Dy.CIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad V. M/s Leo Township Developers India Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 838/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91788 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMAKRISHNA BANDI SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 838/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) M/S. LEO TOWNSHIP DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., FLAT NO.304, MINAR APARTMENTS, DECCAN TOWERS, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD AABCL2477J (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI A.V.RAGHURAM, ADVOCATE FOR REVENUE : SHRI RAMAKRISHNA BANDI, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 02-06-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-07-2015 O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M . : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, HYD ERABAD, DATED PAGE 2 OF 9 13.02.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07, RA ISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: I. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH IN LAW AND IN FACTS OF THE CASE. II. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO H AVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT AS THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOW ING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF SALE SHOUL D BE CONSIDERED AS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. III. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO H AVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THROUGH THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 02.11.2005 THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE AMOUNT OF RS.502,60,000/- AND IT IS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE A S THE ASSESSEE HAS THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE SAME. IV. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO H AVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT ITAT, BENCH B IN ITA NO.1080/HYD/2011 DATED 18.05.2012 HAS ALREADY DECID ED THE MATTER ON AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ORDER U/ S. 263 PASSED THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. V. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF H EARING. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RESPOND ENT-ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISI ONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7 WAS FILED ON 17.03.2007 DECLARING A TOTAL LOSS OF RS.14,030/-. A GAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 24.12.2008 ACCEPTING THE RETURNED LOSS. SUBSE QUENTLY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, HYDERABAD, EXERCISIN G THE POWER OF REVISION VESTED WITH HIM UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 263 OF THE PAGE 3 OF 9 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, HAD SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO RE-EXAMINE AFRESH WHETHER THE TRANSACTION OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE, THE RESPONDENT COMPANY HAD WITH M/S. LEO EDIBLES AND FA TS LIMITED, IT AMOUNTED TO SALE OR NOT. THE CRUCIAL FACTS OF THE T RANSACTIONS ARE THAT THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ACQUIRED/PURCHA SED THE FOLLOWING LANDS AT MANSANPALLY VILLAGE, MAHESWARAM MANDAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT: SL.NO. DETAILS OF LAND PURCHASED EXTENT VALUE IN RS. 01 SALE DEED DATED 03.11.05 VIDE DOCUMENT NO.6938/2005 15AC- 33GTS/SY.NO.332 3,45,55,650 02 SALE DEED DATED 03.11.2005 VIDEDOCUMENTNO.6939/2005 06AC- 39GTS/SY.NO.328 76,37,525 03 SALE DEED DATED 18.11.05 VIDE DOCUMENT NO.0981/2005/ 01 AC- 19GTS/SY.NO.337 16,15,025 04 SALE DEED DT. 18.11.2005, VIDE DOCUMENT NO.7050/2005 01 AC-37 GTS SY.NO.332, 333, 331 25,29,350 05 SALE DEED DATED 18.12.05, VIDE DOCUMENT NO.7835/2005 01 AC- 19GTS/SY.NO.337 4,84,440 TOTAL 4,68,21,990 3. THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 02.11.2005 WITH M/S. LEO ED IBLES AND FATS LIMITED TO SELL THE LAND TO THE EXTENT OF AC.22.32 GTS. OUT OF THE ABOVE LANDS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,01,60,000/- AT TH E RATE OF RS.22,00,000/- PER ACRE. IN TERMS OF THE SAME AGREE MENT OF SALE, THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF R S.36,55,000/- AS ADVANCE ON 02.11.2005 FROM THE SAID COMPANY. ACC ORDING TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIS TRANSACTIO N SHOULD BE TREATED AS A CONTRACT OF SALE AND THE AGREED CONSID ERATION OF RS.5,01,60,000/- SHOULD BE TREATED AS SALE IN THE H ANDS OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME PAGE 4 OF 9 TAX ALSO NOTED THAT THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE IS IN T HE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND THE LAND PROPOSED TO BE SOLD WAS TREATED AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FURTHER OBSE RVED THAT SINCE THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS FOLLOWING THE M ERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE TRANSACTION SHOULD HAVE B EEN ACCOUNTED AS CREDIT SALE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS SET AS IDE BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WITH THE FOLLOWING DIREC TIONS:- 4. I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO R E-EXAMINE THE TRANSACTIONS IN-DEPTH. SHE/HE SHOULD CALL FOR THE O RIGINAL MINUTES BOOK AS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE VENDE E IN HE REGULAR COURSE OF THEIR BOARD MEETINGS AND EXAMINE THE SAME . SHE/HE SHOULD SUMMON AND EXAMINE ACCOUNTABLE PERSON FROM M/S. LEO EDIBLES & FATS LIMITED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ALSO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE ANY APPLICATION TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR RE- CLASSIFICATION OF THE LAND AT INDUSTRIAL LAND. SH E/HE SHOULD CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS. SHE/HE SHOULD EXAMINE ASSESSABILITY OF RS.5.01 CRORE. IN CASE OF POSITIVE CUMULATIVE FINDINGS, SHE SHOULD CONSIDER BRINGING THE SAID AMOUNT TO TAX . 5. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, I HOLD THAT THE ASSES SMENT COMPLETED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD IS ERR ONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. I , THEREFORE, DEEM IT PROPER TO SET-ASIDE THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH THE DIR ECTION TO RE-DO THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINGS, O BSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEF ORE THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL. THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL, AFTER HEAR ING BOTH THE SIDES, HAD CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX IN REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER VIDE ITS ORDER DAT ED 18.05.2012 IN ITA NO.1080/HYD/2011. WE HAVE NO INFORMATION WHETHE R THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE IS ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ON THIS ORDER OR NOT. THUS, THE ORDER OF THE REVISION PASSED BY PAGE 5 OF 9 THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD ATTAINED THE FINALITY. CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER AFTER AFFORD ING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE COMPANY V IDE ORDER DATED 27.12.2011 TREATING THE TRANSACTION AS A SALE AND B ROUGHT TO TAX THE EXCESS OF SALE CONSIDERATION OVER THE PURCHASED PRI CE OF RS.79,27,913/-. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, HYDERABAD, WHO, VIDE ORDER DATED 13.02.2013, ALLOWED THE APPEA L, VIDE PARA 5.3 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS EXTRACTED BELOW:- 5.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 26 3, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ENTIRE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE IN-DEPTH AND SPECIFIC ENQ UIRIES ON HE TRANSACTION WITH THE TRANSACTING PARTIES, AND ANALY ZE THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND, IN CASE, OF POSITIV E AND CUMULATIVE FINDINGS, THE TRANSACTION SHALL BE TREATED AS SALE AND THE AMOUNT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. HOWEVER, FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT RECORDED ANY SUCH CUMULAT IVE FINDINGS FOR HOLDING THE TRANSACTION ENTERED BY THE APPELLANT FO R THE YEAR CONSIDERATION AS SALE. AS A PRUDENT BUSINESS MAN, THE APPELLANT ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND. AS WAS DONE IN INDIVIDUAL CASES, THE TRANSACTION CANNOT BE TREATED AS TRANSF ER BASING ON THE AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AL MOST EQUATED THE BUSINESS TRANSACTION OF AGREEMENT OF SALE OF THE AP PELLANT-COMPANY WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY AN INDIVI DUAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HIS LAND TO A DEVELOPER. IN SUCH DEV ELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WITH POSSESSION OF THE LAND, IT WAS HELD BY VARIOUS COURTS THAT THE TRANSACTION IS TRANSFER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTI ON 2(47) AND EXIGENCY OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISE FROM SUCH TRANSACTIONS. HOWE VER, IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE FACTS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. THE APPELLAN T ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE FOR SELLING THEIR LAND AND RECEIV ED PART OF CONSIDERATION. SUCH AGREEMENTS CANNOT, AT ANY STRET CH BY IMAGINATION, BE TREATED AS SALES AND TAXED UNDER ANY SYSTEM OF A CCOUNTING. ONLY WHEN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS SOLD BY WAY OF EX ECUTING A SALE DEED PAGE 6 OF 9 WITH POSSESSION AND REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE P URCHASER, THE TRANSACTION CAN BE SAID TO BE SALE AND INCOME HAD T O BE TAXED ON THE PROFITS SO ARRIVED AT FROM THE SALE. IN THE CASE O N HAND, NO SUCH FINAL TRANSACTION HAS TAKEN PLACE, AND THEREFORE, THE AGR EEMENT OF SALE CANNOT BE TERMED AS SALE AND THE CONSIDERATION AGREED THER EIN CANNOT BE TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME, MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT SOME CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PARTED WITH BY THE TRANSACTING PARTIES. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OVERLOOKED THE CONDITION THA T THE SELLER SHOULD APPLY FOR CONVERSION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION AS IN DUSTRIAL LAND AND THEN THE FINAL SALE SHOULD TAKE PLACE. IN THIS REGA RD, NO INDEPENDENT EFFORT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BRING ON RECORD ABOUT THE APPL ICATION MADE BY THE APPELLANT FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE LAND AS INDU STRIAL LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO BROUGHT OUT SOME ISOLATED PO RTION OF CLAUSE (3) OF THE AGREEMENT REGARDING THE POSSESSION AND STATED T HAT THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND IS GIVEN BY THE SELLER. HOWEVER, THAT IS N OT THE CASE AS PER THE AGREEMENT OF SALE. IN VIEW OF HE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I AM NOT INCLINED TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION SO MADE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, THE REVENUE HAD COME UP WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. THERE ARE FIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OUT OF WHICH, GROUNDS NOS.1 AND 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AN D THUS, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. GROUND NO.4 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. THEREFORE, THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ONLY 2 AND 3, WHICH RELATE TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.79,27,913/- AR ISING OUT OF TREATING THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND AS SALES. THE LEARNE D SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION, INASMUCH AS, THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE COMP ANY WAS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND T HE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN AS PER TERMS OF THE AGREEMEN T, SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED. THE AGREEMENT OF SALE WHICH WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN CANCELLED WAS NEVER PRODUCE D BEFORE THE PAGE 7 OF 9 ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, HE HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENT ION TO CLAUSE (3) OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 3. THE VENDEE HAS PAID THE FOLLOWING ADVANCES, AS PART CONSIDERATION, AND THE VENDOR HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THE RECEIPT OF SAME. DATE 02.11.2005 CHEQUE NO. ADVICE LETTER AMOUNT RS.36,55,000/- NAME OF THE BANK UTI BANK LIMITED, BEGUMPET BRANCH HYDERABAD THE VENDOR SHALL HANDS OVER THE VACANT PHYSICAL POS SESSION OF THE SCHEDULED LAND TO THE VENDEE ON THE DATE OF FINAL PAYMENT AND EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED WHICHEVER IS LATER. THE VENDEE SHALL BE AT LIB ERTY TO OCCUPY THE LAND AND USE IT WITHOUT ANY HINDRANCE OR OBJECTION FROM THE VENDOR FROM THEREON. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTI ON SHOULD BE TREATED AS SALE AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE , HAD DELETED HE ADDITION, AND HE HAD PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME PASSED UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE ACT, AS WELL AS ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DRAWN OUR ATTEN TION TO THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE COMPANY , EXHIBITING THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE OF THE LANDS, AND COPIE S OF MINUTES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS DATED 26.03.2008, AND COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS WITH M/S. LEO EDIBLES & FATS LIMITED ETC. HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE LANDS PROPOSED TO BE SOLD WERE SHOWN AS STOCK-IN-TRADE IN THE BOOKS OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE COMPANY AND, THEREFORE, THE DEF INITION OF TRANSFER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (47) OF SEC.2 OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. HE FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED SUBSEQUENTLY ON 27.03.2 008. A COPY OF PAGE 8 OF 9 THE CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT OF SALE IS PLACED AT PAGE NO.5 OF PAPER BOOK. FINALLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY UNLESS AND UNTIL THE TRANSACTION OF SALE IS EVIDENCED BY A CONVEYANCE DEED DULY EXECUTED AND RE GISTERED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE LANDS WERE SOLD. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY B E UPHELD. 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, IN THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CAS E, WE ARE REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE WHETHER THERE IS A SALE OF THE LANDS HAV ING REGARD TO THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT OF SALE AND AS WELL AS THE METHO D OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE GE NUINENESS OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE IS NOT DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. ADMITTEDLY, THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN T HE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. THEREFORE, THE LANDS WHICH WERE PROPOS ED TO BE SOLD WERE SHOWN / TREATED AS STOCK-IN-TRADE IN THE BOOKS OF T HE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE DEFINITION OF TERM TRANSFER AS GIVEN IN THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (47) OF SECT ION 2 OF THE ACT, HAS NO APPLICATION, BECAUSE THE DEFINITION IS GIVEN IN RELATION TO CAPITAL ASSET, WHICH IS NOT CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO STOCK-IN- TRADE. THEREFORE, THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS TO BE C ONSIDERED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A SALE OR NOT. THE HONB LE APEX COURT IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. BHURANGYA COAL CO. 34 ITR 802 AND ALAPATI VENKATRAMIAH 57 ITR 185 LAID DOWN THAT THE TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS CONSIDERED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE UPON CO NVEYANCING AND NOT THE DATE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE. PAGE 9 OF 9 7. IN THE CASE ON HAND, UNDISPUTEDLY IT WAS ONLY AN AGREEMENT OF SALE, WHICH WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT -ASSESSEE COMPANY AND M/S. LEO EDIBLES & FATS LIMITED. NO SAL E DEED WAS EITHER EXECUTED OR REGISTERED. THEREFORE, APPLYING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE CASES SUP RA, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS A SALE OF LANDS PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT OF SALE. THEREFORE, WE CONCUR WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND WE DO NOT WANT TO INTERFER E WITH THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HENCE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JULY, 2015. S D / - S D / - ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 15 TH JULY, 2015. ./SPS COPY TO: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 16(1), ROOM NO. 613, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 004. 2. M/S LEO TOWNSHIP DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD, FLAT NO.304, MINAR APARTMENTS, DECCAN TOWERS, BASHEERBAGH, HYDER ABAD 3. CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD 4. CIT IV, HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE