Bhargavi Developers, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward -11(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1294/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74484 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOLGY JOSE KOTTARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Question of law

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.1294/HYD/12 : ASSTT. YEAR 2009 - 10 M/S. BHARGAVI DEVELOPERS, HYDERABAD ( PAN - AGHFB 9433 H) V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(4), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SOLGY JOSE KOTTARAM, DR DATE OF HEARING 17.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.1.2014 O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX( APPEALS) VI, HYDERABAD, DATED 2.7.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF ITS CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 2 8 .9.2009 ADMITTING AN INCOME OF RS.2,44,85,220 FROM BUSINESS, AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS DEDUCTI0ON UNDER S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. DURING TH E YEAR UNDER APPEAL, IT HAS RETURNED INCOME FROM DEVELOPMENT OF A HOUSING PROJECT, PARAMOUNT RESIDENCY , DEVELOPED JOINTLY WITH ANOTHER FIRM, M/S. PARAMOUNT BUILDERS (PB). THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS FORMED UN D ER A PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 30.7.2004 WITH THE FOLLO WING PARTNERS: 1. SHRI B.ANAND KUMAR 2. SHRI N.KIRAN KUMAR 3. SHRI M.KANTA RAO I TA NO. 1294/ HYD/2012 M/S. BHARGAVI DEVELOPERS, HYD ERABAD 2 4 . S HRI K. KANTHA REDDY THE LAND, ON WHICH THE HOU S IN G PR O JECT WAS DEVELOPED, WAS PU R CH AS ED BY SHRI B.ANAND KUMAR, SHRI N.KIRAN KUMAR, SHRI M.KANTA RAO AND SHRI K.KANTHA REDDY, I N THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACIT IES , UNDER A REGISTERED DEED OF CONVEYANCE DATED 9.9.2004 AND R E LEASE DEED DATED 27.10.2004 FROM ONE SHRI N.VENI AND TWO OTHERS. THE FOUR OWNERS APPLI E D TO HUDA FOR TECHNICAL APPROVAL OF THE HOU S IN G PROJECT ON 9.5.2006. T HE TECHNICAL APPROVALS OF THE BUIL D IN G PLANS FOR GROUP H O USIN G WAS ACCORDED BY HUDA VIDE PROCE E DIN G S DATED 1.9.2006. ON RECEIPT OF THE TE CHNICAL APP R OVAL FROM HUDA, SHRI B.ANAND KUAMR AND OTHERS APPLIED TO NAGARAM PANCHAYAT FOR BUILDING PERMISSIONS ON 14.11.2006. THE BUIL D IN G PERMISSION S WERE OBTAINED FROM TH E LOCAL AUTHO R ITY, NAG A RAM PANCHAYAT, KEESARA MANDAL, RR DISTRICT, VIDE SANCTIONS DATED 29.12.2006. THE FOUR PERSONS SOLD THE LAND TO TH E EXTENT OF 1.01 ACRES TO THE ASS ESSEE FIRM, OF WHICH THEY WERE PARTNERS, VIDE A G RE E MENT O F SALE CUM GEN E RAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 31.10.2006. THE REMAINING AREA OF THE LAND, TO TH E EXTENT OF 2.03 ACRES WAS SOLD BY THE FOUR OWNERS TO PARAMOUNT BUIL D ER S , UNDER A REGISTERED AGR E EMENT OF S ALE CUM GPA DATED 31.10.2006. 4. THESE TWO FIRMS, THE ASSESSEE AND PB, ALSO ENTERED INTO A JOINT DEVELOPM E NT AG REEM E NT (JDA) AND AN AGR E EMENT OF CON S TRUC T IONS (AOC) BOTH DATED 31.10.2006. UNDER THE JDA, THE ENTIRE PROJECT ALREADY APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHO R ITY WAS TO BE DEVELOPED AS ONE SIN G LE HOU S ING PROJECT. CON S TRUC T ION OF 260 FLATS WAS TAKEN UP OF WHICH 81 FLATS WERE TO BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND 179 TO PB. UNDER THE AOC, THE CON S TRUC T ION OF THE ENTIRE PROJ E CT WAS TO BE DONE BY PB FOR WHICH THE A SSESSEE AGREED TO PAY C ON STRUCTION COST @ RS.350 PER SFT. TO PB . 5. ON APPRECIATI O N OF THE ABOVE FA C TUAL MATRIX, THE ASSESSING OFFICER R E JECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUC T ION UNDER S.80IB(10). THE REASONS THAT WEIGHED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REJECTING T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IB(10) ARE AS FOL L OWS - I TA NO. 1294/ HYD/2012 M/S. BHARGAVI DEVELOPERS, HYD ERABAD 3 A . TH E JDA REFER R ED TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE FIRM AND TO M/S. PRAMOUNT B UILDERS AS T H E DEVELOPER. B . CLAUSE N OF THE JDA ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NO T HAVE ADEQUAT E EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE IN TAKING UP THE PROJECT ON ITS OWN. C . CLAUSE O OF THE JDA ACKNOWLEDGED THAT PB HAD BEEN APPROACHED FOR TAKING UP DEVELOPMENT O F THE LAND. D . VI D E CLAUSE 17 ON PAGE 7 O F THE JDA, PB AGREED TO B E AR THE ENTIRE COST OF CON S TRUC T ION OF AL L OTHER COMMON AMENITIES. E . VI D E CLAUSE 7 OF THE JDA, PB AGREED TO TAKE THE ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY OF EXECUTING THE P R O J ECT WHICH IN T ER - ALIA IN C LU D ED CON S TRUC T ION OF AP A RTMENTS AND CR E ATION O F COM M ON AMENITIES LIKE DRAINAGE CON N EC T ION, LIGHTING, ELECTRICAL AND WATER CONN E C T ION S , ETC. F . VIDE CLAUSE 8 OF TH E JDA, THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT O F THE P RO JECT AND INTER N AL LAYOUT O F EACH FLAT WAS PL A CED AT THE SOL E DISCRETION OF PB. FOR THE ABOVE R E ASONS TH E ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER B O RNE ANY INVESTMENT RISK NOR ACTED AS A DEVELOPER AND HAD BEEN REDUCED TO THE STATUS OF A PURCHASER FROM PB BY PAYING RS.350 PER SQ. FT. TOWARDS COST OF CON S TRUC T ION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE CO S T OF CON S TRUC T ION TO PB WAS RS.950 / - PER SFT . AND BY AGREEIN G TO UNDERTAKE THE CON S TRU C TION AT RS.350 PER SFT., THE PB HAD INCURRED A LOSS O F RS .3,57,33,000 FROM TH E CON S TRUC T ION CONTRACT ENTERED INTO WITH TH E ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRING TO CLAUSE M OF THE JDA WHI C H STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND PB WERE TO HOLD THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERSHIP IN TH E SCHEDULED LAND AS AN UN D I VI DED SHARE AND SHALL BECOME CO - OWNERS OF THE SCHEDULED LAND , OBSERVED THAT THE TWO PARTIES WERE DISTINCT OWNERS OF LAND ADMEASURING 1.01 ACRES AND 2.03 ACRES RESPE C TI VELY, AND TH E R E F O R E , COULD NO T BE CALLED CO - OWNERS. HE ALSO O BSER V ED T HAT THE APPROVAL HAD BE E N G RANTED TO SHRI B.ANAND KUMAR AND OTHERS, WHO I TA NO. 1294/ HYD/2012 M/S. BHARGAVI DEVELOPERS, HYD ERABAD 4 WERE THE ORIG I NA L OWNERS OF THE LAND, AND NO APPROVAL HAD BEEN GRANTED FOR DEVELOPM E N T O F HOU S IN G PROJECT TO THE ASSESSEE. I N THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT CH ARGES INCURRED BY THROWING ITS OWN LAND INTO THE SAID HOU S IN G PROJECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ENTIRE TRANS A C T ION TO BE ONE OF PURCHASE OF FLATS FROM PB AND ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IB(10) OF TH E ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY DENYING THE RELIEF CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.80IB(10) OF THE AC T, COMPLET E D THE ASSESSMENT ON AT TO T AL INCOME OF RS .2,44,85,220, VIDE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 30.12.2011 PASSED UN D ER S.143(3) OF THE ACT. 6. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) ON DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, CONCURRED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ALL THE FACTUAL ASPECTS AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM UNDER S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT, WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS - 5.15 TO CONCLUDE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT WAS UNDERTAKEN ENTIRELY BY PB. THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT IN PB INTO THE PROJECT WITH THE SPECIFIC AIM OF UTILIZING ITS TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE MAY ALSO HAVE P OSSESSED AT LEAST SOME SUCH SKILLS, IT CHOSE NOT TO USE ITS OWN SKILLS AT ALL AND PERMITTED TO DEVELOP THE PROJECT EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE LATTERS SKILLS AND RESOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAD NO ROLE IN THE HIRING OF VARIOUS PROFESSIONALS - EN G INEERS, ARCHITECTS, AN D LEGAL AND FI N ANCIAL ADVISORS, REQUIRED FOR A PROJECT OF THIS KIN D . THE ASSESSEE HAD NO ROLE IN THE APPOINTMENT OF SUB - C O N T RACTORS AND HIRING OF SKILLED AND S E MI - SKILLED MANPOWER FOR THE CON S TRUC T ION WORK. THE FUNDS REQUIRED FOR EXECUTION O F THE PRO J ECT W ERE RAIS E D BY PB ITSELF; IT WAS ONLY IN AY 2009 - 10 THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE FIRST PAYM E NTS TO PB. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT PB WAS BOUND BY THE APPROVED LAYOUTS BUT WITHIN THE TERMS OF SUCH APPROVALS, PB HAD FULL AUTHORITY AND ALSO RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT ON LY CARRY OUT THE CON S TRUC T ION B UT ALSO TO CARRY OUT PERMI S SIBLE MODIFICATION S , ENGAGE PROFESSIONALS, AND MAN A GE CONN E C T IONS AND APPROVALS FOR ELECT R ICITY, WATER AN D DRAINAGE. THE RI S K INVOLVED IN FLUCTUATIONS IN COST OF CON S TRUCT I ON WAS ALSO EN T I R ELY THAT OF PB AND THE ASSESSEE H A D TO ONLY PAY A FIXED PRE - DETE R MINED SUM AS COST. IT IS, TH E R E F O RE , HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE H A D NOT PERFORMED THE ROLE O F A DEVELOPER AND NO T UN D ERTAKEN ANY INVESTMENT RISK WITH REGARD TO I TA NO. 1294/ HYD/2012 M/S. BHARGAVI DEVELOPERS, HYD ERABAD 5 THE HOUSING PROJECT, PARA M OUNT R ESIDENCY AND I S NO T ENTITLED TO DEDUC T ION U/S. 80IB(10). 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE PREFERRED THIS SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITERATING THE CONTENTIONS URGED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT SO AS TO BE ELIGIBLE TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IB(10), IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSEE TAKE ALL THE INVESTMENT RISKS AND CARRY THE CO NSTRUCTION, AND IN THE CASE OF A JOINT VENTURE, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, ANY ONE OF THE CONSTITUENTS COULD CLAIM SUCH DEDUCTION. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, HE PALED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH C OU R T IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. SHRAVANE EE CON S TRUCTIONS (2012)209 TAXMAN 6(KAR.), DULY FURNISHING A COPY THEREOF BEFORE US. 9. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHO R ITIES, AND SUBMI T TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDERTAKE N ANY RISK OR ACTIVITY WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THE CON S T R U CT ION OF THE DEVEL O PMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX IN QUESTION, AND THE ENTIRE ACTIVITY HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY PARAMOUNT BUILDERS, FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE M E RELY PURCHASED AT A PRE - DETERMINED RATE. IN THESE FACTUAL MATRIX, THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IB. 10. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT FROM IMP UGNE D ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY THE FOUR PERSONS, WHO LATER CONSTITUTED THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES , AND SOLD PART OF THE LAND PURCHASED TO THE FIRM, SELLING THE BALANCE EXTENT TO THE OTHER FIRM, M/S. PARAMOUNT BUILDERS. IT IS FURTHER EVIDENT THOSE FOUR PERSONS WHO HAVE OBTAINED TECHNICAL APPROVAL FROM HUDA, AND IT IS THOSE VERY PERSONS WHO HAVE OBTAINED BUILDING PERMISSIONS FROM NAGARAM PAN CHAYAT, KEESARA I TA NO. 1294/ HYD/2012 M/S. BHARGAVI DEVELOPERS, HYD ERABAD 6 MANDAL, R.R. DISTRICT. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT IN PURSUANCE OF THE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND M/S. PARAMOUNT BUILDERS THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT, PARAMOUNT RESIDENCY, WAS UNDERTAKEN. TECHNICAL APPRO VAL FOR THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS TAKEN TREATING THE ENTIRE PROJECT CON S TRUCTED ON TWO E X TENTS OF LAND, VIZ. NOT ONLY THE EXTENT SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM BUT ALSO ON THE EXTENT SOLD TO THE FIRM M/S. PARAMOUNT BUIL D ERS, AS A SINGLE UNIT. IN THIS FACTUAL BA CKGROUND, THE QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ONE OF THE TWO CONSTITUENTS OF THE JOINT VENTURE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, BY REFERRING TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN ANY INVESTMENT RISK OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND AS SUCH IT IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM UNDER S.80IB(10). WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS REASONING GIVEN BY THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IB(10) IS NOT CORRECT. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW, AS ENUNCIATED BY VARIOUS COURTS, AND CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY VARIOUS BE N CHES OF THIS T RIBUNAL, THAT IN THE CASE OF A JOINT VENT URE, ANY OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF SUCH JOINT VENTURE COULD CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IB(10), AND THE SAME HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS LONG AS NO OTHER CONSTITUENT OF THE JOINT VENTURE HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED THE SAME. IN THIS BEHALF, WE MAY REFER TO THE DECISION OF T HE KARNATAKA H I GH COU R T IN T H E CA S E OF CIT V/S. SHRAVANEE CO N S TRUCTIONS (SUPRA), RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, WHEREIN , CON S I D ERING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CA S E, WHICH INCLUDE OBTAI N ING KHATHA FROM MUNICIPALITY; OBTAI N ING PLAN SANCTION FOR CONSTRU C T I ON OF APARTMENT S ON THE SAID PROPERTY BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY; MARKING THE A PARTMENTS FALLING TO THE SHA R E OF THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS - 9. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATER, THE CONTENT ION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NO T UNDERTAKE ANY DEVELOPM E N T AL OR B UILDING ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE, H E CANNOT INDI VI DUALLY CL A IM THE BENEFIT HAS NO SUBSTANCE. THIS IS NO T THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW. KEEPING IN M IND, THE OBJECT WITH WHICH THIS PROVISI ON IS INTRODUCED WHEN ALL PERSONS WHO H A VE MADE INVESTMENTS IN THIS HOU S ING PROJECT WHICH I S FOR THE BENEFIT OF MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASS PEOPLE AND WHEN THEY H A VE COMPLIED WITH ALL THE CON D IT I ONS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE AFORESAID PROVISION, BOTH OF T HEM ARE ENTITLED TO HUNDRED I TA NO. 1294/ HYD/2012 M/S. BHARGAVI DEVELOPERS, HYD ERABAD 7 PERCENT BENEFIT OF TAX DE D UC T ION AS PROVIDED UNDER THE S E SAID PROVISION. IN THAT VIEW O F THE MATT E R, WE DO NO T SEE ANY M E RIT IN TH E SE APPEALS. THE SUB S TA N TIAL QUESTION OF LAW 9IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. . 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UN D ER S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT, MERELY BECAUSE IT HAS NOT TAKEN ANY INVESTMENT RISKS OR INDULGED IN CONSTRU CTION ACTIVITIES, AND THE ACTIVITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDISPUTEDLY UNDERTAKEN IN THE PRESENT CAE NOTED ABOVE, VERY MUCH MAKE THE ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE FOR THE RELIEF UNDER S.80IB(10). HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF A PROJECT UN D ERTAKEN BY A JOINT VENTURE, IT I S ONLY ANY ONE OF THE CONSTITUENTS, WHO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THAT BEIN G SO, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT, IF OTHER CONSTITUENT OF THE JO INT VENTURE, VIZ. PARAMOUNT BUILDERS HAS NOT CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION ON THE SAME PROJECT AFTER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 12 . IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 ND JANUARY, 2014 SD/ - SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI ) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT/ - 22 ND JANUARY, 2014 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. BHARGAVI DEVELOPERS, HYDERABAD 2 . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 11(4), HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) V I, HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX V HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S