M/s Rishabh Polymers(P)Limited, Hyderabad v. ACIT, Hyderabad

ITSSA 43/HYD/2005 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 4322516 RSA 2005
Assessee PAN AABCR4019G
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITSSA 43/HYD/2005
Duration Of Justice 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant M/s Rishabh Polymers(P)Limited, Hyderabad
Respondent ACIT, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 10-12-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 11-02-2005
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AKBER BASHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.43/HYD/05 : BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEA RS 1990-91 TO 2000-01 M/S. RISHABH POLYMERS (P) LTD. HYDERABAD. (PAN: AABCR4019G) VS ACIT CIR-2(1) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.77/HYD/05 : BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS1990-91 TO 2000-01 ACIT CIR-2(1) M/S. RISHABH POLYMERS (P) LTD. HYDERABAD. HYDERABAD (PAN: AABCR4019G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A. TRIPATHY O R D E R PER AKBER BASHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE CIT (A)- III HYDERABAD DATED 29-11-2004 AND THEY PERTAIN TO THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS 19990-91 TO 2000-01. THERE IS A DELAY OF 52 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DEPARTMEN T HAS FILED A PETITION FOR CONDONING THE SAID DELAY. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAID PETITION AND FOUND THAT THERE IS A SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY AND THEREFORE WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR DISPOSAL . 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF RESINS. A SEA RCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IT(SS)A 43 & 77/HYD/2005 RISHAB POLYMERS PVT. LTD. HYD. 2 WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENCE OF DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALONG WITH A SURVEY ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A IN THE PREM ISES OF THE COMPANY ITSELF ON 23-12-1999. DURING THE COURSE OF THESE PROCEED INGS IT CAME TO LIGHT THAT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE SUBJECT T O A SEARCH ACTION BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT ON 2.7.97. DURING THE COU RSE OF THIS SEARCH CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT FOUND OUT EVIDENCES OF REMOVAL OF SALES OF STOCKS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY. IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CASE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT ALSO FOUND OUT THAT THE STOCK OF BOTH RAW MATERIAL AND FINISHED GOODS DID NOT TALLY WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED. ACCOR DINGLY CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT MADE A CASE OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF G OODS OUTSIDE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS LEADING TO EVASION OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY. DURING THE COURSE OF CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT SEARCH OPERATIONS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY SRI MUKESH JHA ADMITTED THE FACT OF UNACCOUNTED PRODUCTION AND REMOVAL OF GOODS BUT THE SAME WAS N OT ACCEPTED LATER ON AT THE TIME OF REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. WHILE THES E PROCEEDINGS WERE GOING ON THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO BRING END TO THESE PROC EEDINGS BY AVAILING THE SCHEME OF KAR VIVAD THEN APPLICABLE TO THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED AN APPLICAT ION DATED 29-1-1999 BEFORE THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT TO SETTLE THEIR ISSUE S BY PAYING EXCISE DUTY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF KAR VIVAD SCHEME. DURING THE COURSE OF INCOME-TAX SEARCH PROCEEDINGS DATED 23-12-1999 IT WAS DETERMI NED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NOR ITS DIRECTORS NOR THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT HAD EITHER INFORMED THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT ABOUT TH ESE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED IT WAS EVIDENCE UNEART HED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS AND INITIATE PROCEED INGS UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT OUT THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AND CONSIDERED THAT THESE ARE SUFFICIENT FACTS TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ACCEPTED THE DIFFERENCES IN THE STOCK POSITION AND THE SALES OUTSIDE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS DETERMINED BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE AUT HORITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT TO TAX ONLY THOSE DISCREPANCIES WHI CH WERE ALREADY POINTED OUT BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR SHOW CAUS E NOTICE AND ADJUDICATION IT(SS)A 43 & 77/HYD/2005 RISHAB POLYMERS PVT. LTD. HYD. 3 ORDER DATED 28-1-1999. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSE D HIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 158BD READ WITH SECTION 143(3) ON A TOTAL UNDISCLOS ED INCOME OF RS.47 52 170 TOWARDS CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF GOODS FOR THE FINANC IAL YEAR 1996-97 REMOVAL OF GOODS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY AND WITHOUT ACCOUNTING FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-987 TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED SALE S SHORTAGE OF RAW MATERIAL TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED SALES EXCESS STOCK OF FINIS HED GOODS TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED STOCKS AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FINI SHED GOODS SEIZED BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT FROM THE VEHICLE AND UNAC COUNTED SALES OF THE COMPANY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000. AGAINS T THE FINDINGS AND THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). ON APPEAL THE CIT (A) AFTER DISCUSSING THE POINTS ELABORATELY IN HIS ORDER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE EARN ED A GROSS PROFIT AT 11% ON THE UNACCOUNTED SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS AND THEREFORE INSTEAD OF ADDING THE ENTIRE VALUE OF UNACCOUNTED SALES IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE THAT IF THE INCOME AT 11% OF THESE SALES IS BROUGHT TO TAX AND HE ALSO ALLOWED BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING ON EXCESS STOCK HOLDING THAT TOTAL M ONEY EARNED BY OUTSIDE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS MUCH MORE THAN THE VALUE OF EX CESS STOCK DETERMINED. ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.4 38 951 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATIO N AND THUS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE DECISION AND THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. IT(SS)A NO.43/HYD/05 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) : 3. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS AGAINST THE FACTS O F THE CASE AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN SO FAR AS IT RELATE TO CONFIRM ING THE ADDITION OF RS.4 38 951 AND TO THE EXTENT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDI TION OF RS.4 38 951. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING AUTH ORITY HAVE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE THEM THAT TH E ALLEGED IT(SS)A 43 & 77/HYD/2005 RISHAB POLYMERS PVT. LTD. HYD. 4 TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS CAN AT BEST ONLY BE TAKEN AT RS.2 39 822 FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1996-97 AND RS.5 77 328 FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOT RELIED UPO N THE CENTRAL EXCISE ORDER IN TOTO WHICH WAS PATENTLY ARBITRARY IRRATIONAL BIASED AND UNJUSTIFIED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE SURCHARGE IS NOT LEVIABLE AS THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED BEFORE 1-6-200 2. 6. THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS GONE INTO KARVIVAD THE ALLEGATIONS WERE ACCEPT ABLE TO THE APPELLANT. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO SUBMIT ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR MODIFY OR ALTER THE GROUNDS. 8. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.4 38 951. IT(SS)A NO.77/HYD/05 (REVENUES APPEAL) : 4. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER:- I. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE. II. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE AG REED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER SOURCE FOR PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL THE TOTAL UNACCOUNTED SAL ES REPRESENT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. III. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN COMMITTI NG AN ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE BY SHOWING AN AMOUNT OF RS.4 38 951 AS ADDITION SUS TAINED AS AGAINST CORRECT AMOUNT OF RS.4 63 756/-. IV. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI. RAM A RAO SUBMITTED THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE THEM IT(SS)A 43 & 77/HYD/2005 RISHAB POLYMERS PVT. LTD. HYD. 5 THAT THE ALLEGED TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OUTSIDE THE B OOKS CAN AT BEST ONLY BE TAKEN AT RS.2 39 822 FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1996-97 AND RS.5 77 328 FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98 AND NOT AS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE REFERRED PAGES 74 AND 68 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT TO THE EXTENT ASSESSEE TALLIED THE STOCK WITH THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY UNACCOUNTED SALES AND HENCE THE PROFIT SHOULD BE CALCULATED ONLY ON RS.8 17 150/-. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES NOT RELIED UPON THE CENTRAL EXCISE ORDER IN TOTO WHICH WAS PATENTLY ARBITRARY IRRATI ONAL BIASED AND UNJUSTIFIED. THE DEPARTMENT IS UNJUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT AS TH E ASSESSEE HAS GONE INTO KARVIVAD AS THE ALLEGATIONS WERE ACCEPTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO INVESTMENT IN THE STOCK OUTSIDE T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HENCE THE TWO ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER SEPARATELY FOR SHORTAGE OF MATERIAL AS WELL AS EXCESS OF STOCK MATERIAL SHO ULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE RAW MATERIAL USED BY THE ASSESSE E COMPANY WAS CONVERTED INTO FINISHED GOODS AND HENCE THE INVESTMENT IN STO CK OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOULD BE THE VALUE OF EXCESS OF VALUE OF F INISHED GOODS OVER RAW MATERIAL. THE VALUE OF UNACCOUNTED STOCK AGAIN SHOU LD BE TELESCOPED INTO THE PROFITS DETERMINED ON THE UNACCOUNTED SALES BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE DEPARTMENT BELIEVED TOTALLY THE FINDINGS OF THE CEN TRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT WITH REGARD TO THE VALUE OF SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT. EVEN IF THE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTS THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE CENTRA L EXCISE DEPARTMENT THAT THERE WERE SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE EARNED PROFIT EQUAL TO TH E ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON SEVERAL DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE VALUE OF ENTIRE UNACCOUNTED SALES CANNOT BE TAXED AS UNDISCLOSED PROFIT OF THE ASSESS EE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE SHRI AMLAN TRIPATHY SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT [A] SHOULD HA VE AGREED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN THE ABSEN CE OF PROPER SOURCES/EVIDENCE FOR PURCHASE OF RAW-MATERIALS THE TOTAL UNACCOUNTE D SALES REPRESENT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE CIT [A] ALSO C OMMITTED AN ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE BY DETERMINING THE PROFIT OF RS.4 38 951 AS AGAINST RS.4 63 756/- AS IT(SS)A 43 & 77/HYD/2005 RISHAB POLYMERS PVT. LTD. HYD. 6 PER HIS FINDINGS. THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT CON DUCTED THE RAID ON 2-7- 1997. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE CENTRAL EXCIS E DEPARTMENT FOUND THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE STOCK AND CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF STOCK. THE DISCREPANCIES OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 65 547 WHICH WAS F OUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT. THESE DISCREPANCIES WERE NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR K ARVIVAD SCHEME BEFORE THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND SETTLED THE ISSUE BY PAYING THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARVIVAD SCHEME. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT HAS ACCEPTED THE DIFF ERENCES IN THE STOCK AND CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF GOODS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT CONFIDENT ENOUGH TO GET RELIEF IN THE APPEAL THE DISPUTE WAS SETTLED IN THE KARVIVAD SCHEME. THERE IS NO EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY AS TO WHY THE FACTS OF DISPUTE WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE INCOME-T AX RETURN. THE ENTIRE CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF GOODS HAS TO BE TREATED AS U NACCOUNTED SALES SINCE THE TRADING ACCOUNTS OF THE RELEVANT YEARS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CLOSED IF THE UNACCOUNTED SALES ARE ADDED TO THE TRADING ACCOUNTI NG OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THERE WILL BE INCREASE OF PROFIT TO THE EX TENT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. HENCE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF UNAC COUNTED SALES IS TO BE ASSESSED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE GO ODS. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SURJIT SINGH CHHABRA VS. UNION OF INDIA REP ORTED IN AIR 1997 SC 2560. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CIT [A] CLEARLY OBSERVED THAT SOME OF THE ITEMS IN THE STOCK STATEM ENT ALONG WITH THEIR QUANTITY VALUE IS BEING REPEATED AT BOTH THE PLACE S I.E. RAW MATERIALS AS WELL AS FINISHED GOODS. ACCORDING TO CIT [A] THE STATE MENT OF EXCESS/SHORTAGE OF STOCK CLEARLY REFLECTS HASTE IN ITS PREPARATION AND CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON. THE CIT [A] ANALYZED THE STATEMENT AND FOUND THAT THERE WERE SOME ARITHMETICAL ERRORS ALSO. HENCE THE STATEMENT CONTAINING SHORTAGE S/EXCESS STOCK CAN NOT BE IT(SS)A 43 & 77/HYD/2005 RISHAB POLYMERS PVT. LTD. HYD. 7 RELIED UPON. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE IN VESTMENT IN STOCK OUT SIDE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE VALUE OF EXCESS OF FINISHED GOODS OVER RAW MATERIALS SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND THE SAME HAS TO BE TELESCOPED AGAINST THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. WE ARE ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT [A] THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE EARNED PROFIT EQUAL TO THE ENTIR E UNDISCLOSED SALE PROCEEDS. THE CIT [A] IS JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING A PROFIT OF 11% ON UNACCOUNTED SALES AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED BEFOR E US BY WAY OF FILING A PAPER BOOK IN PARTICULAR AT PAGES AT 68 AND 74 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION OF SALE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT IS ONLY AT RS.2 39 822 FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1996-97 AND RS.5 77 328 FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98. HENCE THE TOTAL UNACCOUNTED SALES FOR THE BLOCK PER IOD SHOULD BE TAKEN AS RS.8 17 150. HENCE THE INCOME AT 11% OF THE SAID A MOUNT OF RS.8 17 150 IS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE ENTIRE BLOCK PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. AT THE SAM E TIME WE FIND THAT THE CIT [A] CLEARLY DETERMINED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE VALUE OF EXCESS STOCK OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS AT RS.2 62 430/- WHICH IS HIG HER THAN THE ESTIMATED UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO BE ARRIVED ON UNACCOUNTED SA LES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND HENCE WE FEEL IT PROPER AND JUST TO BRING THE VALUE OF EXCESS STOCK OF RS.2 62 430/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD IS DETERMINED AT RS.2 62 430/- INSTEAD OF RS.4 38 951 AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT [A]. THERE WAS NO ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUNDS RAISED WITH REGARD TO SURCHARGE AND THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. HENCE THE GROUND RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO SURCHARGE IS DISMISSED AS SUCH. IT(SS)A 43 & 77/HYD/2005 RISHAB POLYMERS PVT. LTD. HYD. 8 8 IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED WHILE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10- 12- 2010. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S. GANESAN) (AKBER BASHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 10-12-2010. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. JASRAJ & CO. ADVOCATES 15-8-511/73 II ND FLOOR FEELKHANA HYDERABAD. 2. 3. 4. ACIT CIRCLE-2(1) HYDERABAD. CIT (A)-III HYDERABAD. CIT AP HYDERABAD. 5. THE D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD JMR* IT(SS)A 43 & 77/HYD/2005 RISHAB POLYMERS PVT. LTD. HYD. 9