Pioneer E-Bizz Private Limited, Hyderabad V. Dy. CIT, Hyderabad

ITA 1269/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77858 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMAJA
• Assessee Lawyers: T CHAITANYA KUMAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1930/HYD/11 & 1269/HYD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06) M/S. PIONEER E BIZZ. PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD ( PAN - AACCP 5560 D) V/S. DY./ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 16(3), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.CHAITANYA KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PADMAJA, DR DATE OF HEARING 2 3 .04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01.05.2014 O R D E R PER SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. IN APPEAL, I TA NO.1269/HYD/2013, THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX IV, HYDERABAD PASSED UNDER S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, DATED 26 .3.2010, REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.147 OF TH E ACT . I N ITA N O.1930/HYD/2011, THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) IV, HYDERABAD DATED 13.9.2011, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED CONSEQUENT TO THE R E VISION ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX UNDER S.263 OF THE INCOM E - TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO.1269/HYD/2013 2. T HERE IS A DELAY OF 1210 DAYS IN TH E FILING O F TH IS APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL E D A P E TITION FOR CON D ON A TION OF DELAY ALONGWITH AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID PETITION. IN THE SAID PETITION FOR CON D ON A TION OF DELAY, I T IS ITA NO.1930/HYD/2011 & 1269/HYD/2013 M/S. PIONEER E BIZZ. PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD 2 STATED BY TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT O RDER UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.147 WAS PASSED ON 24.12.2007, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.82,64,405. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX INVOKED THE JURISDICTION UNDER S.263 AND PASSED THE ORDER U/S.263 ON 26.3.2010 DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT, AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING O FFICER PASSED AN OR D ER UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.263 OF THE ACT ON 16.12.2010. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF RE - ASSESSMENT PASSED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER UNDER S.263, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) III , HYDERABAD, WHICH W AS DISMISSED BY THE O R DER DATED 13.9.2011, A GAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED FURTHER APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL, BEING ITA N O.1930/HYD/2011. TH E PETITIONER SUBMITTED T HAT IT WAS NOT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PETITIONER THAT AN APPEAL LIES AGAINST THE ORDE R UNDER S.263 OF THE AC T , AND IT WAS ONLY WHEN HE APPROACHED AN A DVOCATE DURING THE SECOND WEEK OF SEPTEMB E R, 2013 FOR PREFERRING THE REPR E SENTATION OF APPEAL ITA NO.193 0 /HYD/2011 BEFORE THE I TAT, THAT IT WAS GIVEN TO UN D ERS T AND THAT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORD ER UNDER S.263 WAS NO T FIL E D, THOUGH SUCH REMEDY WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AT THE ADVICE OF THE A D VOC A TE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON 17.9.2013, WITH A DELAY OF 1210 DAYS. IT WAS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT SIN C E THE DELAY WAS NEITHER I NTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE, BUT IS FOR VALID REASONS, THE SAME MAY BE CONDONED. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSION S MADE IN THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND HAS PL A CED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD B BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.12.2013 IN THE CA S E OF HST STEEL PRIVATE LIM I T E D, HYDERABAD V/S. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, HYDERABAD (ITA NOS 592 & 593/HYD/2013), WHEREIN UN D ER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, DELAY OF 416 DAYS WAS CONDONED. 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HOWEVER, OPPOSED THE CONDONATION OF DELAY , SUBMITTING THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT IN FACT AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT, AND WAS NOT VIGILANT AND WAS ONLY PROBABLY WAITING FOR A FAVOURABLE ORDER FROM THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER CONSEQUENT ITA NO.1930/HYD/2011 & 1269/HYD/2013 M/S. PIONEER E BIZZ. PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD 3 TO REVISION ORDER AND SINCE THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. HE THUS PRAYED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 5. UPON HEARING BOT H THE PARTIES AND AFTER CON S ID E RIN G THE RELEVANT MATER I AL ON RECORD, AND ALSO TAKING JUDICIAL NO T I C E OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL NOTED ABOVE, TO WHICH ONE O F US, VIZ. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IS A SIGN A TORY, WE FIND THAT IN THE CA S E OF HST S T EEL PVT. LTD. (SU PRA) , IT HAS BEEN PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T AWARE OF THE LEGAL REMEDY AVAILABLE TO IT FOR CHALLENGE OF THE ORDER UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT, AND IT WAS ONLY AT THE ADVICE OF THE ADVOC A TE THAT IT HAS FILED THE APPEAL WITH A DELAY OF 416 DAYS. THE TRI BUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS CONDONED THE DELAY. HOWEVER, THE FACTS OF EACH CASE ARE TO BE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENTLY AND DECISION IS TO BE TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF SUCH FACTS. I N TH E FACTS OF THE CA S E BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL E D THE APPEAL ON 13.9.2011 AGAINST T H E ORDER GIVING CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECT TO THE ORDER UN D ER S.263 OF THE ACT, AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY A CH A RTERED ACCOUN T ANT FROM 27.6.2012 ONW A RDS. IT I S CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TAKING THE ADVICE OF THE C HARTERED ACCOUN T ANT FROM TH E TIME THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE VAKALAT OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, IN THE SAID APPEAL, AND SINCE 9.12.2012 IT HAS BEEN REPR E SENTED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE , AND THAT IT WAS CLEAR THAT IT WAS ACTING ON THE PROFESSIONAL ADVICE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNAWARE OF THE LEGAL REMEDY AVAILABLE TO IT TILL THE 2 ND WEEK OF SEPTEMBER, 2013. HOWEVER, THE ASS ESSEE HAS FIL E D THE PRESENT APPEAL, I TA N O.1269/ H Y D /2013 ONLY ON 16.9.2013, I . E. N E ARLY MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE FILIN G O F THE APPEAL ITA N O.193 0 /HYD/2011. THUS , THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN E D THE DELAY IN THE FILIN G OF THE APPEAL AG A IN S T THE ORDER UNDER S.263. IT PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE H A S NOT BEEN VIGILANT IN PURS U ING ITS LEGAL REMEDIES. W E ARE THEREFORE, NOT INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 1210 DAYS IN THE FILING OF THE APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL, I TA N O.1269 /HYD/2013, IS DISMISSED AS TIME - BARRED. ITA NO.1930/HYD/2011 & 1269/HYD/2013 M/S. PIONEER E BIZZ. PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD 4 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL , I TA N O.1269/ H YD/20 13, IS DISMISSED AS TIME - BARRED. ITA N O.1930/HYD/2011 7. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRI E VED BY THE ORDER OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE DISALLO W ANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UN D ER S.40A ( IA ) OF THE A C T, IN R E SP E CT OF A SUM OF R S .1,77,88,607. 8. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CA S E ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPA N Y, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BU S IN E SS OF SOFTWARE , EDUCATIONAL AND OTHER SERVICES, FI LED ITS RETURN OF IN C OM E FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 ON 29.10.2005 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME O F RS .30,22,801. SUB S EQU E NTLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER S.143(3) READ WI T H S.147 OF TH E ACT HAS BEEN PASSED ON 24.12.2007, BY MAKIN G A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.46,41,604 TOWARDS DONATIONS M AD E AND RS. 6,00,000 OUT OF EXPEN S ES CLAIMED. TH E REAFTER, PU R SU A NT TO THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX UNDER S.263 OF THE A CT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ENQUIRI E S WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLI A N C E OF TH E ASSESSEE WITH THE TDS PROVISION S . THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR REQUISITE DETAILS , BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BANK ACCOUNT AND CHALLANS FOR VERIFICATION . AF TER VERIFICATION OF TH E D ETAIL S FIL E D B Y THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF R S . 1,77,88,607 UN D ER S.40A ( IA ) FOR FAILURE TO DEDU C T TAX AT SOU R CE AND HE FURTHER DISALLO W ED A SUM O F R S .39,06,934 UN D ER S.40A(IA) FOR NON - REMITTANCE OF TDS MADE F R OM THE PAYMENT S OF COMMISSION. 9. AGGRI E VED BY THE O R DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE FIL E D AN APPEAL B E FORE THE CIT(A), WHO C ONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOU R CE UNDER S.40A(IA). HOWEVER, WITH REGA R D TO NON - REMITTANCE OF TDS MADE FROM THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS, H E DIRECTED TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO LOOK AT THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DETA ILS F URNISHED AND I F ITA NO.1930/HYD/2011 & 1269/HYD/2013 M/S. PIONEER E BIZZ. PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD 5 THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE MADE I N TIME, THEN TO DELETE THA T PORTION OF THE ADDITION. 10. AGGRI E VED BY THE CONFIRMATION OF DISAL LOWANCE UNDER S.40A(IA) OF THE ACT, OF R S .1,77,88 , 607, ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APP E AL B E FORE US. 11. THE LEARNED COU N SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI CHAITANYA K UMAR, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID COMMISSION TO VARIOUS PERSONS DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIA L Y E AR AND NONE O F THE PAYM E N T S HAS CROSSED A SUM OF RS.2,500, AND TH E R E FORE, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF DEDU C TION OF TAX AT SOU R CE UNDER S.194H OF TH E AC T . HE SUBMI T TED THAT EACH OF THE PAYMENTS IS RESTRIC T ED TO A SUM OF R S .1,400 AND TH E R E FORE, THE PROVISION S OF S.194 H WERE NO T APPLICABLE AND ACCORDINGLY NO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE WAS MADE AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW H A VE ERRO NEO USLY MADE THE DI S ALLO W ANCE UNDER S.40A(IA), DISREGARDING THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 12. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE , ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPO R TED THE O R DERS OF THE AUTHO R ITI E S BELOW AND HAS DRAWN OUR PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO P A RA 5.2 OF THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) , WHEREIN SHE HAS STAT E D THAT THOUGH THERE WAS A UNIFORM AMOUNT OF RS.1,400 PAID PER PERSON , IT IS SEEN THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO 12649 PERSONS, AND FROM THE LIST OF SUCH PERSONS , IT IS FOUND THAT THAT MANY NAMES WE R E REPEATED . A S AN EXAMPLE, CIT(A) ST AT ED THAT ENTRY NO.6261 AND 6262 PERTAIN TO THE S AME PERSON CHANDAN SASMAL. I T IS ALSO S TATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAIL S AS REGARDS TH E PERCENTAGE O F COMMISSION AND THE BASIS OF SUCH PERCENTAGE AND THE QUANTUM OF SALES EFFECTED BY EACH PERSON AND HOW THE COMMISSION IS COMPUTED . IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT EVEN THE NAMES OF T HE PAYEES OF THE COMMISSION AND THEIR ADDRESSES ARE UNVERIFIABLE. IT WAS THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO P R OVE I T S CLAIM OF NON - APPLI C ABILITY OF THE PROVISION S OF S.194H AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACED RELI A N C E ON THE DECISION OF THE ITA NO.1930/HYD/2011 & 1269/HYD/2013 M/S. PIONEER E BIZZ. PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD 6 JURI S DI C T I ONAL H IGH C OU R T IN TH E CA S E OF CIT V/S. TRANSPORT CORPO R ATION OF I NDIA L TD. ( 256 ITR 0701). 13. IN THE R E JOIN D ER, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI T TED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS IN THE BU S IN E SS OF ON - LINE TRADING OF BOOKS AN D STATIONERY, AND ALL THE SALES ARE MADE ONLY ON - LINE THROUGH INTERNET, AND THE RE FORE, THE COMPU T ER PROGRAMME, MAKES THE COMPUTATION OF COMMISSION TO BE PAID AT THE TIME OF SALES ITSELF AND ALSO MAKES THE DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON SUCH PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE AS MANY AS 12649 PERSONS RESIDING IN DIF F ERENT PARTS OF I NDIA, TO WHOM THE COMMISSION OF RS.1,400 PER PERSON HAS BEEN PAID . HE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE R E MAY B E R EPETITION OF ONE OR TWO NAMES, TO WHOM THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID, THE ALLEGATION OF THE CIT(A) THAT THERE ARE MANY NAMES, WHICH ARE REP E ATED IS UNPROVED AND IT SHOWS NON - AP PLI CATION OF MIND BY THE R E V E NU E AUTHORITI E S. 14. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIO N S, WE FIND THAT S.194H PROVIDES THAT WHEREVER AN ASSESSEE, NOT BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HUF , AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING TO A RESIDENT ANY INCOME BY WAY OF COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE , SHALL, AT THE TIME O F CREDITING OF SUCH INCOME TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE OR AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF SUCH INCOME IN CASH OR BY CHEQUE OR DEMAND DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE, W HIC H EVER IS EARLIER, IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO DEDU C T TAX AT SOU R CE AT THE PR E SCRIBED RATE. HOWE VER, THE FIRST PROVISO THERETO PROVIDES FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM THE APPLI C A T ION OF THIS PROVISION . AS PER THE SAID PROVISO, WHERE THE AMOUN T OF SUCH INCOME, OR, AS TH E CASE MAY BE, THE AGGREGATE OF THE AMOUNTS OF SUCH INCOME CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO B E CREDITED O R PAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR TO THE ACCO U NT OF OR TO THE PAYEE, DOES NO T E X CEED RS.2,500 , NO DEDUCTION U/S. 194H SHALL BE MADE . THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THE EXCEPTION UN DE R THE FIRST PROVISO TO S.194H. THIS UPPER LIMIT OF EXCEPTION IS APP LI C ABLE TO THE PAYMENTS MADE TO ON E SIN G L E PERSON . EA CH PAYMENT OR THE AGGREGATE OF SUCH PAYM E N T S DU R IN G THE R E LEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR A R E TO BE CONSIDERED FOR APPLICATION OF THE PROVISO TO S.194H OF THE ACT. WHILE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS ITA NO.1930/HYD/2011 & 1269/HYD/2013 M/S. PIONEER E BIZZ. PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD 7 THAT IN THE LIST OF 12,649 PERSONS, THE RE IS NO REPETITION OF NAMES OF PERSONS TO WHOM THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID DURIN G THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL Y E AR, THE FIN D IN G O F TH E CIT(A) IS TO TH E CON T RARY. HOW E VER, WE FIND THAT NEITHER OF TH E AUTHORITI E S BELOW H A S MADE A P E RSON - WISE COMPUTATION, TO EXAMINE WHETHER ANY OF SUCH PAYM E N T S FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTION S PROVIDED UN D ER THE FIRST PROVISO TO S.194H. THE ENTIRE PAYMENT O F COMMISSION HAS B E EN DISALLO W ED BY TH E A UT HO RITI E S BELOW, WHICH IS UNWARRA N TED. IT IS THE DUTY O F THE A UTHORITIES BELO W TO EXAMINE EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF PAYMENT AND TO SEE IF THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO THE S AME PERSON AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE AGGREGATE OF THE PAY M EN T S IS NO T EXCEEDING THE LIMIT OF R S .2,500 (AS IT WAS THEN) DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR, TH E N TH E P R OVISION S OF S.194H WOULD CLEARLY NO T APPLY., TH E REFORE, WE REMIT THE ISSUE TO TH E FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE EAC H OF THE P A YM E N T S AND IF THE AGGREGATE OF THE PAY M ENTS TO ANY SIN G LE PERSON EXCEEDS R S .2,500 DURIN G THE RELEVANT FIN A N C IAL YEAR, ONLY THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CON S I D ER THE SAME FOR DISALLOW A NCE UNDER S.40A(IA) OF THE ACT. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH. 15. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL, I TA NO .19 3 0/ H YD/2011 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. T O SUM UP, WHILE ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.1269/HYD/2013 IS DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED, THE OTHER APPEAL, I TA N O.19 3 0/HYD/2011 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST MAY, 2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( P.MADHAVI DEVI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT/ - 1 ST MAY, 2014 ITA NO.1930/HYD/2011 & 1269/HYD/2013 M/S. PIONEER E BIZZ. PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD 8 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. PIONEER E BIZZ. PVT. LTD., FLAT NO.303, SRIRAM VIHAR, SHANKERNAGAR, SHIVALAYAM ROAD, MEDIPALLY, UPPAL, HYDERABAD 500 092 2 . 3. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 16 ( 3 ), HYDERABAD ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX 16(3), HYDERABAD 4 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) V, HYDERABAD 5. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX I V , HYDERABAD 6. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S