME. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONCE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED FURTHER ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE. HE HAS ALSO REQUESTED TO ADMIT TH E ADDITIONAL GROUND WHEREIN IT IS RAISED AN ISSUE THAT THE LOSS ARISING OUT OF COMMODITIES TRADING DERIVATIVES STATEMENT AT RS. 17 69 957/ - IS DEDUCTIBLE AS A TRADING LOSS AND MUST BE ALLOWED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF C IT(A). I TA NO. 1122 HYD/1 9 RAGHAVULOO MANCHIRYALA NIZAMABAD. : - 7 - : 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. REFERRING TO GROUND NO. 5 THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED TH AT AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THE CIT(A) HAS NO POWER TO FIND OUT NEW SOURCE OF INCOME . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 251(1)(A) OF THE ACT ONLY ENVISAGES FOR THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT IS CIT (APPEAL) TO CONFINE ITS ASSESSMENT TO THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOT TO INCLUDE THE POWER TO DISCOVER A NEW SOURCE OF INCOME. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED UPON THE DECISION IN CASE OF CIT V. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC). RELEVANT PORTION RELIED UPON IS EXTRACTE D HERE AS UNDER: - 'IN OUR OPINIO N THIS COURT MUST BE HELD NOT TO HAVE EXPRESSED ITS FINAL OPINION ON THE POINT ARISING HERE IN VIEW OF WHAT WAS STATED AT PAGES 709 AND 710 OF THE REPORT. THIS COURT HOWEVER GAVE APPROVAL TO THE OPINION OF THE LEARNED CH IEF JUSTICE OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT SECTION 31 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT CONFERS NOT ONLY APPELLATE POWERS UPON THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN SO FAR AS HE IS MOVED BY AN ASSESSEE BUT ALSO A REVISIONAL JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT WITH A POWER TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT. SO MUCH OF COURSE F OLLOWS FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION ITSELF. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER IN ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT FOR ANY YEAR HE CAN TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE I TA NO. 1122 HYD/1 9 RAGHAVULOO MANCHIRYALA NIZAMABAD. : - 8 - : RECORD THAT IS TO SAY THE RETURN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER WITH A VIEW TO FINDING OUT NEW SOURCES OF INCOME NOT DISCLOSED IN EITHER. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX THAT THE WORD ''ASSESSMENT' HERE MEANS THE ULTIMATE AMOUNT WHICH AN ASSESSEE MUST PAY REGARD BEING HAD TO THE CHARGING SECTION AND HIS TOTAL INCOME. IN THIS VIEW IT IS SAID THAT THE WORDS 'ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENTS' ARE NOT CONFINED TO THE ASSESSMENT REACHED THROUGH A PARTICULAR PROCESS BUT THE AMOUNT WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN COMPUTED IF THE TRUE TOTAL INCOME HAD BEEN FOUND. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THIS VIEW IS ALSO POSSIBLE. ON THE OTHER HAND IT MUST NOT BE OVERLOOKED THAT THERE ARE OTHER PROVISIONS LIKE SECTIONS 34 AND 33B WHICH ENABLE ESCAPED INCOME FROM NEW SOURC ES TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX AFTER FOLLOWING A SPECIAL PROCEDURE. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE POWERS OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER EXTEND TO MATTERS CONSIDERED BY THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER AND IF A NEW SOURCE IS TO BE CONSIDERED THEN THE POWER OF RE MAND SHOULD BE EXERCISED. BY THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO ASSESS FRESH SOURCES OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE IS DEPRIVED OF A FINDING BY TWO TRIBUNALS AND ONE RIGHT OF APPEAL.' 8.1 THE AO OBSERVED THAT T HE DEPOSITS OF RS. 43 08 600/ - IN THE BANKS WERE INVESTED IN THE BUSINESS OF GOLD AND SILVER TRADING DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE DEPOSITS OF AMOUNT OF RS. 43 08 600/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) CANNOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. HE HAS TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AS PER THE I TA NO. 1122 HYD/1 9 RAGHAVULOO MANCHIRYALA NIZAMABAD. : - 9 - : DECISIONS QUOTED ABOVE. FURTHER THE CIT(A) ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 8% ON THE T OTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 225.43 CRORES AFTER REDUCING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS. 43 08 600/ - . THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE TRADED IN COMMODITIES WHI CH WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS CIT(A) AND BEFORE US. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID DETAILS THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED A LOSS OF RS. 17 69 957/ - BUT THE AO DID NOT ALLOW IT FOR SET TING OFF AFTER REFERRING TO THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 139(3) AND SECTION 80 OF THE IT ACT. WHEREAS THE C IT(A) AFTER GIVING ENHANCEMENT NOTICE U/S 251(2) ENHANCED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 8% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER AFTER REDUCING CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 43 08 600/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS STATEMENT WHICH WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM IN WHICH THERE IS A LOSS. ONCE THE AO HAD CONSIDERED AND SATISFIED WITH THESE TRANSACTIONS THAT THERE IS A LOSS IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE CIT(A) AGAIN CANNOT ENHANCE THE INCOME WITHOUT REJ ECTING THE FACTS WHICH WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. THE I TA NO. 1122 HYD/1 9 RAGHAVULOO MANCHIRYALA NIZAMABAD. : - 10 - : PURCHASE AND SALES ARE CLEARLY REFLECTED IN THAT STATEMENT. NO DOUBT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT THE SALES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY LD. CIT(A). ONCE THE SALES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED THE PURCHASES CANNOT BE DENIED I.E. BOTH PURCHASES AND SALES ARE GENUINE. IN THE STATEMENT WHICH IS PLACED IN PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NOS. 36 TO 40 THERE IS A LOSS OF RS. 17 69 957/ - WHICH IS A GENUINE LOSS CALCULATED. THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT ESTIMATE PROFIT ON THE TURNOVER. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO MAKE ENHANCEMENT ON THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE AO REGARDING CARRY FORWARD & SET OFF OF LOSS AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE HIS RET URN OF INCOME WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO IN HIS ORDER AT PAGE 5 ARE EXTRACTED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY: A. SECTION 139 ( 3 ) OF THE LNCOME - TAX ACT 1961 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ' IF ANY PERSON WHO HAS SUSTAINED A LOSS I N ANY PREVIOUS Y E AR UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION' OR UN ER E HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS AND CLAIMS THAT THE LOSS OR ANY PART THEREOF SHOULD BE CARRIED FORWARD UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 72 OR SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 73 OR SUBSECTION SUBSECTION (1) I TA NO. 1122 HYD/1 9 RAGHAVULOO MANCHIRYALA NIZAMABAD. : - 11 - : [OR SUB - SECTION (3)] OF SECTION 74 [ OR SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 74A] HE MAY FURNISH WITHIN THE TIME AL L OWED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1.) A RETURN OF LOSS IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND CONTAINING SUCH ORDER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED AND ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY AS IF IT W ERE A RETURN UNDER SUB - SECTION (1). B. SECTION 80 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT 1961 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER .... ; N OTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS CHAPTER NO LOSS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED IN PURSUANCE OF A RETURN FILED [ IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTIO N 1 39] SHALL BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SE CTION 72 OR SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 73 OR SUB - SECTION (1) [ OR SUB - SECTION (3) ] OF SECTION 74 [ OR SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 74AJ. 3(A). THEREFORE BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROVISIONS OF INCOMET - AX ACT 1961 THE LOSS ARRIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS OF S.17 69 957 IN COMMODITY STOCK EXCHANGE FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31/3/2011 IS NOT ALLOWABLE AND HENCE THE CLAIM OF LOSS IS HEREBY REJECTED. 8.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS GROUND NOS. 1 TO 10 AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL GROUND RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PAR TLY ALLOWED . 9. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 11 REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 1 62 203 ON ACCOUNT OF DIVIDEND RECEIVED FROM M/S SRIRAM CHITS THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION I TA NO. 1122 HYD/1 9 RAGHAVULOO MANCHIRYALA NIZAMABAD. : - 12 - : ON THIS COUNT AS THE DIVIDEND RECEIVED WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9 . 1 AS REGARDS ADDITION OF RS. 5 65 498/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON OD FACILITY AND INTEREST ON MORTGAGE LOAN WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONCE THE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED ON CERTAIN PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM PROFIT AND BUSINESS OR PROF ESSION THEN OTHER DISALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE MADE. THEREFORE THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING FURTHER ADDITION AFTER ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE TURNOVER. THEREFORE THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11 . IN THE R ESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH MARCH 2021 . SD/ - SD/ - ( S.S. GODARA ) (L . P . SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDE RABAD DATED : 26 TH MARCH 20 2 1 . K V I TA NO. 1122 HYD/1 9 RAGHAVULOO MANCHIRYALA NIZAMABAD. : - 13 - : C OPY TO : 1 SRI RAGHAVULOO MANCHIRYALA C/O M/S SEKHAR AND SURESH 133/4 R.P. ROAD SECUNDERABAD 500 003. 2 ITO WARD 1 NIZAMABAD. 3 C I T(A) - 1 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT - 5 HYDERABAD 5 ITAT DR HYDERABAD. 6 GUARD FILE.