ITO, Ward-13(5)(I/c), Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. Shri Desham Satyanarayana, Hyderabad

ITA 1825/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6108 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: P VINOD
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1825/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(5) (I/C), HYDERABAD. VS. MR. DESHA M SATYANARAYANA, HYDERABAD. PAN AOKPD2900A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : MR. M. SITARAM FOR ASSESSEE : MR. P. VINOD DATE OF HEARING : 28.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 . 0 1 .201 6 ORDER PER BENCH : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-II, HYDERABAD DA TED 11.09.2014 FOR THE A.Y. 2009-2010. 2. THOUGH SEVERAL GROUNDS WERE URGED BEFORE US, THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS NOT USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE AFTE R ITS SALE AND IT WAS NOT CULTIVATED PRIOR TO THE SAME, A PART FROM THE FACT THAT SURROUNDING AREAS WERE SUBJECTED TO DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES LIKE ENGINEERING COLLEGES ETC., IN WHICH EVENT, THE LAND AT THE TIME OF SALE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPIT AL 2 ITA.NO.1825/HYD/2014 MR. DESHAM SATYANARAYANA, HYDERABAD. GAINS. ASSESSEE HEREIN IS AN EMPLOYEE OF NATIONAL GEO PHYSICS RESEARCH INSTITUTE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTI CE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE DECLA RED TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,97,210. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTIC ED THAT HE ALONG WITH HIS TWO BROTHERS SOLD ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 6.7 ACRES OF LAND AT SY.NO.707 AND 708 SITUATED AT KORREMULLA (V), GHATKESAR (M), RANG A REDDY DISTRICT ON 04.03.2008 AND RECEIVED TOTAL SAL E CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,97,60,000 ON WHICH NO CAPITAL GAINS TAX WAS PAID. WHEN CONFRONTED, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND IS SITUATED BEYOND 8 KM FROM MUNICIPAL LIM ITS AND IT IS AGRICULTURAL LAND. WHEN CALLED-UPON TO FU RNISH EVIDENCE OF CULTIVATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS THE A SSESSEE, VIDE LETTER DATED 22.03.2013 SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1. THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD IS AN ANCESTRAL PROPERTY AND IT FAL L S UNDE R H UF STATUS. THE HUF RETURN WAS NOT FILED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TAXABLE INCOME U N DER HUF STATUS . HENCE THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO FILE HUF RETURN SO THE Q UE S TION OF DISCLOSING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DOES NOT ARISE . 2. WE HAVE SUBMITTED PAHANIES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHERE T H E CROPS GROWN BY US WAS . MENTIONED. IT BEING THE GOVERNMENT RECORD, THERE CANNOT BE BETTER EVID ENCE THAN GOVERNMENT RECORD TO E VIDENCE THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY . AGRICULTURAL AC TIVITY WAS BEING CARRIED IN THE SAID LAND FOR SEVERAL YEARS BEFOR E SALE . AGRICUL TURAL WAS CARRIED ON FOR MORE THAN 2 YEARS AND THE FACT IS RECORDED I N . RECORDS AS W ELL. 3 ITA.NO.1825/HYD/2014 MR. DESHAM SATYANARAYANA, HYDERABAD. 3. THE RELEVANT ISSUE IS AT THE POINT OF SALE WHETHER IT WAS AGRICULTURAL L A ND OR NOT. AFTER SALE THE BUYER PUT TO A DIFFERENT USE DOES NOT ALTE R T HE NATURE OF LA ND AT THE TIME OF SALE. AT THE POINT OF SALE OUR LAND WAS AGRICULTURA L L AND . 2.1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ADMITTED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME EITHER IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR HUF CAPACITY A ND HAD NOT PRODUCED BILLS, SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUC E. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE LAND WAS IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE LAND UN DER CULTIVATION IN THE PRECEDING TWO YEARS OF ITS SALE. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT AFTER SALE THE LAND WAS PUT TO COMMER CIAL ACTIVITY. IN FACT, THE LAND WAS SOLD TO A NON-AGRIC ULTURIST FOR A NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE I.E., FOR BUILDING A N ENGINEERING COLLEGE. HE DREW SUPPORT FROM THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF SMT. SARIFABIBI MD. IBRAHIM VS. CIT 204 ITR 631 TO CONCLUDE THAT THE LAND SOLD WAS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSET AND CONSEQUEN TLY THE SALE PROCEEDS THEREOF ARE LIABLE TO LONG TERM C APITAL GAINS. 1/3 RD SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 3. ON AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE REVENUE RECORDS AND THE SA LE DEED, LAND WAS DESCRIBED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM THE PAHANIES, CROPS GROWN WERE SHOWN AS PADDY. 4 ITA.NO.1825/HYD/2014 MR. DESHAM SATYANARAYANA, HYDERABAD. ADMITTEDLY, THE LAND FALLS BEYOND 8 K.M. FROM URBAN AGGLOMERATION AND THEREFORE, DID NOT FALL WITHIN TH E DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET, UNLESS IT IS SHOWN THA T IT WAS USED FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE. HE HAS TAKEN INT O CONSIDERATION SEVERAL JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN THIS R EGARD AND OBSERVED THAT EVEN IF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS A RE NOT CARRIED ON AND THE LAND IS KEPT UN-CULTIVATED/FALLO W FOR FEW YEARS, IT DOES NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE L AND UNLESS IT IS SPECIFICALLY PUT TO NON-AGRICULTURAL U SE. SINCE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NOTHING ON REC ORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO CONVERT THE LAND INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL ASSET AND CONSEQUEN TLY, THE QUESTION OF CAPITAL GAINS DOES NOT ARISE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE DE CISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. SARIF ABIBI MD. IBRAHIM VS. CIT (SUPRA) THAT IN EACH CASE THE F ACTS HAVE TO BE GATHERED TO DRAW AN INFERENCE, AS TO WHE THER IT WAS PUT TO AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS OR NOT. 4.1. IN THE AFORECITED CASE, THE FACTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WERE (A) LAND REGISTERED AS AGRICULT URAL LAND IN REVENUE RECORDS (B) PAYMENT OF LAND REVENUE TILL THE YEAR 1968-69 (C) ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT I T WAS PUT TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USE. 5 ITA.NO.1825/HYD/2014 MR. DESHAM SATYANARAYANA, HYDERABAD. 4.2. THE FACTS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WERE:- (A) THAT THE LAND WAS SITUATED WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS I .E., WITHIN 1 K.M. FROM THE SURAT RAILWAY STATION (B) LA ND WAS NOT CULTIVATED FROM 1965-66 UNTIL IT WAS SOLD I N 1969 (C) THE PARTY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SAL E WITH A HOUSING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY TO SELL THE LAND FOR NON- AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE (D) THE PARTY APPLIED IN JUNE, 1968 AND MARCH, 1969 FOR PERMISSION TO SELL THE LAND FOR NON- AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE AND SALE TOOK PLACE THEREAFTER (E) THE LAND WAS SOLD @ RS.23 PER SQ. YARD AND PURCHASE R SOCIETY COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS WITHIN TH REE DAYS OF PURCHASE. 4.3. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE OUTWEIGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONCLUDED THAT THE LAND AT THE TIME OF SALE WAS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. 5. LD. D.R. ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO THE LAND RECORDS WHEREIN THE LAND WAS SHOWN AS DRY LAND WHIC H CANNOT GIVE GOOD YIELD AND MORE PARTICULARLY OF PAD DY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT HE HAS GROWN PADD Y IN THE PRECEDING YEARS LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN A DRY LAND IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO CULTIVATE PADDY AND TH US IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT, COCHIN BENCH IN THE CASE OF MK ABDUL RAHMAN 4 9 SOT 267 TO SUBMIT THAT MERE CAPABILITY OF USING THE LAND 6 ITA.NO.1825/HYD/2014 MR. DESHAM SATYANARAYANA, HYDERABAD. FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE IS NOT ENOUGH TO TREAT THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE LAN D IS SITUATED BEYOND 8 K.M. FROM THE HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL LIMITS. EVEN AS PER THE REMAND REPORT, THE A.O. AGR EES THAT THE LAND IS SITUATED BEYOND 8 KM FROM MUNICIPA L LIMITS AND THIS WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DISPUTE REGARDING THE ACTUAL CULTIVATION CARR IED ON THIS LAND AS PER GOVT. RECORDS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED AS AGRICULT URAL LAND AND SOLD AND REFERRED TO AS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE SALE DEED PLACED ON RECORD IN THE PAPER BOOK. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND EXAMINED THE FACTS ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE W ITH REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND IS SIT UATED BEYOND 8 KM FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS, TO BE PRECIS E 9.5 KM FROM THE END OF THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS. EVEN THOUG H, NO INCOME WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE - WHO IS DIRECTOR OF NGRI, HYDERABAD IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPAC ITY THE LAND APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED IN HUF CAPACITY. AS SEEN FROM THE RECITALS OF THE SALE DEE D, IT IS TRUE THAT MR. D. SATYANARAYANA ALONG WITH HIS TWO O THER BROTHERS MR. D. LAXMINARAYANA AND MR. D. MAHENDER PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND VIDE REGISTERED DOCUMEN T 7 ITA.NO.1825/HYD/2014 MR. DESHAM SATYANARAYANA, HYDERABAD. NO.526 OF 1985. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ALONG WITH THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSEES MOTHER, WIFE AND SON WERE ALSO INCLUDED AS VENDORS BY THE VENDEE TO AVOID FURTHER COMPLICATIONS WHICH INDICATE THAT THE PROPERTY MAY BELONG TO THE HUF. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY AND NON-DECLARATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME DOES NOT COME IN THE WAY OF IDENTIFYING THE LAND AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AS THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN 1985 AND SOLD IN MARCH, 2008 I.E., AFTER 23 YEARS AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CONVERSI ON OF LAND FROM AGRICULTURAL TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USAGE. REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO COUNT ER THE FINDINGS OR EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS SHOWN AS DRY AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE REVENUE RECORDS. THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE THAT ASS ESSEE HAS INTENDED TO CONVERT THE LAND INTO NON-AGRICULTU RAL LAND, AS IN THE CASE OF SMT. SARIFABIBI MD. IBRAHIM VS. CIT (SUPRA). SINCE THE FACTS IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE F ACTS IN THE IMPUGNED CASE, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WI TH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). MOREOVER, WHE THER AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ARE BEING CONDUCTED OR NOT, SO AS TO CONSIDER IT AS NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND, WILL ARISE ONLY WHEN THE LAND IS SITUATED WITHIN 8 KM OF THE CITY L IMITS. WHERE THE LAND IS RECOGNISED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND I N THE REVENUE RECORDS AND ASSESSEE IS HOLDING THE SAME FO R A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 20 YEARS AS AGRICULTURAL LAND A ND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT ASSESSEE SOLD THE LAND 8 ITA.NO.1825/HYD/2014 MR. DESHAM SATYANARAYANA, HYDERABAD. AS NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND OR AT LEAST CONVERTED INTO NON- AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE NATURE OF THE LAND CANNOT BE CHANGED. 7.1. IN THE CASE OF DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3), HYDERABAD VS. M. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY ITA.NO.729/HYD/2013 DATED 24.10.2014 ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AND THE PURCHASER USED THE LAND FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. THE BENCH OBSERVED THAT THE LA ND SOLD WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND PUT TO USE FOR AGRIC ULTURAL PURPOSES ALSO AND THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PREDE CESSOR UTILISED THE LAND FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE OF CHANGE OF LAND. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PURCHASER UTILISED THE LAND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE OF CHANGE OF LAND. 7.2. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD., VS. ACIT (141 ITR 806) ON SIMILAR FACTS HELD AS UNDER : THE TRIBUNALS FINDING OF FACT IS CONTRARY TO ITS OWN RECORD AND, THEREFORE, IS IN THE REALM OF PERVERSIT Y. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY HELD THAT A T THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE SAID LAND, IT WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THIS. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO NOTED THAT THE AW ARD PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) , WAS A DOCUMENT WHICH ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THUS, ON THE DATE OF PURCHASE, THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ON THE DATE OF ACQUISITION, THE CHARACTER OF THE LAND CONTINUED TO BE AGRICULTURAL. WHEN THESE TWO CLEAR FINDINGS HAVE 9 ITA.NO.1825/HYD/2014 MR. DESHAM SATYANARAYANA, HYDERABAD. BEEN RETURNED, IT IS APPARENT THAT IN THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, THAT IS, BETWEEN PURCHASE AND ACQUISITION, THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE LAND DID NOT CHANGE. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE INTENDED TO USE THE LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES DID NOT IN ANY WAY ALTER THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE LAND. THE FURTHER FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS DID NOT ALSO RESULT IN ANY CONVERSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO AN INDUSTRIAL LAND. IT IS NOBODYS CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT ANY OPERATIONS FOR SETTING UP ANY PLANT OR MACHINERY OR OF THE LIKE NATURE SO AS TO LEAD TO AN INFERENCE THAT THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE LAND HAD BEEN CHANGED FROM AGRICULTURAL TO INDUSTRIAL. THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS DID NOT ALTER THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE LAND. IN ANY EVENT, THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT RELEVANT IN THE BACKDROP OF THE CLEAR FINDING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT ON THE DAT E OF THE PURCHASE AND AS ALSO ON THE DATE OF ACQUISITION , THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. HAVING COME TO SUCH A CONCLUSION, THE TRIBUNAL OUGHT NOT T O HAVE GONE INTO QUESTION OF INTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E AND DEFINITELY NOT INTO THE QUESTION OF INTENTION O F THE LAND ACQUIRING AUTHORITY, THE LATTER BEING A WHOLLY IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, T HE LAND ACQUIRED FROM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE WA S AGRICULTURAL LAND. 7.3. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE INDICATE THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AWAY THE AGRICULTURAL LAND A ND THERE IS NO INTENTION OR EVIDENCE THAT LAND WAS CON VERTED TO NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND OR PUT TO USE FOR NON- AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, THE CONTENTION THAT PURCHASE R USED THE LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENGINEERING COLLEG E CANNOT BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO TREAT THE LAND AS NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND. 10 ITA.NO.1825/HYD/2014 MR. DESHAM SATYANARAYANA, HYDERABAD. 7.4. IT IS ALSO DESERVES TO BE NOTICED THAT REVENU E DID NOT PLACE ON RECORD ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE 2/3 RD STAKEHOLDERS ASSESSMENTS. 8. IT IS ALSO FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SOLD ON 4 TH MARCH, 2008, THE FACT OF WHICH WAS ALSO STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER, F OR THE BEST REASONS KNOWN TO THE A.O. HE TREATS THE PREVIOUS YEAR AS 2008-09 WHEREAS THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN 2007-08. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ISSUE COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN A.Y. 2008-09 AND NOT IN A.Y. 2009-10 IN WHICH YEAR THERE IS NO SUCH TRANSAC TION OF SALE OF LAND. THE A.O. IN OUR VIEW, HAS CONSIDER ED THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WRONGLY AND INITIATED PROCEEDINGS I N A LATER YEAR, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD ON 04.03.200 8 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2008-09. IN VIEW OF THAT THE CONTE NTIONS OF THE REVENUE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY CONSIDERATION. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE REVENUE GROUNDS. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.01.2 016. SD/- SD/- (B.RAMAKOTIAH) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED 20 TH JANUARY, 2016 VBP/- 11 ITA.NO.1825/HYD/2014 MR. DESHAM SATYANARAYANA, HYDERABAD. COPY TO 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(5) (I/C), HYDERABAD. 2. MR. DESHAM SATYANARAYANA, FLAT NO.G - 2, 1 - 3 - 82 & 83, HIGH LIGHT HEAVENS APARTMENTS, STREET NO.6, HABSIGUDA, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A) - II, HYDERABAD 4. CIT - I, HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE