Dy.CIT, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad V. M/s Greenko Energies Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 4/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2785 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI
• Assessee Lawyers: ROOPALI J
• Keywords: Difference of opinion

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER S. NO. ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 3/H/13 2006-07 DY. COMMISS- IONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(3), HYDERABAD M/S GREENKO ENERGIES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S SRI BALAJI BIOMASS POWER PLANT PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD. (PAN AAFCS7123L) 2. 4/H/13 2006-07 -DO- -DO- 3. 5/H/13 2007-08 -DO- -DO- 4. 6/H/13 2008-09 -DO- -DO- 5 7/H/13 2009-10 -DO- -DO- REVENUE BY : SHRI Y.V.S.T. SAI RESPONDENT BY : SMT. ROOPALI J. DATE OF HEARING : 17/04/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 0/05/2013 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, J.M.: ALL THESE APPEALS, PERTAINING TO ONE ASSESSEE, PRE FERRED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)- III, HYDERABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10. OUT OF THE SAID APPEALS, THE APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 4/H/1 3 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND OTHER APPEALS R ELATING TO DELETION OF QUANTUM ADDITIONS BY THE CIT(A). SINCE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THESE APPEALS REVOLVES ARO UND A SINGLE ISSUE, THESE APPEALS WERE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHE R AND, THEREFORE, A COMMON ORDER IS PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 3, 4,5,6 & 7/HYD/2013 M/S GREENKO ENERGIES PVT. LTD. 2 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEALS 3,5,6 & 7/H/11 ARE COMMON, WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN GRANTING RELIEF T O THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING FINDING THAT THE SALE PRICE ACCRUED ONLY AS PER RATE PAID BY AP TRANSCO PER UNI T, WHEREAS, THERE IS A REAL CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HIGHER AMOUNT AND MERELY BECAUSE THE MATTER IS IN LITIGATION, IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT THERE IS NO AC CRUAL OF THE DIFFERENCE PRICE. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN GIVING FINDING TH AT THERE IS NO ACCRUAL ON DIFFERENCE PRICE, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE RAISED APPROPRIATE INVOICES FOR THE FULL AMOUNT AND MAKING ACTIVE CLAIM FOR THE FULL AMOUNT. 3. TO DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS, WE REFER TO THE FAC TS OF THE CASE IN ITA NO. 3/H/2013. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GENERATION OF POWER AND SUPPLY THE SAME TO TRANSMISSION CORPORATI ON OF A.P. LTD., (A.P. TRANSCO). DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR REL EVANT TO AY 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RAISED INVOICES AT A HIGHER RATE, HOWEVER, OFFERED THE INCOME FOR TAXATION AT A LOWER RATE MENTIONED HEREIN BELOW. THE DETAILS ARE AS FOLLOWS: I) FOR AY 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE RAISED INVOICE AT R S. 3.48 PER UNIT, HOWEVER, ACCOUNTED THE REVENUE AT RS. 3.1 8 PER UNIT. II) FOR 2007-08 THE ASSESSEE RAISED INVOICE AT RS. 4.0285 PER UNIT, HOWEVER, ACCOUNTED THE REVENUE AT RS. 3.21 PE R UNIT, INCLUDING THE INTERIM RELIEF OF AP HIGH COURT. III) FOR 2008-09 THE ASSESSEE RAISED INVOICE AT RS. 4.23 PER UNIT, HOWEVER, ACCOUNTED THE REVENUE AT RS. 3.21 PE R UNIT. IV) FOR 2009-10 THE ASSESSEE RAISED INVOICE AT RS. 4.4415 PER UNIT, HOWEVER, ACCOUNTED THE REVENUE AT RS. 3.1 9 TO 3.79 PER UNIT. ITA NO. 3, 4,5,6 & 7/HYD/2013 M/S GREENKO ENERGIES PVT. LTD. 3 4. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTE RED INTO POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH AP TRANSCO ON 17 TH AUGUST, 2001 FOR THE SALE OF POWER. THE SAID PPA STIPULATED THAT IT IS ENFORCEABLE SUBJECT TO OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM APER C (ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION). AS PER THE PPA, THE SALE PRICE PER UNIT WAS FIXED AT RS. 2.25 WITH AN E SCALATION AT 5% PER ANNUM WITH 1994-95 AS THE BASE YEAR. THIS RATE WAS TO BE REVISED ON THE FIRST OF APRIL OF EVERY YEAR. THE PP A WAS VALID UP TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04. GOING BY THESE CALCULAT IONS THE RATE APPLICABLE FOR FY 2004-05 WORKED OUT TO RS. 3.48 PE R UNIT OF POWER AND THE APPLICABLE RATE PER UNIT FOR AY 2006- 07 WAS RS. 3.48. SUBSEQUENTLY, PPA WAS REVISED AS ON 12 TH MARCH, 2004, WHICH WAS STIPULATED THAT THE SALE PRICE PER UNIT S HALL BE FIXED BY APERC. THEREAFTER, APERC REVISED THE UNIT RATE DRAS TICALLY TO RS. 2.88 FOR THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATIONS. 5. AGGRIEVED BY SUCH DRASTIC DOWNWARD REVISION, THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER POWER DEVELOPERS IN THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH WENT ON APPEAL TO AP HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT VIDE ITS INTERIM ORDERS DATED 20 TH AUGUST, 2004 HAS ORDERED APERC FOR THE PAYMENT OF 50% OF THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT TO THE PO WER DEVELOPERS AND FURTHER ORDERED THE POWER DEVELOPERS TO APPROACH ELECTRICITY TRIBUNAL FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE DISP UTE. AS PER THE ORDERS OF THE HONBLE AP HIGH COURT, THE RATE WORKE D FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE AS UNDER: FOR AY 2006-07 RS. 3.18 PER UNIT FOR AY 2007-08 RS. 3.21 PER UNIT FOR AY 2008-09 RS. 3.21 PER UNIT FOR AY 2009-10 RS. 3.19 TO .3.79 PER UNIT. 6. THE ISSUE OVER THE RATE DISPUTE WAS BEFORE THE E LECTRICITY TRIBUNAL AND THEREAFTER BEFORE THE APEX COURT FOR C LARITY AND ITA NO. 3, 4,5,6 & 7/HYD/2013 M/S GREENKO ENERGIES PVT. LTD. 4 FINALITY ON THIS ISSUE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT V IDE ORDER DATED 8 TH JUNE, 2010 HAD GIVEN A FINDING THAT APERC WAS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY TO FIX THE TARIFF RATE. HOWEVER, ACCORDIN G TO THE AO, THE INCOME TO BE BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE INVO ICES RAISED AS THE INCOME ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF S ECTION 5(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTIN G, HENCE, SHOULD HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH IT A S CLAIMED ENTITLEMENT. 7. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2005-06 IN ITA NO. 1748/ HYD/2008 VIDE ORDER DATED 31/01/2011, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE. 8. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORD. IN PRINCIPLE, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) WHERE THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2005-06 (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNA L HELD AS FOLLOWS: 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CA SE. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHET HER THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF SALES , VIZ. WORKED OUT AT R S.3.48/- PER UNIT AS PER THE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT APPLYI NG WHICH INVOICES FOR SUPPLY OF POWER TO APTRANSCO WER E RAISED AND RS.3.18/- APPLYING WHICH IN TERMS OF THE INTERIM ORDERS OF THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT, INVOICES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE SETTLED BY THE APTRANSCO AND ACCOUNTE D FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, CAN BE TRE ATED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN ELABORATE REA SONING BEFORE CONCLUDING THAT THE INCOME WORKED AT THE RA TE OF RS.3.48/- PER UNIT OF POWER SUPPLIED HAD NEITHER AC CRUED TO ITA NO. 3, 4,5,6 & 7/HYD/2013 M/S GREENKO ENERGIES PVT. LTD. 5 THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS RECEIVABLE DURING THE PREVIOU S YEAR AND THEREFORE, NO CORRESPONDING DEBT IN RESPECT OF THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT STOOD CREATED IN THE BOOKS OF T HE PURCHASER, I.E. APTRANSCO. MERELY BASED ON THE INVO ICES RAISED, INCOME CANNOT BE DEEMED TO ACCRUE TO THE A SSESSEE, WHEN THE DIFFERENTIAL INCOME WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION, AND THERE IS NO CERTAINTY OF THE ASSESSEE BEING ENT ITLED TO SUCH INCOME, UNLESS IT SUCCEEDS IN SUCH LITIGATION. EVEN IF AN ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ULTIMATELY IN THE LITIGATION, A D EBT ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE OTHER PARTY DOES NOT GET CR EATED, UNLESS A CLAIM IN THAT BEHALF WAS RAISED BEFORE THE SAME BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. IT IS FOR THIS REASON T HAT AN ASSESSEE, TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE, HAS TO RAISE THE CLAIM AGAINST THE OTHER PARTY WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMIT ATION, WHICH IN ITS VIEW IS DUE TO IT ACCORDING TO THE TER MS OF THE CONTRACT, SO AS TO GET AN ENFORCEABLE RIGHT FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT AS AND WHEN IT SUCCEEDS IN THE LITIGA TION. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THOUGH INVOICES RAISED CON STITUTE FUNDAMENTAL RECORD FOR MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS IN T HE NORMAL COURSE, AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, THAT LOGIC DOES NOT HOLD GOOD WHEN THE SUBJECT MATTER W AS UNDER DISPUTE AND WAS UNDER LITIGATION BEFORE THE JUDICIA L FORA, INCLUDING THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT DURING THE RELEVANT POINTS OF TIME. ASSESSEE S METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ONLY THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION AND WHICH IN FACT WAS RECEIVED BY IT FROM THE APTRANSCO IN TERMS OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE A.P .HIGH COURT, WAS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ACCOUNTING STANDA RD 9 AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT, AMONG OTHERS , IN THE CASE LAW DISCUSSED BY THE CIT (A) IN THE IMPUGNED O RDER, AND ALSO IN THE CASE-LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE US. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FIND NO INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRME D AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 10. IN OUR OPINION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE METHOD OF A CCOUNTING EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FINAL SETTLEMENTS PRE PARED ON THE BASIS OF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING MUST BE READ TRUE AND FAIR VIEW OF THE STATE OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE POLICY OF PRUDENCE. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, INCOME RECOGNITION TO BE DONE ONLY WHEN THE SAME ARE ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT EVEN UNDER THE MERCANTILE ITA NO. 3, 4,5,6 & 7/HYD/2013 M/S GREENKO ENERGIES PVT. LTD. 6 SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THERE ARE GOOD REASONS FOR NO T RECOGNIZING THE REVENUE IN QUESTION ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND THAT F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WARRANT SUCH REVENUE REC OGNITION ONLY WHEN THE SAME ARE ACTUALLY RECEIVED TO THE EXTENT I T IS STILL POSSIBLE FOR REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO TAX THE SAME. A S THE PECULIAR NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION IS CONCERNED, IT IS OBSER VED THAT THE ISSUE WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL FORUMS AND SINCE INCOME TO BE RECOGNIZED HAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2005-06 (SUPRA), WE MAKE IT CLEAR T HAT IN THE EVENT OF TARIFF RATE REACHED ITS FINALITY BY THE JU DGMENT OF HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO BRING THE SAM E FOR TAXATION IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AY TO WHICH THE INCOM E RELATES. IN OTHER WORDS, AS AND WHEN THE INCOME IS ACTUALLY REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME IS TO BE TAXED IN THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH IT RELATES. SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S KAKATIYA CEMENTS, SUGAR S & INDUSTRIES LTD. IN ITA NOS. 931 & 1051/HYD/2011 VIDE ORDER DAT ED 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2012 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS FOLLOWS : 30. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE POWER TARIFF RATE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AT RS. 2.67 PER UNIT INSTEAD OF RS. 3.48 PER UNIT AS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI BALA JI BIO- MASS POWER PROJECT LD. (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, WE ALL OW THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. HOWEVER, IN THE EVENT OF TARIFF RATE REACHED FINALITY BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE SAME AND DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BEING ITA NO. 3/HYD/2013 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. AS THE ISSUE RAISED IN ITA NOS. 5, 6 & 7/HYD/20 13 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ARE MUTATIS-MUT ANDIS TO THAT OF ITA NO. 3/HYD/2013 FOR AY 2006-07, RESPECTF ULLY FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN IN AY 2006-07, WE REMIT THE I SSUE IN THESE ITA NO. 3, 4,5,6 & 7/HYD/2013 M/S GREENKO ENERGIES PVT. LTD. 7 APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH IDENTICAL DIRECT IONS. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. 13. COMING TO THE PENALTY APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 4/HY D/13 FOR AY 2006-07, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) ONLY BECAUSE QUANTUM ADDITION MADE TOWARDS RATE DIF FERENCE IN POWER TARIFF. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSING PENAL TY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AS IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND CONCEALED ITS INCOME. DUE TO CHANGE IN THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION OVER THE TARIFF, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THEIR ACTUAL TOTALING. IN THIS CON NECTION, WE REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO-PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., [2010] 322 I TR 158 (SC) WHEREIN THE APEX COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS:- A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULA RS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND TO BE INCO RRECT OR INACCURATE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSE SSEE TO PENALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRE TCH OF IMAGINATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUN T TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE T HE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LI ABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT PENALTY, THE DETAILS SUPPLI ED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENAL TY UNDER ITA NO. 3, 4,5,6 & 7/HYD/2013 M/S GREENKO ENERGIES PVT. LTD. 8 SECTION 271(1)(C). A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FU RNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 14. AS HELD BY THE CIT(A) ONCE THE ADDITION IN QUES TION HAS BEEN DELETED, THE PENALTY LEVIED ON SUCH NON-EXISTENT AD DITION CANNOT WITHSTAND. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RA TIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE P ETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BEING ITA NO. 4/HYD/2013 IS DISMISSED. 16. TO SUM UP, APPEALS BEING ITA NOS. 3,5,6 & 7/HYD /2013 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND APPEAL BEING I TA NO. 4/HYD/2013 IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10/05/2013. SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (CHANDRA POOJA RI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED:10 TH MAY, 2013. KV COPY TO:- 1) DCIT, CIRCLE 2(3), 8 TH FLOOR, B BLOCK, IT TOWERS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD. 2) M/S GREENKO ENERGIES PVT. LTD., PLOT NO. 1071 , ROAD NO. 44, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD 4) CIT-II, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., H YDERABAD.