Shyam Kumar Ahuja, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Hyderabad

ITA 1737/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61864 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Business income; Deemed dividend

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1736/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ITA NO.1737/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ITA NO.1738/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ITA NO.1739/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 SHRI SHYAM KUMAR AHUJA, HYDERABAD ( PAN - ACLPA 5648 M ) V/S ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S HRI S.RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.SRINIVAS (CIT - DR) DATE OF HEARING 2.5.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15.5.2012 O R D E R PER D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE FOUR APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST SIMILAR BUT SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)- I, HYDERABAD DATED 4.8.2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2003-04 AND FROM 2007-08 TO 2009-10. SINCE A COMMON ISSUE IS I NVOLVED, THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF WITH THIS COMMON ORD ER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.1736/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.2,55,000 MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BY WAY OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1736 TO 1739/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM KUMAR AHUJA, HYDERABAD 2 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT A SEARCH A ND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON THE RESIDEN TIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 17.9.2008. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U NDER S.153A ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT, ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR TREATING THE RETURNS ORIGINALLY FIELD AS THE RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UN DER S.153A. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OF FICER EXAMINED THE BALANCE SHEET AND NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHO WN OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OF RS.2,55,000 FROM VETERAN PROPERTIES PV T. LTD., WHEREIN, THE ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR HOLDING MORE THAN 10% SHARE S. SINCE THE COMPANY HA ACCUMULATED PROFIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,55,000 AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE, WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESS MENT UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT, ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,57,482. 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A), VIDE HIS COMMON ORDER F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05, UPHELD THE AD DITION OF RS.2,55,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSOFAR A S THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS CONCERNED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE COMPANY, M/S. VETERAN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., OF WHICH ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR HOLDING MORE THAN 1 0% SHARES, DOES NOT HAVE RESERVES, FOR ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF S.2 (22)(E) OF THE ACT. THIS IS A FACTUAL MATTER WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US. SINCE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES DID NOT HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING ITA NO.1736 TO 1739/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM KUMAR AHUJA, HYDERABAD 3 OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE MATTER AFRE SH IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. ANY ADDITION THA T MAY BE WARRANTED IN TERMS OF S.2(22)(E) MAY BE CONSIDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASS ESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1737/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 8. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.5,92,0454 MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BY WAY OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 9. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF RELATING TO THIS YEA R ARE THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT ISSU ED, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT THE RETURN FILED ORIGINALLY DECLARIN G AN INCOME OF RS.4,15,719, MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RES PONSE TO NOTICE UNDER S.153A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.6,92,454 AS DEEMED DIVIDEND AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11,08,173. 10. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A), AFTER REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 , AGREED IN PRINCIPLE THAT THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY SHOULD BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. HOWEVER, OBSERVING THAT THERE IS SOME CONFUSION REG ARDING THE EXACT AMOUNT OF OUTSTANDING LIABILITY WHICH IS ALSO DISPU TED BY THE ASSESSEE, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASCERTAIN THE COR RECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE RS.5,92,454 AND NOT RS.6,92,454, AND IF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT, HE DIRECTED THAT THEN THAT AMOUNT ALONE SHOULD BE A DDED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. ITA NO.1736 TO 1739/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM KUMAR AHUJA, HYDERABAD 4 11. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS A DIRECTOR IN VETERAN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., HOLDING MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007-08, IN PRINCIPLE, FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003-04 AND 2004- 05, HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S.2(22)(E) ARE ATT RACTED AND OUTSTANDING SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS LIABILITY TO M/S. VETERAN PROPERTIES LTD. IS NOTHING BUT DEEMED DIVIDEND. IN THE COMMON APPELLAT E ORDER DATED 4.8.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004- 05, THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 3.1 NOTED THAT SINCE THE AMOUNT RELEVANT FOR T HAT YEAR OF RS.2,55,000 WAS SHOWN AS LIABILITY TO M/S. VETERAN PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE SAID AMOUNT FROM THE SAID COMPANY. HOWEVER, HE NOTED, NO DETAIL HAS BEEN FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OR DURING T HE APPELLATE PROCEEDING IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE SA ID LIABILITY DOES NOT REPRESENT DEEMED DIVIDEND. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT S .2(22)(E) OF THE ACT COVERS ANY PAYMENT BY A COMPANY, NOT BEING A COMPAN Y, IN WHICH PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED, OF ANY SUM BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN TO A SHARE HOLDER BEING A PERSON TO THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES HOLDING NOT LESS THAN 10% OF THE VOTING POWER. SINCE THE ASS ESSEE WAS HOLDING MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, OBVIOUSLY, THE CIT(A) NOTED, THE PAYMENT OF RS.2,55,000 BY THE SAID COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THAT YEAR, WOULD COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF S.2(22)(E), ESPECIALLY S INCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT PAID WAS NEITH ER A LOAN NOR ANY ADVANCE. EVEN BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS TO INDICATE THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM THE SAID COMPANY, WHICH WAS SHOWN AS LIABILITY TO THAT COMPA NY IN THE BALANCE SHEET, IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, IN PRINCIPLE, WITH REGARD TO APPLICABILITY TO THE PROVISIONS OF S.2(22 )(E) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1736 TO 1739/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM KUMAR AHUJA, HYDERABAD 5 CONSIDERING THE CONFUSION WITH REGARD TO THE QUANTU M OF THE LIABILITY, THE CIT(A) HAS, AS NOTED ABOVE, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF LIABILITY WAS ONLY RS.5,92,454 AND NOT RS.6,92,454. WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE REJE CTED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1738/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 13. THE FIRST ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELAT ES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.72,936 MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BY WA Y OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 14. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF RELATING TO THIS YE AR ARE THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT ISSU ED, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT THE RETURN FILED ORIGINALLY DECLARIN G AN INCOME OF RS.2,56,510, MAY BE TREATED AS A RETURN FILED IN R ESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER S.153A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE INTER ALIA AN ADDITION OF RS.72,936 AS DEEMED DIVIDEND AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11,08,173. 15. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A), AFTER REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 , CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 16. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUT E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08, EXCEPT THAT THERE IS NO CONFUSION WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUN T OF LIABILITY TO ITA NO.1736 TO 1739/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM KUMAR AHUJA, HYDERABAD 6 M/S.VETERAN PROPERTIES INVOLVED. THAT BEING SO, FO R THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN PARA 11 ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR THIS YEAR AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 17. THE NEXT ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO AN DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.6,00,126 PAID ON THE LOAN TAKEN FROM UTI BANK. 18. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS BEEN RECEIVING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. AGAINST THE TOTAL RENT RECEIVED OF RS.6,00,000 ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION TOWARDS INT EREST OF RS.6,00,126. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER OF UTI BANK THAT THE LOAN HAS BEEN TAKEN AGAINST PROPERTY AND HAS BE EN SPECIFIED AS COMMERCIAL LOAN. OBSERVING THEREFORE, THAT THE LOA N IS OBVIOUSLY NOT FOR HOUSING PURPOSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED T HE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INTEREST OF RS.6,00,126. 19. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A), OBSERVING THAT LOAN HA S NOT BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE HOUSE PROPERTY FROM WHICH INCOME H AS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. HENCE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 20. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSES SEE REITERATING THAT THE LOAN WAS UTILISED FOR THE HOUSING PURPOSE ONLY, SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S NOT CORRECT. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, PER CONTRA, ST RONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 21. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ONE OF THE FACTUAL CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US RELATES TO ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY INTO THE UTILIZATION OF BORROWED FUNDS, BASED ITA NO.1736 TO 1739/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM KUMAR AHUJA, HYDERABAD 7 ON ANY CASH FLOW ANALYSIS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY MENTIONED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE FOR THIS LIMITED PURPOSE OF EXAMINING THE CASH FLOW ANALYSIS , FOR ASCERTAINING THE UTILISATION OF THE BORROWED FUNDS. CONSIDERING TOTA LITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND IT JUST AND PROP ER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE, AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE LOAN ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE RELEVANT BANK, F ROM WHICH LOAN WAS TAKEN, AND ASCERTAIN THE UTILIZATION OF THE AMOUNT OF LOAN. IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT OF LOAN WAS INDEED UTILIZED FOR THE HOUSING PROPERTY, FROM WHICH PROPERTY INCOME IN QUESTION WAS DERIVED AND OFFERED FOR ASSESSMENT, THE INTEREST MAY BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIO N IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ACCORDINGLY REDECIDE THIS ISSUE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AND AFTER GIVIN G REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 22. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1739/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 23. THE FIRST ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELAT ES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.5,75,555 MADE BY DISALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAI M WITH REGARD TO INTEREST PAID TO THE UTI BANK. 24. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF RELATING TO THIS YE AR ARE THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT ISSU ED, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.15,45,845. THE A SSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5,75,555 BY DISALLOWING THE ASSES SEES CLAIM WITH REGARD TO INTEREST PAID ON THE LOAN TAKEN FROM UTI BANK. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A), CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY FOLLOWING HIS APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008-09. ITA NO.1736 TO 1739/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM KUMAR AHUJA, HYDERABAD 8 25. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE US ON THIS ISSUE. 26. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. FACTS OF THE CASE LEADING TO THE DISA LLOWANCE OF THE INTEREST FOR THIS YEAR, AS ALSO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTI ES ON THIS ISSUE ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE CONSIDERED BY US, WHILE DEALING WI TH THE CORRESPONDING GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IN ITS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 VIDE PARA 21 HEREINABOVE. CONSEQUENTLY, FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN THAT CONTEXT IN PARA 21 ABOVE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ALSO, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTIONS SIMILAR TO THE ONES GIVEN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ACCORDINGLY REDECIDE THIS ISSUE, IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW, AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO T HE ASSESSEE. 27. THE NEXT ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATE S TO THE ADDITION OF RS.29,649 MADE BY DISALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLA IM WITH REGARD TO EXPENDITURE INCURRED. 28. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURN ED AN INCOME OF RS.15,45,845, WHICH HAS BEEN DERIVED BY WAY OF SALA RY, FROM BUSINESS, HOUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES. AS AGAINST THIS, ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED, ON THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF SALARY AT RS.1,77,500 AND FROM BUSINESS AT RS.6,28,138. AS AG AINST THIS, THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF DEDUC TION IS RS.29,649. CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIME D BY WAY OF DEDUCTION VIS--VIS THE BUSINESS INCOME, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICA TION FOR ANY ITA NO.1736 TO 1739/HYD/2011 SHRI SHYAM KUMAR AHUJA, HYDERABAD 9 DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. WE AC CORDINGLY DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.29,649, ALLOWING THE GROUND OF THE A SSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 29. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 30. TO SUM UP, WHILE APPEAL ITA NO.1737/HYD/2011 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS DISMISSED, ITA NO.1739/H YD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS PARTLY ALLOWED, THE REMA INING TWO APPEALS BEING ITA NO.1736/HYD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 -07 AND ITA NOS.1738/HYD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11.5.2012 SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) ( D.KAR UNAKARA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT/- 11 TH MAY, 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI SHYAM KUMAR AHUJA, C/O., SHRI S.RAMA RAO, ADVO CATE, 3-65-643, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, FLAT NO.102, STREET NO .9, HIMAYATNAAR, HYDERABAD. 2. 3. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 , HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) I, HYDERABAD 4. 5. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL HYDERABAD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD B.V.S.