Sri A.Ram Prasad, Hyderabad V. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad

ITA 261/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 26122514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Capital asset; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 261/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 SRI A. RAM PRASAD, HYDERABAD [NO HUF PAN] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : S HRI A.V. RAGHU RAM , A R FOR REVENUE : SHRI S. K . GUPTA , D R DATE OF HEARING : 1 0 - 0 9 - 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 - 1 0 - 2015 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VII, HYDERABAD DATED 30-12-201 3. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 2. THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-VII) ERRED IN TAXING THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE AY. 2004-05 TAKING THE DATE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS THE POINT OF TIME FOR ACCRUAL OF CAPIT AL GAINS WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE CAPITAL GAINS FOR TAXATION BASED ON FACTUAL ACCRUAL OF GAINS IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HELD IN HIS FINDING THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION FOR IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. I.T.A. NO. 261/HYD/2014 SRI A. RAM PRASAD :- 2 -: 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED I N DENYING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, WHILE THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE SAME. 5. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS ERRED IN HIS FINDING AND WORKING THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON THE SALE OF DEVEL OPED PLOTS IS TO BE ASSESSED AS SHORT TERM GAINS WHILE IT HAS TO BE ASS ESSED AS LONG TERM GAINS SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS ALWAYS OWNER OF THE PLOT. 6. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN HOLDING T HE VIEW THAT CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON THE SALE OF PLOTS NO. 38, 39 AND 50 SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS SHORT TERM GAINS WHILE IT HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS LONG TERM GAINS SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS ALWAYS T HE OWNER OF THE PLOTS. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, SHRI A. SANJEEV RAO, ORIGINALLY PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING SURVEY NO. 7 AT KONDAPUR VILLAGE ADMEASURING 17 ACRES AND 7 GUNTAS WHICH WAS PARTITIONED IN A FA MILY DIVISION. ASSESSEE-HUF ALONG WITH OTHERS HAVE ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH M/S. BHAVYA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., ON 10 TH JULY, 2003 [STATED AS DT. 05-04-2003 IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A)]. ACCORDING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, 6.08 GUNTAS OF LAND WAS TO B E DEVELOPED INTO PLOTS AND VILLAS AND ASSESSEE WAS TO GET THREE PLOT S AND THREE HOUSES/VILLAS AS PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AS AND WHEN ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE VILLA/PLOT AND SOLD, ASSESSEE HAS OFFE RED CAPITAL GAINS WHEREAS, AO BROUGHT THE CAPITAL GAINS DURING THE YE AR ON THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED THE PLOT AND THE AGRE EMENT WAS FOLLOWED UP BY THE DEVELOPER. WHILE BRINGING TO TAX THE CAP ITAL GAINS, AO ADOPTED SUB-REGISTRAR VALUATION AND DETERMINED THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON THE SALE OF 42% OF 1/3 RD OF LAND AT RS. 7,000/- PER SQ. YD., TOTALING TO RS . 2,90,47,200/-. IN ADDITION, COST OF THREE HOUSES T O BE CONSTRUCTED WERE ALSO BROUGHT TO TAX AT RS. 95,40,000/-, THEREBY DET ERMINING THE CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 3.86 CRORES. WHILE DOING SO, AO ALSO DENIED THE CLAIM OF 54F MADE BY ASSESSEE IN INVESTMENT OF HOUSES. I.T.A. NO. 261/HYD/2014 SRI A. RAM PRASAD :- 3 -: 3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE E NTIRE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, THE YEAR OF TAXABILIT Y AND DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F. ASSESSEE MADE DETAILED SUBMISS IONS, AS SUMMARIZED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 7 OF THE ORDER. T HERE IS NO NEED TO EXTRACT THE SAME THING. LD. CIT(A) REMANDED THE MA TTER TO THE AO FOR NECESSARY EXAMINATION OF SOME OF THE CONTENTIONS AN D AFTER RECEIPT OF REMAND REPORT DT. 12-12-2013, AN OPPORTUNITY WAS GI VEN TO ASSESSEE. REJOINDER WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE ON 24-12-2013 W HICH WAS EXTRACTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 8.2 OF THE ORDE R. ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH LD. C IT(A) ADMITTED AND NOTED THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND IS ONLY AN EXTENSION O F ARGUMENT OF DOUBLE TRANSACTION OF THE SAME TRANSACTION. LD. CIT(A) GA VE DIFFERENT FINDINGS, I) ON THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN; II) YEAR OF TAX ABILITY; III) JUSTIFICATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C AND IV) CLAIM OF 54F. IN DOING SO, LD. CIT(A) IN FACT COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS YEAR-WISE AND GAVE DIRECTIONS ACCORDINGLY TO AO UP TO AY. 2009-10. ASSESSEE IS OB JECTING TO THE SAME AND RAISED THE GROUNDS. AFTER HEARING, THE LD. COU NSEL AND LD. DR AND PERUSING THE PAPER BOOK PLACED ON RECORD, THE GROUN DS OF ASSESSEE ARE CONSIDERED GROUND-WISE. GROUND NO.3 PERTAINING TO JURISDICTION FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C WAS NOT PRE SSED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.3 IS REJECTED. 4. GROUND NO. 2 IS PERTAINING TO THE ISSUE WHETHER THE CAPITAL GAINS CAN BE TAXED IN AY. 2004-05, TAKING THE DATE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS THE POINT OF TIME FOR ACCRUAL OF CAPIT AL GAINS. AS BRIEFLY STATED EARLIER, ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO DEVELOPME NT AGREEMENT ON 05- 04-2003 [10-07-2003 AS PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN T CUM GPA] WHICH FALLS IN AY. 2004-05, IMMEDIATELY THERE AFTER APPROVAL FROM HUDA WAS OBTAINED ON 13-10-2003. THEREAFTER, PLOTS WERE READY FOR ALLOTMENT AND ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT OFFERED SOME CAPITAL GAINS IN AY. 2005-06 AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES WERE ALSO STARTED. AS RIGHT LY HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS T HAT THE DEVELOPMENT I.T.A. NO. 261/HYD/2014 SRI A. RAM PRASAD :- 4 -: AGREEMENT WAS WILLINGLY EXECUTED AND WAS TAKEN UP I N RIGHT EARNST BY THE DEVELOPER AND WORK HAS COMMENCED. THUS, AS ASS ESSEE HAS HANDED OVER THE LAND TO THE DEVELOPERS AND THE DEVELOPER H AD CLEARLY ACCEPTED THEIR WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM AND DO THE DEVELOPMENT WORK AND HAD PROCEEDED ACCORDINGLY, THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISE ON T HE DATE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 45 R.W.S. 2(47)(V). THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF POTLA NAGESWARA RAO VS. DC IT [365 ITR 249 (AP)] WHEREIN HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ANALYSED AND UPHELD THE LEVY OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE YEAR OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEME NT. IT WAS HELD: ON MARCH 7, 2003, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGR EEMENT WITH A DEVELOPER AND THE PLAN OF THE BUILDING WAS APPROVED ON MARCH 31, 2003. THESE DATES FELL IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2002-03 , RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2003-04. THUS, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE LAND BEING A CAPITAL ASSET WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEVELO PER DURING THE A.Y. 2003-04, FOR CONSTRUCTION AND IT WAS ENOUGH IF THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE CONSIDERATION ON A LATER DATE, SO AS TO ATTRACT THE EXIGIBILITY TO TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS DURING THE YEAR 2003- 04. ON APPEAL: HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL THAT THE ELEMENT OF FAC TUAL POSSESSION AND AGREEMENT ARE CONTEMPLATED AS TRANSFER WITHIN M EANING OF THE SECTION 2(47) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. WHEN THE TRANSFER IS COMPLETE, AUTOMATICALLY, CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN AGREEMENT FOR SALE HAD TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEN AGREEMENT WAS E NTERED INTO AND POSSESSION WAS GIVEN. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE, FACTUALLY IT WAS FOUND THAT BOTH THE ASPECTS TOOK PLACE IN THE P REVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY TAX ON THE CAPITAL GAINS FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2003- 04. 4.1. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND AO ON THIS ISSUE THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN AY. 2004-05 AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND IS REJECTED. 5. GROUND NO. 4 PERTAINS TO DENYING EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT A SSESSEE HAS NOT I.T.A. NO. 261/HYD/2014 SRI A. RAM PRASAD :- 5 -: RECEIVED ANY MONITORY CONSIDERATION AND IN LIEU OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, HAS RECEIVED CERTAIN PLOTS AND THREE HOU SES. THE INVESTMENT IN HOUSES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F AS TH E INCOME ITSELF IS DEEMED INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION RECEIVABLE WAS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO ASSESSEE AND INVES TED IN HOUSE. EVEN THOUGH, ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54F ON ONE HOUSE, HOUSE NO. 60 IN FACT, ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION ON THREE HOUSES, HOUSE NO. 14, HOUSE NO. 59 AND HOUSE NO. 60 AS THEY ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS A HOUSE, FOLLOWING THE CO-ORDINATE BE NCH DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF VITTAL KRISHNA CONJEEVARAM VS. ITO [ 144 ITD 325 (HYD)] FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE K ARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.G.RUKMINI AMMA [331 ITR 21 1]. 5.1. AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF AO, THE AO DENIED D EDUCTION U/S. 54F WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON AS THE SAME WAS NOT C ONSIDERED BY THE AO AT ALL. HE HOWEVER, BROUGHT THE COST OF THREE H OUSES CONSTRUED AT RS. 95,40,000/- AS SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AND TAXE D THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION, WITHOUT GIVING ANY DEDUCTION FOR COS T OF LAND EVEN, AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THIS ASPECT OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN WAS CORRECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO CERTAIN EXTENT BUT T HE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F WAS CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER FOR THE FIRST TIME. ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS WERE EXTRACTED IN PARA 23.2 AND 23.3. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION ON THE REASON THAT HOUSE NO. 60 ON WHICH APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTI ON U/S. 54F WAS COMPLETED AND HANDED OVER AFTER THREE YEARS, NO BEN EFIT CAN BE GIVEN IN AY. 2004-05 ON THAT HOUSE. WITH REFERENCE TO OTHER TWO HOUSES, LD. CIT(A) EVEN THOUGH ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THEY WERE CONS TRUCTED WITHIN THE TIME, BUT SINCE ASSESSEE SOLD THE HOUSES IT WAS CON SIDERED THAT THEY ARE HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F(3) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ACQUISITION AND SALE TOOK PLACE IN THE SAME YEAR, HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IT WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F. I.T.A. NO. 261/HYD/2014 SRI A. RAM PRASAD :- 6 -: 5.2. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE OPINION OF CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT. SINCE THE CA PITAL GAINS IS TAXED IN AY. 2004-05, AND SINCE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED AN Y MONITORY CONSIDERATION, THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN PLOTS AND HOUSES. CONSEQUENTLY, WHATEVER GAINS IS BEING TAXED IN THIS YEAR AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE SAME IS ELIGIBL E FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F AS PROPORTIONATE CONSIDERATION STANDS INVESTED IN THE HOUSE. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F(3) ARE AS UNDER: SEC. 54F (1).. (2).. (3) WHERE THE NEW ASSET IS TRANSFERRED WITHIN A PER IOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS PURCHASE OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ITS CONSTRUCTION, THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FR OM THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET NOT CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 ON THE BASIS OF THE COST OF SUCH NEW ASSET AS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (A ) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, CLAUSE (B), OF SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL BE DEE MED TO BE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS RELATING TO LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSETS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH N EW ASSET IS TRANSFERRED.] 5.3. AS PER THE ABOVE PROVISION, IT CONTEMPLATES T HAT CAPITAL GAINS TO THE EXTENT CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WILL BE BR OUGHT TO TAX IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH NEW ASSET IS TRANSFERRED. IF AS SESSEE HAS SOLD HOUSE NO. 14 AND HOUSE NO. 59 IN THE YEAR 2005-06, IN THA T CASE, THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED IN THE YEAR 2004-05 WILL BE BROUG HT TO TAX IN THAT YEAR ALONG WITH ANY OTHER CAPITAL GAINS THAT MAY BE ARIS ING ON SALE OF NEW ASSET ON WHICH DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED EARLIER. THUS , ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED THE DEDUCTION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N, JUST BECAUSE THE ASSET WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 54F(3) CONTEMPLATES THAT THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISIN G FROM THE TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET NOT CHARGED U/S. 45 ON THE BASIS OF THE COST OF SUCH NEW ASSET SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS RELATING TO LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSETS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH I.T.A. NO. 261/HYD/2014 SRI A. RAM PRASAD :- 7 -: SUCH NEW ASSET IS TRANSFERRED. CONSEQUENTLY, ASSES SEE CAN NOT DENIED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION EVEN IF THE ASSET STANDS SOLD SUBSEQUENTLY. IF THE ASSET IS SOLD THE CONSEQUENTIAL ACTION HAS TO BE TAKEN IN THE YEAR OF SALE. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION BY CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT AND THEREFORE , FOR COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F, THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE F ILE OF AO FOR WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS ALONG ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION U/S . 54F TO ASSESSEE. THE GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 PERTAIN TO DIRECTION OF THE C IT(A) TO ASSESS THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLOTS AS SHORT TERM CAPIT AL GAIN ON SALE OF PLOTS. 6.1. AS BRIEFLY STATED ABOVE, LD. CIT(A) WHILE ALL OWING ASSESSEES APPEAL PARTLY AND WORKING COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GA IN, HOWEVER WENT ON TO DETERMINE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SHORT T ERM CAPITAL GAIN IN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS, WHICH ARE NOT BEFORE HIM . IN FACT, WE ARE NOT EVEN AWARE WHETHER THE AO UNDERTAKEN ANY PROCEEDING S IN THOSE YEARS. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) PRE-JUDGES THE ISSUE AND CIT(A) IS NOT EMPOWERED TO TRAVERSE BEYOND THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION IN APPEAL. IN FACT, HE HAS VIRTUALLY FIXED HOW MUCH IS THE LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND HOW MUCH IS THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN WITH OU T EXAMINATION BY AO OR OBJECTIONS FROM ASSESSEE. IN THE PROCESS, TH E SALE OF PLOTS ALLOTTED TO ASSESSEE WERE TERMED TO BE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GA IN, IGNORING HIS OWN FINDING THAT ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF THE PLOTS AND WHA T HE HAS GOT IN BARGAIN WAS ONLY BENEFIT OF DEVELOPMENT COST, WHICH WAS DIRECTED TO BE THE VALUE FOR CAPITAL GAINS WORKING AS SALE CONSIDE RATION. SINCE ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF THE PLOTS, SALE OF PLOTS WILL ALSO BE L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS ASSESSEE IS OWNING THE PLOT FOR MORE THAN THREE YEA RS. THIS BASIC ASPECT OF OWNERSHIP OF THE PLOT WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDE RATION AND ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO T O TAX THE AMOUNT AS I.T.A. NO. 261/HYD/2014 SRI A. RAM PRASAD :- 8 -: SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. SINCE THOSE YEARS ARE NOT BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN ARE ALSO NOT ACCORDING TO THE FACTS, WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AS WAS D ONE BY THE CIT(A) ON PHASE-2- TABLE 2, TABLE 3 AND TABLE 4 AND ALSO DIRE CTIONS IN PARA 28 FOR AY 2009-10. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT AO IS F REE TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO COMPUTE NECESSARY CAPITAL GAINS AS APPLICA BLE IN THOSE YEARS WITHOUT BEING GOVERNED BY THE OBSERVATIONS OR DIREC TIONS OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS ORDER. ISSUES ARE OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION/ ADJU DICATION BY THE AO/ ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH OCTOBER, 2015 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 09 TH OCTOBER, 2015 TNMM COPY TO : 1. SRI A. RAM PRASAD, WHITE FIELDS, MADHAPUR, HYDER ABAD. C/O. RAJU & PRASAD CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 401, DIAM OND HOUSE, ADJ. AMRUTHA HILLS, PUNJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCL E-5, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-VII, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.