Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
M/S Chitta Farms Pvt Ltd.,, Hyderabad vs Assessee on 10 October, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES "B" : HYDERABAD
BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA.No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent
M/s. Satabisha Agro
482/Hyd/2014 P. Ltd., Hyderabad Income Tax
PAN AAHCS1693K Officer,
(OSD)-3,
M/s. SRSR Estates Central Range-
483/Hyd/2014 P. Ltd., Hyderabad 1, Hyderabad.
PAN AAECS3693J
M/s. Danishta Bio- ACIT (OSD),
484/Hyd/2014 Tech P. Ltd., Central Range-
Hyderabad 1, Hyderabad.
PAN AABCD7534J
M/s. Chitta Farms P. ACIT, Central
489/Hyd/2014 Ltd., Hyderabad Circle-1,
PAN AAECC1176E Hyderabad.
2002-03 M/s. Anuradha Income Tax
492/Hyd/2014 Greenlandds P. Ltd., Officer (OSD)-
Hyderabad 3, Central
PAN AAECA1845N Range-1,
Hyderabad.
M/s. Rohini ACIT, Central
493/Hyd/2014 Greenlands P. Ltd., Circle-1,
Hyderabad Hyderabad.
PAN AACCR4354B
M/s. Coast Line ACIT (OSD),
495/Hyd/2014 Greenlands P. Ltd., Central Range-
Hyderabad. 1, Hyderabad.
PAN AABCC5529J
M/s. Uttarashada ITO (OSD)-3,
496/Hyd/2014 Greenlands P. Ltd., Central Range-
Hyderabad. 1, Hyderabad.
PAN AAACU 6108L
2
ITA.No. 482 to 484/H/2014, 489/H/2014,
492 & 493/H/2014, 495 to 497/H/2014,
519 to 524/Hyd/2014 M/s. Satabisha Agro
Private Ltd., etc., Hyderabad
497/Hyd/2014 2002-03 M/s. Parasnath ITO (OSD)-3,
Greenlands P. Ltd., Central Range-
Hyderabad 1, Hyderabad.
PAN AAACP1717E
ITA.No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent
M/s. Parasnath
519/Hyd/2014 Greenlands P. Ltd.,
Hyderabad.
PAN AAACP1717E
M/s. Anuradha
520/Hyd/2014 Greenlands P. Ltd.,
Hyderabad.
PAN AAECA1845N
2002-03 DCIT, M/s. Uttarashada
521/Hyd/2014 Central Greenlands P. Ltd.,
Hyderabad.
Circle-9, PAN AAACU6108L
Hyderabad.
M/s. Coastline
522/Hyd/2014 Greenlands P. Ltd.,
Hyderabad.
PAN AABCC5529J
M/s. Dhanishta Bio-
523/Hyd/2014 Tech P. Ltd.,
Hyderabad.
PAN AABCD 7534J
M/s. Satabisha Agro
524/Hyd/2014 P. Ltd., Hyderabad.
PAN AAHCS 1693K
For Assessee Mr. K.C. Devdas
For Revenue Mr. Y.V.S.T. Sai
3
ITA.No. 482 to 484/H/2014, 489/H/2014,
492 & 493/H/2014, 495 to 497/H/2014,
519 to 524/Hyd/2014 M/s. Satabisha Agro
Private Ltd., etc., Hyderabad
Date of Hearing 25.09.2014
Date of Pronouncement 10.10.2014
ORDER
PER BENCH These cross-appeals preferred by Assessee and Revenue are directed against the seperate but identical Orders of the CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad dated 30.12.2013 for the assessment year 2002-2003. Revenue has not preferred its appeals in the cases of M/s. SRSR Estates P. Ltd., M/s. Chitta Farms P. Ltd., M/s. Rohini Greenlands P. Ltd., vide I.T.A. No. 483, 489 and 493/Hyd/2014. Since, issues raised in these appeals are common and pertain to the group of cases of Satyam Computer Services Limited, these appeals are heard together and disposed off by this common order.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel and the learned D.R. For the sake of reference, appeal in the case of M/s. Satabisha Agro P. Ltd., in ITA.No. 482/Hyd/2014 is discussed in detail.
ITA.No.482/Hyd/2014 :
3. Briefly stated, assessee company in the business of agriculture and allied activities, filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2002-03 on 31.10.2002. An initial notice u/s.143(2) was issued to assessee which resulted in filing of revised return of income on 09.12.2003 increasing its income to Rs.17,16,010. The assessment was completed by the A.O. u/s.143(3) by order dt.28.02.2005 assessing the income at Rs.17,70,346 making a disallowance of Rs.54,336 towards the claim of depreciation on the tractor.
4ITA.No. 482 to 484/H/2014, 489/H/2014, 492 & 493/H/2014, 495 to 497/H/2014, 519 to 524/Hyd/2014 M/s. Satabisha Agro Private Ltd., etc., Hyderabad 3.1. On 7.01.2009 Shri B. Ramalinga Raju, the then Chairman of Satyam Computers Ltd. confessed to having fudged the accounts of that Company over the last so many years with an intention to defraud the public at large. Shri B. Ramalinga Raju and his family members have floated more than 350 companies and Assessee-company is one of them. As per the annual report of Assessee-company for the year 2001-02, Smt. B. Jhansi Rani and Sri N. Rama Raju were its Directors. The effective share-holders and the controlling Directors in all the 350 plus companies are the family members of Sri B. Ramalinga Raju. With this scenario in back ground, the cases already centralized with the ITO (OSD), Central Range-1, Hyderabad and the present case was re-opened on the reason that the fudging of accounts by Sri B. Ramalinga Raju would have a direct impact on the case and Revenues recorded and the expenditure debited in this case are manipulated to evade Income Tax. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act dated 26.3.2009 was issued which was served on Assessee on the same date. In response to the notice, Assessee filed a return on 26.05.2009. The total income as per the return was Rs. 17,16,010.
3.2. Assessee objected to issue of notice under section 148 stating that the assessment cannot be reopened after expiry of 4 years unless there is omission or failure on the part of Assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment. It was further submitted that there is no record or evidence that any income of Assessee was siphoned off nor there is any evidence that any particular income has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer however, rejected the contention and examined the accounts which were already accepted under section 143(3), thereby making additions of investments made in the land, 5 ITA.No. 482 to 484/H/2014, 489/H/2014, 492 & 493/H/2014, 495 to 497/H/2014, 519 to 524/Hyd/2014 M/s. Satabisha Agro Private Ltd., etc., Hyderabad credits in the bank account, unsecured loans and addition to fixed assets thereby both the credits and debits have been brought to tax as income as against the income returned in the order under section 143(3) and the total income was determined at Rs.1,03,01,244.
4. Assessee objected before the CIT(A) to the reopening of the assessment on the ground that the provisions of section 148 have been wrongly invoked and accordingly, reopening is not valid in law. Assessee also claimed before the Ld. CIT(A) with respect to the other additions made by A.O. such as denial of expenditure claim of an amount of Rs.41,37,459, difference between bank statement at Rs.1,07,467, addition on account of unsecured loans of Rs.42,85,972, depreciation on tractor of Rs.54,326 and levy of interest under section 234A and 234B of an amount of Rs.43,540 and Rs.12,84,434.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) having considered the submissions of the Authorized Representative and also the observation of the Assessing Officer, opined that the Assessing Officer had a reason to believe that there is an escapement of income, and hence, the reopening of assessment made by A.O. is in order. Therefore, the objection raised by Assessee is rejected and dismissed the ground of Assessee. However, he gave partial relief on the additions made.
6. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), Assessee is in appeal before us and have raised the following common grounds among other individual grounds :
6ITA.No. 482 to 484/H/2014, 489/H/2014, 492 & 493/H/2014, 495 to 497/H/2014, 519 to 524/Hyd/2014 M/s. Satabisha Agro Private Ltd., etc., Hyderabad "1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-
VII, Hyderabad in sustaining the assessment made under section 143 read with 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is unsustainable both on facts and in law.
2.
(i) The learned CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad, failed to note that the opinion formed by the Income Tax Officer and the recording of reasons before the issue of Notice u/s. 148 had absolutely no nexus with the issue of the reopening of the assessment and framing of the assessment and therefore, the issue of Notice u/s. 148 and the assessment made thereon is invalid, without jurisdiction, unsustainable and needs to be quashed.
(ii) The learned CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad, erred in holding that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to reopen the assessment of the appellant company to examine the veracities and financial implication between the appellant company and M/s. Satyam Computers Services Ltd.
(iii) The learned CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad failed to note that an assessment made u/s. 143(3) cannot be reopened u/s. 148 beyond a period of four years as there is no failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all the material facts relevant for the assessment made originally and therefore ought to have quashed the reassessment proceedings.
(iv) The learned CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad failed to note that the Assessing Officer had no tangible material to come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income from the original assessment and therefore the issue of notice u/s.148 and the assessment made thereon is 7 ITA.No. 482 to 484/H/2014, 489/H/2014, 492 & 493/H/2014, 495 to 497/H/2014, 519 to 524/Hyd/2014 M/s. Satabisha Agro Private Ltd., etc., Hyderabad invalid, without jurisdiction and therefore must be quashed.
3. The learned CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad failed to note that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the reasons recorded ought to have noticed from the records that the entire reopening of the assessment was under the direction of superior officers and therefore the entire assessment suffers from legal infirmity and is totally contrary to the statutory provisions and hence must be quashed.
4. The learned CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad, failed to note that the Assessing Officer was fully aware of the existence of the companies which were not fictitious companies and neither their existence or their identity was under
dispute and therefore on the mere statement of Sri B. Ramalinga Raju, Ex.Chairman of M/s. SCSL, cannot be the basis to reopen without there being any material or any information having a direct link to the appellant company and therefore, the issue of notice u/s. 148 and the assessment made thereon is invalid, without jurisdiction and therefore must be quashed.
5. The learned CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad, failed to note that there was no rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief and the inescapable conclusion is that the ITO did not have reason to believe that any part of the income had escaped assessment and such escapement was by reason of the omission or the failure on the part of Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and therefore the Notice issued u/s. 148 to reassess the appellant's is to be struck down as invalid and much so the reassessment.
8ITA.No. 482 to 484/H/2014, 489/H/2014, 492 & 493/H/2014, 495 to 497/H/2014, 519 to 524/Hyd/2014 M/s. Satabisha Agro Private Ltd., etc., Hyderabad
6. The order of the CIT(A) in assessing the interest income under the head "Income from other sources" which was accepted in the original assessment as assessable under the head "Business" is unsustainable both on facts and in law.
7. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that there was direct and substantial nexus between interest receipts and payments and therefore erred in holding that the gross interest was assessable ignoring the interest payment.
8. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) in not allowing service charges claimed at Rs.25,000 as an expenditure u/s.37(1) of the I.T. Act of 1961 is unsustainable in law.
9. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the interest expenditure of Rs.40,77,057 would go towards addition of cost of the assets and could not be deducted against interest income.
10. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that the Vehicle Road Tax expenses at Rs.4,306 should be added to the cost of the asset of the vehicle is unsustainable in law.
11. The order of the CIT(A) in disallowing the Tractor Maintenance Expense at Rs.8,656 and depreciation of Tractor at Rs.54,336 is unsustainable in law.
12. Without prejudice to any of the aforesaid grounds the Ld. CIT(A)-VII, Hyderabad, having found that no specific additions were made on the basis of reasons recorded ought to have held that none of the additions mentioned in the preceding ground could be made and therefore ought to have deleted the entire additions mentioned in ground Nos. 6 and 7.
9ITA.No. 482 to 484/H/2014, 489/H/2014, 492 & 493/H/2014, 495 to 497/H/2014, 519 to 524/Hyd/2014 M/s. Satabisha Agro Private Ltd., etc., Hyderabad
13. The appellant denies its liability to be assessed to the levy of interest u/s.234A and 234B.
14. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing."
7. The learned Counsel for Assessee Shri K.C. Devidas reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for Assessee relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rohini Biotech (P) Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ITO (OSD)-2 and others, Central Range-1, Hyderabad in ITA.No.1233/Hyd/2011 for the A.Y. 2002- 03 dated 31.12.2013.
8. The learned D.R. relied on the Order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the reply given by the Assessing Officer for reopening under section 147 is exhaustive and reiterated the same. He relied on the orders of AO and CIT(A) on the issue.
9. We have heard both the parties. We find that the assessment has already been completed under section 143(3) after scrutiny which has become final. Therefore reopening the assessment after four years from the end of assessment year can only be done only when there is failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts of any particulars of income. AO did not allege anything of that sort. Therefore disallowing the expenditure claims and bringing to tax credits which were accepted in the assessment earlier comes within the domain of 'change of opinion'. For the concept of change of opinion, the Supreme Court has held in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 as follows :
10ITA.No. 482 to 484/H/2014, 489/H/2014, 492 & 493/H/2014, 495 to 497/H/2014, 519 to 524/Hyd/2014 M/s. Satabisha Agro Private Ltd., etc., Hyderabad "The concept of "change of opinion" on the part of the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment does not stand obliterated after the substitution of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Acts, 1987 and 1989. After the amendment, the Assessing Officer has to have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, but this does not imply that the Assessing Officer can reopen an assessment on mere change of opinion.
The concept of "change of opinion" must be treated as an in- built test to check the abuse of power. Hence, after April 1, 1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen an assessment, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income from assessment. Reason must have a link with the formation of the belief. Decisions of the Delhi High Court in Cit v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (FB) and CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 affirmed."
"147. Income escaping assessment.--If the AO has reason to believe that any income me chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of ss. 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in ss. 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)."
After the Amending Act, 1989, s. 147 reads as under :
4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to s. 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could be done under above two conditions and fulfillment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the AO to make a back assessment, but in s. 147 of the Act (w.e.f. 1st April, 1989), they are given a go by and only one condition has remained, viz., that where the AO has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Therefore, post 1st April, 1989, power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, we are afraid, s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of 11 ITA.No. 482 to 484/H/2014, 489/H/2014, 492 & 493/H/2014, 495 to 497/H/2014, 519 to 524/Hyd/2014 M/s. Satabisha Agro Private Ltd., etc., Hyderabad opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The AO has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of "change of opinion" as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the AO. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, AO has power to reopen, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to s. 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove.
Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not only deleted the words "reason to believe" but also inserted the word "opinion" in s. 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the companies against omission of the words "reason to believe", Parliament re- introduced the said expression and deleted the word "opinion" on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the AO. We quote hereinbelow the relevant portion of Circular No. 549, dt. 31st Oct., 1989 [(1990) 82 CTR (St) 1], which reads as follows :
"7.2 Amendment made by the Amending Act, 1989, to re- introduce the expression 'reason to believe' in s. 147. A number of representations were received against the omission of the words 'reason to believe' from s. 147 and their substitution by the 'opinion' of the AO. It was pointed out that the meaning of the expression, 'reason to believe' had been explained in a number of Court rulings in the past and was well settled and its omission from s. 147 would give arbitrary powers to the AO to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion. To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989, has again amended s. 147 to reintroduce the expression 'has reason to believe' in place of the words 'for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion'. Other provisions of the new s. 147, however, remain the same."
5. For the afore-stated reasons, we see no merit in these civil appeals filed by the Department, hence, dismissed with no order as to costs 12 ITA.No. 482 to 484/H/2014, 489/H/2014, 492 & 493/H/2014, 495 to 497/H/2014, 519 to 524/Hyd/2014 M/s. Satabisha Agro Private Ltd., etc., Hyderabad
10. We also find that CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to reopen the assessment of Assessee-company to examine the veracities and financial implications between Assessee-company and M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited. We find there is no rationale nexus with such statement by Sri Ramalinga Raju and reassessment made. As seen from the order of AO even though the assessment was reopened to examine the transaction between M/s Satyam computers and assessee, no such exercise was undertaken and no findings were given on that issue. The additions made are routine disallowances out of already allowed expenditure in original assessment. There is no nexus between the reasons recorded and additions made in the guise of escapement of income. We rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Saran & Sons P. Ltd. vs. ITO and others 130 ITR 1 (SC) for the proposition that if there is no rational nexus between the "reasons" and the "belief", so that on such reasons the A.O. cannot have reason to believe that any part of the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and such escapement was by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the notice issued by the A.O. is to be struck as invalid. As there is no rational nexus between the "reasons" and the "belief", and on such reasons the A.O. cannot have reason to believe that any part of the income of Assessee has escaped assessment and such escapement was by reason of omission or failure on the part of Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the notice issued by the A.O. is to be struck down as invalid. The Assessing Officer had no tangible material to come to the conclusion that there was 13 ITA.No. 482 to 484/H/2014, 489/H/2014, 492 & 493/H/2014, 495 to 497/H/2014, 519 to 524/Hyd/2014 M/s. Satabisha Agro Private Ltd., etc., Hyderabad escapement of income from the original assessment. The assessment made under sec. 143(3) has been wrongly reopened under sec. 147 beyond period of 4 years, as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts in the original assessment itself. The reopening was on wrong foundation of reasoning of the financial implication between the assessee-company and M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited, which was not established in the reassessment to justify the reopening.
11. Thus, there being no nexus or live-link with the reasons recorded and the 'formation of belief' to come to a conclusion that there was escapement of income and also since the assessment has been reopened beyond the period of 4 years when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts in the original assessment itself, and there being 'no tangible material' for the reopening of the assessment, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, hold that the reopening of the assessment under section 147 is bad in law and is to be quashed.
12. On similar facts in the group cases of M/s. Rohini Biotech (P) Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ITO (OSD)-2, Central Range-1, Hyderabad in ITA.No.1233/Hyd/2011 for the A.Y. 2002-03 dated 31.12.2013, coordinate bench has analysed the legal propositions and facts and came to following conclusions vide Paras 18 and 19 as under.
14ITA.No. 482 to 484/H/2014, 489/H/2014, 492 & 493/H/2014, 495 to 497/H/2014, 519 to 524/Hyd/2014 M/s. Satabisha Agro Private Ltd., etc., Hyderabad
18. To conclude,
(i) The recording of reasons before the issue of notice under section 148 has absolutely no nexus with the assessment made.
(ii) That the assessment made under sec.143(3) cannot be reopened under sec. 148 beyond period of 4 years as there is no failure on the part of Assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts in the original assessment itself.
(iii) The Assessing Officer had no tangible material to come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income from the original assessment.
(iv) The reopening was on wrong foundation of reasoning of the financial implication between Assessee-company and M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited, which was not established in the reassessment to justify the reopening.
(v) As can be seen from the assessment order, the assessment completed has no relation at all with the reasons for reopening. Even though assessee belongs to Satyam Group of Companies, there is no evidence of siphoning of funds or escapement of income. What the Assessing Officer has done in the assessment is denial of the explanations given by Assessee with reference to various investments made through the books of accounts, various credits and loans obtained and also addition to fixed assets on the reason that the evidences have not been filed. Thus as can be seen from the order, there is no 15 ITA.No. 482 to 484/H/2014, 489/H/2014, 492 & 493/H/2014, 495 to 497/H/2014, 519 to 524/Hyd/2014 M/s. Satabisha Agro Private Ltd., etc., Hyderabad nexus at all with reference to the reasons for reopening and the assessment completed.
19. Hence, there being no nexus or live-link with the reasons recorded and the 'formation of belief' to come to a conclusion that there was escapement of income and also since the assessment has been reopened beyond the period of 4 years when there is no failure on the part of Assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts in the original assessment itself, and there being 'no tangible material' for the reopening of the assessment, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, hold that the reopening of the jurisdiction under section 147 is bad in law and is to be quashed.
13. Following the principles on the above issue, as discussed and the facts as concluded above in paras No.18 and 19 in the above case, we allow assessee's grounds on the issue of reopening raised before us from grounds 1 to 5. Since, we have allowed Assessee's grounds on grounds 1 to 5, the other grounds on merits of the additions does not require any consideration as they become academic in nature. Accordingly, we allow the appeal ITA.No.482/Hyd/2014 of Assessee.
ITA.No. 483/Hyd/2014 ITA.No.484/HYD/2014 ITA.No.489/Hyd/2014 ITA.No.492/Hyd/2014 ITA.No.493/Hyd/2014 ITA.No.495/Hyd/2014 ITA.No.496/Hyd/2014 ITA.No.497/Hyd/2014 16ITA.No. 482 to 484/H/2014, 489/H/2014, 492 & 493/H/2014, 495 to 497/H/2014, 519 to 524/Hyd/2014 M/s. Satabisha Agro Private Ltd., etc., Hyderabad
14. In these appeals the facts are similar and the assessment completed by the Assessing Officer is similar and the contentions of the parties are also similar. For the detailed discussion made in the above appeal ITA.482/Hyd/2014, we allow the appeals of Assessee from grounds 1 to 5 and treat the other grounds on various additions as academic in nature. The appeals are allowed.
Revenue Appeals :
ITA.No.519/Hyd/2014 ITA.No.520/Hyd/2014 ITA.No.521/Hyd/2014 ITA.No.522/Hyd/2014 ITA.No.523/Hyd/2014 ITA.No.524/Hyd/201415. The only issue raised in all the above Revenue Appeals is that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any opportunity to A.O. for verification of the fresh evidence produced before him during the appellate proceedings. First of all, there is no merit in Revenue contention as the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted mostly I.T. returns and enclosures/ statements which cannot be considered as fresh evidence as they are already available with the A.O. Moreover, since the reopening itself is considered as bad in law in assessee's appeals, there is no need to consider/adjudicate Revenue contentions. Accordingly, we find no merit in Revenue grounds and they are dismissed.
16. In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed.
17ITA.No. 482 to 484/H/2014, 489/H/2014, 492 & 493/H/2014, 495 to 497/H/2014, 519 to 524/Hyd/2014 M/s. Satabisha Agro Private Ltd., etc., Hyderabad
17. To sum-up, ITA.No.482, 483, 484, 489, 492, 493, 495, 496 and 497/Hyd/2014 of Assessee are allowed and ITA.No. 519, 520, 521, 522, 523 and 524/Hyd/2014 of Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.10.2014.
Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 10th October, 2014 VBP/- Copy to
1. M/s. Satabisha Agro P. Ltd., Plot No.80, Road No.9, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.
2. M/s. SRSR Estates P. Ltd., Plot No.80, Road No.9, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.
3. M/s. Danishta Bio-Tech P. Ltd., Plot No.80, Road No.9, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.
4. M/s. Chitta Farms P. Ltd., Plot No.80, Road No.9, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.
5. M/s. Anuradha Greenlands P. Ltd., Plot No.80, Road No.9, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.
6. M/s. Rohini Greenlands P. Ltd., Plot No.80, Road No.9, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.
7. M/s. Coast Line Greenlands P. Ltd., Plot No.80, Road No.9, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.
8. M/s. Uttarashada Greenlands P. Ltd., Plot No.80, Road No.9, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.
9. M/s. Parasnath Greenlands P. Ltd., Plot No.80, Road No.9, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.
10. The Income Tax Officer (OSD)-3, Central Range-1, 7th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad.
11. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-VII, Hyderabad. + 8 copies
12. CIT (Central), Hyderabad
13. D.R. "B" Bench, ITAT, Hyderabad.