Suryakumari Tallgalla , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

ITA 2156/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3206 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATYA PINISETTY
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Application of stay; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 37; 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2156/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 SURYAKUMARI TALAGALLA, HYDERABAD [PAN: AITPT5196P] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) STAY APPLICATION NO. 24/HYD/2019 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 2156/HYD/2018) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 SURYAKUMARI TALAGALLA, HYDERABAD [PAN: AITPT5196P] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI V. SIVA KUMAR, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI SATYA PINISETTY, DR DATE OF HEARING : 19-02-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-02-2019 O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE AY. 2015-16, AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, HYDERABAD, DATED 27-09-2018. ITA. NO. 2156/HYD/2018 SA NO. 24/HYD/2019 :- 2 -: 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, ASSESSEE AN INDIVI DUAL, FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY. 2015-16 ON 16- 11-2015, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 12,86,200/-, CONSISTING OF PROFIT FROM BUSINESS OF RS. 1,95,224/- AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 10,90,977/-. 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT [ACT], ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO APP LY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT FOR COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE SAME AND REQUES TED FOR REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. HOWEVER , ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 0C AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION AS RS. 2,62,81, 200/- AND BROUGHT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 1,21,63,200/- TO TA X AS PART OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3.1. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE REQUE STED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE MATTER TO VALUATION OFF ICER, PROCEEDED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER A ND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN SEC OND APPEAL BEFORE US BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS AGAINST LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES O F THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISMISSING TH E APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT SEC.50C(2) DOES NOT GIVE A RIGHT TO THE ASSESSEE TO REQUEST FOR A VALUATION WITHOUT BASIS. ITA. NO. 2156/HYD/2018 SA NO. 24/HYD/2019 :- 3 -: 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAVING FOLLOWED THE MANDATE OF SEC.50C(2), THE ASSE SSING OFFICER OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ADOPTED THE VALUATION ADOPTED/ASS ESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDER ATION FOR ASSESSING CAPITAL GAIN AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE CIT (APPEALS) SH OULD HAVE DIRECTED THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,21,63,200 MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. FOR THE ABOVE GROUND AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE A PPEAL BE ALLOWED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND OR MODI FY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF H EARING OF THE APPEAL, IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHERE TH E ASSESSEE OBJECTS TO THE VALUED ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION OFFICER U/S. 50C, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER AND IF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DOES NOT WISH TO REFER TO THE DVO, HE HAS GIVEN HIS REA SONS FOR DOING SO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS DECISION S TO THIS EFFECT BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL. HE FURNISHED A COPY OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN THE CASE OF SUSHIL KUMAR NATHANY VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 2128/HYD/2017 FOR T HE AY. 2013-14, DT. 28-02-2018. 5. THE LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATER IAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAD OBJE CTED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE SRO VALUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DEAL WITH THE SAID OBJECTION AND PROCEEDED TO ADOPT THE S RO ITA. NO. 2156/HYD/2018 SA NO. 24/HYD/2019 :- 4 -: VALUE FOR COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. SECTI ON 50C(2) PROVIDES AS UNDER: 50C(1).. (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECT ION (1), WHERE (A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHO RITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY A S ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER; (B) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUT ED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY O THER AUTHORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF TH E CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS MADE, THE P ROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (2), (3), (4), (5) AND (6) OF SECTION 16A, CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) AND SUB-SECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A, SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 24, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957) , SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS, APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB-S ECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THAT ACT. EXPLANATION 1.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, 'V ALUATION OFFICER' SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (R) OF SECTION 2 OF T HE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957). EXPLANATION 2.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, TH E EXPRESSION 'ASSESSABLE' MEANS THE PRICE WHICH THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WOULD HAVE, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, ADOPTED OR ASSESSED, IF IT WERE REFERRED TO SUCH AU THORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. THE APPLICABILITY OF THIS PROVISION WAS CONSIDERED BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS VARIOUS HIGH COUR TS IN A NUMBER OF CASES. ITA. NO. 2156/HYD/2018 SA NO. 24/HYD/2019 :- 5 -: 6.1. THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SH. CHANDRA NARAIN CHAUDHRI IN ITA NO. 287 OF 2011 VIDE DECISION DT. 29-08-2013 HELD THAT : 11. THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE FILED ANY OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY TO DISPUTE THE VALUATION, OR FILED APPEAL OR REVISION OR MADE REFERENCE BEFORE ANY AUT HORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT UNDER SUB SECTION (2) (B) OF SECTION 50 C OF THE ACT IS NOT OF ANY RELEVANCE IN THIS CASE, AS THE AO HIMSEL F OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THE STAMP VALUATION BEFORE THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. THERE MAY BE SEVERAL REASONS FOR THE PURCHASER NOT TO FILE SUCH OBJECTION. A PURCHASER MAY NOT GO INTO LITIGATION, AND PAY STAMP DUTY, AS FIXED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUT HORITY, WHICH MAY BE OVER AND ABOVE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER, THOUGH THE AMOUNT SO DETERMIN ED HAS NOT BEEN ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. WHENEV ER THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHO RITY UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 50-C EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO A DEPARTMENTA L VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBE D UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT ARE TO BE APPLIED. IN CASE OF ANY S UCH CLAIM, THE AO MAY RELY ON THE REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER UNDER S ECTION 55-A OF THE ACT AND IN SUCH CASE IT WILL NOT BE NECESSARY FOR H IM TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO. HOWEVER, IN ANY EVENT, THE AO HA S TO RECORD SUFFICIENT REASONS. HE HAS TO RECORD REASONS FOR A CCEPTING THE REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AL ONG WITH HIS CLAIM/OBJECTION UNDER SECTION 50-C(2) OF THE ACT. IF HE DOES NOT ACCEPT THE REPORT, HE HAS TO RECORD THE REASON FOR REFERRI NG THE MATTER TO THE DVO. THE REASONS IN EITHER CASE MUST HAVE NEXUS WI TH THE OBJECTION/CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE OBJECT ION, WHICH MAY BE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE VALUATION D ETERMINED IN THE REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER. 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT CIT (A) HAS C ORRECTLY OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 C (2) A RE ESSENTIALLY TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 C (1) OF THE ACT. HE ALSO FOUND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE BOTH INGREDI ENTS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 C (2) ARE PRESENT, WHICH MADE IT NECE SSARY FOR THE AO TO REFER THE MATTER FOR VALUATION TO DVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ITAT IN ALL OWING THE APPEAL COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN FINDING THAT IN S UCH CIRCUMSTANCES ITA. NO. 2156/HYD/2018 SA NO. 24/HYD/2019 :- 6 -: AND FACTS OF THE CASE, THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASS ET AS DETERMINED BY THE APPROVED VALUER FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2004 A T RS. 33,77,186/- HAS TO BE TAKEN AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION AND SIMIL ARLY THE VALUE TAKEN BY THE APPROVED VALUER AS ON 1.4.1981 HAS TO BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARRIVING AT INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION . THE ITAT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE AO DID NOT RECORD ANY FINDING EIT HER ON THE VALIDITY OF THE CLAIM/OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR DI D HE RECORD ANY FINDING ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF VALUATION OF THE APPR OVED VALUER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6.2. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUSHIL KUMAR NATHANY VS. ITO (SUPRA), HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AT VISAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF R. SUHASINI BHIMUNIPATNAM VS. DCIT (2013) [38 CCH 16] [VIZAG-TRI B] TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RELEVANT PARAS ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 7.1 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE OBJECTIONS FOR ADOPTING VALUE OF STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, WHICH EXCEEDS FMV OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER, AO MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS TO A VALUATION OFFICER. IN THE GIVEN CASE, AO HAS ADOPTED THE STAMP VALUATION WITHOUT REFERRING TO TH E VALUATION OFFICER, EVEN THOUGH, AO OBJECTED FOR ADOPTING SRO VALUE. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, VISHAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF R. SUHASINI BHEEMUNIP ATNAM (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS AND EXAM INED THE RECORD AS PLACED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REFERENCE TO RA ISING THE OBJECTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS DUTY BOUND TO REFER THE VALUATION TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. ONCE THE ASSESS EE HAS DISPUTED THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, EVEN THOUGH THE S AME WAS NOT DISPUTED BEFORE THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, THE COORDINATE BENCHES W ERE CONSISTENTLY HOLDING THAT WITH REFERENCE TO DVO UNDER SUB-SECTION 2 OF SECTIO N 50C IS MANDATORY. 8. IN THE CASE OF MEGHRAJ BAID VS. ITO, THE JODHPUR BENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER: IN CASE THE AO DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO LOWER CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED BY HIM THEN HE SHOULD REFER THE MATTER TO DVO FOR ITA. NO. 2156/HYD/2018 SA NO. 24/HYD/2019 :- 7 -: GETTING ITS MARKET RATE ESTABLISHED AS ON DATE OF T HE SALE TO ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT SALE CONSIDERATION. IF THIS PROVISION IS READ IN THE SEN SE THAT IF THE AO IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THEN HE MAY OR M AY NOT SEND THE MATTER FOR VALUATION TO THE DVO THEN IN THAT CASE THIS PROVISI ON WOULD BE RENDERED REDUNDANT. THE WORD MAY USED IN THIS SUB-SECTION SIGNIFIES T HAT IN CASE AO IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, HE SHOULD R EFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR THE MENTIONED PURPOSE. THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BA CK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION THAT HE SHALL REFER THIS MATTER OF VALU ATION IN THE LIGHT OF SUB-S.(2) OF S. 50C TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINING THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS PLOT SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.50C. 9. SIMILAR VIEW WAS EXPRESSED BY OTHER COORDINATE B ENCHES RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS. CONSIDERING THE PROVISI ONS OF SUBSECTION 2 OF SECTION 50 WHEREIN IT IS VERY CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT IF THE AS SESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED AS ASSESSED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND SUB-SECTION 3 PROVIDES THAT S UBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION 2, ONLY THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSE D BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY SHALL BE TAKEN AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEI VED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER. THEREFORE, IT IS MANDATORY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE VALUATION TO THE DVO WHETHER ASSESSEE OBJECTS THE S AME BEFORE THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY OR NOT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ASSESSE ES REQUEST. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO REFER THE ISSUE TO THE DVO AND THEN ONLY HE CAN ADOPT THE VALUATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C. FOR THIS PURPOSE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO AND CIT ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE T HE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO REFER THE ISSUE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADOPT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ACCORDINGLY. 10. THE APPEAL CONSIDERED ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE COORDI NATE BENCHES AND ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE O F THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO REFER THIS MATTER TO THE DVO AND REDO THE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS DE-NOVO. 6.3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BL E ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH, (TO WHICH BOTH OF US ARE SIGNATORIES), WE REM AND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTIO N TO REFER THE ITA. NO. 2156/HYD/2018 SA NO. 24/HYD/2019 :- 8 -: MATTER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER AND TO RE-COMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DENOVO . 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. COMING TO THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E, SINCE THE APPEAL ITSELF HAS BEEN DISPOSED-OF VIDE ORD ER EVEN DATED, THE STAY APPLICATION HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS REJECTED. 9. TO SUM-UP, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE STAY APPLICATION IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 SD/- SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER HYDERABAD, DATED 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 TNMM ITA. NO. 2156/HYD/2018 SA NO. 24/HYD/2019 :- 9 -: COPY TO : 1. SURYAKUMARI TALAGALLA, G-2, 2-22-68 AND 69, SAI LAKSHMI RESIDENCY, VIJAYANAGAR COLONY, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(APPEALS)-5, HYDERABAD. 4. PR.CIT-5, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.