Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad V. Hyderabad Menzies Air Cargo Private Limited , Hyderabad , Hyderabad

ITA 1574/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6085 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K SRINIVAS REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL JAIN; MANISH V SHAH
• Section: 143(3); 115JB

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 NOS. 1574 & 1742/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2013-14 & 2014-15 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERABAD. VS. HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AACCC9611 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY: SHRI K. SRINIVAS REDDY ASSESSEE BY: S/SHRI MANISH V. SHAH & SUNIL JAIN DATE OF HEARING: 29/05/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/06/2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: BOTH THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST ORDERS OF CIT(A) - 2, HYDERABAD, FOR AYS 2013-14 AND 2014-15, WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH ARE COMMON, IN BOTH THE AP PEALS: 1) THE CIT (A) ERRED BOTH ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW. 2) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHET HER THE CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCT ION U/S 801A EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH ANY GOVERNMENT/STATUTORY BODY WHICH IS A PRE-REQUISITE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 801A(4) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHET HER THE CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCT ION U/S 80LA ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OWN THE FACILIT Y AND ONLY LEASED THE FACILITY FROM GHIAL I.T.A. NOS. 1574 & 1742/HYD/2017 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PVT. LTD. 2 4) ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. 2. THE FACTS AS TAKEN FROM AY 2013-14 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/11/20 13 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,12,09,190/- UNDER N ORMAL PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE A CT) AND BOOK PROFIT OF RS. 32,23,26,260/- U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. 2.1 THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 29/02/2016 DETERMINING THE ASSESSED INCOME AT RS . 32,77,45,976/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS . 3,12,09,190/- UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS, DISALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 29,65,36,784/- U/S 80IA OF THE ACT, BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CR EATED ANY NEW INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY EXCEPT DOING OPERATIONS ON THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY DEVELOPED BY GHIAL , TAKEN ON LEASE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUC TION U/S 80IA BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2012-13 IN ITA NO. 1094/HYD/2016, DATED 31/03/2017. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA), THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL ALLOWED ASSESEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I.T.A. NOS. 1574 & 1742/HYD/2017 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PVT. LTD. 3 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND TO T HE FACT THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) HAS BEEN DISALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED AND H ELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR SUCH A DEDUCTION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE AND CLARITY, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: '2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MAINTAINING CARGO TERMINAL AT SH AMSHABAD AIRPORT AT HYDERABAD, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FO R THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS ADMITTING INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. THE RETURNS WERE INITIA LLY PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENTS WERE TAKEN-UP FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND ACCORDI NGLY, NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE E APPEARED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND FURNISHED THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ISSUED A LETTER DATED 28.11.2011 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY ON 21.12.2011 STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA AND HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH GHIAL ('GMR HYDERABAD INTERN ATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED') FOR OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE CARGO FACILITIES AT HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT THOUGH GHIAL IS NOT A