M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt. Lt.d., V. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax

CRLATR/4/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, who were convicted by the Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad for willful evasion of tax under Sections 276-C(2) and 278-8 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The conviction was based on an initial assessment order dated 02.12.2010, which was later revised, reducing the tax liability significantly. The appellants argued that the conviction was based on an incorrect assessment and that they had not willfully evaded tax, as they had paid the demanded tax, penalty, and interest following the revised assessment. The High Court agreed with the appellants, noting that the prosecution's basis for the conviction (the original assessment order) was no longer valid due to the subsequent revision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 692727 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: V. Srinivas Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Cr.P.C
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B NARASIMHA SARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: VINOD DESHPANDE
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Economic offences; Income Tax Returns; Prosecution; Willful evasion of tax
• Section: 143(1); 221(1); 374(2); 143(4); 276-C(2); 278-8; 140-A(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P C aggrieved by the Judgment dated O9-Oi-)014 in CC. No, 125 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad Between: AND ) M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Pvt. Lt.d., Flant No.102, Dhanunlaya N-est Raliv 'ttigar, Vousutguda, Hyderabad45, Rep by Shri D V S Subba Raju' S/o D.KJishnam Raju, aged about 46 years. ShriD.V.S.SubbaRaju,DirectorofM/s.sindhuGreenlandsPvtLtd,FlatNo' ioi, bnanunlaya Nedt, Raiiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-4s ... ApPellants / Accused 1&4 Dv.Commissioneroflncome-tax,CentralCircle-9,RoomnoB13,8thFloor, 46yakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004 ...RESPONDENT/ ComPlainant CounselfortheAppellant:SRIVINoDKUMARDESHPANDESR.CoUNSEL FOR SRI. G ASHOK REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI B .NARASIMHA SARMA SC FOR l'T' CRIMINAL APPEAL TRANSFER NO: 39 OF 2018 Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 09-01-2014 in cc. No. 125 of 201 1 on the file of the courtof the special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad Between: 1 B. Jhansi Rani, Wo. Shri B. Suryanarayana Raju, Aged about M/s Sindhu cr#.,rrnar Fui. lta., Rlo. H. No.' 1 -1 2314, Satyim Enclave, Pet Bashirabad (V), N, H. No.7, Secund€rabad-5o0855. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR, JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN CRIMINAL APPEAL TRANSFER Nos:4 and 39 OF 2018 Crl.A. Tr.No. 4 of 2018 : 2. N Rana Ralu S/o. N Venkat Ra1u. aged about 49 years. Drrector of lVl/s Sindhu Greenlands Pvt Ltd . Flat No.201, H.No. 1-1 1-192. Kamala Arcade Shamlal Buildings. Begumpet. Hyderabad-l6. .. Appellants / Accused 2 & 3 AND Dy. Commissioner of lncome-tax, Central Circle-9, Room No 813, Bth Floor, Aayakar Bhavan. Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004. ...RESPONDENT/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellants : SRI VINOD KUMAR DESHPANDE SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. V SURENDER RAO Counset for the Respondent: SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA SC for l.T. The Gourt Delivered the following: Common Judgment THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN CRIMINAL APPEAL (TRI Nos.4 and 39 of 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT: Crl.A.(TR).No.4 of 2Ol8 is filed b-y A1 and 44 i'e., Company and one of its Directors respectively, whereas Crl.A.(TR).No.39 of 20 1B is filed by ,{2 and 43, who are the Directors of A1/company, being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge lor Economic Offences at Hyderabad in C.C.No.125 of 2oll vide Judgment dated O9.O1.2O14, wherein Accused Nos. I to 4 were found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 276-C(21 read with Section 278-8 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, \"the Act\") consequently accused No.l was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,0OO/- and in default of payment of fine to initiate appropriate proceedings as required under Section 427 of Cr.P.C., whereas Accused Nos.3 and 4 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and A2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine by accused Nos.2 to 4, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. 2 Since the issues involved in these appeals are one and the same, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.. 2. For convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. i.e., Appellant No.1 as Accused No.l/Company and Appellant Nos.2 to 4 as Accused Nos. 2 to 4. 3. The genesis of these cases, which lead the appellants_ accused to prefer these appeats, are narrated in brief as under: i) Accused No.1/Company - M/s. Sindhu Greenlands Private Limited, which was registered under the Companies Act with the Registrar of Companies at Hyderabad as Private Limited Company, was engaged in the business of acquisition and sale of lands. Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 herein are the Directors of Accused No. 1/ Company. ii) Accused No.1/Company has acquired lands to an extent of Ac.7.OO guntas in Sy.No.193(P) under the limits of Bachupally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District during the financial year 2002-2003 and developed the said lands by :l incurring some amounts during the financial years 2002- 03 to 2007-OB. Accused No.1/Company along with other companies, who have lands contiguous to the lands of Accused No.1/Company, have agreed to develop the lands jointly with M/s. Mytas Property Private Limited. As per the said development agreement, the built up area agreed to be given to Accused No. l/company, was allowed to be sold to various buyers by M/s. Mytas ProperQr Private Limited and pass on the saie proceeds to Accused No.1/Company. iii) For the assessment year 2008-09, accused No.1/company has filed income tax returns on 30.09.2008 under Ex.P1 by bifurcating the sale proceeds into long term capital gains accrued from the sale proceeds of the iands and short term capital gains accrued from the sale proceeds of the constructed area by showing gross taxable income as Rs.7,65,64,5701-, out of which an amount of Rs.4,86,86,424 l- was shown as long term capital gain and Rs.2,78,78,148 I - was shown as short term capital gains. .i irr) Accused No. 1 / Company is expected to pay the income tax either by way of advance tax as required under Section 208 of the Act or at ieast along with liling of returns in terms of Section 140-4 of the Act. As per Section 143 (1) of the Act, the tax liability of Accused No.1 was arrived at Rs.2,27,74,267 l- by the respondent/complainant and raised a demand under Section 156 read with Section 143 of the Act and issued an intimation to Accused No.1/Company under Dx.P2. Accused No.1/company was required to pay the tax demanded within 3O days of service of notice, but it has committed default. v) Respondent/ complainant has issued show-camse notice dated 17.ll.2OO9 under Section 221 (ll of the Act under Ex.PS, wherein the appellants were asked to show cause as to why penalty should not be levied for committing default in pa5rment of tax. As there was no r€sponse from the appellants, the complainant has issued arlother show-cause notice dated 25.08.201O under Ex.P6 under Section 221 (l read with Section 143-A of the Act. 5 Finally, one more opportunity was also given by the Department by giving another show-cause notice dated 1i.10.2010 (Ex.P7) under Section22l (l) read with Section 143-,4. of the Act. An opportunity of being heard was also given by the respondent/ complainant to Accused No. 1/Company fixing the date of hearing as 18.10.2010, but there was no response, on which a penalty of Rs.5O,O0,0OO/- ras imposed by way of order dated 25.lO.2OlO (Ex. PB) under Section 221 read with Section i40-A(3) of the Act and the said proceedings were sened on accused No.1 on 25.10.2010. 4. Considering the willful evasion of payment of tax, the respondent/ complainant has decided to initiate prosecution and accordingly a notice was issued to accused No.l/company and other Directors under Section 276-C(2) of the Act, as to why prosecution shall not be initiated against them for willful evasion of the tax. All of them have given reply stating that there was no intention to evade payment of tax. Another notice was issued to accused No.l/Company arrd its directors under Exs.P10 and Pl1 dated 11.0i.2011 asking them as to why prosecution shall 6 not be irritiated under Section 276-C(21 of the Act. Again replies were filed by accused No. 1/company and its Directors/ accused Nos.2 to A4 under Exs.Pl2 and P13 stating that there was no intention of willful evasion of tax. 5. As Accused No. 1/Compaly arrd its Directors/ accused Nos.2 to 4 have not paid the tax in response to the demand notice issued under Section 143 (1) of the Act and also faiied to pay the penalty, the respondent/ complainant after obtaining sanction order dated 16.03.201 1 for launching of prosecution filed a complaint before the Special Court for Economic Offences against accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 to 4, the other Directors, alleging that they have committed offence punishable under Section 276-C(21 read with section 278-8 of the Act, as they have willfully evaded tax even though they were having sufficient resources. 6. The Special Court for Economic Offences took cognizance of the offences against Accused No.1/Company ald its Directors i.e., Accused Nos. 1 to 4, under Section 276-C(2) read with Section 278-8 of the Act and charges were frarned against them under Section 276 - C(2) read with Section 27g-B(ll of the Act 7 and al1 the accused have pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried 7. In order to prove the charges leveled against the appellants, the respondent/ complainant has examined PWs. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.Pl to P14. After closure of evidence of the complainant, the incriminating evidence elicited against the appellants was read over and explained to them under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., for which all of them have denied and reported that they did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf. However, they got marked Exs.Dl to D3 on their behalf. B. The substance of the evidence of PW1 is that after receiving of returns of income tax filed by accused No. l/company, the respondent/complainant has processed the same under Section 1a3(1) of the Act and issued intimation determining the total taxable income as Rs.7,65,64,57O1- and tax liability as Rs.2,50,3O, 1 64 I -. The evidence of PW2 /Income Tax officer is to the extent that he has considered the annual report of accused No.l/company for the financial year 2OQ7-O8 under Ex.P3 and bank account slatements of accused No.l/Company with the 8 AXIS B;rnk Limited under Bx. P4 and found that accused No.1/Compar.ry did not pay the tax returns in spite ol having surplus and sufficient funds. PW3 is the Income Tax Officer, who has succeeded PW2. His evidence is that he has passed penalty order under Ex.PB imposing penalty of Rs.50 lakhs and raised clemand under Ex.P9 and the same u,as served on the accused. He also deposed that as there was no response from the accused, show cause notices under Section 276-C ol the Act were issiued against all the accused through '\"r,hich accused were informed that the department is initiating criminal proceedings and consequently the department has fi1ed the complaint. 9. After full-fledged trial, on considering the entire material on record, the trial Court has found Accused No.l/Company and A2 to . 4, the Directors of A1 company, guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 276-C(2 and 278-8 of the Act and were sentenced as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction of Special Judge for Economica-l Offences at H),der:Lbad, the present appeals are filed originally before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court at Hyderabad. 9 10. The erstwhile High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh has issued circular ROC.No.34, Criminal Section/20 17, dated 28.O8.2017, wherein it is clarilied that against any orders passed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, in the State of Telangana and Visakhapatnam in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the appeals, not the Sessions Court. In view of the said circular, these appeals filed by the appellants have been transferred from Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court, Hyderabad, to the High Court for the State of Telangana. 11. The summarJi of grounds of appeal as filed by the appellants in brief are as under: a) The trial Court has failed to see that accused No.l/company was not having funds to pay the tax on the due date as reflected in Ex.P4-bank statements and that accused No.1 has not received any sale proceeds from M/s. Mytas Property Private Limited, thereby the respondent/ complainant has not produced any evidence to show that accused No.l/Company has received sale proceeds from M/s. Mytas Property Private Limited. b) The trial court has misconstrued the presumption under Section 278-E of the Act and erred in holding that the burden of proof is on the accused to prove that there was no wil1fu1 evasion of payment of tax. c) The trial Court erred in holding that the accused failed to prove non-existence of culpable mental state in non-payment of taxes on the date of filing returns and as on the date of demand notice ald that the trial Court failed to appreciate that in spite of not having any cogent evidence to show that all the accused have willfully evaded the tax, the trial Court has concluded that accusect have committed willful evasion in payment of tax. d) The trial court failed to see that ail the assets belong to accused No.1/Company were attached under Section 281-B of the Act and due to paralyzing of financial activities of accused No.1, tex could not be paid in time. e) Tl-re tria,l court failed to consider the admission of pW3 that the amount received by Accused No. l/Company is towards 10 11 share application money does not attract tax liability and that the trial Court could not consider that accused No.1 has not received Rs.7 crores 65 lakhs from M/s. M-ytas Property Private Limited. f) The Trial Court should not ha re conciuded that accused Nos.2 to 4 are responsible for day to day affairs of accused No. 1 / company and should have taken into consideration the notices issued under Section 27 B-B of the Act proposing the prosecution did not refer accused Nos, 2 to 4 as principal officers and thereby accused Nos.2 to 4 should have been acquitted. 12. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, Iearned Senior counsel for the appellants and Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Standing counsel for the income tax department, considered the entire material on record, relevant provisions of the Act and the authorities cited. 13. Appellants have filed an application under Section 39 I Cr.P.C., along with the appeals for receiving of two documents i.e., (1) Common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in ITA.No. 1OO2 of 2014, dated 22.05.2015 and (2) consequential t2 14. It is submitted vehemently by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that during the pendency of the complaint before the trial Court, the accused have paid entire tax as demanded, including the penalt5r and interest and that the appellants have challenged the assessment orders dated 02.12.21) 10 tinder Ex.D2 before the learned CIT(A). On hearing both siies, learned CIT(A) has found that there are no merits in order, dated 21.03.20 i6 passed by the Assessing Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad, as additional evidence. As per the common order of the Tribr.rnal, dated 22.O5.2015 (document No.1), the assessment order dated O2.l2.2OlO on which the prosecution is initiated was directed to be modiiied. Basing on the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessment officer has modified the earlier orders dated 02.12.2010 by re-assessing the tax liability, which the appellants were expected to pay for the assessment year 2OO7 -2008 (document No.2). Considering the above, and on hearing both sides, this Court is of the opinion that these two documents are very relevant to consider the appeals on hand, thereby these documents are received. 13 the contentions raised by the appellants, and dismissed the appeal upholding the orders passed by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 20OB-09. Aggrieved by' the sarne, the appellants have preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, \"the Tribunal\"), and on hearing both sides, learned Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal vide orders dated 22.O5.2015 in ITA.No.943lHydl2OV and batch finding that the Assessing Officer has committed error in calculating the tax to be paid by the appellants and directed the Assessing Officer to re-assess the tax by computing the income of the appellants from the transfer of lands held by accused No.l/company as capital assets by way of development agreement and subsequent to sale of flats and bungalows received as consideration for such transferred amounts to stock in trade on conversion. These orders are passed after passing conviction vide judgment dated 09.Ol.2OL4 in C.C.No.125 of 2011 by the learned Special Judge. It is also submitted by the learned Senior counsel that the Assessing Officer has re-assessed the tax as per the directions of the Tribunal and passed consequential order, dated 21.03.2016, wherein the tax liability was substantially reduced and found that the tax, which was already paid to the tune of l4 Rs.2,27,74.267 I n,as in excess of the rerrised tax thereby, the excess trrx paid Rs,1,43,64, i08/- and interest of Rs.42,53,507/ the total of rvhich was Rs. 1,86,17,6161-, ras ordered to be refunded and the same was also adjusted against the demand for the accounting year 2009-10 vide RO.No.30351g dated 28.O3.2016. On considering the submissions of the learned Senior counsel it is clear that the appellants have not only paid the tax demanded along with interest and penalty, but also on account of re-assessment of tax, the tax already paid was in excess of tax liability, and that the same was adjusted for future tax liability and hence, sought for allowing of the appeals. 15. lrarned standing counsel representing the Income Tax Department stated that as on the due date, the accused have not paid th e tax having sufficient funds and committed willful evasion of payment of tax. It is also submitted that Accused No.l/cornpany has filed annual returns (Ex.p3), through its Chartered Accountant for the finaacial year 2OOZ -O8 relevant for the assessment year 2OO8-O9, according to which Accused No. I made profit on sale of land to a tune of Rs.7,23,27,941 l- and the r5 bank statements sho / that Accused No. 1/Company has received part of sale consideration in respect ol \"Mytas Hill County\" from time to time, but did not choose to pay the advance tax. lt is further submitted that the balance sheet of Accused No.1/Company also shows Rs.9,32,69,O74/- under the head reserves and surplus, so also Rs. 1 1,73,54,237 l- under the head current assets by way of loans and advances. It is further submitted that accused No.1/Compaly having enough liquid cash during the relevant accountlng year, willfully evaded in payment of tax, thereby the accused have committed the offence the Act and hence conviction recorded by the trial Court is proper. 16. Now, the points for determination in these appeais are: 1) Whether the conviction recorded based on the assessment order dated 02.12.2010 can be sustained, since the said assessment order dated 02.l2.2OlO was subsequently revised? 2l Whether the accused have committed willful evasion of tax? punishable under Section 276-C(2 read with Section 278-8 of 16 3) To q'hat relieP Point No. 1: 17. The cause of action for the respondent department/ complainant to file the complaint against the appellants is the assessment order dated 02.12.20 10, according to whir:h t he appellants /ere asked to pay tax of Rs.2,27 ,7 4,267 I - for the taxable income of Rs.7,65,64 ,57O / - and accordin gly an intimation was sent by the Assessing officer to the appt:llar-rts under Section 143 (1) of the Act. Admittedly as on the clate of initiating the prosecution against the appellants, demanded tax of Rs.2,05,08,1221- was not paid by the appellants. It is also an admitted lact that after initiating the prosecution, the appellants have paid the entire tax demanded along with penalty, interest etc. Therefore, as on the date of pronoullcement of the judgment by the trial Court, there was no tax liab,lity to be paid by the appellants. 18. It is to be noted that the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal having considered the appeals of the appellants found that the assessnrent order, dated 02.12.2010 directing the appellants to pay Rs.2,27,74,267 l- was incorrect and the Assessment Officer 17 was directed to assess the income tax a-fre sh in terms of the directions given by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Assessment oflicer has re-assessed the income tax and passecl modified orders, dated 21.03.20 16 determining the tax liability, which is far less than what was assessed at the first place. The basis for respondent/complainalt to initiate prosecution against the appellants is the assessment order, dated O2.l2.2OlO, on the ground that the appellants have committed default in payment of the tax as per the said assessment order. When asiessment order dated 02.I2.2OlO itself is re-assessed as per the directions of the Tribunal which held that the assessment of tax dated O2.l2.2OlO is incorrect and the tax to be paid was substantially reduced, it cannot be alleged that the appellants have committed default in payment of tax and willfully evaded. When the assessment order dated O2.L2.2OIO itself was modified holding that the Assessment Officer has incorrectly assessed the tax, whatever the consequential proceedings that have been initiated, including the initiation of prosecution of the appellants by the respondent/complainant, conviction recorded by the trial Court, cannot sustain. Basing on the fresh assessment order, dated 21.O3.2OL6, it is to be examined afresh that whether the . -'. - 18 appellants have committed any willfui evasion of tax, as defined under Section 276 C of the Act. 19. Therefore, on considering the above discussion, it is clear that the finding of the tria-1 Court that the appellants '*,ere guilty of the olTences under Section 276-C(2 read with Section 278-8 of the r ct is erroneous as the same is based on incorrect assessment order, dated O2.l2.2OlO and hence, shall not sustain, and required to be set aside Considering the same, point No. i is decided in favour of the appellants/ accused. POINT IIo.2:- 20. The appellalts have also raised other issues i.e., they have not committed any l,r.illful evasion in payment of tax since, as on the due date there were no liquid funds in their accounts and the appellants - Accused Nos. 2 to 4, who are the Directors, are not responsible for the day to day activities of accused No.l/Company as on the date of the alleged default, the trial Court has misconstrued the presumption under Section 27 8tr of the Act, the trial Court faiied to record admission of PW.3, that 19 the amount received torr\",ards share application does not attract the tax etc. 21. This Court has aireadt' came to the conclusion r.i'hile discussing point No.1 that the conviction and sentence recorded in favour of the appellants required to be set aside, on account of the fact that the asse ssment order dated 02 . 12.20 1 0 on u'hich the conviction ^/as recorded was modified and a lresh assessment order came into force, hence, the issues raised by the appellants, need not be answered. 22. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the authority passed by the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in the case of V.Srinivas Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradeshr, wherein it was held as follows: *13. It uas th.en urged bg Mr. Arunachalam that if tLrc Hiqh Court felt that .further euidence was necessary for disposal of tte case then it could haue exercised its power under Section 391 Cr. P.C. and ouqht not to haue set aside the order of acquittal and remanded tte matter for fresh disposal. This argument olso did not impress us because the Hiqh Court instead of recordirLo the additional euidencp in terms of Section 391 Cr. P.C.; prefered to remand the matter bock to the tial court for disposal in accordance with law. It also appears from the record that some of the documents including FDRs, loan applications etc., should also haue been brought on record for effectiue r(1998) 9 SCC 331 20 di,sposal of the controuersu raised in the case and to do jusrice betueen the parties. It is needless to sall that the tnal court uill stictlu adhere to the obseruations ond dir<:ctions giuen by the High Court in its judgment. \" Thr: rationale in the above authoritlr of the Apex Court squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand 23. Consrdering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the assessment orders dated O2.l2.2OlO on which the prosecution was initiated itself does not exist and that the same was modified and lresh assessment order dated 2l .03.2016 came into force, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants basing on the incorrect assessment orders dated 02.12.2OlO shall be set aside. 24. Accordingly, both these criminal appeals are disposed of setting aside the conviction and sentence dated 09.O 1.20 14 recorde,l by Special Court for Economical Offences at Hyderabad and C.O.No.125 of 2Ol1 is remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to consider the documents i.e., (1) Common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in ITA.No.1002 of 2014, dated 22.O5,2015 and (2) consequential order, dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Assessing Oflicer, Assistalt Commissioner of 2) Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad, fiied by the appellants and decide the complaint afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to both sides to adduce any further evidence, if any. However, the trial Court shal1 not be influenced by the comments and observations, if any, made by this Court touching merits of the case while passing orders. As a sequel, pending misceilaneous applications, if any, sD/-K.SRtNTVASA RAO / / 'tRuE coPY I I JOINT REGI R TO 't . The Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad 2. Dy. Co,'llmissioner oiincome{ax,, Central Circle'9, Aayakar Bhavan' Room No 805' 8[h Ftoor, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004' 3. The Assessing Officei, Asiistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle -3 (2) Hyderabad. 4. One CC to SRl. G. ASHOK REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri V. SURENDER RAO, Advocate (OPUg]- 6. il; ac io Snr. s. NARASIMHA sARMA' Advocate [oPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies shall stand closed. 5-'/ SECTION OFFICER + HIGH COUIlT DATED: lt 10612022 COMMAN JUDGMENT CRLA(TR).t,lOS.4 AND 39 OF 2018 DISPOSING OF THE BOTH CRL. APPEALS(TR) .0 1';1i l\"i;';1t4: 2Z srP 2W I "