Mirza Mustafa Baig, Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad

ITA 1270/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 59122 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 80C; 54B; 2(14); 153A; 234B

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. ASST . YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1024/HYD/2011 2008-09 SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD (PAN AOBPB 8420 L) DY. COMMISSION- ER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, HYDERABAD 1025/HYD/2011 1268/HYD/2011 1269/HYD/2011 1270/HYD/2011 1271/HYD/2011 2008-09 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2006-07 SHRI MIRZA MUSTAFA BAIG, HYDERABAD (PAN ACIPM 5312 P) DY. COMMISSION- ER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, HYDERABAD 1026/HYD/2011 2008-09 SHRI MIRZA NAZAR BAIG, HYDERABAD (PAN ARRPM 1722 B) DY. COMMISSION- ER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, HYDERABAD 1027/HYD/2011 2008-09 SHRI MIRZA YOUSUF BAIG, HYDERABAD (PAN ARRPM 1989 Q) DY. COMMISSION- ER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, HYDERABAD APPELLANT S BY : SHRI S.RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY : S HRI V.SRINIVAS DATE OF HEARING 17.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.1.2012 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS A BUNCH OF EIGHT APPEALS. THE APPEALS OF T HE ASSESSEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SIMILA R BUT SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) I, HYDERABAD DATED 16.3.2011, WHEREAS THE OT HER APPEALS OF THE ITA NO.1024 TO 1027/HYD/11 & 4 OTHERS SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD & OTHERS . 2 ASSESSEE, SHRI MIRZA MUSTAFA BAIG FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2002-03 TO 2004- 05 AND 2006-07 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD DATED 15.3.2011. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF WITH THIS CONSOLIDAT ED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. APPEALS OF SHRI MIRZA MUSTAFA BAIG: ITA NO.1025/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 & ITA NO.1268 TO 1271/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2004-05 AND 2006-07 2. FACTS IN BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THERE WAS SEARCH ACTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AT HER RESIDENTIAL PREMISES ON 17-10-2 007. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION AT RS.30,98,620/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.8,400/-. IN THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,400 /- TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE ALSO MADE DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.21,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THREE OTHERS, WHO ARE ALSO APPE LLANTS BEFORE US, HAD SOLD 5 ACRES 6 GHUNTAS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED IN SU RVEY NO.218, 219 AND 225 OF NARSINGI VILLAGE, RAJENDRA NAGAR MANDAL, HYDERABAD TO SUN BREEZE ESTATES & DEVELOPERS LTD. AND RECEIVED CONSIDERATION OF RS.33 ,25,00,000. THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 1/4 TH SHARE THEREIN. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT NO CAPIT AL GAINS AROSE OUT OF THE SAID TRANSACTION, AS THE LAND SOLD WAS OF AGRICULTURAL NATURE, AND HENCE NOT A CAPITAL ASSET IN TERMS OF S.2(14)(III) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE, PROCEEDED TO BRING TO TAX LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS A RISING OUT OF THE SALE OF THE SAID LAND. ITA NO.1024 TO 1027/HYD/11 & 4 OTHERS SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD & OTHERS . 3 3. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER S. 54B OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS, WHICH WE RE REGISTERED AT YENKEPALLY VILLAGE, PUDUR MANDAL, R.R. DISTRICT OF RS.1,05,08, 220 FROM THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY WAY OF CAPITAL GAINS. SIMILARLY, ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER S.54B IN RESPECT OF THE ADVANCE PAID FOR PURCHASE O F AGRICULTURAL LANDS AT PUPPALAGUDA VILLAGE, RAJENDRA NAGAR MANDAL OF RS.96 ,62,500. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT MERE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE FOR P URCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS WITHOUT POSSESSION AND WITHOUT REGISTRATION, DOES N OT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO EXEMPTION UNDER S.54B. HE NOTED THAT AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF S.54B OF THE ACT, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEA RS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, PURCHASES ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL L AND, EXEMPTION IS AVAILABLE. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT IF THE AMOUNT IS NOT USED FOR PURCHASE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOM E, THE SAME SHOULD BE DEPOSITED IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT. RELYING ON THE D ECISIONS OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. JAYALAKSHMI RAJENDRAN (152 ITR 742); OF THE A.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MRS. SHAHZADA BEGUM (173 ITR 3 99); AND OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF P.K.KEHSAVA NAIR V/S. CIT (174 ITR 253), AND OBSERVING THAT A PURCHASE IS COMPLETE ONLY WHEN THE PROPERTY IS CONVEYED BY A REGISTERED DEED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S.54B, IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF AG RICULTURAL LANDS FOR WHICH NEITHER THERE IS A REGISTRATION NOR POSSESSION OF T HE LANDS. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE FINDING, THE AS SESSING OFFICER ALSO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RELIEF UNDER S.54B OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE LAND SOLD WAS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL L AND. IN THIS BEHALF, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THAT BEHALF, TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE CULT IVATION OF THE LAND AND FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN S.54B, THE A SSESSING OFFICER OBTAINED COPIES OF PAHANI PATRIKA FROM DY. COLLECTOR AND TAH SILDAR, WHO MENTIONED THAT ITA NO.1024 TO 1027/HYD/11 & 4 OTHERS SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD & OTHERS . 4 THERE WAS NO CULTIVATION DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT FORM VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER WHO MENTIONED THAT DUE TO PRESSURE OF WORK, HE HAD NOT FILLED IN THE COLUMN OF CULTIVATION IN THE PAHANI PATRIKA. HOWEVER, RELYING ON THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY HIM, AND TAKING NOTE OF THE D ISPUTES THAT WERE EXISTING WITH REGARD TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND BETWEEN TH E ASSESSEE AND OTHERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE LAND SOLD BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AGRICULTURAL USE. HENCE, FOR THIS REASON ALSO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RELIEF UNDER S.54B OF THE ACT, OBSERVING IT IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNLESS THE LAND SOLD WAS AGRICULTURAL LAN D. 5. THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON THE SALE OF LAND, WH ICH WAS ADOPTED AT RS.33,25,00,000, HE DISPUTED THE COST OF ACQUISITIO N OF LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.7,21,000, I.E. RS.1 ,40,000 PER ACRE, AND CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCE WIT H REGARD TO ADOPTION OF RS.1,40,000 PER ACRE AS ON 1.4.1981. SINCE THE ASS ESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH SUCH EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE RATE PE R ACRE AT RS.10,000 BASED ON THE RATE ADOPTED BY OTHER PERSONS SELLING LAND TO D LF GROUP IN THE SAME AREA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED IN THIS BEHALF THAT PERSONS OF MD. KAREEMUDDIN GROUP, MD. KHAIRUDDIN GROUP AND MD. GAY ASUDDIN GROUP WHO HAD SOLD LAND IN THE SAME AREA TO THE SAME GROUP TO WHO M ASSESSEE HAD SOLD LAND, HAD SHOWN MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 A T RS.10,000. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE CER TIFICATE OBTAINED FROM THE SUB REGISTRAR, THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 WAS ABOU T RS.2 PER SQ. YARD, WHICH IS EVEN LESS THAN RS.10,000 PER ACRE. ASSESSING OFFIC ER, THEREFORE, ADOPTED THE MARKET VALUE OF RS.10,000 PER ACRE TO WORK OUT THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AND COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS FOLLOWS - ITA NO.1024 TO 1027/HYD/11 & 4 OTHERS SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD & OTHERS . 5 SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED RS.33,25,00, 000 LES : BROKERAGE/COMMISSION PAID RS. 3,00,000 RS.33,22,00,000 LESS: INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION : COST AS ON 1.4.1981 RS.10,000 PER ACRE 10,000 X 5.15 ACRES X 551 100 RS.2,83,765 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS. 33,19,16,235 ASSESSEES 1/4 TH SHARE (RS.33,19,16,235) IS RS.8,29,79,058/- . 6. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOT ONLY WITH REGARD TO REJECTION OF THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RELIEF UNDER S.54B OF THE ACT, BUT ALSO WITH REGARD TO COM PUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. 7. HENCE, ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. LET US FIRST TAKE UP FOR CONSIDERATION THE APPE AL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 9. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS BEEN TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 10. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, AS ALREADY N OTED, WHILE NARRATING THE FACTS FOR THAT YEAR HEREIN ABOVE, ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.8,400. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SU PPORT OF SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME OR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, AND TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED AS INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES. ON APPEAL, THE CIT ITA NO.1024 TO 1027/HYD/11 & 4 OTHERS SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD & OTHERS . 6 (A) CONFIRMED THE VIEW BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FO LLOWING HIS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2004-05 AND 2006-07 DAT ED 15.3.2007, WHICH IS ALSO IMPUGNED BEFORE US. 11. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES. THE CONTENTION OF THE AU THORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AGRICULT URAL OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IN THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION. DURING THE COUR SE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO INSPECT THE LANDS AT THAT STAGE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED PAHAN I PATRIKA FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07, THE SLAB PASS-BOOK ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICI TY BOARD BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A N OPEN WELL IN THE LAND AND WATER WAS SUPPLIED TO THE CROP THROUGH ELECTRIC MOT OR PUMPING. EVEN AFTER THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT C ARRIED OUT ANY ENQUIRY AND DREW ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. FURTH ER, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE STATED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A N AGRICULTURIST AND NOT CARRYING OUT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND NOT MAINTAIN ED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAINTAIN SALE-BILLS, P URCHASE BILLS AND BILLS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF FERTILIZERS. FURTHER, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE A CT STATED THAT THE PADDY AND THE VEGETABLES WERE GROWN AND THE SAME WAS USED FOR SELF CONSUMPTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE AGA INST THE ASSESSEE, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, FOR DISBELIEVIN G THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSED, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES RELIED ON THE PAHA NI PATRIKA OBTAINED FROM DY. COLLECTOR AND TAHSILDAR. IT WAS MENTIONED THEREIN THAT THERE WAS NO CULTIVATION DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. LATER, THERE WA S AN AFFIDAVIT FILED FROM THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, NARSING VILLAGE WHO MENTI ONED THAT DUE TO PRESSURE OF WORK, HE DID NOT FILL THE COLUMNS OF CULTIVATION IN THE PAHANI PATRIKA DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 FOR ALL THE LANDS IN THE ENT IRE VILLAGE. THIS FACT ALSO BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER, NO ENQUIRIES WERE ITA NO.1024 TO 1027/HYD/11 & 4 OTHERS SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD & OTHERS . 7 CARRIED OUT IN THIS REGARD. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE RE WAS INFORMATION FROM THE DY. COLLECTOR THAT THE LAND WAS UNDER CULTIVATION F OR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND 2004-05 AND IN EARLIER YEARS. HOWEVER, THE AFF IDAVIT FILED BY THE VRO SHOWS THAT THE LAND WAS UNDER CULTIVATION IN THE ASST. YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO. FURTHER, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A DISPUTE REGARDING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. THIS FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES GOES AGAINST THE REVENUE RECORDS WHICH SHOW THAT THE LAND WAS UNDER CULTIVAT ION DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND FOR 2004-05 AND ALSO AGAINST VROS CERT IFICATE. BEING SO, IN OUR OPINION, THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VRO, WHO IS CONCERNED REVENUE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE SAID CERTIFICATE HAS TO BE RELIED UPON AN D IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO REJECT THE SAME WITHOUT EXAMINING THE DEPONENT. IN THIS BEHAL F, WE PLACE RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PARIKH & COMPANY VS. CIT (30 ITR 181) (SC) WHEREIN HELD THAT WHEN THE PERSON S WHO GAVE THE AFFIDAVITS WERE NOT CROSS-EXAMINED, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE REV ENUE TO CHALLENGE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STATEMENT MADE IN THE AFFIDAVITS . IN VIEW OF THIS, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLA RED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ACCEPTED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME ONLY. 12. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE I N THIS APPEAL RELATES TO COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, TREATING THE LAND SOL D BY THE ASSESSEE AS NON- AGRICULTURAL LAND. 13. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITERATI NG THE CONTENTIONS URGED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT THE LAN D SOLD, BEING AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE AND FALLING OUTSIDE THE NOTIFIED AREA, DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CAPITAL ASSET OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS BEHALF, HE PLACED RELIANC E ON THE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHR I SRINIVAS PANDIT(HUF) V/S. ITO WARD 7(4), HYDERABAD DATED 23.4.2010 IN ITA NO. 56/HYD/2007 FOR ITA NO.1024 TO 1027/HYD/11 & 4 OTHERS SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD & OTHERS . 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND SOLD IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND, AND THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED O N THE SALE OF LAND IN QUESTION WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS ONLY, AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH ENTITLED FOR RELIEF UNDER S.54B OF THE ACT, AND THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING TH E LANDS OF THE ASSESSEE GIVING RISE TO THE CAPITAL GAINS IN DISPUTE, AS OF NON-AGR ICULTURAL NATURE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE DISPUTES ABOUT THE OWNE RSHIP OF THE PROPERTY SOLD, THE LANDS SOLD WERE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESS EE, WHO WAS CARRYING ON AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ON THE SAME. HE ALSO SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AN AFFIDAV IT OF THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, WHO MENTIONED THAT DUE TO PRESSURE OF WORK, HE HAD NOT FILLED IN THE COLUMN OF CULTIVATION IN THE PAHANI PATRIKA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE DUE WEIGHTAGE TO THIS VALUABLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE, AND P ROCEEDED TO DETERMINE THE LANDS IN QUESTION AS OF NON-AGRICULTURAL NATURE. HE ALSO DISPUTED THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING THE ASSESSEE TH E RELIEF UNDER S.54B ON THE GROUND THAT PAYMENT OF ADVANCES FOR PURCHASE OF LAN D WOULD NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO RELIEF UNDER S.54B, AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ULTIMATELY CONCLUDED THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE WITHIN TIME A LLOWED BY THE STATUTE, AND POSSESSION OF THE LANDS IN QUESTION WAS TAKEN ON 10 .7.2009, VIZ. WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENT ITLED TO RELIEF UNDER S.54B OF THE ACT. HE ALSO DISPUTED THE RATE TAKEN INTO CON SIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR ARRIVING AT THE COST OF ACQUISITION, B Y ADOPTING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 AT RS.10,000 PER ACRE AS AG AINST RS.1,40,000 PER ACRE PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND SUBMITTED THAT THE RAT E OF RS.1,40,000 PER ACRE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS QUITE REASONABLE. 14. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ITA NO.1024 TO 1027/HYD/11 & 4 OTHERS SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD & OTHERS . 9 LANDS IN QUESTION WERE NOT OF AGRICULTURAL NATURE, AND THEY WERE NOT PUT TO CULTIVATION, AS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE MATERIAL T AKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN T HOUGH THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIFIED AREA OF 8 KMS OF RAJENDRA NAGAR MUNICIPALITY, IT IS WITHIN SPECIFIED AREA OF 8 KMS OF THE HYDERABAD MU NICIPAL CORPORATION, AND HENCE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THE LAND IN QUESTIO N FALLS WITHIN THE REVENUE JURISDICTION OF RAJENDRANAGAR MANDAL AND MORE THAN 8 KMS AWAY FROM THE RAJENDRANAGAR MUNICIPAL LIMITS, IT IS AN URBAN LAND SINCE IT FALLS WITHIN 8 KMS OF HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS, AND AS SUCH , IT IS A CAPITAL ASSET GIVING RISE TO CAPITAL GAINS ON ITS SALE. HE SUBMITTED THA T IF THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE SPECIFIED AREA OF 8 KMS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY, NOT NE CESSARILY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITY, THE PROPERTY ASSUMES THE CHARACTER OF URBAN LAND. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE UNREPORTED DE CISION DATED 1.3.2011 OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT V/S. SMT. ANJANA SEHGAL (INCOME-TAX APPEAL NO.276 OF 2004), DULY FIL ING A COPY THEREOF BEFORE US, IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION. HE ALSO SUBMITT ED THAT MERE PAYMENT OF ADVANCES FOR PURCHASE OF LANDS, WOULD NOT ENTITLE T HE ASSESSEE TO RELIEF UNDER S.54B OF THE ACT, AND WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLI ED WITH TO FULFIL THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER S.54B IS THE ACTUAL PURCHASE OF TH E AGRICULTURAL LANDS WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION ARRIVED AT AND REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EXCESSIVE, AND THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM IN THIS BEHALF, BY PRODUCING NECESSARY EV IDENCE IN THE FORM OF COMPARABLE CASES OF THE RELEVANT TIME, NOTWITHSTAND ING OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THAT PURPOSE. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LAND IN QUESTIO N GIVING RISE TO CAPITAL GAIN WAS, IN FACT, URBAN LAND THOUGH AGRICULTURAL OPERAT IONS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT ON THEM. THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES PAHANI PATRIKA, VROS ITA NO.1024 TO 1027/HYD/11 & 4 OTHERS SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD & OTHERS . 10 CERTIFICATE AND DETAILS OF ELECTRICITY BILL/SLAB PA SS BOOK ETC. WE HAVE HELD ON THAT BASIS IN EARLIER PARAS THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIV ED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. BUT, THE QUESTION STILL REMAINS WHETHER THE IMPUGNED LAN D COME WITHIN THE MEANING OF CAPITAL ASSET. THE LAND IS SITUATED AT NARSI NG VILLAGE OF RAJENDRA NAGAR MANDAL, R.R. DISTRICT WHICH IS WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF RAJENDRA NAGAR. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, RAJENDRA MUNICIPALITY IS NOT NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THEREFORE TH E AGRICULTURAL LANDS WHICH FALL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE RAJENDRA NAGAR M ANDAL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT. BUT, THE FACT IS THAT THIS IS URBAN LAND AKIN TO THE HYD ERABAD MUNICIPALITY SITUATED WITHIN 8 KM FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF HYDERABAD MUNI CIPAL CORPORATION. IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BOLA RAMAIAH (174 ITR 154) HELD THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING O UT OF SALE OF LAND SITUATED WITHIN 8 KM OF LOCAL LIMITS OF HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL ITY, IS LIABLE FOR TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER IT FALLS UND ER THE LIMITS OF RAJENDRA NAGAR MANDAL OR OTHERWISE. FURTHER, MERE FACT THAT THE L AND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND CANNOT BE A GROUND TO CLAIM FOR E XEMPTION UNDER SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT AS THE LAND IS SITUATED WITHIN 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. ANJANA SEHGA L (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 I N WHICH THE LAND IS SITUATED . FURTHER, CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED IN MUNICIPAL OR OTHER UR BAN AREAS OR NOTIFIED ADJOINING AREAS WILL BE LIABLE TO INCOME-TAX. IN THIS VIEW O F THE MATTER, AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE , IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE JUSTIFIED IN DETERMINING THE LAND IN QUESTION, AS CAPITAL ASSET LIABLE FOR INCOME-TAX. WITH REGARD TO DETERMI NATION OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND DISPOSED OF, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CO NSIDERING THE PROXIMITY OF THE ITA NO.1024 TO 1027/HYD/11 & 4 OTHERS SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD & OTHERS . 11 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 BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER, AS AGAINST RS.1,40,000 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONE OF THE R EASONS 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 ADVA NCE FOR PURCHASE, AND UNLESS IT IS ACTUAL PURCHASE OF LAND, ASSESSEE WOUL D NOT BE ENTITLED FOR RELIEF UNDER S.54B. THERE IS SOME MERIT IN THIS REASONING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, IN TERMS OF S.54B OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE H AS TO PURCHASE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. HE NCE, THOUGH MERE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE DOES NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FOR RELIEF UN DER S.54B OF THE ACT, IF ULTIMATELY WHOLE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF LAND WA S COMPLETED WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO 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 THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED TH E AGRICULTURAL LANDS WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, SO AS TO QUALIFY FOR RELIEF UN DER S.54B OF THE ACT, AND ACCORDINGLY RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE 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. 16. THE NEXT GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARISE S FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER S.234B AND 23 4C OF THE ACT. ASSESSEES GROUND IN THIS BEHALF READS AS FOLLOWS- 8. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S. 234B AND U/S. 234C OF THE I. T. ACT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE S EEN THAT THE DEPARTMENT SEIZED CASH AND, THEREFORE, INTEREST U/S . 234B AND 234C IS NOT CHARGEABLE. THE LEVY OF ABOVE INTEREST IS MERELY CONSEQUENTIAL AND MANDATORY IN NATURE AND ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. ITA NO.1024 TO 1027/HYD/11 & 4 OTHERS SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD & OTHERS . 12 17. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09, BEING ITA NO.1025/HYD/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 18. AS REGARDS THE OTHER APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E, BEING ITA NOS.1268 TO 1271/HYD/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 T O 2004-05 AND 2006-07, FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT CONSEQUENT UPON THE SEARCH ACTION WHICH TOOK PLACE, AS NOTED ABOVE, NOTICES WERE ISSUED UNDER S.153A OF TH E ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS OF INCOME ADMITTIN G THE INCOMES AS FOLLOWS- ASST . YEAR INCOME ADMITTED RS. AGRICULTURAL INCOME RS. 2002-03 45,000 12,000 2003-04 42,000 14,500 2004-05 46,000 16,200 2006-07 76,000 25,600 19. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AB OVE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO FILE THE RECEIPTS AND P AYMENTS ACCOUNT FOR THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. SINC E THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESS EE AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY, VI DE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT DATED 18.12.2009 PASSED UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S. 153A OF THE ACT. 20. ON APPEAL, THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLO WANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER- 05.0 .. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DI SCUSSED THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2008-09 WHILE ITA NO.1024 TO 1027/HYD/11 & 4 OTHERS SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD & OTHERS . 13 DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54B OF THE ACT. APPARENTLY THE AO HAD OBTAINED THE PAHANI PATRIKA FROM THE DY. COLLEC TOR AND TAHSILDAR, RAJENDRANAGAR MANDAL TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE APP ELLANT ABOUT CULTIVATION. THE PAHANI OBTAINED FROM TAHSILDAR IND ICATED THE LAND WERE NOT CULTIVATED DURING 2005-06. INCIDENTALLY THE LA ND ON WHICH AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS BEING CLAIM ED WAS UNDER DISPUTE WITH ANOTHER GROUP OF APPELLANTS RELATIVE. MIRZA IQBAL AHMED AND HIS BRO THER. SURPRISINGLY MIRZA IQBAL AND GROUP HAD ALSO CLAIMED TO BE DOING AGRICULTURAL OPERATION ON THE SAME PIECE OF LAND. THEY HAD ALSO PRODUCED T HE SAME TYPE OF EVIDENCE AS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT TWO DIFFERENT GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS BOTH CLAIMING RIGHT OVER THE SAME LAND CAN DO AGRICULTURAL OPERATION ON THE SAME PIECE OF LAND DURING THE SAME PERIOD. IN SUCH A SITUATION, A LAND IN WHICH THERE ARE SEVERAL CLAIMANTS, IT IS UNIMAGINABLE THAT ONE OF THE CLAIMANTS CAN CARRY ON THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION TO THE DETRIMENT OF OTHERS INTEREST AND O THERS WOULD BE SILENT SPECTATORS. IT IS ALSO WORTHWHILE TO M ENTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS NON-AGRICULT URAL INCOM E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2007-08 ALSO BUT NO AP PEAL SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE SAID DECISION OF THE AO MEANING THEREBY THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE THE STAND T AKEN BY THE AO TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME. TH US, CONSIDERING THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I AM NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT HE HAD DERIVED AGRICULTURAL I NCOME FROM THE DISPUTED LAND. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS IS CONFIRMED. 21. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) CONFIRM ING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCO ME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, ASSESSEE PREFERRED SECON D APPEALS BEFORE US ON THIS ISSUE. 22. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS IN PARA-11, IN THE CONTEXT OF ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09, WHEREIN WE HAVE HELD THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSES SEE TO BE ACCEPTED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME, ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THESE CASES ALSO. WE ACCORD INGLY ALLOW THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1024 TO 1027/HYD/11 & 4 OTHERS SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD & OTHERS . 14 23. IN THE RESULT, THESE FOUR APPEALS OF THE A SSESSEE, BEING ITA NOS.1268 TO 1271/HYD/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2004-05 AND 2006-07, ARE ALLOWED. APPEALS OF OTHER ASSESSEES: - ITANO.NO.1024/HYD/2011 OF SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM: ITA NO.1026/HYD/2011 OF SHRI MIRZA NADER BAIG, ITA NO.1027/HYD/2011 OF SHRI SHRI MIRZA YOUSUF BAI G 24. NOW TURNING TO THESE APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09, FACTS OF THE CASE, ISSUES INVOLVED ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE CONSIDERED WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPEAL OF SHRI MIRZA MUSTAF BAIG FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, HEREINABOVE, VIZ. (A) DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME (B) ASSESSMENT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF L AND (C) DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER S.54B (D) CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER S.234B AND 234C AS ALREADY NOTED ABOVE, APPELLANTS HEREIN JOINTLY H OLD THE LAND IN QUESTION, WHICH YIELDED THE ALLEGED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND C APITAL GAINS, AND LED TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES FOR RELIEF UNDER S.54B AND U LTIMATE ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, REJECTING THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S.54B. CONSEQUENTLY, FACTS OF THE CASE, CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES ARE IN ALL THESE MATTERS ARE IDENTICAL WITH THOSE CONSIDERED BY US H EREIN ABOVE WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPEALS OF SHRI MIRZA MUSTAFA BAIG. 25. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS AR ISING ON THE SALE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION ARE ASSESSABLE AS LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAINS, AND FOR THE DETAILED REASONS DISCUSSED IN THAT CONTEXT IN PARA 15 HEREIN ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, AND RESTORE THIS I SSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING ITA NO.1024 TO 1027/HYD/11 & 4 OTHERS SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD & OTHERS . 15 OFFICER FOR VERIFYING WHETHER THE ASSESSEES HAVE PU RCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, SO AS TO QUALIFY THEM SELVES FOR RELIEF UNDER S.54B OF THE ACT, AND ACCORDINGLY RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASS ESSEES. GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEES ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 26. ASSESSEES HAVE ALSO RAISED COMMON GROUND IN T HESE APPEALS AGAINST CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER S.234B AND 234C OF THE A CT. ASSESSEES GROUNDS ON THIS ISSUE ARE CONSEQUENTIAL AND MANDATORY AND ACCO RDINGLY, GROUNDS ON THIS ISSUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE REJECTED. 27. IN THE RESULT, THESE THREE APPEALS ARE PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 28. TO SUM UP, OUT OF THESE EIGHT APPEALS, WHILE ITA NOS.1268 TO 1271/HYD/2011 ARE ALLOWED, OTHER FOUR APPEALS ARE P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16.1 .2012 SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/- 16 TH JANUARY, 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, C/O., SHRI S.RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, 3-65-643, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, FLAT NO.102, ST. NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. SHRI MIRZA MUSTAFA BAIG, C/O., SHRI S.RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, 3-65-643, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, FLAT NO.102, ST. NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD. ITA NO.1024 TO 1027/HYD/11 & 4 OTHERS SMT. GOUSIA BEGUM, HYDERABAD & OTHERS . 16 3. SHRI MIRZA NAZAR BAIG, C/O., SHRI S.RAMA RAO, ADV OCATE, 3-65-643, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, FLAT NO.102, ?ST. NO.9 , HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 4 . SHRI MIRZA YOUSUF BAIG, C/O., SHRI S.RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, 3-65-643, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, FLAT NO.102, ?ST. NO.9 , HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 5 . DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, HYDERABAD 6. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) I, HYDERABAD 7. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 8. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S/JMR*