Dadi Venkata Rami Reddy, Hyd, Hyderabad V. Addl. CIT, Range-2, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 246/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4402 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U MINICHANDRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P RAVI SESHAGIRI RAO
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 246/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 DADI VENKATA RAMI REDDY, HYDERABAD [PAN: AEFPD3316M] VS THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-II, HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI P. RAVISESHAGIRI RAO, AR FOR REVENUE : SMT. U. MINICHANDRAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 23-08-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-08-2016 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE LEVY AND CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY U/S. 271D OF THE INCOME TAX A CT [ACT] FOR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT OF AN ADVANCE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN CASH. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE FI LED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY. 2009-10 ON 16-07-2009 DECLA RING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,01,110/-. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND I.T.A. NO. 246/HYD/2016 DADI VENKATA RAMI REDDY :- 2 -: THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED THEREAFTER, ACCEPTING THE INCOME RETURNED. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-11, WHO WAS HAVING J URISDICTION OVER THE CASE INITIATED PENALTY U/S. 271D OF THE ACT AN D ISSUED A NOTICE U/S. 271D R.W.S. 274 ON 24-10-2013, ASKING A SSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S. 271D SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. 2.1. IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT DURING TH E PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APP EAL, ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE IN RESPEC T OF AN AGRICULTURAL LAND, OWNED BY HIM, AT CHANTANPALLY VILL AGE, FAROOQ MANDAL, MAHABOOB NAGAR DISTRICT. THE CONSIDERATION AG REED UPON, AS PER SUCH AGREEMENT WAS RS. 72,00,000/- AGAINST WHI CH AN AMOUNT OF RS. 18,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AS AD VANCE. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE SAID ADVANCE WAS S UBSEQUENTLY RETURNED TO THE BUYERS AS THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION WAS CA NCELLED. THE ADDL. CIT HELD THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 269SS WARRANTING LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271D. ACCORDINGLY, HE PROCEEDED TO LEVY PENALTY U/S. 271D, AMOUNTING TO RS. 18,00,000/- VIDE HIS ORDER DT. 25-04-2014. 3. ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE AMOUNT-IN-QUESTION WAS RECEIVED AS ADVANCE CONSIDERA TION AGAINST THE PROPOSED SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS PER THE AGRE EMENT EXECUTED ON 14-07-2008. THUS, IT WAS ARGUED THAT IT WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF EITHER LOAN OR DEPOSIT. ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ADVANCE A GAINST PROPOSED SALE OF LAND/ASSET WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF EITHER LOAN OR DEPOSIT AND AS SUCH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS W OULD NOT APPLY TO SUCH TRANSACTION. I.T.A. NO. 246/HYD/2016 DADI VENKATA RAMI REDDY :- 3 -: I. LATE SMT. PUSHPA DEVI BAHETI VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-I, AJMER IN ITA NO. 441/JP/2012 (JAIPUR); II. PRAKASH CHEMICALS P. LTD., VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, BARODA IN ITA NO. 4164/AHD/2008 (AHD); III. CIT VS. MADHAV ENTERPRISE P. LTD., [356 ITR 588] (GU J); 3.1. ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE APEX COURT IN TH E CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD., VS. STATE OF ORISSA (1972 ) [83 ITR 26] (SC) HELD THAT PENALTY IS NOT TO BE ORDINARILY IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW A ND WAS GUILTY OF CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST CONDUCT OR ACTED IN CONSCIOU S DISREGARD OF ITS OBLIGATIONS. 4. LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER, AFTER WRITING A THEORY ON THE PROVISIONS OF 269SS, BUT CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT RECEIV ED IN CASH AS A DEPOSIT FOR PERFORMANCES OF OBLIGATIONS OF TRAN SFER OF LAND AND FURTHER STATING THAT NO DETAILS WERE FILED TO SUPPORT THE S AID PROPERTY TRANSACTION, CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. THE FINA L CONCLUSION IS AS UNDER: WHETHER THE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE, SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATIONS, LOANS OR DEPOSITS WITH OR WITHOUT I NTEREST, THEN ONLY THE REQUIREMENT OF REASONABLE CAUSE ARISES AND IF THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE, THE PENALTY UNDER S. 271D FOR VIO LATION OF S. 269SS CANNOT BE LEVIED. BUT WHERE THERE IS NO REAS ONABLE CAUSE EVEN FOR GENUINE TRANSACTIONS WILL ATTRACT PENALTY UNDER S. 271D FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 269SS. IN THIS C ASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY REASONABLE CAUSE WITH REGARD TO THESE DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED T HE NEXUS BETWEEN THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND THE DEPOSITS IN CASH WHICH IS NECESSITATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF S. 269SS AND THEREFORE, I.T.A. NO. 246/HYD/2016 DADI VENKATA RAMI REDDY :- 4 -: PENALTY LEVIED UNDER S. 271D BY THE ADDL. CIT IS JU STIFIED. [THENAMAL CHHAJJER VS. JCIT (2005) 98 TTJ 0449: (20 05) 96 ITD 0210 (CHENNAI) FOLLOWED]. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT ALL THE DOCUM ENTS ARE PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCE SALE CONSIDERATION DOES NOT PARTAKE LOAN OR DE POSIT U/S. 269SS. 6. LD. DR HOWEVER, VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER SO AS TO STATE THAT ADVANCE RECEIVED WOULD PARTAKE THE NATURE OF DEPOSIT. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSIN G THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ADV ANCE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED EITHER AS LOAN OR DEPOSIT. AS SEEN FROM THE AGREEMENT OF SALE PLACED ON RECORD, ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO SALE OF 8.18 ACRES OF AGRICULTU RAL LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 72 LAKHS AND RECEIVED RS. 18 LA KHS AS PART OF PAYMENT AS ADVANCE, BALANCE TO BE PAID (RS. 54 LAKHS) WITHIN THREE MONTHS. WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW A SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN PART COULD BE TREATED AS LOA N OR DEPOSIT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS WHICH PROHIBIT THE CA SH TRANSACTION ABOVE A CERTAIN LIMIT DOES NOT GET ATTRACTED TO THE TRANSACTION OF SALE AND PURCHASE. MOREOVER, THE BUYER S ARE AGRICULTURISTS AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE AGREEMENT OF SA LE AND THEY ARE VILLAGERS AS WELL. PAYMENT IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY VILLAGERS IS A NORMAL/ROUTINE TRANSACTION AS W ELL. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KHARAITI LAL [270 ITR 445], HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF ITAT, WHER EIN ADVANCE RECEIVED FOR MAKING A TRUCK WAS NOT CONSIDERE D AS LOAN OR I.T.A. NO. 246/HYD/2016 DADI VENKATA RAMI REDDY :- 5 -: DEPOSIT. IN THE CASE OF LATE SMT. PUSHPA DEVI BAHETI THRU L/H SHRI RAJENDRA BAHATI VS. THE ADDL. CIT IN ITA NO. 44 1/JP/2012, DT. 31-12-2014, THE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH HAS HELD THAT AD VANCE AGAINST SALE OF PROPERTY WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF CASH LOAN, WHICH IS NOT ATTRACTED BY SECTION 269SS. THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. PRAKASH CHEMICALS P. LTD., VS. ADDL. CIT IN ITA NO. 4164/AHD/2008 DT. 17-06-2011 ALSO HAS CONSIDERED AS UNDER: 3. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE RECEI PT OF RS.3,00,000/- WAS NOT DEPOSIT OR LOAN. SINCE THE AM OUNT WAS PART OF CONSIDERATION ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, REL YING UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF JA GVIJAY AUTO FINANCE P. LTD. VS. CIT 52 ITO 504, THE ASSESSEE CO NTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS WERE NOT ATTRACTED. HOW EVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- '2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNS EL AND FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT H AS RECEIVED CASH OF RS.3.00 LACS FROM STATIONERY AND PAPER MART. HOWEVER THE AP PELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS RECEIVED AGAINST A BANAKHAT TO SALE T HE OFFICE PREMISES AND THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS R. W.S 2710 WILL NOT APPLY. THE ADDL. CIT WHILE LEVYING PENALTY HELD THAT ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT SUBSTANTIATED AND HENCE, THE PENA LTY WAS LEVIABLE. TO CLAIM THE TRANSACTION OF RECEIPT OF CASH OF RS.3 LACS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 269SS THE APPELLANT PREPARED A B ANAKHAT (AGREEMENT TO SALE). THE SAID AGREEMENT IS DATED 30-1-2004. IT IS ON STAMP PAPER OF RS. 100/PURCHASED ON 31-3-2003 AND NOT NOTARIZED. THIS AGREEMENT MENTIONS THAT IF BY 15-2-2004 IF THE ENTIRE PAYMENT IS NOT M ADE THE AGREEMENT TO SALE WILL BE CANCELLED AUTOMATICALLY. THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE AGREEMENT IS THAT NO PROPERTY WAS SOLD AND THE CASH RECEIVED WAS RETU RNED IMMEDIATELY AFTER 15-2-2004. ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT THE PURPOSE OF APPELLANT AND LENDER WAS NOT TO SALE OR BUY PROPERTY BUT TO GIVE THE CASH LOAN TRANSACTION A COLOUR OF SALE TO GET OUT OF RIGORS OF SECTION 269S S. THIS CONCLUSION IS REACHED IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS:- (I) THE APPELLANT USED THE STAMP WHEREAS THE BANAKH AT IS DATED 30-1-2004. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THIS BANAKHAT WAS PREPARED SUBSEQUENTLY BY USI NG OLD STAMP PAPER KEPT BY THE SAID PARTY TO GIVE THE CASH LOAN TRANSACTIONS A COLOUR OF SALE S. I.T.A. NO. 246/HYD/2016 DADI VENKATA RAMI REDDY :- 6 -: (II) THE BANAKHAT IS NOT NOTARIZED WHICH ALSO PROVE S THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT IS MADE SUBSEQUENTLY. (III) AGAINST THE BANAKHAT, 20% OF THE PROPERTY VAL UE IS NORMALLY NOT GIVEN. ONLY TOKEN IS GIVEN. (IV) THE PROPERTY IS NOT TRANSFERRED SINCE THEN TIL L TODAY WHICH SHOWS THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. (V) THE BANAKHAT IS NOT ACTED UPON AND NO REMAINING PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED . (VI) THERE IS NOTHING EXCEPT OLD STAMP PAPER TO PRO VE THAT THE APPELLANT ACTUALLY RECEIVED CASH AGAINST THE BANAKHAT, BECAUSE NO DOCUMENT OR ANY OT HER EVIDENCE PROVES CONTEMPORARINESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRE PARATION OF BANAKHAT ON OLD STAMP PAPER IS NOTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE EVIDENCE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IS FOR SALE OF PROPERTY. IN FACT, TO AVOID THE PENALTY U/S 2710, S UCH TACTIC IS USED BY THE APPELLANT EVEN WITHOUT THERE ANY SALE OF PROPERTY OR EVEN INTENTIO N TO SELL THE PROPERTY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THAT THE TRANSACT ION IS OF CASH LOAN TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT AND NOT OF ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF PROPER TY. EVEN IF THE SAME IS CONSIDERED AS ADVANCE, THE CASH RECEIVED IS COVERED IN THAT CATEG ORY OF LOANS AND ADVANCES. TILL SUCH TIME NO SUCH PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED, THE MONEY RECEIVED IS DEPOSIT OR ADVANCE LIABLE TO BE REPAID. THE DECISION OT THE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH REFERRED BY T HE APPELLANT IS NOT APPLICABLE SINCE THE MONEY RECEIVED WAS LIABLE TO BE RETURNED IF THE SAL E IS NOT COMPLETED. SINCE THE SALE WAS NOT COMPLETE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES REFERRED ABOVE ESTAB LISHES THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE TRANSACTIONS, THOUGH THE FORM WAS CREATED BY PR EPARING A BANAKHAT. SUBSTANCE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ANY TRANSACTIONS RATHER THAN THE FORM . IN VIEW OF THIS, THE APPELLANT HAS ACCEPTED CASH DEPOSITS/LOANS FOR WHICH IT IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S '10. THE SAME IS LEVIED BY THE ADDL. CIT, WHICH IS CONFIRMED. ' 5.1 THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS OF S. 26988 SAY THAT I F THE STIPULATED AMOUNT OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT IS ACCEPTED OT HERWISE THAN BY CROSSED CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT, THERE I S A VIOLATION OF THE SAID PROVISIONS. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATIO N, THE ID. CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT CONCLUDED THAT THE TRANSACTION OF RS. 3 LACS IN CASH IS NOTHI NG BUT LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT OF ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF PROPERTY. THE ID. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ONLY THE FORM WAS CREATED BY P REPARING A BANAKHAT AND THAT SUBSTANCE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ANY TRANSACTIONS RATHER THAN THE FORM ONLY. HOWEVER, TH ERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE ATTACHE D WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS OR STIPULATION AS TO PERIOD OF REPAYMENT , RATE OF INTEREST, MANNER OF REPAYMENT, ETC. SO AS TO TREAT THE SAID T RANSACTIONS AS LOANS OR DEPOSITS. THE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFO RE US ANY MATERIAL SUGGESTING THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS ACTUAL LY IN THE NATURE I.T.A. NO. 246/HYD/2016 DADI VENKATA RAMI REDDY :- 7 -: OF LOANS OR DEPOSIT NOR THE ID. CIT(A) RECORDED HIS SPECIFIC FINDINGS ON THIS ASPECT EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE PLEADED.SO. S INCE THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE TRANSACTION I S IN THE NATURE OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT, APPARENTLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 269SS ARE NOT ATTRACTED. THE MEANING OF 'DEPOSIT' AND' LOAN' HAS BEEN EXPLAINED ON PAGE 8454 OF THE CHATURVEDI AND PITHISARIA'S INC OME-TAX LAW. FIFTH EDITION, VOLUME 5, AS UNDER: ' 'DEPOSIT' AND 'LOAN'- THESE TWO ARE NOT IDENTICAL IN MEANING. - IT IS TRUE THAT BOTH IN THE CASE OF A LOAN AND IN THE CAS E OF A DEPOSIT THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP OF A DEBTOR AND A CREDITOR BETWEEN THE PARTY GIVING MONEY AND THE PARTY RECEIVING MONEY. BUT IN THE CASE OF A DEP OSIT, THE DELIVERY OF MONEY IS USUALLY AT THE INSTANCE OF THE GIVER AND I T IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PERSON WHO DEPOSITS THE MONEY - THE BENEFIT NORMALL Y BEING EARNING OF INTEREST FROM A PARTY WHO CUSTOMARILY ACCEPTS DEPOS ITS. DEPOSITS COULD ALSO BE FOR SAFE-KEEPING OR AS A SECURITY FOR THE PERFOR MANCE OF AN OBLIGATION UNDERTAKEN BY THE DEPOSITOR. IN THE CASE OF A LOAN, HOWEVER, IT IS THE BORROWER AT WHOSE INSTANCE AND FOR WHOSE NEEDS THE MONEY IS ADVANCED. THE BORROWING IS PRIMARILY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BORRO WER ALTHOUGH THE PERSON WHO LENDS THE MONEY MAY ALSO STAND TO GAIN THEREBY BY EARNING INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT LENT. ORDINARILY, THOUGH NOT ALWAYS, IN THE CASE OF A DEPOSIT, IT IS THE DEPOSITOR WHO IS THE PRIME MOVER WHILE IN TH E CASE OF A LOAN, IT IS THE BORROWER WHO IS THE PRIME MOVER. THE OTHER AND MORE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION IS IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RETURN THE AMOU NT SO RECEIVED. IN THE CASE OF A DEPOSIT WHICH IS PAYABLE ON DEMAND, THE DEPOSI T WOULD BECOME PAYABLE WHEN A DEMAND IS MADE. IN THE CASE OF A LOAN, HOWEV ER, THE OBLIGATION TO REPAY THE AMOUNT ARISES IMMEDIATELY ON RECEIPT OF T HE LOAN. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IN CASE OF DEPOSITS WHICH ARE FOR A FIXED PERI OD OR LOANS WHICH ARE FOR A FIXED PERIOD, THE POINT OF REPAYMENT MAY ARISE IN A DIFFERENT MANNER. BUT BY AND LARGE, THE TRANSACTION OF A LOAN AND THE TRA NSACTION OF MAKING A DEPOSIT ARE NOT ALWAYS CONSIDERED IDENTICAL. 5.11 IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID DISTINCTION BETWEEN LOAN AND DEPOSIT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGES T IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT THE AFORESAID TRANSACTION IS IN THE NATURE OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PROV ISIONS OF SEC. 269SS ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. THIS VIEW OF OURS IS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISIONS IN MUTHOOT M. GEORGE BANKERS V. AS ST. CIT [1993] 146 ITD 10 (COCHIN), ITO VS. RAJENDRA TRADING CO. [ 1993] 48 ITD 210 AND DECCAN FARMS & DISTRILLERIES LTD., VS. VELA BAI LAXMIDAS BHANJI [1979] 49 COMP. CAS. 321 (BOM). 7.1. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION T HAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO THE TRANSA CTION OF RECEIPT OF ADVANCE SALE CONSIDERATION IN CASH AND SO THE PENALTY I.T.A. NO. 246/HYD/2016 DADI VENKATA RAMI REDDY :- 8 -: U/S. 271D IS NOT ATTRACTED. THE ORDER OF AO AND CIT(A ) ARE THEREFORE SET ASIDE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST AUGUST, 2016 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER HYDERABAD, DATED 31 ST AUGUST, 2016 TNMM COPY TO : 1. SRI DADI VENKATA RAMI REDDY, HYDERABAD. C/O. SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, 3-6-643, STREET NO. 9, HIMAYAT NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-II, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-5, HYDERABAD. 4. PR.CIT-5, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.