DCIT, Cirlce-3(3), Hyderabad V. M/s. V.B.C. Feero Alloys Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 395/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66470 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: V SIVA KUMAR
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Proportionate interest; Commercial expediency; Revised return
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL M EMBER ITA NO.395/HYD/2012 : ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008-09 DY. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 3(3), HYDERABAD V/S. M/S. VBC FERRO ALLOYS LTD., HYDERABAD ( PAN - AAACV 7258 A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.397/HYD/2012 : ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008-09 M/S. VBC FERRO ALLOYS LTD., HYDERABAD ( PAN - AAACV 7258 A) V/S. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 3(3), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI V.SRINIVAS ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.SIVAKUMAR DATE OF HEARING 30.8.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 9.11.2012 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE ARE CROSS-APPEALS ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER BY THE REVENUE- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IV, HYDERABAD, BOTH DATED 3 1.12.2011. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ITA NO.395 & 397/HYD/2012 M/S. VBC FERRO ALLOYS LTD. HYDERABAD 2 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE CROSS APPEALS RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE MADE OUT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR PAYME NT OF INTEREST, WHICH WAS RESTRICTED BY THE CIT(A) TO RS.1,16,83,800, AS AGAI NST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,21,42,594 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE A COMP ANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF FERRO ALLOYS. F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCO ME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.17,22,500. SUBSEQUENTLY, A REVISED RETURN WAS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 27.9.2008, SINCE THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN THE CALCULA TION OF TAX LIABILITY. IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHILE EX AMINING THE FINAL ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,21,42,594 TOWARDS INTEREST AND FINANCE CHARGES TO BANK AND OTHERS. AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2 008, THE ASSESSEE HAD SECURED AND UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.9,28,26,372 AND R S.17,53,52,860 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENTS IN KONASEEMA GAS POWER LIM ITED (KGPL), A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS EARLIER KNOWN AS KONASEEMA OAKWELL POWER LIMITED AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FURTH ER INVESTMENTS IN SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF TWO OTHER COMPANIES, NAMELY, K ARTHIK RUKMINI ALLOYS & ENERGY LIMITED AND ORISSA POWER CORPORATION LTD. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FORMED AN OPINION THAT HAD THE ASSESSEE NOT INVESTE D ITS FUNDS IN KGPL AND OTHER COMPANIES, IT WOULD HAVE UTILISED ITS FUNDS F OR ITS OWN BUSINESS WITHOUT HAVING THE NECESSITY TO BORROW MONEY FROM BANKS AND OTHERS INCURRING HUGE INTEREST BURDEN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING UPO N THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V.I. BABY AND CO. (254 ITR 248) AND HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F ABHISHEKH INDUSTRIES (286 ITR 1), HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS INVES TED INTEREST BEARING FUNDS IN SHARE CAPITAL OF OTHER COMPANIES, WHEREFROM NO I NTEREST WAS RECEIVED, ITA NO.395 & 397/HYD/2012 M/S. VBC FERRO ALLOYS LTD. HYDERABAD 3 PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OUT OF THE TOTAL INTEREST CL AIMED AS EXPENDITURE IS REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER S.36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE INTEREST-FREE LOANS WERE GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERNS O UT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. ON THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.4,21,42,594. 4. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTE NDED THAT INVESTMENT OF RS.134,31,00,000 IN KGPL AND RS.9,00, 74,064 IN OTHER COMPANIES WERE MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. DURING T HE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS OF RS.1 LAKH IN ORISSA POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND RS.99,20,000 IN KARTHIK RUKMIN I ALLOYS LTD. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT OUT OF TH E TOTAL INVESTMENT AS ON 31.3.2008, THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF R S.134,31,00,000 IN ITS SISTER CONCERN, KGPL AND RS.9,00,74,064 IN OTHER CO MPANIES IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE A FORESAID INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES OF AP GAS POWER CORPORATION LTD., WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED LONG TIME BACK, OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT INVESTMENT MADE IN KGPL WAS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE ONLY. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME-TAX A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-006, 2004-05 AND 2003-04 IN ITA NOS.1763 AND 842/HYD/08 AND ITA NO.919/HYD/06 DATED 3.11.2009 DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THOSE YEARS. SO FAR AS THE INVESTMENTS OF RS.9 9,20,000 MADE IN KARTIK RUKMINI ALLOY LTD. AND RS.1 LAKH IN ORISSA POWER CO RPORATION LTD ARE CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT BEING A P OWER INTENSIVE INDUSTRY, FOR DRAWAL OF QUALITY POWER AT CHEAPER RATE, THE AS SESSEE HAS PROPOSED TO SET UP A 65 MW COAL BASED CAPTIVE POWER PLANT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL HAVE 26% OF THE EQUITY IN THE COMPAN Y AND CAN DRAW POWER AT ITA NO.395 & 397/HYD/2012 M/S. VBC FERRO ALLOYS LTD. HYDERABAD 4 CHEAPER RATE FOR ITS FERRO ALLOY BUSINESS. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT RS.99,20,000 WAS PAID WHEN FUNDS WERE REQUIRED BY T HE SAID COMPANY OUT OF THE INCOME GENERATED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELE VANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND NOT OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS.1 LAKH IN ORISSA POWER CO RPORATION LTD. WAS ALSO OUT OF INTERNAL ACCRUALS AND NOT FROM BORROWED FUND S. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF INTEREST AND FINANCE CHARGES OF RS.4,21,42,594 DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,74,44,5 50 IS NOT TOWARDS INTEREST ON LOAN BUT RELATES TO BANK CHARGES, POWER BILL, SE RVICE TAX, SALES TAX, EXCISE DUTY AND HIRE PURCHASE INSTALMENT, ETC. 5. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND EXAMINING THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,74,44,550 IS NOT RELATABLE TO ANY BORROWED FUNDS, AND HENCE, IT IS NOT DISALLOWABLE. THE CIT(A) ALSO ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT IN VIEW OF INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNALS DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST CA N BE MADE IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN KGPL AND OTHER COMPANIES IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. HOWEVER, SO FAR AS ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT MA DE DURING THE YEAR IS CONCERNED, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS ANY COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IN MAKING T HE INVESTMENT. THE CIT(A) REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE WAS NOT OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS BUT OUT OF INTERNAL ACCRUALS , HELD THAT HAD THE ASSESSEE NOT MADE THE INVESTMENTS, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY REQUIREMENT FOR MAKING BORROWING FOR ACQUIRING INVE NTORY BESIDES BEARING OTHER OPERATIONAL EXPENSES. THE CIT(A), FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V.I. BABY & CO. (S UPRA) AND HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF H.R. SUGAR FACT ORY V/S. CIT(187 ITR 363), HELD THAT BORROWINGS TO THE EXTENT OF ADDITIO NAL INVESTMENTS MADE ITA NO.395 & 397/HYD/2012 M/S. VBC FERRO ALLOYS LTD. HYDERABAD 5 DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS TO BE HELD TO BE MADE FOR SUPPLEMENTING THE CASH/FUND DIVERTED FOR NON-BUSINE SS PURPOSES. THE CIT(A) WORKED OUT THE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT DURING THE YEA R TO BE RS.9,73,65,001 AND CALCULATING INTEREST, APPLYING A RATE OF 12% TH EREON, AT RS.1,16,83,800, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE DISA LLOWANCE OF INTEREST TO THE AFORESAID AMOUNT. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A), REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE APPEAL, ITA NO.395/HYD/2012 BEFORE U S, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ITS APPEAL ITA NO.397/HYD/2012, CONTESTS TH E DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORT ING THE REASONING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE WERE F OR BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PERFECTLY IN ORDER. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SU BMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE O F INTEREST BY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, SINCE EACH ASSESSMEN T YEAR HAS TO BE VIEWED INDEPENDENTLY ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED T HAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE INV ESTMENTS WERE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. THE LEARNED DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT UNLESS THERE IS RECIPROCAL TRANSACTI ONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THERE CANNOT BE ANY COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. HE SUBMI TTED THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO P ROVE THAT THERE WERE ANY RECIPROCAL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND TH E COMPANIES, IN WHICH IT HAS MADE INVESTMENTS. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN FOR THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN EARLIER ASSES SMENT YEARS PROPORTIONATE ITA NO.395 & 397/HYD/2012 M/S. VBC FERRO ALLOYS LTD. HYDERABAD 6 INTEREST CAN BE DISALLOWED SINCE ELEMENT OF CONTINU ING COST IS INVOLVED. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SHARE CAPITAL OF OTHER COMP ANIES IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT PROPORTI ONATE INTEREST IS REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 14A OF THE ACT. FOR THIS PROPO SITION THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT V/S. MAHESWARI PLAZA RESOURCES LIMITED IN ITA NO.778 AND OTHERS HYD/2009 DATED 31-10-2011. 8. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, AT THE O UTSET, SUBMITTED THAT SO FAR AS INVESTMENTS IN SHARE CAPITAL OF KGP L AND OTHER COMPANIES MADE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE CONCERNED, THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2005-06, 2004-05 AND 2003-04 IN ITA NOS. 1763/HYD/08, 842/HYD/08 AND ITA NO.919/HYD/06, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE INVESTMENT IN S HARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THEREFORE NO DI SALLOWANCE OF INTEREST CAN BE MADE ON THAT ACCOUNT. SO FAR AS ADDITIONAL INVE STMENTS MADE DURING THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS CONCERNED, THE LEARNED A UTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THEY WERE NOT MADE FROM BORROWED FUN DS. THEREFORE, THERE BEING NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST PAID ON BORROWE D FUNDS AND INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST C OULD BE MADE. THE LEARNED AR COUNTERING THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT SINCE THE INVESTMENT MADE IS FO R EARNING EXEMPT INCOME, DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST CAN BE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT, SUBMITTED THAT SUCH ARGUMENT IS NOT TENABLE SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISALLOWED THE INTEREST U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION IN CASE OF MAHESWARI PL AZA (SUPRA) IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRES ENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.395 & 397/HYD/2012 M/S. VBC FERRO ALLOYS LTD. HYDERABAD 7 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDER DATED 3-11- 2009 PASSED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA). THE CIT (A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RS.1,16,83,800 BY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTION THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE TRI BUNAL. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS ALSO COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THI S TRIBUNAL RECENTLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 6.11.2012, IN ITA NO.1326/HYD/2010 OF THE REVENUE AND ITA NO.1378 /HYD/2010, TO WHICH BOTH OF US ARE PARTIES, CONSIDERING ALMOST IDENTICA L CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES, HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER- 9. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT HAS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT IF THERE IS A MUTUAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS SIS TER CONCERN WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE MADE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES THEN IT HA S TO BE CONSIDERED AS ADVANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMERC IAL EXPEDIENCY. IT CANNOT BE SIMPLY ACCEPTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL UNLESS THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL FITS IN TO THE FACTS OF THE EARLIER YEAR CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE PRE SENT CASE, WE FIND THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHETHER THERE IS ANY MUTUAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS SISTER CONCERN. NOTHIN G HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED POWER FROM ITS SISTER CONCERN AT A CHEAPER RATE TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF COMMERCI AL EXPEDIENCY IN MAKING THE INVESTMENT. NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS TO WH AT ARE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS SISTER CONC ERN FOR AVAILING THE POWER. IT IS ALSO NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE ASSESSEE H AS STARTED AVAILING POWER FROM ITS SISTER CONCERN OR NOT. IN THE AFORESAID C IRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE WHETHER MUTUAL TRANS ACTION EXISTS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER COMPANIES IN WHICH THE A SSESSEE HAS MADE THE INVESTMENT. ONLY IF IT IS FOUND AS A RESULT OF NEC ESSARY VERIFICATION AND ENQUIRY THAT MUTUAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSE E AND THE COMPANYS WHERE IT HAS MADE INVESTMENTS WITHOUT CHARGING INTE REST, THEN THE INVESTMENTS ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN MADE ON ACC OUNT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. WE THEREFORE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH AND DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE FOR THE YEAR UN DER APPEAL, VIZ. 2008-09, ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL W HILE DECIDING THE CROSS- APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. HENCE, FO R THE DETAILED REASONS ITA NO.395 & 397/HYD/2012 M/S. VBC FERRO ALLOYS LTD. HYDERABAD 8 DISCUSSED IN THAT CONTEXT, WHICH WE HAVE EXTRACTED HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AS WELL, AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 EXTRACTED ABOVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ACCOR DINGLY REDECIDE THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AF TER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9.11.2012 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (SAKTI JIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED/- 9 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S.VBC FERRO ALLOYS LIMITED, PROGRESSIVE TOWERS, III FLOOR, 6-2-913/914,KAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD500 004. 2. 3. 4 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 3(3), HYDERAB AD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-IV, HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX III, HYDERABAD 5 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S