Sri G.S.Prabhakar, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Hyderabad

CO 90/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5407 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Assessee Lawyers: K E SUNIL BABU
• Keywords: Business income; Audit objection; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1154/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1), HYDERABAD VS SHRI G.S. PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD (PAN AAPPG 6558 C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.90/HYD/2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1154/H/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 SHRI G.S. PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD (PAN AAPPG 6558 C) VS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.E. SUNIL BABU RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE TWO CROSS APPEALS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) VIJAYAWADA DATED 21.6.2010 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS U /S 148 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IS RESTRICTED ONLY TO ON WHICH GROUNDS TH E PROCEEDS WERE INITIATED, THOUGH THE PROVISIONS U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 GIVE LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY ANY POIN T DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS PER THE EXPLANATION 3 F OR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT UNDER THIS SECTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE, WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, AND SUCH ISSUE COMES TO THIS N OTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE REASONS FOR SUCH ISSUE HAV E NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE REASONS RECORDED UNDER SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 148 (INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 W.E.F. 1. 4.1989. ITA NO.1154/H/2010 SHRI GS PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD 2 2 3. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION: 1. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIO N OF THE CROSS OBJECTION/RESPONDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHO ULD HAVE DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT AT THE THRES HOLD ONCE THE RESPONDENT HAD PROVED THAT THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING ARE INCORRECT AND UNSUSTAINABLE. 2. THE APPELLATE IS INCORRECT IN RAISING THE GROUN D WITH RESPECT TO INSERTION OF EXPLANATION (3) TO SECTION 147 THAT IN AS MUCH AS THE SAID GROUND CAN BE RAISED ONLY WHERE THE ADDITION WAS MA DE BASED ON THE REASON FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT IS REOPENED. ONCE THE BASIC REASON FOR REOPENING PROVED TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE THE QUESTION O F MAKING ADDITION FOR OTHER ISSUES DOES NOT ARISE EVEN AFTER INSERTIO N OF EXPLANATION (3) TO SEC.147 OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED TH E MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED INTERE ST INCOME AND INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN HIS RETURN OF INCOM E. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBJECTING TO TAX ANY INCOME WHICH HAD ESCAPEMENT AND WHICH WAS RELATABLE TO THE INVESTMEN T OF RS.1,00,00,000/- IN PEOPLES CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY DURING THE YE AR. WITHIN A MONTH OF THE ISSUE OF THE NOTICE U/S 148, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE SOCIETY THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE AS SESSEE WAS ONLY 10,00,000/- AND NOT 10,000,000/- MISTAKENLY SHOWN I N THE CERTIFICATE. THIS CLARIFICATION WAS ALSO PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON RECEIPT OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING TH E ASSESSMENT. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING ASS ESSMENT ARE CONFINED ONLY TO THIS INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 NO ADDITION TOWARDS ANY INCOME WH ICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT RELATABLE TO THE INVESTMENT IN THE SOCIE TY HAS BEEN MADE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , IN APPEAL BEFORE US RELATES TO SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS A RISING OUT OF THE SALE OF FOUR FLATS BY THE ASSESSEE. EVIDENTLY, THE ISSUE O F CAPITAL GAINS NEITHER FORMS A PART OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT NOR IS CONNECTED WITH THE INVESTMENT IN THE SOCIETY. ITA NO.1154/H/2010 SHRI GS PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD 3 3 5. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), THE REASSESSMENT COV ERS INCOME WHICH ARE BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THE REASONS RECORDE D. AS NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE TOWARDS THE INCOME WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSE SSMENT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FORMED A REASON TO BELIEVE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THE JURISDICTIONA L TRIBUNAL, IT WAS HELD BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JUR ISDICTION TO ASSESS THE SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF THE SALE OF THE FLATS. THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT O N 31.12.2007 IS THEREFORE HELD TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE R EASSESSMENT ORDER IS ANNULLED AND WHILE DOING SO, HE RELIED ON THE FOLLO WING JUDGEMENTS: 1. CIT VS SHRI RAM SINGH (306 ITR 343) (2008) (RAJ . HC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT : IT IS ONLY WHEN, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ASSESSES ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX, WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, WITH RESPECT TO WHICH HE HAD REAS ON TO BELIEVE, TO BE SO, THEN ONLY, IN ADDITION, HE CAN ALSO PUT TO T AX, THE OTHER INCOME, CHARGEABLE TO TAX, WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, AN D WHICH HAS COME HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDIN GS U/S 147. TO PUT IT OTHER WORDS, IF IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE TO COME TO CONCLUSION, THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIS REASON TO BELIEVE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, DID NOT ESCAPE ASSESSMENT, THEN, THE MERE FACT, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ENTERTAIN ED A REASON TO BELIEVE, ALBEIT EVEN A GENUINE REASONS TO BELIEVE, WOULD NOT CONTINUE TO VEST HIM WITH THE JURISDICTION, TO SUBJECT TO TA X, ANY OTHER INCOME, CHARGEABLE TO TAX, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY FIND TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, AND WHICH MAY COME TO HIS NOTIC E SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147. IT IS A DI FFERENT STORY THAT FOR SUCH OTHER INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY HAVE R ECOURSE TO SUCH OTHER REMEDIES, AS MAY BE AVAILABLE TO HIM UNDER LA W, BUT THEN, ONCE IT IS FOUND, THAT THE INCOME, REGARDING WHICH HE HA D REASON TO BELIEVE TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IS NOT FOUND T O HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED, HIS J URISDICTION CAME TO A STOP AT THAT, AND HE DID NOT CONTINUE TO POSSE SS JURISDICTION, TO PUT TO TAX, ANY OTHER INCOME, WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY CA ME TO HIS NOTICE, IN THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WE RE FOUND BY HIM, TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ITA NO.1154/H/2010 SHRI GS PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD 4 4 2. CHAGAN LAL URF VIDHYA SAGAR GUPTA VS. ITO 12 D TR 497 (2008) (RAJ. HC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT: THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING INITIATED REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS THAT CAPITAL GAIN HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BUT MADE NO ADDITION OF SAID CAPITAL GAIN IN THE REASSESSMENT, ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WA S AN ORDER WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE UNDE R OTHER HEADS VIZ., BUSINESS INCOME AND LOW HOUSE HOLD DRAWINGS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 3. TRAVANCORE CEMENTS LTD. VS. ACIT (305 ITR 170(2 008) (KER. HC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT: SEC. 148 DEALS WITH ISSUE OF NOTICE WHERE INCOME H AS ESCPED ASSESSMENT SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 148 STATES TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BEFORE DOING SO RECORD HIS REASONS FO R ISSUING SUCH NOTICE. RECORDING OF REASONS BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE IS A MAN DATORY REQUIREMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER GETS JURISDICT ION U/S 148 TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT ONLY AFTER SUB SECTION (2) OF S.148 IS COMPLIED WITH. T HE QUESTION IS WHETHER SUB SECTION 2 OF SECTION 148 HAS TO BE COMP LIED WITH IF ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSME NT, OR WHICH COMES TO HIS KNOWLEDGE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE O F THE PROCEEDINGS. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN PROCEEDINGS ARE ALREADY ON IN RESPECT OF ONE ITEM IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME FOR WH ICH HE HAS ALREADY RECORDED REASONS IS IT NECESSARY THAT HE SHOULD REC ORD REASONS FOR ASSESSING OR REASSESSING ANY OF THE ITEMS WHICH ARE TOTALLY UNCONNECTED WITH THE PROCEEDINGS ALREADY INITIATED. SUPPOSE UNDER TWO HEADS, INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THOSE TWO HEADS ARE INTERLINKED AND CONNECTED, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATE D OR NOTICE ALREADY ISSUED UNDER SUB SECTION (2) OF SEC. 148 WOULD BE S UFFICIENT IF THE ESCAPED INCOME ON THE SECOND HEAD COMES TO THE KNOW LEDGE OF THE OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. BUT IF B OTH THE ITEMS ARE UNCONNECTED AND TOTALLY ALIEN THEN THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS TO FOLLOW SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 148 WITH REGARD TO THE E SCAPED INCOME WHICH COMES TO HIS KNOWLEDGE DURING THE COURSE OF T HE PROCEEDINGS. THE EXPRESSION SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SS.148 TO 153 IN S.147LENDS SUPPORT TO THE ABOVE VIEW. 4. ACIT, VIR.2(1), VIJAYAWADA VS. GOWTHAM RESIDENT IAL JR. COLLEGE, DUDAVALLI IN ITA NO.355/VIZAG/2004 DATED 6.3.2009 W HEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT: ITA NO.1154/H/2010 SHRI GS PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD 5 5 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AWA RE OF THE FACT THAT NO TELESCOPING OF THE INCOME WAS GIVEN IN THE REGUL AR ASSESSMENT AND HENCE ISSUING OF NOTICE OF REOPENING MERELY ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION WOULD CLEARLY HIGHLIGHT THAT IT WAS MORE OUT OF COMPULSION RATHER THAN BELIEF THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED MORE PARTICULARLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE MAIN REASON FOR WHICH NOTICE WAS ISSUED WAS ACCEPTED TO BE NOT CORRECT AND NO ADDITION/DISA LLOWANCE WHATSOEVER WAS MADE ON THAT COUNT AND IN SUCH AN EV ENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN VERIFYING SOM E OTHER ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REASONS RECORDED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. HAVING REGARD TO THE DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US, IN PARTICULAR, DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI RAM SINGH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY ERROR. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE. W E DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). IN OUR OPINI ON, THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IN ITS ORDER IS JUST AND PROPER . MORES O, THE LEARNED DR NOT ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). FU RTHER, RECENTLY, THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECIDED THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JET AIRWAYS (I) LTD. (BOM) IN I TA NO.1714 OF 2009 DATED 12.4.2010 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT: 15. PARLIAMENT WHEN IT ENACTED THE EXPLANATION (3 ) TO SECTION 147 BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 CLEARLY HAD BEFORE IT BOTH THE LINES OF PRECEDENT ON THE SUBJECT. THE PRECEDENT DEALT WITH TWO SEPARATE QUESTIONS WHEN IT EFFECTED THE AMENDMENT BY BRINGING IN EXPLANATION 3 TO SEC.147, PARLIAMENT STEPPED IN TO CORRECT WITH IT REGARDED A S AN INTERPRETATIONAL ERROR IN VIEW WHICH WAS TAKEN BY CERTAIN COURTS THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RESTRICT THE ASSESSMENT OR RE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS ONLY TO THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF WHICH REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE CORRECTIVE EXERCISE EMBARKED UPON BY PARLIAMENT IN THE FORM OF EXPLANATION 3 CONSEQUENTLY PROVIDES THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISS UE WHICH COME TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING S THOUGH THE REASONS FOR SUCH ISSUE WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE U/S 148( 2). THE DECISIONS OF KERALA HIGH COURT IN TRAVANCORE CEMENTS LTD. AND OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN VIPAN KHANNA WOULD, THEREFORE , NO LONGER HOLD THE FIELD. HOWEVER, IN SO FAR AS THE SECOND LINE OF AU THORITY IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE JUDGEMENT OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COU RT IN SRI RAM SINGH EXPLANATION 3 AS INSERTED BY PARLIAMENT WOULD NOT T AKE AWAY THE BASIS OF ITA NO.1154/H/2010 SHRI GS PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD 6 6 THAT DECISION. THE VIEW WHICH WAS TAKEN BY THE RAJ ASTHAN HIGH COURT WAS ALSO TAKEN IN ANOTHER JUDGEMENT OF THE PUNJAB & HAR YANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES. THE DECISION IN ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO PROCEED WITH REASSESSMENT, ONCE HE FOUND THAT THE TWO GROUNDS MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE U/S 148 WERE IN CORRECT OR NO EXISTENT. THE DECISIONS OF THE P UNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES AND OF THE RAJASTHA N HIGH COURT IN SHRI RAM SINGH WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE AMENDMENT BROUGH T IN BY THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 147. 16. EXPLANATION 3 LIFTS THE EMBARGO, WHICH WAS IN SERTED BY JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION ON THE MAKING OF AN ASSESSMENT OF RE ASSESSMENT ON GROUNDS OTHER THAN THOSE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH A NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S 148 SETTING OUT THE REASONS FOR THE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCA PED ASSESSMENT. THOSE JUDICIAL DECISIONS HAD HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMEN T WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED ON THE GROUND THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSE SSMENT ON A CERTAIN ISSUE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT MAKE AN ASSE SSMENT OR REASSESSMENT ON ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH CAME TO HIS NOTICE DURING TH E PROCEEDINGS. THE INTERPRETATION WILL NO LONGER HOLD THE FIELD AFTER THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 3 BY THE FINANCE ACT (2) OF 2009. HOWEVER, EXPLANA TION 3 DOES NOT AND CANNOT OVERRIDE THE NECESSITY OF FULFILLING THE CON DITIONS SET OUT IN THE SUBSTANTIVE PART OF SECTION 147. AN EXPLANATION TO A STATUTORY PROVISION IS INTENDED TO EXPLAIN ITS CONTENTS AND CANNOT BE CONS TRUED TO OVERRIDE IT OR RENDER THE SUBSTANCE AND CORE NUGATORY. SEC.147 HA S THIS EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INC OME (SUCH INCOME) WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE F ORMATION OF BELIEF AND IF HE DOES SO, HE CAN ALSO ASSESS OR REASSESS ANY OTHE R INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE DU RING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, IF AFTER ISSUING A NOTICE U/ S 148 HE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLDS THAT THE INCOM E WHICH HE HAS INITIALLY FORMED A REASON TO BELIEVE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HAS AS A MATTER OF FACT NOT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT IS NOT OPEN TO HIM INDEP ENDENTLY TO ASSESS SOME OTHER INCOME. IF HE INTENDS TO DO SO, A FRESH NOTI CE U/S 148 WOULD BE NECESSARY , THE LEGALITY OF WHICH WOULD BE TESTED I N THE EVENT OF A CHALLENGE BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE INCLINE D TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, ACCORDINGLY THE GROUN D RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. SINCE, WE HAVE DISMISSED THE REVENUE APPEAL, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CO.NO.90/H/2010 IN ITA ITA NO.1154/H/2010 SHRI GS PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD 7 7 NO.1154/H/2010 HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND IS DISMIS SED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE A S WELL AS CO BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 30. 11.2010 SD/- SD/- G.C. GUPTA CHANDRA POOJARI VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2010 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), HYDERABAD 2. SHRI G.S. PRABHAKAR, 10-2-289/111, SHANTI NAGAR COLONY, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD 3. CIT(A)- VIJAYAWADA 4. CIT, HYDERABAD 5. THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD. NP