Joseph Kumar, Hyderabad v. ITO, Hyderabad

ITA 580/HYD/2008 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 58022514 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN ADFPK1384B
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 580/HYD/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Joseph Kumar, Hyderabad
Respondent ITO, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 09-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 29-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 29-03-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 02-04-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.580/HYD/2008 A.Y. 2001-02 SHRI JOSEPH RATNA KUMAR JEDIMETLA HYDERABAD (PAN ADFPK 1384 B) VS ITO WARD 6 (2) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. VASANT KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI E.S. NAGENDRA PRASAD O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-IV HYDERABAD DATED 28.11.2 007 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE FIRST CONSTRUCTIVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS THA T THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.6 88 251/- BEING PAYM ENT MADE TO CONTRACTORS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE PAYMENT TO SUB CONTRACTORS NAMELY M/S APPU KUTTY AND SHRI SURI BABU. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH DETAILS LIKE ADDRESS INSPITE OF GIVING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO PRODUCE THE SAME. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF FIRST APPELLATE STAGE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE 2 ADDRESSES. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COUNSEL IS THAT THEY ARE SMALL TIME CONTRACTORS WHO DOES WORK AT VARIOUS PREMISES A ND IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO HAVE THE DETAILS OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN THI S KIND OF WORK AND THESE LABOUR CONTRACTORS DO NOT STAY IN ONE PARTICULAR PL ACE. ACCORDING TO THE COUNSEL ON ACCOUNT OF LAPSE OF TIME THE ADDRESSES OF THESE PERSONS CANNOT BE FURNISHED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE L OWER AUTHORITIES. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED MATER IAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE . ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE ADDRESSES OF PARTIES. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THESE CONTRACTORS ARE VANISHED IN OVERNIGHT AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS OF ADDRESSES OF THESE PARTIES. IN SPITE OF GIVING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSEE NOT ABLE TO LEAD ANY EVIDENCE AND FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE EXPENDITURE. IN VIEW OF THIS LOWER AUTHORITIES JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE EXPEND ITURE AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 4. THE NEXT GROUND IS WITH REFERENCE TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6 59 230/- BEING PAYMENTS MADE TO TRANSPORTERS. PAY MENTS ARE SAID TO BE MADE TO M/S ST. MARYS TRANSPORTS CHENNAI. AN ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT REVEALED THAT THE PERSONS ARE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES NO INVESTIGATION COULD BE CONDUCTED TO VERIFY THE 3 GENUINENESS OF THESE TRANSACTIONS. IN THE CASE OF M/S GOL ECHA THE PROPRIETOR: SHRI PREM RAJ JAIN HAD HIMSELF DENIED A NY DEALINGS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO DENIED HAVING RECEIVED ANY PAYMENTS FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN CASE OF ST. MARY TRANSPORTS CHENNAI AND SHR I P. RAVI CHENNAI ARE NOT FOUND TO BE GENUINE AS THESE PARTIES N OT AVAILABLE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS NO INVESTIGATION COULD BE CONDUCTED O N THIS ISSUE. HENCE PAYMENT TOWARDS TRANSPORT EXPENSES CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED TOWARDS ST. MARYS TRANSPORTS AT RS.5 23 523/- SHRI RA VI 1 21 780/- AND MR. GOLCHA RS.14 197/- WERE DISALLOWED. EVEN DURI NG THE COURSE OF FIRST APPELLATE STAGE THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND RE PORT AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THESE PARTIES ONCE AGAIN. EVEN ON THIS OCCASION ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONDUCTED ENQUIRY. ONLY MR. GOLCHA RESPONDED TO THE SAME AND GIVEN THE SAME REPLY. OTHE R PARTIES ARE NOT TRACEABLE HENCE THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) . 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE ONE MR.PREM RAJ JAIN ON BEHALF OF MR. GOLCHA APPEARED AND STATED THAT HE HAS N OT RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT FROM THE ASSESSEE. OTHER PERSONS ARE NOT TRACEABL E AS OBSERVED IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS SUCH LOWER AUTHORITIES JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE SAME. THE SAME IS CONFIRME D. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US RAISED THE GROUND THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINING OF THE PARTIES. THE CONTENTION OF THE 4 ASSESSEE COUNSEL IS THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY THE A SSESSEE BY WAY OF CHEQUES. HENCE THE EXPENDITURE IS TO BE ALLOWED . EVEN IN CASE OF PAYMENT BY CHEQUE THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED TO PROVE GEN UINENESS OF THE PAYMENTS WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH. FURTH ER SHRI PREM CHAND JAIN IS VERY AGED PERSON AND HAVING HEALTH PROB LEMS WHICH DO NOT PERMIT HIM TO TRAVEL AND HE HIMSELF PLEADED WIT H THE DEPARTMENT THAT HE CANNOT COME FOR CROSS EXAMINATION. IN SUCH CIRCUMST ANCES THERE IS NO QUESTION OF CROSS EXAMINING THE PARTIES UNLESS THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE PAYME NTS ARE GENUINE. IN VIEW OF THIS WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REFERENCE TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.32 09 024/-. THIS DISALLOWANCE PERTAINS TO PAYMENT T O THE FOLLOWING PARTIES: 1. M/S. ASHOK TRANSPORTS RS.20 89 355/- 2. M/S SS ENTERPRISES 9 80 331/- 3. M/S KOMAL TRANSPORT 1 39 338/- 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT M/S ASHOK TRANSPORT I S THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SIMPANI AND M/ S S.S ENTERPRISE IS THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF HIS WIFE SMT. S HARADA SIPANI. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE GIVEN THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF M/S LSP CONSULTANCY AND SERVICES AS APPEARING IN THEIR BOOKS OF A CCOUNT. AS PER 5 THE ACCOUNT COPY SUBMITTED THE AMOUNTS ARE RECEIVED BY THE PARTY BY WAY OF CHEQUE FROM M/S LSP CONSULTANCY AND SERVICES. THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE ABOVE ENTERPRISES WERE DISALLOWED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE ADDL. DIT (INV.) UNIT-IV(2) CHENNAI WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS FOLLOWS: M/S ASHOK TRANSPORT IS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SH RI ASHOK SIPANI AND IS OPERATED FROM HIS OWN HOUSE. HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY LORRIES OR HIS OWN EITHER IN HIS NAME OR IN THE NAME OF THE CONCERN. HE CLAI MS TO BE HIRING LORRIES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF BLUE METALS AND SAND TO M/S LSP C ONSULTANCY SERVICES. HE HAS NO PROOF FOR HIRING THE VEHICLES EXCEPT A BILL (VOUCHER) PREPARED BY HIMSELF. EVEN THIS DOES NOT CONTAIN THE PROPER ADD RESS OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM LORRIES ARE SAID TO BE HIRED. IT IS SEEN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT THAT IMMEDIATELY ON RECEIVING THE PAYMENT THE AMOUNT IS WITHDRAWN BY CASH. THE ALLEGED PAYMENT FOR HIRING THE LORRIES ARE TOTALLY BY CASH. THE BILL DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY LORRY NUMBER NOR DOES HE HAVE ANY LOG B OOK OR DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE LORRY MOVEMENTS. M/S SS ENTERPRISES IS THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SM T. SHARADA SIPANI WIFE OF SHRI ASHOK KR. SIPANI WHICH IS ALSO OPERATED FROM THE RESIDENCE AND IS A TRADER OF BLUE METALS AND SAND. IT HAS NO OTHER OF FICE OR GODOWN. SHE DOES NOT MAINTAIN ANY STOCK BOOK OR STOCK MOVEMENT REGIS TER AND HAS NO STOCK. IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE ORDER FOR PURCHASE IS PLACED ON LY ON RECEIVING AN ORDER FOR SALES. M/S SS ENTERPRISES DO NOT HAVE EVEN A SINGL Y PURCHASE BILL FROM THE THIRD PARTY SUPPLIER. THE CONCERN PREPARES A BILL FOR THE PURCHASES WHICH IS SIGNED ON A REVENUE STAMP BY THE SUPPLIER. ALL THE PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASE ARE MADE IN CASH. IT IS CLAIMED BY SHRI ASHOK SIPANI W HO DISPOSED STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF SMT. SHARADA SIPANI THAT THE MATERIAL IS SENT BY SUPPLIER DIRECTLY TO M/S LSP CONSULTANCY SERVICES. HE HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE DELIVERY SLIPS ARE SUBMITTED BY M/S SS ENTERPRISES TO M/S LS P CONSULTANCY SERVICES ALONG WITH SALE BILLS. M/S SS ENTERPRISES DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE DELIVERY SLIP WITH THEM. THEY DO NOT DEAL OF ANY STEEL. COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S LSP CONSULTANCY SERVICES AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF M/S ASHOK TRANSPORTS AND M/S SS ENTERPRISES FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-01/ ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH S HOWS THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING FROM M/S LSP CONSULTANCY SERVICES AS ON 31.3.2001 AT RS.1 64 289.50 AND RS.69 910.10 RESPECTIVELY. REGARDING PAYMENTS MADE TO KOMAL TRANSPORT THE ENQ UIRY REPORT OF THE ADDL. DIT (INV.) UNIT IV (2) CHENNAI STATES AS FOLLOWS : INSPECTORS HAVE VISITED M/S KOMAL TRANSPORT ALSO. THEY HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE NO LORRY ON THEIR OWN AND THAT ON TR ANSPORT OF GOODS THE HIRED LORRY PEOPLE GIVE A DELIVERY SLIP WHICH IS SUBMITTE D TO LSP CONSTRUCTIONS ALONG WITH THE BILL. THEY HAVE NOT MADE ANY DEALING WITH M/S LSP CONSULTANCY SERVICES. THEY HAVE NO PROOF FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO THE LORRY HIRED. 6 8. NOW THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE COUNSEL IS THAT O NLY ON THE BASIS OF ENQUIRY REPORT ADDITIONS WERE MADE THOUG H THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH CHEQUE AND HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE I S NO EVIDENCE THAT THE RECIPIENT OF THE CHEQUE HAS PAID BACK THE MON EY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT KEEP A TRACK OF THE TRANSPORTE RS OR CANNOT VERIFY AT THE TIME OF HIRING VEHICLE WHETHER T HEY OWNED VEHICLES OR NOT OR WHETHER THEY ARE MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OR NOT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN HIRE A VEHICLE AND PAY FOR THE SAME. HE CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THE RECIPIENT . HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMA NAND SAGAR VS. DY.CIT & OTHERS REPORTED IN (256 ITR 134). FURTH ER HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTESTED THE ADDITIONS IN HIS ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION THE ASSESSEE FILED PETIT ION U/S 264 BEFORE CIT WHICH WAS REJECTED BY CIT ON THE REASON THAT THERE WAS NO SURVIVING ASSESSMENT ORDER SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ANNUL LED BY CIT BY EXERCISING THE POWER U/S 263. THUS HE SUBMITTED THAT PRACTICALLY THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THIS ADDITION ON EARLIER OCCASION T HROUGH PETITION U/S 264 AND THAT THE REASON GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION IS IMPROPER. 7 9. ON THE OTHER HAND THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE SUBMITTED THAT EARLIER ADDITION WAS MADE ON THIS COUNT WHILE PASSING ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE NOT FILED A NY APPEAL AGAIN THAT ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDER WA S SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION ORDER WAS U/S 263. A PETITION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 264 BEFORE THE CIT AND THE CIT REJECTED THE SAME ON THE REASON THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 HAD ALREADY BEEN INITIATED AN D THIS PRESENT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED CONSEQUENT TO PASSING OF REVISION ORDER BY CIT U/S 263 AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HAVE ANY GRIEV ANCE. FURTHER HE SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE OF M/S ASHOK TRANSPORT THE COUNTER PARTY DID NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING HIRING OF VEHICLES EXCEPT FOR BILLS PREPARED BY HIMSELF. EVEN SUCH BILLS/VOUCHERS DID NOT HAVE PROPER ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM LORRIES WERE CLAIMED AS HIRED. IT WAS FURTHER FOUND THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CREDIT O F PAYMENT INTO HIS ACCOUNT THE AMOUNTS WERE BEING WITHDRAWN IN CASH. THE ALLEGED PAYMENT FOR HIRING OF LORRIES WAS ALSO MADE IN CASH ENTI RELY. THE BILLS SO PREPARED DID NOT CONTAIN ANY LORRY NUMBER NOR ANY LOG BOOK DETAILS REGARDING MOVEMENT OF LORRIES WERE FOUND MAINTAINED. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF M/S SS ENTERPRISES NO STOCK BOOK OR MOVEMENT REGI STER WAS MAINTAINED NO STOCK OF MATERIAL WAS FOUND EXISTING A T THE TIME OF INQUIRY. THE ORDERS FOR PURCHASE TOO WERE BEING PLACED ONLY ON RECEIPT OF THE ORDER FOR SALE. THE SAID PARTY DID NOT HAVE A NY TRANSACTION WITH THE THIRD PARTY. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT ALL PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASES WERE 8 MADE IN CASH. THE MATERIAL SUPPLIED WAS CLAIMED AS DIRECT LY DELIVERED TO M/S LSP CONSULTANCY SERVICES BUT NO DELIVERY SLIPS COUL D BE PRODUCED. WITH REGARD TO M/S KOMAL TRANSPORT ALSO IT WA S FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY LORRY OF TH EIR OWN AND ON TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS THE HIRED LORRY PEOPLE GAVE DELIVERY SLIPS WHICH WERE SUBMITTED TO LSP CONSULTANCY ALONG WITH THE BILL. NO PROOF REGARDING PAYMENTS FOR HIRING OF LORRIES COULD BE FURN ISHED BY THEM. THUS THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE REASON TH AT THE RECIPIENT OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT HAVE NO EVIDENCE REGARDING TH E HIRE OF VEHICLES BY THEM. THEY DO NOT HAVE PROPER ADDRESS OF T HE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE LORRIES WERE CLAIMED AS HIRED AND THESE PARTI ES WERE WITHDRAWN MONEY FROM THEIR ACCOUNT IMMEDIATELY AFTER CREDIT OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT IN THEIR ACCOUNT AND THESE PARTIES SOLEL Y HAVING THE BUSINESS WITH THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION THE RE ASON GIVEN FOR ADDITION IS NOT VALID REASON. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES N OT DOUBTED THE AVAILING OF SERVICES FROM VARIOUS TRANSPORTERS. GENERAL LY THE ASSESSEE USED TO HIRE VEHICLES FROM OTHER PARTIES AND MAKE PAYM ENT FOR THAT SERVICE. THE DEPARTMENT NOT DOUBTED THE AVAILING OF TRANSPORT SERVICES FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AND THE PAYMENTS ALSO EFFECTED THR OUGH CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE END USE OF THE AMOUNT BY THE 9 RECIPIENTS VIZ. M/S ASHOK TRANSPORTS MRS. KOMAL TRANSPO RTS AND MRS. SS ENTERPRISES. THEY MIGHT HAVE HIRED THE VEHICLES FRO M SOMEBODY OR THEY MIGHT USE THEIR OWN VEHICLES. THE ASSESSEE NOT CONCER NED FROM WHOM THEY HAVE HIRED. IT IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE A SSESSEE TO QUESTION THESE PARTIES FROM WHOM THEY HIRED THE VEHICLE. THE A SSESSEE NEEDED THE VEHICLES AND GOT SUPPLIED FROM THESE PARTIES AND P AID BILL THROUGH BY CHEQUE. THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EXTENDED STIL L FURTHER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT REJECT THE PAYMENTS OF EXPENDITURE ON VAGUE REASONS. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE F ILED THE PETITION BEFORE THE CIT CONTESTING THE ADDITIONS U/S 26 4. THE CIT REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALREADY CANCELLED U/S 263. THE CANCELLATION OF ASSESSME NT U/S 263 DOES NOT DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THE GROUND REGAR DING THE ALLOWABILITY OF THIS IMPUGNED ISSUE. IN OUR OPINION THE ASSESSEE IS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION TO RAISE THIS GROUND. ACCORDING LY WE ALLOW THIS GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE NEXT GROUND IS RS.2 08 940/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. THESE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN RESP ECT OF LOAN TAKEN FROM 8 DIFFERENT PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN CASTED UPON HIM WITH REGARD TO PROVE THE CREDI T WORTHINESS IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE LENDERS. NOTHING BRO UGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US REGARDING THESE FACTS. IN VIEW OF THE FAILUR E ON THE PART OF THE 10 ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS CREDITWORTHY AND IDENTI TY OF THE PARTIES ADDITIONS WERE SUSTAINED AND THIS GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 12. THE NEXT GROUND IS DISALLOWANCE INTEREST ON THE CR EDIT AT RS.9450/- SINCE PRINCIPLE AMOUNT ITSELF FOUND DISALLOWED CONSEQUENTLY INTEREST TO BE DISALLOWED AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 13. THE NEXT GROUND IS WITH REFERENCE TO ADDITION ON DEPOSIT OF CASH. THIS GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE US AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 14. THE NEXT GROUND IS DISALLOWANCE OF TRANSPORT EXP ENSES AT RS.34 883/-. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COUNSEL IS THAT THERE IS AN ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE. IN THIS REGARD NO EVIDENCE CONTRA RY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS BROUGHT ON RECORD. HENCE WE DECLINE TO ENTERTAIN THIS GROUND. THIS GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 15. THE NEXT GROUND IS THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRE CIATE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE EARNED PROFITS AT RS.65 11 784/- ON SUB CONTRACTS OF RS.4.40 CRORES WHICH WORKS OUT AT14.25% AND THEREBY ERRED IN CONFIRMING ALL THE ADDITIONS. THIS GROUND IS IN FRUCTUOUS SINCE 11 WE HAVE ALREADY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.32 09 024 /- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS IN FRUCTUOUS. 16. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT : 9. 4. 2010 SD/- SD/- G.C. GUPTA CHANDRA POOJARI VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 9 TH APRIL 2010 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI K. VASANT KUMAR 102 FIRST FLOOR TARAMANDAL COMPLEX SAIFABAD HYDERABAD. 2. ITO WARD 6 (2) HYDERABAD 3. CIT(A)-IV HYDERABAD. 4. CIT HYDERABAD 5. THE D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD. NP