ACIT, Circle-2(2),Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. Transport Corporation of India Ltd., Hyd, Secunderabad

ITA 517/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6425 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained investment; Depreciation; Search and seizure; Charitable institution; Audit objection; Question of law; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 147; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO 571 OF 2015 TCI HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.517/HYD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2) HYDERABAD VS. M/S TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED SECUNDERABAD PAN: AAACT 7966 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SHRI M. SITARAM, DR FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI Y. RATNAKAR DATE OF HEARING : 16.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 .06.2016 O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2006-07. IN TH IS APPEAL THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A ) IN QUASHING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT OF GOODS, LOGISTICS SERVICES, TRADING OF PETROL AND DIESEL AND GENERATION OF ENERGY. IT FILED ITS R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT A.Y ON 26.11.2006 DECLARING TAXABL E INCOME OF RS.13,98,51,780 AND THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF TH E ACT AT RS.25,54,56,595. THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT WAS PASSED ON 31.12.2008 DETERMINING THE INCOME AT RS.21,13,4,055. SUBSEQUENTLY THE AO REOPENED THE AS SESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE I.T. ACT BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148 DATED ITA NO 571 OF 2015 TCI HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 8 29.03.2012 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY BRINGING TO TAX DEPRECIATION ON SEAWAYS DIVISION OF RS.3,11,91,105 AND IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.81,00,000 A ND ALSO THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.2,43,00,000. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT (A) BOTH ON THE VALIDITY OF THE INITIATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND ALSO AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. THE CIT (A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON T HE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT CONSIDER THE OTHER GROUNDS ON MERITS. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 3. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DR, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED BY THE AO ON RECEIPT OF INFORMATION THAT T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THE AUDIT OBJECTION. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DR, THE AUDIT O BJECTION I.E. THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AND THE DEC ISION OF THE AO IS AFTER AFTER APPLICATION OF HIS MIND BEFORE CO MING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSME NT AND THEREFORE, QUASHING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE CIT (A) WITHOUT TAKING ABOVE FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION AND H OLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS ON AN AUDIT OBJE CTION NOT CORRECT AND THEREFORE, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. HE ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMEN T. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTH ER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) AND HAVE ALSO P LACED BEFORE US A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE B BENCH OF THIS TR IBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y 2007-08 WHEREIN THE CHALLENGE WAS TO REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148 ON SIMIL AR GROUNDS ITA NO 571 OF 2015 TCI HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 8 AND THIS TRIBUNAL AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION T HE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX VS. P.V.S. BEEDIES PVT. LTD. ON 1 OCTOBE R, 1997 (237 ITR 13), HAS CONFIRMED THE QUASHING OF THE ASSESSME NT. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMEN T IS AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT A.Y. THE REASON FOR REOPENING ARE THAT THE EXCESS DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SEAWAYS DIVISION AND ALSO THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX. IN FACT, WE FIND THAT IN THE A.Y 2007-08 ALSO, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON AC COUNT OF EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON SEAWAYS DIVISION AN D THE REOPENING IS ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION. THE C IT (A), IN PARA 6 OF HIS ORDER HAS BROUGHT OUT THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES LEADING TO REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND FOR READ Y REFERENCE THE RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED HEREWITH: 6(A) THE APPELLANT'S CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 31- 122008 BY THE AO I.E., THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2, HYDE RABAD. THE CIT(A)-ILL, HYDERABAD ADJUDICATED VIDE ORDER DA TED 28.01.2010. THIS WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE O RDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, HYDERABAD IN ITA.NO,493/HYD/2010 DATED 31.01.2013. B) THE AUDIT RAISED AN OBJECTION VIDE NOTE 19-10-20 10 AND THE AO I.E. ACIT -CIRCLE -2(3), HYDERABAD VIDE LETT ER DATED 28-10-2010 HAS REPLIED TO THE AUDIT STATING 'THE OB JECTION RAISED BY RAP WILL BE LOOKED INTO AND AFTER VERIFIC ATION FINAL REPLY WILL BE SUBMITTED'. . THE CIT -II, HYDERABAD VIDE LETTER DATED 26/03/2012 ADDRESSED TO THE ACIT -CIRCLE 2(3) WHILE GOING INTO THE AUDIT OBJECTION STATES IN IN (6) ON PAGE 3 THAT 'THE ASSE SSEE HAD HOODWINKED THE AO FOR 2006-07 I.E. THE ADDL. CIT-RA NGE 2 ...... AND DIRECTED THE AO TO CONSIDER REMEDIAL ACT ION BY 147 ITA NO 571 OF 2015 TCI HYDERABAD PAGE 4 OF 8 AFTER RECORDING REASONS. THIS INDICATES THAT IT WAS A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION. THE PROFORMA WAS SUBMITTED FOR REOPENING U/S 147 TO THE CIT-II, HYDERABAD ON 28/3/ 2012 BY THE ACIT -CIRCLE 2(3) THROUGH THE ADD!. CIT-RANG E 2 AND ON 29/3/2012 THE APPROVAL OF THE CIT-II, HYDERABAD IS COMMUNICATED. IT IS NOTED THE REASONS RECORDED ARE LARGELY BASED ON THE CIT'S VIEWS AND ARE IN THE NATURE OF D IRECTIONS TO THE AO TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. THE AD HAD NOT INDEPENDENTLY SHOWN DUE APPLICATION OF MIND AS REQU IRED BY A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. IN THIS CONTEXT IT IS B ROUGHT TO NOTE THAT THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS K ELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD (320 ITR 561) HELD AS UNDER: ' ..... ONE NEEDS TO GIVE SCHEMATIC INTERPRETATION TO THE WORDS 'REASON TO BELIEVE' FAILING WHICH, WE ARE AFRAID, SECTION 147 WOULD GIVE ARBITRARY POWERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN ASSESSMEN TS ON THE BASIS OF 'MERE CHANGE OF OPINION', WHICH CANNOT BE PER SE RE ASON TO RE-OPEN. WE MUST KEEP IN MIND THE CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POWER TO REVIEW AND POWER TO RE-ASSESS. THE AO HAS NO POWER TO REVI EW; HE HAS THE POWER TO RE-ASSESS. BUT REASSESSMENT HAS TO BE BASE D ON FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN PRE-CONDITION AND IF THE CONCEPT OF 'CHANGE OF OPINION' IS REMOVED, AS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT, THEN, IN THE GARB OF RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT, REVIEW WOULD TAKE PLACE HENCE, AFTER 01 APRIL 1989, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POWER TO REOP EN, PROVIDED THERE IS 'TANGIBLE MATERIAL' TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT. REASONS MUST HAVE A LIVE LI NK WITH THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF.' C) MEANWHILE THE AD I.E., DCIT-CIRCLE 2(3) VIDE LET TER DATED. 8/3/2013 SENT A DETAILED LETTER TO THE CIT-II, HVDE RABAD THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL BRINGING TO NOTE 'THAT THE H ON'BLE ITAT HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE OBJECTION RAISED MAY BE TREATED AS DROPPED '. THE AD MEANWHILE ALSO VIDE LETTER/INTERIM ORDER DATED 14-0 3-2013 TO THE APPELLANT SIMULTANEOUSLY JUSTIFIED THE REOPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENT. SUBSEQUENTLY VIDE ORDER DATED 31-03-201 3 COMPLETED THE ORDER 143(3) READ WITH 147 THE AD COM PLETED THE ASSESSMENT. D) SUBSEQUENTLY VIDE LETTER DATED 8-4-2014, THE ADD !. CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD HAS WRITTEN TO THE CIT-II, HYDER ABAD ABOUT THE AUDIT OBJECTION WHICH WAS AGAIN RAISED SUBSEQUENT TO THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS FOLLO WS : THE ITA NO 571 OF 2015 TCI HYDERABAD PAGE 5 OF 8 AUDIT OBJECTION IS INCORRECT ON FACTS AND IN LAW FO R THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1) THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE AUDIT IS THAT THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY DID NOT EXERCISE OPTION FOR TONNAGE TAX SCH EME WITHIN 3 MONTHS I. E. BEFORE 30.06.2005 FROM THE DA TE OF AMALGAMATION OF M/S.TCI SEAWAYS LIMITED WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY TO AUDIT THE OPTION W AS NOT EXERCISED WITHIN 3 MONTHS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENT ITLED TO CLAIM BENEFIT OF TONNAGE TAX SCHEME AND THEREFORE T HE BENEFIT SHALL BE DISALLOWED. 2) THE OBJECTION IS INCORRECT NOT ACCEPTABLE. THOUG H THE APPOINTED DATE FOR AMALGAMATION OF M/S TCI SEA WAY LIMITED WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS 01-04-2005,THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE AP HIGH COURT ACCORDING APPROVAL OF THE MER GED SCHEME WAS PASSED ONLY ON 18.8.2006. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN SEEKING APPROVAL WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER BECAUSE PRI OR TO THE DATE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED THE OPTI ON. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL ON 3.11.200 6 WHICH WAS WELL WITHIN 3 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF HIGH COURT ON 18.8.2006 AND DUE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED BY THE THEN RANGE HEAD. 3) HOWEVER, FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS OF BOARD REMEDIAL ACTION WAS TAKEN THOUGH THE AUDIT OBJECTION IS INCORRECT. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSAL TO CONVERT THE OBJECTION INTO DRAFT PA RA IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE AND THE MATTER MAY KINDLY BE TAKEN UP WITH AG(AUDIT) FOR DROPPING OF THE OBJECTION. 4) THE SECOND OBJECTION OF AUDIT IS THAT THERE IS E RROR IN ADDING BACK DEPRECIATION OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,11,91,105/-. THIS OBJECTION IS ALSO ARISES BECAUS E OF APPLICATION OF TONNAGE TAX SCHEME. ONCE TONNAGE TAX SCHEME IS TAKEN IS APPLIED TO THE ABOVE, ONLY DEPRECIATION TAX PORTION OF BUSINESS HAS TO BE ADDED BACK. THOUGH REMEDIAL A CTION IS TAKEN FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION OF THE BOARD BY WAY OF REASSESSMENT U/S.147, THIS OBJECTION IS ALSO NOT AC CEPTABLE. THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR TONNAGE TAX BENEFITS. THEREFORE ON THIS ISSUE ALSO, THE MATTER MAY BE TAKEN UP' WIT H THE AG(AUDIT) FOR DROPPING THE OF THE OBJECTION. ITA NO 571 OF 2015 TCI HYDERABAD PAGE 6 OF 8 6. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF T HE ACT AND THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT A.Y. THEREFORE, THE FI RST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 COMES INTO PLAY. UNDER THE SAID PROVISI ON, THE AO CAN REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT ONLY IF THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLO SE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSME NT OF ASSESSEES INCOME. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THERE IS NO SUCH FIN DING IN THE REASONS RECORDED BEFORE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE. FUR THER, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD OBJECTED TO THE AUDIT OBJECTION BUT ON THE VERY SAME REASONS HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148. THIS DISCLO SES THAT THE AO HAS INITIATED THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION THOUGH HE HIMSELF IS NOT CON VINCED THAT THE AUDIT OBJECTION IS CORRECT. 7. THIS TRIBUNAL AT PARA 8.7 TO 8.9 IN THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1080/HYD/2015 FOR THE A.Y 2007-08 HAVE HE LD AS UNDER: 8.7 COMING TO THE FOURTH GROUND, CIT(A) HAD QUASHE D THE REOPENED ASSESSMENT IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE HO NBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PVS BEEDIS PVT. LTD., 237 ITR 13 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT REOPENING OF THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF FACTUAL INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE AUDIT PARTY IS VAL ID IN LAW. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE REPRODUCE THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW: 3. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT BOTH THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH COURT WERE IN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE INTERNAL AUDIT PARTY COULD NOT BE TREATED AS INFORMATION WITHIN THE MEAN ING OF S. 147(B) OF THE IT ACT. THE AUDIT PARTY HAS MERELY POINTED OUT A FACT WHICH HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED BY THE ITO IN THE ASSESSMENT. THE FACT T HAT THE RECOGNITION GRANTED TO THIS CHARITABLE TRUST HAD EXPIRED ON 22N D SEPT., 1972, WAS NOT NOTICED BY THE ITO. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF INFORMATI ON ON A QUESTION OF LAW. THE DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER REOPENING IS PERMISSIBLE AFTER THE AUDIT PARTY EXPRESSES AN OPINION ON A QUESTION OF LAW IS NOW BE ING CONSIDERED BY A ITA NO 571 OF 2015 TCI HYDERABAD PAGE 7 OF 8 LARGER BENCH OF THIS COURT. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT THE AUDIT PARTY IS ENTITLED TO POINT OUT A FACTUAL ERROR OR OMISSION I N THE ASSESSMENT. REOPENING OF THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF A FACTUAL ERR OR POINTED OUT BY THE AUDIT PARTY IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. IN VIEW OF TH AT WE HOLD THAT REOPENING OF THE CASE UNDER S. 147(B) IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WAS ON THE BASIS OF FACTUAL INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE INTERNAL AUDIT PARTY AND WAS VALID IN LAW. THE JUDGMENT UNDER APPEAL IS SET ASID E TO THIS EXTENT. 8.8 FROM THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, THERE CAN BE NO DISPUT E THAT THE AUDIT PARTY IS ENTITLED TO POINT OUT A FACTUAL ERROR OR OMISSION IN THE ASSESSMENT. REOPENING OF THE CASE ON THE BAS IS OF FACTUAL ERROR POINTED BY THE AUDIT PARTY IS PERMISS IBLE UNDER LAW PROVIDED ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD APPLY HIS MIND AN D GET HIMSELF SATISFIED THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSES SMENT DUE TO SUCH AN ERROR. IN THIS CASE, THOUGH THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS SATISFIED THAT THE AUDIT OBJECTION IS NOT CORRECT, HE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ONLY ON THE DIRECTION OF CIT-II, HYDERAB AD WHICH CLEARLY MAKES THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS VOID A B-INITIO. EVEN ON FACTS, WE FIND THAT THE ALLEGED FACTUAL ERR OR POINTED OUT BY THE AUDIT PARTY IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115VY, THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY HAD TO GET PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHORITIES TO RETAIN THE BENEF IT OF TONNAGE TAX SCHEME WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF AM ALGAMATION. M/S TCI SEAWAYS LTD. AMALGAMATED WITH M/S TCI LTD. WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/2005. SINCE M/S TCI LTD. WAS GRAN TED PERMISSION ONLY ON 04/12/2006, ACCORDING TO THE AUD IT PARTY, IT LOOSES THE BENEFIT UNDER CHAPTER XII G. BUT, TH E FACT IN THIS PROPOSITION ITSELF IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE CORR ECT FACTS ARE THAT THE HONBLE AP HIGH COURT HAS APPROVED THE SCHEME O F AMALGAMATION VIDE ITS ORDER ONLY ON 18/08/2006 WITH THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMALGAMATION BEING 01/04/2005. TH E COMPANY HAS PROMPTLY APPLIED ON 03/11/2006 (WITHIN THREE MO NTHS) AND GOT APPROVAL FROM DEPARTMENT ON 04/12/2006. 8.9 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION, CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT IN THE PRESENT C ASE AND DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL AS HE DEEMS FIT. 8. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DURING THE RELEVANT A.Y ARE SIMILAR TO THE A.Y 2007-08, RESPEC TFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN T HE ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN PA RA 5 ABOVE, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO 571 OF 2015 TCI HYDERABAD PAGE 8 OF 8 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JUNE, 2016. S D/ - S D/ - (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 17 TH JUNE, 2016. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2) 8 TH FLOOR, B BLOCK ROOM NO.824, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD 2. M/S TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 1-8-271 TO 273 ASHOKA BHOOPAL CHAMBERS, SP ROAD, SECUNDERABAD 5000 03 3. CIT(A) -2 HYDERABAD 4. PR. CIT -2 HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER