Unicorn Agrotech Limited, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Hyderabad

ITA 818/HYD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53513 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRA SEKHARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: DAYAKAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment
• Section: 80HHC; 10B; 148; 6; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.765/HYD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 ITA NO.817/HYD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 0-2001 ITA NO.818/HYD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 1-2002 ITA NO.819/HYD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 2-2003 M/S UNICORN AGROTECH LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD (PAN AAACU 2782 J) VS THE ACIT, CIRCLE 3(3), HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO.842/HYD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 ITA NO.921/HYD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 THE D CIT, CIRCLE 3(3), HYDERABAD VS M/S UNICORN AGROTECH LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD (PAN AAACU 2782 J) APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.S. DAYAKAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.S. CHANDRA SEKHARAN ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M. THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDE RS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IV, HYDERABAD AND PERTAINS TO THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-02 AND 2002-03. 2. NOW FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP THE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE IN ITA NOS. 765, 817, 818 & 819/HYD/2007. 3. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FIRST GROUND IN ITS APP EALS IS WITH REGARD TO REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WITHOUT COMMUNICATING THE REASONS FOR REOPENING. ITA NOS.817 TO 819 & 3 APPEALS/H/2007 M/S UNICORN AGROTECH LTD., SECUNDERABAD 2 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ALSO GONE THR OUGH THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED AFTER RECORDING THE VALID REASONS TO CONSI DER THE ISSUE WHETHER THE PRESERVED GHERKIN PRODUCTS ARE RE SULT OF A MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OR NOT. THERE WAS A VALI D NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 148 FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS AFTER RECORDING REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMEN T AND THEREUPON NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED U/S 148. THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FURNISH THE REASONS FOR REOPEN ING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON VARIOUS ACCESSIONS FOR THE ABOVE ASSE SSMENT YEARS. IN SPITE OF THE REQUEST, IT WAS NOT FURNISH ED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BUT THE FACTS ARE THAT THOUGH THE LEARNED AR FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING OF THE CASE, HE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE S HAS MADE A REQUEST WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FURN ISH THE COPIES OF REASONS RECORDED. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN B ROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A REQU EST AND IN SPITE OF ITS REQUEST FOR THE REASONS RECOR DED, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS NOT FURNISHED REASONS RECOR DED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. IN VIEW OF THIS, IN SP ITE OF AR RELIANCE ON VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WE INCLINED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). FURTHER, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AFTER APPLYIN G HIS MIND FORMED AN OPINION REGARDING ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND VALIDLY RE OPENED THE ASSESSMENTS IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IN TH ESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, REOPENING OF THE ITA NOS.817 TO 819 & 3 APPEALS/H/2007 M/S UNICORN AGROTECH LTD., SECUNDERABAD 3 ASSESSMENT IS CONFIRMED IN THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THIS GROUND IN ASSESSEE APPEALS IS DISMISSED. 5. THE NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO DENIAL OF EXE MPTION U/S 10B AS THE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCING OF AN ARTICLE OR THING. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THIS ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30.1.2009 IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE IN ITA NO.93/HYD/200 7 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORD ER DATED 30.1.2009 DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSES SEE BY HOLDING AS FOLLOWS: 6. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SECTION 10B GRANTS DEDUCTION O F SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS AS ARE DERIVED BY A HUNDRED PER C ENT EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING FROM THE EXPORT OF ARTI CLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR A PERIOD OF TEN CON SECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEGINNING WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAK ING BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE, AS THE CASE MAY BE. IN THE PRES ENT APPEAL, WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH THE ISSUE WHETHER TH E ASSESSEE IS PRODUCING OR MANUFACTURING ANY ARTICLE OR THING. THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS JUDGEMENTS EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENT HUES, COLORS AND CONNOTATION OF THE TERMS MANUFACTURE AND PRODUCTION. THE RESULT OF MANY OF THESE JUDGEMENTS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN MANY SUBSEQUENT JUDGEMENTS AND IT CAN BE SUMMED UP IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS AS WAS DONE BY THE KERALA HIGH COURT CIT VS. CASINO PVT. LTD. IN 91 ITR 289: ITA NOS.817 TO 819 & 3 APPEALS/H/2007 M/S UNICORN AGROTECH LTD., SECUNDERABAD 4 MANUFACTURE IS A PROCESS WHICH RESULTS IN AN ALTER ATION OR CHANGE IN THE GOODS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH MANUF ACTURE. A COMMERCIALLY NEW DIFFERENT ARTICLE IS PRODUCED. MAY BE THAT IS PRODUCED BY MANUAL LABOUR OR MECHANICAL FOR CE OR EVEN BY NATURES OWN PROCESS SUCH AS DRYING BY HEAT OF THE SUN AS IN A SALT PAN (ARDESHIR H. BHIWANDIWALA VS. STATE OF BOMBAY) OR FERMENTATION OF TODDY (THOMAS VS. DISTRI CT JUDGE, ALLEPPEY). THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION IS WHETHE R A COMMODITY WHICH, IN A COMMERCIAL SENSE, IS DIFFEREN T FROM THE RAW MATERIALS HAS RESULTED . ALMOST SIMILAR VIEWS WERE EXDPRESSED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TATA LOCOMOTIVE AND ENGINEERING CO. LTD. IN 68 ITR 325: THE WORD MANUFACTURE HAS WIDER AND ALSO A NARROWE R CONNOTATION. IN THE WIDER SENSE IT SIMPLY MEANS TO MAKE OR FABRICATE OR BRING INTO EXISTENCE AN ARTICLE OR A P RODUCT EITHER BY PHYSICAL LABOUR OR BY POWER, AND THE WORD MANUFACTURER IN ORDINARY PARLANCE WOULD MEAN A PE RSON WHO MAKES, FABRICATES OR BRINGS INTO EXISTENCE A PR ODUCT OR AN ARTICLE BY PHYSICAL LABOUR OR POWER. THE OTHER SHADE OF MEANING, WHICH IS THE NARROWER MEANING, IMPLIES TRANSFORMING RAW MATERIALS INTO A COMMERCIAL COMMOD ITY OR A FINISHED PRODUCT WHICH HAS AN ENTITY BY ITSELF, B UT THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE MATERIALS WITH W HICH THE COMMODITY IS SO MANUFACTURED MUST LOSE THEIR ID ENTITY. THUS, BOTH THE WORDS MANUFACTURED AND PRODUCE APP LY TO THE BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING WHICH IS D IFFERENT FROM ITS COMPONENTS. THUS, WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO IS THAT THE END PRODUCT SHOULD BE COMMERCIALLY A DIFFERENT PRODUCT FROM THE ORIGIN AL PRODUCT. IN THE CONTEXT OF MAKING OF FOOD OR PROCE SSING OF FOOD MATERIALS, THIS WAS SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED BY TH E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD. , VS. ITO ITA NOS.817 TO 819 & 3 APPEALS/H/2007 M/S UNICORN AGROTECH LTD., SECUNDERABAD 5 IN 245 ITR 538. IN THIS CASE, ONE OF THE ISSUES AD DRESSED BY THE COURT WAS WHETHER PREPARING FOOD STUFFS AMOU NTS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OR NOT. THE COURT REFERR ED TO THE DECISION OF THE SC OF THE UNITED STATES IN EAST TEX AS MOTOR FREIGHT LINES VS. FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS (100 L.ED.917 ) WHERE THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER DRESSED AND FROZEN CHICKEN WAS A COMMERCIALLY DISTINCT ARTICLE FROM TH E ORIGINAL CHICKEN. THE COURT QUOTED WITH THE APPROVAL THE FO LLOWING PASSAGE FROM THE JUDGEMENT: THERE IS HARDLY LESS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COTTON IN THE FIELD AND COTTON AT THE GIN OR IN THE BALE OR BETWEEN COT TON SEED IN THE FIELD AND COTTON SEED AT THE GIN, THAN BETWE EN A CHICKEN IN THE PEN AND ONE THAT IS DRESSED. THE GI NNED AND BALES COTTON AND THE COTTON SEED, AS WELL AS THE DR ESSED CHICKEN, HAVE GONE THROUGH A PROCESSING STAGE. BUT NEITHER HAS BEEN MANUFACTURED IN THE NORMAL SENSE OF THE WORD. DRAWING ANALOGY FROM THE ABOVE, OUR SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT THE POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE FOOD STUFF SERVED OR SOLD BY THE HOTELS WOULD BE THE SAME. TH E FOOD STUFF PREPARED BY COOKING OR BY ANY OTHER PROCESS F ROM RAW MATERIALS SUCH AS CEREALS, PULSES, VEGETABLES, MEAT OR THE LIKE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A COMMERCIALLY DISTINCT COMMODITY AND IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT SUCH FOOD STUF F IS MANUFACTURED OR PRODUCED. THUS, IN THE ASSESSEES CASE GHERKIN IS THE RAW MATERIAL AND GHERKIN IN BRINE OR IN ACETIC ACID OR IN VINEGAR IS GHERKIN ONLY AND NOT A DIFFER ENT PRODUCT ALTOGETHER. WELL, HERE LIES THE MAIN BONE OF CONTE NTION FOR THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THAT IT IS THE GHERKIN SEED WHICH IS THE RAW MATERIAL AND NOT THE GHERKIN FRUIT. IN OUR VIEW, THIS IS QUITE A FAT FETCHED PROPOSITION. IF THIS ARGUMENT IS TO BE ACCEPTED THEN IN CASE OF ALL FOOD INDUSTRIES, THE RAW MATERIAL WOULD BE THE RESPECTIV E SEEDS OR PLANTS AND NOT THE RAW FRUIT, RAW VEGETABLES, RA W GRAINS ITA NOS.817 TO 819 & 3 APPEALS/H/2007 M/S UNICORN AGROTECH LTD., SECUNDERABAD 6 ETC. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT UNJU STIFIED IN SEGREGATING THE ENTIRE OPERATION INTO FARMING AND N ON FARMING ACTIVITIES. THE ARGUMENT THAT THE UNDERTAK ING IS TREATED AS AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING BY OTHER MINIS TRIES CANNOT HELD THE ASSESSEE AS IT HAS BEEN HELD IN ALL THE JUDGEMENTS THAT WHEN THE TERMS MANUFACTURE AND PRODUCTION ARE NOT DEFINIED IN THE ACT, WE HAVE T O CONSIDER THE NORMAL MEANING OF THE TERMS. THE CONTEXT AND T HE PURPOSE OF DIFFERENT MINISTRIES CANNOT BE IMPORTED IN A TAXING STATUTE. SIMILARLY, THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE THAT IS AN EXCISABLE COMMODITY ALSO DOES NOT CUT AN Y ICE. IN THE ULTIMATE ANALYSIS WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ART ICLE OR THING WHICH COULD ENTITLE IT TO A DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE IT ACT. 7. SINCE THE FACTS IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS SIMILAR TO THAT ONE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THE ABOVE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL, WE INCLINED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND RELATING TO ALLOWABILITY O F DEDUCTION U/S 10B IS REJECTED IN ASSESSEE APPEALS. 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED A GROUND WITH REGA RD TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(1) OF THE IT ACT IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN DECID ED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE O RDER CITED SUPRA AT PARA NO.7. BY HOLDING AS FOLLOWS: WE NOW DEAL WITH THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO TREAT THE INCOME AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN VIEW OF THE FARMING OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT BY IT. IN TH IS CONNECTION, WE HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K. LAKSHMANAN & CO. IN THIS ITA NOS.817 TO 819 & 3 APPEALS/H/2007 M/S UNICORN AGROTECH LTD., SECUNDERABAD 7 CASE, THE COURT FOUND SUPPORT FROM ITS EARLIER JUDG EMENT IN THE CASE OF DOOARS TEA CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX IN 44 ITR 06. THE COURT HE LD THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOULD ARISE FROM THE SALE OF T HAT PRODUCE WHICH IS RAISED BY THE CULTIVATOR. EVEN TH OUGH FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING IT MARKETABLE OR FIT FOR SALE , SOME PROCESS MAY HAVE TO BE UNDERTAKEN, IT DOES NOT CONT EMPLATE THE SALE OF AN ITEM OR A COMMODITY WHICH IS DIFFERE NT FROM IS CULTIVATED AND PROCESSED. COMING TO THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE, WHAT THE ASSESSEE HARVESTED BY CARRYING OUT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WAS THE GHERKIN FRUIT. IF THE FRUIT WAS SOLD IN THE FORM IT WAS GROWN, THEN INCOME ARISING THERE FROM WOULD HAVE BEEN AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AT THE M OST, ONLY THAT PROCESS COULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT SO AS TO MAKE IT MARKETABLE. GHERKIN AS GROWN IN THE FARM IS BY ITSELF AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE CAPABLE OF BEING MARKETED. IT NEED NOT BE CONVERTED INTO A PICKLE TO MARKET IT AS A FRUIT. THUS, WHAT HAS BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE I S NOT AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE I.E., GHERKIN FRUIT BUT PROCES SED GHERKIN. IT IS A COMMODITY DISTINCT FROM THE COMMO DITY WHICH WAS GROWN. THEREFORE, INCOME ARISING FROM TH E SALE OF PROCESSED GHERKIN CANNOT BE TERMED AS AGRICULTUR AL INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO REJECTED. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 10(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS REJECTED IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 10. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE DISMISSED. 11. NOW COMING TO THE REVENUE APPEAL IN ITA NOS.84 2, 921/HYD/2007, THE GROUND IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED I N DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE DE DUCTION ITA NOS.817 TO 819 & 3 APPEALS/H/2007 M/S UNICORN AGROTECH LTD., SECUNDERABAD 8 U/S 80HHC BY TAKING TURNOVER OF THE SEED DIVISION O NLY AS TOTAL TURNOVER INSTEAD OF THE ENTIRE TURNOVER AS TO TAL TURNOVER. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SIMILAR ISSUES CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO.863/H/04. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.8.06 HAS HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE REC ORD CAREFULLY. ACCORDING TO US, THE ISSUE ARISING IN T HE PRESENT CASE ARE NOT COVERED BY ANY OF THE CASES RELIED ON EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE REVENUE. IF WE SEE THE HISTORY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC IT IS APPARENT THAT THERE WAS A LWAYS A DISPUTE IN QUANTIFYING THE PROFIT EARNED FROM EXP ORT OF GOODS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS INCOME WHICH IS LIABL E TO INCOME TAX AT THE NORMAL RATE AND INCOME FROM EXPOR T OF GOODS, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT PROFIT FROM EXPO RT OF GOODS IS INFLATED, THEREBY REDUCING THE INCOME WHICH IS L IABLE TO NORMAL RATE OF TAX. TO AVOID UNNECESSARY LITIGATIO N, THE COMPUTATION OF EXPORT PROFIT WAS TRIED TO BE SIMPLI FIED BY THE LEGISLATURE. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE INC OME FROM FOOD DIVISION IS TOTALLY EXEMPT U/S 10B OF THE ACT. THUS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL DIVERT PROFIT OF FOOD DIVISION TO THE SEED DIVISION. IT CAN ALSO BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HAVE ANY TAXABLE INCOME FROM FOOD DIVISION. THERE IS NO DOMESTIC TURNOVER IN THIS DI VISION. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT TOTAL TURNOVER FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE HAS TO BE TAKEN AS THE TURNOVER IN THE SEED DIVISION ONLY. WE HAD ACCORDINGLY, IN THE RESULT, GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED. ITA NOS.817 TO 819 & 3 APPEALS/H/2007 M/S UNICORN AGROTECH LTD., SECUNDERABAD 9 13. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DECIDE THE ABOVE ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, REV ENUE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 1 1.8.2011 SD/ - (G.C. GUPTA) SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED THE 11 TH AUGUST, 2011 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. GANDHI & GANDHI, C AS, 1002 PAIGAH PLAZA, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. C/O M/S UNICORN AGROTECH LTD., NO.1-7-139/3, SAROJINI DEVI ROAD. 2. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 3 (3), HYDERABAD 3. THE CIT(A) IV, HYDERABAD 4. THE CIT, HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD NP/