G.V.K.Industries Ltd.,, Secunderabad v. ACIT, Hyderabad

ITA 620/HYD/2009 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 62022514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACG7499J
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 620/HYD/2009
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant G.V.K.Industries Ltd.,, Secunderabad
Respondent ACIT, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 18-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 19-05-2011
Next Hearing Date 19-05-2011
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 07-05-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.620/HYD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. GVK INDUSTRIES LTD. -V- ASST T. CIT CIR-2(2) SECUNDERABAD. H YDERABAD. PAN:AAACG7499 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI V. SHIVA KUMAR RESPONDENT BY SHRI K. GNANA PRAKASH DATE OF HEARING 22 - 08 - 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 - 10 - 2013 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY J.M: IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORD ER DATED 27-2-2009 OF CIT-II HYDERABAD PASSED U/S 263 OF TH E ACT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THE AS SESSEE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS. 2. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NO T REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON. 2 3. IN GROUND NO. 2(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT TO BE BARRED BY LIMITATIO N. THE GROUND READS AS UNDER:- THE CIT OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE ORDER PASSED U /S 263 OF THE ACT IS BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED I N CLAUSE (2) OF SECTION 263 AND THEREFORE BAD IN LAW. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMIT ED COMPANY CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN GENERATION AND SALE OF POWE R. IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RE TURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2 16 04 260/- UNDER N ORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND BOOK PROFIT OF RS.69 85 3 2 950/- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. IN COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY ISSUAN CE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VERIFYING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER INFORMATION NOTICED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD ADDED A SUM OF RS.11 08 69 955/- BEING PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENT. THIS AMOUNT OF RS.11 08 69 955/- ALSO INCLUDES AN AMOUNT OF RS.31 21 210/- BEING FOREIGN EXCHANGE VARIATION GAIN FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-01 RELEV ANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE AS SESSEE THAT SINCE THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.31 21 210/- HAS AL READY BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IT HAS TO BE EXCLUDED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AS SESSING OFFICER FINDING THE SAME TO BE CORRECT REDUCED THE SAME FROM TOTAL INCOME. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE EXAMINING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S 80IA OF THE ACT NOTICED TH AT CERTAIN INCOME WHICH WAS CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAI MING 3 DEDUCTION U/S 80IA WAS NOT DERIVED FROM THE ACTIVIT IES OF THE UNDERTAKING OF GENERATION OF POWER. THE ASSESSING O FFICER THEREFORE MAKING CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT ULTIMATELY DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS AT RS.2 17 23 084/- AN D THE BOOK PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT AT RS.69 85 32 950/- AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ACCO RDINGLY. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED ACTIO N U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 8 -6-2006. 5. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE REASONS AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER THE PO WER PURCHASE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH APTRANSCO THE ASSESSEE IS REIMBURSED THE INCOME TAX PAID BY IT BUT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. THE SECOND ISSUE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WAS THE EXCESS INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID IN EARLIER YE ARS AMOUNTING TO RS.1 37 82 234/- RECEIVED DURING THE F INANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE APPEARED IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND OBJECTED T O THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER REJECTED THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) RE AD WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 31-12-2007 BY BRINGING TO TAX THE INCOME-TAX REIMBURSED OF AMOUNT OF RS.2 40 45 266/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER CO NCLUDED THAT THE EXCESS INSURANCE PREMIUM RECEIVED OF RS.1 37 82 234/- WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTI NG THE 4 DEDUCTION U/S 80IA HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE INCOM E WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AS IT IS NOT DERIV ED FROM THE BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPL ETED THE ASSESSMENT. AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT VIDE ASSESSMENT OR DER DATED 31-12-2007 THE CIT IN EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED U/S 263 CALLED FOR THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND AFTER EXAMINI NG THE SAME WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31- 12-2007 PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXCLUDED THE REFUND OF EXCESS INSUR ANCE PREMIUM AND GAIN FROM FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATIONS THE TOTAL AMOUNTING BOTH ISSUES WAS RS.13 60 28 581/- WHICH W AS NOT DERIVED FROM GENERATION OF POWER WHILE COMPUTING TH E DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. 6. THE CIT ACCORDINGLY ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 26-9-2008 PROPOSING TO REVISE THE ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AS THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXCLUDE THE PRIOR PERIOD INC OME AND FOREIGN EXCHANGE VARIATION WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTI ON U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXCESS INSURANCE PREMIUM OF RS.1 37 80 234/- WAS RIGHTLY EXCLUDED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT HENCE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INITIATED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS FINALLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF 5 SECTION 115JB AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE AS THE INCOME U/S 115JB IS NOT TO BE SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IN THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U /S 263 OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATIONS IS CONCERNED IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSES THAT THE TWO AMOUNTS OF RS.1 80 64 366/- AND RS.70 94 260/- TOT ALLING TO RS.2 51 58 626/- REPRESENTED THE SURPLUS OR DEFICIT IN THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE VARIATION ACCOUNT CREDITED AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. HENCE IT FORMS PART OF SALE REV ENUE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME DERIVED FROM BUSINES S. AFTER RECEIVING THE REPLY FROM THE ASSESSEE THE CIT THOU GH ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE REFUND OF INSURANCE PREMIUM OF RS.1 37 80 234/- FORMS PART OF OTHER INCOME AS PE R SCHEDULE-I OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AO THE REFUND OF RS.4 75 13 685 WHICH WAS EXACTLY OF THE SAME NA TURE BUT WAS CREDITED BELOW THE LINE AS PRIOR PERIOD INCOME WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOS E OF RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. 7. THE CIT FURTHER STATED THAT REGARDING THE FORE IGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS IN RESP ECT OF AMOUNT OF RS.2 51 58 626/- WHICH REPRESENTED FOREIGN EXCH ANGE FLUCTUATION GAIN FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AS WELL AS AN AMOUNT OF RS.6 33 56 270/- WHICH REPRESENTED FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION GAIN OF THE PRIOR PERIOD AND CREDITED B ELOW THE LINE AS PRIOR PERIOD INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHA NGE FLUCTUATIONS. HENCE THE TOTAL AMOUNT WHICH IS REQ UIRED TO BE REDUCED FROM THE ELIGIBLE INCOME FOR COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION 6 U/S 80IA IS RS.13 60 28 581/-. THE ASSESSEE IN IT S FURTHER SUBMISSION CONTENDED THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED ON 26-10-2004 AND TH E REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON TWO GROUNDS WHICH ARE (I) INCOME-TAX REIMBURSED BY APTRANSCO SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND (II) RE FUND OF EXCESS INSURANCE PREMIUM OF RS.1 37 80 234/- WHIC H WAS TAXABLE U/S 41 WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 8 0IA. THE REASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 31-12-2007 TREATIN G THE INCOME-TAX REIMBURSED BY AP TRANSCO AS INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE AND ALSO DISALLOWING DEDUCTION/S 80IA ON T HE REFUND OF INSURANCE PREMIUM HOLDING THE SAME AS NOT ELIGIBLE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF IT ACT. 8. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E CIT (A) VIDE ORDER DATED 25-8-2008 HAS ALSO SET ASIDE THE A DDITION IN RESPECT OF INCOME-TAX REIMBURSEMENT BY AP TRANSCO W HEREAS IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA ON REFUND OF EXCES S INSURANCE PREMIUM THE CIT (A) HELD THAT THE REFUND RECEIVED SHOULD BE SET OFF AGAINST INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID AND ONLY THE BALANCE IF ANY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REOPENING U/S 147 WAS NOT DONE FOR CONSIDERING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD ADJUST MENTS WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THE ASSES SEE THEREFORE SUBMITTED SINCE THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE CIT ISSUED NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT BUT WAS THE ISSUE DECIDED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH CAN 7 BE SUBJECT TO THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26-10-2004 AND NOT THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECT ION 147 OF THE ACT. IT WAS THEREFORE CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSS EE THAT SINCE THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS DATED 26-11-2008 IT IS THEREFORE BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT OF 2 YEARS PR ESCRIBED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMP LETED ON 26-10-2004. THE CIT HOWEVER REJECTED THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT IS REO PENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT IS OPEN BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE CAN MAKE ENQUIRY AND IF JU STIFIED MAKE ADDITIONS OTHER THAN THE ESCAPED INCOME AS PER THE REASONS RECORDED WHILE REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. IN THIS C ONTEXT THE CIT RELIED ON TWO JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN CASE OF V. JANARDHAN REDDY AND OTHERS VS. CIT 75 ITR 373 AND IN CASE OF MEWALAL DWARAKA PRASAD (176 ITR 529). WITH THE AFORESAID OBSERVATION THE CIT REJECTED THE ASSESSE ES CONTENTION WITH REGARD TO THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCE EDINGS AS BEING TIME BARRED. 9. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE ORALLY AND THROUGH HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS CONTE NDED BEFORE US THAT AS PER THE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT ENTERE D WITH AP TRANSCO MONTHLY PAYMENT TOWARDS POWER HAS BEEN MADE BY AP TRANSCO BY WAY OF ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED WHICH INCLUDED FOREIGN EXCHANGE VARIATION AMOUNT. ACCORDINGLY AP TRANSCO WAS PAYING THE ASSESSEE ON MONTHLY BASIS FOREIGN E XCHANGE VARIATION ON PRINCIPAL REPAYMENT ON FOREIGN EXCHAN GE LOAN. IT 8 WAS CONTENDED THAT FOREIGN EXCHANGE VARIATION COMPO NENT COMPRISED IN BILLS IS TO BE CREDITED TO FOREIGN EXC HANGE VARIATION ACCOUNT AND WOULD BE UTILISED FOR PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE LENDER. THE SURPLUS OR DEFICIT IN THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE VARIATION ACCOUNT WOULD BE DEBITED /CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMIT TED THAT THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE VARIATION AMOUNT IS PART OF SALE R EVENUE AND SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME NOT DERIVED FRO M BUSINESS WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS REFUND OF EXCESS INSURANCE PREMIUM IS CON CERNED IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMP LETING THE REASSESSMENT HAS ALREADY EXCLUDED REFUND OF EXCESS INSURANCE PREMIUM OF RS.1 37 80 234/-. 10. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT I N CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED SPECIFICALLY ON TWO GROUN DS WHICH ARE FOR ADDING THE INCOME TAX RECEIVABLE AND NOT AL LOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF REFUND OF INSURANC E PREMIUM OF RS.1 37 80 234 AND THE REASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETE D BY BRINGING TO TAX THE AFORESAID TWO AMOUNTS. THE ADD ITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES WERE ALSO CHALLENGED BEFORE THE CIT ( A). THE CIT (A) WHILE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INC OME-TAX RECEIVABLE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SET OF F THE INSURANCE PREMIUM AGAINST THE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAI D AND BRING TO TAX ONLY THE BALANCE AMOUNT IF ANY. IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3 ) VIDE ORDER DATED 26-10-2004 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED ALL THE ISSUES ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE CIT HAS IN VOKED HIS 9 JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THESE ISSUES WE RE NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF REOPENING AND ALSO NOT SUBJECT MA TTER OF RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTIO N 147 OF THE ACT. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT IF AT AL L AN ERROR CAN BE ATTRIBUTED; IT IS ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOT THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAVING BEEN ISSUED BEYOND TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FI NANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASS ED IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THEREFORE INVALID. 11. THE LEARNED AR REFERRING TO THE LETTER DATED 9 -8-2004 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ORIGINA L ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER B EING CONSCIOUS OF THE PRIOR PERIOD INCOME OF RS. 11 08 6 9 955/- IN THE CONTEXT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IA OF THE AC T HAD CALLED FOR INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE FURNISHED A DETAILED INFORMATION VIDE LETTER DATED 24-9-2004 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER PROPERLY VERIFYING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL HAD ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AND COMP LETED THE ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT NOT BEING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ISS UANCE OF NOTICE BEYOND TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCI AL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED IS B ARRED BY LIMITATION. IN THIS CONTEXT THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPON A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF C IT VS. ICICI BANK LTD. (19 TAXMANN. COM. 142 (BOM). 10 12. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSMENT IS REOPENE D THE ENTIRE ISSUE CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HENCE THE LIMITATION WILL BE COUNTED FROM THE END OF THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE A CT IS PASSED. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE WE HAVE TO BEAR IN MIND THE FO LLOWING DATES WHICH ARE VERY MUCH CRUCIAL FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE. I) 26-10-2004 ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE. II) 31-12-2007 ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT III) 26-11-2008 NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS ISS UED BY THE CIT. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROCE EDINGS INITIATED U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS TIME BARRED AS IT I S BEYOND THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL Y EAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED. SUCH CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS BASED O N THE PREMISES THAT THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE CIT HAS INVOKE D JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS NEVER THE SUBJE CT MATTER OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHEREAS IT IS THE STAND OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT ONCE THE ASSESSMENT IS REOPENED TH E ENTIRE ISSUE IS OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND IF HE FAILS TO CONSIDER ANY OTHER INCOME IN ADDITION T O THE ESCAPED 11 INCOME ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE REOPENING WAS MADE THEN THE LIMITATION SHOULD BEGIN TO RUN FROM THE ORDER PASS ED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AS THIS ORD ER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVEN UE. 14. ON A PERUSAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE V IDE LETTER DATED 4-7-2006 A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED BEF ORE US THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- 'THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF GENERATION AND SALE OF POWER. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS HAVING A POWER PURCHASE AGR EEMENT WITH THE TRANSO. AS PER CLAUSE 3.4 OF THE SAID PPA THE INCOME- TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS TO BE REIMBURS ED BY THE TRANSCO. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAID PPA THE ASSESS EE COMPANY RAISED BILLS FOR THE INCOME-TAX PAID BY IT. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THE INCOME TAX RE CEIVED/ RECEIVABLE IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE NEITHER OFFERED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES NOR CREDITED TO THE SALES REVENUE. THEREFORE THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER STATED TO THAT EXTENT. AS PER NOTE 9 OF THE SCHEDULE L TO THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS THE PROVISION FOR TAXATION WAS MADE TAKING INTO CONSIDE RATION OF INCOME TAX RECEIVABLE FROM TRANSCO. AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 THE INCOME TA X RECEIVABLE FROM THE TRANSCO IS TAXABLE NOT ONLY UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BUT ALSO U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE'S TREATMENT OF INCOME TAX RECEIVABLE LIKE THE SALE TAXI EXCISE DUTY COLLECTION AND SETTING OFF THE SAME AGAINST THE TAX PAYMENTS IS NOT CORRECT. THE INCOME TAX RECEIVABLE/RECEIVED IS NOTHING BUT T HE ADDITIONAL INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE ARRIVED AT AS PER ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE THE SAME HAS TO BE ADDED TO THE INCOME ARRIVED AT AS PER P&L ALE. AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THEA.Y 2003-0 4. WHILE THE PROVISION FOR INCOME TAX REQUIRED WAS RS.5 34 37 770/- THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PROVISION AT RS.2 93 92 504/ -. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.2 40 45 266/- REPRESENTS THE INCOME TAX RECEIVABLE ON REIMBURSEMENT. THEREFORE THE INCOME TAX RECEIVABLE OF 12 RS.2 40 45 266/- HAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS AND ALSO U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. FAILURE TO DO SO RESULTED IN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME TO THAT EXTENT. FURTHER THE MISCELLANEOUS INCOME OF RS.I 44 31 764/- CONSISTS OF EXCESS INSURANCE PREMIUM (PAID IN EARLIER YEARS) OF RS.I 3 7 80 234/- RECEIVED IN THIS YEAR. SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS TAXABLE U/S 41 OF THE ACT IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 801A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER THE SAME WAS ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION US/S 80LA WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3).' 15. AS WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE REASONS RECORDED HEREINABOVE THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BASICALLY ON THE FOLLOWING TWO ISSUES:- I) ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX THE REIMBURSEMENT OF INCOME-TAX RECEIVABLE OF RS.2 40 45 266/- AND II) WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT THE AMOUNT OF EXCESS INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID EARLIER AMOUNTING TO RS.1 37 82 034/- RECEIVED DURING THIS YEAR THOUGH WAS NOT ELIGIBLE INCOME FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT BUT THE DEDUCTION WAS ALSO ALLOWED ON THE SAID INCOME. THE ASSESSMENT WAS ULTIMATELY COMPLETED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID REASONS RECORDED BY BRINGING TO TAX T HE INCOME TAX RECEIVABLE AMOUNTING TO RS.2 40 45 266/- AND EX CLUDING FROM THE INCOME AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 37 82 234/- FOR T HE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IA OF THE 13 ACT. THUS IT WOULD BE CLEAR THE ASSESSMENT U/S 14 3(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED IN TERMS WITH THE REASONS RECORDED. IT IS FURTHER REVEALED FROM TH E ORDER OF THE CIT THAT HE HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IA OF THE ACT BY EXCLUD ING THE AMOUNT OF RS.6 12 93 919/- BEING THE EXCESS INSURAN CE PREMIUM AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.8 85 14 896/- REPRESEN TING GAIN ON FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION. 16. ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.6 12 93 919/- IS THE REFUND O F EXCESS INSURANCE PREMIUM RELATING TO PRIOR PERIOD AND AMO UNT OF RS.11 08 69 955/- IS RELATING TO PRIOR PERIOD INCOM E. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT READ ALONG WITH THE REPLY SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE Q UESTIONNAIRE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WOULD CONFIRM THE FACT THAT THE AFORESA ID TWO AMOUNTS WERE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER W HILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VID E ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 26-10-2004. IT IS ALSO A FACT VERY MUCH EVIDENT ON RECORD THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE NEVE R SUBJECT MATTER OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AS PER THE REASO NS RECORDED. IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES IF AT AL L ANY PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH EN THAT ORDER IS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26-10- 2004 AND NOT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 1 47 OF THE ACT ON 31-12-2007. THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW THE LI MITATION OF 14 TWO YEARS PERIOD PRESCRIBED U/S 263 OF THE ACT SHOU LD BEGIN TO RUN FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH TH E ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 26-10-2004 AND NOT FROM THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SEC TION 147 OF THE ACT ON 31-12-2007 AS UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES THE RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. THE HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. ICICI BANK LTD. (19 TAXMANN. COM . 142 (BOM) WHILE CONSIDERING IDENTICAL ISSUE HELD IN TH E FOLLOWING MANNER:- 5 . THE ISSUE AS TO WHEN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION WOULD COMMENCE FOR AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 WAS CONSIDERED BY THE S UPREME COURT IN CIT VS. ALAGCNDRAN FINANCE LTD. [2007) 293 ITR 1/162 TAXMAN 465. IN THAT CASE. ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT Y EARS 1994-95. 1995-96 AND 1996-97 WERE PASSED ON 27 FEBRUARY 1997. 12 MAY 1997 AND 30 MARCH 1998. IN THE SAID ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE'S RET URN UNDER THE HEAD 'LEASE EQUALISATION FUND' WAS ACCEPT ED. PROCEEDINGS FOR REASSESSMENT WERE INITIATED AND WERE COMPLETED ON 28 MARCH 2002. THE PROCEEDINGS FOR REASSESSMENT HOWEVER WERE IN RESPECT OF THREE ITEMS AND THE ASSESSEE'S RETURN IN RESPECT OF LEASE EQUALISATION FUND WAS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS. THE COMMISSIONER INVOKED HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 ON 29 MARCH 2()()4 IN RESPECT THE RETURN UNDER THE HEAD OF 'LEASE EQUALISATION FU ND'. ON THESE FACTS THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT ONLY THA T PART OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WHICH RELATED TO THE LEASE EQUALISATION FUND WAS FOUND TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE PROCEEDINGS FOR REASSESSMENT HAD N OTHING TO DO WITH THAT HEAD OF INCOME AND HENCE THE DOCTRINE OF MERGE R WOULD NOT APPLY IN A CASE OF THAT NATURE. THE SUPREME COURT F URTHER HELD THAT ONCE AN ORDER OF ASSCSSMENT IS REOPENED THE PREVIO US ASSESSMENT WILL BE HELD TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE WHOLE PRECEDING WOU LD START 15 AFRESH BUT THAT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT EVEN WHEN THE S UBJECT MATTER OF REASSESSMENT IS DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING OF ASSESSMENT WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN REOPENED. SINCE THE COMMISSIONER IN EXERCISE OF HIS REVISIOUAL JURISDIC TION REOPENED THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN RELATION TO THE LEASE EQUALI SATION FUND WHICH WAS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PROVIDED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTIO N 263 WOULD IT WAS HELD BEGIN TO RUN FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF AS SESSMENT AND NOT FROM THE ORDER OF RE-ASSESSMENT. 6. BUT THE SUBMISSION WHICH HAS BEEN URGED BY THE COUN SEL FOR THE REVENUE IS THAT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT I N ALAGENDRAN FINANCE WAS RENDERED ON 27 JULY 2()07 WHICH WAS PRI OR TO THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 147 BY THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 3 . THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT AS A RESULT OF THE INSERT ION OF EXPLANTION 3 ONCE AN ASSESSMENT IS REOPENED THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S ENTITLED TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE WHIC H HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT THOUGH THE REASONS IN RESPECT OF SUCH IS SUE HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE REASONS RECORDED UNDE R SECTION 148(2). ON THIS BASIS IT IS URGED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING O FFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON 26 MARCH 2002 THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT W AS AT LARGE AND HENCE HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPLIED THE AMENDED PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) PARTICULARLY THE EXPLANATION THERETO. 7. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN A JUDGMENT OF A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. V. ASSTT. CIT (2010) 325 ITR 574/191 TAXMAN 29. THE DIVISION BENCH CONSIDERED A SIMILAR SUBMISSION BASED ON EXPLANATIO N 3 WHICH WAS INSERTED IN SECTION 147 BY THE FINANCE ACT OF 2009 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1/4/1989. NEGATIVING THE SUBMISSION. THE DIVISION BENCH HELD AS FOLLOWS: ' ... WHERE A REASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE PURSUANT T O A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT PREVAIL S IN RESPECT OF THOSE ITEMS WHICH FORM PART OF REASSESSMENT. ON ITEMS WHICH 16 DO NOT FORM PART OF THE REASSESSMENT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT CONTINUES TO HOLD THE FIELD. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFF ICER REOPENS AN ASSESSMENT ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE IT IS OPEN TO HIM TO MAKE A REASSESSMENT ON THAT ISSUE AS WELL AS IN RESPECT OF OTHER ISSUES WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY COME TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE CO URSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147. THE SUBMISSION OF TH E REVENUE IS THAT BY NOT PASSING AN ORDER OF REASSESSMENT IN RES PECT OF OTHER INDEPENDENT ISSUES. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER CAN BE CONSTRUED TO BE ERRONEOUS AND TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 263. T HE SUBMISSION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE FACTS OF THE P RESENT CASE. THE SUBSTANTIVE PART OF SECTION 147 AS WELL AS EXPL ANATION ENABLES THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE HA D ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND OTHER INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSES SMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURS E OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SECTION. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE RECORD OF THE PRESENT EASE TO INDICATE THAT THERE WAS ANY OTH ER INCOME WHICH HAD COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN T HE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 AND WHEN HE PASSE D THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT. THE COMMISSIONER W\HEN HE E XERCISED HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WAS UNDER A BAR OF LIMITATION SINCE LIMITATIO N WOULD BEGIN TO RUN FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED. WE MUST HOWEVER CLARIFY THAT THE BAR OF LIMITATION IN THIS CASE ARISES BECAUSE THE REVISIONAL JURISDIC TION UNDER SECTION 263 IS SOUGHT TO BE EXERCISED IN RESPECT OF ISSUES WHICH DID NOT FORM THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143 (3) READ WITH 147. IN RESPECT OF THOSE ISSUES LIMITATION WOULD COMMENCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORI GINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. IF THE EXERCISE OF THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION UNDER SECTI ON 263 WAS TO BE IN RESPECT OF ISSUES WHICH FORMED THE SUBJECT MA TTER OF THE REASSESSMENT AFTER THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS REOP ENED THE 17 COMMENCEMENT OF LIMITATION WOULD BE WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT. THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT FA LL IN THAT CATEGORY.' SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 263 STIPULATES A PERIOD OF LIMITATION OF TWO YEARS WITHIN WHICH AN ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) H AS TO BE PASSED. UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) NO ORDER UNDER SECTION 263(1) CAN BE MADE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS PASSED. THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) IN THE PRESENT CASE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION WHICH WAS CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII). SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) AND IN RESPECT OF F OREIGN EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE. NEITHER IN THE FIRST ORDER OF REASSESSM ENT DATED 22 FCBRUARV 2000 NOR IN THE SECOND ORDER OF REASSESSMENT DATED 26 MARCH 2002 WERE THESE ASPECTS DETERMINED. IN OTHER WORDS ON THE AFORESAID THREE ISSUES THE ORIG INAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 10 TH MARCH 1999 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) CONTINUED TO HOLD THE FIELD. ONCE THAT IS THE POSIT ION THEN CLEARLY THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER WOULD NOT APPLY. THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) PASSED ON 10 MARCH 1999 CANNOT STAND MERGED WITH THE ORDERS OF REASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THOS E ISSUES WHICH DID NOT FORM THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REASSESSMENT. C ONSEQUENTLY EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 147 WILL NOT ALTER THAT PO SITION. EXPLANATION 3 ONLY ENABLES THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONCE AN ASSES SMENT IS REOPENED TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE EVEN AN ISSUE IN RESPECT F WHICH NO REASONS WERE INDICATED IN THE NO TICE U/S 148(2). THIS HOWEVER WILL NOT OBVIATE THE BAR OF LIMITATI ON U/S 263(2). WHERE THE JURISDICTION U/S 263(1) IS SOUGHT TO BE E XERCISED WITH REFERENCE TO AN ISSUE WHICH IS COVERED BY THE ORIGI NAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) AND WHICH DOES NOT FORM THE S UBJECT MATTER OF THE REASSESSMENT AS IN THE PRESENT CASE LIMITATIO N MUST NECESSARILY BEGIN TO RUN FROM THE ORDER U/S 143(3). BEFORE CON CLUDING WE MAY ALSO TAKE NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT THE SECOND ORDER OF REASSESSMENT DATED 26 MARCH 2002 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 27 AUGUST 2010. AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS PEND ING BEFORE THIS 18 COURT FOR ADMISSION. HOWEVER WE HAVE CONSIDERED T HIS APPEAL INDEPENDENTLY AND HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INVOCATION OF THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. ACCORDINGLY WE ANSWER THE QUESTION OF LAW IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. 17. THUS AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THE LIMITATION PRESCRIBED U/S 263(2) OF THE ACT WOULD BEGIN TO RUN FROM THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOT FROM THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE HONBLE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE SCOPE OF REASSESSMENT CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO THE EXTENT OF THE ISSUES WHICH WERE NEVER SUBJECT MATTER OF RE-AS SESSMENT; HENCE THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER WOULD NOT APPLY. THER EFORE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN AS A BOVE BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT SINCE THE ISSUES ON WHIC H THE CIT INVOKED JURISDICTION U/S 263 WERE NEVER SUBJECT MAT TER OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 26-11-2008 FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 20 04-05 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER PAS SED U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS ALSO INVALID. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MAT TER WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 BY THE CIT BEING VO ID AB INITIO IS LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS SET ASIDE. 18. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOW ED. 19. SINCE WHILE DECIDING THE ASSESSEES GROUND NO.2 (A) WE HAVE HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION IS LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE THE OTHER G ROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT OF THE ISSUES ARE RENDERED MERELY 19 ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND HENCE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJ UDICATED UPON. 20. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18-10-2013. SD/- ( CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED THE 18 TH OCTOBER 2013 COPY TO:- 1) C/O GVK INDUSTRIES LIMITED 156-159 PAIGAH HOUSE SP ROAD SECUNDERABAD. 2) ACIT CIR-2(2) HYDERABAD. 3) CIT-II HYDERABAD. 4) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE I.T.A.T. HYDERABAD. JMR*