GVK Airport Developers Limited (formerly known as GVK Airport Developers Private Limited), Hyderabad, Secunderabad V. ITO, Ward-2(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

MA 95/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8057 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-04-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Additional evidence; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A; 12; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A ', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 9 5 /HYD/201 8 (IN ITA NO. 488 / HYD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 1 2 - 1 3 ) GVK AIRPORT DEVELOPERS LTD. (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS GVK AIRPORT DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.), HYDERABAD. PAN AA CCG 5286D VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), HYDERABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY: SHRI PERCY PARDIWALA RE VENUE BY: SHRI Y.V.S.T. SAI DATE OF HEARING: 05 / 0 4 / 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18 / 04 /201 9 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN , AM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT SEEKING RECTIFICATION/MODIFICATION OF T HE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 0 5 /0 7 /201 8 IN ITA NO. 488 /HYD/201 7. 2. IN THE MA, THE ASSESSEE STATED AS UNDER: 5. IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE MEMBERS, THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO THE NOTICE OF THE HON'BLE MEMBERS THAT CERTAIN FACTS WERE NOT APPRECIATED CORRECTLY AND/ OR NOT CONSIDERED (AS LISTED BELOW) AND WHICH MAY HAVE HAD A BEARING ON THE FINAL J UDGMENT/ CONCLUSION: (I) IN PARA 6.14 OF THE ORDER PASSED, THE HON'BLE IT AT HAS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT'S MAIN OBJECT IS TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORT BY ITSELF WHICH IS NOT UNDERTAKEN AND ALSO TO INVEST IN M.A. NO. 95/ HYD/1 8 GVK AIRPORT DEVELOPERS LTD. 2 OTHER CO MPANIES AS PROMOTER, SPONSOR, WHICH IS THE ONLY ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT WISHES TO POINT OUT THAT AS PER THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT CAN CARRY OUT ANY OF ITS MAIN OBJECTS OUT OF VARIOUS MAIN OB JECTS. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR THE APPELLANT TO CARRY OUT ALL ACTIVITIES AS MENTIONED IN THE OBJECT CLAUSE. AS PER THE MAIN OBJECT CLAUSE, THE APPELLANT HAS CARRIED OUT ACTIVITIES AS PROVIDED IN SL. NO.2 OF THE MAIN OBJECT CLAUSE AND THUS THE APPELLAN T SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE CARRIED OUT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS SET - OUT IN ITS MAIN OBJECT CLAUSE. (II) IN PARA 6.16 OF THE ORDER PASSED, THE HON'BLE IT AT HAS HELD THAT APPELLANT CAN EARN INCOME ONLY BY WAY OF DIVIDEND FROM SISTER CONCERN OR BY WAY OF INTEREST ON THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT WISHES TO POINT OUT THAT IT HAS A RIGHT TO CHARGE INTEREST ON THE ADVANCES MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO THE LEVEL - 2 COMPANY [I.E. GVK AIRPORT HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ('GVKAHPL') A ND BANGALORE AIRPORT & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ('BAIDPL')]. THE APPELLANT HAS IN FACT CHARGED AN INTEREST OF RS. 256.67 CRORES DURING THE FY 2016 - 17 PURSUANT TO THE SALE OF EQUITY SHARES OF BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED (LEVEL - 3 COMPANY) BY BAIDL. THE SAID FACTS WERE PLACED BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING (FORMING PART OF ADDITIONAL PAPER BOOK DATED 19 JUNE 2017) AND THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT CIT - VS. - HERO CYCLE (P) LTD (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) WHICH WAS ON SIMILAR FACTS WAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED. (III) IN PARA 6.18 OF THE ORDER PASSED, THE HON'BLE IT AT HAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST PAYABLE CAN BE CAPITALIZED TO THE COST OF INVESTMENT AND AS AND WHEN ANY CAPITAL GAIN ARISES, THE SAME CAN BE CLAIME D . IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT WISHES TO POINT OUT THAT IT HAS PROVIDED LOANS/ ADVANCES TO LEVEL - 2 COMPANY AND HAS NOT UTILIZED THE BORROWING TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SHARES OF LEVEL - 2 COMPANY, IN WHICH CASE ALONE THERE COULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBILITY OF CAPITALIZING THE INTEREST WITH THE COST OF THE INVESTMENT. THUS, IT APPEARS THAT THE HON'BLE IT AT SEEMS TO HAVE PROCEEDED ON A FACTUALLY INCORRECT BASIS THAT BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED TO MAKE INVESTMENTS IN LEVEL - 2 COMPANY WHICH IS NOT SO AS THE BORROWING BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY M.A. NO. 95/ HYD/1 8 GVK AIRPORT DEVELOPERS LTD. 3 WAS USED TO ONWARD LEND TO LEVEL 2 COMPANY WITHOUT CHARGING INTER EST WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT BUT WITH THE CONDITION THAT INTEREST WOULD BE CHARGED UPON HAPPENING OF CERTAIN EVENT AS PROVIDED IN POINT (II) ABOVE. (IV) IN PARA 6.19 OF THE ORDER PASSED, THE HON'BLE IT AT HAS HELD THAT THE DIRECTOR CAN BE APPOINTED IN ANY C OMPANY BASED ON THEIR QUALIFICATION OR ASSOCIATION BUT NOT BECAUSE OF BUSINESS CONNECTION . IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT WISHES TO POINT OUT THAT THE DIRECTORS APPOINTED BY THE APPELLANT ON BOARD OF THE LEVEL - 3 COMPANY ARE REPRESENTING THE APPELLANT AN D SUCH DIRECTORS WERE APPOINTED BASED ON THE RIGHTS GOVERNED BY SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT. SUCH DIRECTOR WERE APPOINTED TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE SHAREHOLDER, OVERSE E BUSINESS OPERATIONS, TAKE STRATEGIC DECISION ETC. AND ARE KEY MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL AND NOT AN INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR WHO ARE APPOINTED BASED ON THEIR QUALIFICATION, EXPERIENCE ETC. (V) IN PARA 6.20 OF THE ORDER PASSED, THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT'S MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME IS ONLY IN THE NATURE OF DIVIDEND; THERE IS EVIDENT OF NEXUS OF BORROWING FUNDS BEING INVESTED IN SISTER CONCERN, THE ENTIRE INTEREST EXPENSES HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D(2)(I)/ 8D(2)(II) OF THE RULES . IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT WISHES TO SUBMIT THAT THE HON'B LE ITAT SEEM TO HAVE WRONGLY APPRECIATE THE FACT A DISALLOWANCE IN TERMS OF [AS MENTIONED IN PARA (III) ABOVE] SECTION 14A CAN TRIGGER ONLY IF BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN LEVEL 2 COMPANY BY WAY OF EQUITY AND WHICH IS NOT THE CASE. 6. GIVEN THE ABOVE, IT SEEMS THAT THE HON'BLE MEMBERS WERE OF VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS UTILIZED THE BORROWINGS TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN THE LEVEL - 2 COMPANY WHICH IS NOT THE FACT AND THE APPELLANT BELIEVE THAT THE SAME MAY HAVE HAD A BEARING ON THE FIN AL JUDGMENT/ CONCLUSION. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES STATED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT MOST HUMBLY PRAYS BEFORE THE HON'BLE MEMBERS FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. 3. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE IT AT, BUT, THIS WAS COMPLETELY IGNORED BY M.A. NO. 95/ HYD/1 8 GVK AIRPORT DEVELOPERS LTD. 4 ITAT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER. IN THAT PROCESS, HE TOOK US TO THE ORDER OF ITAT PAGES 3, 9, 10, 12, 15, 20 & 21 TO SUBMIT THAT ITAT HAS LED TO A WRONG CONCLUSION BY NOT CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITAT HAS IGNORED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHARGED INTEREST ON THE STEPDOWN SUBSIDIARIES FROM THE NEXT FYS AND AS PER THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT ITAT FUNDAMENTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD THE FACTS AND MI SCONSTRUED THE TRANSACTION. HE PRAYED THAT ORDER MAY BE RECALLED AND ADJUDICATED AFRESH BY CONSIDERING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD. 3. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE AS THE SAME ARE IRRELEVANT. BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IT WILL NOT ALTER THE OUTCOME OF THE DECISION. WITH REGARD TO OBSERVATION ON SECTION 14A BY THE ITAT, HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ONLY AN OBSERVATION OF THE MEMBER AND, IF REQUIRED, THE PORTION OF SUCH OBS ERVATION MAY BE DELETED. HE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY: 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ABOVE MA ON THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT IN ITA NO. 488/HYD/2017 PASSED ON 05/07/2018. THE APPELLANT IS RAISING ISSUES RELATED TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE AT PARAGRAPHS 6.14,6.16 AND 6.18 TO 6.20 OF THE ORDER. AT THE OUTSE T, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN THE RECTIFICATION OF DEFECT BUT IN THE NATURE OF REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. 2. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT AT PARAGRAPH 6.13 OF THE ORDER, HON'BLE ITAT CLEARLY MENTIONED THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AT PARAGRAPH 6.14, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING OUT ACTIVITY ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO OBJECT 2 AND NO ACTIVITY IS CONDUCTED WITH RESPECT TO OBJECT 1. THIS OBSERVATION IS FACTUALLY CORRECT AS ON THE DATE OF THE ORDER. NOW, THROUGH THE MA, THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO CREATE A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION THAT BECAUSE M.A. NO. 95/ HYD/1 8 GVK AIRPORT DEVELOPERS LTD. 5 OBJECT 1 IS MENTIONED IN THE MOA, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TREATED AS CARRIED OUT THE SAID ACTIVITY, WHICH IS CONTRA RY TO THE FACTS. THE HON'BLE ITAT NEVER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PREVENTED IN CARRYING OUT OBJECT 1. HON'BLE ITAT STATED THE FACTUAL POSITION AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD ON THIS POINT. 3. AT PARAGRAPH 6.16 ALSO, THE HON'BLE ITAT CORRECTLY STATED THE FACTUAL POSITION AS EVIDENT FROM THE INCOME PROFILE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CARRYING ON BUSINESS ON ITS OWN, THE HON'BLE ITAT CORRECTLY OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 3 6(1)(III). ON THIS POINT, THE APPELLANT WISHES TO PUT FORWARD CERTAIN EVENTS THAT HAPPENED IN F.Y 2016 - 17 WITH REGARD TO CHARGING OF INTEREST PURSUANT TO SALE OF EQUITY SHARES OF BIAL (LEVEL - 3 COMPANY) TO BAIDL. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBSEQUENT EVENTS HAVE NO BEARING ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. BESIDES, THE SALE OF EQUITY SHARES AND CHARGING OF INTEREST PURSUANT TO SUCH SALE WOULD NOT ALTER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. FURTHER, IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE THAT HOW INTEREST O N AN AMOUNT PURSUANT TO SHARE OF SHARES WOULD BECOME BUSINESS EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES AND INVESTMENT ARE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES. IF CERTAIN SHARES ARE SOLD AS PART OF INVESTMENT A CTIVITY AND INTEREST IS REALIZED, IT WOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT BUSINESS INCOME. IT IS ALSO A DEBATABLE ISSUE THAT REQUIRES DETAILED EXAMINATION AND NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITA T. 4. AT PARAGRAPH 6.18, THE HON'BLE ITAT EXAMINED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INVESTING IN SISTER CONCERNS ITSELF IS BUSINESS ACTIVITY. AFTER DETAILED EXAMINATION THE MATTER, HON'BLE ITAT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT AN D HELD THAT AT BEST THE INTEREST CAN BE CAPITALIZED TO THE COST OF INVESTMENT AND AS AND WHEN CAPITAL GAIN ARISES, THE SAME CAN BE CLAIMED BUT IT CANNOT BE SHOWED AS BUSINESS LOSS. THROUGH THE PRESENT MA, THE ASSESSEE STATES THAT AMOUNTS ARE ADVANCED TO LE VEL - 2 COMPANIES AND IT IS NOT INVESTMENT IN THEIR SHARES, THE OBSERVATION OF ITAT IS NOT CORRECT. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN FINANCE BUSINESS AND HENCE EVEN THE ADVANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO LEVEL - 2 COMPANIES ARE SIM ILAR TO SOME SORT OF MEZZANINE FINANCING WHICH YIELDS INTEREST. IN SUCH FINANCING, THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT WOULD YIELD INTEREST AND M.A. NO. 95/ HYD/1 8 GVK AIRPORT DEVELOPERS LTD. 6 IT IS A HYBRID INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE AND IT IS NOT A SIMPLE MISTAKE APP ARENT FROM RECORD. 5. AT PARAGRAPH 6.19 OF THE ORDER, HON'BLE ITAT REJECTED THE ARGUMENT OF BUSINESS CONNECTION WHICH WAS DEMANDED ON THE BASIS THAT DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO DIRECTORS OF SPVS. IN THE PRESENT MA, THE ASSESSEE STATES THAT DIRECTO RS OF LEVEL - 3 COMPANIES ARE APPOINTED ON THE BASIS OF SHAREHOLDING RIGHTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID COMPANIES. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THIS IS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, OVERSEE THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND TAKE STRATEGIC DECISIONS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOMINEE DIRECTORS ON THE BOARDS OF LEVEL - 3 COMPANIES ON THE BASIS OF SHAREHOLDING RIGHTS, AS BOTH THE ENTITIES ARE DIFFERENT LEGAL ENTITIES, THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT OF A LEVEL - 3 COM PANY CANNOT BE TERMED AS THE SAME. THIS IS A FARFETCHED ARGUMENT, MORE SO WHEN THE INVESTMENT IS THROUGH LEVEL - 2 COMPANIES. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS ALSO A HIGHLY DEBATABLE ISSUE WHICH NEEDS DETAILED VERIFICATION AND NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. 6. AT PARAGRAPH 6.20, THE HON'BLE ITAT MENTIONED THAT THOUGH NEITHER OF THE PARTIES RAISED THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE APPLICABLE AND ON THAT COUNT ALSO, DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ALLOWA BLE. THROUGH THE PRESENT MA, THE ASSESSEE BRINGS IN A CLAIM THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A EVEN WHEN THE INVESTMENT IN LEVEL - 2 COMPANY IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF EQUITY. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS ARGUMENT IS SELF - CONTRADICTORY WITH THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS MA WITH REFERENCE TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT AT PARAGRAPH 6.16 OF THE ORDER. BESIDES, THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY WAY OF ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT MAKE IT GOOD T HROUGH AN MA BECAUSE IT WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE ORDER. EVEN ON MERITS, ADVANCES WOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INVESTMENTS IN THE NATURE OF THOSE YIELDING EXEMPT INCOME. AGAIN, THIS IS A HIGHLY DEBATABLE ISSUE AND IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECOR D. 7. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT IN SUMMARY, THE APPELLANT IS SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT THROUGH THE MA AND THE SAME IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DHARTI DREDGING & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD [2013] 38 M.A. NO. 95/ HYD/1 8 GVK AIRPORT DEVELOPERS LTD. 7 TAXMANN.COM 85 (HYDERABAD - TRIB.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT 'IN THE GARB OF AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER S. 254(2) THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO REOPEN AND REARGUE THE WHOL E MATTER AS THE SAME IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF S. 254(2) OF THE IT ACT'. IN THE SAID CASE, HON'BLE ITAT EXAMINED VARIOUS DECISION ON THE POINT AND ALSO HELD THAT 'THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER AND THE REMEDY LIES ELSEWHERE'. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE , THE MA MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED. 4. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. CONSIDER ED THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND LD. DR, WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO DOUBT FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE BENCH AT THE T IME OF ORIGINAL HEARING, BUT, IN THE ITAT ORDER, THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NOR IT GAVE ANY FINDINGS WHETHER ACCEPT ED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR DECLINE D . WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPRESS OUR VIEW AT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE AND IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT APPEARS THAT IT MIGHT HAVE SOME BEARING ON THE OUTCOME OF THE DECISION, IN CASE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS ACCEPTED. FIRST, BENCH HAS TO EVALUATE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THEN, IT HAS TO E VALUATE WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL HAVE A BEARING TO LEAD A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION OR COME TO CONCLUSION AS PER EARLIER BENCH DECISION . THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, ASSESSEE HAS A REASONABLE PLEA TO CONSIDER. THEREFORE WE ARE INCLI NED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND RE - FIX THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE AFRESH. THUS, THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE WILL HAVE A FAIR CHANCE TO PUT FORTH THEIR ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE BENCH AND THE BENCH CAN COME TO A PROPER CONCLUSION ON THE ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THIS APPEAL FOR HEARING IN DUE COURSE. M.A. NO. 95/ HYD/1 8 GVK AIRPORT DEVELOPERS LTD. 8 5. IN THE RESULT, MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH APRIL , 2019. SD/ - ( P. MADHAVI DEVI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - ( S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 18 TH APRIL , 201 9. KV COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. GV K AIRPORT DEVELOPERS LTD., PAIGAH HOUSE, 156 - 159, SARDAR PATEL ROAD, SECUNDERABAD. 2 . ITO , WARD 2 ( 2 ) , HYDERABAD . 3 . CIT (A) - 2 , HYDERABAD 4. PR. CIT - 2 , HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE