Visista Estates Pvt.Ltd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

CO 26/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7185 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G V HEMALATHA DEVI
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 234/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07. DCIT,CIRCLE-3(3), -V- M/S. VISISTA ESTATES (P) LTD. HYDERABAD. HYDERABAD . (PAN:AABCV 0597 M ) [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] C.O.. NO.26/HYD/2011 (IN ITA NO. 234/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07. M/S.VISISTA ESTATES P.LTD. -V- DCIT,CI R-3(3), HYDERABAD. HYDERABAD. (PAN:AABCV 0597 M ) [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY : SRI S. RAMA RAO DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. GV HEMALATHA DEVI DATE OF HEARING : 29-3-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 -5-2012. ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9 -11- ITA NO.234 AND CO26 OF 2011 VISISTA ESTATES PVT.LTD. HYD. 2 2010 PASSED IN ITA NO. 0258/ACIT/CIR-3(3)/CIT (AQ)/GNT/08-09 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06- 07. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE APPEAL AND CRO SS OBJECTION ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMBINED ORDER. ITA NO.234/HYD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 : 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US:- I) THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.40,47,000/- ON ACCOUNT INTRODUCTION OF SHARE CAPITAL IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE SAME HAVING NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. II) THE CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT AT 4.18% IS SUFFICIENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CIT (A) HIMSELF HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AND HENCE SHOULD HAVE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF 12.5% MADE BY THE AO IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER VOUCHERS/BILLS BEING MAINTAINED. III) THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT 12.5% OF THE TURNOVER IN LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF ITAT, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA MOHAN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. (ITA NOS. 380 & 381/HYD/ DATED 9-12-1992 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1991-92 AND 1992-93. ITA NO.234 AND CO26 OF 2011 VISISTA ESTATES PVT.LTD. HYD. 3 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. IT PURCHAS ES LAND, CONVERTS THEM INTO PLOTS AND AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT SELLS THE PLOTS. THE ASSESSEE MAINT AINS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BEING A COMPANY, ITS ACCOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO STATUTORY AUDIT. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED IT S RETURN DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.19,05,265/-. IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WHILE VERIFYING THE BALANCE-SHEET, THE AO FOUND INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.40,47,000/-. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAI N ABOUT THE INCREASE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL WITH NECESS ARY DETAILS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT THE DETAILS, THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.40,47,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE AO FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.11,14,88,046/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PLOTS AND ADVANCES AS AGAINST RS.3,21,85,474/- SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY T HE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILE D TO PRODUCE DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED, THE AO ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 12.5% ON RS.11,14,88,046/- AND ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,39,36,005/- TO THE INCOME. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, T HE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE CIT (A). ITA NO.234 AND CO26 OF 2011 VISISTA ESTATES PVT.LTD. HYD. 4 4. REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.40,47,000/- THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT THE SAID AMOUNT CONSISTS OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF THREE DIRECTORS OF RS.13,49,000/- EACH. THE DIRECTORS HA D DEPOSITED THE MONEY IN EARLIER YEARS AND THEY WERE APPEARING AS CREDIT BALANCES IN THE NAMES OF THE DIRECTORS. THE DIRECTORS REPAID MONEY TO SOME OF T HE CREDITORS OF THE COMPANY AND REQUESTED THE COMPANY TO TRANSFER THE CORRESPONDING CREDIT BALANCES AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TO THE CREDIT OF THEIR PERSONAL ACCOUNTS. SINCE THE COMPANY DID NOT HAVE TO PAY TO THOSE CREDITORS, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THEY A RE TRANSFER ENTRIES OF PAYMENTS MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY IN EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT NO INVESTMENT WAS MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR CORRESPONDING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDE R DISPUTE. THE CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSE ES CONTENTION VIS-A-VIS REMAND REPORT BY THE AO AND AF TER EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.40,47,000/- REPRESENTING 17 CREDITORS IS A BROUGHT FORWARD FIGURE OF EARLIER YEARS IS CORRE CST. THE CIT (A) ALSO FOUND FROM THE BOOKS THAT BROUGHT FORWARD LOAN CREDITS WERE GIVEN AS LOAN TO THREE DIRECTORS WHO INVESTED THE SAME AS SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY IN THE COMPANY. SINCE THERE WAS NO INVESTMEN T MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR, THE CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION. ITA NO.234 AND CO26 OF 2011 VISISTA ESTATES PVT.LTD. HYD. 5 5. REGARDING THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 12.5% BY TAKING TURNOVER AT RS.11,14,80,046/- THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD PLOTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,21,85,474/- FROM WHICH PROFIT WAS COMPUTED. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.7,93,02,572/- ARE ONLY ADVANCE FROM THE CUSTOMERS AND NO REGISTRATION OF PLOTS HAS TAKEN PLACE. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY IT PROFIT IS RECOGNISED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE REGISTRATION OF PLOTS TAKE PLACE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IF ADVANCES ARE CONSIDERED FOR ESTIMATING THE PROFIT T HEN THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE WHICH THE ASSESSEE WOULD INCUR WHILE DEVELOPING THE PLOTS HAVE TO BE ALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT REJECTING THE BOOKS RESULTS IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSES SEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ESTIMATION AT 12.5% WITHOU T CITING ANY COMPARABLE CASE IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. TH E CIT (A) BY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS EXECUTING CIVIL NATURE OF WORK FOUND THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 12.5% TO BE EXCESSIVE. THE CIT (A) ALSO TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED ANY COMPARABLE CASES WHILE ADOPTING THE RATE OF 12.5%. IN THE AFORESAID CONSIDERATION, THE CIT (A) DIRECTED T HE PROFIT TO BE ESTIMATED AT 8%. ITA NO.234 AND CO26 OF 2011 VISISTA ESTATES PVT.LTD. HYD. 6 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES A ND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. SO FAR AS THE F IRST GROUND OF THE REVENUE REGARDING DELETION OF AN AMOU NT OF RS.40,47,000/- IS CONCERNED, FROM THE OBSERVATIO NS MADE BY THE CIT (A) IN PARAS 5.1 AND 5.2 OF HIS ORD ER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS AN OPENING BALANCE BROUGHT FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEARS. FROM THE REMAND REPORT PRODUCED BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS STATED THAT 17 LOAN CREDITORS APPEARED BEFORE HIM AND CONFIRMATION LETTERS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED WHERE THEY HAVE CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THEY HAVE MADE DEPOSITS WITH THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEARS 2000-2002. WHEN THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.40,47,000/- WAS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEAR AND NO DEPOSIT WA S MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE AMOUNT OF RS.40,47,000/- COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. HENCE, THE CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE AFORESAID ADDITION. IN T HIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 7. GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 RELATE TO THE DIRECTION OF T HE CIT (A) TO CONFINE THE RATE OF PROFIT FROM ITS REA L ESTATE BUSINESS TO 8% INSTEAD OF 12.5% ESTIMATED BY THE AO . THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD AT PARA 7 .3 OF HIS ORDER IS QUOTED BELOW:- ITA NO.234 AND CO26 OF 2011 VISISTA ESTATES PVT.LTD. HYD. 7 7.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANTS AR, GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION. IN ANY CASE THE ONE ADOPTED AT 12.5@ APPEAR TO BE ON HIGHER SIDE. AS RIGHTLY POINTED BY THE AR, THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COMPARATIVE CASES OR ANY OTHER BENCH MARK TO JUSTIFY THE PERCENTAGE ADOPTED BY HIM. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT IS IN CIVIL WORKS, WHERE THE BENCH MARK SET IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS IS 8%. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.12.30,349/- OUT OF THE TURNOVER OF RS.3,21,85,474/- ALREADY AMOUNTED TO 3.82%, IN THE GIVEN FACTUAL MATRIX, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE ARE MET IF THE PERCENTAGE ADOPTED BY THE AO IS RESTRICTED TO 4.18% AND HE IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 8. FROM THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE CIT (A) AND AF TER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO, IT APPEARS THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN NO BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE PROFIT AT 12.5% CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS INVOLVED CIVIL NATURE OF WORK AND PART O F TURNOVER IS ADVANCE RECEIVED FOR SALE OF PLOTS ON W HICH THE ASSESSEE WILL HAVE TO INCUR EXPENDITURE AND THEREFORE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 8% BY THE CIT (A) APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CAL LED ITA NO.234 AND CO26 OF 2011 VISISTA ESTATES PVT.LTD. HYD. 8 FOR IN THIS REGARD. THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY TH E REVENUE ARE REJECTED. C.O. NO.26/HYD/2011 A.YEAR 2006-07 :- 9. THIS CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 2. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME AT 4.18%. 3. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING RS.4,53,870/- BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN REVENUES APPEAL GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 RAISED IN THIS CROSS OBJECTION ARE DISMISSE D. 10. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.4,53,870/- U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.234 AND CO26 OF 2011 VISISTA ESTATES PVT.LTD. HYD. 9 11. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE AO HAVING REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME, HE CANNOT RELY ON THE SAME BOOKS FOR MAKING OTHER ADDITION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LEARNED AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. CIT (232 ITR 776) (AP) AND THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS VS. ACIT (129 TTJ 57. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT I S A FACT THAT THE AO HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS AND ESTIMAT ED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING THE RATE OF 12.5% WHICH WAS REDUCED TO 8% BY THE CIT (A). IT IS TRUE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE FOUND TO BE UNRELIABLE, THEY ARE REJECTED AND THE AO RESORTED T O ESTIMATION OF INCOME. THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT WHILE DEALING WITH A SIMILAR ISSUE HELD THAT ONCE T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJECTED AND INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED THE REVENUE CANNOT RELY ON THE SAME BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO MAKE SEPARATE ADDITION OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. THE RELEVANT POR TION FROM THE JUDGMENT IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE:- ITA NO.234 AND CO26 OF 2011 VISISTA ESTATES PVT.LTD. HYD. 10 THE PATTERN OF ASSESSMENT UNDER THE IT ACT IS GIVEN BY S. 29 WHICH STATES THAT THE INCOME FROM PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SS. 30 TO 43D. SEC. 40 PROVIDES FOR CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES IN CERTAIN CASES NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THOSE AMOUNTS ARE ALLOWED GENERALLY UNDER OTHER SECTIONS. THE COMPUTATION UNDER S. 29 IS TO BE MADE U/S 145 ON THE BASIS OF THE BOOKS REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THOSE BOOKS ARE NOT CORRECT OR COMPLETE, THE ITO MAY REJECT THOSE BOOKS AND ESTIMATE THE INCOME TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT. WHEN SUCH AN ESTIMATE IS MADE IT IS IN SUBSTITUTION OF THE INCOME THAT IS TO BE COMPUTED U/S 29. IN OTHER WORDS, ALL THE DEDUCTIONS WHICH ARE REFERRED TO U/S 29 ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE MAKING SUCH AN ESTIMATE. THIS WILL ALSO MEAN THAT THE EMBARGO PLACED IN S. 40 IS ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. 14. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA)_ CA ME BEFORE THE ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS VS. ACIT (SUPRA). THE ITAT WHILE FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF A.P HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - .............. THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE AP HIGH COURT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND A SIMILAR VIEW HAS ITA NO.234 AND CO26 OF 2011 VISISTA ESTATES PVT.LTD. HYD. 11 BEEN TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL BENCH (KOLKATA) OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. KENARAM SAHA & SUBHASH SAHA (2008) 116 TTJ (KOL) (SB) 289: (2008) 8 DTR (KOL) (SB) (TRIB) 124 2008) 301 ITR 171 (KOL)(SB)(AT), WHEREIN DISALLOWANCE MADE IN TERMS OF S. 40A(3) HAS BEEN DELETED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS (SUPRA), BESIDES THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL NOTED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN DETERMINED BY RESORTING TO ESTIMATION, THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR ANY FURTHER DISALLOWANCE EITHER IN TERMS OF S. 40(A)(IA)/40A(3) OR OTHERWISE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLE OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND BENCH OF ITAT, HYDERABAD MENTIONED SUPRA, WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITIO N OF RS.4,53,870/- COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BY APPLYI NG THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) WHEN THE AO HAS GONE ON ESTIMATION OF INCOME AFTER REJECTING THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS. THAT BESIDES CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) IN VIEW OF THE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM IN ITA NO.477/VIZAG/08 IN CASE OF M/S. MERLYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS VS. ACIT. WE THEREFORE ALLOW GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION. ITA NO.234 AND CO26 OF 2011 VISISTA ESTATES PVT.LTD. HYD. 12 15. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION IS ALLOWED I N PART. 16. TO SUM UP, THE APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED IN PART. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18-5- 2012. SD/- SD/- ( D.KARUNAKARA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 18 TH MAY, 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), B- BLOCK IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 2. M/S. VISISTA ESTATES PVT. LTD., NAGARJUNA NAGAR COLONY, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD. 3. THE CIT(A), GUNTUR. 4. THE CIT, HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD JMR*