THE ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad V. Sri. Mali Suresh (HUF), Hyderabad

CO 81/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7184 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Capital asset; Question of law
• Section: 54B; 2(14)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 438/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-8(1) HYDERABAD VS. M/S. MALI SURESH (HUF) PEERAM CHERUVU VILLAGE R.R. DISTRICT, A.P. PAN: AXIPM2372E APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. NO. 81/HYD/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 438/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 M/S. MALI SURESH (HUF) PEERAM CHERUVU VILLAGE R.R. DISTRICT, A.P. PAN: AXIPM2372E VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-8(1) HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY: SHRI M.S. RAO ASSESSEE BY: SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM DATE OF HEARING: 15.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25 .05.2012 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 14.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN ACCEPTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. B) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LAND O R THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER RAJENDRA NAGAR MUNICIPALITY, ITA NO. 438/HYD/2011 C.O. NO. 81/HYD/2012 M/S. MALI SURESH (HUF) ================== 2 WHICH IS NOT NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL ASSET A S REQUIRED BY U/S. 2(14)(III)(B) OF I.T. ACT, 1961. C) THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE LA ND OR THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION IS WITHIN THE DIST ANCE OF EIGHT KILOMETRES FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, WHICH IS NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT UNDER NOTIFICATION. D) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE FACT T HAT THE LAND OR CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION BEING REGISTE RED BY THE RAJENDRA NAGAR REVENUE AUTHORITIES DOES NOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF THE LAND OR CAPITAL ASSET AS ENVISAGED UNDER SEC. 2(14)(III)(B) OF IT ACT, 1961, AS THE LAND IN QUESTION LIES WITHIN 8 KILOMETRES DISTA NCE FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. E) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE FACT T HAT THOUGH THE LAND OR CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION IS SITUATED UNDER RAJENDRA NAGAR MANDAL, IT IS STILL WELL WITHIN THE DISTANCE OF EIGHT KILOMETRES FROM T HE LIMITS OF HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, WHICH IS NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. F) THE LEARNED CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE FACT THAT THE LA ND OR CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION FALLS WITHIN THE DISTA NCE OF EIGHT KILOMETRES FROM LIMITS OF RAJENDRA NAGAR MUNICIPALITY, WHICH IS NOT NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, WHILE NOT RECOGNISING THE FACT THAT THE LAND OR THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION IS WITHIN EI GHT KILOMETRES FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WHICH IS NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AS ENVISAGED U/S. 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. G) THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT TH AT THE SAID INTERPRETATION OF 2(14)(III)(B) WOULD REND ER THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATION OTIOSE, WHICH GIVE S RISE TO A QUESTION OF LAW. H) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ALTER OR ADD ANY OTHE R GROUND AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. NOW COMING TO THE REVENUE APPEAL. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI KONDE ANJIAH & ORS IN I.T.A. NO. ITA NO. 438/HYD/2011 C.O. NO. 81/HYD/2012 M/S. MALI SURESH (HUF) ================== 3 455/HYD/2011 & ORS., BY ORDER DATED 10.2.2012 WHERE IN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: '9. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTE D AT THE TIME OF HEARING TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 1024 TO 1027/HYD/2011 & 4 OTHERS IN THE CASE OF GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD & OTHERS. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 16 TH JANUARY, 2012 HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE LAND IN QUESTION GIVING RISE TO CAPITAL GAIN WAS, I N FACT, URBAN LAND THOUGH AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT ON THEM. THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES PAHANI PATRIKA, CERTIFICATE AND DETAILS OF ELECTRICITY BILL/SLAB PASS BOOK ETC. WE HAVE HELD ON THAT BASIS IN EARLIER PARAS THAT THE ASSESS EE DERIVED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. BUT, THE QUESTION STI LL REMAINS WHETHER THE IMPUGNED LAND COME WITHIN THE MEANING OF CAPITAL ASSET. THE LAND IS SITUATED AT NARSING VILLAGE OF RAJENDRA NAGAR MANDAL, R.R. DISTRICT WHICH IS WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF RAJENDRA NAGAR. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE, RAJENDRA MUNICIPALITY IS NOT NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THEREFORE THE AGRICULTUR AL LANDS WHICH FALL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE RAJE NDRA NAGAR MANDAL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT. BUT, THE FACT IS THAT THIS IS URBAN LAND AKIN TO THE HYDERABAD MUNICIPALITY SITUATED WITHIN 8 KM FROM TH E LOCAL LIMITS OF HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BOLA RAMAIAH (174 ITR 154) HELD THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF SALE OF LAND SITUATED WITHIN 8 KM OF LOCAL LIMITS OF HYDERABAD MUNICIPALITY, IS LIABLE FOR TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER IT FALLS UNDER THE LIMITS OF RAJENDRA NAGAR MANDAL OR OTHERWISE. FURTHER, MER E FACT THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAN D CANNOT BE A GROUND TO CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT AS THE LAND IS SITUATED WI THIN THE LOCAL LIMITS OF HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION . FURTHER, IT WAS HELD RECENTLY BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. ITA NO. 438/HYD/2011 C.O. NO. 81/HYD/2012 M/S. MALI SURESH (HUF) ================== 4 ANJANA SEHGAL (SUPRA) THAT THE EXPRESSION FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY USED IN SECTION 2(14)(III)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT DENOTES ANY MUNICIPALITY OR MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT IN WHI CH THE LAND IS SITUATED. FURTHER, CAPITAL GAINS ARISI NG FROM THE TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED IN MUNICIPAL OR OTHER URBAN AREAS OR NOTIFIED ADJOININ G AREAS WILL BE LIABLE TO INCOME-TAX. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, IN OUR CONSIDERE D VIEW, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE JUSTIFIED IN DETERM INING THE LAND IN QUESTION, AS CAPITAL ASSET LIABLE FOR I NCOME- TAX. WITH REGARD TO DETERMINATION OF COST OF ACQUIS ITION OF THE LAND DISPOSED OF, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CONSIDERING THE PROXIMITY OF THE LAND TO THE CITY, IT IS REASONABLE TO FIX THE VALUE OF AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS . 30,000 PER ACRE, INSTEAD OF RS. 10,000 DETERMINED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS AGAINST RS. 1,40,000 CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONE OF THE REASONS FOR WHICH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RELIEF UNDER S. 54B WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT WHAT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY AN ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE, AND UNLESS IT IS ACTUAL PURCHASE OF LAND, ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR RELIEF UNDER S. 54B. THERE IS SOME MERIT IN THIS REASONING OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. HOWEVER, IN TERMS OF S. 54B OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE HAS TO PURCHASE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WITH IN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. HENCE, THOUGH MERE PAYMENT O F ADVANCE DOES NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FOR RELIEF UN DER S. 54B OF THE ACT, IF ULTIMATELY WHOLE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF LAND WAS COMPLETED WITHIN A PERIOD OF T WO YEARS AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER S. 54B OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR RELIEF UNDER S. 54B OF THE ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS WITHI N A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, SO AS TO QUALIFY FOR RELIEF UNDER S. 54B OF THE ACT, AND ACCORDINGLY RE-DECIDE THIS I SSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE INCLINED TO ALLOW THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVE NUE ITA NO. 438/HYD/2011 C.O. NO. 81/HYD/2012 M/S. MALI SURESH (HUF) ================== 5 BY HOLDING THAT THE LAND WHICH IS TRANSFERRED IS A CAPITAL ASSET LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAIN. 10.1. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNA L ON THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE TREATMENT OF THE LAND TRA NSFER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LAND TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A CAPITAL ASSET, LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAI N. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL, WE ARE INCLINED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 5. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION STATING THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL. 6. THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DELAYED BY 164 DAYS . THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE REASONS IN ITS AFFIDAVIT. I T IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IS NEITHER WILFUL NOR INTENTIONAL. THE C IT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL BY FOLLOWING A DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SRINIVAS PANDIT (HUF). THOUGH THE CIT(A) H AS DECIDED ONLY THE ADDITIONAL GROUND SINCE THE SAME WAS BASED ON A DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE SAME WOULD BE FINAL AND THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY NEED TO GO INTO OTHER ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN FACT FOR THE SAME REASONS EVEN THE CIT(A) IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF HIS ORDER MENTIONED THAT HE IS NOT GOING INTO OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HI M. 7. HOWEVER, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SRINIVAS PANDIT (HUF) HAS BEEN NOW REVERSED BY A CO ORDINATE BENCH DECISION DATED 16.1.2012 IN THE CASE OF SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM & ORS., BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF PUNJAB & HARY ANA HIGH COURT. THE ASSESSEE ALL THE TIME WAS UNDER THE BON A FIDE BELIEF THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS A COVERED CASE AND THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY REQUIREMENT TO GO INTO T HE OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). HENCE TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY CROSS OBJECTION TILL TODAY. ITA NO. 438/HYD/2011 C.O. NO. 81/HYD/2012 M/S. MALI SURESH (HUF) ================== 6 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES ON ADMISSION OF THE CO FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE BELATEDLY BY 164 DAYS. THE REASON ADV ANCED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS GOOD AND SUFFICIEN T REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY. AS FAR AS THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BY 164 DAYS AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), I S CONCERNED, ONE HAS TO ADMIT THAT THE DELAY INVOLVED IS INORDINATE AND NOT MARGINAL. THE DELAY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MITIGATED TO ANY GREAT EXTENT, SINCE THE ASSESSEE NOT VIGILANT IN EXHAUSTI NG THE LEGAL REMEDY AVAILABLE TO IT. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT IT IS ONLY MARGINAL DELAYS THAT CAN BE CONDONED, AND NOT INORD INATE DELAYS RUNNING INTO SEVERAL YEARS. WE MAY AT THIS JUNCTUR E, REFER TO THE THIRD MEMBER DECISION OF TRIBUNAL (CHENNAI) IN THE CASE OF JT. CIT V/S. TRACTORS & FARMS LTD. ( 104 ITD 149)-TM, WHERE IN DRAWING OUT A DISTINCTION BETWEEN NORMAL DELAY AND INORDINA TE DELAY, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED, VIDE HEAD-NOTE ON PAGE 150 OF TH E REPORTS (104 ITD) AS FOLLOWS- A DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN A CASE WHERE TH E DELAY IS INORDINATE AND A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IS O F A FEW DAYS. WHEREAS IN THE FORMER CASE, THE CONSIDERATION OF PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER SIDE WILL BE A RELEVANT FACTOR, SO THE CASE CALLS FOR MORE CAUTIOU S APPROACH, IN THE LATTER CASE, NO SUCH CONSIDERATION MAY ARISE AND SUCH A CASE DESERVES A LIBERAL APPROACH. NO HARD AND FAST RULE CAN BE LAID DOWN I N THIS REGARD. THE COURT HAS TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETI ON ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE, KEEPING IN MIND THAT IN CONSIDERING THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE PRINCIPLE OF ADVANCING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS OF PR IME IMPORTANCE. 9. THAT BEING SO, THE ARGUMENT MADE BY THE AR BEFORE US HAS NO MERIT. FURTHER WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST RULE WHICH CAN BE LAID DOWN IN THE MATTER OF CONDON ATION OF DELAY AND COURTS SHOULD ADOPT A PRAGMATIC APPROACH AND DI SCRETION ON ITA NO. 438/HYD/2011 C.O. NO. 81/HYD/2012 M/S. MALI SURESH (HUF) ================== 7 THE FACTS OF EACH CASE KEEPING IN MIND THAT IN CONS IDERING THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE THE PRINCIPLES OF ADV ANCING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS OF PRIME IMPORTANCE AND THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE SHOULD RECEIVE A LIBERAL CONSTRU CTION. A LIBERAL VIEW OUGHT TO BE TAKEN IN TERMS OF DELAY OF FEW DAY S. HOWEVER, WHEN THERE IS INORDINATE DELAY, ONE SHOULD BE VERY CAUTIOUS WHILE CONDONING THE DELAY. THE DELAY OF 164 CANNOT BE CONDONED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEES CASE IS HARD AND CALL S FOR SYMPATHY OR MERELY OUT OF BENEVOLENCE TO THE PARTY SEEKING R ELIEF. IN GRANTING THE INDULGENCE AND CONDONING THE DELAY, IT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND THE SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DILIGENT AND WAS NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE WHATSOEVER. THE S UFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE LIMITATION PROVISIO N MUST BE A CAUSE WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY INVO KING THE AID OF THE PROVISIONS. THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF R AMLAL V. REWA COALFIELDS LTD., AIR 1962 SC 361 HAS HELD THAT THE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH BY DUE CARE AND AT TENTION COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED CANNOT BE A SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITH IN THE MEANING OF THE LIMITATION PROVISION. WHERE NO NEGLIGENCE, NOR INACTION, OR WANT OF BONA FIDES CAN BE IMPUTED TO THE ASSESSEE A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS HAS TO BE MADE IN OR DER TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. SEEKERS OF JUSTICE MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE REASONS ADVANCED B Y THE ASSESSEE DO NOT SHOW ANY GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON TO CONDO NE THE DELAYS. THE DELAYS ARE NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESS EE. THERE IS NO REASON FOR CONDONING SUCH DELAY IN THIS CASE. THE DELAY IS NOTHING BUT NEGLIGENCE AND INACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH C OULD HAVE BEEN VERY WELL AVOIDED BY THE EXERCISE OF DUE CARE AND A TTENTION. THERE EXISTS NO SUFFICIENT OR GOOD REASON FOR CONDONING I NORDINATE DELAYS OF MORE THAN 164 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE US. ACCORDINGLY, THIS CO IS DISMISSED AS BARRED BY LIMITATION. ITA NO. 438/HYD/2011 C.O. NO. 81/HYD/2012 M/S. MALI SURESH (HUF) ================== 8 10. WE ACCORDINGLY DECLINE TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 164 DAYS, AND DISMISS THIS CO OF THE ASSESSEE AS BARRED BY LI MITATION. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED AND THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH MAY, 2012. SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 25 TH MAY, 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 8(1), 8 TH FLOOR, C-BLOCK, I.T. TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 2. M/S. MALI SURESH (HUF), PEERAM CHERUVU VILLAGE, RAJENDRANAGAR MANDAL, R.R. DISTRICT., A.P. 3. THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE CIT - II, HYDERABAD 5. THE DR B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD. TPRAO