Smt. S. Amrutha Valli, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Central Circle, Tirupathi

ITA 1745/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 98419 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 54F; 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. ASST. YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1751/HYD/2011 2003-04 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD, TIRUPATHI [PAN: AIQPS1968B] ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI 1752/HYD/2011 2004-05 1754/HYD/2011 2005-06 1753/HYD/2011 2006-07 1744/HYD/2011 2002-03 SMT. S. AMRUTHAVALLI TIRUPATHI [PAN: AQNPS5940A] ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI 1745/HYD/2011 2003-04 1746/HYD/2011 2004-05 1747/HYD/2011 2005-06 1748/HYD/2011 2006-07 1749/HYD/2011 2007-08 1750/HYD/2011 2008-09 1717/HYD/2011 2004-05 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI TIRUPATHI [PAN: AQNPS5940A] 1718/HYD/2011 2005-06 1719/HYD/2011 2006-07 FOR REVENUE : SHRI RAJAT MITRA, DR FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI A.V. RAGHU RAM, AR DATE OF HEARING : 17-07-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-08-2015 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE ARE APPEALS CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS IN THE CASE OF DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD, TIRUPATHI ON 28-11-2007. ASSESSEES WIFE IS COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [ACT] CONSEQUENT TO CERTAIN INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL. ALL I.T.A. NOS. 1717 TO 1719/HYD/2011 & 1744 TO 1754/HYD/2011 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD & DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI :- 2 -: THE APPEALS ARE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VII, HYDERABAD DATED 20-07-2011. SINC E COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THESE ARE DISPOS ED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SHRI RAGHU RAM AND LD. DR IN DETAIL. APPEALS ARE DECIDED AS U NDER: DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD : 3. BRIEFLY STATED, DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD, IS A GOVERNMENT DOCTOR AND ALSO WORKS IN SWARNAMRUTHA HOSPITAL, TIR UPATHI WHICH IS RUN BY HIS WIFE SMT. S. AMRUTHAVALLI. PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153A WERE INITIATED IN THE CASE OF DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD , AND APPEALS FROM AY. 2003-04 TO 2006-07 ARE BEING CONSIDERED IN THIS BATCH. EVENTHOUGH ASSESSEE CONTESTED INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER 153A, THE SAME ARE TO BE REJECTED AS SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS WERE C ONDUCTED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND PROCEEDINGS ARE MANDATORY. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS IS UPHELD. THE GROUNDS ON THAT ISSUE ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED IN ALL IMPUGNED YEARS. AY. 2003-04 : 4. IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IS WITH REFERENCE TO SHORT T ERM CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE OF RS. 13,30,053/ -. THE FACTS LEADING TO ADDITION ARE THAT ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS WIFE H AS PURCHASED TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT TIRUPATHI ON 09-03-2000. THIS WAS GIVEN FOR DEVELOPMENT TO M/S. CHAITANYA CONSTRUCTIONS, TIRUPA THI. RATIO BETWEEN THE LAND OWNERS AND THE BUILDER IS 33.67. THE TOTA L CONSTRUCTED AREA I.T.A. NOS. 1717 TO 1719/HYD/2011 & 1744 TO 1754/HYD/2011 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD & DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI :- 3 -: WAS 15,646 SQ. FT. AND ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE GOT 5, 163 TOWARDS THEIR SHARE. ASSESSEES SHARE OF 2,582 SQ. FT., WAS DISC LOSED IN THE RETURN FOR AY. 2004-05. THE STATED VALUE OF COST OF CONSTRUCT ION WAS AT RS. 604 PER SQ. FT. ACCORDINGLY, THE VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION ARE A WOULD COME TO RS. 15,59,528/- AND ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED C ONSTRUCTED FLAT DURING JULY, 2003. ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 5 4/54F. ON THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAS REGISTERED UN-DIVIDED SHAR E OF THE SITE TO THE BUYERS OF THE FLAT PRIOR TO MARCH, 2003 AND THE CON STRUCTION WAS COMPLETED BEFORE 01-04-2003, CAPITAL GAINS WERE BRO UGHT TO TAX IN AY. 2003-04 ITSELF THAN AY. 2004-05. AO WORKED OUT THE SAME UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN SPITE OF ASSESSEE S OBJECTION THAT HE HAS RECEIVED THE CONSTRUCTED FLAT IN THE MONTH OF J ULY, 2003 AND THE GAIN WOULD BECOME LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. AO DID N OT AGREE AND TREATED THE GAIN AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND BRO UGHT TO TAX AN AMOUNT OF RS. 13,30,053/- DENYING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF INVESTMENT UNDER NEW HOUSE U/S. 54F. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSE E CONTENDED THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN IS NOT TAXABLE IN THIS YEAR AND IS TAX ABLE AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN LATER YEAR AND BENEFIT U/S. 54F IS ELIGIBLE TO ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDERS IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEES WIFE FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR, DIRECTED THE AO TO TREAT THE CAPITAL GAIN AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. BEYOND THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OTHER RELIEF. 4.1 ASSESSEE IS CONTESTING THAT CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE COMPLETE RELIEF. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS DT. 02-10-2000 AND THE NECESSARY CAPI TAL GAINS EITHER WOULD ARISE IN 2001-02 OR AT THE TIME OF POSSESSION OF THE APARTMENT IN 2004-05, THE SAME CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN AY. 2 003-04. I.T.A. NOS. 1717 TO 1719/HYD/2011 & 1744 TO 1754/HYD/2011 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD & DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI :- 4 -: 4.2 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS A ND PERUSING THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS CANNOT BE TAXED IN AY. 2003-04. AS SEEN FROM THE O RDER OF SMT. AMRUTHAVALLI, CIT(A)S FINDING IS AS UNDER: 7.2 IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT AND HER HUSB AND HAD ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH M/S. CHAITANYA CONSTRUC TIONS, TIRUPATI ON 02.10.2000. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED ON 9.3.2000. THE DEVELOPER COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AND HANDE D OVER FLATS TO THE APPELLANT AND HER HUSBAND DR. S.V. PRASAD ONLY ON 12.07.2013 AS SEEN FROM THE COMPLETION LETTER FURNISHED FROM T HE DEVELOPERS. THEREAFTER, THE APPELLANT HAS LET OUT THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE FLATS BUILT BY THE DEVELOPER WERE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ONLY ON 12.07.2003 WHICH IS MORE THAN 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF THE SAID PROPERTY. HENCE, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION ONLY IS ATTRACTED TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI NS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAINS IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE L D. CIT(A), THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED ON 02-10-2000. THERE IS ALSO FINDING THAT DEVELOPE R HAS COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AND HANDED OVER FLATS TO ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND ON 12-07-2003, AS SEEN FROM THE COMPLETION LETTER F URNISHED BY THE DEVELOPERS. EVEN THE EVIDENCE AND LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY ALSO CONFIRMS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS HANDED OVER ON 12-07-2003. T HEREFORE, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WHAT LD. CIT(A) HAS MISSED THAT HANDING OVER ON 12-07-2003 WOULD RESULT IN CAPITAL GAIN IN AY. 2004-05, NOT IN AY. 2003-04 WHICH IS FOR THE PE RIOD UP TO 31-03- 2003 ONLY. HAVING TAKEN POSSESSION ON 12-07-2003, ASSESSEE HAS CORRECTLY OFFERED THE CAPITAL GAINS IN AY. 2004-05. SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS WRONGLY BROUGHT TO TAX IN AY. 2003-04, THE SAME CAN NOT BE UPHELD. THEREFORE, ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE AMOUNT CA NNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THIS YEAR IS UPHELD AND ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. I.T.A. NOS. 1717 TO 1719/HYD/2011 & 1744 TO 1754/HYD/2011 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD & DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI :- 5 -: AYS. 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07: 6. IN ALL THE THREE YEARS, ISSUE IS COMMON IN THE SENSE THAT AO ESTIMATED HOSPITAL RECEIPTS AND BROUGHT TO TAX CERT AIN AMOUNTS AS UN- RECORDED INCOMES. THE ISSUE ARISES AS UNDER. 6.1 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN ASSESSEES PREM ISES ON 28- 11-2007, SOME NOTE BOOKS CONTAINING ADDRESSES OF TH E PATIENTS WITH DATE OF ADMISSION AND DATE OF DISCHARGE ARE IDENTIFIED A ND SEIZED. ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR ISSUING AN Y RECEIPTS. AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD AND HIS WIFE SMT. S. AMRUTHAVALLI ARE SUPPRESSING THE RECEIPTS BY WAY OF NON-ISSUE OF RECEIPTS AND NON-MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AO UNDERTOOK THE EXERCISE OF VERIFYING SOME OF THE PATIENTS AND HAS VERIFIED 20 PATIENTS OUT OF 1,428 PATIENTS NOTED DOWN IN THE DIARY FOR A PER IOD OF FOUR YEARS. THE YEAR-WISE BREAK-UP OF THE PATIENTS WERE 534, 511, 2 64 AND 119. OUT OF THESE PATIENTS, THE AO ROUGHLY CONSIDERED SOME AS S URGERY CASES AND SOME AS NON-SURGERY CASES. IN SURGERY CASES, THE D OCTORS RECEIPT WAS TAKEN AT RS. 18,000/- PER PATIENT AND IN NON-SURGER Y CASES, RS. 2,500/- PER PATIENT. ACCORDINGLY, AO ESTIMATED THE RECEIPT IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E., AYS. 2004-05 TO 2006-07 AS U NDER: ASST. YEAR RECEIPTS FROM SURGERY CASES RECEIPTS FROM NON-SURGERY CASES TOTAL COLLECTIONS RS. 2004-05 72,00,000 3,35,000 75,35,000 2005-06 68,94,000 3,20,000 72,14,000 2006-07 35,64,000 1,65,000 37,29,000 7. THEREAFTER, AO BIFURCATED THE GROSS RECEIPTS BE TWEEN ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEES WIFE AT 75% AND 25%. THUS, IN AY. 2004-05 OUT OF GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 72 LAKHS ESTIMATED ON 400 PATIENTS (@ 18,000 I.T.A. NOS. 1717 TO 1719/HYD/2011 & 1744 TO 1754/HYD/2011 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD & DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI :- 6 -: PER SURGERY) AND RS. 3,35,000/- (134 @ 2,500). THU S, THE TOTAL COLLECTIONS OF SWARNAMRUTHA HOSPITALS WAS ESTIMATED AT RS. 75,35,000/- 75% OF THE ABOVE COLLECTIONS AT RS. 56,61,250/- ARE CONSIDERED AS ASSESSEES COLLECTIONS AND ALONG WITH OFFERED INCOM E BY ASSESSEE AN AMOUNT OF RS. 55,53,750/- WAS MADE AS ADDITION IN A Y. 2004-05. IN AY. 2005-06, LIKE-WISE, AN ADDITION OF RS. 52,59,650/- WAS ADDED AND IN AY. 2006-07, RS. 25,97,650/- WAS ADDED TO ASSESSEES IN COMES. HOWEVER, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT AO CONSIDERED AGAIN THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS ESTIMATED ON HOSPITAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. S. AMRUTHAVALLI ALSO. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS FIRST OF ALL DOUBLE ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT IN BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEES WIFE AND FURTHER SO MUCH OF INCOME ON ESTIMATION DOES NOT ARISE, AS THERE WAS N O SEIZED ASSETS EITHER CASH OR OF JEWELLERY FROM ASSESSEES. LD. CIT(A), H OWEVER, DID NOT DISTURB THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME BUT HOWEVER, DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE DOUBLE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEES WIFE. T HEREFORE, ASSESSEE DID NOT GET ANY RELIEF ON THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME IN T HE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED ON THE ABO VE ISSUE. 8. REFERRING TO THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND THE STATEM ENTS RECORDED FROM 20 PATIENTS, IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE SURGERY CASES AT RS. 18 ,000/- FOR SURGERY AND FURTHER THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE THAT SO MANY SURG ERY CASES WERE DONE BY ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE BEING A GOVT. EMPLOYEE, HE COULD NOT HAVE ATTENDED SO MANY SURGERIES AS ESTIM ATED BY AO I.E., MORE THAN ONE IN A DAY WHEREAS HE ALSO ATTENDS IN O THER HOSPITALS AND OFFERED THE RECEIPTS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T AS SEEN FROM ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE IN THE STATEMENTS, ASSESSEE S SURGERY FEE IN AY. 2006-07 WAS AT RS. 3,500/-(PG. 22 IN THE PAPER BOOK ) AND IF THE SAME FEE WAS INTERPOLATED, EVEN IF THE NUMBER OF SURGERI ES ESTIMATED BY AO TO BE ACCEPTED, THE FEE THAT CAN BE ESTIMATED WOULD BE AROUND RS. 2,500/- I.T.A. NOS. 1717 TO 1719/HYD/2011 & 1744 TO 1754/HYD/2011 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD & DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI :- 7 -: IN AY. 2004-05, RS. 3,000/- IN AY. 2005-06 AND RS. 3,500/- IN AY. 2006-07. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT NON-SURGERY FE E CANNOT BE MORE THAN RS. 500 TO RS. 750/- IN THESE YEARS AND IF THE SAME ARE ACCEPTED, ASSESSEES RECEIPTS THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED WILL BE AS UNDER: S.NO./ AY. REVISED ESTIMATION TOTAL AS PER THE RATES SUGGESTED RS. GROSS INCOME ALREADY ADMITTED IN ROI NET ADDITION TO BE SUSTAINED SURGERY NON- SURGERY 2004-05 400 @ RS. 2,500/- RS. 10,00,000 143 @ RS. 500/- RS. 71,500 10,71,500 3,46,550 7,24,950 2005-06 383 @ RS. 3,000/- RS. 11,49,000 128 @ RS. 600/- RS. 76,800 12,25,800 4,11,280 8,14,520 2006-07 198 @ RS. 3,500/- RS. 6,93,000 66 @ RS. 750/- RS. 49,500 7,42,500 5,05,620 2,36,880 9. LD. DR HOWEVER, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AO AND CIT(A) TO SUBMIT THAT THERE IS A SUPPRESSION OF GROSS RECEIPT S AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ESTIMATION WAS MADE. LD. CIT(A), HAVING CONFIRMED THE ESTIMATION, THERE IS NO FURTHER REDUCTION TO BE DONE IN ASSESSEES CA SE. HE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES. 9.1 HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PE RUSING THE STATEMENTS RECORDED, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT DEPARTM ENT DID NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPTS. IT MAY BE ALT OGETHER A DIFFERENT ISSUE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR THE HOSPITAL HAS ANY RECORDS. THE ONLY IN-PATIENT DIAR Y WAS AVAILABLE WITHOUT ANY FEE RECEIVED OR AMOUNT SPENT. IT WAS T HE CONTENTION THAT HOSPITAL NOT ONLY UNDERTAKES THE ROOM CHARGES AND N URSING CHARGES BUT ALSO CONSULTATION FEE OF THE DOCTORS WHICH WAS PASS ED ON TO RESPECTIVE PERSONS. AS FAR AS ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, HE IS ON LY A SPECIALIZED DOCTOR FOR THE HOSPITAL BEING RUN IN HIS WIFES NAME AND S URGICAL FEE IS RECEIVED I.T.A. NOS. 1717 TO 1719/HYD/2011 & 1744 TO 1754/HYD/2011 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD & DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI :- 8 -: BY HIM. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF HOW MANY PATIENTS ARE SURGERY PATIENTS AND HOW MANY ARE NON-SURGERY PATIENTS. THEREFORE, AO HAS TAKEN UP ROUGHLY AT ABOUT 25% AS NON-SURGERY CASES AS THE NU RSING HOME WAS MAINLY RUN UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF ASSESSEE BEING A S URGEON. SINCE NEITHER PARTY IS ABLE TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE WITH REFERENCE TO ACTUAL NUMBER OF SURGERIES BEING DONE, THE REASONABLE ESTI MATION OF THE AO CANNOT BE FAULTED. THEREFORE, THE BIFURCATION ADOP TED BY THE AO IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS OUT OF THE TOTAL PATIENTS IS HOWEV ER, UPHELD. 9.2 COMING TO THE ISSUE OF ESTIMATION OF FEE RECEI VED IN SURGERY CASES AND NON-SURGERY CASES, IT SEEMS THE AMOUNTS A RE ON HIGHER SIDE. AO ESTIMATED THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AT RS. 55,53,750/- IN AY. 2004-05, RS. 52,59,650/- IN AY. 2005-06 AND RS. 25,97,650/- IN AY. 2006-07. THESE AMOUNTS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REC EIVED BY ASSESSEE AS THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING INVESTMENTS MADE OUT B Y ASSESSEE ANYWHERE. NEITHER IN THE HOSPITAL NOR IN THE PERSO NAL WEALTH, THERE ARE INVESTMENTS. THE CASH IDENTIFIED ON THE DATE OF SEA RCH AT AROUND RS. 7.5 LAKHS WAS NOT SEIZED AS IT SEEMS TO BE ACCOUNTED CA SH. THE JEWELLERY FOUND WAS ALSO ACCEPTED AND THERE ARE NO ADDITIONS TOWARDS UN- ACCOUNTED JEWELLERY. THERE IS ALSO NO CASE OF ANY UN-ACCOUNTED WEALTH BEING BROUGHT TO TAX IN ASSESSEES HANDS, OTHER THA N THE SO CALLED ESTIMATION OF RECEIPTS. THE RATE OF ESTIMATION MAD E DOES NOT SUPPORT THE AOS CONTENTIONS AS THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING ACCUM ULATION OF WEALTH IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE OR IN THE HANDS OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS. PRIMA FACIE, THE ESTIMATION SEEMS TO BE ON VERY HIGH SIDE. IN O NE OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM THE PATIENT THERE IS A SIG NED PROFORMA FOR CLAIM OF REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL EXPENDITURE IN WH ICH SURGERY FEE WAS SHOWN AT RS. 3,500/-. BASED ON THAT, IT IS FAIRLY REASONABLE TO ESTIMATE THAT AMOUNT AS FEE RECEIVED FOR SURGERY IN THAT YEA R. BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE RECEIPTS FROM SURGERY IN AY. 2004-05 WOU LD BE AT RS. 10 I.T.A. NOS. 1717 TO 1719/HYD/2011 & 1744 TO 1754/HYD/2011 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD & DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI :- 9 -: LAKHS (4,000 X 2,500), IN AY. 2005-06 AT RS. 11,49, 000/- (383 X 3,000) AND IN AY. 2006-07 AT RS. 6,93,000/-. THE ESTIMATI ON SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE AT OUR INSTANCE IS BASED ON THE STATEMENT FROM WHICH THE SURGERY FEE AT RS. 3,500/- COULD BE INFERRED. ACCE PTING THE SAME, WITH REFERENCE TO NON-SURGERY FEE ALSO, THE TOTAL RECEIP TS PER YEAR CAN BE DETERMINED AS UNDER: S.NO./ AY. TOTAL AS PER THE RATES ESTIMATED RS. GROSS RECEIPTS ALREADY ADMITTED IN ROI NET ADDITION TO BE SUSTAINED 2004-05 10,71,500 3,46,550 7,24,950 2005-06 12,25,800 4,11,280 8,14,520 2006-07 7,42,500 5,05,620 2,36,880 10. THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN ABOVE COLUMN NO. 8 AR E ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINED AND AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE BALANCE AMOUNT. ASSESSEES GROUNDS ARE PARTLY CONSIDERED AS ALLOWED . 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IN AY 2003-04 IS ALLOWED AND IN AYS 2004-05,05-06,06-07 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. SMT S. AMRUTHAVALLI : 12. IN THIS ASSESSEES CASE, RE-ASSESSMENTS, CONSE QUENT TO THE SEARCH IN HUSBAND CASE WERE DONE FROM AYS. 2002-03 TO 2008-09 UNDER SECTION 153C. IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, ONE ISS UE WHICH IS COMMON IS WITH REFERENCE TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH IS P ARTLY TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AS FAR AS AYS. 2004-0 5, 2005-06 AND 2006-07 ARE CONCERNED, THERE ARE ESTIMATIONS OF HOS PITAL RECEIPTS WHICH WERE BROUGHT TO TAX IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, LIKE IN HUSBANDS CASE. I.T.A. NOS. 1717 TO 1719/HYD/2011 & 1744 TO 1754/HYD/2011 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD & DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI :- 10 - : DETAILED ORDERS WERE PASSED IN ASSESSEES CASE. E VEN THOUGH, THE AO HAS MADE DOUBLE ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT IN ASSE SSEES CASE AS WELL AS HER HUSBANDS CASE, LD. CIT(A) GAVE RELIEF AND R EVENUE IS AGGRIEVED ON THAT IN AYS. 2004-05 TO 2006-07. IN AYS. 2007-08 A ND 2008-09 AGAIN THE ISSUE IS ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO AGRICULTURAL IN COME. IN AY. 2003-04, ISSUE OF CAPITAL GAINS WAS ALSO CONTESTED BY ASSESS EE LIKE IN HUSBANDS CASE. FROM AY 2004-05 ASSESSEE IS MANAGING THE HOSP ITAL WHERE AS AO WRONGLY NOTED AS RUNNING A BEAUTY PARLOUR IN ASSE SSMENT ORDERS. 12.1 BEFORE ADVERTING TO THE ISSUES ON MERITS, ONE FACTOR WHICH IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THIS CASE IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C. ASSESSEE IS NOT SEARCHED AS THE SEARCH AND S EIZURE OPERATIONS WERE CONDUCTED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND. THE ONLY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHICH AO CONSIDERED IS WITH REFERENCE TO IN- PATIENT REGISTER OF THE HOSPITAL, BASED ON WHICH RE CEIPTS WERE ESTIMATED BY THE AO. APART FROM THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINAT ING MATERIAL ON ANY OTHER ISSUE. SINCE THERE IS SOME INCRIMINATING MAT ERIAL AND AS THE AO WAS SATISFIED THAT IN-PATIENT REGISTER PERTAINS TO THE HOSPITAL BEING RUN BY ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C WERE VALIDLY INITIATED. ASSESSEE IS QUESTIONING THAT PR OCEEDINGS U/S. 153C WERE INITIATED WITHOUT ANY SATISFACTION. EVEN THOU GH THIS GROUND WAS RAISED NO EVIDENCE WAS PLACED BY EITHER PARTY IN OR DER TO EXAMINE THIS ASPECT. THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS ARE CONSIDERED AS N OT VALIDLY RAISED. HOWEVER, WHILE MAKING THE ADDITIONS, THE ASPECT THA T PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C WERE INITIATED AND COMPLETED HAS BEEN KEPT IN MIND, AS ANY ADDITION WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING INCRIMINATING MA TERIAL MAY NOT BE SUSTAINED. 13. KEEPING THE ABOVE IN MIND, WHILE ACCEPTING TH AT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C WERE VALIDLY INITIATED, WE EX AMINE VARIOUS I.T.A. NOS. 1717 TO 1719/HYD/2011 & 1744 TO 1754/HYD/2011 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD & DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI :- 11 - : ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO BASED ON THE AVAILABLE INF ORMATION AND INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. ESTIMATION OF RECEIPTS: 14. AS DISCUSSED IN ASSESSEES HUSBAND DR. S. VENK ATESWARA PRASAD CASE ABOVE, IN ASSESSEES HANDS ALSO, AO EST IMATED RECEIPTS IN AYS. 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AND MADE ADDITION S OF RS. 67,07,900/-, RS. 62,44,785/- AND RS. 24,17,149/- RE SPECTIVELY AFTER GIVING CREDIT TO DISCLOSED RECEIPTS. LD. CIT(A) WH ILE UPHOLDING THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME, HOWEVER, GAVE RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF AMOUNTS BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND, THEREFORE, SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF WAS GRANTED BY CIT(A) BY DELETING THE DOUBLE ADDITION. THE ASPECT OF ESTIMATION WAS ALREADY CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS O F ASSESSEES HUSBAND DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD AND REFERRAL FEE TO CERT AIN EXTENT WAS ALREADY BROUGHT TO TAX IN HIS HANDS. HOWEVER, ASSE SSEES HOSPITAL CHARGES, NURSING CHARGES AND PATHOLOGY CHARGES ARE TO BE ESTIMATED IN THE SAME WAY. EVEN THOUGH, LD. AO ESTIMATED THE GR OSS RECEIPTS AND BIFURCATED BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SAME METHODOLOGY MAY NOT BE APPLIC ABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS FAR AS SURGERY FEE AND NON-SURGERY RE FERRAL FEE ARE CONCERNED, THEY WERE SEPARATELY BROUGHT TO TAX IN T HE HANDS OF DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD. THEREFORE, WHAT IS TO BE CONS IDERED IN ASSESSEES HAND IS ONLY THE HOSPITAL CHARGES, NURSING CHARGES AND PATHOLOGY CHARGES ETC. THESE CHARGES MAY NOT VARY WHETHER IT IS THE SURGICAL CASE OR A NON-SURGICAL CASE. THESE CHARGES MAY BE FIXED DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF DAYS THE PATIENT STAYS IN THE HOSPITAL. HOWEVER, AO DID NOT EXAMINE FOR HOW MANY DAYS EACH PATIENT HAS STAYED I N THE HOSPITAL AND WHAT COULD BE THE HOSPITAL CHARGES, NURSING CHARGES ETC. IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE DETAILS, IT MAY BE VERY DIFFICULT TO ESTIM ATE HOW MUCH CHARGES I.T.A. NOS. 1717 TO 1719/HYD/2011 & 1744 TO 1754/HYD/2011 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD & DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI :- 12 - : ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AND ACCOUNTED. ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY RECEIVED SOME AMOUNTS IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. F OR EXAMPLE IN AY. 2004-05, ASSESSEE HAS REPORTED THE RECEIPTS AT RS. 7,02,900/- IN AY. 2005-06, ASSESSEE REPORTED THE RECEIPTS AT RS. 8,59 ,765/- AND IN AY. 2006-07, THE RECEIPTS WERE SHOWN AT RS. 12,10,151/- . SINCE ASSESSEE IS INCREASING THE GROSS RECEIPTS REGULARLY OVER A PERI OD OF TIME AND THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS ADMITTED IN THAT AY. 2006-07 ARE COMPARATIVELY LESS WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER YEARS, THERE SEEMS TO BE NO BASIS IN THIS ASSESSEES CASE FOR ESTIMATING SO MUCH RECEIPTS AS WAS DONE BY AO. 14.1 WE HAVE ASKED THE LD. COUNSEL TO FURNISH INFO RMATION ABOUT THE HOSPITAL AND SUPPORT STAFF. THE CLARIFICATION FILED BY ASSESSEES COUNSEL IS AS UNDER: ON THE PREVIOUS DATE OF HEARING, HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE APPELLANTS TO FILE THE DETAILS OF (I) NUMBER OF BEDS THE HOSPITAL HAS, (II) SIZE OF HOSPITAL AND (III) RECEIPT BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEES. THE COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS HAS VERIFIED WITH THE APPELLANTS ON THE ABOVE ASPECTS AND ON INSTRUCTIONS SUBMITS THAT THE HOSPITAL RUN BY THE APPELLANTS HAS 16 BEDS. TH E HOSPITAL IS LOCATED IN THE GROUND AND 1 ST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING AND IS HOUSED IN A PLINTH AREA OF ABOUT 4.500 SQUARE FEET. IT IS SU BMITTED THAT THE APPELLANTS HAVE NOT MAINTAINED RECEIPT BOOKS AND TH EREFORE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO FILE THE SAME. THE APPELLANTS EMPLOY 4-5 NURSES AND 5-6 HOUSEKEEPI NG WARD FOR THE HOSPITAL. FURTHER, IN SURGERY CASES, THE APPELLANTS TAKE THE HELP OF OUTSIDE SPECIALIST DOCTORS FOR WHI CH THEY INCUR EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, EVEN IN A SURGERY CASE WHA T IS EARNED BY THE APPELLANTS IS ONLY 30% OF THE FEE COLLECTED BY THEM FROM PATIENT FOR SURGERY AND THE REMAINING 70% IS THE EXPENDITUR E WHICH IS PASSED ON TO OTHER TEAM MEMBERS (DOCTORS). 14.2 HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE ESTIMATIONS ADOPTED BY THE AO, CLARIFICATION GIVEN BY ASSESSEE AND THE EVIDENCES O N RECORD, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE MIGHT BE PASSING ON THE RECEI PTS TO OTHERS. I.T.A. NOS. 1717 TO 1719/HYD/2011 & 1744 TO 1754/HYD/2011 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD & DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI :- 13 - : SUBSTANTIAL PART WAS TOWARDS DOCTORS WHICH WAS SEPA RATELY CONSIDERED IN DR. S V PRASAD HAND. CONSIDERING THE RECEIPTS AC COUNTED AND RATIO OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT EST IMATION OF NET RECEIPTS CAN BE CONSIDERED BY INCREASING THE RECEIPTS BY AN OTHER 50% I.E., ABOUT RS. 3,50,000/- IN AY. 2004-05, RS. 4,30,000/- IN AY . 2005-06. IN AY 2006-07 THE IN-PATIENT REGISTER SHOWS LESS NUMBER O F PATIENTS. ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN RECEIPTS ALREADY. KEEPING THAT IN MIND AN AMOUNT OF RS 2,00,000 CAN BE ESTIMATED TO BE ADD ITIONAL RECEIPTS IN ASSESSEE CASE. THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE HUSBANDS A PPEALS IN ESTIMATION WILL EQUALLY APPLY HERE. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ABOVE ESTIMATION WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AS THERE IS NO ADDITI ON TO WEALTH IDENTIFIED IN SEARCH. AO IS DIRECTED TO MODIFY THE ORDERS ACC ORDINGLY. CAPITAL GAINS: 15. THIS ISSUE ARISES IN AY. 2003-04. THE FACTS AR E SIMILAR TO THE FACTS DISCUSSED IN THE CASE OF DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD ABOVE FOR AY. 2003-04. FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN, SINCE ASS ESSEE HAS GOT POSSESSION IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO AY. 2004-05, THE CAPITAL GAINS CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN AY. 2003-04, ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE AMOUNT MADE AS AN ADDI TION IN THIS YEAR. AGRICULTURAL INCOME: 16. FROM AY. 2002-03 ONWARDS TO 2008-09, THE COMMO N ISSUE IS WITH REFERENCE TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN AY. 2 002-03, ASSESSEE OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 40,000/- TOWARDS INCOME F ROM AGRICULTURE. AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT EARN SO MUCH OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND OF RS. 1 .33 ACRES. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING MANGO ORCHARDS ON I.T.A. NOS. 1717 TO 1719/HYD/2011 & 1744 TO 1754/HYD/2011 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD & DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI :- 14 - : THE LAND, THEREFORE, INCOME IS HIGHER. AO, HOWEVER , REDUCED THE INCOME TO RS. 15,000/- AND BROUGHT TO TAX THE BALANCE AMOU NT OF RS. 43,000/-. ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED, AS THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 16.1 HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE A RE OF THE OPINION THAT AOS ACTION CANNOT BE APPRECIATED. AS FAR AS EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO DOUBT AS AO HIMSELF ADMITS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ONLY ISSUE IS WITH REFEREN CE TO QUANTIFICATION. ASSESSEE OFFERED INCOMES WHEREAS AO CONTENDS THAT IT CAN NOT BE THAT MUCH. HAVING CONSIDERED THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING MA NGO ORCHARDS ON THE LAND AND NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT INCOME OFFERED IS NOT UNREASONABLE. IT IS TO BE NOT ED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WI TH REFERENCE TO THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AS SEEN FROM ASSESSE ES RETURNS, ASSESSEE OWNS SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND UP TO AY. 2005-06 AND IN THAT YEAR PART OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS WERE SOLD BY ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE ALSO REDUCED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THOSE YEARS . THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OFFERED IS AS UNDER: ASST. YEAR AGRICULTURAL INCOME (RS.) 2002-03 40,000 2003-04 58,000 2004-05 52,000 2005-06 38,000 2006-07 33,500 2007-08 80,000 2008-09 80,000 17. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, THERE IS LOT OF VARIATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DEPENDING ON THE AGRICULTURAL H OLDINGS. ASSESSEES HUSBAND DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD ALSO OFFERED AGR ICULTURAL INCOME AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED AS SUCH. KEEPING THAT I N MIND AND ALSO THE I.T.A. NOS. 1717 TO 1719/HYD/2011 & 1744 TO 1754/HYD/2011 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD & DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI :- 15 - : FACT THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND P ROCEEDINGS ARE U/S 153C, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ACTION OF THE AO CANNOT BE UPHELD. HE IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS OF FERED BY ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 1717, 1718 & 1719/HYD/2011: 18. THESE APPEALS ARE BY REVENUE WITH REFERENCE TO THE DELETION BY CIT(A) IN SMT AMRUTAVALLIS HANDS OF THE AMOUNTS ASSESSED IN DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD. IN THESE APPEALS, REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN BOTH FACTS AND LAW. 2. THE HON'BLE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ASSE SSMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRES SED RECEIPTS AND SHE IS PROPRIETREX OF THE HOSPITAL AND THE SUPP RESSED RECEIPTS FOUND BY THE AO HAS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. 3. THE HON'BLE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY PAYMENT TOWARDS CONSULTAN CY CHARGES TO DR. S.V. PRASAD, AS EVIDENT FROM NON-DED UCTION OF TDS AND IN ANY CASE THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE U /S. 40(A)(IA) AND/OR 40A(3). 19. THE ISSUES IN THESE GROUNDS ARE DISCUSSED ELAB ORATELY IN THE CASE OF DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD AS WELL AS DR. S . AMRUTHAVALLI. CONSIDERING THE FACTS THEREIN AND KEEPING IN MIND O UR ORDER IN THE ABOVE APPEALS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MER IT IN REVENUES CONTENTIONS. THERE CAN NOT BE DOUBLE ADDITION OF T HE SAME AMOUNTS IN BOTH HANDS. IF FEES TO THE DOCTOR WAS COLLECTED BY HOSPITAL THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE AS EXPENDITURE WHILE ASSESSING THE HOSPIT AL RECEIPTS. AO HIMSELF GAVE A FINDING THAT 75% RECEIPTS GO TO DR S V PRASAD. HAVING GIVEN A FINDING HE SHOULD HAVE TAXED THE BALANCE AM OUNT IN I.T.A. NOS. 1717 TO 1719/HYD/2011 & 1744 TO 1754/HYD/2011 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD & DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI :- 16 - : SMT. AMRUTAVALLIS CASE. CIT(A) ORDER IS ACCORDING TO LAW AND FACTS. MOREOVER THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO 3 WAS NOT BEFORE AN Y AUTHORITY. AO HAS NOT DISALLOWED ANY AMOUNT INVOKING SECTION 40A(3). THEREFORE GROUND IS SUPERFLUOUS. MORE OVER HOSPITAL MIGHT BE ACTING AS AN AGENT OF DR. PRASAD IN COLLECTING FEES AND PASSING ON TO HIM. TD S PROVISIONS MAY NOT APPLY. AS THIS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY AO AT ALL IN ASSESSMENT SO, THE GROUND CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED AT THIS STAGE, UNLESS THE SAME IS RAISED AS ADDITIONAL GROUND SUBJECT TO FACTS BEING ON RECORD. NO SUCH CASE WAS MADE OUT BY REVENUE. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, WE DO N OT FIND ANY MERIT IN REVENUE APPEALS. GROUNDS ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 20 . IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUE APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 1717 , 1718 AND 1719/HYD/2011 ARE DISMISSED, APPEALS IN AYS. 20 04-05, 2005-06 AND 2006-07 OF BOTH ASSESSEES IN ITA NOS. 1752, 175 3 AND 1754/HYD/2011 & 1746, 1747 AND 1748/HYD/2011 ARE PA RTLY ALLOWED, AND ALL THE REMAINING APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 1744, 174 5, 1749, 1750 AND 1751/HYD/2011 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH AUGUST, 2015 SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 28 TH AUGUST, 2015 TNMM I.T.A. NOS. 1717 TO 1719/HYD/2011 & 1744 TO 1754/HYD/2011 DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD & DR. S. AMRUTHAVALLI :- 17 - : COPY TO : 1. DR. S. VENKATESWARA PRASAD, D.NO. 91, AMRUTHA PL AZA, OLD MATERNITY HOSPITAL ROAD, TIRUPATHI. C/O. M/S. SAND EEP REDDY SAMA UMA SANKAR, V. BASAVA RAJU, ADVOCATES, FLAT NO . D, 1 ST FLOOR, UMA ENCLAVE, RD NO. 9, BANJARA HILLS, HYDER ABAD. 2. SMT. S. AMRUTHAVALLI, D.NO. 91, AMRUTHA PLAZA, O LD MATERNITY HOSPITAL, TIRUPATHI. C/O. M/S. SANDEEP R EDDY SAMA UMA SANKAR, V. BASAVA RAJU, ADVOCATES, FLAT NO . D, 1 ST FLOOR, UMA ENCLAVE, RD NO. 9, BANJARA HILLS, HYDER ABAD. 3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CI RCLE, TIRUPATHI. 4. CIT(APPEALS)-VII, HYDERABAD. 5. CIT-CENTRAL, HYDERABAD. 6. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 7. GUARD FILE.