Counsel Forthe Petitioner: Srl. C v. Narasimham

HIGH COURT FOR TtIE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYI}ERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THI.JRSDAY,THE NII\ETEENTH DAY OF JUNETWO T}'IOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO:22221 OF 2003 Between: Melvillie Finvest Ltd., 6-3-666/8, Deccan Chambers, Somajiguda, Hyderabadrep., by its Dlrector Mr.R.Gopalakrishnan ...PETITIONER AND lncome-tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ ofcertiorari quashing the Notice dt.28-03-2003 issued by the respondent uis.148 ofthe lncome-Tax Act and set aside all consequent proceedings l.A. NO: 1 OF 2003MPMP. NO:27775 OF 2003) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affrdavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tostay all further proceedings pursuant to the notice dt.28-03-2003 issued by therespondent u/s.148 of lncorne-tax Actin the affrdavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tostay all further proceedings pursuant to the notice dt.28-03-2003 issued by therespondent u/s.148 of lncorne-tax Act Counsel forthe Petitioner: SRl. C. V. NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respofldenb: SRI P. MURALI KRISHNA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITYANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JIISTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKOilDAWRIT PETITION No.22221 of 2(X)3 ORDER: fi>er the Hon'blc Srl .ftzstlce IiIarETng Rao No,ndikonda) The present writ petition is filed challenging reopening ofthe assessment of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 1996-1997 and also to quash the notice dated 28.03.2003 issued bythe respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(briefly 'the Act' hereinafter) on the ground that the same iswithout jurisdiction and time barred. 2. Heard Sri C.V. Narasimham, learned counsel for thepetitioner, and Sri P. Murali Krishna, learned cor-rnsel for therespondent. Perused the entire material on record. 3. The brief facts of the case, are that, tJle petitioner isengaged in the business of investment in shares and trading andhad hled its return of income for tlle Assessment Year 1996-1997 on 27.11.1996 showing loss of Rs.54,75,96O/- and thesaid return rvas scrutinized by the Assessing Officer underSection 1a3(1)(a) of the Act on 14.03.1997 without making any Page 2 ot 15 w_2222t [2(h3]PSK,J,J&NNR,J further adjustment and later a notice dated 07.O4. [1998, ][under]Section 148 of the Act, was issued to the petitioner for reopeningthe assessment on the ground that the income chargeable to taxfor the year L996-1997 has escaped assessment within [the]meaning of Section L47 of the Act. Pursuant to [the ][reopening ][of]the assessment, the petitioner fiIed the sane rettlrn [on]14.05.1998 with t.Ile purchase and sale transactions of [the]shares done on 31.03.1995 and considered during [the]assessment year 1996-1997 and the said assessment [was]cornpleted and an order was [passed ]by the [respondent.] 4. Thereafter, the petitioner fited an application underSection 154 the Act seeking rectifrcation of the assessment [order]for setting-off tJle carry forward loss. But the [Assessing Officer]rejected the said application. Against the said [rejection ][order, ][an]appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of [Income ][Tax](Appeals) under Section 154 of the Act, dated O2.12.1999. Th.eAssessing Offrcer / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Frled hisreport on 02.06.2000 before ttre Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) against ttre order of Joint Commissioner under Section :al *p:22221-2OO3PSK,J,J&NNR,J 4. Thereafter, the petitioner fited an application underSection 154 the Act seeking rectifrcation of the assessment [order]for setting-off tJle carry forward loss. But the [Assessing Officer]rejected the said application. Against the said [rejection ][order, ][an]appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of [Income ][Tax](Appeals) under Section 154 of the Act, dated O2.12.1999. Th.eAssessing Offrcer / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Frled hisreport on 02.06.2000 before ttre Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) against ttre order of Joint Commissioner under Section :al *p:22221-2OO3PSK,J,J&NNR,J 154 of the Act. [In the ][said ][report, the ][Assessing ][C)fficer ][observed]that the [petitioner's ][business ][is ][speculative ][in ][nature ][and ][loss]from speculation [cannot ][be ][set-off. The Commissioner ][of ][Income]Tax (Appeals) frnally [held ][that the ][Assessing Offrcer ][was ][not]to [review ][the ][decision ][of ][his ][predecessor regarding]competent set-off of the loss [of earlier year against ][the ][profits ][of ][the ][current]year. Challenging the same, the same, same, [[tJre ][Department ]][[Department ]][[filed ][al]][[al]] 5. Challenging the same, the same, same, [[tJre ][Department ]][[Department ]][[filed ][al]][[al]]appeal in ITA [No.55O/Hyd/2OOO ][before ][t}re ][Income ][Tax]Tribunal [(for ][short, ][the ] [against ][the ][order ][of]Appellate Commissioner [of ][Income ][Tax ][(Appeals). ][The ][same ][was dismissed]by ITAT vide its order [dated ][28. ][1O.20O5. ][Meanwhile, another]notice dated 28-03.2003 [under ][Section ][148 ][of the ][Act ][was]issued to reopen [the ][assessment ][for ][second ][time on the ][gror:nd]that there were certain [reasons ][for ][the respondent ][to ][believe ][that]the income chargeable [to tax ][has escaped ][assessment'] 6. According to the [petitioner ][there was ][a ][lirnitation ][of ][4]years' tirne under Sectio n [147 ][of ][the Act ][to ][issue ][notice under]Section 148 of the [Act ][which ][expired ][on ][31'3'2001' ][For ][which] Page 4 of 15 W_22221 [2@3]PSK,J,J&NNR,J the petitioner frled a reply to consider the return filed earLier on27.11.1996. The petitioner also sor.rght for tlre reasons to befurnished for reopening the assessment and issualce of noticeunder Section 148 of tJle Act, for which tJ:e Assessing Oflicerrefused to provide the reasons for reopening of assessment andfurther intimated that the reasons recorded for re-opening ofassessment need not te communicated to the petitioner andasked for certain information to be furnished on 26.09.2003.The petitioner frled reply on 1O.10.2OO3 stating the facts of hlingreturn of income and the rectification petition and theconsequential orders and asked for reasons for issuance ofnotice once again. 7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitionerthat having reopened the assessment first time in the year 1998and having examined sale and purchase of the shares and valuethereof in depth, the respondent cannot validly clairn that sincehe did not examine the issue of deemed speculative loss in theIight of explanation to Section 73 of the Act, the respondent now (a wp_22221 _2OO3PSK,J ,J&NNR,J cannot consider the same after expiry of the time lirnit of fouryears under Section 147 of the Act to re-open tJle assessment. 8. It is further argued that the petitioners case cannotbe treated as speculative loss since there is no actual sale ofshares and the decrease in value of the stock is only on accountof valrring stock in trade at cost or market price which is lowerand that the said principle was accepted by various High Courtsand the Hon'ble Supreme Court in also in the case of CIT vs.British Paints Limitedr and Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT2. (a wp_22221 _2OO3PSK,J ,J&NNR,J cannot consider the same after expiry of the time lirnit of fouryears under Section 147 of the Act to re-open tJle assessment. 8. It is further argued that the petitioners case cannotbe treated as speculative loss since there is no actual sale ofshares and the decrease in value of the stock is only on accountof valrring stock in trade at cost or market price which is lowerand that the said principle was accepted by various High Courtsand the Hon'ble Supreme Court in also in the case of CIT vs.British Paints Limitedr and Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT2. 9. It is also argued that the said issue is also covered inthe case of Mahala:rmi Motors Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissionerof lncome-tax and Anothers. He further contended t]rat merefailure of the Assessing Offrcer to draw necessarv inference fromthe primary facts disclosed by the assessee cannot be a groundto reopen assessment as per the limitation of four yearsprescribed under Section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Offrcercould have, if so, advised invoked Section 147 of the Act only ' [188 ][tm ][aa]'24 [trn ][181]! 2oo3 scc onLine AP 1376'24 [trn ][181]! 2oo3 scc onLine AP 1376 fage 6 of 15 W_22221_2C/J3F6K,J,J&NNR,J within the period of 4 years limita.tion which he failed to do so.The entire exercise of the respondent to reopen the assessmentbeyond 4 years limitation period is an illegal exercise of powerunder Section 147 and, it is w+lolly without jurisdiction. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that t.I'e assessmentwas reopened for the frrst time in t}re year 199E and havingexamined sa-le and purchase of shares and value thereof indepth, the respondent cannot validly claim that since he did notexamine the issue of deemed spectrlative loss in the light of theexplanation to Section 73 of the Act. Further, the respondenta-lso now cannot consider the same after orpiry of tlie tirrre limitof four years prescribed under Section .147. to reopen theassessment. The learned counsel further contended ttrat facts ofthe petitioner's case cannot be treated as a speculative losssince there is no actual sale of shares and the decrease in valueof stock is only on account of valuing stock in trade at cost ormarket price whichever is lower. 11. Lastly, it is argued by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that this is a mere chaqdn opinion of the Assessing Page 7 of 15 wp_2222L-2OO3PSK,J,J&NNR,J Offrcer which is sought to be justifred by [illegally ]invoking tJrepower under Section L47 of the Act. It is further argued tlat thecontention of the respondent that the reopening 1s not barred bylirnitation since the escapement of income is more thanRs. 1,OO,OO0/- and assessment can be reopened within 6 yearsis wholly misplaced, since beyond the 4 years limit, theAssessing OIIicer does not have power to reopen assessmentexcept on speciflc allegation and hnding that there was failure todisclose true and full material facts by the petrtioner which isclearly absent in the present case. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions, relied upon the following decisions: 1) Malikarjuna Rlce Industries vs. Income Tax Oflicer+ 2) Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelwinator of Iadia Limited.s 3) Ilufi Chand Singhania vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-TaxF 4) Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner ofIncome-tax and AnotherT o 1zozs1 [asa ][rm sse]t lzoro; z scc zz:1zozs1 [asa ][rm sse]t lzoro; z scc zz: 6 2oo3 sCC OnLine P&H 1818 wp-22221_2OO3PSK,J,J&NNR,J 5) Phoolchand Lalith Kumar & Co. vs. Income Tax Oflicere 6) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. AlDanalai FinanceLtd.eLtd.e 7) Sita World Travels (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner offncome Tax and Anr.lofncome Tax and Anr.lo 8) Raj Kumar Bapna vs. Union of Indiarr 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions, relied upon the following decisions: 1) Malikarjuna Rlce Industries vs. Income Tax Oflicer+ 2) Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelwinator of Iadia Limited.s 3) Ilufi Chand Singhania vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-TaxF 4) Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner ofIncome-tax and AnotherT o 1zozs1 [asa ][rm sse]t lzoro; z scc zz:1zozs1 [asa ][rm sse]t lzoro; z scc zz: 6 2oo3 sCC OnLine P&H 1818 wp-22221_2OO3PSK,J,J&NNR,J 5) Phoolchand Lalith Kumar & Co. vs. Income Tax Oflicere 6) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. AlDanalai FinanceLtd.eLtd.e 7) Sita World Travels (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner offncome Tax and Anr.lofncome Tax and Anr.lo 8) Raj Kumar Bapna vs. Union of Indiarr 13. Per contra, it is argued by the counsel for therespondent that since the loss derived by the assessee isspeculation business in nature, the same cannot be allowed tobe set-off against the other income of the assessee. As per theprovision of the Section 73(l) of the Act the loss arising from thespeculation business cannot be set_off except against tJre profrtsand when the assessee has put in a petition the poirrt that theclaim of the petitioner was not alowed in the order underSection 154 dared 02.L2.lggg, in view of the provision of Section73 (1) ofthe Act. 14. Having considered the rival consid.erations of boththe counsel, the points which arise for consideration are: 7 2OO3 scc Online Ap 1i76 3 1991 SCC Online AP 4801991 SCC Online AP 480 '1zoos1 [zzs ][rrn ][asr]'o1zms;zza rR rsett l2oot; 251 rtR aoz'o1zms;zza rR rsett l2oot; 251 rtR aoz __-.".." _/' Page 9 of 15 1. Whetler the notice issued under Sedion [148 ][of]the Ac't bg tle respondent is barred bg [limitation]presc'ribed under kction 147 and 149 of theAd?the Ac't bg tle respondent is barred bg [limitation]presc'ribed under kction 147 and 149 of theAd? 2. Whetler the reqnadent i.s conpetent to [reoPen]tle ossessment on the crtonge of opinion [qnd ][to]reuieu tltE sorZ o.ssessment made bg [his]predeessor? andtle ossessment on the crtonge of opinion [qnd ][to]reuieu tltE sorZ o.ssessment made bg [his]predeessor? and 3- Whdtar the reopening of the assessnEnt [is]ill.egal on tle grannd of non-rearding [of ][ang]reax,ts regarding ang incotne [chargeable to ][tqx]lld's escnlBd as ses s ment?ill.egal on tle grannd of non-rearding [of ][ang]reax,ts regarding ang incotne [chargeable to ][tqx]lld's escnlBd as ses s ment? wp 2222L_2OO3PSK,J,J&NNR,J 15. PIOIIITS: Before [going ]further, [for ][convenience' ][we]would like to extract tJle [provisions ]under [Section ] [47 ][of ][Act ][ald]Section 73(1) of the Act, which reads thus: 'Carry forunrd [and ][set ofJ ][ol ][losses ][bg ][qeclJTed]Du.slness.- 7eA, 0) Ang loss, computed in [respect ]of [a ][speculotion]business referred lo in section 35AD shqll [not ][be ][sei ][olr ][except]ogainst profits ond gains, rf ang, of [qnA ]other [specified]busine.ss. (2) Where for ang assessment gear any loss contptled inresped. of the specified business rekred to in sub [sectiort ][('t)]ll.r.-s ttot been uhollg set off under sub-secton [(1), ]so [,nucll ]of,h€ loss as is no, so set off or the uhole loss uhere [the]assessee has no income from ang other speclfied [btrsiness,]shall. subjed to the other prouisions of fhis Chapter, [be ]catiedlorward [to ][the ]follouing [assessmerlt ]Aear, [qnd] l\t- Page 10 of 15 w_22221_20p3PSK,J,J&NNR,J (i) it shojt be set ofl agajnst the profits o.nd. gabrc, if atry,of ang specified. busjness carried on bg him assrl.isablefor [that ]assessment geqr; andof ang specified. busjness carried on bg him assrl.isablefor [that ]assessment geqr; and (ii) { the loss cannot be rso set oln tE amount ofloss not so set off "ho, b:'-ug I carried. fonl'ard to tlrc Jollotuingloss not so set off "ho, b:'-ug I carried. fonl'ard to tlrc Jollotuinga.ssessment Aear and so on.,, Income esca,,lng cssiessmena _ l\t- Page 10 of 15 w_22221_20p3PSK,J,J&NNR,J (i) it shojt be set ofl agajnst the profits o.nd. gabrc, if atry,of ang specified. busjness carried on bg him assrl.isablefor [that ]assessment geqr; andof ang specified. busjness carried on bg him assrl.isablefor [that ]assessment geqr; and (ii) { the loss cannot be rso set oln tE amount ofloss not so set off "ho, b:'-ug I carried. fonl'ard to tlrc Jollotuingloss not so set off "ho, b:'-ug I carried. fonl'ard to tlrc Jollotuinga.ssessment Aear and so on.,, Income esca,,lng cssiessmena _ 747. If ang income chargeable to tox, in the case of anang income chargeable to tox, in the case of anasisessee, hrls escaped assestheAssessinsof ft cermas,"";:;':';:::";XT;X:148 to 153, qssess o/ /eassestheAssessinsof ft cermas,"";:;':';:::";XT;X:148 to 153, qssess o/ /eassesross or the depreciation ouout tance ["u'n ]or [iname ]anA othet allouanpz or[or ][re@nputed ][tte]also ang other ellouctnce or deduction for such qssassme4[gear ftrereafier in this section and in this sections 146 to 153refened to a.s the releuant assessment aear)refened to a.s the releuant assessment aear) Explanation.-For the purposes of assessment or reassessmen,or reconq)ulation under this section, the Assessing Oficer magctssess or recssess the incomet,,sescapedossessmenr,""":::::::;':::"?::rmsubsequentlg in the course of the proceedings und.er thissectbn, inespectiue of the fact that the provisions of sectbn148A haue not been complied with." 16. We would also like to quote herein below therelevant portion of Circular No.549 dated 31st October,1989,which reads as follows "7.2 Anendmcut nad.e bg the Amendtng Act, tgE9., to,:el'trt T,d,4ce the e4rression [. ]"ed.son [to klteue, ][la ][Sectlon]747.-A numbq of representations were recetued qgainst tte al Page 11 of 15 w [22221 ][2OO3]PSK,J,J&NNR,J omission of the unrds ['reason ]to belieue'from [*ction ][147 and]tleir substidttion bg tte ['opinion' ]of tle [Assdssing ][OJficer. ][It]uas pointed out tlmt the Commnr. [Of ][lncome ][Tc4 ][Delhi ][us ] Keluinator Of India. Ltd on [18 ]Januaty, [2010 meafli<t ][of ][the]eryressio4. ['reoson ]to believe' [had ][been ][explained ][in ][a ][number]of coun rulings in the [past ][qnd was well ][setTled ][and ][its]omission from kdion [147 txould ][giue ][orbitrary pouer.s to ][the]Assessing Ofrer to reopen Pa-st [assessrEnas ][on ][mere change]of opinion. To ollq tlese feots, [the Amending ][Act, ][1989, ][hqs]again amend.ed *ction [747 ][to ][reintrcduce ][the ][exPress@n ]['has]reason to beliew' in place of the [uwds ]['for ][reosons ][to ][be]recorded bg him in utiting, is of [the ][opinion' . ][Other ][prousions ][of]the neu Sectinn 147, tanoever, [remai\ ][tle ][same-"] 17. On going through the [changes made ][to ][Section ][147]of the Act, we frnd tJrat, [prior ]to [Direct ][Tax ][Larvs ][(Amendment)]Act, 1987, re-opening could [be ][done ][under ][above ][two conditions]and fulfrllment of the said conditions [alone conferred ][jurisdiction]on the Assessing Offrber to [make ][aback assessment. ][However,]Section 147 of the Act [with effect from [1"' ][April ][1 ][989] ], [they ][are]given a go-by and only one condition has [remained, ][viz-, that]where the Assessing OIIicer has reason to believe that [income]has escaped assessment, confers [jurisdiction ]to [re-open ][the]assessment. Therefore, post lst April, 1989, [po\vel ][to ][re-open ][is]much wider. However, one needs to glve a schematicinterpretation to the words "reason to believe" failing which, [we] wp-22221 20o3PSK,J,J&NNR,J are afraid Section 147 wor.rld give arbitrary [powers ]to tlrcAssessing Oflicer to re-open assessments on the basis of ["mere]change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to re-open. wp-22221 20o3PSK,J,J&NNR,J are afraid Section 147 wor.rld give arbitrary [powers ]to tlrcAssessing Oflicer to re-open assessments on the basis of ["mere]change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to re-open. 18. We must also keep in mind the conceptual differencebetween power to review and [power ]to re-assess. [The ][Assessing]Olfrcer has no power to review; he has the [power ]to [re-assess.]But re-assessment has to be based on fulfillment [of certain ][pre-]conditions and if the concept of ["change ]of opinion" is [removed,]as contended on behalf of the Depa-rtment, then, in the [garb ]ofre-opening tlte assessment, review would take [place. ][One ][must]treat the concept of ["change ]of opinion" as an in-built test [to]check abuse of power by the Assessing Offrcer. [Hence, ]after [l"t]April, 1989, Assessing Ofircer has [power ][to ][re-open, ][provided]there is 'tangible material" to come [to the ][conclusion ][that ][there]is escapetnent of income from assessment. [Reasons ][must ][have ][a]live link with the formation [of ][the ][belief.] 19. Our view gets suPport from the [changes ][made ][to]Section 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove. [Under the Direct]Tax Laws (Arnendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not [only ][deleted] Page 13 of 15 wp 22221 2OO3PSK,J,J&NNR,J the words ["reason ]to believe" but [also ][inserted ][the ][word]"opinion" in Section t47 of the Act. However, on [receipt ][of]representations from tJle [Comparries ][against ][omission ][of ][the]words ["reason ]to believe", [the ][law makers ][reintrod ][uced ][the ][said]expression and deleted [the word "opinion" ][on the ground that ][it]would vest arbitrar5z [powers ][in ][the ][Assessing ][Officer'] 20.. The [petitioner ][has ][filed the ][returns ][for ][the ][year ][1996-]1997. Pursuant to the [same, ][ttle ][Dy. ][Commissioner ][of ][Income]Tax issued notice under [Section 148 ][of ][the ][.Act ][that he ][has]reasons to believe that the [income ][chargeable ][to ][tax ][for ][the]assessment year 1996 -1997 [has ][escaped ][assessment ][within ][the]meaning of Section 147 of the Act. [An ][order ][r'r-as ][passed on]2O.O5. 1998 under Section 143(3) of [the Acl ][making ][re-]assessment and at [page ]2 of the [order ][it ][is ][speciltcally ][stated]that in response to the notice issued [under ][Section ][143 ][(2) ][of ][the]Act, Smt. Srilatha Ramchandran, [C,A, ][authorized ][representative]of the assessee's company and Sri J.V. [Ramaiah, ][Accounts]Manager of the assessee's company appeared [and ][liled ][the]information and details called for. The case [was ][discussed ][with] w_2222t [2@3]PSK,J,J&NNR,J them and examined. This itself shows that the re-assessmentwas made after considering the information and details thatwere submitted. 21. Against the order passed above, an appeal waspreferred before the Cornmissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)wherein it was directed that the Assessing Oflicer is directed toallow the set-off of business loss of earlier year against the prohtof tlre assessment year 1996-1997. 22. Considering the entire material on record, this Benchis of the view that re-opening of the assessment is clearly evidentfrom the record that tl.e notice issued under Section 148 of theAct dated 29.O3.2OO3 is within recording the reasons and that itis clearly barred by limitation as the period for the assessmentfor the relevant assessment year is 4 years and the [period]prescribed under Section 149(1)(a) of the Act for [issuance ]of anotice trnder Section 148 of the Act would [expire by ][31.O3.2OO1.]Hence tl"e notice is liable to be set aside on [this ][ground ][also.]Besides, the Assessing Oflicer is having [no ][power ][or ][jurisdiction]to re-open or review the assessment for [the ][second ]time. [For ]the.";- \Np 22221-2003PSK,J,J&NNR,J reasons stated above, the points are answered in favour of thepetitioner. Thus, this Bench is of the opinion that the verynotice is liable to be set aside / quashed accordingll,. \Np 22221-2003PSK,J,J&NNR,J reasons stated above, the points are answered in favour of thepetitioner. Thus, this Bench is of the opinion that the verynotice is liable to be set aside / quashed accordingll,. 23. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed quashing thenotice dated 28.03 .2OO3, issued by ttre respondent underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There shall be noorder as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. - SD/.N. SRIHARIpEPUWREGTSTRAR'tt\.., SECTTON OFFICERI //TRUE COPY// To, 1 . The f ncome{ax Officer, Ward 2(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh,Hyderabad.2. Ooe CC to SRl. C. V. NARASTMHAM, Advocate tOpUCl Advocate tOpUCl3. One CC to SRl [p. ]MURALT KR|SHNA, AdvocateiOeUC;4. Two CD Copies Bo.L HIGH COURT DATED:1910612025 /.--,:',.,.--- [-'- ][_::. ][---], .,\l [" ]"'1a6s('J03SEP Xtr\.,J\\\ORDER WP.No.22221 ot 2003 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6 ,)r{\bu