ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad V. M/s Rajhans Builders, Hyderabad

ITA 1409/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 140922514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIVEDITA BISWAS
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Depreciation; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1409 OF 2014 RAJHANS BUILDERS JAMBAGH HYDERA BAD PAGE 1 OF 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BBENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1409/HYD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(1) HYDERABAD VS. M/S. RAJHANS BUILDERS 5-2-188, JAMBAGH HYDERABAD PAN: AAEFR 1330 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SHRI SMT.NIVEDITA BISWAS, CIT(DR) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI HARI AGARWAL DATE OF HEARING : 0 3 .09 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 . 11 . 2015 O R D E R PER SMT.P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y 2007-08. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRONEOUSLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE I NCOME FROM THE SALE OF THE BUILDING IS CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT I NCOME FROM BUSINESS AS HELD BY THE A.O. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDING AND DEVELO PING PROPERTIES, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2007 -08 ON 31.08.2007 BY DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.72,52,16 0. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCO ME ADMITTING A ITA NO.1409 OF 2014 RAJHANS BUILDERS JAMBAGH HYDERA BAD PAGE 2 OF 11 TOTAL INCOME OF RS.94,01,960 WHICH INCLUDED LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.92,51,772. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 17.12.2009 DETERMINING ASSESSED INCOME AT RS.91,01, 960 INCLUDING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CIT INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT ON TH E GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AS THE AO HAS ERRED IN ALL OWING THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS ARISING IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS CAPITAL GAINS, THOUGH THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECO RD THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED AS AN INVESTMENT. HE, THEREFO RE, SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR REDOING THE ASS ESSMENT AFTER CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY , THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 6.9.2012 REQUIRING T HE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY SALE PROCEEDS OF THE BUILDING COMPLEX SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT U/S 263. IN RESPONS E TO THE SAME, ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO HOLD THE DEVELOPED PROPERTY AS AN INVESTMEN T OR A CAPITAL ASSET AND NOT AS STOCK-IN-TRADE AND ACCORDINGLY T HE PROPERTY WAS LET OUT TO A SINGLE TENANT NAMELY STATE BANK OF INDIA AND THE RENTAL INCOME THEREFROM WAS ALSO OFFERED TO TAX UND ER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY CONSISTENTLY FROM 1997 ONWARDS WHICH WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS F URTHER ITA NO.1409 OF 2014 RAJHANS BUILDERS JAMBAGH HYDERA BAD PAGE 3 OF 11 SUBMITTED THAT THE SBI HAD ALSO SANCTIONED A LOAN T O THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY AS TH E CONSTRUCTION WAS TO BE MADE AS PER THEIR REQUIREMENT AND THE SAM E WAS BEING OCCUPIED BY THE BANK AS A TENANT FROM 01.11.1996 EV EN WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE REST OF THE BUILDING WAS PE NDING COMPLETION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS PROVES THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALWAYS TO HOLD THE PROPERTY AS AN INVESTMENT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPE RTY WAS HELD FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS AS AN INVESTMENT AND THE ENT IRE BUILDING WAS ULTIMATELY SOLD TO A SINGLE PARTY THROUGH A SIN GLE SALE DEED AND NOT TO VARIOUS PERSONS AND THE REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE SALE DEED AS A DEVELOPER CANNOT AND WILL NOT CH ANGE THE CHARACTER AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED ON ANY OTHER DEVE LOPMENT ACTIVITY AND HAS NOT EARNED ANY INCOME FROM BUSINES S IN ANY OF THE YEARS SINCE INCEPTION AND THE ONLY SOURCE OF IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THE RENTAL INCOME AND INTEREST IN COME. IT WAS ALSO REITERATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN OFFERING THE RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE SAME W AS BEING ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR ALL THE A.YS AND THE REFORE, INCOME FROM SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY WAS ALSO ASSESSAB LE AS CAPITAL GAINS ONLY. AO WAS, HOWEVER, NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PAR TNERSHIP FIRM ITA NO.1409 OF 2014 RAJHANS BUILDERS JAMBAGH HYDERA BAD PAGE 4 OF 11 HAVING SEVEN PARTNERS AND THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM WAS CONSTITUTED ON 6.11.1995 AND THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE ASSESS EE FIRM HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT ON 15.11.1 993 WITH THE LAND OWNERS FOR DEVELOPING COMMERCIAL CUM RESID ENTIAL COMPLEX ON A LAND ADMEASURING 963 SQ.YARDS AT JAMBA GH, HYDERABAD AND FURTHER THAT THE PARTNERSHIP DEED REV EALS THAT SRI RAJKUMAR JAIN HAD INVESTED FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING THE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX AND THEREAFTER TRANSFERRED THE P ROPERTY TO THE FIRM W.E.F. 1.4.1995. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED T HAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS TO CARRY ON DEVEL OPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTIES AND IT WAS NOT TO HOLD A NY ASSET AS INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION TH AT THE BUILDING WAS A BUSINESS ASSET OF THE ASSESSEE AND T HE INCOME FROM SALE OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. HE ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT IT TO TAX AS BUSINES S INCOME. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) WHO ALLOWED THE SAME AND THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 3. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS OF TH E ASSESSEE FIRM WAS TO CONSTRUCT AND DEVELOP PROPERTI ES AND ITS BUSINESS WAS NOT TO HOLD ANY ASSET AS AN INVESTMENT AND THEREFORE, THE BUSINESS ASSET SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD RESULT IN BUSINESS INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IN THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE LAND OWNERS, THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS ITA NO.1409 OF 2014 RAJHANS BUILDERS JAMBAGH HYDERA BAD PAGE 5 OF 11 REFERRED TO, AS A DEVELOPER. SHE SUBMITTED THAT WHE NEVER A BUSINESS ASSET IS SOLD EVEN AFTER HOLDING IT FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIOME, IT WOULD RESULT IN BUSINESS INCOME ONLY. ACC ORDING TO HER, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN TAKING THE LONGIVITY OF TH E PERIOD OF HOLDING INTO CONSIDERATION FOR HOLDING THE BUSINESS ASSET HELD BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE CAPITAL ASSET AND ALLOWING THE C LAIM OF CAPITAL GAIN. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE RE VENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE RENTAL INCOME FROM BUSINESS ASSET AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, IN THE EARLIER YEARS, IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE ASSET HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. SHE THER EFORE, ARGUED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) BE SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BE UPHELD. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THA T THE CRUCIAL QUESTION BEFORE US IS THE NATURE OF THE ASSET. WHIL E REITERATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, HE SUBMITTED THAT SRI RAJ KU MAR AGARWAL, AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO BECAME THE MANAGING PARTNER OF T HE FIRM SUBSEQUENTLY, HAD ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEM ENT WITH THE LAND OWNER IN 1993 AND HAD COMPLETED PART OF TH E CONSTRUCTION AND THE SEMI FINISHED BUILDING WAS TRA NSFERRED TO THE FIRM AFTER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FIRM IN 1995 . HE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE FIRM AND THE LAND OWNERS TO COLLECTIVELY OWN THE BUILDING AS AN INVESTMENT IN ITA NO.1409 OF 2014 RAJHANS BUILDERS JAMBAGH HYDERA BAD PAGE 6 OF 11 THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE AGREED TO BY THEM AND AFTER HOLDING THE ASSET FOR A LONG PERIOD OF 10 YEARS, THE ENTIRE ASS ET HAS BEEN SOLD, AS IT IS, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y BEFORE US. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTL Y HELD THE ASSET TO BE A CAPITAL ASSET AND HAS ACCORDINGLY TREATED T HE INCOME AS CAPITAL GAIN. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SURVEY ACTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 1998 WHEREI N AFTER THOROUGH VERIFICATION, THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE INCO ME FROM THE ABOVE PROPERTY AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND A CONSISTENT VIEW HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT EVERSINCE, IN ACCEPTING THE RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. H E FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 WHEREIN THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE RENTAL INCOME OFFER ED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BUT HAS TR EATED THE GAIN ON SALE AS BUSINESS INCOME. THIS, ACCORDING TO HIM, IS A CONTRADICTORY STAND TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. HE AL SO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY FOR THE RELEVANT A.Y WHEREIN THE BUILDING HAS BEEN SHOWN AS AN INVESTMENT AND HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR PARTICULAR ATTENT ION TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER TREATED THE SAID A SSET AS A BUSINESS ASSET. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE CI T (A) HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THE ASSET AS A CAPITAL ASSET AND TR EATED THE INCOME FROM SALE OF THE SAME AS CAPITAL GAIN. ITA NO.1409 OF 2014 RAJHANS BUILDERS JAMBAGH HYDERA BAD PAGE 7 OF 11 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE LAND OWNERS HAD ENTERED IN TO AN AGREEEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A CO MMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL MALL IN THE YEAR 1993 WITH MR. RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE FIRM WAS CONSTITU TED IN THE YEAR 1995 ONLY I.E., SUBSEQUENT TO THE ABOVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/MOU. HOWEVER, FROM THE MOU, IT IS SEEN T HAT MR. RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL IS REFERRED TO AS THE MANAGING PA RTNER OF THE FIRM, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO FIRM IN EXISTENCE. I T IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE SAID MANAGING PARTNER HAD CONTRIBUTED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMERCIAL CUM- RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX BEFORE THE FIRM CAME INTO EXISTENCE AND THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSE E FIRM WAS TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP AND CONSTRUCT THE PROPERTY OR A NY OTHER ALLIED NATURE OF BUSINESS. CLAUSE-3 OF THE PARTNERS HIP DEED READS AS UNDER : 3. THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE PARTNERSHIP S HALL CONTINUE TO BE DEVELOPING AND CONSTRUCTING OF PROPRIETARY OR ANY OTHER ALLIED NATURE OF BUSINESS AND THE PARTNERS MAY DECIDE TO UNDERTAKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS FOR THE MUTUAL ADVANTAGE AND COMMON BENEFIT. 5.1. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, IT APPEARS THAT THE SAI D SHRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL MAY HAVE HAD THE INTENTION TO FOR M A FIRM, AT THE TIME OF MOU ON 15.11.1993 BUT THE FIRM CAME INTO EXISTENCE ONLY IN 1995 WHEN THE SAID MANAGING PARTN ER COULD ITA NO.1409 OF 2014 RAJHANS BUILDERS JAMBAGH HYDERA BAD PAGE 8 OF 11 NOT COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING WITH HIS OWN FUNDS. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD T AKEN A LOAN FROM SBI FOR COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUICTION OF THE BUILDING AND THE SBI HAD BECOME A TENANT OF PART OF THE BUILDING . THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN RETURNING THE RENTAL INCOME FROM SBI AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE SAME WAS SCRUT INUSED BY THE REVENUE IN THE A.Y 1998 AFTER A SURVEY OPERATIO N AND ACCEPTED THE SAME. THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSE E IS THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD TAKE A CONSISTENT AND A UNIFORM STAND FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND CANNOT TAKE A STAND CONTRADICTORY TO ITS STAND IN THE EARLIER YEARS. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE REVENUE HAS TR EATED THE RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. NOW THE MOOT QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE TREATMENT OF THE RENTAL INCOME FROM AN ASSET AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WOULD D ETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE ASSET ? FOR TREATING THE INCOME A S INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE MUST BE AN OWNER OR D EEMED OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE A SSESSEE HAS BECOME THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, BY VIRTUE OF THE MOU TO AN EXTENT OF 60% IN THE PROPERTY. A PERSON, OWNING A B USINESS ASSET MAY NOT BE ABLE TO REALISE THE CONSIDERATION FOR SU CH BUSINESS ASSET BY SALE OR OTHERWISE IMMEDIATELY ON COMPLETIO N OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND THEREFORE, MAY LET IT OUT IN THE L EAN PERIOD. THE INCOME EARNED DURING SUCH PERIOD WHEN THE BUSINESS ASSET IS LET ITA NO.1409 OF 2014 RAJHANS BUILDERS JAMBAGH HYDERA BAD PAGE 9 OF 11 OUT, WHETHER IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OR BUSINESS INCOME HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEF ORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PROPER TIES AND INVESTMENTS LTD. VS. CIT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.4494 OF 2004 DT. 09.04.2015 AND THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAD NOTICED T HAT THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THEREIN WAS TO ACQUIRE AND HOLD THE PROPERTIES AND TO LET OUT THEM. CONSIDERIN G THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE THEREIN, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESS ABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS' AS IN THAT CASE THE BUSIENSS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTIES IN THE C ITY OF MADRAS/CHENNAI AND TO LET OUT THOSE PROPERTIES. APP LYING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE AS SESSEE IS TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP AND CONSTRUCT THE PROPERTIES OR CARRY ON ANY OTHER ALLIED NATURE OF BUSINESS. THUS, LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT ONE OF THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT MAY BE ALLIED NATURE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, IN THE CASE BEFORE U S, THE ASSESSEE BEING IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPME NT AND THE OBJECT OF THE BUSINESS IS TO BUILD AND CONSTRUCT, T HE ASSET WOULD DEFINITELY ACQUIRE THE NATURE OF A BUSINESS ASSET A ND THE PROCEEDS FROM SUCH AN ASSET WOULD BECOME BUSINESS I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF THE PRO PERTY, WOULD ITA NO.1409 OF 2014 RAJHANS BUILDERS JAMBAGH HYDERA BAD PAGE 10 OF 11 HAVE TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ON LY. NO DOUBT AS CONTENTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, A BUSINESS ASSET CAN ALWAYS BE CONVERTED INTO AN INVE STMENT AND RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THE ABOVE PROPERTY WAS HELD AS AN I NVESTMENT, IS RELYING UPON THE ENTRIES IN ITS BALANCE SHEET FOR T HE YEAR 2007-08 WHEREIN THE ASSET IS REFLECTED AS AN INVESTMENT. FU RTHER, IT IS ALSO THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE SAID ASSET, WHICH PROVE S THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER TREATED THE ASSET AS A BUSINESS ASSET. FURTHER ARGUMENT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE, IF IT HAD ANY INTENT ION TO SELL THE PROPERTY AS A BUSINESS ASSET, COULD HAVE SOLD ANY P ART OF THE BUILDING AS A UNIT AS AND WHEN THE DEMAND HAD ARISE N BUT HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY AS A SINGLE UNIT AND ALL THESE FA CTS GO IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALWAYS TO RETAIN THE ASSET. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONSI DERED THESE FACTS IN ADDITION TO THE LONGEVITY OF THE PERIOD OF HOLDING TO HOLD THE INCOME FROM TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY IS CAPITAL GAINS EXIGIBLE TO TAX. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT ANY OF THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE FINDING OF THE C IT(A) WITH ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE D O NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1409 OF 2014 RAJHANS BUILDERS JAMBAGH HYDERA BAD PAGE 11 OF 11 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.11 .2015. SD/- SD/- ( B. RAMAKOTAIAH ) ( P. MADHAVI DEVI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(1), 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. 2. M/S. RAJHANS BUILDERS, 5 - 2 - 188, JAMBAGH, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A) - V, HYDERABAD . 4. CIT - IV, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.