M/s Foster Infin & Trading Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad V. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad

ITA 747/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 74722514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VENKATA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Capital asset; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 263; 63; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.MADHAVI DEVI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RIFAUR RAHAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 747/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S FOSTER INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AAALF 7682G VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO REVENUE BY : SHRI T. VENKATA REDDY DATE OF HEARING : 07-09-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-09-2015 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 23/01/2014 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT BY LD. CIT I, HYDERABAD FOR THE AY 2009-10. 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A NUMBER OF GROUNDS CHALLENG ING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 BOTH ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION AS WELL AS ON MERITS. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, ASSESSEE A COMPANY IS ENG AGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN STEEL PRODUCTS. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/09/2009 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 5,82,41,485. ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND AO AFTER VERIFYING THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT AS WELL AS OTHER DETAILS AND MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRY COMPLETE D THE 2 ITA NO. 747 /HYD/2014 M/S FOSTER INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 2 0/10/2011, ACCEPTING THE LOSS RETURNED BY ASSESSEE. 4. SUBSEQUENTLY, LD. CIT EXAMINED THE ASSESSMENT RE CORDS AND NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE IS IN RECEIPT OF LONG TERM CA PITAL LOSS OF RS. 2,60,07,607 ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LISTED SECURITIES . LD. CIT OBSERVED THAT THE LISTED SECURITIES OF WHICH SALES WERE MADE HAD SUFFERED SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX AND, THEREFORE, THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 10(38) OF THE IT ACT IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE AND THE INCOME GENERATED FROM SALE AND PURCHASE OF SECURITIES BEING LONG TER M CAPITAL ASSET IS EXEMPTED. LD. CIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SECTION 10 (38) HAS BEEN INSERTED WITH A PARTICULAR OBJECT TO GRANT EXEMPTIO N TO SUCH INCOMES AS TAX HAS ALREADY BEEN LEVIED. THE LONG TERM CAPIT AL LOSS OF SIMILAR NATURE IS ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED AS EXEMPT AND THE L OSS WHATSOEVER DERIVED IS ALSO TO BE TAKEN AS NIL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, LD. CIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASS ED IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. ACCORD INGLY, HE ISSUED A NOTICE TO ASSESSEE ON 17/12/13 REQUIRING THE ASSESS EE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY ASSESSMENT ORDER SHALL NOT BE REVISED/SET ASIDE. SINCE, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE SAID NOTICE BY ASSES SEE, LD. CIT CONSTRUED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO OBJECTION FOR THE PR OPOSED REVISION OF ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, HE TREATED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST S OF REVENUE AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS MODIFIED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE LOSS CLAIMED OF RS. 2,60,07,607 IS IGNORED AND TAKEN AT NIL. AO WAS DIR ECTED ACCORDINGLY. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. LD. AR CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT ERRE D IN DIRECTING THE AO TO MODIFY THE ASSESSMENT BY DISALLOWING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT TRANSFER OF EQUITY S HARES ARE NOT FROM THE RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE, BUT, THE ASSESSEE MA DE AGREEMENT 3 ITA NO. 747 /HYD/2014 M/S FOSTER INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. WITH THE OTHER COMPANY TO SELL THE SHARES. AS PER T HE TERMS OF AGREEMENT, IT HAD SOLD THE SHARES. THE RELEVANT AGR EEMENTS WERE ALREADY IN THE FILES OF AO. THE LD. CIT PRESUMED TH AT SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX (STT) WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WHER EAS IT WAS NOT. IN FACT, THERE WAS NO STT INVOLVED AS THE TRANSACTI ONS WERE MADE OUTSIDE THE STOCK EXCHANGE. THE RESPECTIVE AGREEMEN TS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND WERE AVAILABLE AS PART O F THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT IT IS MERELY AN EXP RESSION OF OPINION BY THE LD. CIT WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF RECORDS AFTE R COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. LD. AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASES IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CASE: 1. SPECTRA SHARES & SCRIPS (P) LTD., [2013] 36 TAX MANN.COM 348 (AP) 2. MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 243 ITR 00 83. 7. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT LISTED SHARES SHOULD BE TRANSAC TED THROUGH STOCK EXCHANGE AND BE SUBJECTED TO STT. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF RE VENUE AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE ALSO APPLIED OUR MIND TO THE DECISIONS CITE D BY LD. AR. LD. CIT REVISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE LISTED SECURITIES OF WHICH SALES WAS MADE BY ASSESSEE HAS SUFFERED SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 10(38) OF THE IT ACT IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE AND THE INCOME GENERA TED FROM SALE AND PURCHASE OF SECURITIES BEING LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSE T IS EXEMPTED. ACCORDINGLY, HE HAS TAKEN THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOS S AS NIL AS AGAINST THE SAME SHOWN BY ASSESSEE OF RS. 2,60,07,607. IN T HIS CONNECTION, WE REFER TO SECTION 10(38), WHICH READS AS UNDER: (38) ANY INCOME ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LON G-TERM CAPITAL ASSET, BEING AN EQUITY SHARE IN A COMPANY OR A UNIT OF AN EQUITY OR IENTED FUND 72 [OR A UNIT OF A BUSINESS TRUST] WHERE 4 ITA NO. 747 /HYD/2014 M/S FOSTER INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. (A) THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SUCH EQUITY SHARE OR UNIT IS ENTERED INTO ON OR AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH CHAPTER VII OF THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2004 COMES INTO FORCE; AND (B) SUCH TRANSACTION IS CHARGEABLE TO SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX UNDER THAT CHAPTER : PROVIDED THAT THE INCOME BY WAY OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN O F A COMPANY SHALL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT AND INCOME-TAX PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 115JB : 73 [ 74 [ PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CLAUSE SHALL NOT APPLY IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF UNIT S OF A BUSINESS TRUST WHICH WERE ACQUIRED IN CONSIDERATION OF A TRANSFER REFERR ED TO IN CLAUSE (XVII) OF SECTION 47 .] ] EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, 'EQUI TY ORIENTED FUND' MEANS A FUND (I) WHERE THE INVESTIBLE FUNDS ARE INVESTED BY WA Y OF EQUITY SHARES IN DOMESTIC COMPANIES TO THE EXTENT OF MORE THAN SIXTY-FIVE PER CENT OF THE TOTAL PROCEEDS OF SUCH FUND; AND (II) WHICH HAS BEEN SET UP UNDER A SCHEME OF A MU TUAL FUND SPECIFIED UNDER CLAUSE (23D) : PROVIDED THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF EQUITY SHAREHOLDING OF THE FUND SHALL BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ANNUAL AVERAGE OF TH E MONTHLY AVERAGES OF THE OPENING AND CLOSING FIGURES; 8.1 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF MALABAR IN DUSTRIAL CO. LTD VS. CIT (243 ITR 83) HELD AS UNDER: '9. THE PHRASE 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE' HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONS EQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATE D AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, FOR E XAMPLE, WHEN AN ITO ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE; OR WHERE TWO VIEWS AR E POSSIBLE AND THE ITO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMM ISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEO US ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITO IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IT HAS BEEN HE LD BY THIS COURT THAT WHERE A SUM NOT EARNED BY A PERSON IS A SSESSED AS INCOME IN HIS HANDS ON HIS SO OFFERING, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTING THE SAME AS SUCH WILL BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE - RAMPUARI DEVI SARAOQI V. CIT [1968167 ITR 84 (SC) AND IN SMT. TA RA DEVI AGGARWAL V. CIT [1973} 88 ITR 323 (SC). 5 ITA NO. 747 /HYD/2014 M/S FOSTER INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. 8.2 THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SPECT RA SHARES AND SCRIPS PVT. LTD VS. CIT (354 ITR 35) WHILE EXAMININ G THE CIT'S POWER VI] S 263 OF THE ACT ANALYSED NUMBER OF DECISIONS O F THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS AND CULLED OUT THE PRINCIPLES FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION IX] S 263 O F THE ACT AS UNDER: '31. FROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE FOLLOWING PRINCI PLES AS TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S.2 63 OF THE ACT CAN BE CULLED OUT: (A) THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN C ONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOU GHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT - IF THE ORD ER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDI CIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IT IS PREJUD ICIAL TO THE REVENUE RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SECTION 263 (I) OF THE ACT. (B) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INC OME TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE: OR WHERE TWO VIEWS AR E POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF TH E REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. (C) TO INVOKE SUO MOTU REVISIONAL POWERS TO REOPEN A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.263, THE COMMISSIONER MUST GI VE REASONS; THAT A BARE REITERATION BY HIM THAT THE O RDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, WILL NOT SUFFICE; TH AT THE REASONS MUST BE SUCH AS TO SHOW THAT THE ENHANCEMENT OR MO DIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLATION OF THE ASSESSMEN T OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED FOR A FRESH ASSESSMENT WERE CALL ED FOR, AND MUST IRRESISTIBLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THUS, WHILE THE I NCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT CALLED UPON TO WRITE AN ELABORATE J UDGMENT