S Sambeshwar Rao, Hyderabad V. Asst.CIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 220/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77854 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Deemed dividend

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.220/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 MR. S. SAMBESHWAR RAO HYDERABAD PAN AHUPS 5658M VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE : MR. SOLGY JOSE T KOTTARAM DATE OF HEARING : 16.04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.04.2014 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2012 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-II, HYDERABAD AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT OF DEEMED DIVID END MADE U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERA TION ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF M/S DESIGNER ROCKS PVT LTD AND HE HOLDS MORE THA N 10% OF VOTING RIGHTS IN THE ABOVE SAID COMPANY. THE ASSES SING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING A RUNNING ACCOU NT WITH THE ABOVE SAID COMPANY. ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAME, TH E AO 2 ITA.NO.220/HYD/2013 MR. S. SAMBESHWAR RAO, HYDERABAD. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN FUNDS FROM THE ABOVE SAID COMPANY. THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ABOVE S AID COMPANY WAS HAVING ACCUMULATED PROFITS AND HENCE HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE PARTAKES THE CHARACTER OF INCOME U/S 2(24) R.W.S. 2 (22)(E) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ASSESSED A SUM OF RS.47,9 3,410/- AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEA L BEFORE US. 4. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING A RUNNING ACCOUNT WITH THE COMPANY, WHEREIN THE DIREC TORS REMUNERATION, RENT, SALARIES ARE CREDITED. BESIDES THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMPANY IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND THE AMOUNT SO CONTRIBUTED WAS CREDITED TO ANOTHER ACCOU NT NAMED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ACCOUNT. THE LD D.R SUBM ITTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS REFUNDABLE TO T HE ASSESSEE, IF THE COMPANY DOES NOT ALLOT SHARES. THE LD A.R S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED BACK CERTAIN AMOUNTS FROM OUT OF SHARE APPLICATION ACCOUNT AND THE AMOUNT SO REFU NDED WAS WRONGLY DEBITED TO THE RUNNING ACCOUNT OF THE ASSES SEE HEREIN, INSTEAD OF DEBITING THE SAME TO THE SHARE APPLICATI ON ACCOUNT. HENCE, THE RUNNING ACCOUNT HAS DISCLOSED DEBIT BALA NCES ON CERTAIN DATES. THE LD A.R INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 30 AND 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE COM PANY HAS PREPARED A COMBINED LEDGER ACCOUNT COMBINING BOTH S HARE APPLICATION MONEY ACCOUNT AND THE RUNNING ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID STATEMENT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT WITHDRAWN ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT CONTRIBUTED BY HIM. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED TH AT THE 3 ITA.NO.220/HYD/2013 MR. S. SAMBESHWAR RAO, HYDERABAD. ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED BOTH THE A CCOUNTS TOGETHER IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER ANY WI THDRAWAL WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE COMPANY OVER AND ABOVE THE BALANCE AVAILABLE IN HIS ACCOUNT. THE LD A.R, INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK, SUBMITTED T HAT THE AUTHORIZED CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2009 W AS ONLY RS.2.00 CRORES AND THE SAME WAS INCREASED TO RS.3.5 0 CRORES IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. THE SUBSCRIBED CAPITAL AND THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY PUT TOGETHER STOOD AT RS.3.44 CRO RES AS ON 31.3.2009 AND THE SHARES WERE ALLOTTED ONLY IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE C OMPANY, AS ON 31.3.2009, COULD NOT HAVE ALLOTTED SHARES ON THE ENTIRE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WITHOUT INCREASING ITS AUTH ORIZED SHARE CAPITAL. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE A MOUNT WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RELATED TO THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ONLY. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE AO WAS NOT CORRECT IN IGNORING THE CONTRIBUTION MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION. THE LD A.R FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT MAINTAINED BY THE COMPANY IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF T RUE NATURE OF TRANSACTION AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE COMPANY IN DEBITIN G THE RUNNING ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE WITHDRAWAL S INSTEAD OF DEBITING THE SHARE APPLICATION ACCOUNT. FOR THI S PROPOSITION, THE LD A.R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECI SION RENDERED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ARVIND KUMAR JAIN (ITA 589 OF 2011 DATED 30-09-2011 ). THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION CA NNOT BE CONSIDERED AS LOAN OR DEPOSIT IN TERMS OF SEC. 2(22 )(E) OF THE ACT AND IN THIS REGARD, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE F OLLOWING CASE 4 ITA.NO.220/HYD/2013 MR. S. SAMBESHWAR RAO, HYDERABAD. LAW, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY DOES NOT TAKE THE CHARACTER OF LOAN OR ADVANCE:- (A) ITO VS. DIRECT INFORMATION (P) LTD (2013) (33 TAXMANN.COM 386) (MUM-TRIBU.) (B) DCIT VS. VIKAS OBEROI (2013)(37 TAXMANN.COM 46)(MUM-TRIBU.) ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 2(22)(E) OF T HE ACT. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY CONTRIBUTED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS IN A DIFFERENT FOOTING UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. HE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE NOT IFICATIONS OF THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, WHEREIN IT WA S STATED THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY SHALL BE KEPT IN A SEPA RATE ACCOUNT AND THEY SHALL BE USED TO ALLOTMENT OF SECU RITIES OR FOR REPAYMENT OF MONEYS IF THE COMPANY IS UNABLE TO ALL OT SECURITIES. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SHAR E APPLICATION MONEY CANNOT BE COMBINED WITH THE RUNNI NG ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, AS SOUGHT BY THE LD A.R. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGAR D TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTRIBUTED SUBSTANTIAL FUNDS TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION ACCOUNT. THERE IS ALSO NO DISP UTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING A RUNNING ACCOUNT WITH THE COMPA NY, WHEREIN THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO REMUNERATION, RENT, SALARIES ETC. ARE ACCOUNTED FOR. IN THE SAID RUNNI NG ACCOUNT, THE AMOUNT REFUNDED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING JUNE, 20 08 AND IN SUBSEQUENT MONTHS WAS DEBITED BY THE COMPANY AND TH E SAME HAS CONVERTED THE CREDIT BALANCE INTO DEBIT BALANCE ON CERTAIN DATES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AGGREGATED THE RE FUNDS SO 5 ITA.NO.220/HYD/2013 MR. S. SAMBESHWAR RAO, HYDERABAD. MADE AND ASSESSED THE SAME AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2 (22)(E) OF THE ACT. 7. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AMOUN T SO RETURNED BY THE COMPANY REPRESENTS REFUND OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND IT WAS WRONGLY DEBITED TO HIS RUNNING ACCOUNT BY THE COMPANY, INSTEAD OF DEBITING THE SAM E TO THE SHARE APPLICATION ACCOUNT. THE LD A.R SUBSTANTIATE D THE SAID CLAIM BY STATING THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE IN THE SHARE APPLICATION ACCOUNT IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT THAT CAN BE ALLOTTE D AS SHARES, I.E., AS ON 31.3.2009, THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND THE SHARE APPLICATION ACCOUNT W AS IN EXCESS OF THE AUTHORIZED SHARE CAPITAL. 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE COPY OF SHARE APPLICAT ION MONEY ACCOUNT PLACED AT PAGE 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE SAID ACCOUNT SHOWS A CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.1,21,63,960/- AS ON 01.4.2008. THERE WERE ADDITIONS AS WELL AS WITHDRA WALS FROM THE SAID ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2009 ST OOD AT RS.1,69,22,931/-. THUS, WE NOTICE THAT THE AMOUNT REFUNDED TO THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A SOLITARY TRANSACTION OF R EFUND, BUT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY REVEALS THAT THERE WAS FREQUENT RECEIPTS OF MONEY AS WELL AS REFUNDS OF MONEY IN TH AT ACCOUNT. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REFUNDS MADE BY THE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE REPRESE NTS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY CANNOT BE REJECTED WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL TO THE CONTRARY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO DISPROVE THE SAID CONTENTI ONS. HENCE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE COMPANY HAS WRONGLY DEBITED THE SAID REFUNDS TO HIS 6 ITA.NO.220/HYD/2013 MR. S. SAMBESHWAR RAO, HYDERABAD. RUNNING ACCOUNT, INSTEAD OF DEBITING THE SAME TO THE SHARE APPLICATION ACCOUNT. 9. THE LD A.R HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE NOTIF ICATIONS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, WHIC H WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LD CIT(A), ARE APPLICABLE TO THE AMOUNTS COLLECTED BY WAY OF PUBLIC SUBSCRIPTIONS. THE ASSE SSEE HEREIN IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND THE RESTRICTIONS P LACED ON THE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANIES ARE NOT MOSTLY APPLICABLE TO IT. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF COMPA NIES ACT, IF ANY, MAY NOT BE THE DETERMINATIVE FACTOR FOR DECIDI NG THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT. 10. THE LD A.R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ARVIND KUMAR JAIN (SUPRA). IN THE SAID CASE, THE A SSESSEE THEREIN HAD ACCOUNTED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM A CO MPANY NAMED M/S A & A PERIODICAL SUBSCRIPTION AGENCY PVT LTD AS UNSECURED LOAN IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ASSESSED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT WAS A BUSINESS TRANSACTI ON AND IT WAS WRONGLY ACCOUNTED BY HIM AS LOAN. THE LD CIT(A ) AND THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. BEFORE THE H ONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT W AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOU NT AS UNSECURED LOAN AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS CORRECT. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- 7 ITA.NO.220/HYD/2013 MR. S. SAMBESHWAR RAO, HYDERABAD. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT MERE NOMENCLATURE OF ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE TRUE NATURE OF TRANSACTION. SEE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. INDIA DISCOUNT CO. LTD 75 ITR 191 (SC), COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX VS. PROVINCIAL FARMERS (P) LTD 108 ITR 219 (CAL ) AND KCP LTD VS. CIT 245 ITR 421. IN THE PRESENT CASE A FTER GOING THROUGH THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE AS WELL AS CURR ENT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BETWEEN PARTIES, IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE PAYMENT MADE WERE RESULT OF TR ADING TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THE AMOUNT WAS NOT GIVEN BY WAY OF LOAN OR ADVANCE. IN THE ABOVE SAID JUDGMENT, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS ALSO EXTRACTED THE DECISION RENDERED BY IT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. RAJKUMAR (318 ITR 462), WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT HAS DISCUSSED ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF ENACTMENT OF SEC. 2( 22)(E) OF THE ACT AS UNDER:- THEREFORE, IF THE SAID BACKGROUND IS KEPT IN MIND, IT IS CLEAR THAT SUB-CLAUSE (E) OF SECTION 2(22) OF THE A CT, WHICH IS PARIMATERIA WITH CLAUSE (E) OF SECTION2(6A) OF T HE 1922 ACT, PLAINLY SEEKS TO BRING WITHIN THE TAX NET ACCU MULATED PROFITS WHICH ARE DISTRIBUTED BY CLOSELY HELD COMPA NIES TO ITS SHARE HOLDERS IN THE FORM OF LOANS. THE PURPOS E BEING THAT PERSONS WHO MANAGE SUCH CLOSELY HELD COMPANIES SHOULD NOT ARRANGE THEIR AFFAIRS IN A MANNER THAT T HEY ASSIST THE SHAREHOLDERS IN AVOIDING THE PAYMENT OF TAXES BY HAVING THESE COMPANIES PAY OR DISTRIBUTE, WHAT W OULD LEGITIMATELY BE DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE SHAREH OLDERS, MONEY IN THE FORM OF AN ADVANCE OR LOAN. 11. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PREPARED COMBINED LEDGER ACCOUNT COMBINING BOTH HIS RUNNING ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE AVAILABLE IN THE SHARE APPLICATION ACCOUNT. THE SAID STATEMENT IS PLACED AT PAGES 30-31 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE S ACCOUNT WAS ALWAYS HAVING CREDIT BALANCES, MEANING THEREBY; THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT WITHDRAWN ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE MONEY ALREADY CONTRIBUTED BY HIM. HENCE, WE FIND M ERIT IN THE 8 ITA.NO.220/HYD/2013 MR. S. SAMBESHWAR RAO, HYDERABAD. CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RUNNING ACCOU NT WAS WRONGLY DEBITED WITH THE AMOUNTS REFUNDED, INSTEAD OF DEBITING THE SAME TO THE SHARE APPLICATION ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD A.R THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE MISTAK E COMMITTED BY THE COMPANY IN NOT ACCOUNTING THE TRAN SACTIONS PROPERLY. FURTHER, THE FACTUAL POSITION DISCUSSED ABOVE ALSO SHOWS THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAXES BY DISTRIBUTING MONEY IN THE FORM OF LOAN OR DIVIDEND INSTEAD OF DISTRIBUTING THE SAME AS DIVIDEND. 12. WE ALSO FEEL IT PERTINENT TO DISCUSS ABOU T THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M.D. JINDAL VS. CIT (164 ITR 28 (CAL.)). IN TH E ABOVE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE THEREIN HAD DEPOSITS WITH A CLOS ELY HELD COMPANY, WHEREIN HE WAS MAJOR SHAREHOLDER. HE WAS HAVING BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES. THE SAID COMPA NY SUPPLIED STEEL MATERIALS TO THE ASSESSEE AND TREATE D THE SAME AS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF A HOUSE. THE TRIBUNAL T OOK THE VIEW THAT THE SUPPLY OF MATERIALS, WHICH WAS TREATE D AS ADVANCE, WOULD BE HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(2 2)(E) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL NETTED OFF THE DEBIT AN D CREDIT BALANCES STANDING IN THE NAME OF THE COMPANY AND TR EATED THE NET AMOUNT AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. THE SAID VIEW WAS U PHELD BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT. IN THE INSTANT CA SE ALSO, THE COMPANY ONLY POSSESSES THE FUNDS BELONGING TO THE A SSESSEE, IF BOTH THE RUNNING ACCOUNT AND SHARE APPLICATION MONE Y CONTRIBUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TAKEN TOGETHER. HEN CE, FROM THAT ANGLE ALSO, THERE IS MERIT IN THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO SCOPE TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 9 ITA.NO.220/HYD/2013 MR. S. SAMBESHWAR RAO, HYDERABAD. 13. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AMOUNTS DEBITED TO THE RUNNING ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, SINCE T HEY REPRESENTS MONEY REFUNDED OUT OF THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO DELETE THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.04.2014 SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 17 TH APRIL, 2014 VBP/- COPY TO : 1. MR. S. SAMBESHWAR RAO, D.NO.1-11-252/1/B, FLAT N O.203, ARCHANA APARTMENTS, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD. C/O. SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, 102, SHRIYA ELEGANCE, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 029. 2. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-II, HYDERABAD 4. CIT-I, HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT, B BENCH, HYDERABAD.