TCI HI-Ways Pvt.Ltd.,, Secunderabad v. ACIT, Hyderabad

ITA 67/HYD/2007 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 6722514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AABCT3904C
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 67/HYD/2007
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant TCI HI-Ways Pvt.Ltd.,, Secunderabad
Respondent ACIT, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 21-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 12-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 12-01-2011
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 17-01-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A' HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AKBER BASHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.561/HYD/08 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ITA NO.67/HYD/07 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 M/S. TCI HI-WAYS PVT. LTD. SECUNDERABAD. ( PAN AABCT 3904 C ) V/S. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 2(3) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI Y.RATNAKAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.V.PRASAD REDDY O R D E R PER G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.67/HYD/07 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 2. EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UN DER- '1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) ERRED I N PARTLY UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT T O THE EXTENT OF RS.54 90 737/- WHICH DISALLOWANCES WERE THE RESU LT OF UNREAL ASSUMPTIONS PRESUMPTIONS AND NON-APPLICATION OF MI ND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER.' 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.70 LAKHS WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF THE LORRY HIRE (FREIGHT) CHARGES OF RS.35.72 CRORES CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY GROUND FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO.561/HYD/2008 AND ITA NO.67/HYD/2007 M/S. TCI HI-WAYS PVT. LTD. SECUNDERABAD. 2 WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE VOUCHERS FOR ALL THE PAYMENTS FOR THESE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMI TTED THAT ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5 4 90 737 AS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.70 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS 36 BRANCHES SPREAD ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND HAS PRODUCED ALL THE VOUCHERS FOR THE EXPENSES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE PHYSICAL VERIFICA TION OF ALL THE VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF NINETEEN BRANCHES ACCOUNTING FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.20.56 CRORES. WHILE PHYSICALLY VERIFYING SOME VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF NINETEEN BRANCHES AGGREGATING TO RS.39.74 LAK HS COULD NOT BE RADILY LOCATED IN THE VOUCHERS FILES AND SHOWN TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER THESE VOUCHERS WERE LOCATED AND PRODUCED SUBSEQUEN TLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT IN ADDITION TO LORRY HIRE (FREIGHT) CHARGES VOUCHERS FOR ALL OTHER EX PENSES BANK STATEMENTS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT LETTERS OF CONFIRMATION FRO M CREDITORS WITH THEIR PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS ETC. WERE PRODUCED BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT DUE TO VOLUMINOUS NATURE OF VOUCHERS SOME VOUCHERS IN RE SPECT OF SOME BRANCHES COULD NOT BE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY BUT THEY WER E LOCATED AND PRODUCED AT A LATER POINT OF TIME. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE VOUCHERS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE RETAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS OFFICE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NO UNINTERRUPTED ACCESS. THE VOUCHERS WE RE RETURNED TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS AND BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE FILED PHOTOCOPIES OF EACH OF THESE VOUCHERS BEFO RE THE CIT(A) IN DUPLICATE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF T HE APPEAL WITH A REQUEST THAT THESE PAPERS BE CONSIDERED AS ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPEAL. THE CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 4.9. 2006 FORWARDED THESE PAPERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 14.9.2006 FURNISHED HIS R EPORT TO THE CIT(A). ITA NO.561/HYD/2008 AND ITA NO.67/HYD/2007 M/S. TCI HI-WAYS PVT. LTD. SECUNDERABAD. 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BUT MERELY STATED THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NON- PRODUCTION OF THE PAPERS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A) REFUSED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO AVAIL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY THE CIT(A) IN ORDER TO RENDER SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND PLACED RELIANCE IN THIS BEHALF ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN THE CASE OF K.VENKA TARAMAIAH V/S. A.SEETHARAMA REDDY AND OTHERS (1963 AIR SC 1526) (AT TN.-PARA 10); AND THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY C. LTD. V/S. CIT (119 ITR 351)( MAD); AND OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ATL AS CYCLE INDUSTRIES LTD. V/S. CIT (133 ITR 231)(P&H). 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO VARIOUS L ETTERS ADDRESSED TO THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE FILING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THEM. THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN IDENTICAL FACTS SIMILAR ADDITION OF RS.20 LAKHS WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-06. HOWEVER THE SAME WAS DELETED IN APPEAL BY T HE CIT(A) AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AND THE RE VENUE'S APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 23.1 0.2009 IN ITA NO.63/HYD/2009. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 20 000 WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS REL IED ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). HE SUBMIT TED THAT CONSIDERING THE HIGH VOLUME OF PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS LO RRY HIRE(FREIGHT) ITA NO.561/HYD/2008 AND ITA NO.67/HYD/2007 M/S. TCI HI-WAYS PVT. LTD. SECUNDERABAD. 4 CHARGES OF RS.35.72 CRORES VERY NOMINAL AMOUNT WAS DISAL LOWED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS WE RE MOSTLY IN CASH AND THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SUPPORTING VOUCHERS FOR THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES MADE BY IT. HE SUBMITTED THAT CERTAIN VO UCHERS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT EVEN SIGNED BY THE PAYEES THEREOF A COPY OF WHICH WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPILATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS 36 BRANCHES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY IT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE DUE TO HIGH VOLUME OF VOUCHERS COULD NOT CORRELATE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE FOR THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY IT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN 7 TO 8 OPPO RTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE BETWEEN OCTOBER 2005 AND 13.2.2006 TO PRODUCE V OUCHERS BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO AVAIL THOSE OPPORTUNITIES. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF A. K. BABUKHAN V/S. CWT(102 ITR 757). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IT IS A CASE OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OU T OF THE LORRY HIRE(FREIGHT) CHARGES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS PA RTLY SUSTAINED IN APPEAL BY THE CIT(A). THE ONLY REASON FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER THE DEPARTMENT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE VOUCHERS FOR ALL THE PAYMENTS FOR THESE EXPENSES CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS 36 BRANCHES SPREAD ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND HAS PRODUCED ALL THE VOUCHERS FOR THE EXPENSE S BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF ALL TH E VOUCHERS RELATING TO LORRY HIRE (FREIGHT) CHARGES IN RESPECT OF NINETEEN BRANCHES ACCOUNTING FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.20.56 CRORES. WE F IND THAT ON ITA NO.561/HYD/2008 AND ITA NO.67/HYD/2007 M/S. TCI HI-WAYS PVT. LTD. SECUNDERABAD. 5 PHYSICAL VERIFICATION THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CORRELATE SOM E VOUCHERS WITH THE RELEVANT ITEMS OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY IT AGGREGATI NG TO RS.39.74 LAKHS ONLY. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT ALL THE VO UCHERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WERE RETAINED B Y HIM AND THEY WERE RETURNED TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. DUE TO SHORTAGE OF TIME THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT READILY CORRELATE THE VOUCHERS WITH THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY IT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER THESE VOUCHERS WERE LOCATED AND CORRELATED WITH THE RELEVANT ITEMS OF EXPENSES CLAIMED AND THE ASSESSE E FILED PHOTO STAT COPIES OF EACH OF THESE VOUCHERS BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN DUPLICATE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ON THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM WITH A REQUEST THAT THESE PAPERS BE CONSIDERED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FO R THE PURPOSES OF THE APPEAL. THE CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 4.9.200 6 FORWARDED THESE PAPERS TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 14.9.2006 FURNISHED HIS REPORT TO THE CIT(A) WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE EV IDENCE PRODUCE BUT STATED THAT THERE WAS NO VALID REASON FOR NON-PRODUCTION OF THESE PAPERS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. T HE CIT(A) REFUSED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO PRODUCE THE SAID EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO AVAIL. WE FIND THAT IN THE FACTS OF TH E CASE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY THE CIT(A). THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASON FOR THE NO N-CORRELATION OF THE VOUCHERS WITH THE RELEVANT ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD LORRY HIRE (FREIGHT) CHARGES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUB MITTED ALL THE VOUCHERS IN ORIGINAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE VOUCHERS WERE RETURNED TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. TRANSPORT BUSI NESS THROUGH 36 BRANCHES SPREAD ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND THE VOLUMINOUS QUANTUM OF ITA NO.561/HYD/2008 AND ITA NO.67/HYD/2007 M/S. TCI HI-WAYS PVT. LTD. SECUNDERABAD. 