M/s Rollon Containers, Hyderabad v. ITO, Hyderabad

ITA 937/HYD/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2012 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 93722514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAFFR6146P
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 937/HYD/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant M/s Rollon Containers, Hyderabad
Respondent ITO, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 17-02-2012
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 21-06-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JUDICIAL MEMBE R. ITA NO.937/HYD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS HYDERABAD (PAN - AAFFR 6146 P ) V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-8(3) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.RAGHAVENDRA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI Y.V.S.T. SAI DATE OF HEARING 2.1.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.2.2012 O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III HYDERABAD DATED 12.12.2007 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF LEADING TO THE FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL IS THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF MANUFACTURE OF CORRUGATED BOXES WHICH ARE USED AS CONTAIN ERS FOR LIQUIDS LIKE OILS ETC. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE ASSESSEE FIELD THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME O F RS.25 270. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S.143(3) O F THE ACT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.42 41 702 AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS- (A) DISALLOWANCE OF EXCISE DUTY NOT PAID RS.14 74 783 (B) ADDITION UNDER S.68 OF THE ACT DISBELIEVING THE INVESTMENTS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE PARTNERS RS.7 90 000 ITA NO.937/HYD/2010 M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS HYDERABAD 2 (C) SUPPRESSION OF THE GUM UTILISED FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF CORRUGATED BOXES U/S. 69C OF THE ACT RS.7 94 420 (D) CASH CREDIT IN THE NAME OF PRIYANKA GADODIA RS.10 75 000 (E) DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK RS. 82 229 3. ON APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE CIT(A) GAVE PARTIAL RELIEF IN REL ATION TO THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF (I) EXCISE DUTY PAYMENT; (II) CONSUMPTION OF GUM; AND (III) DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING STOCK BUT SUSTAINED THE OTHER TWO ADDITIONS IN TOTO. AGGRI EVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. FIRST EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.7 90 000 BEING CREDITS I N THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS OF THE THREE PARTNERS SHRI RAJIV GARG SHRI A JAY GARG AND SHRI PIYUSH GADODIA OF RS.1 00 000; RS.3 50 000 AND R S.3 40 000 RESPECTIVELY. 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATING THE CONTENTIONS URGED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITT ED THAT TWO OF THE THREE PARTNERS HAVE ADVANCED MONEY FROM THEIR PER SONAL SAVINGS WHEREAS THE THIRD PARTNER SHRI PIYUSH GADODIA HAS RECE IVED GIFT FROM HIS FATHER WHICH WAS INVESTED IN THE FIRM. THEY HAVE F ILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS. TAKING US THROUGH THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE P APER-BOOK IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PARTNERS ARE INCOME-TAX ASSESSES. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN STATING THAT AS CASH OF RS.3 40 000 WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI PIYUSH GADODIA AND THEREUPON CHEQUE WAS ISSUED TO THE FIRM IT WAS AS GOOD AS CASH CREDIT . OUR SPECIFIC ATTENTION HAS BEEN INVITED TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PIYUSH ITA NO.937/HYD/2010 M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS HYDERABAD 3 GADODIA COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE 41 OF THE PAPE R-BOOK WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE SAID PARTNER HAS RECEIVED A N AMOUNT OF RS.3 40 000 FROM HIS FATHER SHRI ASHOK GADODIA FOR T HE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. HE ALSO TOOK US THROUGH THE RELEVANT PAGES FO THE PAPER-BOOK TO ESTA BLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE FATHER OF SHRI PIYUSH GADODIA. HE ALSO SUBMITTED PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. ORISSA CORPORATION (159 ITR 78) THAT TH E CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN EXPECTING THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOUR CES OF THE FUNDS TO THE CREDITORS VIZ. PARTNERS IN THE INSTANT CASE SINCE THE ONUS OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISCHARGED IF THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS T O THE FIRM IS ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED CO UNSEL THE ONUS OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF SOURCE DOES NOT LIE ON THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST TWO PA RTNERS VIZ. SHRI RAJIV GARG AND SHRI AJAY GARG RETIRED FROM THE FIRM AND THEIR BALANCES WERE SETTLED BY WAY OF CHEQUE PAYMENTS AFTER ARRIVIN G AT THE BALANCES DUE AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CREDITS IN THEIR CAPI TAL ACCOUNTS. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. SAHIBGANJ ELECTRIC (P) LTD. (115 I TR 408) AND OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. GANI S ILK PALACE (171 ITR 373) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SETTLEMENT OF PART NERS ACCOUNTS BY WAY OF CHEQUES IS A VITAL PIECE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF GENUINENESS OF CREDITS AS WELL AS THEIR SOURCES. IN ANY EVEN T IT IS SUBMITTED THAT CASH CREDIT ADDITIONS IF ANY MAY BE CON SIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS SINCE AS FAR AS THE ASS ESSEE-FIRM IS CONCERNED THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION HAVING BEEN CONTRIBUT ED BY THE PARTNERS THEIR IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS BESIDES GE NUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT CA NNOT BE DOUBTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN SUPPORT OF THESE CONTENTIONS RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON T HE FOLLOWING DECISIONS- ITA NO.937/HYD/2010 M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS HYDERABAD 4 (A) ADDL. CIT V/S. UNIQUE BUILDERS (2 SOT 589)-KOL. (B) ACIT V/S. S.S.PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. (87 ITRD 119)-A LL. (C) ROHINI BUILDERS V/.S. DCIT (117 TAXMANN 25)-AHD.( MAG) (D) SMT. NEERU DEVI KOTHARI V/S. ITO(116 TAXMANN 224)-JO DH (MAG) 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS THAT LIES ON IT TO PROVE THE CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE PARTNERS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN RELATION TO THE INVESTMENTS CLAIMED TO H AVE BEEN MADE BY THEM. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. WE FIND THAT SINCE THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION HAVE B EEN BROUGHT INTO THE FIRM BY THE PARTNERS THEMSELVES THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS. AS FOR THEIR CRE DIT-WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATIO N FOR THE ADVERSE INFERENCES DRAWN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES CONSID ERING THE STATEMENTS OF THE PARTNERS AND THEIR CAPITAL ACCOUNTS COPI ES OF WHICH ARE FILED IN THE PAPER-BOOK. THE PARTNERS ADMITTEDL Y ARE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES AND HAVE GIVEN PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SOU RCES FOR THE INVESTMENTS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THEM IN THE F IRM. IN THE CASE OF SHRI PIYUSH GADODIA IT IS CLAIMED THAT HE RECEI VED A GIFT OF RS.3 40 000 FROM HIS FATHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE FIRM. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PIYUSH GADODIA WHICH ALSO CONTAINS THE BRIEF DETAILS OF HIS FATHER CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THA T HE IS NOT A MAN OF STRAW. COPY OF THE PAN CARD AND OTHER DETAILS OF SHRI ASHOK GADODIA ITA NO.937/HYD/2010 M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS HYDERABAD 5 FATHER OF SHRI PIYUSH GADODIA ARE ALSO FURNISHED IN THE PAPER-BOOK. WHILE THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAVE EXPLAINED SOURCES FOR THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THEM THE DEPARTMENT IS INSISTING O N PROVING THE SOURCES FOR THE SOURCES WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. CO NSIDERING TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO THE CONTRARY BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADDITIONS UNDER S.68 OF THE ACT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE ACCORDINGLY DE LETE THE SAME ALLOWING THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 8. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS A PPEAL RELATES TO AN ADDITION OF RS.10 75 000 MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CREDITS IN THE ACCOUNT OF MS. PRIYANKA GADODI A SISTER OF THE PARTNER SHRI PIYUSH GADODIA . 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATING TH E CONTENTIONS URGED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY DISCHARGED THE ONUS THAT LIES ON IT TO E STABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR HER CREDIT-WORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CONSEQUENTLY THERE WAS NO JUSTIFIC ATION FOR THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE UNDER S.68 OF THE ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT MS.PRIYANKA IS THE SISTER OF THE PARTNER SHRI PIYUSH G AODIDA AND SHE IS ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX AT KOLKATA AND THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT WITH REGARD TO HER CREDIT-WORTHINESS AS IN FACT BUT FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 50000 SHE HAS ADVANCED THE BALANCE AMOUNTS TO THE A SSESSEE- FIRM ONLY BY CHEQUES. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUG H THE CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON CERTAIN DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONCLUSION AG AINST THE ASSESSEE THE RATIO OF THOSE DECISIONS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO T HE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE INASMUCH AS IN THOSE CASES THE REVENUE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF PROOF THAT LIES ON IT IN TURN B Y MAKING NECESSARY INVESTIGATION WHEREAS IN THIS CASE THE DEPARTME NT HAS NOT ITA NO.937/HYD/2010 M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS HYDERABAD 6 DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO REJECT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM MADE BY IT. IN DOUBTING THE SOU RCE OF FUNDS OF THE CREDITORS IN THE BANK FROM WHICH CHEQUES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND MAKING A DOUBT A GROUND FOR DISBELIEVING THE CREDIT THE CIT(A) IS DEMANDING THE SOURCE OF SOURCE. IT IS SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE BURDEN OF PROVING ITS SOURCE BY G IVING THE PAN NUMBER OF THE CREDITOR AND FURNISHING COPIES OF RE LEVANT ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY ENQUIRY TO DI SBELIEVE THE SOURCE OF FUNDS OF CREDITOR IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES HE SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN SUPPO RT OF HIS CONTENTIONS RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. SHYAM SUNDER AND CO.(18 1 ITR 187) AND OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/ S. ORISSA CORPORATION (159 ITR 78). 10. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH NOT ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR AND HER CREDIT-WORTHINESS BUT ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACT IONS WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSA CTIONS HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THR OUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. CONSIDERING TOTALIT Y OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE ASSERTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE AMOUN T OF RS.10 75 000 HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MS. PRI YANKA GADODIA BY WAY OF CHEQUES WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION ITA NO.937/HYD/2010 M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS HYDERABAD 7 TO VERIFY THE POSITION WITH REFERENCE TO THE ENTRIES I N THE BANK ACCOUNT OF MS.PRIYANKA AND REDECIDE AFRESH THE ISSUE WITH REGAR D TO CREDIT- WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF TH E TRANSACTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING DU E OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE NEXT ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IN RELATION TO THE CONSUMPTION OF GUM. 13. FACTS IN BRIEF RELATING TO THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT CONSUMPTION OF GUMS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVI OUS YEAR IS VERY LOW. IN RESPONSE TO QUERY RAISED BY HIM IN THI S REGARD THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT EARLIER THEY WERE USING READY TO USE GUMS WHICH WERE COMING IN BARRELS WHICH REQUIRE NO MIXING UP WIT H WATER AND COULD BE DIRECTLY USED IN MANUFACTURING. BUT TO SAVE COST IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THEY MOVED TO POWD ER BASED GUM AND ALSO USED STARCH WHICH INCREASES THE VISCOSITY OF THE GUM AND AS SUCH THERE WAS VARIATION IN GUM CONSUMPTION PATTERN DUR ING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCH ASED TWO TYPES OF GUM ONE PASTING GUM AND THE OTHER CORRUGATI ON GUM AND OUT OF 24570 KGS. OF GUM PURCHASED 7 520 KGS. WAS OF PA STING GUM. HE NOTED THAT ASSUMING THAT PASTING GUM OF 1574 KGS. WA S UTILISED FOR MANUFACTURING BOXES THE SALES OF WHICH AMOUNTED TO R S.1 41 91 193 ON THAT BASIS THE CONSUMPTION OF GUM FOR SALES OF RS.1 8 1 84 487 IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WOULD BE 2 016 KGS. BUT SUCH CONSUMP TION IS SHOWN AT 51 296 KGS. HE NOTED THAT THE SAME WOULD BE T HE POSITION IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT CORRUGATION GUM WAS UTILIZED FOR M ANUFACTURING DURING THE YEAR. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT GUM OF A DIFFERENT VARIETY WAS USED AND STARCH WHICH DO N OT FIND PLACE IN ITA NO.937/HYD/2010 M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS HYDERABAD 8 THE PURCHASE DETAILS WAS UTILIZED IN THE MANUFACTURE O F BOXES. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CONSUMPTION OF GUMS IN THE PRECED ING TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS AND SUCH CONSUMPTION IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR AN D COMPARING THE SAME WITH THE TURNOVER SHOWN DURING THOS E YEARS HE ARRIVED AT AVERAGE CONSUMPTION FIGURE OF 40 478 KGS. HE HELD THAT GUM OF THAT QUANTITY WAS UTILSIED FOR MANUFACTURING BOXES BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE CURRENT PREVIOUS YEAR. SINCE CONSUMPTIO N OF GUM IS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS AT 1 574 KGS. HE HELD THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS MADE FURTHER CONSUMPTION OF GUMS AT 38 904 KGS. (40 47 8 KGS. 1 574 KGS.) DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. TAKING THE AVER AGE RATE PER KG. OF GUM AT RS.20.42 HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE UN EXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF RS.7 94 420 (RS.20.42 X 38 904) UNDER CONSUMPTION OF GUM DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY ADDED TH E SAID AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.69C OF THE ACT. 14. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AND THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE JCIT WHEN THE MATTER WAS REMANDED BY HIM FOR THE IR COMMENTS BESIDES THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE JCIT SUSTAINED THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4 67 586 WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS- 6.7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND THE COMMENTS OF THE JCIT AND FURTHER SUBMISSION S OF THE APPELLANT. AS PER THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE CURRENT PREVIOUS YEAR IT HAS MOSTLY PURCHASED POW DER GUM FOR MANUFACTURE. WHILE ADMITTING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY QUANTITATIVE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF M ANUFACTURE OF DIFFERENT SIZES OF BOXES AND CONSUMPTION OF GUM IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMPARE THE CONSU MPTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF GUM FOR PRODUCING DIFFERENT TYPE S OF BOXES. IT HAS MERELY CONTENDED THAT SUCH ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS CONSUMPTION OF GUMS AFTER COMPARING THE TU RNOVER FIGURES DURING DIFFERENT ASST. YEARS IS NOT JUSTIF IED. BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED AS TO HOW THE AO WAS NOT CORRECT IN GIVING A ITA NO.937/HYD/2010 M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS HYDERABAD 9 POSITIVE FINDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE EXCESS CONSUMPTION IN EXCESS OF THE CONSUMPTION SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF GUMS IN MANUFACTURING CORRUGATED BOXES DURING TH E PREVIOUS YEAR. IN FACT FROM THE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF GUM SHOWN IN THE BOOK MAY BE CONSIDERED AS UTILIZED IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTUR E DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IT SHOWS THE APPELLANT ADMITS THAT I T HAS ACTUALLY CONSUMED MORE QUANTITY OF GUMS WHICH WERE PURCHASE D OUTSIDE THE BOOKS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. ?WHEN THE APPELLANT ITSELF HAS SHOWN CLOSING STOCK OF GUMS AT 22 996 KGS IN ITS ACCOUNT WHICH HAVE BEEN AUDITED HOW CAN IT CONTEND NOW THAT THE SAME MAY BE TREATED AS UTILIZED BY IT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR? IN FACT SUCH A PLEA CANNOT BE ACCE PTED. FURTHER SO FAR AS THE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION REGAR DING PRODUCTION OF EQUIVALENT OF 23 18 498 3 PLY BOXES D URING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND WORKING OUT A VALUE OF RS. 2 02 1 22/- TOWARDS CONSUMPTION OF GUM FOR PRODUCING THE SAID Q UANTITY OF BOXES AND THE RESULTANT UNEXPLAINED AMOUNT AT RS. 1 79 126/- ARE CONCERNED THE SAME HAVE NO MERIT AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY SUPPORTING MATERIAL / DOCUMENTS FOR SUCH COMPARISON AND MOREOVER IT HAS NOT MAINTAINED / KEPT ANY QUANTITATIVE DETAILS AS ADMIT TED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT FILED WITH THE RETURN. IN MY VIEW HAVING REGARD TO THE RATION OF THE VALUE OF CONSUMPTION OF GUMS TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER DURING THE EARLIER TWO ASST. YEARS A ND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO ESTIMATE THE COST O F CONSUMPTION OF GUMS DURING THE CURRENT PREVIOUS YEA R AT RS.5 00 000/-. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN CONSU MPTION OF GUMS IN ITS BOOKS AT RS. 32 141/- ONLY THE DIFFERE NCE OF RS. 4 67 586/- SHALL BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APP ELLANT TOWARDS EXCESS CONSUMPTION OF GUMS MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) A SSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 15. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF GUM CONSUMED AT RS.5 00 0 00 AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4 67 586. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ESTIMATED THE ADDITION TO BE MADE UNDER S.69C OF THE ACT HAVING REGARD TO THE RATIO OF VALU E OF CONSUMPTION OF GUM TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER DURING THE EARLIER TWO YE ARS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I N THIS REGARD HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TURNOVER AND THE VALUE FO GUM ARE NOT PROPORTIONATE SINCE THE CORRUGATED BOXES ARE OF THRE E VARIETIES AND ITA NO.937/HYD/2010 M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS HYDERABAD 10 GUM CONSUMED DIFFERS FROM ONE VARIETY TO ANOTHER. TH E PRICE OF GUM IS ONLY ONE OF THE INPUTS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THEREFO RE HE SUBMITTED THAT A DETAILED ANALYSIS HAS BEEN SUBMITTED VIDE PAGE S 55 AND 56 OF THE PAPER-BOOK FILED BEFORE US WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED B Y THE CIT(A) AT PARA 6.5 OF HIS ORDER AND IT WAS REQUESTED ON THAT BASIS FOR RESTRICTING THE ESTIMATE TO RS.2 02 122 AND TO ADD RS.1 79 126 AFTER GIVING A CREDIT FOR RS.32 141. HOWEVER THE CIT(A) SU STAINED AN ADDITION OF RS.4 67 586 STATING THAT ADMITTEDLY QUA NTITATIVE DETAILS ARE NOT MAINTAINED AS PER AUDIT REPORT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FIGURES OF CLOSING STOCK WERE SHOWN HIGH AND THAT ACTUALLY GUM W AS CONSUMED OUT OF 22 996 KGS. THIS WAS SUPPORTED ON SEVERAL GROUND S. THE PURCHASE OF GUM IS ALWAYS MADE AS AND WHEN NEEDED ONLY AND THAT HUGE QUALITY OF GUM IS NEVER CARRIED IN STOCK. IT IS ACT UALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO STOCK 23 TONS OF GUM IN THE FACTORY AREA OF 5500 SQ. FT. HOWEVER IT IS SUBMITTED THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE PLEA BY POINTIN G OUT TO THE AUDIT REPORT AND IT WAS HELD THAT GUM WAS PURCHASED OUTSIDE T HE BOOKS. IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE ELA BORATE WORKING AND ANALYSIS GIVEN AT PAGES 55 AND 56 OF THE PAPER-BOO K THE ADDITION MAY BE RESTRICTED TO RS.1 79 126 AS AGAINST RS.4 67 586 SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) ON ESTIMATE BASIS. IN THE ALTERNATIVE IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ESTIMATE MAY BE RESTRICTED TO A REASONABLE FIG URE. 16. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAVING ALREADY GIVEN MORE THAN REASONABLE REL IEF TO THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY FURTHER INDULG ENCE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THR OUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. WE FIND THAT TH E ADDITION ITA NO.937/HYD/2010 M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS HYDERABAD 11 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CONSUMPTION OF GUM WAS PURELY ON ESTI MATE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ELABORATE ANALYSIS AND WORKING BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND COPY THEREOF IS ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE US IN THE PAPER-BOOK AT PAGES 55 AND 56 THEREOF. CONSIDERING TOTALITY OF F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE US WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS ON HIGHER SIDE AND IT WOULD BE REASONABLE AND MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF THE ADDITION ON THIS COUNT IS RESTRICTED TO A ROUND SUM FIGURE OF RS.3 LAKHS AS AGAINST RS.4 67 586 SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). ASSESSEES GR OUNDS ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED IN PART. 18. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATE S TO THE ADDITION OF RS.82 229 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK. 19. FACTS IN BRIEF IN RELATION TO THIS ADDITION ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN WHILE VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK OF KRAFT PAPER GUM AND STITCHING WIRE HAS ADOPTED THE COST PRICE OF TH ESE ITEMS AT RS.12.25 RS.17.63 AND RS.37.80 RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER A FTER VERIFYING THE AUDIT REPORT AND THE PURCHASE DETAILS FI LED THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE COST PRICE OF THESE ITEMS AS ON 31. 3.2005 WERE RS.13.25 RS.20.42 AND RS.39.00 RESPECTIVELY. ON THE B ASIS OF THESE RATES THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE DIFFERENTIAL AM OUNT IN THE VALUES OF THE CLOSING STOCK OF THESE THREE ITEMS AND MAD E AN ADDITION OF RS.82 229. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE AD DITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.72 572. ST ILL AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US ON THIS ASPECT. 20. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NEITHER CORRECT NOR FAIR TO DISTURB THE CLOSING STOCK FIGU RE WITHOUT CORRESPONDINGLY DISTURBING THE OPENING STOCK FIGURE ALSO . HE PLACED ITA NO.937/HYD/2010 M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS HYDERABAD 12 RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI COURT IN THE CASE OF K.G.KHOSLA & CO. P LTD. V/S. CIT (99 ITR 574) IN SUP PORT OF THIS PROPOSITION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS THE CLOSING ST OCK FIGURE BECOMES THE OPENING STOCK IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR THE ASS ESSEE HAS NO ADVANTAGE IN TAKING A LOWER FIGURE. MORE SO SINCE SUCC EEDING YEAR THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER S.143(1) AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE WAS LEFT WITH DOUBLE ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THE DI FFERENCE IN THE CLOSING STOCK VIZ. IN THE CURRENT YEAR AND ALSO IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. 21. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS OMITTED TO GIVE FI NDING ON THE ISSUE. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT WHERE THE CLOSING STO CK IS ENHANCED THE VALUATION OF OPENING STOCK MUST BE ON THE SAME BASI S. THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K.G. KHOSLA & COMPANY P LTD. VS. CIT (99 ITR 574). IN THE CASE OF K.G. KHOSLA & COMPANY P LTD. THE COUR T HELD THAT THERE IS CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE OPENI NG STOCK CANNOT BE VALUED IN A MANNER DIFFERENT FROM THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. BOTH HAVE TO BE VALUED ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME PRINCI PLE. THE OPENING STOCK FOR THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE WAS LOADED WITH THE VALUE OF THE PROPORTIONATE COSTS OF CUSTOMS DUTY FREIGHT AND H ANDLING CHARGES. THE CLOSING STOCK DID NOT HAVE SUCH AN ADDITION MADE TO IT. IN ORDER TO BRING THE TWO ON THE SAME LEVEL IT WAS NECESSARY TO DISTURB THE VALUATION EITHER OF THE OPENING STOCK OR OF THE CL OSING STOCK. THE TRIBUNAL PREFERRED TO DISTURB THE CLOSING STOCK BY VAL UING IT ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE ACCORDING TO WHICH THE OPENING STOCK WAS V ALUED. HENCE WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF CIT VS. K.G. KHOSLA (SUPRA). ITA NO.937/HYD/2010 M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS HYDERABAD 13 22. THE NEXT GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO T HE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING DEDUCTIO N UNDER S.80IB OF THE ACT. THE SAME WITH ITS SUB-GROUNDS READ AS FOLLOWS: 6(A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDIN G THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IN REGARD TO THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB IS LIAB LE TO BE REJECTED; THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN BARRING SUBSTANT IAL JUSTICE ON PURELY TECHNICAL GROUNDS. (B) THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INCOM E TAX PROCEEDINGS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAKE CLAIMS U/S. 80IB IN THE EAR LIER ASSESSMENT YEARS CANNOT BE A BAR TO MAKE THE CLAIM IN THIS YE AR. (C) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ALL THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS OF THE RELEV ANT YEAR FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE IT ACT. 23. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION MADE BEFORE HIM ON TWO GROUNDS. IN THE FIRST PLACE HE HELD BY DISTINGUISHING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. WESTERN ROLLING MILLS (P)LTD. (156 ITR 54) RELIED UPO N BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY IF IT IS FIRST YEAR OF DEDUCTION. HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FURTHER REASON THAT IT WAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. GANGAPPA CABLES LIMITED (116 IT R 778) LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IF ALL TH E RELEVANT PARTICULARS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD THE STATUTORI LY ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE GRANTED. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT BEING CIRCULAR NO.14(XSL-35) OF 1955 DATED 11.4.1955 WHEREBY IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMEN T MUST NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE IGNORANCE OF AN ASSESSEE AS TO HIS RIGHT S AND THE ASSESSEES SHOULD BE GRANTED THE RELIEFS UNDER THE IT ACT TO WHICH THEY ARE ELIGIBLE. HE SUBMITTED TAKING US THROUGH PAGES 50 TO 52 OF THE PAPER-BOOK THAT ALL THE PARTICULARS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING ITA NO.937/HYD/2010 M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS HYDERABAD 14 RELIEF UNDER S.80IB ARE PART OF THE RECORD AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF CORRUGATED BOXES FROM T HE NEW MATERIALS USING NEW MACHINERY AND THE MANUFACTURE IS IN A BACKWARD AREA AND THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMMENCED BEFORE 1.4.2002 ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR RELIEF UNDER S.80IB(2 ) OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE EITHER ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND OF ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OR ON MERITS. 24. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE EIGHTH YEAR OF BUSINESS AND THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE NTO CLAIMED THE RELIEF UNDER S.80IB IN THE EARLIER YEARS. 25. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED F ACT THAT THE RELIEF UNDER S.80IB OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED IN THE RE TURN ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE STATES THAT ALL THE INFORMATION RELEVANT FOR THAT PURPOSE IS AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD. ASSESSEE IS IN THE EIGHTH YEAR OF BUSINESS AND THERE IS NO VALID REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT MA KING SUCH A CLAIM IN THE EARLIER YEARS. IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. WE STERN ROLLING MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) ASSESSEE WAS IN THE FIRST YEAR OF BUSIN ESS AND AS SUCH THERE WAS SOME VALID REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT MAKIN G CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER S.80IB OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO SUCH VALID REASON IN THE INSTANT CASE FOR NOT HAVING MADE THE CLAIM EITHER IN TH E RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL OR IN ANY OF THE EARLIER YEARS. THE CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 10.5 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE REASONING GIVEN BY HIM. WE ACCORDINGL Y UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS BEHALF AND REJECT THE GR OUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. ITA NO.937/HYD/2010 M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS HYDERABAD 15 26. THE NEXT GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL READ S AS FOLLOWS- THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE PLEA O F TELESCOPING OF THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE WITH THE CASH CREDITS SUSTAINED. 27. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE GROUND OF A PPEAL. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE AND REJECTE D THE PLEA OF TEHA SEE FOR TELESCOPING IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER- 10.4 ..IT IS ONLY WHEN SALES OR PROFIT IN CASE OF AN ASSESSEE IS ESTIMATED THEN THE ASSESSEE MAY MAKE A CLAIM FOR TELESCOPING THE ADDITION ON THESE ACCOUNTS AGAINST CREDITS. BUT IT CANNOT MAKE A PLEA FOR TELESCOPING UNEXPLAINED E XPENDITURE INCURRED DURING A PREVIOUS YEAR AGAINST UNEXPLAINED CREDITS DURING THAT YEAR. UNDER THIS CIRCUMSTANCE AND SIN CE NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE ME TO PROVE THAT THE EXCESS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE INCURRED DURING THE PREVIOUS Y EAR HAVE BEEN MET OUT FROM THE SAID ADDITIONS MADE UNDER UNE XPLAINED CREDITS SUCH PEA OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPT ED AND HENCE THE SAME IS REJECTED. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ABOVE REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A). WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISS UE AND REJECT THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 28. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS A PPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER S.234B OF T HE ACT. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S.234B O F THE ACT COME INTO PLAY ONLY IF THERE WAS A LIABILITY UNDER S. 208 OF THE ACT. 29. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIAB LE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX U/S 208 OF THE IT ACT AS THE TAX ON CURRENT INCOME IS ENTIRELY COVERED BY TDS. THEREFORE THERE IS NO LIAB ILITY TO ADVANCE TAX ITA NO.937/HYD/2010 M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS HYDERABAD 16 ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B ARE NOT APPLICABLE. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF DATAMATICS LIMITED VS. ACIT (1 11 TTJ 55) (MUM) & CIT VS. SHUSHILA DEVI JAIN (25 9ITR 671). HEN CE WE HOLD THAT WHERE THERE IS NO LIABILITY U/S 208 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 234B ARE NOT ATTRACTED. 29. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17.2.2012 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. JUDICIAL MEMBER. DT/- 17 TH FEBRUARY 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. ROLLON CONTAINERS SURVEY NO.71/B/E OPP. RAMCHARAN OIL MILL OLD KURNOOL ROAD KATTEDAN HYDERABAD 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(3) HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) III HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX II HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT HYDERABAD B.V.S.