M/s. Yamuna Agro-Farms Pvt. Ltd., V. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax,

CRLATR/76/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Yamuna Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, who were convicted for willful evasion of tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The prosecution was based on an assessment order from 2010, which was later found to be incorrect and was modified. The appellants argued that they had not willfully evaded tax as they had paid the demanded tax, including penalties and interest, and that the funds were not available at the due date for tax payment. The High Court agreed with the appellants, noting the modification of the assessment order and remanded the case for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726593 (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
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: VINOD DESHPANDE
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Criminal Appeal; Economic offences; Income Tax Return; Penalty; Prosecution; Willful evasion of tax
• Section: 143(1); 221(1); 276-C(2); 221(2); 278-8; 278-B(1); 140-A(3); 37 4(2); 226-C(2)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN CRIMINAL APPEAL (TR) NOS: 76 AND 86 OF 2018 cRL.A.(TR) NO.76 0F 2018: Criminal Appeal under Section 37 4(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated Ogll1l2014 in CC No.129 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad. Between: 1. M/s Yamuna Agro Farms P!t. Ltd., B-79, t iladhura Nagar, Hyderabad-38, rep. by its lvlanaging Director Shri K.Gopalakrishnam Raju, S/o.Shri K.Rama RAju, aged about 51 years 2. Shri K.Gopalakrishnam Raju, S/o.Shri K.Rama rAju, aged about 51 years, Director of M/s Yamuna Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd., 8-3-22218.17135, 36/D-92 & 93 Flat No.304, Madhura Nagar, SR Nagar, Hyderabad. ....AppellanU Accused 1 & 5 AND Dy. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle -9, Room NO.813, Bth Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004. For the Apperanrs : sRr vrNoD KUMAR DESHpAN;E::s'ondenutomPlainant SRI G.ASHOK REDDY For the Respondent : SRI B.NARASIMHA SHARMA, SC FOR l.T. CRIMINAL APPEAL(TR) NO: 86 OF 2018: Criminal Appeat under Section 37 4(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated OglO1t2O14 in CC No.129 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad. Between: 1. Smt B.Nandini Raju, Wo.Shri B.Ramalinga Raju, aged about 51 years, Director of M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms P!,t. Ltd., Plot No.1242, Road No.62, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33. 2. Shri D.Srinivasa Raju, S/o.Shri D.Sayanarayana Raiu, aged about 43 years, Director of M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd., Rl/o.H.No.H-75, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad-38. 3. Shrhi LJanaki Rama Raju, S/o.l.Mallapa Raiu, aged about 41 years, Director of M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms Pvt., Ltd., Rl/o. H.No.2-1213/1 , Satyam Enclave,NH-7, Jeedimetla (V), Secunderabad. 4. Shri B.Rama Raju, S/o.Shri B.Ramalinga Ra.iu, aged about 31 years, Director of M/s. Yamuna Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.12544, Road No.63, Jubilee Hills,Hyderabad-33. ....Appellants/ Accused, 2, 3,4 & 6 And Dy. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle -9, Room No.813, Bth Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500000 ....*\".oondenu comprainant For rhe Appellants : sRl VINoD KUMAR DESHPANDE, Sr. COUNSEL FOR SRI V.SURENDER RAO For the Respondent : SRI B.NARASIMHA SHARMA, SC FOR I.T. The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN CRIMINAL APPEAL (TRI Nos.86 and 76 of 2O18 COMMON JUDGMENT: Crl.A.(TR).No.76 of 2018 is filed by A1 and A5 i.e., Compaly and its Director respectively, whereas Crl.A.(TR).No.86 of 2018 is fiied by A,2 to A4 and A6, who are other Directors of A 1 / company, being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad in C.C.No.129 of 2071 vide Judgment dated O9.OL.2O|4, wherein Accused Nos. i to 6 were found guilty of the oflences punishable under Section 276-C(21 read with Section 278-8 of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 (for short, \"the Act\") consequently accused No.1 was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1O,OOO/- and in default of payment of fine to initiate appropriate proceedings AS required under Section 421 of Cr.P.C., whereas Accused Nos.2 to 6 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of line by accused Nos.2 to 6, 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 tria_l Court. i.e., Appellant No. 1 as Accused No.l/Company and Appellant Nos.2 to 6 as Accused Nos. 2 to 6. 3. The genesis of these cases, which lead the appellants_ accused to prefer these appeals, are narrated in brief as under: i) Accused No. l/Company - M/s. yemuna Agro Farms 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 6 herein are the Directors of Accused No. 1/Company. i0 Accused No.l/Company has acquired lands to an extent of Ac.7.00 guntas in Sy.No.l96p and 197 under the limits of Bachupally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District during tft_e{inancial year 2OO2-2O03 and developed the said lands 3 by incurring some zunounts during the financial years 2OO2-03 to 2007-08. 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 Property Private Limited and pass on the sale proceeds to Accused No.1/Company. ii| For the assessment year 2008-09, accused No.1/company has filed income tax returns on 30.09.2008 under Ex.Pl by bifurcating the sale proceeds into long term capital gains accrued from the sa-le proceeds ol the lands and short term capital gains accrued from the, sa,1e proceeds of the constructed area by showing gross taxable income as Rs.7,59,44,3O9 l-, out of which an amount of Rs.4,86,86,4241- was shown as long term capital gain and Rs.2,78,78,148/- was shown as short term capital gains. 4 iv) Accused No. 1/Company is expected to pay the income tax either by way of advance tax as required under Section 208 ol the Act or at least along with filing 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.2,25,4O,1361- 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.l /Company under Ex.p2. Accused No.l/company was required to pay the tax demanded within 30 days of service of notice, but it has committed default. v) Respondent/complainant has issued show-cause notice dated 17.ll.2OO9 under Section 221 (l of the Act under Ex. P5, wherein the appellants were asked to show cause as to why penalty should not be levied for committing default in payment of tax. As there was no response from the appellants, the complainant has issued another show-cause notice dated 25.08.2010 under Ex.p6 under Section 221 (Il read with Section 143-A of the Act. 5 Finaliy, one more opportunity was also given by the Department by giving another show-cause notice dated 11.10.2010 (Ex.P7) under Sectior.22l (1) read with Section 143-A of the Act. An opportunity of being heard was a-1so 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.49,O0,0O0/- AI S imposed by way of order dated 25.lO.2OlO (Ex.PB) under Section 221 read with Section 140-A(3) of the Act and the said proceedings vtere served on accused No. 1 on 29.lO.2OlO . 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(21 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 and its directors under Exs.PlO and P11 dated 11.01.2011 asking them as to why prosecution shall / / 6 not be initiated under Section 226-C(21 of the Act. Again replies were filed by accused No.1/company and its Directors/accused Nos.2 to 6 under Exs.Pl2 and p13 stating that there was no intention of willful evasion of tax. 5. As Accused No. l /Company and its Directors/accused Nos.2 to 6 have not paid the tax in response to the demald notice issued under Section 143 (i) of the Act and also failed to pay the penalty, the respondent/complainant after obtaining sanction order dated 16.03.2011 for launching of prosecution filed a complaint before the Special Court for EconorRic Offences against accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 to 6, the other Directors, alleging that they have committed offence punishable under Section 276-C(21 read with Section 228-B of the Act, as they have willfully evaded tax even though they were having sufficien t resources. 6. The Special Court for Economic Offences took cognizance of the offences against Accused No.1/Company and its Directors i.e., Accused Nos. 1 to 6, under Section 226-C(21 read with Section 278-B of the Act and charges were framed against them under Section 276 - C(2) read with Section 2Z*-B(I) of the Act 7 and all the accused have pleaded not guilty of the charges and 7. In order to prove the charges leveled against the appeilants, the respondent/complainant has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.Pl to P14. After closure ol evidence of the complainant, the incriminating evidence elicited against the appellants was read over and explained to them under Section 313 ol the Cr.P.C., for which all of them have denied and reported that they did not choose to examine any r,l,itness on their behalf. However, they got marked Exs.D1 to D3 on their behalf. of returns of income tax filed by accused No. l/company, the respondent/complainant has processed the same under Section 143(1) of the Act and issued intimation determining the total taxable income as Rs.7,59,44,310 I- and tax liability AS Rs.2,47,72,860/-. The evidence of PW2/Income Tax officer is to the extent that he has considered the annual report ol accused No.1/company for the financial year 2OO7 -O8 under Ex.P3 and bank account statements of accused No.1/Company with the claimed to be tried. B. The substance of the evidence of PW1 is that after receiving B AXIS Bank Limited under Ex.p4 and found that accused No.1/Company did not pay the tax returns in spite of 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.p8 imposing penalty of Rs.49 lakhs and raised demand under Ex.p9 and the same was served on the accused. He also deposed that as there was no response from the accused, show cause notices under section 276-c of the Act were issued against all the accused through which accused were informed that the department is initiating criminal proceedings and consequently the department has filed the complaint. 9' After fu11-fledged trial, on considering the entire materiai on record, the trial Court has found Accused No.l/Company and A2 to A6, the Directors of A1 company, guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 276-C(21 and, 2Zg_B of the Act and were sentenced as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction of Special Judge for Economical Offences at Hyderabad, the present appeats are filed originaily before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court at Hyderabad. 9 10. The erstwhile High Court for the States of Telangala and Andhra Pradesh has issued circular ROC.No.34, Criminal Section/20 17, dated 2a.Oa.2OI7, wherein it is clarified 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 appeaJs filed by the appellants have been transferred from Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court, Hyderabad, to the High Court for the State of Telangana. 1i. The summary 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. t has not received aly sale proceeds from M/ s. Mytas Property Private Limited, thereby the respondent/ complainant has not produced any evidence to show that accused 10 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 a',d erred in holding that the burden of proof is on the accused to prove that there was no willful evasion of payment of tax. c) The trial court erred in hording that the accused failed to prove non-existence of culpable mental state in non_payment of taxes on the date of filing retums and as on the date of demand notice and that the trial Court failed to appreciate that in spite of not having any cogent evidence to show that a1l the accused have willfully evaded the tax, the trial Court has concluded that accused have committed willful evasion in payment of tax. d) The trial court failed to see that all the assets belong to accused No.l/Company were attached under Section 2g1_B of the Act and due to paralyzing of financial activities of accused No.I, tax could not be paid in time. e) The trial court failed to consider the admission of pW3 that the amount received by Accused No.l/Company is towards 11 share application money does not attract tax liability and that the trial Court could not consider that accused No.l has not Limited. f) The Trial Court should not have concluded that accused Nos.2 to 6 are responsible for day to day affairs of accused No. l/company and should have taken into consideration the notices issued under Section 27 8-B of the Act proposing the prosecution did not refer accused Nos. 2 to 6 as principal oflicers and thereby accused Nos.2 to 6 should have been acquitted. 12. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior counsel for the appellants and Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Standing counsel for the income tax department, considered the entire material on record, relevarrt provisions of the Act and the authorities cited. received Rs.7 crores 59 lakhs from M/s. Mytas Property Private 13. Appellant No.l/company has filed an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C., along with the appeal for receiving of two documents i.e., (1) Common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in ITA.No.1O1O of 2014, dated 22.05.2015 and (2) 2 consequential order, dated 2I.O3.2016 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 Tribunal, dated 22.OS.2OLS (document No.1), the assessment order dated 02.12.2O1O on which the prosecution is initiated was directed to be modified. Basing on the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessment officer has modified the earlier orders dated 02.12.2O1O by re-assessing the tax liability, which the appellants were expected to pay for the assessment yeal 2OO7 -2OOB (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. 14. It is submitted vehemently by the iearned 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 penalty and interest and that the appellants have challenged the assessment orders dated O2.l2.2OlO under Ex.D2 before the learned CIT(A). On hearing both sides, learned CIT(A) has found that there are no merits in 13 the contentions raised by the appellants, and dismissed the appeal upholding the orders passed by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2OOB-09. Aggrieved by the same, 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.943lHydl2Ola and others finding that the Assessing Officer has committed error in calculating the ta-x to be paid by the appellants and directed the Assessing Of{icer to re-assess the tax by computing the income of the appellants from the transfer of lands held by accused No. 1 / 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. 129 of 2011 by the learned Special Judge. It is also submitted by the iearned Senior counsel that the Assessing Officer has re-assessed the tax as per the directions ol the Tribunal and passed consequential order, dated 21.03.2016, wherein the tax liabiiity was substantially reduced and found that the tax, which was already paid to the tune of T4 Rs.2,2.5,40,136/- was in excess of the revised tax thereby, the excess tax paid Rs. 1,41,3 1,827 I - and interest of Rs.50,03,756/_ the total of which was Rs. | ,g I ,35,634 /,, was ordered to be refunded and the sarne was also adjusted against the demand for the accounting year 2009-10 vide RO.No.3O3524 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. Learned standing counsel representing the Income Tax Department stated that as on the due date, the accused have not paid the tax having sufficient funds and committed willful evasion of payment of tax. It is also submitted that Accused No.l/company has {i1ed annual returns (Ex.p3), through its chartered Accountant for the financial year 2oo7-og rerevant for the assessment year 20O8-Og, according to which Accused No. 1 made profit on sale of land to a tune of Rs.Z ,77 ,97 ,174 l_ and the 15 bank statements show that Accused No. i /Company has received part of sale consideration in respect of \"Mytas Hill County\" from time to time, but did not choose to pay the advance tax. It is further submitted that the balance sheet of Accused No. l/Company also shows Rs.9,40,02,642/- 'ander the head reserves and surplus, so a-lso Rs. 1 1,99,99,737 /- ]under the head current assets by way of loans and advances. It is further submitted that accused No.l/Company having enough liquid cash during the relevant accounting year, willfully evaded in payment of tax, thereby the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 276-C(21 read with Section 278-8 of the Act and hence conviction recorded by the trial Court is proper. i6. Now, the points for determination in these appeals are: 1) Whether the conviction recorded based on the assessment order dated 02.12.2010 can be sustained, since the said assessment order dated 02.12.20 10 was subsequently revised? 2l Whether the accused have committed willful evasion of tax? 16 3) To u'hat relieP Point No. 1: 17. The cause of action for the respondent department/ complainant to lile the complaint against the appellants is the assessment order dated 02. 12.2OlO, according to which the appellants were asked to pay tax of Rs.2,25,40,136 /- for the taxable income of Rs.7,59,44 ,3O9 /- and accordingly an intimation was sent by the Assessing officer to the appellants under Section 143 (1) of the Act. Admittedly as on the date of initiating the prosecution against the appellants, demanded tax of Rs.2,02,92,299 I - was not paid by the appellants. It is also an admitted fact that after initiating the prosecution, the appellalts have paid the entire tax demanded along with penalty, interest etc. Therefore, as on the date of pronouncement of the judgment by the trial Court, there was no tax liability to be paid by the appellaats. 18. It is to be noted that the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal having considered the appeals of the appellants found that the assessment order, dated 02.12.2OIO directing the appellalts to pay Rs.2,25,40,136 l- was incorrect and the Assessment Officer 17 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 21.03.2016, it is to be examined afresh that whether the was directed to assess the income tax afre sh in terms of the directions given by the Tribunal. Accordingiy, the Assessment officer has re-assessed the income tax and passed modified orders, dated 2i.03.2016 determining the tax liability, which is far less than what was assessed at the first place. The basis for respondent/ complainant to initiate prosecution against the appeilants is the assessment order, dated O2.12.2O1O, on the ground that the appellants have committed default in payment of the tax as per the said assessment order. When assessment order dated 02.72.2O1O 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 wiilfully evaded. When the assessment order dated O2.l2.2OlO itself was modified holding 1B appellants have committed any willful evasion of tax, as delined under Section 276-C of the Act. 19. Therefore, on considering the above discussion, it is clear that the finding ol the triar court that the appeilants were guilty of the offences under Section 276-C(2) read with Section 278-8 of the Act 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.l is decided in favour of the appellant s/accused. POINT No.2:- 20. The appellants have also raised other issues i.e., they have not committed any wil1ful evasion in pay,rnent of tax since, as on the due date there were no liquid funds in their accounts and the appellants - Accused Nos. 2 to 6, who are the Directors, are not responsible for the day to day activities of accused No.l/Company as on the date of the alteged default, the trial Court has misconstrued the presumption under Section 2TgE of the Act, the trial Court failed to record admission of pW.3, that 19 the amount received towards share application does not attract the tax etc. 21. This Court has already came to the conclusion while 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 ttre assessment order dated O2.12.2O1O on which the conviction was 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 Honble Supreme Court in the case of V.Srinivas Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradeshl, wherein it was held as follows: \"13. It u.tas then urqed bu Mr. Arunachalam that if tLrc High Court felt ttwt .further euidence LUas necessory .for di.sposal of the case tlwn it auld haue exercised its .pouter under Section 391 Cr. P.C. and ouqht not to haue set aside the order of acquittal and remanded the matter .for fresh disposal. This argument also did not impress us because the Hiqh Court instead of recordinq the additional euidence in terms of Section 391 Cr. P.C.; prefened to remand the motter back to the tial court for disposal in accordance uith laut. It also appears from tte record thot some of tLLe documents including FDRs, loan oppLications etc., should also haue been brought on record for effectiue '(1998) 9 SCC 331 20 disposal of tLLe controuerstt raised in the case and_ to d.o .justice between the parties. It is needless to sc:ll that the trial court utilL stictlu adhere to the obseruations and directiotts giuen bg the High Court in its judgment.\" The rationale in the above authority of the Apex Court squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 23. Considering 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 modilied and fresh assessment order dated 2l .03.2016 came into force, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants basing on the incorrect assessment orders dated 02.12.2010 shall be set aside. 24 . Accordingly, both these criminal appeals are disposed of setting aside the conviction and sentence dated O9.O 1.2014 recorded by Special Court for Economical Offences at Hyderabad and c.c.No. 129 of 2o11 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.1O10 of 2014, dated 22.05.2015 and (2) consequential order, dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer, Assistant Commissioner of 21 Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad, filed 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 shall not be influenced by the comments and observations, il any, made by this Court touching merits of the case while passing orders. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous appiications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII 1 . The Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad. 2. The Dy. Commislioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle -9, Room No.B13, 8th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004. . One CC to Sri V.Surender Rao, Advocate IOPUC] To 2 4 5 t 7 One CC to Sri B.Narasimha Sharma, SC for 1.T., One CC to Sri G.Ashok Reddy, Advocate [OPUC Two CD Copies One Spare Copy OPUC] t 1 Kj v Sd/.K,SRINIVASA RAO JOINT.REGISTRAR (.tr ', , r ', SECTION OFFICER HIGH COURT DATED:1710612022 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA(TR).Nos.76 and 86 of 2018 irr, F Qa 2( [,q ?tfl o o s. //// DISPOSING oF THE BoTH cRL.A.(TR)s. C @xG,- "