6 VOUCHERS IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THE VOUCHERS COULD NOT BE CORRELATED WITH THE SPECIFIC ITEMS OF EXPENSES IMMEDIATELY THOUGH THE SAME WERE LOCATED AND CORRELATED WITH THE RELEVANT ITE MS OF EXPENSES BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEF ORE THE CIT(A). THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRODUCING THE SAID EVIDENCE AT THE EARLIEST OPPORT UNITY. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ORIGINAL VOUCHERS WERE NOT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S ITSELF NOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE CIT( A) HAD DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE VOUCHERS OR THE CORRELATION OF TH E VOUCHERS WITH THE PARTICULAR ITEMS OF EXPENSES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE . IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE VOUCHERS IN SUP PORT OF ITS CLAIM OF EXPENSES OR HE COULD NOT CORRELATE THE SAME WITH THE PARTICULAR ITEMS OF EXPENSES. IT IS A CASE WHERE DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DUE TO VOLUMINOUS QUANTUM OF VO UCHERS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT IMMEDIATELY CORRELATE SOME OF THE VOUCHERS WITH THE RELEVANT ITEMS OF EXPENSES THOUGH HE WAS ABLE TO DO THE SAME AT A LATER STAGE. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE WE HOLD THA T THERE WAS NO VALID REASON FOR THE CIT(A) FOR REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D VARIOUS LETTERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRODUCING ALL THE INF ORMATION ASKED FOR AND ALSO THAT THE VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN LATER ON TRACE D AND PRODUCED IN THEIR OFFICE FOR VERIFICATION. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CA SE-LAW CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 7. WE FIND THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN LOCATING THE VOUCHERS AND CORRELATING THE SAME WITH THE RELEVANT ITEMS OF EXPENSE CLAIMED BY IT THERE REMAINS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE OUT OF THE LORRY HIRE (FR EIGHT) CHARGES CLAIMED BY IT. WE FIND THAT IN TRANSPORT BUSINESS AND MORE PARTICULARLY ITA NO.561/HYD/2008 AND ITA NO.67/HYD/2007 M/S. TCI HI-WAYS PVT. LTD. SECUNDERABAD. 7 WHEN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS VOLUMINOUS IN NATURE A ND SPREAD ALL OVER THE COUNTRY MERE FACT THAT SOME VOUCHERS WHICH FO RMS ONLY A VERY SMALL PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES AGGREGATING TO RS.35.72 CRORES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD LORRY HIRE (FREIGHT) CHARGES W ERE NOT SIGNED BY THE PAYEES COULD NOT BE THE MADE BASIS FOR ANY ADDITIO N PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO PRODUCE AND CORRELATE THE VO UCHERS IN RESPECT OF EACH ITEM OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY IT UNDE R THE HEAD LORRY HIRE (FREIGHT) CHARGES. WE FIND THAT IN SIMILAR FACTS I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20 LAKHS WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS DELETED IN APPEA L BY THE CIT(A). ON APPEAL BY THE REVENUE THE TRIBUNAL VI DE ITS ORDER DATED 23.10.2009 CITED SUPRA CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07 THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED LORRY HIRE CHARGES OF RS.84.58 CRORES A ND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SIMILAR FACTS ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN VOUCH ERS BEING NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 2 0 000 ON AGREED BASIS. WE FEEL NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.54 97 737 MADE BY THE CIT(A) FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESS MENT YEAR VIZ. 2003-04 BEFORE US. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE WE HOLD T HAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.54 97 737 OUT OF LORRY HIRE (FREIGHT) CHARGES WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.561/HYD/2008 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 9. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APP EAL IS GROUND NO.1 WHICH READS AS UNDER- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN PARTLY UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF LORRY HIRE CHARGE S TO THE ITA NO.561/HYD/2008 AND ITA NO.67/HYD/2007 M/S. TCI HI-WAYS PVT. LTD. SECUNDERABAD. 8 EXTENT OF RS.47 49 115 WHICH DISALLOWANCES WERE THE RESULT OF UNREAL ASSUM PTIONS PRESUMPTIONS AND NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT FACTS O F THIS CASE ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR VIZ. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FACTS OF T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 BEING IDENT ICAL WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR V IZ. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDIN G PARAS 6 AND 7 OF THIS ORDER WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR T HE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.47 49 115 MADE OUT OF LORRY HIRE CHARGES. WE ACCOR DINGLY DELETE THE SAME AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL. 12. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2004-05 IS ALLOWED. 13. TO SUM UP BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21.11.2011 SD/- SD/- (AKBER BASHA) (G.C.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DT/- 21.01.2011 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. TCI HI-WAYS PVT. LTD. 1-7-293 M.G. ROAD SECUNDERABAD. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 2(3) HYDE RABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) III HYDERABAD . 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX II HYDERABAD 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT HYDERABAD. B.V.S .