M/s Moosa Abu Khaled, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Central Circle -1, Hyderabad

MA 190/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0580 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PHANI RAJU
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 190/HYD/2012 IN MA NO. 7/HYD/2010 - IN IT(SS)A NO. 104/HYD/2005 BLOCK A.YS. 1997-98 TO 2001-03 AND FROM 01.04.2002 TO 25.07.2002 SRI MOOSA ABU KHALED HYDERABAD PAN: AGTPK3669C VS. THE A CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO RESPONDENT BY: SRI PHANI RAJU DATE OF HEARING: 07 .0 6 .2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.07.2013 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) BY THE ASSESSE E IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30 TH JANUARY, 2009 IN IT(SS)A NO. 104/HYD/2005. 2. THIS IS THE SECOND MA BY THE ASSESSEE. EARLIER THE ASSESSEE FILED MA IN MA NO. 7/HYD/2010 WHICH WAS DI SMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 1`7.2.2012 BY OBSE RVING AS FOLLOWS: '4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THERE IS ALSO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT (A) HAS NO POWER WITH EFFECT FROM 1-6- 2001 UNDER SECTION 251 OF THE ACT TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE C IT (A) CAN CONFIRM, REDUCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ONLY. THE TRIBUNAL HAS POWER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDE RS MA NO. 190/HYD/2012 SRI MOOSA ABU KHALED ================= 2 OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERIT. IN THIS CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. NOW, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE WANTED THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER, WHICH POWER THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE. THERE MAY BE ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE TO COR RECT THE SAME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 5. THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS CASE CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL AND PASSED THE ORDER. NOW IN THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION, THE ASSES SEE CANNOT REOPEN AND REARGUE THE WHOLE MATTER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DELIVERED THE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RAISED THE GROUND RELATING TO PASSING OF ORDER EX- PARTE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE UP THAT ISSUE BEFORE US IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF APPLICATION OF SECTION 254(2) IS VERY LIMI TED. IT IS RESTRICTED TO RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES APPAR ENT FROM THE RECORD. BUT TO REVIEW OR RECALL THE ORDER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S. 254(2) IF NECESSITATING REHEAR ING AND RE-ADJUDICATION OF ENTIRE SUBJECT-MATTER OF APP EAL AND THE DISPUTE AFTER BEING PUT FOR REHEARING NO LONGER REMAINS RESTRICTED TO ANY MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. POWER TO RECALL AN ORDER IS PROVIDED UN DER RULE 24 AND RULE 25 OF ITAT RULES, 1963; THAT TOO ONLY IN CASES WHERE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT SHOWS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR BEING ABSENT AT A TIME WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP AND DECIDED EX-PARTE. IN OUR OPINION, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO MISTA KE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL.' 3. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE ARGUMENTS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON EARLIER OCCASION WHILE HEARING THE APPEAL TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOR FURTHER VERIFICATION AS THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.7.2004 WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 144 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE AR, THE TRIBUNAL NOT ADJUDIC ATED THIS GROUND AND DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERIT. THE AR SUBM ITTED THAT IF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSE E, IT AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND H E PRAYED TO GIVE MA NO. 190/HYD/2012 SRI MOOSA ABU KHALED ================= 3 ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS TO SUPP ORT THE CASE AND, HE PRAYED THAT EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL IS TO BE RECALLED. 4. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH WARRANTS RECTIFICATION OF EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED ALL THE A RGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL ON EARLIER OCCASION AND GIVE N A FINDING. FURTHER HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IN EARLIER MA ORDER IN MA NO. 7/HYD/2010 DATED 17.2.2012 THE TRIBUNAL CATEGORICAL LY HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S. 144 OF TH E ACT AND THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH WARRAN TS RECALL OF THE ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON CIT VS. RAMESH ELECTRIC AN D TRADING CO. (203 ITR 497) WHEREIN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HEL D AS UNDER: 'UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, 'WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD', AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED THEREIN. IT IS AN ACCEPTED POSITION THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDERS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF TH E ACT. THE ONLY POWER WHICH THE TRIBUNAL POSSESSES IS TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE IN ITS OWN ORDER WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THIS IS MERELY A POWER OF AMENDING ITS ORDER. THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDE R SECTION 254(2) CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIO US AND PATENT MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLE BE TWO OPINIONS. FAILURE OF THE TRIBUN AL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FO R ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION I SNOT AN ERROR APPARENT O N THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGEMEN T. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER O F MA NO. 190/HYD/2012 SRI MOOSA ABU KHALED ================= 4 RECTIFICATION, LOOK INTO SOME OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION.' 5. THE DR ALSO RELIED ON DHARAMCHAND SURANA VS. ITO (6 1 ITD 115) (TM), HOMI MEHTA & SONS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (63 ITD 15). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY THIS IS THE SECOND MA FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE WHICH CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS REJECTED THE FIRST MA FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO M ISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE TRIBUNAL TO ENTERTAIN THE SE COND APPLICATION WHICH WAS FILED ON THE SAME SET OF FACT S AND TO RECALL ITS APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ALLEGED PREMISE THAT THE RE WAS AN ERROR APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE PL ACE RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. THE CHEMICAL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS (296 ITR 297). 7. FURTHER IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT STATUTORY AUTHORITY CANNOT EXERCISE POWER OF REVIEW UNLESS SUCH POWER IS EXPRE SSLY CONFERRED. THERE IS NO EXPRESS POWER OF REVIEW CO NFERRED ON THIS TRIBUNAL. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE SCOPE OF REVIEW DOES NOT EXTEND TO RE-HEARING OF THE CASE ON MERIT. IT IS H ELD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PEARL WOOLLEN MILLS (330 ITR 164): HELD, THAT THE TRIBUNAL COULD NOT READJUDICATE THE MATTER UNDER SECTION 254(2). IT IS WELL SETTLED TH AT A STATUTORY AUTHORITY CANNOT EXERCISE POWER OF REVIEW UNLESS SUCH POWER IS EXPRESSLY CONFERRED. THERE WAS NO EXPRESS POWER OF REVIEW CONFERRED ON THE TRIBUNAL. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE SCOPE OF REVIEW DID NOT EXTENT TO REHEARING A CASE ON THE MERITS. NEIT HER BY INVOKING INHERENT POWER NOR THE PRINCIPLE OF MISTAKE OF COURT NOT PREJUDICING A LITIGANT NOR BY INVOLVING DOCTRINE OF INCIDENTAL POWER, COULD THE TRIBUNAL REVERSE A DECISION ON THE MERITS. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RECALLING ITS PREVIOU S MA NO. 190/HYD/2012 SRI MOOSA ABU KHALED ================= 5 FINDING RESTORING THE ADDITION, MORE SO WHEN AN APPLICATION FOR THE SAME RELIEF HAD BEEN EARLIER DISMISSED. 8. THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF APPLICATION OF SECTION 254(2 ) IS VERY LIMITED. THE SAME IS RESTRICTED TO RECTIFICAT ION OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. WE SHALL FIRST DEAL WITH THE QUESTION OF THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO RECALL AN ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY. RECALLING THE ENTIRE ORDER OBVIOUSLY WOULD MEAN PAS SING OF A FRESH ORDER. THAT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE LEGISL ATIVE INTENT. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL UNDER S. 254(1) IS THE EFFECTIVE ORDER SO FAR AS THE APPEAL IS CONCERNED. ANY ORDER PASSED UNDER S. 254(2) EITHER ALLOWING THE AMENDMENT OR RE FUSING TO AMEND GETS MERGED WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED. THE ORDER AS AMENDED OR REMAINING UN-AMENDED IS THE EFFECTIVE OR DER FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES. AN ORDER UNDER S. 254(2) DOES NOT HAVE EXISTENCE DE HORS THE ORDER UNDER S. 254(1). RECALLING OF THE ORDER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER S. 254(2). RECALLIN G OF AN ORDER AUTOMATICALLY NECESSITATES REHEARING AND RE-ADJUDIC ATION OF THE ENTIRE SUBJECT-MATTER OF APPEAL. THE DISPUTE NO LO NGER REMAINS RESTRICTED TO ANY MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. POWER TO RECALL AN ORDER IS PRESCRIBED IN TERMS OF RULE 24 OF THE I TAT RULES, 1963, AND THAT TOO ONLY IN CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT IT HAD A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR BEING ABSENT AT A TIME W HEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP AND WAS DECIDED EX-PARTE. JUDG ED IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL I S INDEFENSIBLE. 9. THE WORDS USED IN S. 254(2) ARE SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT, IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE . CLEARLY, IF THERE IS A MISTAKE, THEN AN AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED T O BE CARRIED OUT IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER TO CORRECT THAT PARTICULA R MISTAKE. THE PROVISION DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THE TRIBUNAL CAN R ECALL THE ENTIRE ORDER AND PASS A FRESH DECISION. THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO A MA NO. 190/HYD/2012 SRI MOOSA ABU KHALED ================= 6 REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE ORDER AND THAT IS NOT PERMISSI BLE UNDER THE IT ACT. THE POWER TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE UNDER S. 25 4(2) CANNOT BE USED FOR RECALLING THE ENTIRE ORDER. NO POWER OF R EVIEW HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE TRIBUNAL UNDER THE IT ACT. THUS, WHAT IT COULD NOT DO DIRECTLY COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE DONE INDIREC TLY. 10. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE S (P) LTD. (2007) 207 CTR (DEL) 119; (2007) 293 ITR 163 ( DEL), THEIR LORDSHIPS WHILE CONSIDERING THE POWERS OF THE TRIBU NAL UNDER S. 254(2) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 OBSERVED AS UNDER: UNDER S. 254(2) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE POWER TO RECTIFY MISTAKES IN ITS ORDER. HOWEVE R, IT IS PLAIN THAT THE POWER TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO A POWER TO REVIEW OR RECALL THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. RECTIFICATION IS A SPECIES OF THE LARGER CONCEPT OF REVIEW. ALTHOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE PRE-REQUISITE FOR EXERCISE OF EITHER POWER MAY BE SIMILAR (A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD), BY IT S VERY NATURE THE POWER TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE CANNOT RESULT IN THE RECALL AND REVIEW OF THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. 11. THUS THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF APPLICATION U/S. 254(2) IS AS FOLLOWS: (A) FIRSTLY, THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF APPLICATION OF S. 2 54(2) OF IT ACT IS RESTRICTED TO RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAK ES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. (B) SECONDLY, THAT NO PARTY APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL SHOULD SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF ANY MISTAKE COMMITTED B Y THE TRIBUNAL AND IF THE PREJUDICE HAS RESULTED TO T HE PARTY, WHICH PREJUDICE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TRIBU NALS MISTAKE/ERROR OR OMISSION, AND WHICH AN ERROR IS A MANIFEST ERROR, THEN THE TRIBUNAL WOULD BE JUSTIFIE D IN RECTIFYING ITS MISTAKE. THE RULE OF PRECEDENT IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY IN THE RULE OF LAW AND THAT PRINCIPLE IS NOT OBLITERATED BY S. 254(2) OF T HE ACT AND NON-CONSIDERATION OF PRECEDENT BY THE TRIBUNAL CAUS ES A PREJUDICE TO THE ASSESSEE. (C) THIRDLY, POWER TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE IS NOT EQUIVALE NT TO A POWER TO REVIEW OR RECALL THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RE CTIFIED. MA NO. 190/HYD/2012 SRI MOOSA ABU KHALED ================= 7 (D) FOURTHLY, UNDER S. 254(2) AN OVERSIGHT OF A FACT CA NNOT CONSTITUTE AN APPARENT MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE UNDER TH E SECTION. (E) FIFTHLY, FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CON SIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON RECORD, ALTH OUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGEMENT. (F) SIXTHLY, EVEN IF ON THE BASIS OF A WRONG CONCLUSION THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT ALLOWED A CLAIM OF THE PARTY IT WI LL NOT BE A GROUND FOR MOVING AN APPLICATION UNDER S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. (G) LASTLY, IN THE GARB OF AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICA TION UNDER S. 254(2) THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO REOPE N AND REARGUE THE WHOLE MATTER AS THE SAME IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF S. 254(2) OF THE IT ACT. 12. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION HEREIN THE JUDGEMENT OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. STEAL CAST CORPORATION (107 ITR 683) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE GROUND MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH THAT POINT AND THEREBY IT MEANS THAT IT WAS IMPLIEDLY REJECTED IT. BEING SO, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGEME NT, IT IS IMPLIED THAT THOUGH THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC FINDING I N THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ABOUT EX-PARTE ORDER, IT IS TO BE UNDE RSTOOD THAT THIS GROUND WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL SO THAT TH E TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND GIVEN THE FINDINGS. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY GRIEVANCE, T HE REMEDY LIES ELSEWHERE. WE ALSO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & B ROS. PVT. LTD. (176 ITR 535) WHEREIN HELD THAT THE DECISION O F THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TO BE SCRUTINISED SENTENCE BY SENTENCE MERE LY TO FIND OUT WHETHER ALL FACTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN DETAIL B Y THE TRIBUNAL OR WHETHER SOME INCIDENTAL FACT WHICH APPEARS ON TH E RECORD HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS JUDGMEN T. IF THE COURT, ON A FAIR READING OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRI BUNAL, FINDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIA L AND HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ANY IRRELEVANT MATERIAL IN BASIN G ITS MA NO. 190/HYD/2012 SRI MOOSA ABU KHALED ================= 8 CONCLUSIONS, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT LI ABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE PERVERSE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY F OR THE TRIBUNAL TO STATE IN ITS JUDGEMENT SPECIFICALLY OR IN EXPRES S WORDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR HAS CONSIDERED THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, AS IF THAT WERE A MAGIC FORMULA; IF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOWS THAT IT HAS, IN FACT, DONE SO, THERE IS NO RE ASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE INCLINED TO DISMISS THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE MA BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH JULY, 2013. SD/ - (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 4 TH JULY, 2013 TPRAO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . SRI MOOSA ABU KHALED, 105A, 1 ST FLOOR, 5 - 9 - 139, LENAINE ESTATES, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, HYDERABAD. 3 . THE CIT(A) - I, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD. 5 . THE DR ' B ' BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD .