ITO., Ward- 8(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. M/s Prashanth Sai Builders, Hyderabad

ITA 1652/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8944 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Section: 143(3); 80IB

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.1652 AND 1653 OF 2014 PRASHANTH SAI BUILDER S HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT.ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1652 & 1653/HYD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(1) HYDERABAD VS. PRASHANTH SAI BUILDERS HYDERABAD PAN: AAHFP 6577 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SHRI RAJAT MITRA, DR FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI K.C. DEVDAS, CA DATE OF HEARING : 11/03/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 /03 /2015 O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M. THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-III, HYDERABAD, DATED 2 5 TH AUGUST, 2014, PASSED FOR A.YS 2010-11 & 2011-12. SINCE COMM ON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THEY WERE HEARD TOGE THER AND DISPOSED OFF WITH THIS COMMON ORDER, FOR THE SAKE O F CONVENIENCE. 2. BRIEF FACTS ARE, ASSESSEE IS A FIRM DERIVING INC OME FROM CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL FLATS. ASSESSEE FILED R ETURN OF INCOME FOR A.YS 2010-11 ON 15.10.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.16,30,020 AND FOR A.Y 2011-12 ON 30.09.211 DETER MINING ITA NOS.1652 AND 1653 OF 2014 PRASHANTH SAI BUILDER S HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 8 TOTAL INCOME AT RS.15,23,350. AO COMPLETED THE ASSE SSMENT ON 28.03.2013 FOR A.Y 2010-11 AND ON 18.02.2014 FOR A. Y 2011-12 U/S 143(3) DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,17,15,7 40 AND RS.85,62,700 RESPECTIVELY. 3. THE LD CIT (A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E ON FURTHER APPEAL AND HELD AS UNDER: 11. THE FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO REJECTION OF CLAIM U/S 80IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCES AVAILABLE CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS COMPL ETED BY 31.03.2008. FURTHER, THE SAME ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE EARLIER A.YS I.E. 200 6-07 TO 2009-10. THE HON'BLE ITAT HYDERABAD IN THEIR ORDER DATED 22.01.2014 FOR THE A.YS 2007-08 (ITA NO.696/HYD/2013) AND A.Y 2008-09 (ITA NO.697/HYD/2013) HELD THAT THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTI ON U/S 80IB OF THE I.T. ACT WERE NOT SUSTAINABLE AND T HUS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). FOLLOWING THE S AME DECISION, THE HON'BLE ITAT HYDERABAD IN THEIR ORDER DATED 30.06.2014 FOR THE A.Y 2006-07 (ITA NO.416/HYD/2014) AND A.Y 2009-10 (ITA NO.417/HYD/2014) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ALLOWIN G THE APPELLANTS CLAIM WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10). THUS, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT U/S 80IB (10) WAS ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT FOR T HE A.YS 2006-07 TO 2009-10. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT HYDERABAD I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE IT ACT I N RESPECT OF THE PROFITS OF THE SAID HOUSING PROJECT. HENCE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION. IT IS TO BE MENTIONED THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO WITH REGA RD TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS WATER CONNECTIO N ITA NOS.1652 AND 1653 OF 2014 PRASHANTH SAI BUILDER S HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 8 AND VALUE OF STOCK, THE SAME MAY NOT BE RELEVANT TO THE FACT THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS COMPLETED BY 31.03.2008 ITSELF, BECAUSE AS EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT, IN THE LIGHT OF AN UNDERSTANDING WITH TH E CUSTOMERS I.E. FLAT OWNERS THE APPELLANT INCURRED FURTHER EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THES SAID PROJECT . THE APPELLANT FILED A DETAILED EXPLANATION, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: .. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS A/C THAT EXPENDITURE RELATING TO FINISHING WORKS IS INCURRED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y 2010-11 MAINLY EXPENDITURE RELATING TO LAW, CLUB HOUSE, SWIMMING P OOL, GYM AND SOME EXPENDITURE RELATING TO CHANGES REQUESTED BY F LAT OWNERS. THE AO HAS NOT PIN POINTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION COST AND NOT FOR THE ABOVE WORKS CARRI ED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PROFIT ADMITTED IS 30% FOR THE SALES OF RS.6,42 ,65,250 WHICH IS RS.1,92,79,575 WHEN WE DEDUJCT THE TOTAL EXPENDI TURE INCURRED IS ONLY RS.3,83,80,629 RELATING TO SALES. THE DETAI LS OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE YEAR-WISE ARE AS UNDER: A.Y AMOUNT OF EXPENSES (RS.) 2004-05 1,33,05,906 2005-06 3,50,46,385 2006-07 6,02,08,607 2007-08 12,29,43,792 2008-09 10,91,44,432 2009-10 5,13,83,769 2010-11 3,83,80,629 WHEN THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE IS RS.43,04,13,520, THE EXPENDITURE RELATING TO THIS YEAR IS ONLY RS.3,83,80,629. AS FA R AS THE EXPENDITURE RELATING TO WATER PIPELINE, THE AMOUNT PAID AMOUNT TO RS.58,13,100 FOR WATER WORKS DEPARTMENT. WHETHER TH E ASSESSEE WAS GOING ROUND THE DEPARTMENT TO LAY WATER PIPE TH E ASSESSEE WAS GOING ROUND THE DEPARTMENT TO LAY WATER PIPE WO RKS IT TOOK 3 TO 4 YEARS TO GET WATER CONNECTION. MEANWHILE THE R ESIDENTS WERE DRAGGING WATER FROM BOREWELL AND WHEN THERE IS EVID ENCE OF BPS PAYMENT FOR REGULARIZATION AND THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER REGARDING COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. THE EVIDENCE IS COMPLETE AND ALSO HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEALS IN ASSESSEE FAVOUR IN THE A.YS 2006-07 TO 2 009-10. ITA NOS.1652 AND 1653 OF 2014 PRASHANTH SAI BUILDER S HYDERABAD PAGE 4 OF 8 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, BASING ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED BY 31.03.2008. IT IS SUPPORTED BY THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER , GHMC. IT IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE APPLIE D FOR BPS BY 15.07.2008 ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE HANDED OVER THE SHA RE OF FLATS TO THE LAND LORD BY 31.03.2008 ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE SO LD AWAY THE FLATS FALLEN TO HIS SHARE EXCEPT 27 BY 31.03.2008 I TSELF. WHATEVER EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED AND DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT SUBSEQUENT TO 31.03.2008 WAS INCURRED FOR THE PURPO SE OF PROMISED COMMON FACILITIES TAGGED ON TO THE HOUSING PROJECT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AS THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AS LAID DOWN U/S 80IB OF THE IT ACT TH E DEDUCTION CLAIMED MAY BE ALLOWED. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE U S RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AS WELL AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. WHETHER THE CIT (A) IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) DES PITE THE FACT THAT PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED BY THE STIPULATED TIME I.E. 31.03.2008. 3. THE HON'BLE CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW IN GRANTING REL IEF TO THE ASSESSEE BASING ON THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TH E ZONAL COMMISSIONER, GHMC WHICH IS AGAINST THE BASIS ON THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE HON'BLE CIT (A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE INFORM ATION FURNISHED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER, GHMC IN WHICH IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJE CT STILL IN PROGRESS AS ON THE DATE OF INFORMATION FURNISHED I.E. 22.3.2010 5. THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THE ITAT HYDERA BAD BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.696 & 697/H YD/2013 HELD AS FOLLOWS: ITA NOS.1652 AND 1653 OF 2014 PRASHANTH SAI BUILDER S HYDERABAD PAGE 5 OF 8 17. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE HOUSING PROJECT PLAN W AS APPROVED BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY ON 10.03.2004 A ND DUE DATE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF PROJECT WAS 31.03.2008. SI NCE THIS IS A CRUCIAL DATE, THE PRE-AMENDED SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT AS STOOD AT THE TIME OF GETTING APPROVAL FROM THE LOCA L AUTHORITY IS APPLICABLE. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10 ) INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 AN UNDERTAKING WHICH DEVELOPS AND BUI LDS HOUSING PROJECTS APPROVED BEFORE 31.3.2007 BY A LOC AL AUTHORITY IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) O F THE ACT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 'I) IN A CASE WHERE THE HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN AP PROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE 01-04-2004, THE CONSTRUC TION SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 31- 03-2008. IN A CASE WHERE THE APPROVAL FROM LOCAL AUTHORITY IS OBTAINED ON OR AFTER 01-04-2004, THE CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE COMPLET ED WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE HOUSING PROJECT IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. II) THE HOUSING PROJECT IS CONSTRUCTED ON A PLOT OF LAND WHICH HAS A MINIMUM AREA OF 1 ACRE. III) THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED IN THE HOUSI NG PROJECT HAVE A MAXIMUM BUILT UP AREA OF 1500 SQ. FT. WHERE SUCH UNITS ARE SITUATED IN PLACES OTHER THAN DELHI OR MU MBAI. IV) THE BUILT-UP AREA OF SHOPS AND OTHER COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS INCLUDED IN THE HOUSING PROJECTS DOE S NOT EXCEED 5% OF THE AGGREGATE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE HOU SING PROJECT OR 2000 SQ. FT., WHICHEVER IS LESS.' 18. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL WAS OBTAINED ON 10.3.2004 AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON TH IS ISSUE. BEING SO, THE PROVISIONS AS STOOD DURING THE A.Y. 2 004-05 ARE APPLICABLE WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: '80IB(10): THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS IN CASE OF AN UNDE RTAKING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS APPROVED BEFORE THE 3 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2005 BY A LOCAL AUTHORITY, SHALL BE HUNDR ED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR RE LEVANT TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IF,- (A) (B)..AND (C..' ITA NOS.1652 AND 1653 OF 2014 PRASHANTH SAI BUILDER S HYDERABAD PAGE 6 OF 8 19. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE SUBSTITUTION OF SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF THE ACT, PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT, THERE WAS NO SU CH REQUIREMENT AS REGARDS FURNISHING OF COMPLETION CER TIFICATE AND THE DEDUCTION PROVISION POINTED OUT TO THE GRAN T OF 100% DEDUCTION ON THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM A HOUSING PRO JECT, IF THE UNDERTAKING HAD COMMENCED DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCT ION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT ON OR AFTER 1ST OCTOBER, 19 98. THUS, TILL 2005, THERE WAS NO CLAUSE DEALING WITH COMPLETION, IN WHICH EVENT, ONE CANNOT READ INTO THE PROVISION AS A COND ITION, WHICH IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR THEREIN. 20. AS FAR AS THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IS RELATED TO A.YS. 2007-08 AND 200 8-09, THE PROJECT WAS GOT APPROVED BY THE CONCERNED LOCAL AUT HORITY BEFORE 1.4.2004. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB AS S TOOD PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE'S C ASE. AS THE SUBSTITUTION OF EXPLANATION TO CLAUSE (A) TO S UBSECTION (10) OF SECTION 80IB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WA S BROUGHT IN UNDER FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT OF 2004, EFFECTIVE FRO M 1.4.2005. THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH REQUIREMENT READ I NTO THE SECTION, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE OBSERVA TION OF THE AO THAT THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION WAS REJECTED ON THE GR OUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE COMPLETION CERTI FICATE. BEING SO, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REQUIREMENT U/S. 80 IB(10)(A) OF THE ACT AND GOING BY THE PROVISIONS AS APPLICABL E TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDU CTION HAS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON PRODUCTION OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. 21. FURTHER, OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY JUDGMENT OF M ADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAIN HOUSING & CO NSTRUCTION LTD., REPORTED IN 214 TAXMAN 178, WHEREIN THEIR LORD SHIPS HELD AS UNDER: '9. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE SUBSTITUTION OF SECTION 80IB(10) (1) OF THE ACT, PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT, THERE WAS N O SUCH REQUIREMENT AS REGARDS FURNISHING OF COMPLETION CER TIFICATE AND THE DEDUCTION PROVISION POINTED OUT TO THE GRAN T OF 100% DEDUCTION ON THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM A HOUSIN G PROJECT, IF THE UNDERTAKING HAD COMMENCED DEVELOPME NT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT ON OR AFTER 1ST OCTOBER, 1998. THUS, TILL 2005, THERE WAS NO CLAUSE DEALING WITH COMPLETION, IN WHICH EVENT, ONE CANNOT READ IN TO THE PROVISION AS A CONDITION, WHICH IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR THEREIN. ITA NOS.1652 AND 1653 OF 2014 PRASHANTH SAI BUILDER S HYDERABAD PAGE 7 OF 8 10. AS FAR AS THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED, IT REL ATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE SUBSTITUTION OF EXPLAN ATION TO CLAUSE (A) TO SUB-SECTION (10) OF SECTION 80IB O F THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS BROUGHT IN UNDER FINANCE NO.(2) ACT OF 2004, EFFECTIVE FROM 01.04.2005. THUS, IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY SUCH REQUIREMENT READ INTO THE SECTION, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT TH E CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION HAS TO BE REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THEASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE COMPLETION CERTIF ICATE. LEAVING THAT ASIDE, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE READING OF THE COMMISSIONER'S ORDER, IN ANY EVENT, THE ASSESSEE HA D PRODUCED THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF T HE PROJECTS JAINS SAGARIKA, MRC NAGAR, CHENNAI AND JAI NS SWARNAKAMAL, VADAPALANI, CHENNAI AND THE PROJECTS A T VELACHERRY, CHITLAPAKKAM AND VIRUGAMBAKKAM. AS FAR AS THE PROJECTS AT MANAPAKKAM AND PALLAVARAM ARE CONCERNED, IF THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED CERTIFICAT ES FROM SEWERAGE AND ELECTRICITY BOARD, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSIONER WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF T HE RULES, AS ALREADY POINTED OUT, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND GOING BY THE PROVISION, AS IT STOOD DURING RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, 2004-05, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCT ION RESTED ON THE ASSESSEE'S PRODUCTION OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATES.' 22. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THERE IS NO IN FIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS TO BE CONFIRMED . 23. FURTHER THERE IS A CONTROVERSY REGARDING ISSUE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE BY THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, V IDE HIS LETTER DATED 26.2.2010. ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS A CER TIFICATE ISSUED BY ZONAL COMMISSIONER, GHMC, WEST ZONE, SERILINGAMPALLY WHICH WAS DISCUSSED BY THE CIT(A) I N PARA 6 OF HIS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2008-09. CONTRARY TO THIS, TH ERE IS ONE MORE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CIRC LE 12, WEST ZONE, SERILINGAMPALLY VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 22 .3.2010. ACCORDING TO THIS LETTER, THERE WAS NO COMPLETION C ERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED. IN OUR OPINION , THE CONTROVERSY ON ISSUE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IS I RRELEVANT AT THIS POINT OF TIME IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF MADRA S HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAIN HOUSING & CONSTRU CTION LTD. ITA NOS.1652 AND 1653 OF 2014 PRASHANTH SAI BUILDER S HYDERABAD PAGE 8 OF 8 (CITED SUPRA), THOUGH THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS PROPER. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORD INATE BENCH IN ITA NOS.696 & 697/HYD/2013, WE DISMISS THE APPEA LS FILED BY THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH MARCH, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( P.M. JAGTAP ) ( ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED, 11 TH MARCH, 2015. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(1) 8 TH FLOOR, D BLOCK, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD 2. M/S PRASHANTH BUILDERS, 3 RD FLOOR, WHISTLING WOOD, BHANU TOWNSHIP, HAFEEZPET, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD 3. THE CIT(A)-III HYDERABAD 4. THE CIT II HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER