DCIT-1 (International Taxation), Hyd, Hyderabad V. Kolli Gopi Krishna, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 389/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0359 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PALLAVI AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: Y R RAO
• Keywords: Gift; Business income
• Section: 40A(3); 54F; 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 307/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 MR. KOLLI GOPI KRISHNA , HYDERABAD [PAN: ATMPK1883C] VS D EPUT Y DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-I, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 389/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 D EPUT Y COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) HYDERABAD VS SHRI KOLLI GOPI KRISHNA , HYDERABAD [PAN: ATMPK1883C] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : S MT. P A LLAVI AGARWAL , D R FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI Y.R. RAO, AR DATE OF HEARING : 22 - 0 6 - 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 - 0 6 - 2015 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THESE TWO ARE CROSS-APPEALS BY REVENUE AND ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-X , HYDERABAD DATED 29-01-2015, ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE GAIN RETURNED BY ASSESSEE IS TO BE I.T.A. NOS. 307 & 389/HYD/2015 MR. KOLLI GOPI KRISHNA :- 2 -: ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' OR UNDER TH E HEAD 'BUSINESS' AS AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE IS A NON-RESIDENT INDIV IDUAL. HE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR D ECLARING INCOME OF RS. 4,61,77,622/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [ACT]. THE INCOME MAINLY CONSISTS OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF LAND AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE O F BUILDING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ON CONSIDERATION OF THE TRAN SACTION INVOLVED WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE INDULGED IN ADVENTURE IN NATURE OF TRADE IN CONSTRUCTING A COMMERCIAL COMPLEX AND SELLING THE S AME. ACCORDINGLY, HE DETERMINED THE HEAD OF INCOME AS 'INCOME FROM BU SINESS/PROFESSION' AS AGAINST INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS OFFERED BY ASS ESSEE. IN DOING SO, THE AO ALSO DISALLOWED CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES CLAIME D BY ASSESSEE TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 3,32,21,752/- WHICH INCLUDED AN AMOUN T OF RS. 45.50 LAKHS PAID TO M/S. M. GOPAL STONE CUTTING & EARTH C ONTRACTORS. THE MAIN REASON FOR DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE WAS THA T AO HELD THAT THERE WERE CASH PAYMENTS WHICH VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3). HE ALSO GAVE AN ALTERNATE OBSERVATION THAT IN CASE THE AMOUNTS ARE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED SHOULD BE DISALLOWED AS NON-GENUINE. AO ALSO NOTIC ED THAT THERE WAS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 12.50 LAKHS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACC OUNT WHICH ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE WAS FROM THE EAR LIER WITHDRAWALS OF SIMILAR AMOUNTS. AO DISBELIEVED THE SAME. AS AGAI NST THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE U/S. 54F AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,69,37,700/-, A O NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MODIFIED THE BUILDING TO COMMERCIAL AN D ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF 54F CANNOT BE ALLOWED. WITH THESE DISALLO WANCES/ADDITIONS, THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 12,07,24,837/-. I.T.A. NOS. 307 & 389/HYD/2015 MR. KOLLI GOPI KRISHNA :- 3 -: 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS CONTENDED THAT AO WAS NOT CORRECT IN TREATING THE TRANSACTION AS ADVENTURE IN NATURE OF TRADE AS ASSESSEE IS A NON-RESIDENT AND HAS INTENDED TO DEVELOP PROPERTY A S A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BUT WHEN BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED, LOANS COULD NOT BE OBTAINED/NOC COULD NOT BE OBTAINED IN VIEW OF THE METRO PROJECT WHICH WAS PASSING THROUGH PART OF LAND. THEREFORE, SINCE HE COULD NO T FINANCE THE FULL CONSTRUCTION, THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD ALONG WITH A ST RUCTURE THEREON TO M/S. TRANSTROY INDIA LTD., AND AT THE INSTANCE OF T HE BUYER, ASSESSEE HAD TO EXECUTE 25 SALE DEEDS WITH VALUE OF LAND AND BUILDING SEPARATELY TREATED. ACCORDINGLY, THE LAND COST WAS OFFERED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND BUILDING SALE WAS OFFERED AS SHORT TERM CA PITAL GAIN. AS AGAINST THE CANADIAN TAX CASE M.N.R. VS. TAILOR REL IED ON BY THE AO, ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES: A. G. VENKATASWAMY & CO VS. CIT [35 ITR 594 (SC)]; B. CIT VS. KASTURI ESTATES (P) LTD., [62 ITR 578 (MADR AS)]; C. CIT VS. MIM MAHALINGAM CHETTIAR [107 ITR 236 (MADRA S)]; D. CIT VS. DELHI APARTMENTS (P) LTD., [352 ITR 322 (DE LHI)]; E. CIT VS. SURESH CHAND GOYAL [163 TAMNAN 54 (MP) 298 ITR 277 (MP); F. ITO WARD-21(2) VS. SITARAM CHAMARIA [6 SOT 594 (MUM )]; G. B. VENU MADHAV VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-II(1), HYDERABAD [4 1 TAXMAN 435 (2013)]; H. BARENDRA PRASAD RAY VS. CIT [6 TAXMAN 19 (SC)]; I. BHARATIYA JANATA PARTY VS. DY.CIT [80 ITD 89 (DELHI )] AND J. CIT VS. THIAGARAJAN [129 ITR 115 (MADRAS)]. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO ACCEP TING THE PLAN DT. 19-11-2005 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF H YDERABAD, LD.CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE'S TRANSA CTION IS NOT IN THE I.T.A. NOS. 307 & 389/HYD/2015 MR. KOLLI GOPI KRISHNA :- 4 -: NATURE OF ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND ACCO RDINGLY, HE DIRECTED THE AO TO TREAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION UNDER HEAD ' CAPITAL GAINS' AND NOT AS 'BUSINESS INCOME'. WITH REFERENCE TO EXPENDITUR E ALSO, HE NOTICED THAT EXPENDITURE WAS GENUINELY CLAIMED AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE SAME AS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) ARE NOT APPLIC ABLE WHEN INCOME WAS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS'. WITH REFERENCE TO THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 12.50 LAKHS, CIT(A) ACCEPTED AS SESSEE'S EXPLANATION THAT WITHDRAWAL IN THE MONTH OF APRIL WAS SOURCE FO R AMOUNTS RE- DEPOSITED IN JUNE BY ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WITH REFER ENCE TO CLAIM U/S. 54F, LD.CIT(A) UPHELD AO'S OBSERVATION AND HAD NOT GRANTED EXEMPTION U/S. 54F. HENCE, BOTH ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL. 5. AS FAR AS ASSESSEE'S CLAIM U/S. 54F IS CONCERNED , THERE IS ONLY ONE ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL NO. 307/HYD/ 2015. THE FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE WAS THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASE D A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT PLOT NO. 472, ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILL S AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,69,37,700/- ON 01-12-2010 IE. WITHIN THE STIPULAT ED TIME AND SINCE A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED, CLAIMED DEDUCTI ON U/S. 54F. THE LD.AO AND CIT(A) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEMOLISHED THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, CONSTRUCTED A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND LA TER ON LET OUT. THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F DO NOT APPLY. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERU SING THE FACTS ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F AS NATURE OF PROPERTY HAS TURNED OUT TO BE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND ACCORDINGLY, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F DO NOT A PPLY. IN VIEW OF THIS, ASSESSEE'S GROUNDS ON THIS ISSUE ARE REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. NOS. 307 & 389/HYD/2015 MR. KOLLI GOPI KRISHNA :- 5 -: 8. COMING TO THE REVENUE'S APPEAL IN ITA NO. 389/HY D/2015, APART FROM CONTESTING THE ACTION OF CIT(A) IN TREATING TH E TRANSACTION OF SALE OF COMMERCIAL BUILDING AS OF CAPITAL GAINS, REVENUE AL SO FILED A GROUND ON VIOLATION OF RULE 46A(3), AS CIT(A) ADMITTED ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE BY WAY OF BUILDING PERMISSION LETTER DT. 19-11-2005. REVENUE ALSO IS IN APPEAL WITH REFERENCE TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 45.50 LAKHS M ADE U/S. 40A(3) AND DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ON THE BUILDING U/S. 40A(3) AND ALSO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 12.50 LAKHS MADE TOWARD S UN-EXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT. 9. LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AO , WHEREAS LD. AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ONE PAPER BO OK CONTAINING DOCUMENTS FROM 1 TO 152 WERE FILED IN SUPPORT OF T HE CONTENTIONS ALONG WITH CASE LAW PAPER BOOK. 10. WE HAVE HEARD DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDER ED RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE FACTS INDICATE THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED PLOT NO. 60 IN ROAD NO.5, BANJARA HILLS TO THE EXTENT OF 1170 SQ. YDS., ON 5 TH JULY, 2005. HIS BROTHER SHRI K. ARUN KRISHNA BOUGHT ADJ ACENT PLOT NO.61A TO AN EXTENT OF 465 SQ. YDS ON 21 ST JULY, 2006. HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW SHRI NAGESHWAR RAO BOUGHT ANOTHER PORTION OF 61A TO THE EXTENT OF 465 SQ. YDS., ON 21 ST JULY, 2006. THE BROTHER OF ASSESSEE GIFTED THE PR OPERTY TO ASSESSEE ON 29-11-2006 I.E., JUST AFTER THREE MONTH S OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND BROTHER-IN-LAW GIFTED THE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE ON 08-08-2008. ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED A BUILDING, T HE NATURE OF WHICH IS NOT CLEAR FROM RECORD. AO GIVES A FINDING THAT WHAT ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED WAS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING. ASSESSEE FU RNISHED A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PERMISSION DT. 19-11-2005 INDICATING TH AT IT HAS STARTED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO COM MERCIAL ACTIVITY I.T.A. NOS. 307 & 389/HYD/2015 MR. KOLLI GOPI KRISHNA :- 6 -: INVOLVED IN IT. THIS PERMISSION OF PLAN WAS NOT FI LED BEFORE THE AO AND ADMITTEDLY, FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ONLY. CIT(A) D ID NOT REFER IT AO UNDER RULE 46A AND THEREFORE THERE IS VIOLATION OF SAID R ULE. CIT(A) CAME TO THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE INTENDED TO CONSTRUCT RESIDEN TIAL BUILDING AND SUBSEQUENT PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ON BUILDING THE STR UCTURE LIKE METRO CORRIDOR COMING IN THE WAY OF PLOT AND NON AVAILABI LITY OF BANK LOANS HAS FORCED ASSESSEE TO SELL THE BUILDING. THEREFOR E, IT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF ADVENTURE IN NATURE OF TRADE, BUT ONLY OF EXPLOI TING THE EXISTING ASSET WHICH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' ONLY. VARIOUS CASE LAW WAS RELIED UPON BY ASSESSEE AND CI T(A), TO COME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT BE CONSI DERED AS BUSINESS BUT ONLY EXPLOITING THE EXISTING ASSET. WE NOTICE THAT THE BUILDING PERMISSION FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IS NOT THE BUIL DING PERMISSION REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSEE INTENDED TO CON STRUCT A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. AS SEEN FROM THE BUILDING PERMISSION, TH E PERMISSION WAS IN THE NAME OF SHRI D. RAM MOHAN RAO, WHO INCIDENTALLY WAS THE OWNER OF THE PLOT WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE IN THE YEA R 2005. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE PERMISSION ALSO THE BUILDING PERMISSI ON WAS GRANTED ON 19-11-2005 I.E., MUCH BEFORE THE PURCHASE OF ADJACE NT PROPERTY BY ASSESSEE'S BROTHER AND BROTHER-IN-LAW IN 2006. SUB SEQUENTLY, ONLY BY AUGUST, 2008, ENTIRE PROPERTY BECAME PROPERTY OF AS SESSEE. THEREFORE, THE BUILDING PERMISSION GRANTED TO THE ERSTWHILE OW NER OF THE PLOT NO. 60 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE INTENTION OF ASSESSE E, IN CONSTRUCTING A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IN 2008 . THERE MUST BE SOME OTHER PLANS SANCTIONED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE ABOVE PROPERTY ON PLOT NO. 60 & 61A. THEREF ORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD.CIT(A) WRONGLY CLASSIFIED THE BUILD ING AS THAT OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AS AGAINST THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO, THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED A COMMERCIAL BUILDING. SINCE THE L ATER APPROVALS WERE NOT PLACED ON RECORD AND COPIES OF THE 25 SALE DEED S ARE ALSO NOT BEFORE I.T.A. NOS. 307 & 389/HYD/2015 MR. KOLLI GOPI KRISHNA :- 7 -: US, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO GIVE ANY FINDING TH AT ASSESSEE HAS INTENDED TO CONSTRUCT EITHER A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. SINCE THE BASIC INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAI LABLE ON RECORD, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR THIS FORUM TO APPROVE EITHER THE ACTION OF AO WHO RELIED ON CANADIAN CASE LAW AS AGAINST VARIOUS PRINCIPLE L AID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF G. VENKATASWAM Y & CO VS. CIT (SUPRA). MOREOVER, THERE SEEMS TO BE NO EXAMINATION OF PLANS, INVESTMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE BY THE AO IN COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT IT IS IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS. AT THE SAME TIME, CIT(A) ALSO WRONGLY RELIED ON PERMISSION FROM MCH GRANTED TO THE ERSTWH ILE OWNER, WITHOUT EXAMINING THE NATURE OF THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED BY ASSESSEE NOR THE ATTENDANT FACTORS IN CONSTRUCTING AND SELLING THE P ROPERTY. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER CAN BE REMITTED BACK TO AO TO EXAMINE THE NECESSARY PERMISSIONS AND ACTIONS OF ASSESSEE A ND EXAMINE WHETHER THE TRANSACTION WOULD COME AS AN ADVENTURE IN THE N ATURE OF TRADE OR TO BE ASSESSED UNDER 'CAPITAL GAINS'. AO IS DIRECTED T O EXAMINE ALL THE FACTORS AND LAW AS RELIED BY ASSESSEE, AFTER DULY G IVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD . GROUND NOS. 3 TO 8 RAISED BY REVENUE WERE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. 11. COMING TO GROUND NOS. 9, 10 & 11 ON THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, WE AGREE WITH THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS OTHERWISE HELD GENUINE, CANNOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3). AS SEEN FROM THE ORDERS, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 45.50 LAK HS WAS DISALLOWED ON THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE D ETAILS OF PAYMENTS WHEREAS IT IS ON RECORD THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED NECESSARY BILLS AND VOUCHERS. MOREOVER, WITH REFERENCE TO RS. 2,86,71, 752/- DISALLOWED U/S. 40A(3), AO GIVES FINDING THAT ENTIRE PAYMENT WAS IN CASH. AS SEEN FROM THE LEDGER A/C FILED ONLY PART OF THE EXPENDITURE W AS IN CASH I.E., PARTICULARLY FOR LABOUR AND PURCHASE OF SAND ETC. AO TREATED THE I.T.A. NOS. 307 & 389/HYD/2015 MR. KOLLI GOPI KRISHNA :- 8 -: PAYMENT MADE TO PURCHASE OF LIFT ALSO AS THAT OF CA SH, WHEREAS THE BILL ITSELF INDICATE THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID BY VARIOUS C HEQUES. SINCE ONLY PROVISIONS OF 40A(3) ARE INVOKED, THERE IS NO QUEST ION OF TREATING THE EXPENDITURE AS 'NON-GENUINE' AS NO AMOUNT WAS DISAL LOWED U/S. 37(1). PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) CAN ONLY BE INVOKED ON THE EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS PAID IN CASH, OTHERWISE NOT DISALLOWABLE U/S. 37(1). SINCE AO HAS NOT DISALLOWED ANYTHING U/S. 37(1) WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN TREATING THE AMOUNT AS 'GENUINE EXPEN DITURE'. ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS OF REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 12. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS. 12.50 LA KHS TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT, HEREIN ALSO THE FACTS IND ICATE THAT ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 8.5 LAKHS, 3 LAKHS A ND 1 LAKH FROM 05-04-2010 TO 24-04-2010 AND AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED IN TWO INSTALLMENTS I.E., RS. 8.5 LAKHS ON 10-06-2010 AND RS. 4 LAKHS ON 11- 06-2010. AS SEEN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT, THERE ARE N O OTHER TRANSACTIONS OF WITHDRAWAL OF CASH, THEREFORE, ASSE SSEE'S EXPLANATION THAT THE DEPOSIT OF CASH WAS FROM OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS OF THE CASH EARLIER CAN BE ACCEPTED AS A GENUINE EXPLANATION. IN THE A BSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE THAT ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED THESE AMOUNTS WHICH WERE EARLIER WITHDRAWN. ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS ARE TO B E ACCEPTED. IN VIEW OF THIS, REVENUE'S GROUND NO. 12 IS REJECTED. CIT(A)' S ORDER ON THIS ISSUE IS CONFIRMED. 13. IN THE RESULT, REVENUE'S APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. I.T.A. NOS. 307 & 389/HYD/2015 MR. KOLLI GOPI KRISHNA :- 9 -: 14. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IN ITA NO. 307 /HYD/2015 IS DISMISSED AND REVENUE'S APPEAL IN ITA NO. 389/HYD/2 015 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH JUNE, 2015. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 26 TH JUNE, 2015 TNMM COPY TO : 1. MR. KOLLI GOPI KRISHNA, D.NO. 8-2-293/82/A/43C, SAI SURYA, PLOT NO. 43 C, ROAD NO. 71, JUBILEE HILLS, H YDERABAD. C/O. SHRI A. SRIHARI RAO, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, SSV & COMPANY, D.NO. 8-3-320/1/3/4, G-2, SAI PARIWAR APAR TMENTS, SAI SARADHI NAGAR, YELLAREDDYGUDA, AMEERPET, HYDERA BAD. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-I, INTERNATIONAL T AXATION, HYDERABAD. / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(APPEALS)-X, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT-(IT & TP), HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.