आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1067, 1068, 1071 and 1072/Hyd/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2019-20 and 2020-21 MSN Life Sciences Private Vs. The Assistant Limited, Commissioner of Income Hyderabad. Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad.

[PAN :AACCV1325N]

(Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA No.1123/Hyd/2024 Assessment Years: 2020-21 The Assistant MSN Life Sciences Private Commissioner of Income Limited, Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad.

Hyderabad.

[PAN :AACCV1325N]

(Respondent) (Appellant)

Assessee by: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. and Shri K.S. Rajendra Kumar.

Revenue by: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR.

Date of hearing: 23.12.2024 Date of pronouncement: 04.02.2025

O R D E R

PER BENCH :

The appeals of the assessee for A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2019-20 and 2020-21 arise from the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, dated 22.08.2024, dt.27.09.2014 dt.13.09.2024 and dt.19.08.2024, respectively. The Revenue filed cross appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 only. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common but for the figures, for the sake of convenience, these five appeals were heard together and are being disposed of, by this consolidated order.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.1067/Hyd/2024 for A.Y. 2013-14 read as under :

“1.The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous on the facts of the case and contrary to the provisions of law.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing the claim of additional deduction of expenditure of Rs.13,30,291/- as evidenced by the entries of cash outflows in the names of the employees found in the seized material against the gross unaccounted cash receipts from sale of spent solvents and scrap of Rs.35,29,191/- for arriving at the real income thereon.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to consider the notarized affidavits of the employees and labour contractors furnished as additional evidence which substantiate the additional claim of expenditure towards labour payments by corroborating and supplementing the entries of cash outflows in the names of the employees found in the seized material.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction of expenditure to the extent of Rs.3,52,920/- only on estimate basis at 10% of the gross unaccounted cash receipts from sale of spent solvents and scrap.”

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the LD.CIT(A) erred in law in holding that the Assessing Officer has validly assumed jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act though the satisfaction note recorded by him omitted to provide any justification for reaching the conclusion that the income escaping assessment, being the unaccounted income from sale of spent solvents, is represented in the form of an asset, which is a mandatory condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 153A for assessment years falling beyond six assessment years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted as per the fourth proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act.”

2.1. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.1123/Hyd/2024 for A.Y. 2020-21 read as under :

“1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred both on facts and in law in granting relief to the assessee

2. The CIT(A) erred in reducing the income returned u/s 153A of the Act by allowing 10% of gross amount realized on sale of spent solvent.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief of 10% on sale of spent solvent towards unsubstantiated alleged payments to workers for handling hazardous waste in the absence of demonstrable contemporaneous evidence.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that 150% of the purchases were treated as trade advances in view of the CBDT Circular No. 19/2017 and the balance positive bal