Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad V. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1522/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4665 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2018
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P SOMASEKHAR REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Section: 6; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B , HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 1521 & 1522 /HYD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 1 3 - 1 4 AND 2014 - 15 DY . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD. VS. SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AACCS 8560Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI P. SOMA SEKHAR REDDY ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 09 / 10 /2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 / 1 0 / 201 8 O R D E R PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, J .M. : BOTH ARE REVENUE APPEALS FOR AYS. 2013 - 14 AND 2014 - 15 AGAINST THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) 12, HYDERABAD DATED 14/06/2017 AND 16/06/2017 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN BOTH THE AYS ARE SAME AND THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SIMILAR GROUNDS IN BOTH THE APPEALS . FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND CONVENIENCE, GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR AY 2013 - 14 ONLY ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ALL THE PROJECTS BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INFRASTRUCTURAL PROJECT AND NOT WORK CONTRACTS AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IA ? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN A HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) IS APPLICABLE TO CONSTITUENT OF THE JV WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT OR A LOCAL AUTHORITY OR ANY OTHER STATUTORY BODY? 2 ITA NO S . 1521 & 1522 /HYD/1 7 SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LTD., HYD. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IS NOT A DEVELOPER BUT MERELY A CONTRACTOR? 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD.C I T(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH C1ARIFICATORY AMENDMENT TO SECTION 801A OF THE IT ACT (EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 80LA VIDE FINANCE ACT 2007 WHICH WAS INTRODUCED TO UNAMBIGUOUSLY EXPLAIN THAT ONLY THOSE ENTERPRISES THAT HAVE ENTERED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH CENTRAL OR STATE OR LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND INVEST THEIR OWN FUNDS TO DEVELOP SUCH FACILITIES WILL ONLY BE ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION? 5. WHETHER ON THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ITS ASSUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DEVELOPER WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND WITHOUT EVEN REFERRING TO THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT EVEN ADVERTING THE S PECIFIC FINDINGS OF THE AO GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT ORDER? 6. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM U/S.80IA INSPITE OF ADMITTED FACT THAT THE PROJECT HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED AND STARTED TO O PERATE AND THEREBY NOT APPRECIATING AND IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(2) OF THE ACT WHICH CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT THE UNDERTAKING OR THE ENTERPRISE DEVELOPS AND BEGINS TO OPERATE. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD ANY OTHER GROUNDS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY UNDERTOOK THE WORKS OF A) E XCAVATION OF HNSS MAIN CANAL INCLUDING CM & CD WORKS; B) CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE LINE BG TUNNEL INCLUDING BOTH APPROACHES IN BET WEEN NEW HAFLONG HARANGAJAO STATION; C) CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE LINE BG TUNNEL IN BETWEEN JIRIBAM TO IMPHAL IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RAILWAY PROJECT; AND D) DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR PRANAHITA CHEVELA SUJALA SRAVANTHI; EXCAVATION OF GRAVITY CANAL INCLUDING INFORMATION OF EMBANKMENTS. IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80 - IA(4) WITH REGARD TO INCOME FROM THESE PROJECTS. AO DISALLOWED THE SAME HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY WORKS CONTRACTOR AND NOT A DEVELOPER OF THE 3 ITA NO S . 1521 & 1522 /HYD/1 7 SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LTD., HYD. PROJECT S , AND FURTHER THAT THE WORK W AS NOT AWARDED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA OR AP AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND, THEREFORE, IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 - IA(4) FOR ALL THE FOUR PROJECTS. 4. AGGRIEVED, T HE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO ALLOWED THE SAME BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HER PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER AY 2012 - 13. SHE OBSERVED THAT CIT(A) 3 HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUES IN DETAIL AND ALSO THE ITAT IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR AY 2008 - 09 HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4). THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AND THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF AO , WHILE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER AYS. 6. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) , HAS CONSIDERED THAT THESE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER AYS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUE IN DETAIL, HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4). THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO REPRODUCED THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN H ER O RDER AT PARAS 7 AND 7.1. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE AND CLARITY THE SAID PARAGRAPHS ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 7.0 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A O IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD, WHILE DECIDING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, VIDE ORDER DATED 17.04.2015, DISCUSSED IN DETAIL THE VARIOUS PROJECTS CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT, AS WELL AS VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS ON THE ISSUE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF CIT(A) - 3'S ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: '5.3 IN THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION HAD BEEN UPHELD BY THE !TAT IN ITS ORDER FOR AY 2008 - 09 WITH 4 ITA NO S . 1521 & 1522 /HYD/1 7 SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LTD., HYD. REGARD TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF HNSS MAIN CANAL KM 20 TO KM 42. 5.4 WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER PROJECTS, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THESE WORKS OF DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IN CONSORTIUM WITH OTHER COMPANIES, THAT A COMPANY WHICH CARRIED ON THE WORK IN CONSORTIUM WITH OTHER COMPANIES WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) AND THAT IT HAD BEEN HELD IN THE CASE OF KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LTD BY THE I TAT THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) WAS ALLOWABLE TO A COMPANY WHICH CARRIED ON THE DEVELO PMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY IN CONSORTIUM WITH OTHER CONCERNS. THE AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SEPARATE ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN DRAWN FOR EACH OF THE PROJECTS AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS INCORRECT IN HIS PRESUMPTION THAT PROFIT FROM EACH OF THE PROJECT WA S NOT CORRECTLY ARRIVED AT BY THE APPELLANT. 5.5 THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PROJECT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BG TUNNEL NO. 12 WAS ALLOTTED TO MAYTAS - SUSHEE IV, OF WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS A 45% MEMBER, THAT THE OTHER CONSTITUENT, MAYTAS, REQUIRED THE APPELLAN T TO COMPLETE ITS SHARE OF 55% OF THE WORK AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT COMPLETED THE ENTIRE WORK. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT SIMILARLY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BG TUNNEL NO. 17, THE WORK HAD BEEN ALLOTTED TO SUSHEE - T TS JV IN WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD AN 80% SHAR E AND THE WORK HAD BEEN COMPLETED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY THE APPELLANT. 5.6 THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE APCSS PROJECT WAS ALLOTTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, IRRIGATION AND CAD DEPARTMENT, THAT THE APPELLANT WAS THE LEAD PARTNER IN SUSHEE HI TECH - PRA SAD - NCC - MAYTAS JV WHICH HAD BEEN AWARDED THE WORK, THAT THE ENTIRE WORK WAS EXECUTED BY THE APPELLANT BEING A LEAD PARTNER AND THAT THE NATURE OF THE WORK WAS SIMILAR - TO THE EPC TURN KEY SYSTEM OF HNSS MAIN CANAL (WHERE DEDUCTION U/S 80LA HAD BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ITAT). 5.7 THE AR ALSO SUBMITTED COPIES OF EXTRACTS OF THE AGREEMENTS EXECUTED WITH REGARD TO THESE WORKS. 5.8 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON RECORD AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. WITH REGARD TO HNSS MAIN CANAL KM 20 TO KM 42, THE APPELLANT'S C LAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80LA(4) WAS HELD ALLOWABLE BY THE ITAT IN ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.414/HYD/2012, DTD.17.06.2013 IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR AY 2008 - 09. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION 5 ITA NO S . 1521 & 1522 /HYD/1 7 SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LTD., HYD. OF THE ITAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTI ON U/S 80 I A(4) FOR THIS PROJECT. 5.9 ONE OF THE REASONS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION FOR THE OTHER THREE PROJECTS IS THAT THE AGREEMENT FOR UNDERTAKING THE PROJECTS HAD BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN A JOINT VENTURE AND THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT BY THE APPE LLANT DIRECTLY. THE APPELLANT WAS MERELY A CONSTITUENT OF THE JOINT VENTURE AND HAD EXECUTED THE PROJECT ON BEHALF OF THE JOINT VENTURE. 5.10 REFERENCE MAY BE MADE IN THIS CONTEXT TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF TRANSSTROY (INDIA) LTD. (ITA NO.540/VIZAG/2 009). IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FORMED A JV IN THE NAME OF 'NAVAYUGA T RANSTRO Y . THE ASSESSEE HAD EXECUTED 40% OF THE WORK AND THE OTHER CONSTITUENT PARTNER EXECUTED 60% OF THE WORKS AWARDED. BOTH THE CONSTITUENT PARTNERS OF THE JV RAISED BILLS ON THE JV AND THE JV IN TURN RAISED A CONSOLIDATED BILL ON THE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT WITHOUT MAKING ANY ADDITIONS. THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 - LA (4) ON THE PROFITS DERIVED OUT OF THESE WORKS WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE WORKS WERE NOT AWARDE D TO THE TAXPAYER BUT TO THE JV AND CONSORTIUM, THE ITAT, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF ITO VS. UAN RAJU CONSTRUCTIONS ITA NO.344/VIZAG/ 2009), HELD THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY RELATION OF CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTOR BETWEEN THE JV AND ITS CONSTITUENTS. THE IT AT FURTHER HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80 - IA HAD TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ENTERPRISES WHO ARE ACTUALLY CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING OR OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR DEVELOPING, MAINTAINING AND OPERATING ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY, EVEN IF THE CONTRACT WA S AWARDED TO A JV OR CONSORTIUM. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER HELD THAT THE CONSORTIUM OR THE JV WAS ONLY A PAPER COMPANY AND DID NOT EXECUTE ANY WORK AND THAT ACCORDINGLY, THE WORKS AWARDED TO THE JV WAS EXECUTED BY ITS CONSTITUENTS AND THEREFORE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE CONSTITUENTS. 5.11. THE FACTS IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE ARE IDENTICAL. THE WORK WAS ALLOTTED TO A JOINT VENTURE OF WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS A CONSTITUENT. THE WORK ADMITTEDLY WAS EXECUTED ENTIRELY BY THE APPEL LANT AND NOT BY THE OTHER CONSTITUENTS OF THE JOINT VENTURE OR EVEN BY THE JOINT VENTURE IN ITS OWN CAPACITY. THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS MERELY A CONSTITUENT OF THE JOINT VENTURE TO WHICH THE WORK HAD BEEN ENTRUSTED CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE A REASON FOR REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4). 6 ITA NO S . 1521 & 1522 /HYD/1 7 SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LTD., HYD. 5.12 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CARRIED OUT THE WORK ITSELF BUT HAD IN TURN SUBCONTRACTED THE WORK RELATING TO SINGLE LINE BG TUNNEL NO.12. THAT THE WORK HAD BEEN SUBCON TRACTED IS NOT A RELEVANT FACTOR IN DECIDING THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM. HOW AN ASSESSEE CHOOSES TO EXECUTE A PROJECT, WHETHER BY HIRING LABOUR AND PROCURING MATERIAL ITSELF OR BY ENTRUSTING IT TO A SUBCONTRACTOR IS IMMATERIAL. SEC.80IA(4) DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT EACH AND EVERY TASK RELATED TO THE EXECUTION OF THE PROJECT SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT OR BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS WELL NIGH IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY ASSESSEE TO DO SO. INDEED, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE WERE TO HIRE LABOUR DIRECTLY UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF ITS OWN EMPLOYEES, SUCH HIRED LABOUR NOT BEING EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WOULD STILL BE POSSIBLE TO ARGUE THAT AN ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXECUTED THE WORK ITSELF. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED AS IRRELEVANT . 5.13 A PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT/JVS FOR ALLOTMENT OF THE WORK SHOWS THAT SITE WAS TAKEN OVER FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOR UNDERTAKING THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THAT THERE WAS A DEFECT LIABILITY PERIOD FOR E ACH OF THE WORKS, THAT THEREAFTER, THE INFRASTRUCTURE WAS HANDED OVER TO THE GOVERNMENT, THAT THE ENTIRE MATERIAL WAS TO BE PROCURED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT SUPPLY ANY MATERIAL, THAT THE FINANCES WERE TO BE BROUGHT IN BY THE APPELLANT A PART FROM PROVIDING THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY, THE ENTIRE RISK IN THE PROCESS OF UNDERTAKING THE PROJECT WAS THAT OF THE APPELLANT. THESE ARE THE FACTORS THAT HAD WEIGHED WITH THE ITAT IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS A DEVELOPER AND NOT A WORKS CONTRACTOR WITH REGARD TO HNSS MAIN CANAL KM 20 TO KM 42 IN ITS ORDER FOR AY 2008 - 09. FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE ITAT'S DECISION, IT IS HELD THAT THE OTHER THREE PROJECTS WERE ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4). 5.14. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA( 4) FOR ALL THE FOUR PROJECTS'. 7.1 AS THE PROJECTS BEING CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE THE SAME AS IN A.Y. 2012 - 13, I HAVE NO REASONS TO DEV IATE FROM THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY MY COLLEAGUE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 THAT ALL THESE PROJECTS ARE INFRASTRUCTURAL PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IA(4). THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE SA ME, AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT 7 ITA NO S . 1521 & 1522 /HYD/1 7 SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LTD., HYD. THE SAID ORDER OF CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, HYDERABAD, I HOLD THAT ALL THE PROJECTS BEING CARRIED OUT BY ASSESSEE ARE INFRASTRUCTURAL PROJECTS AND NOT WORK CONTRACTS, AND HENCE ASSESSEE I S ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 LA ON THE PROFITS FROM ALL THE PROJECTS CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. HENCE I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 LA AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.2 IS THEREFORE AL LOWED. SINCE THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE SAME TO GRANT RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DR HAS NOT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ANY DECISION OF THE HONBLE COURT TO THE CONTRARY , WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE DI SMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH OCTOBER , 2018 . SD/ - SD/ - ( S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ) ( P. MADHAVI DEVI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 24 TH OCTOBER , 2018 KV C OPY TO: - 1) D CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1), ROOM NO. 612, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 2) M/S SUSHEE INFRA & MINING LTD., PLOT NO. 246/A, MLA COLONY, ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A) - 3, HYD. . 4) PR. CIT VI , HYD. 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD. 6 ) GUARD FILE