Smt. G. Laxmi Devi, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Circle -2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 294/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69938 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANJALA SAHU
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Initiation of penalty proceedings; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 234B; 10B; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.294/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 SMT. G. LAXMI DEVI HYDERABAD PAN AAPPG6532Q VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(3) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI S. RAMA RAO (A.R.) FOR RESPONDENT : SMT. ANJALA SAHU (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING : 23.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.11.2013 ORDER PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD DATED 28.12.2011 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, SHE HAS FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.12.2008 SHOWING INCOME U NDER THE HEADS, SALARIES, FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, INCOME FROM BUSINESS, FROM CAPITAL GAINS AND FROM OTHER SOURCES. SHE HAS CLAIM ED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT FOR A SUM OF RS.L,39,4 0,602/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. LAT ER, SHE HAS FILED A REVISED RETURN ON 31.03.2010, SHOWING GROSS INCOME OF RS.3,20,84,007/- AND TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.1,44,55,2 37/-, AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA FOR A SUM OF RS.1,76,28,770/-, WHICH INCLUDES DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 8OLA AT RS.1,74,13,770/-. 2 ITA.NO.294/HYD/2012 SMT. G. LAXMI DEVI, HYDERABAD 3 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED WITH THE MANDATORY AUDIT REPORT AS R EQUIRED U/S 80LA(7) OF THE ACT, FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 8 0LA. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BELATEDLY ON 26.12.2008 AND THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF I NCOME HAS NOT BEEN FILED WITHIN THE DUE DATE AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT AND MOREOVER, THE SAME WA S NOT IN PURSUANCE OF ANY NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. THERE FORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE SAID REVISED RETURN O F INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31.03.2010 IS NOT A VALID R ETURN. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAID RETURN AS NON-EST. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE D ECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KUMAR JAGDISH CHANDRA SINHA VS. CIT (1996) (220 ITR 67). 4. WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80LA OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AC OF THE ACT, AS PER WHICH NO SUCH DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED TO AN ASSESSEE UNLES S HE FURNISHES A RETURN OF HIS INCOME FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2008- 09 BY THE DUE DATE U/S 139(1) I.E. BY 30.09.2008 AND THEREFORE, DEDUCTION U/S 80LA OF THE ACT CANNOT BE A LLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSING OFFICER DISALL OWED SUCH CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE IN THAT ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 26.12.2008. FURTHER, SINCE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80LA(7) OF THE ACT, FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IN THAT REG ARD FROM AN ACCOUNTANT AS SPECIFIED THEREIN IS MANDATORY FOR CLA IMING 3 ITA.NO.294/HYD/2012 SMT. G. LAXMI DEVI, HYDERABAD DEDUCTION U/S 80LA AND AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE REQUIRED AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB IN THAT CONTEXT ALONG WITH THE SAID RETURN FILED ON 26.12.2008, THE AO FUR THER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80L A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED THE SAID CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80LA OF THE ACT AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, VIDE ORDER DATED 30.11.2010 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,17,95,500/-. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). DURING THE HEARING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE LD. AR, IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS DUE BY 30.09.2008. IT WAS STATED T HAT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS AS WEL L AS CONDITIONS LAID DOWN THEREIN AND ALSO DUE TO SOME UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN THE NORMAL COURSE AFTER GATHERING ALL NEC ESSARY DETAILS FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND THE SAME RESU LTED IN FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.12.2008. LATER, TH E ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.03.2010. 6. FURTHER, LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO REFERRED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(7) OF THE ACT. THE LEARN ED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN THIS CO NTEXT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFIED ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THAT SECTION AND THUS, ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AS ENVISAG ED UNDER THAT PROVISION. FURTHER, REFERRING TO VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION IN CIT VS. CONTIMETERS ELECT RICALS PVT. LTD (2009) 317 ITR 249 (DELHI), IN THE CONTEXT OF TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(7) OF THE ACT, IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT 4 ITA.NO.294/HYD/2012 SMT. G. LAXMI DEVI, HYDERABAD THE CONDITION LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80AC IS ONLY DIRE CTORY IN NATURE AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS MANDATORY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PET ITION ON 12.11.2010 U/S 119(2)(B) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE CENTR AL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND THE DECISION OF THE CBDT IS AWA ITED ON THAT MATTER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE DUE DATE FOR SEVERA L REASONS. WHILE GATHERING ALL RELEVANT DETAILS NECESSARY FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE DUE DATE, THE ASSESSEE FELL SICK AND WAS ADMITTED TO HOSPITAL. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDE R CONSTANT CARE OF DOCTORS FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS A ND REMAINED HOSPITALIZED FROM JULY 2008 TO DECEMBER 20 08. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM SEVERE ILLNESS AND ALSO BECAUSE OF OLD AGE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONCENTR ATE ON BUSINESS MATTERS INCLUDING TAX MATTER. IT WAS FURTHER STATED BY THE LEARNED A.R. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FACT THAT SHE WOULD NOT HAVE THE BENE FIT OF SECTION 80LA OF THE ACT, IF THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT SUBMITTED WITHIN THE DUE DATE. IT WAS STATED THAT AFTER DISCHARGE FROM HOSPITAL, THE ASSESSEE GATHERED ALL NECESSARY DETAILS AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2008- 09 ON 26.12.2008. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE FI LED THE RETURN OF INCOME MAKING CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80IA WI THOUT ENCLOSING ANY DOCUMENTS BUT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AN OPPORTUNITY UNDER SECTION 139 (9) OF THE A CT TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE AND SHE COULD HAVE BEEN VESTED WI TH THE BENEFIT TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ID. AR AND FACTS OF THE CASE. AS ST ATED ABOVE, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO DE NIAL OF 5 ITA.NO.294/HYD/2012 SMT. G. LAXMI DEVI, HYDERABAD CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE SAID CLAIM, S INCE, FIRST OF ALL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCO ME FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 WITHIN THE DUE DATE AS SPECIFIED U/S 13 9(1) OF THE ACT AND AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME BELATEDLY ON 26.12.2008, I.E., MUCH AFTER SUCH DUE D ATE, AND THEREBY HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 80AC OF THE ACT, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE SAID CLAIM OF D EDUCTION. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT AS OBSERVED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80LA OF THE ACT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE MANDATOR Y AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION OF 80IA(7) OF THE ACT. 8. THE LEARNED CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT THE REVISE D RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09, HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE AO, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME HAS NOT BEEN FILED WI THIN THE DUE TIME AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC.139(1) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS ALSO NOT IN PURSUANCE OF ANY NOTICE U/S 14 2( 1) OF THE ACT. WHILE HOLDING THAT THE SAID REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED SUBSEQUENTLY WAS NOT A VALID RETURN, THE LEAR NED CIT(A) TREATED THE SAME AS NON-EST. SINCE IN THE INSTANT C ASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOM E WITHIN THE DUE DATE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.139(1) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED U/S.139( 4) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO FILE REVISED RETURN, AS PER THE RATIO OF DECISION OF HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KUMAR JAGDISH CHANDRA SINHA VS. CIT (1996) (220 ITR 67). THE CIT(A) HELD AS FOL LOWS : 6 ITA.NO.294/HYD/2012 SMT. G. LAXMI DEVI, HYDERABAD 5.3. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID NEWLY INSER TED SECTION 80AC, VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2006, W.E.F. 01.04.2006, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED U/S.80IA OF THE ACT, UNLESS AN ASSESSEE FILES THE RETURN OF INC OME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC. 139 OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF THE ABOVE SECTION I.E. 80AC HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO BY THE AO IN PARA 3.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FROM SUCH PROVISION, IT IS CLEAR, THAT FOR A LLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA, FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME B Y AN ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WITHIN TH E DUE DATE AS PER SUB-SECTION (1) TO SEC.139 OF THE A CT IS MANDATORY. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS STATED THAT UNDER THE 'MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN THE FINANC E BILL, 2006', WHILE EXPLAINING ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF ABOVE SECTION I.E., 80AC, UNDER THE HEADING, IT IS MENTIO NED 'BENEFITS OF CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS NOT TO BE ALLOWED I N CASES ALLOWED IN CASES WHERE RETURN IS NOT FILED WITHIN T HE SPECIFIED TIME LIMIT, AS PER 281 ITR (ST.) 200. FU RTHER, AT PAGE 201 OF THE SAID ITR (STATUE SECTION), IT IS ME NTIONED AS UNDER : 'IT IS PROPOSED TO AMEND SECTION 10B AND INSERT A N EW SECTION 80AC SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 10B AN SECTION 80-IA, SECTION 80-IAB, SECTI ON 80- IB AND SECTION 80IC SHALL BE ALLOWED TO AN ASSESSEE WHO DOES NOT FURNISH A RETURN OF HIS INCOME ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTIO N 139. FROM THE ABOVE EXPLANATORY NOTE, CLARIFYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID NEWLY INSERTED SECTION 80AC, IT IS THUS, VERY CLEAR THAT FOR ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/ S.80IA 7 ITA.NO.294/HYD/2012 SMT. G. LAXMI DEVI, HYDERABAD OF THE ACT, FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR BY ASSESSEE, ON OR BEFORE THE DUE D ATE AS SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) TO SEC. 139 OR THE ACT, IS MANDATORY. IN OTHER WORDS, IF AN ASSESSEE DOES NOT FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YE AR BY THE DUE DATE AS PER THE PROVISION OF SEC.139(1) OF THE ACT, HE CANNOT BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT. SINCE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT F ILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09 BY THE DUE DATE, AS PER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE OF HER CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS CASE, IS FULLY JUSTIFIED A ND HENCE THE SAME IS UPHELD. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND HAS RAISED 7 GR OUNDS. GROUNDS NO.1 AND 7 ARE OF GENERAL NATURE AND HENCE DO NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION. GROUNDS NO. 2 TO 4, THE ASSES SEE HAS OBJECTED TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE U/S 80LA OF THE ACT. IN GROUND NO.5, THE ASSESSEE HAS O BJECTED TO CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C. IN GROUND N O.6 THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED TO THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 10. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LEARNED A.R. RELIED O N THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. S. VENKATAIAH (2012) 52 S OT 437 (HYD.). 11. THE LEARNED D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8 ITA.NO.294/HYD/2012 SMT. G. LAXMI DEVI, HYDERABAD 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE SPECIA L BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. SAFFIRE GARMENTS VS . ITO (S.B.) (RAJKOT) VIDE ORDER DATED 4.12.2012 HELD AS UN DER : S. 10A : CONDITION THAT ROI SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN DUE DATE IS MANDATORY. FOR A.Y. 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE FILED A ROI ON 31.1. 2007 WHEN THE DUE DATE WAS 31.12.2006. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED S. 10A DEDUCTION. THE A.O. AND CIT(A) REJEC TED THE CLAIM BY RELYING ON THE PROVISO TO S. 10A(1A). THE SPECIAL BENCH HAD TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE PROVISO T O S. 10A(1A) WAS MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY AND WHETHER S.10 A DEDUCTION COULD BE ALLOWED EVEN TO A BELATED RETURN . HELD BY THE SPECIAL BENCH. THE PROVISO TO S. 10A(1A) PROVIDES THAT NO DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE ALLOWED TO AN ASSESSEE WHO DOES NOT FURNISH A RETURN OF HIS INCOM E ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED U/S./ 139(1). THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT THE SAID PROVISO IS MERELY DIRECTORY AND NOT MANDATORY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE PROVISO IS ONE OF THE SEVERAL CONSEQUENCES (SUCH AS INTEREST U/S. 234A) THAT BEFALL AN ASSESSEE IF HE F AILS TO FILE A ROI ON THE DUE DATE. AS THE OTHER CONSEQUENC ES FOR NOT FILING THE ROI ON THE DUE DATE ARE MANDATORY TH E CONSEQUENCE IN THE PROVISO CANNOT BE HELD TO BE DIR ECTORY (SHIVANAND ELECTRONICS 209 ITR 63 (BOM.) & OTHER JUDGMENTS DISTINGUISHED), 9 ITA.NO.294/HYD/2012 SMT. G. LAXMI DEVI, HYDERABAD 13. IN THE PRESENT BEFORE US, AS MENTIONED BY THE A O AND ALSO ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MOREOVER AS TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE MANDATORY AUDIT REPORT AS REQ UIRED U/S 80IA(7) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA OF THE ACT, FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. S AFFIRE GARMENTS (SUPRA). THE LEARNED A.R. RELIED ON THE DE CISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F ITO VS. S. VENKATAIAH DATED 31.05.2012. AFTER THIS DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH, THE ISSUE WAS REFERRED TO SPECIAL B ENCH WHICH WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS ABOVE IN M/S. SAFFIRE GARMENTS (SUPRA). BEING SO, WE ARE INCLINED TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. S AFFIRE GARMENTS (SUPRA) RATHER THAN THE DECISION OF DIVISI ON BENCH IN THE CASE OF S.VENKATAIAH (SUPRA), AS THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IS BINDING ON US AGAINST THE DIVISION BENC H DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.11.2013. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD DATE 13 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. VBP/- 10 ITA.NO.294/HYD/2012 SMT. G. LAXMI DEVI, HYDERABAD COPY TO 1. SMT. G. LAXMI DEVI, NO.802-682, LAXMI CYBER CENT RE, ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2 (3), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD 4. CIT-II, HYDERABAD 5. D.R. B BENCH, ITAT HYDERABAD