GOVERNMENT BODY, THE GOVERNMENT OF I NDIA HAS GRANTED A RIGHT TO GHIAL TO ASSIGN CERTAIN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES TO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS AND THEREFORE, GHIAL, HAS G RANTED FURTHER CONCESSION TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG BY SUB-LEASING PAR T OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING THE COMPANY CARRYING ON THE OPERATIO N OF THE AIRPORT BE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS, HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCE D WITH THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS, AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. HE OBSERVED THAT ONE OF THE CONDITION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CENT RAL GOVERNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT OR A LOCAL AUTHOR ITY OR ANY OTHER STATUTORY BODY. HE OBSERVED THAT THE AGREEMEN T WITH GHIAL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVER NMENT OF INDIA AS ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY CLINCHING EVIDENCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS ACCORDED PERMISSION TO GHIAL TO I.T.A. NOS. 1574 & 1742/HYD/2017 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PVT. LTD. 4 ASSIGN THE WORK OF CARGO HANDLING TO THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED THAT UNDER CLAUSES (A) TO (C) OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80IA , THE REFERENCE IS ONLY TO SUCH AN ENTITY WHICH CAN JUSTIFIABLY CLAIM THE DEDUCTION AND FURTHER THAT TH E PROVISO THERETO ALSO SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO THE TRANSFER THAT TAKES PLACE BETWEEN THE TRANSFEROR ENTERPRISE AND THE TRANSFEREE ENTERPRISE WHICH GOES TO IMPLY THAT ONLY THAT ENTERPRISE WHICH TRANSFERS THE ENTIRE ENTERPRISE TO A TRANSFEREE ENTERPRISE AND THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMS TANCES ONLY A TRANSFEREE ENTERPRISE CAN CLAIM THE DEDUCTION FOR T HE UNEXPIRED PERIOD AS IF THE TRANSFER HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE. HE O BSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CREATED ANY NEW INFRASTRUCTURE FAC ILITY EXCEPT OPERATING THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY WHIC H HAS ALSO ONLY BEEN LEASED OUT TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.1. HE OBSERVED THAT IT IS THE GHIAL WHICH COMPLET ED THE ENTIRE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AND IN CASE IT IS NOT IN A POSITION TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE, IT CAN TRANSFER THE FACILITY IN ENTIRETY, BUT NOT ONLY A PIECE OF THE OPERATION TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SECTION 80IA(4) CONFERS BENEFITS ONLY ON ONE ENTITY. THUS, HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AS SESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) IS NOT ALLOWABLE. HE ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. AGGRI EVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHILE REIT ERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW, HAS ADVANCED THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. (1) ACCORDING TO THE PROVISO TO SECTION 80IA(4)(B) , THE AGREEMENT OF GHIAL WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IS SUFFICIENT CO MPLIANCE OF THE PROVISION AND A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT AGREEMENT BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE GOVERNMENTS IS NOT NECESSARY; (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, GMR INTERNATION AL AIRPORT IS A STATUTORY BODY; AND (3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AB OVE, APPROVALS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVE RNMENT ITSELF CONSTITUTES THE AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF IN DIA. 5.1. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE PROPOSITIONS, THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, HYDERABAD LTD., (' HIAL'), WHEREIN THE HIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED THE EXCLUSIVE RIG HT AND PRIVILEGE TO CARRY-OUT THE DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN, FINANCING, CO NSTRUCTION, I.T.A. NOS. 1574 & 1742/HYD/2017 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PVT. LTD. 5 COMMISSIONING, MAINTENANCE, OPERATION AND MANAGEMEN T OF THE AIRPORT [ BUT EXCLUDING THE RIGHT TO CARRY-OUT THE RESERVED ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION SURVEILLANCE/AIRTRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SERVICES WHICH A RE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY AAI]. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO ARTICLE 3.2.1 (B) WHICH PROVIDES THAT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA RECOGNIZES THAT HIAL MAY CARRY-OUT ANY ACTIVITY OR BUSINESS IN CONNECTIO N WITH OR RELATED TO THE ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE AND FOR HANDLING OF AIRCRA FT, PASSENGER'S BAGGAGE, CARGO AND/OR MAIL AT THE AIRPORT. THUS, AC CORDING TO HIM, CARGO HANDLING IS ALSO AN ACTIVITY ASSIGNED TO HIAL , BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. FURTHER, BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 3.2.2. HIAL HAS FURTHER BEEN GRANTED RIGHT TO GRANT 'SERVICE PROVID ER RIGHTS' (INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF THE SERVICE PROVIDER RIGHT HOLDERS TO GRANT SUB-RIGHTS) TO ANY PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYI NG-OUT THE ACTIVITIES AND BUSINESSES DESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 3.2.1 ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS HIAL MAY DETERMINE ARE REASONABLY APPROPRIATE. 5.2. HE HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE TRIPART ITE AGREEMENT BETWEEN GHIAL, MENZIES AVIATION PLC AND THE ASSESSE E PLACED AT PAGE-232 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND MORE PARTICULARLY PA GE NO.243 AND ARTICLE 2.1 OF THE AGREEMENT WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO RENDER AND PROVIDE O R ARRANGE TO PROVIDE THE O & M SERVICES FOR OPERATION AND MAINTE NANCE OF THE CARGO TERMINAL AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL ALSO HAVE EXC LUSIVE RIGHT TO LEVY AND COLLECT CARGO CHARGES AND TO ARTICLE 2.3 THEREOF, UNDER WHICH GHIAL WARRANTS TO THE COMPANY TO BUILD THE CA RGO BUILDING AS PER THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DESIGN SET OUT IN THE CARGO BUILDING LEASE AGREEMENT WHILE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WARRANTE D TO GHIAL THAT MENZIES SHALL BUILD THE FACILITIES/ADDITIONAL FACILITIES IN COMPLIANCE WITH CARGO AGREEMENTS AND THAT THE DESIG N, ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION, TESTING AND COMMISSION O F THE CARGO TERMINAL SHALL BE FREE FROM DEFECT AND OF CORRECT D ESIGN AND WORKMANSHIP, OF GOOD QUALITY AND INTERNATIONALLY AC CEPTED STANDARDS. HE HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE C ARGO BUILDING LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 28.04.2006 BETWEEN THE ASSES SEE AND GHIAL, BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE CARGO BUILDING WAS TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY GHIAL AS PER THE SPECIFICATIONS SET-OUT THEREIN AND AGREED TO BY MENZIES WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON LEASE FOR A PERIOD OF 15 YEARS FROM THE AIRPORT OPENING DATE ALONG WITH A RIGHT TO SUB- LEASE, LICENSE ETC. 5.3. HE SUBMITTED THAT GHIAL HA S NOT CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) AS IT HAS NOT EARNED ANY PROFITS DURING THE YEARS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED INCOME FROM CARGO OPERATIONS AND THE OPERATING EXPE NDITURE INCLUDES THE CONCESSIONAIRE FEE AND CONCESSIONAIRE RENT PAID TO GHIAL AND HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT E NTRIES IN ITS BOOKS I.E., P & L A/C AND SCHEDULE-L THERETO. I.T.A. NOS. 1574 & 1742/HYD/2017 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PVT. LTD. 6 5.4. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS ON FACTS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., REPORTED IN (2006) 155 TAXMANN 133 (HYD) (NAG ) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT SINCE GHIAL HAS BEEN AUTHORISED TO ASSIGN CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AND HAS ACCORDINGLY ENTERED INTO THE AGRE EMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CARGO FACILITY AT HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 80IA(4)(I) , THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION. FURTHER, AS REGARDS THE MEANING OF THE TERM 'TRANSFER' USED IN THE SAID PROVISO ALSO, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ABOVE DECISIONS WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE TERM 'T RANSFER' SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED IN A CONSERVATIVE MANNER SO AS TO MEAN THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY TO THE SPE CIFIED AUTHORITY BUT IT ONLY MEANS THE HANDING OVER OF THE INFRASTRUCTUR E FACILITY TO THE SPECIFIED AUTHORITY AT THE END OF THE CONCESSION/LI CENSE PERIOD. 5.5. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT CARGO FACILI TY IS PART OF AIRPORT AND THEREFORE, 'INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY' UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) , THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, PLACED RELIANCE U PON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALOR E IN THE CASE OF M/S. MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA (BANGALORE) PVT. LTD., IN ITA.NO.1160/BANG/2012 DATED 30.01.2014 AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, CHENNAI VS. AL LOGISTICS (P) LTD ., REPORTED IN (2015) 55 TAXMANN.COM 283 (MAD.). 5.5.1. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) ON PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM AN UNDERTAKING ESTABLISHED IN A BUILDING TAKEN ON L EASE ALSO, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, PLACED RELIANCE U PON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BAJAJ T EMPO LTD., REPORTED IN (1992) 62 TAXMANN 480 (SC) AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF NARANG DIARY PRODUCTS REPORTED IN (1996) 85 TAXMAN 375 (SC). 5.5.2. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE CARGO FACILITY APPROVED BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES IS AN 'INFRASTRUCTURE FACILI TY' UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) , THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, PLACED RELI ANCE UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND H ON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., VS. ACIT REPORTED IN (2012) 21 TAXMANN.COM 317 ( DELHI) AND CIT VS. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SHAVA) L TD ., REPORTED IN (2015) 58 TAXMANN.COM 78 (BOM.) RESPECT IVELY. 5.6. FINALLY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L AT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF M/S. MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA (BANGALO RE) PVT. LTD., (CITED SUPRA) FOR THE PROPOSITION THE GHIAL IS ALSO A STATUTORY AUTHORITY LIKE BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. , AND THEREFORE, I.T.A. NOS. 1574 & 1742/HYD/2017 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PVT. LTD. 7 THE AGREEMENT WITH GHIAL IS AN AGREEMENT WITH A STA TUTORY AUTHORITY. 6. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT ELIGIBLE TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) AS THE CONDITIONS SET- OUT THEREIN ARE NOT FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS R EGARDS THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BEN CH IN THE CASE OF OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., (CITED (SUPRA) HE SUBMITTED THA T THE SAID CASE IS FACTUALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE CAS E BEFORE US. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT SUB- LEASED CONTRACTORS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. 6.1. AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM VARIOUS GOVERNMENT DEPAR TMENTS TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE CARGO FACILITY, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMEN T OF INDIA ITSELF, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE APPROVALS G IVEN BY VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT I.E., CUSTOMS AUTHORI TIES ETC., IS ONLY FOR CARRYING ON THE FUNCTIONS EFFECTIVELY, BUT CANNOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE GIVEN THE APPROVAL FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE TO BE CONFIRMED. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE MAIN QUESTION BEFORE US FO R ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. FOR PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE CASE T HE RELEVANT PROVISION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : (4) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO-- (I) ANY ENTERPRISE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF (I) DEVELOPING OR (II) OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR (III) DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY WHICH FULFI LS ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, NAMELY :-- (A) IT IS OWNED BY A COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA OR BY A CONSORTIUM OF SUCH COMPANIES OR BY AN AUTHORITY OR A BOARD OR A CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER BODY ESTABLISHED OR CONSTITUTED UNDER ANY CENTRAL OR STATE ACT ; (B) IT HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CENTR AL GOVERNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT OR A LOCAL AUTHORITY OR ANY OTHE R STATUTORY BODY FOR (I) DEVELOPING OR (II) OPERATING AND MAINTAININ G OR (III) DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING A NEW INFRAST RUCTURE FACILITY; I.T.A. NOS. 1574 & 1742/HYD/2017 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PVT. LTD. 8 (C) IT HAS STARTED OR STARTS OPERATING AND MAINTAIN ING THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1995: PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY IS T RANSFERRED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1999 BY AN ENTERPRISE W HICH DEVELOPED SUCH INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS THE TRANSFEROR ENTERPRISE) TO ANOTHER ENTERPRISE (H EREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE TRANSFEREE ENTERPRISE) F OR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILI TY ON ITS BEHALF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CENTRAL GOVE RNMENT, STATE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL AUTHORITY OR STATUTORY BODY, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO THE TRANSFEREE ENTERPRISE AS IF IT WERE THE ENTERPRISE TO WHICH THIS CLAUSE APPLIES AND THE DED UCTION FROM PROFITS AND GAINS WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO SUCH TRANSF EREE ENTERPRISE FOR THE UNEXPIRED PERIOD DURING WHICH THE TRANSFERO R ENTERPRISE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION, IF THE T RANSFER HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE. EXPLANATION.--FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, 'INF RASTRUCTURE FACILITY' MEANS-- (A) A ROAD INCLUDING TOLL ROAD, A BRIDGE OR A RAIL SYSTEM; (B) A HIGHWAY PROJECT INCLUDING HOUSING OR OTHER AC TIVITIES BEING AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE HIGHWAY PROJECT; (C) A WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, IRRIGATION PROJECT, SANITATION AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM OR SOLID WA STE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; (D) A PORT, AIRPORT, INLAND WATERWAY, INLAND PORT O R NAVIGATIONAL CHANNEL IN THE SEA; 7.1. FROM A LITERAL READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE NOT ONLY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY, BUT IS ALSO ALLOWABLE IN C ASE OF OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAININ G AN INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CREATED ANY NEW INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY BUT IS ONLY DOING THE OPERA TION ON THE EXISTING LEASED INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY DEVELOPED BY GHIAL. THEREFORE, IT IS NOW NECESSARY TO SEE WHETHER THE CARGO FACILITY BEI NG OPERATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN 'INFRASTRUCTURE FA CILITY' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. 7.2. GHIAL HAS DEVELOPED THE RAJIV GANDHI INTERNATI ONAL AIRPORT AT HYDERABAD. CARGO HANDLING FACILITY IS AN INTEGRAL P ART OF THE AIRPORT. GHIAL HAS ASSIGNED THE OPERATION AND MAINT ENANCE OF THE CARGO FACILITY TO THE ASSESSEE. VIDE FACILITY LEASE AGREEMENT, I.T.A. NOS. 1574 & 1742/HYD/2017 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PVT. LTD. 9 MENZIES HAS AGREED TO OWN, PROCURE, INSTALL AND COM MISSION THE FACILITIES AND THE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES (IF ANY) A T THE CARGO BUILDING AND TO LEASE THE FACILITIES AND ADDITIONAL FACILITI ES (IF ANY) TO THE ASSESSEE AND VIDE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEME NT, GHIAL HAS GRANTED THE ASSESSEE THE RIGHT FOR THE OPERATIO N AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CARGO TERMINAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF AL LOGISTICS (P) LTD (CITED SUPRA) IN SUPPORT OF HIS C ONTENTION THAT CARGO FACILITY IS ALSO INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IN THE SAID CASE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT WAS CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE THEREIN OPERATING AND MAINTAINING A CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION (CFS), IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4). THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE CFS ARE 'CUSTOMS AREA' ATTACHED T O A PORT AND THE WORK RELATED TO CUSTOMS IS PERFORMED AT THESE INLAN D CONTAINER DEPOTS/CONTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS AND ACCORDINGLY, INLAND CONTAINER DEPOTS AND CFS ARE 'INLAND PORTS' AS THEY CARRY OUT FUNCTIONS LIKE WARE HOUSING, CUSTOMS CLEARANCE AND TRANSPORT OF GO ODS FROM ITS LOCATION TO THE SEAPORTS AND VICE VERSA BY RAILWAY OR BY TRUCKS IN CONTAINERS. 7.3. IN THE CASE BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE IS HA NDLING THE CARGO FACILITY WHICH IS INTO SIMILAR ACTIVITIES. FURTHER, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF OCEAN SPARKLES LTD HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS REQUIRED TO FUL FILL THE DEVELOPERS' OBLIGATION PERTAINING TO OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PORTS AS LAID DOWN UNDER THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT BET WEEN THE DEVELOPERS AND SPECIFIED AUTHORITIES, IT IS EXACTLY THE SITUATION WHICH HAS BEEN CONTEMPLATED BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 80IA(4)(I) OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS THE OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE THERE IN THAT TWO PERSONS ARE NOT TO GET THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA FOR T HE MAINTENANCE OF THE SAME FACILITY, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ASSESSEE' S CLAIM THEREIN WAS RESTRICTED TO ITS PERFORMANCE OF JOB AND IT WAS CON CERNED WITH THAT ACTIVITY ONLY. 7.4. UNDER THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IA(4) , THE DEFINITION OF 'INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY' INCLUDES AIRPORT WITHIN I TS SCOPE AND THE CARGO FACILITY IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE AIRPORT. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA (BANGALORE) PVT. LTD (CITED SUPRA) HAS HELD T HE 'CARGO FACILITY' TO BE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY ELIGIBLE FO R DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT GHIAL HAS CONSTRUCTED THE CARGO BUILDING AS PER THE SPECIFICATION OF THE MENZIES AND MENZIES HAS PROVIDED THE FACILITIES AT THE CARGO BU ILDING AND WHILE GHIAL HAS LEASED OUT THE CARGO TERMINAL TO THE ASSE SSEE, MENZIES HAS LEASED THE FACILITIES TO THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE CARGO FACI LITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBLIGATION OF GHIAL TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN I.T.A. NOS. 1574 & 1742/HYD/2017 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PVT. LTD. 10 THE FACILITY BY VIRTUE OF THE CONCESSION GRANTED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA. EACH ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80 IA(4)(I) OF THE ACT ONLY IN RELATION TO THE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY IT A ND THERE CANNOT BE ANY DUPLICATION OF THE CLAIM. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE 'CARGO FACILITY' OPERATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. 7.5. THE SECOND OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENTERED INTO ANY AGREEMENT WITH THE CENTRAL GOVT., OR STATE GOVT. OR LOCAL AUTHORITY OR A STATUTORY BODY AS PROVIDED U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT GOVT . OF INDIA HAS AUTHORIZED GHIAL TO GRANT FURTHER RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF ANY OF ITS ACTIVITIES, PURSUANT TO WHICH GHIAL HAS ENTERED INT O AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REQUIR EMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO ENTER INTO A SEPARATE AGREEMENT WITH TH E GOVT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF OCEAN SPARKLES LTD. IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE THEREIN, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PORTS, CARGO SERVICES AND OTHER RELA TED SERVICES, HAD ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANC E OF PORT, WITH DEVELOPERS WHO WERE ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT AND OPER ATION OF PORTS AND HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SPECIF IED AUTHORITIES I.E. STATE GOVT. FOR DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN PORTS. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT LATER ON, UNDER AN AGREEMENT, THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES OF SAID PORT S WERE SUB- CONTRACTED BY THE DEVELOPER TO ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WITH SPECIFIED AUTHORITIES AFTER 1-4-99 AND HELD THAT AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 80IA(4)(I) , THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF TH E ACT. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE PROVISO TO SECTION 80IA(4)(I) TO HOLD THAT THE PROVISO AIMS AT QUALIFYING THE TRANSFEREE ENTERPRISES, AS ENTERPRISE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION PROVIDED, THE OTHER CONDITIONS BE SATI SFIED AND THAT THE PROVISO DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY DIRECT AGREEMENT BETWE EN THE TRANSFEREE ENTERPRISE AND THE SPECIFIED AUTHORITY. 7.6. FURTHER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF A.L. LOGISTICS P. LTD., WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE PROPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE GO VERNMENT ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS, WHICH WERE DULY COMPLIED WITH B Y THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO NEED TO INSIST FOR SPECIFIC EXECUTION O F AGREEMENTS. IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE THEREIN HAD APPLIED TO THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, INFRAST RUCTURE DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR SETTING- UP OF A CFS AT HALDIA FOR HANDLING, IMPORT AND EXPORT OF CARGO WHI CH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE MINISTRY, SUBJECT TO EXECUTION OF C ERTAIN DOCUMENTS OF COMPLIANCE OF OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS STAT ED IN THE LETTER. I.T.A. NOS. 1574 & 1742/HYD/2017 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PVT. LTD. 11 TAKING THE SAME INTO CONSIDERATION, THE HON'BLE MAD RAS HIGH COURT HELD THAT SINCE THE PROPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AC CEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHICH WERE DULY CO MPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO NEED TO INSIST FOR THE SPECIFIC EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENTS. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE BEFORE US , THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CIV IL AVIATION FOR REGISTRATION AS A REGULATED AGENT FOR HANDLING THE CARGO FACILITIES AT HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND VIDE LETTER DATED 24.11.2008, THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED THE REGISTRATI ON WHILE GHIAL HAS GRANTED THE ASSESSEE THE RIGHT TO HANDLE THE CA RGO FACILITIES BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED ALSO AS A 'SERVICE PRO VIDER RIGHT HOLDER' AS STIPULATED UNDER THE CONCESSION AGREEMEN T ITSELF AND THAT FURTHER THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS RECOGNIZED THE ASSESSEE AS 'A REGULATED AGENT' AND THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IS APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE AS SESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN A PPROVAL BY THE MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ENTER INTO A SPECIFIC AND INDEPENDENT AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT FOR C LAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT, HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. 7.7. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DEFINITION OF 'REGULATED AGENT' UNDER CLAUSE (5) OF RULE-2 OF THE AIRCRAFT (SECURITY) RULES, 2011. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE BEING ACCEPTED AS A REGULATED AGENT UNDER THE AIRCRAFT (SECURITY) RULES, 2011 NEEDS NO SPECIFIC AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT FOR CARRYING ON THE WORK. HOWEVER, WE AR E UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE DEFINITION OF A 'REGULATED AGENT' GIVEN IN THE AIRCRAFT (SECURITY) RULES, 2011 IS ONLY TO GOVERN THE SECURITY MEASURES FOR AIRCRAFT O PERATORS AND IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS AN AGENT TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE CARGO FACILITIES AT THE AI RPORT. IN FACT, IT IS THE OTHER WAY ROUND, I.E., THE PERSON OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE CARGO FACILITIES IS RECOGNIZED AS A 'REGULATED AGEN T' WHO CAN FUNCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AIRCRAFT (SECURITY) RULES, 2011. 7.8. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA, BAN GALORE IN M.P.NO.19/BANG/2014 IN ITA.NO.1160/BANG/2012 DATED 05.10.2015 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED BANGALORE INTERNA TIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED AS A STATUTORY BODY UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IN THE SAID CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THEREIN I.E., THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN A WRIT PETITION FILED BY M/S. FLEMING O DUTY-FREE SHOPS P. LTD., AGAINST THE BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,('BIAL') WHEREIN THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH CO URT HAS HELD BIAL TO BE A STATUTORY AUTHORITY AS IT IS DISCHARGI NG STATUTORY FUNCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT. THERE IS NO SUCH DECIS ION IN RESPECT OF I.T.A. NOS. 1574 & 1742/HYD/2017 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PVT. LTD. 12 HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD., BY THE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT I.E., HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AND AND HRA PRADESH. HOWEVER, SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE DOES NOT REQUIRE A SPECIFIC AND INDEPENDENT AGREEMENT WITH T HE GOVERNMENT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) , WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE THIS ISSUE AT THIS STAGE. I N VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED'. AS THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS MATERIALLY IDEN TICAL TO THAT OF AY 2012-13, FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN THER EIN, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN BOTH THE YEARS UN DER CONSIDERATION AS THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IS IN C ONSONANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE ITAT AND DISMISS THE GROUN DS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH JUNE, 2018. SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 8 TH JUNE, 2018 KV COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2), ROOM NO. 513, 5 TH FLOOR, SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR, HYD. 2. M/S HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PVT. LTD., AIR C ARGO TERMINAL, RAJIV GANDHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, SHAMSHABAD, HYDERABAD 500 409. 3. CIT(A) - 2, HYDERABAD 4. PR. CIT - 2, HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE