Ramesh Gelli, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

ITA 648/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69909 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PHANI KISHORE
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income
• Section: 143(3); 2(14); 145; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE : SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M. AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M. ITA.NO.648/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 RAMESH GELLI HYDERABAD PAN ACGPG2040J VS. ITO, WARD 6(4) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI P.MURALIMOHAN (AR) FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI PHANI KISHORE (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 10.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2013 ORDER PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD DATED 30.03.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, MR. RAMESH GELLI HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DEC LARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 53,54,330/-. AS THE CASE WAS SE LECTED FOR SCRUTINY, A NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER 143(2) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 17-08-2009 AND THE ASSESSME NT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARRIVED AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,45,27,104/- AND INCOME TAX THEREON OF RS.1,07,93,182/- HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT AND THE TOTAL DEMAND OF RS. 1,30,85,102/- HAS BEEN ISSUED AFTER ADDITION OF 2 ITA.NO.648/HYD/2012 RAMESH GELLI, HYDERABAD INTEREST OF RS. 32,48,848/- UNDER SECTION 234 BAND 234 C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING ISSUE BEFORE THE CIT(A). TREATING BUSINESS COMPENSATION OF RS 2.90 CRORES RECEIVED FROM M/5 GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LTD AS SHO RT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT ALLOWING SET OFT OF TOTAL BUSINESS INCOME WITH BROUGHT FORWARDED BUSINESS LOSSES OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH IS NOT COR RECT IN BAD IN LAW. 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ADVISORY SERVICES AND DESIRED TO ENTER INTO BUSINESS VENTURE INTO GOOD PROJECTS. IN THE PR OCESS, THE ASSESSEE IDENTIFIED M/S GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LTD. WHO WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF SETTING UP SEZ AND DEVEL OPING OTHER PROJECTS. ACCORDINGLY, AFTER DISCUSSIONS, ASS ESSEE EXTENDED BUSINESS FUNDS OF RS. 2.57 CRORES AS BUSIN ESS ADVANCE DURING JUNE AND JULY 2006 TO GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LTD, BANGALORE TOWARDS PARTICIPATION IN DOING BUSINESS TOGETHER, TO SET UP AN SEZ AND OTHER PROJE CT. HOWEVER DURING THE PROGRESS OF THE PROJECT GOLDEN G ATE PROPERTIES LTD. GOT FOREIGN FUNDING WHICH CHANGED T HE CONDITIONS OF THE PROJECT, ASSESSEE DECIDED TO EXIT FROM THE BUSINESS VENTURE. ACCORDINGLY BASED ON DISCUSSIONS, ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PAID BUSINESS COMPENSATION OF RS. 2.90 CRORES BY M/S. GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LTD. THAT WAS MUTUALLY AGREED FOR EXITING THE BUSINESS VENTURE. B USINESS FUNDS OF RS 257 LACS GIVEN HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN TH E BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHOWN AS TRADE ADVANCE IN THE B ALANCE SHEET AND NOT AS INVESTMENTS. AS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 257 3 ITA.NO.648/HYD/2012 RAMESH GELLI, HYDERABAD LACS GIVEN WAS SHOWN AS TRADE ADVANCE, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENT AS BUSIN ESS COMPENSATION RS. 290 LACS IS SHOWN AS BUSINESS INCO ME. 6. THE LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING PARTICULAR METHOD OF ACCO UNTING FROM YEAR TO YEAR CONSISTENTLY AND THERE ARE NO CHA NGES IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING .THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING CANNOT BE CHANGED AS PER SEC 145 OF THE INCOME TAX, 1961 .ACCORDINGLY ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNT RS 257 LACS GIVEN AND SHOWN AS TRAD E ADVANCE CANNOT BE CHANGED. 7. THE LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.257 LACS HAS BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD OF BUSINESS ADVANCE IN OUR BOOKS, SINCE THE SA ME WAS GIVEN FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE. SINCE THE PARTI CULAR BUSINESS PROPOSITION AS DESIRED BY US UNDERWENT MAT ERIAL CHANGES, ASSESSEE NEGOTIATED FOR EXIT SUBJECT TO CE RTAIN COMPENSATION BEING PAID. DUE TO THAT, THE AMOUNT HA S BEEN RECEIVED AS COMPENSATION DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE SAME IS BUSINESS INCOME ONLY AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS TH E SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS, AS AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT THE SAME HAS BEEN GIVEN AS TRADE ADVANCE AND NOT THE INVESTMENT FOR ANY PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER POI NTED OUT THAT THESE FACTS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE EARLIER YEARS WHICH HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS COMPENSATION CANNOT BE CONSIDERE D AS 4 ITA.NO.648/HYD/2012 RAMESH GELLI, HYDERABAD THE INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS UNDER THE STRETCH OF ANY IMAGINATION ALSO. 8. IT WAS STATED THAT AT THE TIME OF SCRUTINY, THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FURNI SHED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. I). PHOTO COPIES OF LETTERS EXCHANGED FOR PURPOSES OF BUSINESS PARTICIPATION/ BUSINESS VENTURE DEAL. II). PHOTO COPIES OF AGREEMENT AND LETTER OF CANCEL LATION AGREEMENT/MOU WERE ENCLOSED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSME NT. III). STATEMENT SHOWING THE CARRY FORWARD BUSINESS LOSSES AND SET OFF PARTICULARS FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 001- 2002 TO 2008-2009 AS DESIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. IV), LETTERS CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION : 9. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE COMPENSATION OF RS. 290 LACS WAS THE BUSINESS INCOME FROM M/S GOLDEN GA TE PROPERTIES LTD WHICH AROSE DUE TO CANCELLATION OF B USINESS DEAL AS PER THE OPTION AVAILABLE IN THE AGREEMENT/M OU AND HEAD OF ACCOUNT IS CORRECT ONLY AND IT FALLS UNDER 'BUSINESS INCOME HEAD' ONLY. I DID NOT ACQUIRE ANY ASSET OR R IGHT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 IN THIS TRANSACTION AND HENCE THE QUESTION OF TRANSFER OF C APITAL ASSET AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 2(47) DOES NOT ARISE AS MENTIONED IN INCOME TAX OFFICER'S LETTER DATED 16-1 2-2010. AS THERE NO CAPITAL ASSET ACQUIRED AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 2(14) ,THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF ASSET AS MENTIONED I N SECTION 2 (47) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5 ITA.NO.648/HYD/2012 RAMESH GELLI, HYDERABAD 10. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED IS 'BUSINESS INCOME', THE SAM E ALONG WITH OTHER BUSINESS INCOME ALL TOTALLING TO RS.3,03,12,057/- WAS SET OFF AGAINST EARLIER YEAR B USINESS LOSSES OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-2002, 2002-2003 AND 2003-2004 DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN HEREUNDER : I) SET OF B/F BUSINESS LOSS C/F FOR A.Y. 2001-2002 RS.9,50,912/- II) SET OF B/F BUSINESS LOSS C/F FOR A.Y. 2002-2003 RS.1,33,93,912/- III) SET OF B/F BUSINESS LOSS C/F FOR A.Y. 2003-04 RS.1,59,67,233/- RS.3,03,12,057/- 10.1. THE ABOVE SET OFF IS CORRECT AND THE SAME IS AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE LEARNED CIT(A) EXAMINED THIS ISSUE FROM PARAS 9 AND 10 OF HIS ORDER WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS : 9. GROUND NOS. 15 AND 18 HAVE BEEN RAISED TO CONTEST THE TREATMENT OF INTEREST OF RS.1,81,719/- RECEIVED ON THE DEPOSIT WITH ING VYSYA BANK AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, AS AGAINST THE APPELLANTS CLAIM OF THE SAME BEING BUSINESS INCOME, AS ALSO DISALLOWANCE OF OTHER EXPENSES. 9.1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE APPELLA NT HAD DEBITED DEMAT ACCOUNT CHARGES OF RS.11,576/-, BANK CHARGES OF RS.5,380/-, INTEREST ON BANK LOAN OF RS.1,02,338/- AND BROKING AND LEGAL CHARGES OF RS.1,28,000/- TO THE P & L ACCOUNT SHOWING INCOME FROM 6 ITA.NO.648/HYD/2012 RAMESH GELLI, HYDERABAD PROFESSIONAL FEE, INTEREST ON GOI BONDS, BANK DEPOSITS, AS ALSO COMPENSATION FOR CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENTS. HE OPINED THAT THE EXPENDITURE SO DEBITED DID NOT HAVE ANY NEXUS WITH THE ABOVE INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, BY WAY OF THE SHOW CAUSE LETTER HE SOUGHT TO DISALLOW THE SAME ALSO. 9.2. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT INTEREST OF RS.1,81,719/ -, SO RECEIVED ON THE DEPOSIT WITH ING VYSYA BANK HAD BEEN SHOWN AND TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME, AS THE SAID DEPOSIT HAD BEEN MADE BY RAISING LOANS FOR MEETING THE BUSINESS REQUIREMENT AND BY ALSO PAYING INTEREST OF RS.1,02,338/- TO THE SAID BANK. THE APPELLANT ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH AND IN THE COURSE OF VARIOUS BUSINESSES ONLY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT ACCEPTABLE, AS HE FELT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE AND THE BUSINESS INCOME. HE ALSO OPINED THAT THE INCOME FROM INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSITS WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE WAS DISALLOWED. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT ONLY REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON GOING THROUGH THE SAID SUBMISSIONS, 7 ITA.NO.648/HYD/2012 RAMESH GELLI, HYDERABAD HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS AND PURPOSE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE BY SHOWING ANY NEXUS WITH THE INCOME DISCLOSED DURING THE YEAR. BESIDES, NO INFIRMITY IS SEEN IN THE TREATMENT OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON DEPOSITS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, GROUNDS NOS. 15 AND 18 ARE ALSO DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 11. WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO.17 WHICH HAD BEEN RAISED CONTESTING THE CALCULATION OF BUSINESS INCOM E OF RS.9,77,932/- AND GROUND 19 CONTESTING DISALLOWANCE OF SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 001-02 TO 2003-04 THE CIT(A) DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE DIRECTING THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE COMPUTATION OF BUS INESS INCOME AFTER EXCLUDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2.90 CRORES WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO.17 WITH RESPECT TO DIRECT ING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSES WITH RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW SAID S ET OFF AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A). 12. THE LEARNED CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, H E HAD ADVANCED A SUM OF RS. 257 LAKHS AS ADVANCE TOWARDS PARTICIPATION IN BUSINESS OF M/S GOLDEN GATE PROPE RTIES 8 ITA.NO.648/HYD/2012 RAMESH GELLI, HYDERABAD LTD (GGPL). HE HAS PRODUCED 2 LETTERS WHEREBY ALLEG EDLY THERE WAS AN OFFER FROM GGPL TO THE ASSESSEE TO JOI N THEIR BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE AGREEING TO DO SO. IN THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO GGPL ON 17.3.2006, THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED MONIES ON THE UNDERSTANDING T HAT AS AND WHEN SEZ BUSINESS OF GGPL IS SPUN OFF AS A SEPARATE COMPANY, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ALLOTTED SHA RES IN THE NEW COMPANY. THUS THE MONEY ADVANCED APPEARS TO BE ONLY TRADE ADVANCE. 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED AN AGREEMENT DATED 1.4.2006 WITH M/S. GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LIM ITED WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INT ERESTED IN DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES AND THE COMPANY HAD AG REED TO JOIN WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPER TIES. THIS SEEMS TO BE A BUSINESS PROPOSAL MADE BY THE AS SESSEE WITH THE COMPANY FOR PROCUREMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND S ALE OF LAND PRESUMABLY IN THE COMPANIES NAME. THE AMOUN T OF RS.257 LAKHS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REFLECT ED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS BEEN SHOWN AS TRA DE ADVANCE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND NOT AS INVESTMENTS . HENCE, CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENT AND PAYMENT OF BUSINESS COMPENSATION HAS BEEN SHOWN AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT RS. 290 LAKHS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING CONSISTENTLY THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS TRADE ADVA NCE CANNOT BE CHANGED. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T THE COMPENSATION OF RS.290 LAKHS WAS THE BUSINESS INCOM E FROM M/S. GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LIMITED WHICH ARIS E DUE TO CANCELLATION OF BUSINESS DEAL AS PER OPTION AVAI LABLE IN THE AGREEMENT / MOU AS THERE IS NO CAPITAL ASSET AC QUIRED 9 ITA.NO.648/HYD/2012 RAMESH GELLI, HYDERABAD AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 2(14) AND THERE IS NO TRANS FER OF ASSET AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 2(47) OF THE I.T. ACT , 1961. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE COMPENSATION WAS DERIVED IN THE BUSINESS TRANSACTION AND THE SAME FA LLS UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND IT IS NO T UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AS THERE IS NO CAPITAL AS SET TRANSFERRED AND THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED IS BUSIN ESS INCOME. THE SET OFF OF EARLIER YEAR BUSINESS LOSSE S IS CORRECT AND IS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE ON THESE ISSUES I.E., GROUND NOS. 1 TO 5 ARE ALLOWED. 15. THE NEXT ISSUE IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,02,338 /-, DEMAT ACCOUNT CHARGES OF RS. 11,576/-, BANK CHARGES OF RS.5380/- AND BROKING AND LEGAL CHARGES OF RS. 1,28 ,000/-. THESE WERE DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD FAILED TO SHOW NEXUS WITH BUSINESS INCOME. THE ASSE SSEE HAS MADE MANY INVESTMENTS AND HAVE ALSO GIVEN LOANS AND ADVANCES. THE AO HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D USED THE BORROWING FOR ANY NON BUSINESS PURPOSES OR HIS INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES. SIMILARLY, DEMAT ACCOUNT CHAR GES AND LEGAL AND BROKING CHARGES ARE ALSO CONNECTED WI TH AND INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ACTIVITIES FROM WHI CH THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INCOME, WHETHER THE INCOME IS ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE EXPENDITURE ON IN TEREST PAYABLE ON BANK LOAN (RS.1,02,338/-) DEMAT ACCOUNT CHARGES (RS. 11,576/-), BANK CHARGES (RS.5,380/-) A ND BROKING AND LEGAL CHARGES (RS. 1,28,000/-)ARE ALLOW ABLE AGAINST THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 10 ITA.NO.648/HYD/2012 RAMESH GELLI, HYDERABAD 16. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO GROUNDS 7 AND 8 ARE ALLOWED. 17. GROUND NO 6 IN THE PRECISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITH ADDITIONAL GROUND IS AGAINST THE A.O. IN TREAT ING RS. 3,59,875/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF RS. 1,87,104/- AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO MAY VERIFY AND BRING TO TAX THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF INCOME ON TH IS ACCOUNT. 18. WITH RESPECT TO GROUNDS NO. 9 AND 10, THE LEARNED D.R. FILED THE NOTIFICATION NO.228/2001 (F.NO.187/5/2001 ITA-1) DATED 31.07.2001 AND OFFI CE ORDER VIDE F.NO.44/R-6/JURISDICTION/2010-11 DATED 08.09.2010. THE RELEVANT PORTION IN THE NOTIFICATIO N DATED 31.07.2001 READS AS FOLLOWS : (D) AUTHORISES THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (C) OF THIS NOTIFICATION, TO ISSUE ORDERS IN WRITING FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS AN D PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS, WHO ARE SUBORDINATE TO THEM, IN RESPECT O F SUCH SPECIFIED AREA OR PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSON S OR INCOMES OR CLASSES OF INCOME OR CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES, IN RESPECT OF WHICH SUCH JOINT COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX ARE AUTHORISED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF THIS NOTIFICATION. 19. THE RELEVANT PORTION IN OFFICE ORDER DATED 08.09.2010 READS AS FOLLOWS : CONSEQUENT TO ISSUE OF NOTIFICATION BY CIT-III, HYDERABAD VIDE NO. CIT-III/JURISDICTION/2010- 11 ITA.NO.648/HYD/2012 RAMESH GELLI, HYDERABAD 11/1 DATED 18.08.2010 READ WITH CBDT NOTIFICATION NO.65/2010-INCOME TAX DATED 28.07.2010 AND S.O.732(E) DATED 03.07.2010 AND IN SUPPRESSION OF EARLIER ORDER NO. JURISDICTION/R-6/R-6/2010-11 DATED 25.05.2010 ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE, THE JURISDICTION, OVER THE FOLLOWING CASES FALLING ORIGINALLY IN THE JURISDICTION OF ACIT, CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD IS HEREBY VESTED WITH THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(4), HYDERABAD, FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF COMPLETION OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR THE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT YEAR MENTIONED AGAINST EACH CASE. . . . 20. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT A.O. I.E., IT O, WARD 6 (4), HYDERABAD HAD JURISDICTION TO ASSESS TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF THE NOTIFICATIO N AND OFFICE ORDER (SUPRA). GROUNDS NO. 9 AND 10 OF THE A SSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 21. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.11.2013. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD DATE 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. VBP/- 12 ITA.NO.648/HYD/2012 RAMESH GELLI, HYDERABAD COPY TO 1. RAMESH GELLI, HYDERABAD C/O. M/S. P. MURALI & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6-3-655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 500082. 2. ITO, WARD 6(4), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT - III, HYDERABAD 5. D.R. B BENCH, ITAT HYDERABAD