Rakesh Kommuri, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-6(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1335/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6451 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: G KALYAN DAS
• Keywords: Capital asset; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKARA REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. ASST. YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1876/HYD/2014 2010-11 SRI RAKESH KOMMURI, HYDERABAD [PAN: ASLPK7898M] THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), HYDERABAD 1335/HYD/2015 FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI G. KALYANDAS, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI M. SITARAM, DR DATE OF HEARING : 13-06-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-06-2016 O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKARA REDDY, A.M. : THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- IV & 6, HYDERABAD, DATED 22-10-2014 & 21-09-2015 FOR THE AY. 2010-11. WE FIRST TAKE UP THE QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1876/HYD/2014. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HIS RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE AY. 2010-11 ON 29-09-2011 DECLARING INCOME O F RS. 3,26,653/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) VIDE HIS OR DER DT. 28-03- 2013 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT), I.T.A. NOS. 1876/HYD/2014 1335/HYD/2015 :- 2 -: DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 73,01,276/- INTER ALIA COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 67,34,623/- A ND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 2,40,000/-. HE DENIED THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT. ON APPEA L, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO. F URTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY, TO AND THE FACT. 2. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDIN G THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF 3 RD FLOOR RESIDENTIAL FLAT WAS COMPLETED PRIOR TO 18-03-2008 AND ASSESSING CAPITAL G AINS RS. 69.74 LAKHS TO TAX. 3. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FURTHER ERRED IN ASSESSI NG LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS FOR TAX BASED ON GOOGLE EARTH I MAGES, AS SUCH IMAGES SHOW TOP TERRACE AND NOT CONSTRUCTION OF FLAT MADE UNDER THE FLOOR. 4. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW MISCONCEIVED THE FACTS ABOUT CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS BASED ON THE APPROVAL UNDER BRS SCHEME IN OCTOBER 2009. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE APPELLANT CONTENDS. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT INVESTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, RS. 19.28 LAKHS ON SALE OF FLAT AT SAI TIRUMALA TOWER S AND COST INFLATION INDEX VALUE RS. 45.51 LAKHS OF UNDIVID ED SHARE OF LAND IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF 3 RD FLOOR FLAT PRIOR TO ONE YEAR OF SALE AND ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAINS. I.T.A. NOS. 1876/HYD/2014 1335/HYD/2015 :- 3 -: 6. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVING HELD THAT ON SALE O F BOTH RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS RS. 64.79 LAKHS (19.28 + 45.51), ERRED IN NOT DEDUCTING THE ABOVE INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL FLAT. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE V ALUE OF INVESTMENT OF LAND, CONSTITUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL G AINS, IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL FLAT IN 3 RD FLOOR WHILE DETERMINING CAPITAL GAINS. 8. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT ADVERSE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, ARE NOT CORRECT AND ARE CONTRARY TO THE FACTS ON RECORD AND LAW. 9. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL GROUN DS AND PRAYS THAT INVESTMENT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WITH IN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD IN CONSTRUCTION OF FLAT BE DEDUC TED FROM THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI G. KALYANDA S SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH A NUMBER OF GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAIS ED DISPUTING THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE AO, INCLUDING THE RELIANCE BY THE AO ON GOOGLE EARTH PICTURES, TO COME TO A CONCLUSIO N AS TO WHETHER, THE BUILDING OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED I N ALL ASPECTS OR NOT, HE WOULD RESTRICT HIS ARGUMENTS TO THE LEGAL ISSU ES, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH ARE FACTUAL, THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S . 54 OF THE ACT. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF HIS SUBMISSIONS IS THAT , THE AO I.T.A. NOS. 1876/HYD/2014 1335/HYD/2015 :- 4 -: HAS HIMSELF COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT HYDERGUDA AT RS. 19,27,719/- A ND ON SALE OF LAND AT BANJARA HILLS RS. 48,06,904/- BUT DENIED TH E DEDUCTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT : A. THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROPERTY TOOK PLACE PRIOR TO THE DA TE OF SALE OF THE ASSET-IN-QUESTION; AND B. CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY IS NOT COMPLETED AND THAT THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION ON THESE GROUNDS IS BAD IN LAW HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOW CASE LAW FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT: A. THE CONSTRUCTION CAN COMMENCE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE SALE OF THE ASSET; AND B. IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS ON TRANS FER OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET IS INVESTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, FOR WHICH THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IS MADE AND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE NEED NOT BE COMPLETED. I. ITO VS. MR. NARAYANA RAO IN ITA NO. 1528/HYD/2014 & C.O. NO. 12/HYD/2015 B BENCH OF ITAT, HYDERABAD ORDER DT. 20-01-2016; II. CIT VS. SAMBANDHAM UDAYKUMAR IN IT APPEAL NO. 175/2012; JUDGMENT DT. 12-02-2012 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. III. NARASIMHA RAJU RUDRA RAJU VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2013) [143 ITD 586] (HYDERABAD); IV. CIT VS. H.K. KAPOOR [234 ITR 753] (ALLAHABAD); I.T.A. NOS. 1876/HYD/2014 1335/HYD/2015 :- 5 -: V. CIT VS. LATE N. KASI VISWANATHAN [2008] [305 ITR 371 (MAD); 4. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT, THE CONSTRUCTI ON OF THE HOUSE ON WHICH DEDUCTION IS CLAIMED U/S. 54 IS NOT COMPLETED AND THIS FACT CANNOT BE DISPUTED, AS THE ASSES SEE HAS APPLIED FOR REGULARISATION UNDER THE BUILDING REGULA RISATION SCHEME (BRS) TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THAT THE REGULARISATION WAS DONE ONLY ON 19-10-2009. HE POI NTED OUT THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE F ACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE AO ON ALL THESE ASPECTS, WHICH ARE LIS TED OUT AT PAGE NO. 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON THE PLEA O F THE ASSESSEE FOR BENEFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF AN INCENTIVE PROVISION, HE SUBMITTED THAT ON A PLAIN READING OF THE SECTION, IT IS C LEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54, FOR THE REASON THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY WAS NOT COMP LETED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. HE ARGUED THAT, WHEN THE PR OVISIONS OF THE STATUTE ARE UN-AMBIGUOUS, THE QUESTION OF BENEFICI AL INTERPRETATION DOES NOT ARISE. IN REPLY, THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT BRS FALLS WITHIN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 5. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE QUANTUM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND HA S CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54. THE SHORT POINT FOR CONSIDERATION I S WHETHER THE CLAIM FOR THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54 CAN BE DENIED FOR THE REASON THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE WAS NOT COMPLETED WITH IN THE I.T.A. NOS. 1876/HYD/2014 1335/HYD/2015 :- 6 -: STIPULATED PERIOD OR FOR THE REASON THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE STARTED PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. 6. THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. MR. NARAYANA RAO IN ITA NO. 1528/HYD/2014 & C.O. NO. 12/HYD/2015 (SUPRA) CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL SITUAT ION. AT PARA 4 TO 4.2, THE ITAT HELD AS UNDER: 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND MAT ERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, T HE ASSESSEE HAS UTILISED THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GAINS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BUT DUE TO CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASS ESSEE, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WI THIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE US ARE S IMILAR TO THE CASE BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NARASIMHA RAJU RUDRA RAJU VS. ACIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE TRIBUN AL HAS HELD AS UNDER : 11. . . WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT PROVISION CONTAINED U/S 54F BEING A BENEFICIAL PROVISION HAS TO BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY. IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AS ALSO IN THE DECISION CITED BEFORE US BY THE LEARNED AR, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT U/S 54F IS THE CAPITAL GAIN REALIZED FROM THE SALE OF CAPITAL ASSE T SHOULD HAVE BEEN PARTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND INVESTE D EITHER IN PURCHASING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OR IN CONSTRUCTING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IF THE ASSESSEE H AS INVESTED THE MONEY IN CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL H OUSE MERELY BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS AND IT WAS NOT IN A FIT CONDITION TO BE OC CUPIED WITHIN THE PERIOD STIPULATED THAT WOULD NOT DISENTI TLE THE ASSESSEE FROM CLAIMING THE BENEFIT U/S 54F OF THE A CT. ONCE THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATES THAT THE CONSIDERATI ON RECEIVED ON TRANSFER HAS BEEN INVESTED EITHER PURCH ASING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OR IN CONSTRUCTING A RESIDENTIA L HOUSE EVEN THOUGH THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS AND AS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW, THAT WO ULD NOT DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FROM AVAILING BENEFIT U /S 54F OF THE ACT. EVEN INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASING A PL OT OF LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTI AL HOUSE HAS BEEN HELD TO BE AN INVESTMENT SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THOUGH THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE SAID PROPOS ITION I.T.A. NOS. 1876/HYD/2014 1335/HYD/2015 :- 7 -: OF LAW, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PROVE THE ACTUA L DATE OF INVESTMENT AND THE AMOUNT INVESTED TOWARDS PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. 4.1. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF FIBR E BOARDS (P.) LTD., VS. CIT (2015) 376 ITR 596 (SC) HAS HELD AS U NDER : 38. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AFORESAID CONSTRU CTION OF SECTION 54G WOULD RENDER NUGATORY A VITAL PART OF THE SAID SECTION SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED. UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) , THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TAKES PLACE TO PURCHASE NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT AND ACQUIRE BUILDING OR LAND OR CONSTRUCT BUILDING FOR THE PURP OSE OF HIS BUSINESS IN THE SAID AREA. IF THE HIGH COURT IS RIG HT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PURCHASE AND/OR ACQUIRE MACHINERY, PLANT, LA ND AND BUILDING WITHIN THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH T HE TRANSFER TAKES PLACE. FURTHER, THE HIGH COURT HAS MISSED THE KEY WORDS NOT UTILIZED IN SUB-SECTION (2) WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD O NLY BE UTILIZED BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTIO N FOR ALL OR ANY OF THE PURPOSES AFORESAID, THAT IS TOWARDS PURCHASE AND ACQUISITION OF PLANT AND MACHINERY, AND LAND AND BU ILDING. ADVANCES PAID FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE AND/OR AC QUISITION OF THE AFORESAID ASSETS WOULD CERTAINLY AMOUNT TO UTIL IZATION BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE CAPITAL GAINS MADE BY HIM FOR THE P URPOSE OF PURCHASING AND/OR ACQUIRING THE AFORESAID ASSETS. W E FIND THEREFORE THAT ON THIS GROUND ALSO, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO SUCCEED. THE APPEALS ARE, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT IS SET ASIDE. 4.2. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE ON RE CORD AND IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS INVESTED THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN FOR CONSTRUCTIO N OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD, WE DO NOT SEE AN Y REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS INCONSONANCE WITH THE PRECEDENTS ON THE ISSUE. AS IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED THE E NTIRE CAPITAL GAIN WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTR UCTION OF THE PROPERTY, THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE LAW APPLY ON ALL FOURS TO THE FACTS ON HAND. SIMILAR LY, THE FINDING OF THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED INVESTING IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY, PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS AN D HENCE HE IS I.T.A. NOS. 1876/HYD/2014 1335/HYD/2015 :- 8 -: NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54. WE FIND THAT HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. H.K. KAPO OR [234 ITR 753] (SUPRA) AT PARA 7 & 8 HELD AS FOLLOW: 7. THE QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER EXEM PTION ON CAPITAL GAINS COULD BE REFUSED TO THE ASSESSEE SIMP LY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SURYA NAGAR, AG RA HOUSE, HAD BEGUN BEFORE THE SALE OF THE GOLF LINK HOUSE. SIMI LAR QUESTION CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. J.R. SUBRAMANYA BHAT [1987] 165 ITR 571. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, THE DATE OF T HE SALE OF THE OLD BUILDING WAS FEBRUARY 9, 1977. THE COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW BUILDING WAS IN MARCH, 1977 , ALTHOUGH THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION STARTED IN 1976. ON T HESE FACTS, THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD THAT IT WAS IMMATERIAL TH AT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW BUILDING WAS STARTED BEFORE THE SALE OF THE OLD BUILDING. WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN B Y THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HO LDING THAT CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF GOLF LINK HO USE TO THE EXTENT IT GOT INVESTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SURYA NA GAR HOUSE, WILL BE EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 8. COMING TO QUESTION NO. 3, IT WILL SUFFICE TO SAY THAT IT IS MISCONCEIVED. THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT RECORD ANY FIND ING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INVEST THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE CO NSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOUSE. EXEMPTION WAS REFUSED FOR THE SIMPLE RE ASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD STARTED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SURYA NAGAR HOUSE BEFORE THE SALE OF THE GOLF LINK HOUSE. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION THAT FOR AVAILING OF THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE OLD BUILDIN G MUST BE USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW BUILDING, WAS NOT BE FORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOW N IN THE ABOVE CASE LAWS, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESS EE. WE DIRECTED THE AO TO GRANT DEDUCTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT. 7. AS REGARDS THE OTHER FACTUAL ARGUMENTS AND GROUNDS R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT ADJUDICATE THE SAME IN VI EW OF OUR FINDING ON THE LEGAL ISSUES AS IT WOULD BE AN ACADEM IC EXERCISE. I.T.A. NOS. 1876/HYD/2014 1335/HYD/2015 :- 9 -: 8. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 1876/HYD/2014 IS ALLOWED 9. ITA NO. 1335/HYD/2015 IS AN APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE PENALTY LEVIED ON THE QUANTUM ADDITION IN ITA NO. 1876/HYD/2014. AS WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION IN TH E QUANTUM APPEAL, WE DELETE THE PENALTY AND ALLOW THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT ITA NO. 1335/HYD/2015 AND ITA NO. 1876/HYD/2014 BOTH ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JUNE, 2016 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (J. SUDHAKARA REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R HYDERABAD, DATED 17 TH JUNE, 2016 TNMM I.T.A. NOS. 1876/HYD/2014 1335/HYD/2015 :- 10 -: COPY TO : 1. SRI RAKESH KOMMURI, H.NO. 8-2-293/82L, PLOT NO. 7 0A, MLA COLONY, ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. C/O. M/S. KALYANDAS & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 15, VENKATESHWARA COLONY, NARAYANAGUDA, HYDERABAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), HYDERABAD. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-IV, HYDERABA D. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-6, HYDERABAD . 5. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYDERABAD. 6. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, HYDERABAD. 7. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 8. GUARD FILE.