Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. Dy.CIT., Cent.Ci-7, Hyderabad

ITA 968/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6011 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J SIRI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Rectification of order; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 69; 263; 63; 132; 154

Judgement Text

ITA NOS 968 969 1242 AND CO 59 OF 2014 PAGE 1 OF 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.968 & 969/HYD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) M/S. NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LTD HYDERABAD PAN: AABCN 6009 L VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD ITA NO. 1242/HYD/2014 (A.Y 2007-08) AND C.O. NO.59/HYD/2014 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1242/HYD/2014 DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 HYDERABAD VS M/S. NSL RENEWABLE POWER LTD HYDERABAD PAN: AABCN 6009 L FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE : SHRI J. SIRI KUMAR, CIT(DR) O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE FOR THE A.Y 2007-08. ITA NO.968/HYD/2011 IS AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE CIT U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U /S 143(3) OF THE ACT WHILE ITA NO.969/HYD/2011 IS AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT U/S 263 REVISING THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE I .T. ACT FOR THE A.Y 2007-08. ITA NO.1242/HYD/2014 IS THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) IN AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R. W.S. 263 OF DATE OF HEARING : 22.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.11.2016 ITA NOS 968 969 1242 AND CO 59 OF 2014 PAGE 2 OF 11 THE I.T. ACT AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE AGAINST THE DENIAL OF RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE CIT (A) AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF TH E I.T. ACT. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEA LS, ALL THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE LEA DING TO THESE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER: 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF SEED PRODUCTION AND ALSO DERIVING INCOME FROM LEASE RENTALS AND RENEWABLE POWER GENERATION. THERE WAS A SEARCH & SE IZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE S GROUP OF INDUSTRIES ON 13.03.2007. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH, A NOTICE U/S 153A WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE CALLING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAR ED AND FURNISHED THE REQUIRED INFORMATION. DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y 2006-07, T HE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED LAND SITES AT IBRAHIMBAGH, HYDERABAD, AT KANDLAKOYA, HYDERABAD AN D ALSO AT SHOLINGANALLUR, CHENNAI AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS M ADE PAYMENTS IN CASH ALSO OVER AND ABOVE THE REGISTERED VALUE OF THE LANDS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSES SEE ADMITTED THAT THE CASH PAYMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE ABOV E LANDS ARE ALL OUT OF ITS UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM SALE OF REMNANT SEEDS. THE AO BROUGHT THE DIFFERENCE OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LANDS TO TAX AS UNDISCLOSED INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE INVESTMENT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE SAME IN THE A.YS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 AS UNDER: ITA NOS 968 969 1242 AND CO 59 OF 2014 PAGE 3 OF 11 A.Y UNACCOUN TED SALE OF REMNANT SEED AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENT UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN LAND AT CHENNAI AND HYDERABAD AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENT (RS.) INCOME SURRENDERED ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN LAND AT CHENNAI AND HYDERABAD AS PER RETURN OF INCOME (RS.) CHENNAI HYDERABAD CHENNAI HYDERABAD 06-07 2,65,61,097 2,75,41,662 4,53,21,167 97,00,000 2,77,52,000 07-08 2,07,32,443 0 0 1,38,60,000 1,68,00,000 THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED RS.3 ,74,52,000 FOR THE A.Y 2006-07 AND RS.3,07,60,000 FOR THE A.Y 2007-0 8. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) THE ACT FOR T HE A.Y 2006- 07, THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT IN T HE LANDS IS MADE IN THE A.Y 2006-07 ITSELF VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31.12.2009. SIMILARLY, VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2008, FOR THE A.Y 2007-08, AO HAS TREATED A SUM OF RS.5,31,350 ONLY AS UNDISCLOSE D INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT S FOR PURCHASE OF THE LAND AT KANDLAKOYA, HYDERABAD. HE D ID NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER ADDITION BUT ACCEPTED THE UNACCOUNTED I NCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE INVESTMENTS IN LAND AT IBRAHIMBAGH AND CHENNAI DURING THE RELEVANT A.Y. THE REAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT, S TATING THAT FOR THE A.Y 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED UNACCO UNTED INVESTMENTS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF LAND AT IBRAHIMBAGH (HYDERABAD) AND SHOLINGANALLUR (CHENNAI) AMOUNTING TO RS.1,68,48,000 AND RS.1,38,60,000 RESPECTIVELY IN I TS RETURN OF INCOME BUT THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,68 ,94,917 AND RS.1,95,60,012 AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN THE EN TIRE LAND IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y 2006-07. IT WAS STA TED THAT SINCE THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID AMOUNT SHOULD BE ASSESSED IN THE A.Y 2006-07 ITSELF, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE SA ME SHOULD BE DELETED FROM THE ASSESSED INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2007-08 AS IT AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE ADDITION AND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD ITA NOS 968 969 1242 AND CO 59 OF 2014 PAGE 4 OF 11 BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. THE AO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION, ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AN D HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,68,48,000 RETURNED/SURRENDERED BY TH E ASSESSEE AS INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2007-08 IS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE INCOME ASSESSED, SINCE THE SAME HAS BEEN ADDED AS THE INCO ME FOR THE A.Y 2006-07. SIMILARLY, HE ALSO REDUCED THE SUM OF RS.1,38,60,000 SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2007-08 TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS FOR ACQUIRI NG LAND AT SHOLINGANALLUR (CHENNAI). THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ACCORDINGLY RECTIFIED. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CIT, U/S 263 OF THE ACT, PERUS ED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO THE SUBSEQUENT RECTIFICAT ION ORDER AND OBSERVED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS ALSO CLAIMED PROFIT FROM THE SALE OF CARBON CREDIT AS TH E DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT, THOUGH THE SAID PROFIT IS NOT DERI VED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.YS 2006-07 & 2007-0 8, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF UNACCOUNTED IN VESTMENTS AS THE INCOME FROM UNACCOUNTED SALE OF REMNANT SEEDS A ND THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED A SUM OF RS.2,07,32,443 AS INCOME FROM UNACCOUNTED SALE OF REMNANT SEEDS FOR THE A.Y 2007-0 8, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENT DURING THE REL EVANT A.Y, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX . HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL, THE ASSESSE E HAS TRANSFERRED A SUM OF RS.2.89 CRORES IN CASH THROUGH ANGADIAS AND BY REDUCING THE SUM OF RS.3,07,60,000 BY THE AO U/S 154 OF THE ACT, THE SUM OF RS.2.89 CRORES HAS ESCAPED ASSESSME NT. THUS, ITA NOS 968 969 1242 AND CO 59 OF 2014 PAGE 5 OF 11 ACCORDING TO THE CIT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BOTH ERRONEOUS AND ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. H E ACCORDINGLY ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO THE CIT. HOWEVE R, THE CIT WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS A ND DIRECTED THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y 2007-0 8 AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE CIT REVISING BOTH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT DATED 18.06.2009, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED TWO APPEALS ITA NOS.968 & 96 9/HYD/2011 RESPECTIVELY BEFORE US. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) O F THE ACT HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH, BOTH ON THE ALLOWAB ILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AND ALSO THE SOURCES FOR THE UNA CCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN PURCHASE OF LAND AT HYDERABAD AND AL SO AT CHENNAI BEFORE MAKING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT AND ALSO WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THUS, ACCORDI NG TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT OR DER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS AND HENCE IS NOT REVISABLE U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT A DETAILED NOTE ON TAXA BILITY OF THE RECEIPTS ON SALE OF CARBON CREDITS WAS SUBMITTED TO THE AO DURING IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALL THE FACTS PERTAINING TO IT WERE EXPLAINED TO THE AO AND THE A O AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME AND AFTER APPLICATION OF HIS MIN D, ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, WITH REGARD TO THE TAXING OF THE UNA CCOUNTED INCOME FROM THE SALE OF REMNANT SEEDS (OF RS.2.89 C RORES), IT WAS ITA NOS 968 969 1242 AND CO 59 OF 2014 PAGE 6 OF 11 SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH PORTION OF THE SALE CONSIDE RATION PAID FOR PURCHASE OF LAND SITES AT HYDERABAD AND CHENNAI WAS EXPLAINED TO BE INITIALLY PAID BY THE AGENTS (WHO WERE ENGAGE D TO IDENTIFY THE LAND) FOR WHICH THEY MAINTAINED THE ACCOUNTS AND TH E MONEY WAS LATER SENT TO THEM FROM HYDERABAD THROUGH ANGADIAS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE ENTIR E INVESTMENT IN LAND WAS MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y 2006- 07 ITSELF, AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE I NCOME FROM THE SALE OF REMNANT SEEDS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A .Y 2007-08 AS WELL, NOT REDUCING THE SAME FROM THE ASSESSED INCOM E FOR A.Y 2007-08 RESULTS IN NOTHING BUT DOUBLE ADDITION WHIC H WAS RIGHTLY RECTIFIED BY THE AO DURING THE 154 PROCEEDINGS. THE REFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, T HE REVISION ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAK EN A GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 IS ERRONE OUS AND ILLEGAL AS THE LEARNED CIT HAS PASSED A SINGLE ORDE R REVISING BOTH THE ORDER U/S 143(3) AND ORDER U/S 154 PASSED BY TH E AO. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE LEARNED CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CON SIDERED THE FACTS OF EACH OF THE ORDER SEPARATELY AND PASSED IN DEPENDENT ORDERS. 5. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE MAINTAINABIL ITY OF THE COMBINED ORDER OF THE CIT AND ALSO ON THE MERITS OF THE SAID ORDER. 6. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE CIT HAS REVISED THE ORD ER U/S 143(3) AND ALSO U/S 154 OF THE ACT BY A COMBINED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ITA NOS 968 969 1242 AND CO 59 OF 2014 PAGE 7 OF 11 ACT. THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE CIT OU GHT TO HAVE PASSED INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE ORDERS, IS NOT SUST AINABLE BECAUSE THE ORDER U/S 154 IS ONLY A RECTIFICATION O F A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD OF AN ORDER PASSED UNDER THE P ROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT AND THEREFORE, FORMS PART OF THE ORDER WHICH IS RECTIFIED. THE ORDER U/S 154 HAS NO INDEPENDENT EXI STENCE AND IS PART OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF AS HELD BY TH E HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF S. SANKAPPA VS. INCOME TAX OFF ICER, REPORTED IN (1968) 68 ITR 760 (S.C). THEREFORE, THE CIT WAS WITHIN HIS POWERS U/S 263 TO REVISE THE ORDER U/S 143(3) AND A LSO THE ORDER U/S 154 BY WAY OF A COMBINED AND A SINGLE ORDER. GR OUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.4 WITH REGARD TO ENTITLEMEN T OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE CREDIT OF CARBON CRED ITS, WE FIND THAT THE CIT HAS HELD THAT THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AS IT IS NOT DERIVED FROM AN INDUSTRIAL UN DERTAKING. AS FAR AS THIS ISSUE IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE AL LOWABILITY OF THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE OF CARBON CREDITS IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECI SION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MY HOME POWER LTD VS. DY.CIT IN ITA NO.1114/HYD/2009 DATED 2.11.2 012 WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS H ELD THAT IT IS NOT A REVENUE RECEIPT BUT IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT. THU S, WHILE HOLDING THAT SUCH RECEIPT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A DEDUCTION U /S 80IA, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE AS IT IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT. THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT ORDER IS CLE ARLY ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IS CONCER NED. BUT SINCE ITA NOS 968 969 1242 AND CO 59 OF 2014 PAGE 8 OF 11 IT IS HELD TO BE A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND CANNOT BE BR OUGHT TO TAX, IT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 8. THE OTHER GROUND ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEE N REVISED, IS THAT THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM THE SA LE OF REMNANT SEED OF RS.2.89 CRORES, HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY V IRTUE OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. IT I S THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE INCOME F ROM SALE OF REMNANT SEEDS IN ITS REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR A.YS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 AND THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, HAS CONSIDERED THE SAME AND HAS NOT MAD E ANY ADJUSTMENTS TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE UNACCOUNTED INCOM E AS THE SOURCE FOR INVESTMENTS IN LAND IN FINANCIAL YEARS 2 005-06 AND 2006-07 RELEVANT TO A.YS 2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIV ELY BUT SINCE THE AO HAS TREATED THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT AS M ADE IN THE A.Y 2006-07 ITSELF, NOT MAKING ANY ADJUSTMENT TO THE UN ACCOUNTED INCOME FROM THE SALE OF REMNANT SEEDS IN THE A.Y 200 7-08 ALSO, WILL RESULT IN DOUBLE TAXATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS AL SO FILED A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y 2006-07 WHEREIN AT PAGE 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE UNAC COUNTED INVESTMENTS IN LAND MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS QUANTIF IED DURING THE YEAR 2005-06 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y 2006-07, SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PAID THE CASH AND GOT THE LAND REGISTER ED DURING THIS A.Y. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y 2006-0 7, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED A SUM OF RS.2,7 7,52,000 TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED CASH PAYMENT IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME FILED BY IT AND THE AO HAS MADE A FURTHER ADDITION OF RS. 2,92,60,012 AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE I.T ACT. AS SE EN FROM THE ITA NOS 968 969 1242 AND CO 59 OF 2014 PAGE 9 OF 11 TABLE REPRODUCED ABOVE FROM THE CITS ORDER U/S 263 , THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM REMNANT SEED FOR THE A.Y 200 6-07 IS RS.2,65,61,097, IS INCLUDED IN THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THE ADDITION OF RS.2,07,32,443 IS ALSO MADE IN THE A.Y 2006-07. THEREFORE, IF THE SAME IS BROUGH T TO TAX IN THE A.Y 2007-08 ALSO BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED IT , IT IS CLEARLY A DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME AMOUNT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE AND FIND THAT THIS SU M OF RS.2.07 CRORES IS INCLUDED IN THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE FOR THE A.Y 2007-08. THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AT LENG TH AND THEREAFTER ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT AGA INST THE ORDER U/S 154 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 9. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUN D OF APPEAL IN ITANO.968/HYD/2011 WHICH IS AS UNDER: THE LEARNED CIT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE AO TO TAX THE RECEIPT ON SALE OF CARBON CREDITS OF RS.13,39,54,560 AS REVENUE RECEIPT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAID RECEIPT IS A CAPIT AL RECEIPT . AS FAR AS THIS GROUND IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, IT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AS THE RECEIPT FROM TH E SALE OF CARBON CREDITS OF RS.13,39,54,560 BEING A CAPITAL RECEIPT IS NOT TAXABLE. THEREFORE, THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT TO TAX THE RECE IPT AS REVENUE RECEIPT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE ITA NOS 968 969 1242 AND CO 59 OF 2014 PAGE 10 OF 11 BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MY HOME POWER LTD (CITED SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 19.02.2014 IN INCOME TA X APPELLATE TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.60 OF 2014. THEREFORE, WE DEEM I T FIT AND PROPER TO DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IN ITA NO.968/HYD/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED, WHILE APPEAL IN ITA NO.969/HYD/2011 IS ALL OWED. ITA NO.1242/HYD/2014 & C.O. 59/HYD/2014 11. ITA NO.1242/HYD/2014 IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN HOLDING THAT THE GAIN O N SALE OF CARBON CREDITS IS NOT TAXABLE AS IT IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT. WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BEN CH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MY HOME POWER LTD (CITED SU PRA) WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND TH EREFORE, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. 12. AS REGARDS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION O F THE AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.2.89 CRORES AS REPRESENTI NG THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON SALE OF REMNANT SEEDS AND INV ESTMENTS IN PROPERTY, WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE ORDER U/S 2 63 ON THIS ISSUE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENT IAL ADDITION ALSO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE ASSESSEES GROUND O F APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS 968 969 1242 AND CO 59 OF 2014 PAGE 11 OF 11 13. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AN D THE ASSESSEES C.O. IS ALLOWED. 14. TO SUM UP, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.968/HYD/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED, ASSESSEES APPEA L IN ITA NO.969/HYD/2011 IS ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.1242/HYD/2014 IS DISMISSED AND ASSESSEES C.O. 59/HYD/2014 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (B.RAMAKOTAIAH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 M/S. NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LTD 8-2-684/2/A, 4 TH FLOOR, NSL ICON ROAD NO.12 BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 2 DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 H YDERABAD 3 CIT (CENTRAL) HYDERABAD 4 ADDL. CIT CENTRAL RANGE-2 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER