DCIT, Circle-13(1), Hyderabad V. Padmalaya Telefilms Ltd., Hyderabad

MA 37/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9372 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBHASREE ANANTHA KRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Bad and doubtful debts; Time period of passing order; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 139(5); 147; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NOS. 18/HYD/10 & 37/HYD/12 (IN ITA NOS. 783 & 784/HYD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04 & 2004-05) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, APPLICANT CIRCLE 13(1), HYDERABAD VS. M/S PADMALAYA TELEFILMS LTD., RESPONDENT HYDERABAD (PAN AABCP9095Q) APPLICANT BY : SHRI SUBHASREE ANANTHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO DATE OF HEARING : 03/08/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/10/ 2012 ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M.: THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE REVEN UE ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD, IN APPEALS ITA NO. 783 & 784/HYD/2007 DA TED 11 TH JULY, 2008. M.A. NO. 37/HYD/2012 2. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY REVENUE IN RE SPECT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT ADMITTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE FOR M.A. NOS. 18/HYD/10 & 37/HYD/12 M/S PADMALAYA TELEFILMS LTD. 2 DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS OF RS.28.12 CRORES(GROUND NO. 4) AND BAD DEBTS OF RS.20,60,148/-(GROUND NO. 5). THE DEPARTM ENT HAD ENCLOSED THE EXTRACT FROM ORDER SHEET OF CIT(A) WHE REIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT GROUND NO. 4 & 5 HAS NOT BEEN P RESSED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, SHRI B NARSINGA R AO AND SHRI B NARSINGA RAO HAS SIGNED THE SAME. THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN MA STATING THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRES S THESE TWO GROUND AND HENCE THE AVERMENT OF THE AR MISLEADING TO THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE O RDER OBTAINED BY FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION IS TO BE CA LLED BACK RELYING ON UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. RAJE NDRA SINGH & OTHERS, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, SPECIAL LEAVE PET ITION (CIVIL) 8479 OF 1999, ORDER DATED 14/03/2000. 3. IT WAS PRAYED IN THE PETITION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THESE GROUNDS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND, HENCE, T HE MATTER MAY NOT BE RECONSIDERED. 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AT THE TIME OF HE ARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AT THE BENCH THAT HE HAS NOT WIT HDRAWN THE ABOVE GROUNDS AND AS THE ISSUES ARE NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE AO, THE SAME MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILES OF AO. 5. THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA-19 OF THE ORDER HAS SPECIFI CALLY MENTIONED AS THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WHILE RELYING THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) SUBM ITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE MATTER BEING RESTORED B ACK TO THE FILES OF AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME M.A. NOS. 18/HYD/10 & 37/HYD/12 M/S PADMALAYA TELEFILMS LTD. 3 THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO REJECTED THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT PRESS THE RELEVANT GROUNDS O F APPEAL RAISED BEFORE HIM. THIS OBSERVATION OF THE LD.CIT( A) IS DISPUTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PA SSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ACCOUNT, AND RESTORE TH ESE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL DECI DE THE SAME AFRESH AND ACCORDING TO LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, AND ACC ORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. 6. THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALL Y WITHDRAWN THE GROUNDS BEFORE THE CIT(A) OR NOT, HAS HAD THE BENEFIT OF BEING PERUSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FI RST ROUND OF APPEAL WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAD ADDRESSED THE SPECI FIC ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEE NOT PRESSING CERTAIN GROUNDS BEFORE TH E CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH SIDE S THEY HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE R E- ADJUDICATED BY THE AO AND HAS THEREFORE SET ASIDE T HE ISSUE. THE TRIBUNAL BEING AWARE OF THE ISSUE HAD DECIDED T HE SAME AFTER DISCUSSION AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT RECTIFY ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED CERTAIN ASPECT S, WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL HEARING. FURTHER, IT IS A FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE M.A. NOS. 18/HYD/10 & 37/HYD/12 M/S PADMALAYA TELEFILMS LTD. 4 APPEARS TO HAVE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE MATTER BEING SENT BACK TO THE FILES OF AO FOR RECON SIDERATION. 7. IN OUR OPINION, THE MATTER SETTLED BY THE ITAT A FTER SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE CANNOT BE RECTI FIED ON ACCOUNT OF SOME ADDITIONAL MATERIAL WHICH WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL EARLIER. IN ANY EVENT, THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AN D IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S.254(2). THE POWER U/S 254(2) IS CON FINED TO A RECTIFICATION OF A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. S. 2 54(2) IS NOT A CARTE BLANCHE FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO CHANGE ITS OWN VIEW BY SUBSTITUTING A VIEW WHICH IT BELIEVES SHOULD HAVE B EEN TAKEN IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. S. 254(2) IS NOT A MANDATE TO U NSETTLE DECISIONS TAKEN AFTER DUE REFLECTION. IT IS NOT AN AVENUE TO REVIVE A PROCEEDING BY RECOURSE TO A DISINGENUOUS A RGUMENT NOR DOES IT CONTEMPLATE A FRESH LOOK AT A DECISION RECORDED ON MERITS. 8. THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN HONDA SIEL POWER P RODUCTS V. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 THAT THE UNDERLYING PURPO SE OF SECTION 254(2) IS BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPL E THAT A PARTY APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT SUFF ER ON ACCOUNT OF A MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WHE N PREJUDICE RESULTS FROM AN ORDER ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL'S MISTAKE, ERROR OR OMISSION, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE T RIBUNAL TO SET IT RIGHT AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONCEPT OF THE INHERENT POWER TO REVIEW. THE SUPREME COURT HELD TH AT THE TRIBUNAL WOULD BE REGARDED AS HAVING COMMITTED A MI STAKE IN NOT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL WHICH IS ALREADY ON RE CORD. M.A. NOS. 18/HYD/10 & 37/HYD/12 M/S PADMALAYA TELEFILMS LTD. 5 9. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS V. CIT (SUPRA), HAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL WOULD BE REGARDED AS HAVING COMMITTED A MISTAKE IN NOT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL WHICH IS ALREADY ON RECORD . IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ADDITIONAL MATERIAL TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN T HE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE MATERIAL, I.E. ORDER SHEET ENTRY BROUGHT BY THE REV ENUE NOW BY THIS MA CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS ALREADY ON RECORD W HEN THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND, HENCE, WE DI SMISS THE M.A. FILED BY THE REVENUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A. FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. M.A. NO. 18/HYD/2010 11. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE M/S PADMALAYA T ELE FILMS LTD. FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 01/12/2003 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 15,53,62,011/- AND THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143 (1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON 28-04-2004. SUBSEQUENTLY. THE ASSESSME NT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. 1961 ON 29-03 -2006 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 20,49,50,000/-. 12. ON APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CI T(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE FI LED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT AND THE HONBLE ITAT DISPOSED THE APPEAL VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO. 783 & 784/HYD/07, DT. 11/07/2008. M.A. NOS. 18/HYD/10 & 37/HYD/12 M/S PADMALAYA TELEFILMS LTD. 6 13. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 13(1), HYDERABAD HAS FILED MIS CELLANEOUS PETITION STATING THAT GROUNDS AT SL. NO. 11 TO 15 A PPEARING AS PART OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR THE AY 2003-04 HAVE NOT BEEN CORRECTLY MENTIONED , AS UNDER:- AT GROUND NO.11, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE REVISED RETURN HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THIS IS NOT CORRECT. THE R EVISED RETURN WAS FILED ON 29-03-2006. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 139(5) OF THE LT. ACT, 1961, THE REVISED RETURN FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS TO BE FILED BEFORE 31-03-2005. HOWEVER, THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED ON 29-03-2006 I.E. AFTER THE EXPIR Y OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD. AT GROUND NO.12, IT WAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF L OSS FROM THE REDUNDANT ANIMATION PROJECTS WIP AMOUNTING TO RSA,06,12,414/-. THIS IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. IN THE REVISED RETURN, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED REDUNDANT ANIMATION PR OJECTS WIP OF RS.2,48,83.969/-. AT GROUND NO.13, IT WAS STATED THAT THE REDUNDANT S OFTWARE AND PRODUCTION WIP OF RS 4,98,19,571/-. THIS STATEMENT IS ALSO NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. THE AMOUNT CLAIMED IN THE REVISE D RETURN UNDER REDUNDANT SOFTWARE AND PRODUCTION WIP IS RS. 2,49,0 9,786/-. AT GROUND NO.14, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE CL AIMED NON- COLLECTIHLE LOANS AND ADVANCES OF RS.3,25,64,086/- IN THE REVISED RETURN WHICH IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. THE AMOUNT C LAIMED IN THE REVISED RETURN UNDER THIS HEAD IS RS.3,23,52,355/- . 14. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BEFORE US, THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REVISED RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ON 29-03-2004 ALONG WIT H REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAME. IT WAS FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT ON AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 15 4 OF THE LT. ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM AS NOT ENTERTAINABLE. M.A. NOS. 18/HYD/10 & 37/HYD/12 M/S PADMALAYA TELEFILMS LTD. 7 15. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REPRESENTED THE FACTS CORRECTL Y. IT WAS STATED THAT THE REVISED RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3-04 WAS FILED ON 29-03-2004 AS AGAINST THE CORRECT DATE OF 29-03-200 6. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT TO STATE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE REVISED RETURN WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT ON 29- 03-2006. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DULY CONSIDERED AND LODGED THE SAME AS THE RETURN FILED IS OUT' OF TIME. A NOTE TO THIS EFFECT HAS BEEN APPENDED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 16. FURTHER, IN THE M.A. FILED BEFORE US, IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL R EPRESENTED THAT THE REVISED RETURN WAS SUBMITTED IN TIME AND HENCE, IS A VALID RETURN, WHICH IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. THE REVISED RETURN SUBMITTED ON 29-03- 2006 IS BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER SECT ION 139(5) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND HENCE, THE SAME IS TO BE TREATED AS INVALID RETURN AND NO COGNIZANCE CAN BE GIVEN TO THE ABOVE RETURN. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE, THE XEROX COPIES OF THE REVISED RETURN FILED ON 29-03-2006 AND COPY OF THE COMPUTATION SHEET ENCLOSED TO THE REVIS ED RETURN WERE SUBMITTED HEREWITH. 17. HENCE IN THE M.A. BEFORE US IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, THE HON'BLE ITAT SET ASIDE THE ORDER OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS DULY MADE THE AFORE SAID CLAIMS THROUGH THE REVISED RETURN AN D THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE SAME. M.A. NOS. 18/HYD/10 & 37/HYD/12 M/S PADMALAYA TELEFILMS LTD. 8 18. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS, IN THIS M .A. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT H AS PASSED ORDERS ON THE BASIS OF THE INCORRECT FACTS SUBMITTED BY TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR REQUESTED THAT THE HO N'BLE ITAT MAY KINDLY TAKE THE ACTUAL HLCTS INTO CONSIDERATION IN ITA NO.783 & 784/HYD/07 DT.II-07-2008 U/S 254(2) OF THE IT ACT. 1961 AND PASS NECESSARY ORDERS AFTER EXAMINING THE CORRECT FACTS OF THE CASE. 19. AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECO RD, WE FIND FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 14 THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED REVISED RETURNED FOR AY 2003-04 ON 29 TH MARCH, 2004 ALONG WITH REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME, APPEARING AT PAGES 12-14 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. HOWEVER, THE AO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAME HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 29/03/2006 U/S 143(3) R EAD WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT O N AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 154 OF THE ACT, THE AO PA SSED AN ORDER U/S 154 DATED 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 APPEARING AT PAGE 9 OF THE ASSESSE ES PAPER BOOK. THE TRIBUNAL TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION T HE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE REVISED RETURN WHEREIN THE CLAIMS RELATING TO ANIMATION PROJECTS WIP OF RS . 4,06,12,414/-, SOFTWARE UNDER PRODUCTION WIP OF RS. 4,98,19,571/-, NON-COLLECTABLE LOANS AND ADVANCES OF RS. 3,25,64,086/- AND BAD DEB TS OF RS. 1,33,49,823/- HAVE BEEN MADE. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE RESTORED THE ISSUES BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO AND THE TRIBUNAL ALSO OBSERVED THAT SAME WAS NOT OBJECTED TO BY THE LEARN ED DR. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS FO UND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE REVISED RETURN HAS PASSED AS SESSMENT ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO OBSERVED THE AO HAS NEVERTHELESS MENTIONED IN THE M.A. NOS. 18/HYD/10 & 37/HYD/12 M/S PADMALAYA TELEFILMS LTD. 9 ORDER U/S 154 DATED 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 THAT THE ABOVE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABSENCE OF SPEAKING ORDER PASSED BY THE AO R EMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 20. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS COR RECTLY BROUGHT OUT THE FACTS IN ITS ORDER AND AFTER ANALYZING THE ISSU E SET ASIDE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 21. THE ORDER U/S 154 DATED 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2006 APPEARING AT PAGE 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK READS AS FOLLOWS:- II. REGARDING THE ISSUES, CLAIMS UNDER THE HEADS BA D DEBTS WRITTEN OFF, SOFTWARE UNDER PRODUCTION AND ANIMATIO N PROJECTS IT IS TO BE STATED THAT THE ORDER U/S 143(3) DT. 29/03 /2006 FOR THE YEAR WAS PASSED AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS PUT FORTH REGARDING THE ABOVE ISSUES WERE CONSIDERED DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ABOVE ORDER WAS FINA LIZED. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S 154 IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED AS NOT ENTERTAINABLE. 22. WE FIND FROM THE ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONER TH AT THE REVISED RETURN SUBMITTED ON 29/03/2006 IS BEYOND THE TIME L IMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT AND, HENCE, THE SAM E IS TO BE TREATED AS INVALID RETURN AND NO COGNIZANCE CAN BE GIVEN TO THE ABOVE RETURN AND HENCE THAT THE AO HAS DULY CONSIDERED AND ALLEG ED THE SAME AS RETURN FILED OUT OF TIME IS NOT CORRECT IN AS MUCH AS THE ORDER U/S 154 CLEARLY STATES THAT THE ORDER U/S 143 DATED 29/03/2 006 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS PASSED AFTER TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS PUTFORTH REGARDING THE ABOVE ISSUES, WHICH WE RE CONSIDERED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ORDER WAS FINALIZED, WHICH COULD NOT BE THE CASE IF THE RETURNS WERE TREATED A S NON-EST. M.A. NOS. 18/HYD/10 & 37/HYD/12 M/S PADMALAYA TELEFILMS LTD. 10 23. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE ARE OF THE O PINION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT IS CORRECT AND THE M.A. FI LED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 24. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A. FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 25. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE M.AS. FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/10/2012. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAV AN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R HYDERABAD, DATED:15 TH OCTOBER, 2012. KV COPY TO:- 1) M/S PADMALAYA TELE-FILMS LTD.. C/O M/S B. NARSING RAO & CO., CAS., NO. 610, 6 TH FLOOR, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 001. 2) ACIT, CIRCLE 13(1), HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A)-II, HYDERABAD 4) THE CIT-I, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD.