ITO, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. Usha Raju, Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 379/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2478 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N SWAPNA
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. A.Y APPELLANT RESPONDENT 377/HYD/2017 2008-09 THE ITO, WARD 3(2), HYDERABAD. SHRI P. SURYANARAYANA RAJU, HYDERABAD. PAN-AEKPP2008P 379/HYD/2017 2008-09 THE ITO, WARD 3(2), HYDERABAD. SMT. USHA RAJU, HYDERABAD. PAN-AHCPR4351C 380/HYD/2017 2008-09 THE ITO, WARD 3(2), HYDERABAD. SMT. ALLURI SATYAVATHI RAJU, HYDERABAD. PAN-ABQPA5296F REVENUE BY : SMT N. SWAPNA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A. SRINIVAS DATE OF HEARING : 01-02-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-02-2018 ORDER PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, A.M: THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE A.Y 2008- 09 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-3, HYDERABAD IN ITA NO. 021, 022 & 023/CIT(A)-3/2015-16 DATED 16.12.2016, AS THE ISSUES ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CIT) HAS PASSED THE COMMON ORDER IN THESE THREE CASES. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS, THE SAME WERE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND THEREFORE, WE FIND IT CONVENIENT TO DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS BY A COMMON ORDER AS UNDER: 2. FOR THE A.Y 2008-09 THE ASSESSEE MR. P SURYANARAYANA RAJU FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING 2 ITA NOS. 377, 379 AND 380 /HYD/2017 TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,20,000/- UNDER THE HEAD SALARIES. THE OTHER ASSESSEES, SMT. SATYAVATHI RAJU AND SMT. USHA RAJU HAVE NOT FILED THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEES WERE OWNERS 7456.60 SQ.YARDS OF THE LAND AT MADINGUDA VILLAGE, SERILINGAMPALLY MANDAL & MUNICIPALITY IN RANGA REDDY DISTRICT HAVING ACQUIRED LAND IN THE F.Y 1995-96 AND THE SHARE HOLDING OF THE COW-OWNERS IS AS UNDER: SQ. YARDS 1. SMT A. SATYAVATHI RAJU 3,339.60 2. SRI. P. SURYANARAYANA RAJU 2,420.00 3. SMT. K. USHA RAJU 1,694.00 3. THE ASSESSEES HAVE HAD ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH A BUILDER BY NAME SREE BUDHAS HOMES, A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN ON 02.03.2006 IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2005-06 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y 2006-07 AND RECEIVED SHARE IN BUILT UP AREA PROPORTIONATELY TO THEIR SHARE HOLDING OF THE LAND. 4. BEFORE THE A.O, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE MUNICIPAL PERMISSION / SANCTION PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT COMPLEX WAS ACCORDED ON 15.02.2008 AND THE INCOME REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSEE IN THE A.Y.2008-09 BUT NOT THE A.Y.2006-07, HENCE THE AO ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND REOPENED THE ASSESSEMENT U/S147 FOR THE A.Y 2008-09 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS AS UNDER: SL. NO ASSESSEE RETURNED INCOME CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSED INCOME SECTION UNDER WHICH ASSESSMENT MADE 1. SMT. A. SATYAVATHI RAJU 145000 10424000 10569000 144 R.W.S 147 2. SHRI SURYANARAYANA RAJU 120000 7570850 7690850 143(3) R.W.S 147 3 SMT. K. USHA RAJU 145000 5279390 5416390 144 R.W.S 147 3 ITA NOS. 377, 379 AND 380 /HYD/2017 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEES CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. SINCE THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F IS A LEGAL CLAIM, THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE IT ACT SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54F AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN HERE UNDER: SL.NO ASSESSEE AREA OF LAND (IN SQ. YARDS) BUILT UP AREA NUMBER OF FLATS 1. SMT. A. SATYAVATHI RAJU 3339.6 25890 15 2. SHRI SURYANARAYANA RAJU 2420 17985 11 3 SMT. K. USHA RAJU 1694 13580 8 6. THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION AFTER VERIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54F AND RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS, INCLUDING THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT HYDERABAD. A. CIT VSGITA DUGGAL (2013) 357 ITR 153 (DELHI). B. VITTAL KRISHNA CONJEEVARAM VS ITO [2013] 36 TAXMANN.COM 542. C. ITO, BUSINESS WARD, CHANNAI VS MRS P.A. SARALA. [2015] 58 TAXMANN. COM 290. D. CHINNADURAI VS ITO CHENNAI [2016] 74 TAXMANN. COM 227 (MADRAS). E. CIT VS SYED ALI ADIL [2013] 352 ITR 418 (AP). F. ITO VS SMT ROHINI REDDY [2010] 122 ITD (HYD). 7. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION A IS PLURAL U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ALL THE FLATS FALLING TO THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEES AND FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 54F SUBSTITUTING THE WORD A WITH ONE IS WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2015 AND AMENDMENT IS PROSPECTIVE AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KARPAGAM 226 TAXMANN 197(MADRAS) AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE A.O TO ALLOW THE 54F 4 ITA NOS. 377, 379 AND 380 /HYD/2017 DEDUCTION, AFTER BEING SATISFIED WITH THE CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE IT ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED BOTH INLAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 54F TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE NEVER CLAIMED THE SAME BEFORE THE A.O. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE DEDUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O BY FILING THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND ALSO NOT FILED EITHER A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME OR A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION AND ALLOWING THE SAME WITHOUT THERE BEING A CLAIM IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. ANY OTHER GROUND(S) THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 8. ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE RELATED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS/CLAIM BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY CLAIM BEFORE THE A.O, THE REVENUE IS OF THE OPINION THAT LD.CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE ENTERTAINED THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM AT THE APPEAL STAGE WITHOUT REMANDING THE ISSUE TO THE AO. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S54F FOR MORE THAN ONE FLAT AS PER THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH IN THE CASE LAW CITED (SUPRA) AND THE OTHER DECISIONS RELIED UP ON BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH DIRECTIONS TO ALLOW THE CLAIM SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF THE CONDITIONS LAID UNDER SECTION 54F TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE SAID DEDUCTION. THE 5 ITA NOS. 377, 379 AND 380 /HYD/2017 ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER THE LD.CIT(A) IS PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW TO ENTERTAIN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND/CLAIM OR NOT?, IF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE THE CLAIM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54F IS PURELY LEGAL ISSUE AND THE CIT(A) IS PERMITTED TO ENTERTAIN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS/CLAIM AT THE APPELLATE STAGE AND THERE IS NO BAR TO ENTERTAIN ADDITIONAL GROUND. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PRUDHVI BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS (2012) 23 TAXMANN.COM 23 (MUMBAI). WITH REGARD TO THE ENTERTAINMENT OF ADDITIONAL CLAIM HONBLE JUDICIAL HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: 10. A LONG LINE OF AUTHORITIES ESTABLISH CLEARLY THAT AN ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS NOT MERELY IN TERMS OF LEGAL SUBMISSIONS, BUT ALSO ADDITIONAL CLAIMS TO WIT CLAIMS NOT MADE IN THE RETURN FILED BY IT. IT IS NECESSARY FOR US TO REFER TO SOME OF THESE DECISIONS ONLY TO DEAL WITH TWO SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE FIRST IS WITH RESPECT TO AN OBSERVATION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1991 SUPP (2) SCC 744 = (1991) 187 ITR 688. THE SECOND SUBMISSION IS BASED ON A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (2006) 157 TAXMAN 1. 11(A). IN JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED V. CIT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1974-75 THE APPELLANT DID NOT CLAIM ANY DEDUCTION OF ITS LIABILITY TOWARDS PURCHASE TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE BENGAL RAW JUTE TAXATION ACT, 1941, AS IT ENTERTAINED A BELIEF THAT IT WAS NOT LIABLE TO PAY PURCHASE TAX UNDER THAT ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE APPELLANT WAS ASSESSED TO PURCHASE TAX AND THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS RECEIVED BY IT ON 23RD NOVEMBER, 1973. THE APPELLANT CHALLENGED THE SAME AND OBTAINED A STAY ORDER. THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED AN APPEAL FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT WAS ONLY DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN ADDITIONAL DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ITS LIABILITY TO PURCHASE TAX. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (AAC) PERMITTED IT TO RAISE THE CLAIM AND ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION. THE TRIBUNAL HELD 6 ITA NOS. 377, 379 AND 380 /HYD/2017 THAT THE AAC HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OR TO GRANT RELIEF ON A GROUND WHICH HAD NOT BEEN RAISED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO REFUSED THE APPELLANT'S APPLICATION FOR MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND REFUSED TO CALL FOR A STATEMENT OF CASE. IT IS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE APPELLANT FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. THE SUPREME COURT HELD AS UNDER :- 5. IN CIT V. KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE, A THREE JUDGE BENCH OF THIS COURT DISCUSSED THE SCOPE OF SECTION 31(3)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1922 WHICH IS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO SECTION 251(1)(A). THE COURT HELD AS UNDER: (ITR P. 229) IF AN APPEAL LIES, SECTION 31 OF THE ACT DESCRIBES THE POWERS OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN SUCH AN APPEAL. UNDER SECTION 31(3)(A) IN DISPOSING OF SUCH AN APPEAL THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MAY, IN THE CASE OF AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT; UNDER CLAUSE (B) THEREOF HE MAY SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HAS, THEREFORE, PLENARY POWERS IN DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL. THE SCOPE OF HIS POWER IS CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER. HE CAN DO WHAT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER CAN DO AND ALSO DIRECT HIM TO DO WHAT HE HAS FAILED TO DO. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 6. THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 251(1)(A) OF THE ACT. THE DECLARATION OF LAW IS CLEAR THAT THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IS COTERMINOUS WITH THAT OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, IF THAT BE SO, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO REASON AS TO WHY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CANNOT MODIFY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON AN ADDITIONAL GROUND EVEN IF NOT RAISED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. NO EXCEPTION COULD BE TAKEN TO THIS VIEW AS THE ACT DOES NOT PLACE ANY RESTRICTION OR LIMITATION ON THE EXERCISE OF APPELLATE POWER. EVEN OTHERWISE AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHILE HEARING APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF A SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY HAS ALL THE POWERS WHICH THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY MAY HAVE IN DECIDING THE QUESTION BEFORE IT SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS IF ANY 7 ITA NOS. 377, 379 AND 380 /HYD/2017 PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISION THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS VESTED WITH ALL THE PLENARY POWERS WHICH THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY MAY HAVE IN THE MATTER. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO GOOD REASON AND NONE WAS PLACED BEFORE US TO JUSTIFY CURTAILMENT OF THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN ENTERTAINING AN ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SEEKING MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] (B) IT IS CLEAR, THEREFORE, THAT AN ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RAISE NOT MERELY ADDITIONAL LEGAL SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, BUT IS ALSO ENTITLED TO RAISE ADDITIONAL CLAIMS BEFORE THEM. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAVE THE DISCRETION WHETHER OR NOT TO PERMIT SUCH ADDITIONAL CLAIMS TO BE RAISED. IT CANNOT, HOWEVER, BE SAID THAT THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE SAME. THEY HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE NEW CLAIM. THAT THEY MAY CHOOSE NOT TO EXERCISE THEIR JURISDICTION IN A GIVEN CASE IS ANOTHER MATTER. THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE EXISTENCE OF JURISDICTION. 12. AT PAGE 694, AFTER REFERRING TO CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. GURJARGRAVURES P. LTD., (1978) 111 ITR 1, THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AT PAGE 694 AS UNDER :- THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS DO NOT RULE OUT A CASE FOR RAISING AN ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IF THE GROUND SO RAISED COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED AT THAT PARTICULAR STAGE WHEN THE RETURN WAS FILED OR WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE, OR THAT THE GROUND BECAME AVAILABLE ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES OR LAW. THERE MAY BE SEVERAL FACTORS JUSTIFYING RAISING OF SUCH NEW PLEA IN APPEAL, AND EACH CASE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON ITS OWN FACTS. IF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED HE WOULD BE ACTING WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION IN CONSIDERING THE QUESTION SO RAISED IN ALL ITS ASPECTS. OF COURSE, WHILE PERMITTING THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND, THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHOULD EXERCISE HIS DISCRETION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND REASON. HE MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE GROUND RAISED WAS BONA FIDE AND THAT THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED EARLIER FOR GOOD REASONS. THE SATISFACTION OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE 8 ITA NOS. 377, 379 AND 380 /HYD/2017 AND NO RIGID PRINCIPLES OR ANY HARD AND FAST RULE CAN BE LAID DOWN FOR THIS PURPOSE. [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] 13. THE UNDERLINED OBSERVATIONS IN THE ABOVE PASSAGE DO NOT CURTAIL THE AMBIT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES STIPULATED EARLIER. THEY DO NOT RESTRICT THE NEW/ADDITIONAL GROUNDS THAT MAY BE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES TO THOSE THAT WERE NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THE RETURN WAS FILED OR EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE. THE SENTENCE READ AS A WHOLE ENTITLES AN ASSESSEE TO RAISE NEW GROUNDS/MAKE ADDITIONAL CLAIMS :- IF THE GROUND SO RAISED COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED AT THAT PARTICULAR STAGE WHEN THE RETURN WAS FILED OR WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE.... OR IF THE GROUND BECAME AVAILABLE ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES OR LAW THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, THEREFORE, HAVE JURISDICTION TO DEAL NOT MERELY WITH ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, WHICH BECAME AVAILABLE ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES OR LAW, BUT WITH ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WHICH WERE AVAILABLE WHEN THE RETURN WAS FILED. THE FIRST PART VIZ. IF THE GROUND SO RAISED COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED AT THAT PARTICULAR STAGE WHEN THE RETURN WAS FILED OR WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE... CLEARLY RELATE TO CASES WHERE THE GROUND WAS AVAILABLE WHEN THE RETURN WAS FILED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE BUT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED AT THAT STAGE. THE WORDS ARE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED AND NOT WERE NOT IN EXISTENCE. GROUNDS WHICH WERE NOT IN EXISTENCE WHEN THE RETURN WAS FILED OR WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE FALL WITHIN THE SECOND CATEGORY VIZ. WHERE THE GROUND BECAME AVAILABLE ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES OR LAW. 9.1 THIS VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS NTPC 221 ITR 283 AND THE DECISION OF CIT VS NILAKANT PVT. LTD. 387 ITR 568. THEREFORE WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT /AO AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. 9 ITA NOS. 377, 379 AND 380 /HYD/2017 10. IN THE RESULT ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. KRK 1 1) SHRI P. SURYANARAYANA RAJU 2) SMT. USHA RAJU 3)SMT. ALLURE SATYAVATHI RAJU C/O PLOT # 33. ROAD NO. 71, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2 ITO,WARD 3(2), HYDERABAD. 3 CIT(A)-3, HYDERABAD. 4 THE PR. CIT-3, HYDERABAD. 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE