Miles Publications Private Limited, Hyderabad v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

ITA 561/Hyd/2018 | 2014-2015
Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2021 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 56122514 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AAECV3179Q
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 561/Hyd/2018
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant Miles Publications Private Limited, Hyderabad
Respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(4), Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted DB-B
Tribunal Order Date 17-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 09-02-2021
First Hearing Date 09-02-2021
Assessment Year 2014-2015
Appeal Filed On 27-03-2018
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 561/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S.MILES PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED HYDERABAD [PAN: AAECV3179Q] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-16(4) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI PAWAN CHAKRAPANI AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR DR DATE OF HEARING : 09-02-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-03-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA J.M. : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY.2014-15 ARISES FROM TH E CIT(A)-4 HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 29-01-2018 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.0385/2016-17/ITO WARD-16(4)/CIT(A)-4/HYD / 17-18 IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T 1961 [IN SHORT THE ACT]. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL: 1.THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW EQUITY WEIGHT OF EVID ENCE PROBABILITIES AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE. ITA NO. 561/HYD/2018 :- 2 -: 2.THE APPELLANT DENIES HIMSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESSE D ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 86 07 706/- AS AGAINST THE LOSS RETU RNED BY THE APPELLANT OF RS.24 62 794/- UNDER THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3.WHETHER THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE JUSTIFI ED IN DISALLOWING THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE APPELL ANT AN AMOUNT BEING RS.1 11 70 500/- UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE. 4.WHETHER THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE JUSTIFI ED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPEND ITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT AN AMOUN T BEING RS. 1 11 70 500/- RELATES TO BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT AND RIGHTLY CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. 5.WHETHER THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE CORRECT IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPEND ITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UN DER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37 OF THE ACT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE. 6.WHETHER THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE CORRECT IN DISALLOWING THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE OF RS.1 11 70 500/- BY O BSERVING THAT THE COMPANIES FROM WHOM THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN SERVICE AND MADE PAYMENT ARE IN THE LIST OF SHELL COMPANIES UNDER T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7.WHETHER THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE JUSTIFI ED IN DISALLOWING THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE OF RS.1 77 70 500/- EVEN WHEN THE TRANSACTIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY BILLS PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNELS AND TAX DEDUCTED ON THE PAYMENTS M ADE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. THE APPELLANT DENIES HERSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGE D TO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A & 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND REQUI RES TO BE CANCELLED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E. 9. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER DELETE OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE. 10. IN THE VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE APPELLAN T PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AN D EQUITY. 3. WE ADVERT TO THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION REGARD ING THE IMPUGNED ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE DISALLOWANCE RE ADING AS UNDER: ITA NO. 561/HYD/2018 :- 3 -: 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WI TH REGARD TO ABOVE GROUNDS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED AS UN DER: AS SEEN FROM PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E COMPANY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 33 18 410/- WAS DEBITED BY THE COMPA NY UNDER THE HEAD A DVERTISEMENT EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO S UBMIT THE DETAILS OF THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES WITH INVO ICES. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES AND COPIES OF INVOICES. ON VERIFICATION OF THE COPIES OF INVOICES IT IS NOTICED THAT OUT OF TOTAL ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1 33 18 4 10/- BILLS OF RS. 58 35 500/- RAISED BY M/S FUNIDEA HOUSING PUT. LTD. AND RS. 53 35 000/- RAISED BY M/ S OVERTOP CONCLAVE PUT. LT D. TOTAL BILL OF RS. 1 11 70 500/- RAISED BY TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES I.E. M/S FUNIDEA HOUSING PUT. LTD. AND M/S OVERTOP CONCLAVE PVT. LTD. AS SEEN FROM THE INVOICES OF BOTH THE COMPANIES IT IS OBSERVED THAT BOTH THE COMPANIES ARE FROM KOLKATA AND BOTH THE COMPANI ES ADDRESSES ARE SAME I.E. 151A UTKALMONIGOPA BANDHU SARANI 2ND FLOOR COTTON STREET KOLKATA-700007. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT MOST OF THE INVOICES OF BOTH THE COMPANIES ARE SIGNED BY THE SA ME PERSONS ONLY. NOTICES U/ S 133(6) WERE ISSUED TO BOTH THE COMPANI ES BUT THE SAME WERE RETURNED BACK UNSERVED WITH THE MARKED 'N OT KNOWN'. LATER A SHOW CAUSE LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESS EE COMPANY. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE LETTER THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY SUBMITTED FRESH INVOICE COPIES OF ADVERTISEMENT EXP ENSES RELATING TO M/ S FUNIDEA HOUSING PVT. LTD. AND M/ S OVERTOP CO NCLAVE PVT. LTD. ON VERIFICATION OF THE SAME IT IS NOTICED THAT THE INVOICES SUBMITTED LATER BY THE ASSESSEE ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE INVOICES SUBMITTED EARLIER. EVEN THE INVOICE NOS. AND AMOUNT S OF THE INVOICES ARE NOT MATCHING WITH THE INVOICES SUBMITTED EARLIE R AND ALSO ARE NOT MATCHING WITH DE TAILS/ BREAK UP OF ADVERTISEMENT E XPENSES WHICH WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS. THE ADDRESSES ARE ALSO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM TH E EARLIER ONE. AS PER THE INVOICES SUBMITTED LATER BY THE ASSESSEE T HE ADDRESSES OF THE COMPANY ARE M/ S FUNIDEA HOUSING PVT. LTD. 7/1 NA FAR CHAND DAS ROAD KOLKATA-700034 AND M/S OVERTOP CONCLAVE PVT. LTD. 9 LAL BAZAR STREET BLOCK-A 3RD FLOOR KOLKATA-700001. W HEN IT WAS PUT BEFORE THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SAME. IN THIS CASE THE LETTERS SENT FOR CONFIRMATION WER E RETURNED BACK AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED NEW IN VOICES WITH DIFFERENT ADDRESSES DIFFERENT INVOICE NUMBERS AND DIFFERENT AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF EX PENDITURE AND FAILED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF SERVICES RENDERED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CLAIM OF RS. 1 11 70 500/- TOWAR DS ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES CANNOT BE TREATED AS GENUINE AND IS TREATE D AS BOGUS ITA NO. 561/HYD/2018 :- 4 -: EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SAME IS DIS ALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITH REGARD TO ABOVE GROUNDS THE APPELLANT COMPANY SUBMITTED AS UNDER: DURING THE IMPUGNED A.Y.2014-15 THE APPELLANT HAS I NCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.1 33 18 410/- TOWARDS ADVERTISEM ENTS. OUT OF THE TOTAL ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1 33 18 410/ - THE APPELLANT HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1 11 70 500/- TO THE TWO VENDORS VIZ. FUNIDEA HOUSING PUT. LTD. RS 58 35 500/ - AND OVER TOP CONCLAVE PUT. LTD. RS. 53 35 000/-. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE YOUR HONOURS THE APP ELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THE LEDGER COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPE NDITURE AND ALSO THE INVOICES RAISED BY THE PARTIES ON THE APPELLANT . THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO PRODUCED THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT EVIDENCING PAYMENT TDS CERTIFICATION EVIDENCING TDS DEDUCTED AND REMITTED IN THE TREASURY. AS DESIRED BY YOUR HONOURS THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO S UBMITTED THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ADVERTISEMENTS GIVEN AS SUPPORTI NG EVIDENCE FOR WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE. YOUR HONOURS HAVE STATED THAT THE NAME OF THE VENDO RS (I.E. ) M/S FUNIDEA HOUSING PUT. LTD. AND M/S OVERTOP CONC LAVE PUT. LTD WITH WHOM THE APPELLANT HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR PROMOTING AND ADVERTISING THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE APPELL ANT AND TO WHOM THE APPELLANT HAS MADE PAYMENTS TOWARDS THE SERVICE S RENDERED FOR THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS FOUND IN THE LIST OF SHEL L COMPANIES. YOUR HONOURS HAVE CALLED FOR EXPLANATION FROM THE APPELL ANT ABOUT THE COMPANIES WHOSE NAMES ARE REFLECTING IN THE LIST OF SHELL COMPANIES. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS IN IT S FIRST YEAR OF COMMERCIAL OPERATION AND WANTED TO PROMOTE THE SERV ICES RENDERED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAD ENTERED INTO CO NTRACT WITH THE COMPANIES FOR ADVERTISEMENT ON HOARDINGS IN THE YEA R 2013. THE APPELLANT CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE VENDORS AS THEY WERE IN THE BUSINESS OF RENDERING ADVERTISEMENT ON HOARDING AND HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THE OTHER ACTIVITIES (I.E. ) APART FROM ADVER TISEMENT ON HOARDING TO BE CARRIED OUT BY THE COMPANY TO WHOM THE APPELL ANT APPOINTED FOR RENDERING ADVERTISEMENT SERVICES. THE APPELLANT ONCE AGAIN SUBMITS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH M/ S FUNIDEA HOUSING PU T. LTD. AND M/S OVERTOP CONCLAVE PUT. LTD FOR PROMOTION AND AD VERTISEMENT OF THE SERVICE RENDERED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ADVERTIS EMENT PROMOTING THE SERVICES OF THE APPELLANT WERE DISPLAYED AT HYD ERABAD BANGALORE KOLKATA DELHI AND OTHER PLACES ACROSS I NDIA PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE HOARDINGS ARE ENCLOSED. ITA NO. 561/HYD/2018 :- 5 -: EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IS AN ALLOWAB LE EXPENDITURE U/S 37 OF THE ACT AS IT SATISFIES ALL THE CONDITION LAID DOWN U/S 37 OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO DEDUCTED TDS AT THE TIME OF CREDIT OR PAYMENT MADE TO THE VENDOR FOR THE ADVERTISEMENT SE RVICES RENDERED. THE EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE U/S 37 OF THE ACT PRO VIDED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT SATISFIES ALL THE TEST LAID DOWN U/S 37 OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO DEDUCTED THE TDS AS THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE VENDORS WERE ALSO SUBJECTED TO THE PROVISION OF TDS. THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATION LETTER S FROM THE VENDORS TO WHOM THE APPELLANT HAD ENTERED INTO AGRE EMENT TO PROMOTE AND ADVERTISE SERVICES OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS PAID THE INSPECTION FEES AT MINIS TRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS TO VIEW PUBLIC DOCUMENTS I.E. FI NANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BOTH THE VENDORS. ON PERUSAL OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IT CAN BE SEE N THAT THE VENDORS HAD DISCLOSED RECEIPTS FROM ADVERTISEMENT O N HOARDING. THE AMOUNT WHICH IS SHOWN BY THE VENDORS IN THEIR PROFI T AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD ADVERTISEMENT ON HOARDING IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE APPELLANT. ON PERUSAL OF THE FIN ANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE VENDORS IT CAN BE EASILY DISCERN THAT THE VE NDORS ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF ADVERTISEMENT AND ALSO THAT THE VENDORS HAVE EXTENDED THEIR ADVERTISEMENT SERVICES TO OTHER PARTIES OTHER THAN THE APPELLANT. HENCE BASED ON THE BILLS CONFIRMATION LETTER TDS CERTIFICATE AND THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE VENDORS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTION OF THE APPELLANT WITH THE VENDORS ARE G ENUINE TRANSACTION AND THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR TH E ACT OF THE VENDORS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE IT IS HUMBLY SUBMIT TED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD TAKEN THE SERVICES OF THE VENDORS DUR ING THE F.Y. 2013- 14 THE APPELLANT HAD NO IDEA WHAT SO EVER ABOUT TH E OTHER OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY. DURING THE F.Y.2013-14 THESE COMPA NIES HAD RENDERED ADVERTISEMENT SERVICES FOR WHICH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE DENIED ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT THE NAMES OF THE VENDORS ARE REFLECTING IN THE LIST OF SHELL COMPANIES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON 18-08-2017. THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE DENIED THE CLAIM OF GENUINE EXPENDITURE INCURRED DURING THE IMPUGNED A.Y. 20 14 -15 ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT THE NAMES OF THE VENDORS WHO HAD PROVIDE D ADVERTISEMENT SERVICES TO THE APPELLANT ARE REFLECTING IN THE LIS T OF SHELL COMPANIES. IT IS ONCE AGAIN SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS G ENUINELY INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURR ED TOWARDS ADVERTISEMENT SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/ S 37 OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLAN T SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUALITY. ITA NO. 561/HYD/2018 :- 6 -: IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED BEFORE YOUR HONOURS TO HOLD THA T: A. THE EXPENDITURE ARE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT ARE R EVENUE IN NATURE AND SATISFIES THE CONDITION LAID DOWN U/S 37 OF THE ACT. B. THE APPELLANT HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE AFFAIRS OF TH E VENDORS. C. THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPEL LANT DURING THE IMPUGNED A.Y. 2014-15 CANNOT BE DENIED BASED ON THE LIST OF SHELL COMPANIES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMEN T ON 18-08- 2017. 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. WITH REGARD TO DISALL OWANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE TWO VENDORS I.E. M/S FUNIDEA HOUSING PVT. LTD. AND M/S.OVERTOP CONCL AVE PVT. LTD. FROM THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD TAKEN SERVICES FOR A DVERTISEMENT WAS FOUND IN THE LIST OF SHELL COMPANIES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS ASKED TO PROVE THAT THE ABOVE SAID COMPANIES ARE NOT IN THE LIST OF COM PANIES HAVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS FILED ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION VIDE LETTER DT. 22-01-2018. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLA NT COMPANY WERE VERIFIED AND CONSIDERED. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DE TAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ADDRESSES OF THE BOTH ABOVE COMPANIES ARE SAME. FURTHER THE ADDRESSES MENTIONE D IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE ALSO NOT MATCHING WITH THE ADD RESSES NOW FILED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THEREFORE THE SUBMISSION S OF THE APPELLANT ARE REJECTED SINCE THE ABOVE TWO COMPANIE S ARE IN THE LIST OF COMPANIES OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. HENCE THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DISMISSED. 4. LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY CONTEND ED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING THE ASS ESSEES ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE MERELY ON CONJUNCTURES AND SURMISES. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO ASSESSEES DETA ILED PAPER BOOK RUNNING INTO 148 PAGES CONTAINING OF THE CORRESPONDING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ADVERTISEMEN T JOB(S) CARRIED OUT AT ITS BEHEST. MR.CHAKRAPANIS CASE THEREFOR E IS THAT ALL THIS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE SUFFICIENTLY DISCH ARGES THE ITA NO. 561/HYD/2018 :- 7 -: ASSESSEES ONUS THAT THE IMPUGNED ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDIT URE HAD BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PUR POSE OF ITS BUSINESS ONLY. THE REVENUE HAS CHOSEN TO DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THE PRECEDING PARAGR APHS. 5. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL PLEADINGS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRIMA-FACIE DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF FILING ON RECORD ALL THE DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE IMPUGNED ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITU RE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS. THE FACT ALSO REMAIN S THAT THE TWO OF ITS PAYEES (SUPRA) HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE INCLU DED IN THE LIST OF SHELL ENTITIES THEREBY PROVIDING MERE ACCOMMOD ATION ENTRIES. HON'BLE APEX COURTS LANDMARK DECISIONS SUMA TI DAYAL VS. CIT (1995) [214 ITR 801] (SC) AND CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE (1972) [82 ITR 540] (SC) HOLD THAT THE RELEVANT EXPLANATION IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS HAS TO BE EXAMI NED IN THE LIGHT OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES BY REMOVING ALL BLINK ERS. WE ADOPT THE VERY METHODOLOGY HEREIN AS WELL AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES RECIPIENTS STATUS AS SHELL COMPANIES HAS INDEED COST DOUBTS ON ITS ADVERTISEMENTS CLAIM. THE FACT ALSO REMAINS THAT THE ROLE OF DAY-TO-DAY ADVERTISEMENTS IN ASSESSEES LINE OF PUBLICATION BUSINESS CANNOT BE ALTOGETHER RULED OUT. TH IS TAXPAYER HAS FURTHER FILED SUPPORTIVE RELEVANT DETAILS OF THE ADVERTISEMENT SPOTS AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHS THEREOF IN THE PAPER BOOK. WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE IN THESE PECULIAR F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IT CAN BE SUFFICIENTLY PRESUMED THA T THIS ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT SOME ADVERTISEMENTS IN REGULA R COURSE OF BUSINESS BUT IT COULD NOT BE PROVED SINCE THE ITA NO. 561/HYD/2018 :- 8 -: RECIPIENTS HAVE BEEN TREATED AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDERS. FACED WITH THIS SITUATION WE DEEM IT APPR OPRIATE IN LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE DESERVES TO BE CONFIRMED @40% ONLY. MORE SO TO AVOID ABNORMALLY HIGH RATE OF PROFITS IN PUBLICATION BUSINE SS. THE REMAINING 60% OF THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE THEREOF STA NDS DELETED THEREFORE. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE INSTANT ESTIM ATION SHALL NOT BE TAKEN AS A PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. NECESSARY COMPUTATION TO FOLLOW AS PER LAW. 6. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH MARCH 2021 SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.G ODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER HYDERABAD DATED: 17-03-2021 TNMM ITA NO. 561/HYD/2018 :- 9 -: COPY TO : 1.M/S.MILES PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED C/O.SHRI PAWAN KUMAR CHAKRAPANI M/S.V.M.CHAKRAPANI & CO. CHARTER ED ACCOUNTANTS #5-5-8/9 & 10 2 ND FLOOR SRINIVASA BUILDING RANIGUNJ SECUNDERABAD. 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-16(4) HYDERABAD. 3.CIT(APPEALS)-4 HYDERABAD. 4.PR.CIT-4 HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD. 6.GUARD FILE.