GIVING DETAILED REASONS IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY DISA LLOWANCE, DEDUCTION, ETC., IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSI ONER NOT TO EXERCISE HIS SUO MOTU REVISIONAL POWERS UNLESS SUP PORTED BY ADEQUATE REASONS FOR DOING SO; THAT IF A QUERY IS RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, WHICH WAS ANSWERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, BUT 6 ITA NO. 747 /HYD/2014 M/S FOSTER INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. NEITHER THE QUERY NOR THE ANSWER WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS WOULD NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR INTERFERENCE AND REVISION. (E) THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS W ITH A VIEW TO START FISHING AND ROVING INQUIRIES IN MATTERS OR O RDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED; THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE P ERMITTED TO BEGIN FRESH LITIGATION BECAUSE OF NEW VIEWS THEY E NTERTAIN ON FACTS OR NEW VERSIONS WHICH THEY PRESENT AS TO WHA T SHOULD BE THE INFERENCE OR PROPER INFERENCE EITHER OF THE FA CTS DISCLOSED OR THE WEIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE; THAT IF THIS IS PE RMITTED, LITIGATION WOULD HAVE NO END EXCEPT WHEN LEGAL INGENUITY IS E XHAUSTED (F) WHETHER THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND BEFORE A LLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS TO BE SEEN; THAT IF TH ERE WAS AN INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SEC.263 MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER; THAT IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY THAT SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE OPEN; THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMM ISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY; THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY THE APPLI CATION OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE ON AN INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE INT ERPRETATION, A LESSER TAX THAN WHAT WAS JUST, HAS BEEN IMPOSED. (G) THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SEC.263 (I ) IS NOT LIMITED ONLY TO THE MATERIAL WHICH WAS AVAILABLE B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INT ERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THE COMMISSIONER IS ENTITLED TO EXAMINE A NY OTHER RECORDS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINA TION BY HIM AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EVEN THOSE EVENTS W HICH AROSE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT'. 8.3. THUS, WHILE APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(38) TO THE F ACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, WE OBSERVE THE BELOW FACTS: I) THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 10(38) WILL WARRANT, ONLY WHEN THE TRANSACTION HAD SUFFERED STT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT TRANSACTION H AS NOT SUFFERED ANY STT, WE OBSERVE THAT LD. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE 7 ITA NO. 747 /HYD/2014 M/S FOSTER INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. ENQUIRED WITH THE AO SINCE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE ON ASSESSMENT RECORDS. II) WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF LD. DR THAT THE LISTED SHARES HAVE TO BE TRANSACTED ONLY THROU GH STOCK EXCHANGE. IT IS THE BUSINESSMAN WHO WILL DECIDE TH E MODE OF TRANSACTION, HOW IT HAS TO BE DONE TO HIS BUSINESS EXIGENCIES. PARTICULARLY IN THE SITUATION, WHERE THE SHARES VA LUE IS NOT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECIDED T O DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE COUNTER PART AND CLOSED THE DEAL . WE DO NOT SEE ANYTHING CONTRARY TO ANY STATUTE AND THE REVE NUE HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. HENCE, THE TRANSACTION IS COMPLETE EVEN WITHOUT TRANSACTING T HROUGH STOCK EXCHANGE. III) ON PERUSAL OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN CASE OF SPECTRA SHARES & SCRIPS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), IT IS CLEAR THAT THE IM PUGNED ORDER SHOULD BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES TS OF REVENUE. WE OBSERVE THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT ERRONEOUS AS THE MATERIAL FACTS WERE ALREADY AVAI LABLE ON RECORD OF THE AO. . THE AO HAS ALREADY DEALT WITH THE MATTERS BY CAREFULLY APPLYING HIS MIND AND HE HAS SATISFIE D WITH HIS VIEWS. 8.4 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HAVE ASKED THE L D. DR TO VERIFY THE ASSESSMENT FILE, WHETHER THE MATERIAL FACTS LIKE CO PY OF AGREEMENTS TO SELL AND BALANCE CONFIRMATION OF THE RESPECTIVE COM PANIES WERE AVAILABLE AND CONSIDERED BY THE AO BEFORE PASSING O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT ALL THE RELEVANT PAPERS WERE AVAILABLE AS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT FILE. 8 ITA NO. 747 /HYD/2014 M/S FOSTER INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD. 9. HENCE, WE CONCLUDE THAT LD. CIT HAS NOT ENQUIRED PROPERLY INTO THE ISSUE BEFORE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF R EVENUE. THEREFORE, WE QUASH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT PASSED U/S 263 AND RE STORE THE ORDER OF THE AO. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 KV COPY TO:- 1) M/S FOSTER INFIN & TRADING PVT. LTD., C/O P. MUR ALI & CO., CAS., 6-3-655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 500 082 2) ITO, WARD 2(2), HYDERABAD 3) CIT-1, HYDERABAD 4) ADDL. CIT, RANGE 1, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.