ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad V. P. Ajay Kumar, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1112/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6231 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SITARAMA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: C P RAMASWAMY
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Block assessment
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 1112/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD. VS. P. AJAY KUMAR, HYDERABAD. PAN AECPP 6155K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI A. SITARAMA RAO ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.P. RAMA SWAMY DATE OF HEARING 07-09-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21-09-2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XI, HYDERABAD FOR AY 2008-09. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD JOINTLY WITH SRI P. SHYAM SUNDER AND HIS BROTHER HAD CONSTR UCTED A BUILDING AT PLOT NO. 62, 8-2293/82/A, ROAD NO.5 & 1, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD DURING THE FYS 2005-06 TO 2007-08, RELEVANT TO THE AYS 2006-07 TO 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE'S SHARE IN THE BUILDING WAS 2 /3RD, WHILE SRI P. SHYAM SUNDER AND HIS BROTHER OWNED 1/3RD SHARE OF T HE BUILDING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE PROPERTY TO THE DIST RICT VALUATION OFFICER, HYDERABAD TO VERIFY THE EXACT COST OF CONS TRUCTION. THE VALUATION CELL ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION O F RS.186.28 LAKHS AFTER ALLOWING SELF SUPERVISION @ 7.5%. THE ASSESSE E HAS SHOWN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.1,03,78,639/- BEFORE THE VALUATION CELL AND AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IT IS RS.LL0.63 LAKHS ONLY . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FO R THE DIFFERENCE OF 2 ITA NOS. 1112/H/15 P. AJAY KUMAR RS.75,64,363/- (RS.1,86,28,002 - RS.1,10,63,639). T HE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE ALONG WITH SRI P. SHYAM SUNDER AND H IS BROTHER HAD CONSTRUCTED A BUILDING ON THE SAID PLOT. WHILE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CELLAR WAS DONE BY HIM, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE F LOORS AND THE PENT HOUSE WAS GIVEN TO A REPUTED CONTRACTOR I.E. M/S AM BIENCE CONSTRUCTION INDIA LTD. VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 31.5.2 006. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT, THE CONTRACTOR HAD UND ERTAKEN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING @ RS. 400 PER SQ.FT. A ND ALL THE PAYMENTS TO THE CONTRACTOR WAS PAID BY CHEQUE. THE TOTAL EXP ENDITURE INCURRED ON THE BUILDING WAS RS.1,03,78,639/- WHICH HAD BEEN COMPLETELY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE RETURN FILED. IT WAS STATED TH AT THOUGH A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN HIS PREMISES ON 03.08.2011, NO DOC UMENT/PAPER OR MATERIAL OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE WAS FOUND THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT/EXPENDITURE WAS MADE BY HIM. IN SPITE OF IT, A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER( DVO), WHO ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOLLOWING CPWD R ATES. THE CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE BY A REPUTED CONTRACTOR WHO W AS ASSESSED TO TAX ON A REGULAR BASIS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, HE COULD NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COS T OF CONSTRUCTION PAID AND ADMITTED BY HIM AND THE HYPOTHETICAL COST ESTIMATED BY VALUATION OFFICER, UNLESS AND UNTIL IT WAS PROVED T HAT THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTRACTOR WAS COLLUSIVE. THAT WAS ALSO NO T DONE EITHER BY WAY OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND DURING SEARCH OR OTHERWIS E. THE DVO IGNORED THE AGREEMENT AND ESTIMATED THE COST OF CON STRUCTION BASED ON 'PLINTH AREA RATE & COST INDEX METHOD'. ACCORDIN G TO THE ASSESSEE, HE COULD ONLY BE QUESTIONED ABOUT THE COST OF CONST RUCTION OF THE CELLAR AND NOT ABOUT THE REST OF THE BUILDING. AS F AR HE WAS CONCERNED, HE PAID THE MARKET RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION AND IF RE QUIRED, THE BUILDER'S BOOKS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE ALSO ALLEGED DEFECTS IN THE DISTRI CT VALUATION OFFICER'S REPORT BECAUSE WHILE HE IGNORED THE AGREE MENT, HE DID NOT ALLOW THE REBATE FOR SELF-SUPERVISION. THE COST OF LIFT CONSTRUCTED BY 3 ITA NOS. 1112/H/15 P. AJAY KUMAR SRI P. SHYAM SUNDER WAS PAID DIRECTLY TO THE LIFT S UPPLIER WAS NOT INCLUDED AS A PART OF THE COST BUT WAS ADDED SEPARA TELY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO QUESTIONED THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTI ON 153A AS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE CONCERNED YEAR HAD ALSO ATTAINED FINALITY. HENCE, A CCORDING TO HIM THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ABATEMENT OF ANY OF HIS AS SESSMENTS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS ITAT JUDGMENTS. 2.2 IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WI TH THE CONTRACTOR WAS EQUIVALENT TO ONE OF PURCHASER BY HIM AND SUCH PRACTICE COULD NOT BE QUESTIONED UNLESS THERE WAS SOME EVIDENCE TH AT THERE WAS SOME SUPPRESSION OR CONCEALMENT. FOR THIS, HE PLACE D RELIANCE ON DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN K.P.VARGHESE VS. I TO (1981) 131 ITR 597 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE BURDEN TO PROV E UNDERSTATEMENT WAS ON THE REVENUE. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE CONDITI ON PRECEDENT FOR MAKING REFERENCE TO THE DVO U/S 142A WAS NOT SATISF IED IN HIS CASE. THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE FOUND TO SUGGES T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS, ANY INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM WAS NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE HAD PAID TO THE CONTRACTOR THE AGREED AMOUNT AND SINCE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ANY PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF WHAT WAS STATED, DESPITE ACTION U/S 132, REFERENCE TO TH E DVO WAS OBVIATED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REPORT OF THE DVO HEL D NO LEGAL VALIDITY. 3. THE ASSESSEE'S REPLY WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND HE STATED THAT HE WAS COMPETENT TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE DVO. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS IMM ATERIAL WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED THE BUILDING UNDER HIS OWN SUPERVISION OR HAD GOT IT DONE THROUGH A CONTRACTOR. THE POINT FOR CONSIDERATION WAS THAT BASED ON THE REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFIC ER THERE WAS A VARIATION IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH WAS REQ UIRED TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX. AN ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NATURALLY TO RELY ON THE REPORT OF THE 4 ITA NOS. 1112/H/15 P. AJAY KUMAR VALUATION OFFICER FOR ARRIVING AT THE COST OF CONST RUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUOTED THE OBSERVATION MADE BY TH E VALUATION OFFICER IN HIS REPORT: 'HAVING CONSIDERED THE NATURE OF CONSTRUCTION, SPEC IFICATIONS ADOPTED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE GATHERE D BY ME DURING THE PHYSICAL INSPECTION, I ESTIMATE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (BUILDING) LOCATED AT PLOT NO. 62, 8-2- 293/82/A, ROAD NO.5 & 1, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. THIS COST DOES NOT INCLUDE THE COST OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. COST OF LAND 2. COST OF FURNITURE (MOVABLES), AIR CONDITIONERS E TC. 3. INTEREST CHARGES ON BORROWED CAPITALS IF ANY 4. COST OF MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS SUCH AS VEHICLE MAIN TENANCE, TELEPHONE BILLS, MCH PROPERTY TAXES, INSURANCE CHAR GES, ACCOUNTANT CHARGES ETC. IF ANY 5. AMOUNT SPENT FOR ANTI-TERMITE TREATMENT, IF ANY 6. COST TOWARDS BRS/BPS CHARGES PAID TO THE MUNICIP ALITY, IF ANY 7. WORKS EXECUTED AFTER THE INSPECTION DATE 8. AMOUNT SPENT FOR DISMANTLING THE OLD BUILDING, I F ANY 9. WORKS EXECUTED BY THE RESPECTIVE TENANTS. IF HYD . ON EXAMINATION OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DISCLOSE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER, THE DIFFERE NCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION, CAME TO RS.75,64,363/- WHICH WAS CONS IDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2 008-09 AND ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IGNORED THE SETTLED LAW IN SEARCH CASES THAT UNLESS AN INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IN FORM OF ADDITIONAL INCOME/INVESTMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE S EARCH, THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENTS COULD NOT BE RE-OPENED. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE BASIC PREMISE FOR MAKING THE ADDI TION OF RS.75,64,363/- AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER 5 ITA NOS. 1112/H/15 P. AJAY KUMAR WAS THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF CONS TRUCTION DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED BY THE VALUATION OFFI CER. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT BEFORE GOING TO THE MERITS OF THE AD DITION, IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE AS TO WHAT OCCASIONED SUCH REF ERENCE TO BE MADE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCT ED IN THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE IT ACT FILED A LETTER STATIN G THAT HIS ORIGINAL RETURN SHOULD BE TREATED AS A RETURN FILED IN RESPO NSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A. THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED ON 31.7.2008 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.30,31,944/- AND WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE WITH OTHER PE RSONS HAD GOT A BUILDING CONSTRUCTED (PART OF IT HIMSELF) THROUGH A BUILDER/CONTRACTOR, HE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR ESTIMATING TH E COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE DVO VIDE HIS REPORT NO. 11.02.128 8-1, DATED 28.10.2013 ESTIMATED THE COST OF THE BUILDING AT RS .186.28 LAKHS. ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE DVO, THE ASSESSING O FFICER MADE THE ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY ADDING THE DIFF ERENCE IN THE AMOUNT SHOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED BY THE DVO. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DVO'S REPORT AND THE VERY B ASIS OF REFERENCE. THE APPROPRIATE COURSE OF ACTION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD HAVE BEEN TO FORWARD THE OBJECTIONS OF THE AS SESSEE TO THE DVO AND TO SEEK HIS COMMENTS. INSTEAD OF DOING THAT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY MADE THE ASSESSMENT WHICH IN MY CONS IDERED OPINION IS BAD IN LAW. IN THE NORMAL COURSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE BEEN ASKED TO FORWARD THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSE E TO THE DVO AND SEEK THE COMMENTS OF DVO AND IN TURN FORWARD A REPO RT AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME. IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, SINCE NOTHING INCRIMINATING WAS FOUND, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 153A OF THE IT ACT, IS ITSELF LIABLE TO BE QUASHED IN VIEW OF THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (TS-248-HC-2015-BOM) PURSUA NT TO THE 6 ITA NOS. 1112/H/15 P. AJAY KUMAR JUDGMENT OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS (137) ITO 287 (SE). MUMBAI. SECONDLY, THE REFERENCE FOR VALUATION WAS ALSO WITHOUT ANY REASON JUSTIFYING THE SAME. ON OVERALL APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND PROVISIONS OF LAW IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE THEREIN IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ADDITION IS DELETED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN BOTH FACTS AND I N LAW. 2) THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH E FACT THAT THE AO HAS REFERRED THE PROPERTY TO THE VALUATION C ELL AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 142A OF THE IT ACT. AS PE R SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 142A, THE AO HAS DISCRETION TO MAKE REFERENCE TO A VALUATION OFFICER TO GET CORRECT VALUE OF ANY ASSET OR PROPERTY. 3) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N MADE OF RS. 75,64,363/-. 6.1 THE REVENUE HAS ALSO RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUN D, WHICH IS AS UNDER: 'THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED WHILE POINTING OUT T HAT SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND, THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 153A IS ITSELF LIABLE TO BE QUASHED, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT AO CAN ASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME AFRESH, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SEIZED MATERIAL U/S. 153 A, AS HELD BY (1) THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL A.P. HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF MR. GOPAL LAL BADRUKA VS. DCIT (2012) 27 TAXMANN.COM 16 7 (AP) 346 ITR 106 AND (2) HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MIS. CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND DCIT (2 014) 49 TAXMANN.COM 98 (KARNATAKA). 7. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD REFERRED TH E VALUATION OF THE BUILDING TO THE VALUATION OFFICER U/S 142A, ARE PROPER AND AO HAS DISCRETIONARY POWER TO REFER TO THE VALUATION OFFI CER TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN Q UASHING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A. HOWEVER, HE RELI ED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7 ITA NOS. 1112/H/15 P. AJAY KUMAR 8. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENT TO SEARCH CONDU CTED IN THE ASSESSEES PLACE, THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERI AL FOUND IN THE SEARCH. SUBSEQUENT TO INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS U/S 153A, THE AO HAD REFERRED THE VALUATION OF BUILDING TO T HE DVO. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ITSELF IS BAD IN LAW AS THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH. FOR THI S PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. SRINIVASA FERRO ALLOYS LTD. VS. ACIT [2014] 51 TAXMANN.COM 512 (AP). 2. GOPAL LAL BHADRUKA VS. [2012] CIT, 346 ITR 106 (AP) 3. CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA, [2016] 380 ITR 573 (DEL.) 8.1 LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO CANNOT REF ER TO DVO WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS. IN THE GIVEN CASE, AO REFERRED TO THE DVO BEFORE REJECTING BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THIS PR OPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. SARGAM CINEMA VS. CIT [2011] 197 TAXMANN 203 (S C) 2. CIT VS. LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS [2015] 55 TAXMANN .COM 253 (AP). 9. CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE COUNSELS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD AS WELL AS CASE LAWS S UBMITTED BEFORE US. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SEARCHED ON 03/ 08/2011 AND DURING SEARCH OPERATION, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND. SUBSEQUENT TO SEARCH, AO INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE NOTICED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED BUILDING ALONG WITH OTHER PERSONS. TO E VALUATE THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING, HE REFERRED TO THE VALUATION OFFIC ER AND THE SAME WAS ADOPTED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S . 153A OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS ARE SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. IN THE SEARCH , THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AND THE SAME WAS NOT D ISPUTED BY THE AO. SINCE, THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND , THE ADDITION 8 ITA NOS. 1112/H/15 P. AJAY KUMAR CANNOT BE MADE OTHER THAN WHAT WAS FOUND IN THE SEA RCH. AO CAN SUBSTANTIATE THE MATERIAL FOUND AND CANNOT BRING AN YTHING IN THE ASSESSMENT. AS WE ARE AWARE, BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, THE MATERIAL FOUND IN THE SEARCH ALONE CAN BE ASSESSED OR IT CAN BE SUBSTANTIATED BASED ON THE MATERIAL FO UND IN THE SEARCH. IN CASE, NO MATERIAL FOUND, THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IT SELF BAD IN LAW. NO DOUBT, AO CAN REFER TO THE DVO TO COMPLETE THE PEND ING ASSESSMENT. BUT IN THE GIVEN CASE, THERE IS NO ADVERSE MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR THE AO TO REFER SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE ADDITION MADE WAS NOT PROPER AND NEEDS TO BE ANNULLED. ACCOR DINGLY, FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IS UPHELD AND GROUND RAISED BY THE RE VENUE IS REJECTED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHM AN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2016 KV COPY TO:- 1) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), 3 RD FLOOR, POSNETT BHAVAN, TILAK ROAD, HYDERABAD. HYDERABAD. 2) SRI P. AJAY KUMAR, PLOT NO. 197, ROAD NO. 10C, H.NO. 8-2-293/82/ML/197, MLA & MPS COLONY, JUBI LEE HILLS, HYD. 3) CIT(A) - XI, HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 6) GUARD FILE 9 ITA NOS. 1112/H/15 P. AJAY KUMAR S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS DS1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER .