Fair Field Developments Limited, Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , International Taxation-1, Hyderabad

CO 20/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2635 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHAN SURANA; SIDDHARTH SURANA
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Tax effect; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO 2229 OF 2017 AND CO 20 OF 2018 FAIR FIELD DE VELOPMENTS LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2229/HYD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (I.T.)-1 HYDERABAD VS M/S. FAIR FIELD DEVELOPMENTS LTD HYDERABAD PAN:AABCF3158N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.20/HYD/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2229/HYD/2017) A.Y. 2011-12 M/S. FAIR FIELD DEVELOPMENTS LTD HYDERABAD PAN:AABCF3158N VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (I.T.)-1 HYDERABAD (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SHRI NILANJAN DEY, DR FOR ASSESSEE: SHRI AKSHAN SURANA & SIDDHARTH SURANA O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE CIT (A)-V, HYDERABAD DATED 16.06.2014 FOR THE A .Y 2011-12 WHEREAS THE C.O IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. DATE OF HEARING: 08.04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 12.06.2019 ITA NO 2229 OF 2017 AND CO 20 OF 2018 FAIR FIELD DE VELOPMENTS LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 10 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS SEEN THAT THE REVENUES APP EAL IS FILED WITH A DELAY OF 1159 DAYS AND AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS FILED. IN THE APPLICATION FILED INITIAL LY FOR THE CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE REVENUE HAD STATED THAT T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 27.03.2014 AND AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) WHICH WAS DISPOSED OFF VIDE ORDER DATED 16. 06.2014 ALONG WITH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT ( IT & TP) HYDERABAD ON 25.08.2014 AND THAT THE DUE DATE OF FI LING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT WAS 25.10.2014. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT THE AO HAD RECOMMENDED FOR FILING OF FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTIONS U/S 253(2) OF THE ACT WERE I SSUED VIDE ORDERS DATED 16.10.2014. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE DI RECTIONS WERE DULY FORWARDED TO THE AO AND THE RANGE HEAD OFFICE, HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE ITAT WITHIN THE DUE D ATE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR 2014, CADRE RESTRUCT URING OF THE I.T. DEPTT. HAD TAKEN PLACE WHICH RESULTED IN A DRA STIC CHANGE IN THE JURISDICTION OF VARIOUS OFFICES AT HYDERABAD AN D THIS LED TO LARGE CROSS-MOVEMENT OF FILES AND FOLDERS ACROSS VA RIOUS OFFICES AND THERE WAS LOSS OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE OFF ICERS OF THE I.T. DEPARTMENT DIRECTLY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED AFTER A DELAY OF 1154 DAYS AND PRAYED FOR CON DONATION OF APPEAL. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THIS CONDONATION OF DELAY WHEN THE MATTER WAS HEARD ON 2 0.11.2018 AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK SERIO US OBJECTIONS TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPLICATION ITA NO 2229 OF 2017 AND CO 20 OF 2018 FAIR FIELD DE VELOPMENTS LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 10 FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS INCOMPLETE AS IT DOES NOT GIVE ANY DETAILS, SUCH AS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MIS PLACEMENT OF THE FILE, ACTION TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST SU CH PERSON AND AS TO WHEN THE FILE WAS MISPLACED ETC., HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE TRIGGER POINT FOR FILING OF THIS APPEAL BY THE REVE NUE WITH A DELAY OF 1159 DAYS WAS THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE A.Y 2014-15 AND NOT THE REASONS STATED BY THE DEPAR TMENT IN THE APPLICATION FILED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE LEA RNED DR AT THAT POINT OF TIME SOUGHT TIME TO FILE THE CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS REGARDING THE DELAY OF 1159 DAYS AND ON 26.12.2017 HE FILED D ETAILED EXPLANATION FOR FILING THE APPEAL WITH A DELAY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO GO THROUGH AND SOUGHT TI ME AND ACCORDINGLY THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TILL TODAY. 4. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AO I.E. DY. CIT-I(IT&TP) VIDE LETTER DATED 28.1 1.2018 STATING THAT THE RELEVANT CIT I.E. DY. DIT WAS HOLDING THRE E CHARGES DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD AND ALSO THAT THE FILE H AD GOT MISPLACED DUE TO CADRE RESTRUCTURING OF THE I.T. DEPARTMENT A ND MOVEMENT OF FILES FROM ONE OFFICE TO OTHER. HE, THEREFORE, P RAYED THAT THE DELAY OF 1159 DAYS BE CONDONED AND APPEAL BE DISPOS ED OF ON MERIT. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTH ER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON' BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS. VIDARBHA VE NEER INDUSTRIES REPORTED IN (1994) SCC, SUPL.(2)696 DATED 13.08.199 3 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT TOOK NOTE OF SIMILAR REAS ONS GIVEN ITA NO 2229 OF 2017 AND CO 20 OF 2018 FAIR FIELD DE VELOPMENTS LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 4 OF 10 THEREIN THAT THE RELEVANT FILE WAS MISPLACED FOR QU ITE SOMETIME IN THE OFFICE OF THE CENTRAL AGENCY AND THAT THE SLP W AS FILED FOR SOME DELAY, EVEN THOUGH THE FILE COULD NOT BE TRACE D. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY TO INDICATE THE ACTION WAS TAKEN TO FIND OUT HOW THE FILE GOT MISPLACED OR TO FIX THE RESPON SIBILITY ON THE PERSON WHO SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE SAME. THER EFORE, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY. HE HAS FILED BEFORE US THE INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING THE STANDARD O PERATING PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT AND HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE PROCEDURES TO KEEP TRACK OF THE FILE FOR FILING OF THE APPEAL AND PURSUING THE SAME BEFORE THE ITAT. HE HAS ALSO FILED A DETAILED CHART ON THE VARIOUS PROCEDURES WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED B Y THE DEPARTMENT EVEN IN THE ASSESSEES CASE AND SUBMITTE D THAT THERE IS CLEAR DERELICTION OF THE DUTY BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THAT THE DELAY IS CLEARLY WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THE INORDINATE DELAY OF 1159 DAYS IN FILI NG OF THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED. HE ALSO REITERATED THE SUBM ISSIONS THAT THE AO FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A ) ONLY WITH AN INTENT TO THE ANTICIPATED BENEFIT FOR REVENUE DUE T O SUBSTANTIAL TAX EFFECT ARISING IN THE YEAR 2014-15. 6. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE REVENUE IS EXPLAINING, THE CADRE RESTRUCTURING IN THE DEPARTME NT AND ALSO HOLDING OF DIFFERENT CHARGES BY THE DY.CIT (IT) DUR ING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, AS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR MISPLACEMENT OF T HE FILES AND RETRACING AFTER A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS NECESSITATING THE FILING OF THE ITA NO 2229 OF 2017 AND CO 20 OF 2018 FAIR FIELD DE VELOPMENTS LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 5 OF 10 APPEAL WITH A DELAY OF 1159 DAYS. WE FIND THAT THE FACT OF THE CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNI ON OF INDIA VS. VIDARBHA VENEER INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) ARE SLIGHTLY DIF FERENT AS IN THAT CASE, THE PETITIONERS COULD NOT GIVE A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR MISPLACEMENT OF THE FILES AND IT WAS IN THOSE CIRCU MSTANCES, THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS FAILED TO FIND OUT AND HOW THE FILE GOT MISPLACED AND TO FIX THE RESPONSIBILITY ON SOMEONE AND WHO SHOULD BE ACCOUNT ABLE, WHILE IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE CADRE RESTRUCTURING, THE CROSS- MOVEMENT OF FILES FROM ONE LOCATION TO ANOTHER ARE THE REASON GIVEN FOR THE DELAY. BEING A HUGE DEPARTMENT, ALL T HE STANDARD PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN AND ALL THE OFFICERS ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE SAME AND MAINTAIN THE FILES ACCORDING LY. THE LEARNED CIT (DR) HAD SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A SINGLE CASE W HICH HAD GOT MISPLACED AND THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN DUE CAR E IN ALL THE CASES TO FILE THE APPEAL WITHOUT ANY DELAY. HE SUBM ITTED THAT IT WAS ONLY DUE TO THE HUGE WORKLOAD HOLDING OTHER CHA RGES AND IT ESCAPED THE ATTENTION AND IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE FIL E GOT TRACED OUT THAT THE APPEAL COULD BE FILED. WE FIND THIS CONTEN TION OF THE LEARNED DR TO BE ACCEPTABLE AND THE REASONS EXPLAIN ED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE SATISFACTORY. WE ALSO ACCEPT THE ASS ESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE PROCEEDINGS OF 2014-15 COULD BE TRIGGER POINT FOR TRACING OF THE FILE AND FILING OF THE APPEAL WI TH DELAY. HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT SHOULD NOT COME IN TH E WAY OF CONSIDERING THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DR. THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 1159 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFO RE THE ITAT. ITA NO 2229 OF 2017 AND CO 20 OF 2018 FAIR FIELD DE VELOPMENTS LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 6 OF 10 7. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS IN DEBENTURES OF RELA TED PARTIES AND HAD MADE INVESTMENTS IN DEBENTURES OF WATERMARK E RESIDENCY PRIVATE LTD AND HAD RECEIVED INTEREST ON THE INVESTMENT WHICH WAS ADMITTED AS INTEREST INCOME UNDER THE HEA D INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AS PER THE DETAILS FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE DEBENTURES ISSUED BY THE SUBSIDIARIES CARRIED INTEREST RATE OF 15.75%. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE INTEREST @ 15.75% CHARGED ON THE INVESTMENTS IN DEBENTURES OF THE TWO SUBSIDIARI ES. 8. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A NOTE WHEREIN I T WAS STATED THAT THE BOARD HAD DECIDED THE RATE OF INTER EST AT 15.75%. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF INTEREST CHARGED ON DEBENTURES OF VARIOUS COMPANIES, THE AVERAGE OF WHI CH WAS 11.20%. THE AO, OBSERVING THAT THE AVERAGE RATE OF INTEREST CHARGED IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES BY OTHER COMPANY W AS 11.20%, ADOPTED THE SAME AS REASONABLE RATE OF INTEREST AN D THE DIFFERENCE OF 4.55% WAS PROPOSED TO BE ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE AO ALSO CONSIDERED THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AN D CYPRUS AND OBSERVED THAT THE DTAA ALLOWS RECHARACTE RIZATION OF COSTS OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST, AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY, HE PASSED A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PRO POSING THE ADJUSTMENT OF INTEREST. AT THIS STAGE, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 20.03.2014 REQUESTING THE AO TO T AKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ATTACHED INFORMATION/DOCUMENT FIL ED BY THE ITA NO 2229 OF 2017 AND CO 20 OF 2018 FAIR FIELD DE VELOPMENTS LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 7 OF 10 ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEES REQUEST CANNOT BE ACCE PTED FOR THE REASON THAT NO NEW EVIDENCE CAN BE CONSIDERED AT TH E STAGE AFTER THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED AND THE ASSESS EE DID NOT PREFER TO FILE AN APPEAL/OR OBJECTIONS TO THE DRP. THEREFORE, FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) BY FILING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE HI M. THE CIT (A) ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND DIRECTED THE AO TO COMPUTE INTEREST @ 15.75% AS THE ARMS LENGTH RATE OF INTEREST. THEREAFTER, THE CIT (A) DIRECTED THE AO TO TAX THE INTEREST @10% AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 11(2) OF INDO-CYPRUS DTAA, WITHOUT INCLUDING THE SURCHARGE OR EDUCATION CESS. AGGRIEVE D, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS ON FAC TS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RATE OF INTEREST OF 15.75% PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF DEBENT URES OF ITS ASSOCIATE CONCERN M/S WATERMARKE RESIDENCY PRIVATE LTD, REPRESENTS ARMS LENGTH RATE OF INTERES T AND THERE IS NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLYING THE PROVISI ONS OF ARTICLE 11 (7) OF THE INDIA CYPRUS OT AA FOR TREATI NG PART OF THE INTEREST PAYMENT AS EXCESSIVE AND ASSESSING IT AS OTHER INCOME LIABLE FOR TAX AT 40%. 3. THE LO. CIT(A) ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVI DENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THOUGH THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED FOR SU CH ADMISSION IN RULE 46A(1) ARE NOT SATISFIED AND WITH OUT RECORDING HIS REASONS FOR ADMISSION AS REQUIRED UND ER RULE 46A (2) OF THE I.T RULES. 4. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPE LLATE PROCEEDINQS WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE SUCH EVIDENCES AND FUR NISH HIS REBUTTAL AS MANDATED UNDER RULE 46A (3) OF THE I.T. RULES. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN STATING THAT THE CASES R ELIED ON BY THE AO FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH RATE OF I NTEREST ITA NO 2229 OF 2017 AND CO 20 OF 2018 FAIR FIELD DE VELOPMENTS LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 8 OF 10 CANNOT BE TREATED AS COMPARABLE CASES ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH CASES HAVING HIGHER TURNOVER AND HIGHER CREDIT RATING IN COMPARISON TO THE ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ISSUED THE DEBENTURES, WITHOUT BRING ING ANY FACTS ON RECORD TO SUPPORT SUCH FINDING. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN STATING THAT THE ADDITIO NAL FIVE CASES OF INDIAN COMPANIES WHICH ISSUED DEBENTURES WHOSE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS REPRESENT COMPARAB LE CASES ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH CASES HAVING TURNOVER AND RISK PROFILE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISE OF THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT BRINING ANY FACTS ON RECORD TO SU PPORT SUCH FINDING. 7. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TAX T HE INTEREST INCOME UNDER ARTICLE 11 (2) OF OT AA @ 10% WITHOUT LEVYING ANY SURCHARGE AND EDUCATION CESS BY RELYING ON DECISIONS OF THE ITAT MUMBAI AND ITAT, KOLKOTA. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARRAKHAND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ARTHUSA OFFSHORE CO 169 TAXMAN 484 AND THE DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULIN G IN THE CASE OF AIR PORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA IN RE 299 ITR 102 AND HELD THAT SURCHARGE AND EDUCATION CESS ARE TO B E LEVIED IN ADDITION TO THE RATE OF TAX SPECIFIED IN THE DT AA FOR THE RELEVANT INCOME. 8. ANY OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 10. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ADDITIONAL DETAILS BEFORE THE CIT (A) BUT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CALLED FO R ANY REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO BUT HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION. THOUGH THE POWERS OF THE CIT (A) ARE CO-TERMINOUS W ITH THE AO, THE CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO VERIFY THE DETAILS HIMSEL F, NOR HAS HE CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE A O IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT THAT HE IS NOT CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE IT WAS FILED AFTER PASSING OF THE DRAFT ASS ESSMENT ORDER. THIS ACCEPTANCE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT GIVI NG THE AO AN OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE SAME CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF ITA NO 2229 OF 2017 AND CO 20 OF 2018 FAIR FIELD DE VELOPMENTS LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 9 OF 10 THE I.T. RULES. FURTHER, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN DEBENTURES WERE MADE IN RUPEES AND T HEREFORE, THE SBI PLR RATE SHOULD BE ADOPTED. WE FIND THAT ALL TH ESE CONTENTIONS NEED CONSIDERATION BY THE AO/TPO ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A). THERE FORE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF T HE AO/TPO FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLE SS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 11. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 12. WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION, THE C.O IS FILED WITH A DELAY OF 72 DAYS AND ON GOING THROU GH THE SAME, WE FIND THAT THE C.O IS ONLY IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER O F THE CIT (A). THEREFORE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED BUT THE C.O OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 13. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND THE C.O FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH JUNE, 2019. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 12 TH JUNE, 2019. VINODAN/SPS ITA NO 2229 OF 2017 AND CO 20 OF 2018 FAIR FIELD DE VELOPMENTS LTD HYDERABAD PAGE 10 OF 10 COPY TO: 1 DY. CIT-1 (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, OPP: LB STADIUM, HYDERABAD 500004 2 M/S. FAIRFIELD DEVELOPMENTS LTD, D.NO.8-2-293/82/ L/287A ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-V HYDERABAD 4 DIRECTOR (I.T. & T.P) HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER