K.Rukmini L/r of Devara Prasad, Secunderabad V. ITO, Hyderabad

CO 49/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7186 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2010
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 6; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 920/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 INCOME TAX OFFICER, APPELLANT WARD 10(4), HYDERABAD VS. LATE SRI DEVARA PRASAD, REP BY HIS WIFE SMT. K. RUKMINI, RESPONDENT SECUNDERABAD (PAN/GIR NO. 10P-927) C.O NO. 49/HYD/2010 (IN ITA NO. 920/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03) LATE SRI DEVARA PRASAD, REP BY HIS WIFE SMT. K. RUKMINI, CROSS OBJECTOR SECUNDERABAD VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RESPONDENT WARD 10(4), HYDERABAD REVENUE BY : MR. K. VISHWANATHAN ASSESSEE BY : MR. Y.V. BHANU NARAYAN RAO DATE OF HEARING : 21/03/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/05/ 2012 ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-VI, HYDERABAD DATED 17/03/2010 FOR THE 2 ITA NO. 920/HYD/10 & C.O. 49/HYD/10 M/S LATE. SHRI DEVARAPRASAD, REP. BYSMT. K. RUKMINI ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED C. O. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS RELATING TO RISE THIS GROUND A RE THAT THE ASSESSEE INHERITED LEASEHOLD RIGHTS ON A LAND OF 30 0 SQ.YD. BEING 50% SHARE IN TOTAL LAND EXTENT OF 600 SQ.YD S ITUATED AT WEST MARREDPALLY, SECUNDERABAD. HE GOT THE LAND CON VERTED INTO FREEHOLD PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 1996 AFTER PAYIN G THE PRESCRIBED FEE. HE ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREE MENT WITH M/S SAI KRUPA VENTURES, DEVELOPER ON 03/12/1999. AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE BUILDER WAS TO SHARE 45% OF THE SUPE R BUILT UP AREA CONSISTING OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS WITH THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE BUILDER CONSTRUCTED THE APARTMENTS AND HANDED OVER 4100 SQ.FT. OF BUILT UP AREA CONSISTING OF FOUR FLATS, I.E. ONE FLAT NO. 101 OF 1050 SQ.FT., A SECO ND FLAT NO. 303 OF 1400 SQ.FT., A THIRD FLAT NO. 402 OF 1100 SQ.FT. , AND A FOURTH FLAT NO. 502 OF 550 SQ.FT. BEING 50% IN THE FOURTH FLAT. THE SAID FLAT NO. 502 WAS SOLD 0N 02/11/2011. THE ASSESSEES FATHER LATE D.S. NAIDU WAS ALLOTTED LEASEHOLD RIGHTS ON TH E PLOT IN THE YEAR 1935 BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND H E CONSTRUCTED GROUND FLOOR BUILDING ON IT SOMETIME DU RING 1935- 36 AND FIRST FLOOR DURING THE YEAR 1952. AFTER DEMI SE OF HIS FATHER, THE ASSESSEE INHERITED 50% SHARE IN THE ABO VE PROPERTY. 3. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THAT WHILE COMPUTI NG THE CAPITAL GAINS, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AT RS. 300 PER SQ.YD. AS ON 01/04/1981 NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AND THE INDEXED COST OF THE SAME NEEDS TO BE DEDUCTED WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE AO DID NOT CONSIDE R THE FAIR 3 ITA NO. 920/HYD/10 & C.O. 49/HYD/10 M/S LATE. SHRI DEVARAPRASAD, REP. BYSMT. K. RUKMINI MARKET VALUE OF LAND ON 01/04/1981 ON THE GROUND TH AT THE LAND WAS HELD ON LEASEHOLD BASIS AND THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO ALIENATE THE LAND IN ANY MANNER UNTIL IT WAS CONVERTED INTO FREEHOLD LAND BY THE CONVEYANCE DEED ON 21/11/1996. AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE COMPLETE O WNERSHIP RIGHT AS ON 01/04/1981, THE AO OPINED THAT HE WAS N OT ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION TOWARDS THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE OF THE PLOT AS ON 01/04/1981. FURTHER, THE AO TREATED THE DATE OF ACQUISITION AS 21/11/1996, THE DAY OF CONVERSION OF THE LAND AS FREEHOLD PROPERTY AND THE AMOUNT OF FEE PAID FOR SUCH CONVERSION AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION. 4. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS ALLOTTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE YEAR 1935 ON PERPETUAL LEASE. AS SUC H, HE WAS THE DEEMED OWNER AS ON 01/04/1981 AND THE DEDUCTION OF INDEXED FAIR MARKET VALUE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AT HIS OPTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55(2)(B)(II) OF THE A CT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEASEHOLD RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY WITH PHYSICAL POSSESSION CONSTITUTED THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE BUNDLE OF RIGHTS WHICH TOGETHER CONSTITUTE OWNERSH IP AND THE SAME IS CAPABLE OF BEING VALUED SEPARATELY. THE VAL UE OF LEASEHOLD RIGHT ON THE LAND HAS BEEN GOT EVALUATED BY AN INDEPENDENT REGISTERED VALUER AND THE SAME WAS ADOP TED IN THE COMPUTATION FURNISHED WITH THE RETURN. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT AS ON 01/04/1981, THE ASSESSEE HAD LEASEHOLD RIGHT ON THE PLOT WHICH OF COURSE WAS LESS THAN FUL L OWNERSHIP 4 ITA NO. 920/HYD/10 & C.O. 49/HYD/10 M/S LATE. SHRI DEVARAPRASAD, REP. BYSMT. K. RUKMINI RIGHT. SUCH LEASEHOLD RIGHT WAS HAVING SOME VALUE A ND THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO GET DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF FA IR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH LEASEHOLD RIGHT. 6. THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIME D THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS. 30 0 PER SQ.FT. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION GATHERED FROM SR O AND ALSO ON THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER. IT IS SEEN FROM THE CERTIFICATE FURNISHED BY THE SRO THAT THE MARKET RA TE OF THE LAND IN THAT AREA WAS RS. 200/- PER SQ.YD. IN THE Y EAR 1981. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ONLY LEASEHOLD RIGHT WHICH IS ONLY A PART OF THE FULL RIGHTS, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IS A DOPTED AT RS. 100/- PER SQ.YD. AGAINST RS. 300/- SQ.YD. CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITL ED TO DEDUCTION OF INDEXED FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01/04/ 1981 AT THE RATE OF 100/- PER SQ.YD. IN RESPECT OF 200 SQ.Y DS. OF THE LAND TRANSFERRED TO THE DEVELOPER. HE, THEREFORE, D IRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW INDEXED FAIR MARKET VALU E ON LAND AS MENTIONED ABOVE. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL: 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE YEAR OF LE ASEHOLD RIGHT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AS THE YEAR OF ACQUISITI ON FOR COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS INSTEAD OF TH E YEAR IN WHICH FREEHOLD RIGHTS CONFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE INDEXA TION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE BUIL DING AS THE BUILDING WAS NOT EXISTENT AT THE TIME OF TRANSF ER OF THE PROPERTY. 5 ITA NO. 920/HYD/10 & C.O. 49/HYD/10 M/S LATE. SHRI DEVARAPRASAD, REP. BYSMT. K. RUKMINI 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERE D BY THE DECISION OF IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJULA J. SHAH, (2010) (MUM). (35 SOT 105) WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HE LD AS UNDER:- APART FROM THE ABOVE, SECTION 55(1)(B)(2)(II) OF T HE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE CAPITAL ASSETS BECAME THE P ROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE BY ANY OF THE MODES SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 49(1) OF THE ACT, NOT ONLY THE COST OF IMPR OVEMENT INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO THE COST OF IMPRO VEMENT INCURRED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER SHALL BE DEDUCTED FR OM THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE ACT THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTING THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT INCUR RED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE COVER ED UNDER SECTION 11 49(1) OF THE ACT WOULD ARISE ONLY IF THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSETS WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOU S OWNER IS INCLUDED IN DETERMINING THE PERIOD FOR WHI CH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER IS INCLUDED IN DETERMINING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT IS REASONABLE TO HOLD THAT IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE COVERED UNDER SECTION 49(1) OF THE ACT, THE CAPITAL GAINS LIABILITY HAS TO BE COMPUTED BY CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HELD THE SAID ASSET F ROM THE DATE IT WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND THE SAME ANALOGY HAS ALSO TO BE APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE I NDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. THE OBJECT OF GIVING RELIEF TO AN ASSESSEE BY ALLOWING INDEXATION IS WITH A VIEW TO O FF SET THE EFFECT OF INFLATION. AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR N O.636 DATED 31.08.1992 A FAIR METHOD OF ALLOWING RELIEF BY WAY OF INDEXATION IS TO LINK IT TO THE PERIOD OF HOLDIN G THE ASSETS. THE SAID CIRCULAR FURTHER PROVIDES THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT HAVE TO BE INFLATED TO ARRIVE AT THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AND TH E INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND THEN DEDUCT THE SAME FROM T HE SALE CONSIDERATION TO ARRIVE AT THE LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAINS. IF INDEXATION IS LINKED TO THE PERIOD OF HOLDING TH E ASSET AND IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE COVERED UNDER SECTIO N 49(1) 6 ITA NO. 920/HYD/10 & C.O. 49/HYD/10 M/S LATE. SHRI DEVARAPRASAD, REP. BYSMT. K. RUKMINI OF THE ACT, THE PERIOD OF HOLDING THE ASSET HAS TO BE DETERMINED BY INCLUDING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE SA ID ASSET WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER, THEN OBVIOUSLY IN A RRIVING AT THE INDEXATION, THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE SAID ASSET WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER WOULD BE THE FIRST Y EAR FOR WHICH THE SAID ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. SINC E THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS HELD LIABLE FOR LON G TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAX BY TREATING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER AS THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE SAID ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE, THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION HAS ALSO TO BE DETERMINED ON THE VERY SAME BASIS. 9. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE INDEX COS T OF THE ACQUISITION HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO TH E YEAR IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER FIRST HELD THE ASSET AND N OT THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE ASSET . THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE MUM T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. MANJULA J. SHAH (SUPRA) 10. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE, I T IS OBSERVED THAT THE BUILDING CONSISTING OF 4100 SQ.FT WAS IN EXISTENCE ON THE PLOT AS ON 01/04/1981. FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE BUILDING WAS ASCERTAINABLE UNTIL 1966, THE AO H ELD THAT DEDUCTION CANNOT BE ALLOWED ON THE VALUE OF THE BUI LDING AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PLOT. AFTER ACCEP TING THAT THE ASSESSEE BECAME THE OWNER IN 1996, HE DID NOT CONSI DER THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION TOWARDS THE VALUE OF TH E BUILDING ON THE GROUND THAT AT THE TIME OF RECEIPT OF BUILT UP AREA THE BUILDING WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE. THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF INDEXED FAIR MARKET VALUE IN RES PECT OF THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING AS MENTIONED ABOVE. 7 ITA NO. 920/HYD/10 & C.O. 49/HYD/10 M/S LATE. SHRI DEVARAPRASAD, REP. BYSMT. K. RUKMINI 11. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING TH E RECORD, WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE HON BLE ITAT ABENCH, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRABHANANDA M PRAKASH VS ITO, WARD 13(2) (ITA NO 147/HYD/2007, AY 2001-02), RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION IS REPRO DUCED BELOW:- THE STAND OF THE REVENUE IS THAT SINCE THE SUPERST RUCTURE WAS TO BE DEMOLISHED BY THE PROMOTER, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE EXISTING HOUSE WAS ALSO TRANSFERRED AND SI NCE ONLY LAND WAS TRANSFERRED THE COST OF THE HOUSE CANNOT B E ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT BOTH WERE TO BE TRANSFERRED AND IN ANY CASE THE BUILDING OR THE HOU SE ON THE AND AMOUNTS TO IMPROVEMENT OF LAND, AND HENC E THE COST THEREFORE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. IN O RDER TO APPRECIATE THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, IT WOULD BE NECES SARY TO REFER TO THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE PROMOTER. THE ASSESSEE OWNS A PIECE OF LAND ADMEASURING 500 SQ.YD AT SRI KRISHNANAGAR, HYDERABA D. THE ASSESSEE IS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER AND POSSESSORS OF THE IMPUGNED LAND. IT FURTHER MENTIONS THAT THE ASSESSE E IS DESIROUS OF DEVELOPING THE SAID PROPERTY AND FOR TH IS PURPOSE HE HAS APPROACHED THE PROMOTER. IN THE PREA MBLE ITSELF IT IS DECLARED THAT THE PROMOTER SHALL DEMOL ISH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCT THEREON A NEW COMP LEX. THIS WILL BE AT THE COST OF THE PROMOTER ONLY. THIS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT UNLESS THE SUPERSTRUCTURE IS ALSO TRANSFERRED, THE PROMOTER CANNOT TAKE POSSESSION AN D DEMOLISH THE SAME. THE VIEW OF THE CIT(A) THAT IT I S NOT AN ASSET BUT A LIABILITY FOR THE PROMOTER HAS NO BASIS . IN FACT, IT IS MORE A RHETORIC THAN AN ARGUMENT. HE MAY DEMO LISH THE SAME BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE TRANSFEROR, IE., THE ASSESSEE IS PARTING AWAY WITH HIS HOUSE ALONG WITH THE LAND. THE QUESTION OF NOT ALLOWING THE COST OF THE HOUSE WOULD ARISE ONLY IF IT IS RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN THE PRESENT TRANSACTION. WH AT THE TRANSFEREE DOES TO THAT ASSET IS NOT THE CONCERN OF THE TRANSFEROR. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE 8 ITA NO. 920/HYD/10 & C.O. 49/HYD/10 M/S LATE. SHRI DEVARAPRASAD, REP. BYSMT. K. RUKMINI INCOME GENERATED, IF ANY, FROM THE SALE OF SCRAP IS THAT THE SUPERSTRUCTURE HAS NOT VALUE FOR THE PROMOTER, IT C ANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE LAND BELOW THAT STRUCTURE IS CERTAI NLY OF VALUE AND USE TO THE PROMOTER. THIS IS BECAUSE, IT HE HAS NO BUILD A NEW COMPLEX, HE WILL HAVE TO MAKE USE OF THAT LAND. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO USE THE LAND WHICH IS BENEATH THE STRUCTURE, HE HAS TO ACQUIRE THE STRUCTURE ALSO AND THEN HE MAY DEMOLISH IT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO GAIN SAY ING THAT THE SUPERSTRUCTURE IS NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE PROMOT ER. CONSIDERING THE ISSUE FROM THE VIEW POINT OF THE TR ANSFEROR, SINCE HIS IS PARTING WITH AN ASSET, FOR WHICH HE HA S INCURRED COST, THAT COST HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUC TION WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE HOLD THAT THE SUPERSTRUCTURE IS ALSO TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PROMOTER AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION THEREOF MAY BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE 13. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AND INDE XATION OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE BUI LDING IS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPI TAL GAINS. 14. IN C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FOLLOWING CR OSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT (BEING THE INCOME T AX OFFICER, WARD 10(4), (HYD), IN APPEAL NO. 920/HYD /2010 OF AY 2002-03 FILED ARE NOT PROPER AND ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 2. ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS TO THE EXTENT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE FM V OF THE PLOT AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS. 300/- PER SQ.YD. A S CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF VALUERS RE PORT, AS AGAINST RS. 100/- PER SQ.YD. ALLOWED BY HIM. 9 ITA NO. 920/HYD/10 & C.O. 49/HYD/10 M/S LATE. SHRI DEVARAPRASAD, REP. BYSMT. K. RUKMINI 15. AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECO RD, WE FIND THAT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ONLY LEASEHOLD RIGH T WHICH IS ONLY A PART OF THE FULL RIGHTS, THE FAIR MARKET VAL UE ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A) AT RS. 100/- PER SQ.YD. AGAINST RS. 300/ - CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS PROPER. THEREFORE, THE CROSS OBJEC TIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE A ND C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/05/2012. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHA VAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 18 TH MAY, 2012 KV COPY TO:- 1) ITO-WARD 10(4), HYDERABAD 2) SMT. K. RUKMINI L/R OF LATE SRI DEVARA PRASAD 402, SKVS PARK VIEW, WEST MAREDPALLY, SECUNDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (A)-VI, HYDERABAD 4) THE CIT-V, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD