Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad V. M/s Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited, Secunderabad

ITA 200/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74481 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOLGY JOSE KOTTARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: K R VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Deemed dividend
• Section: 147; 6; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.200/HYD/2013 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 ITA NO.201/HYD/2013 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 ITA NO.202/HYD/2013 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ITA NO.203/HYD/2013 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD V/S. M/S. ASCEND TELECOM INFRAS TRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD ( PAN - AAECA 2391 H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND ITA NO.320/HYD/2013 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 ITA NO.321/HYD/2013 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 ITA NO.322/HYD/2013 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ITA NO.323/HYD/2013 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 M/S. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD ( PAN - AAECA 2391 H) V/S. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.R.VASUDEVAN DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SOLGY JOSE KOTTARAM, DR DATE OF HEARING DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FOR FOUR YEARS. THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SIMILAR BUT SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) II, HYDERABAD DATED 10.12.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2007 - 08. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THE COMMON ORDERS FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 200/ HYD/201 3 & SEVEN OTHERS M/S. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD 2 2. FACTUAL BACK GROUND LEADING TO THE FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEALS. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, COMMON IN ALL THESE APPEALS, AS TAKEN FROM THE APPEAL OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, M/S. ASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. (AIPL) , PRESENTLY KNOWN AS ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 1.11.2004 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,15,786 AFTER CLAIMING A DEDUCTION OF RS.19,32,453 UNDER S.80 IA FROM INFRASTRUCTURE BUSINESS. AN ASSESSMENT UNDER S.143(3 ) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 22.12.2006 DENYING THE DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IA AND DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.21,48,240. ON APPEAL, THE CIT( A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 14.3.2008. THERE WAS A SURVEY UNDER S.133A OF THE ACT ON 25.1.2011 IN THE CASE OF M/S. ASTER TELE - SERVICES PVT. LTD., THE FLAGSHIP COMPANY OF ASTER GROUP TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE BELONGS. IT CAME TO LIGHT THAT SMT. U.RAJINI WHO IS A CO - PROMOTER OF ATPL AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED LOANS FROM AIPL , WHICH P OSSESSED ACCUMULATED PROFITS OF RS.1 1 ,41,78,767 AS ON 31.3.2004 AND ACCORDINGLY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S.2(22)(E), THE SAID LOAN/ADVANCE R ECEIVED WOULD BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT, BY ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER S.148 ON 28.3.2011. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 3. 6.2001 STATING THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER S.139(1) OF THE ACT MAY BE TREATED AS THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S.148 OFTHE ACT. 3. DURING THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN, WHY THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,51,767,945, REPRESENTING THE LOAN OR ADVANCE OR ANY AMOUNT NOTICED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE AIPL FROM ATPL, SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A SHARE - HOLDER IN ATPL THAT THERE WERE NUMEROUS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS IN BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES WITH RESPECT TO SUPPLY OF MATERIALS, TOWERS, SHELTERS, ANTENNA SITE MAINTENANCE, ERECTION COMMISSIONING AND OTHER MATERIAL AND THAT THESE TWO COMPANIES ARE IN MUTUAL COOPERATION WITH REGARD TO FINANCES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT CERTAIN DEBTS REPRESENT JE ITA NO. 200/ HYD/201 3 & SEVEN OTHERS M/S. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD 3 ONLY. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT CERTAIN AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED TOWARDS PAYMENT OF SALARIES OR TO MEET ITS URGENT BUSINESS EXPENDITURE OR TO PURCHASE CERTAIN ASSETS BY THE A SSESSEE. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED WERE ON ACCOUNT OF ACCOMMODATION OF FUNDS ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL SHARE HOLDER OR SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED PERSONS. IT WAS REITERATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT A SHARE HOLDER IN THE ATPL FOR TREATING THE AMOUNT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON A NUMBER OF DECISIONS IN THAT BEHALF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, AND OBSE RV ED THAT THE LEDGER ACCOUNT SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED HUGE AMOUNTS WITHOUT ANY REASON, EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE SOME REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES, THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED WAS MORE THAN THE REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. THE A RGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS NOT A SHAREHOLDER IN ATPL, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAD NO MERIT IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION 3(A) U/S. 2(22)(E) WHERE THE SCOPE OF SHARE H OLD ER WAS ENLARGED TO INCLUDE A COMPANY HAVING COMMON SHAREHOLDER AND TH E AMENDING PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE, IF THE COMMON SHAREHOLDER HOLDS MORE THAN 20% OF VOTING RIGHTS IN THE RECIPIENT COMPANY AND MORE THAN 10% IN THE PAYEE COMPANY AND SINCE SMT.U.RAJINI HOLDS 99% AND 45% SHARES IN THE AIPL AND ATPL RESPECTIVELY, THE PROV ISIONS OF S.2(22)(E) WE RE HELD TO BE APPLICABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF SMT. TARULATA SHYAM V/S. CIT(108 ITR 345); OF THE HYDERABAD BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF HYDERABAD CHEM ICAL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. V/S. ITO (72 ITD 323); PRASAD FILM LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. V/S. ACIT CIRCLE 14(2), HYDERABAD, NCK SONS EXPORT PVT. LTD. V/S. ITO(102 ITD 311) AND OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN BHARATI OVERSEAS TRADING CO. V/S. DCIT (106 TAXMANN 172); AND OTHERS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONCLUSION, AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,05,20,855 IN TERMS OF S.2(22)(E). THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 2.11.2011 STATED THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION FOR DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIM ED UNDER S.80IA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY, COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,26,69,100. AFTER MAKING ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF ITA NO. 200/ HYD/201 3 & SEVEN OTHERS M/S. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD 4 DEEMED DIVIDEND AND ALSO BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM UNDER S.80IA OF THE ACT, WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.147 OF THE ACT. 4. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL, CONTESTING NOT ONLY THE ADDITION IN TERMS OF S.2(22)(E) MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON MERITS, BUT ALSO THE LEGALITY AND VALIDIT Y OF THE ASSESSMENT, AS ABOVE, MADE BY THE ABOVE. THE CIT(A) AFTER ELABORATING CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER, ON MERITS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHAUMIK COLOUR PVT. LTD. (313 ITGR 146); ;AND THE DECISION O F THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MTAR TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. V/S ACIT (ITA NO. 555/HYD 2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.8.2009, AND ALSO THE DECISIONS OF THE RAJSASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL HILLTOP (313 ITR 16) ; OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MCC MARKETING PVT. LTD. (343 ITR 350) AND ANITECH P T. LTD. 340 ITR 14), HELD THAT IN VIEW OF OVERWHELMING ADJUDICATION S/ PRONOUNCEMENTS TO THE EFFECT THAT NO DEEMED DIVIDEND CAN BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF A NON - REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER, H ELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT A REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER OF M/S. ASTER TELESERVICES PT. LTD. LTD., CANNOT BE TAXED FOR DEEMED DIVIDEND FOR THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE SAID CONCERN, AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THAT BEHALF. HAVING DECIDED THE ISSUE OF DEEMED DIVIDEND, ON MERITS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) DECLINED TO GO INTO THE OTHER ISSUE OF LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 5. FOR THE OTHER THREE YEARS UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US ALSO, BUT FOR THE AMOUNTS OF ADDITIONS MADE INVOLVED, FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, AND IN FACT, THE CIT(A) BY THE SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED, UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY FOLLOWING HER ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) , ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 200/ HYD/201 3 & SEVEN OTHERS M/S. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD 5 7. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEALS, COMMON FOR ALL THE YEARS, AS TAKEN FROM THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR VIZ. 2004 - 05 READ AS FOLLOWS - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CA S E. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVIS I ONS U/S. 2(22)(E) O F THE I.T. ACT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE IN VIEW OF THE PROVIS I ON S O F S.2(22)(E) AND THERE ARE COMMON SHARE HOL D ERS HAVING MORE THAN 10% OF THE VOTING POWER IN BOTH THE COMPANIES. 4. .. 8. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEALS, COMMON FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS, AS TAKEN FROM THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05, READ AS FOLLOWS - 1. RE - OPENING OF ASSESSMENT . A . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) (LEARNED CIT(A)) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING ON THE GROUND OF RE - OPENING OF ASSESSMENT. B . THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING ON THE MATTER O F FACT THAT THE LEARNED DY. CIT (DCIT) HAS REOPENED ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) BEYOND 4 YEARS, WITHOUT RECORDING THE REASONS IN WRITING. 2. DEEMED DIVIDEND RS.10,520,855 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATION ON THE QUESTION OF FACT AS TO WHETHER THE LOAN AND ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS ARE IN THE NATURE OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT 9. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THOUGH BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE ARGUED AT LENGTH IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE ITA NO. 200/ HYD/201 3 & SEVEN OTHERS M/S. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD 6 CONTENTIONS, RELYING ON A NUMBER OF DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CONTENTIONS, NOT ONLY ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE RE - ASSESSMENT, BUT ALSO ON T HE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF THE IMPUGNED RE - ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) R E AD WITH S.147 OF THE ACT, WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ULTIMATELY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS HIS CONTENTI ONS WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IN ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. SIMILARLY, THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEA LS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON THE ISSUE OF DEEMED DIVIDENDS ON MERITS, ARE MISCONCEIVED, IN AS MUCH AS THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN THAT BEHALF, AND IT IS AGAINST SUCH RELIEF REVENUE PREFERRED ITS APPEALS BEFOR E US. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALSO REJECTED. 10. NOW TURNING TO THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE WHICH RELATE TO THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS IN TERMS OF S.2(22)(E) MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DELETED BY THE CIT(A) BY THE IMPUGNED ORDERS FOR ALL THESE YEARS, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE, ADMITTEDLY IS COVERED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL (BOMBAY) IN THE CASE OF BHAUMIK COLOUR PVT. LTD. (313 ITR 146), AND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THAT CASE HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AS WELL IN ANITECH PVT. LTD. (340 ITR 14). DURING THE COURSE OF H E ARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE BENCH CALLED FOR THE R E GI S TER OF SHARE - HOL D ER S . THE LEARNED COUNSEL , IN THIS CONTEXT, INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 4.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05, WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS FOLLO W S - 4.1 THE OTHER CON T ENT I ON THAT SIN C E THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT A SHARE HOL D ER IN ATPL, THE AMOUNT COULD NO T B E TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IS NO T TENABLE. SUCH ARGUMENT MAY BE VALID BEFORE AMENDMENT TO THEY PROVIS I ONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE AC T. AFTER AMENDMENT BY THE FIN A N C E AC T 1987 W.E.F. 1.4.88 AND IN SER TION OF EXPLANA T ION 3(A) U/S. 2(22), THE SCOPE OF SHA R E HOL D ER WAS ENLARGED TO INCLUDE A COMPANY HAVING COMMON SHAREHOLDER. HOW E VER, THIS DEEMING PROVIS I ON IS APPLICABLE ONLY IF THE COMMON SHARE HOL D ER HOLDS MORE THAN 20% OF VOTING RIGHTS IN THE RECIPIENT COMPANY AND MORE THAN 10% IN PAYEE COMPANY. IN THIS CA S E, MRS.U.RAJINI HOLDS 99% & 45 % OF SHARES IN AIPL ITA NO. 200/ HYD/201 3 & SEVEN OTHERS M/S. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD 7 AND ATPL RESPECTIVELY. THIS FACT IS N O T IN DISPUTE. HENCE THE AMENDED PROVIS I ONS CLEARLY ATTRACTED TO THIS CASE. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CONTENDED THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE SHA R EHOLDING PATT E RN, AND HIS CONCLUSION WIT H REGARD TO DEEMED DIVIDEND IS BASED ON THE FACT THE SHARE - HOLDING PATTERN WOULD NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE ISSUE, AFTER THE AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THAT S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. NOTWITHSTANDIN G THE ABOVE POSITION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED A CERTIFIED COPY O F THE REGISTER OF SHARE - HOL D ERS AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE BENCH. I N THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SHARE - HOL D IN G PATTERN, I.E. WHETHER ASSESSEE - COMPANY I S A SHAREHOLDER OF ASTER TELE S E RVI C ES PRIVATE LIMITED , AND REDECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY. I F IT IS FOUND , UPON SUCH VERIFICATION, THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER OF M/S. A S TER TELE SERVIC E S PVT. LTD., EVEN THOUGH MRS.RAJINI MAY BE A COMMON SHARE HOLDER, THE ASSESSING O FFICER, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF BHAUMIK COLOUR PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANITECH PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), BESIDES THE DECISIONS OF OTHER HIGH COURT S , TO A REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE B Y THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, SHALL NOT INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF S.2(22)(E) AND MAKE ANY ADDITIONS IN THAT BEHALF. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ACCORDINGLY REDECIDE THE ISSUE ON DUE VERIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIV ING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AND THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23.1.2014 SD/ - SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI ) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT/ - 23 RD JANUARY, 2014 ITA NO. 200/ HYD/201 3 & SEVEN OTHERS M/S. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD 8 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT NO.25 & 26 2 ND CRESCENT, SAINIKPURI, SECUNDERABAD 2 . DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) II, HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX I HYDERABAD 5 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S