Srinivas Civil Works Private Limited, Secunderabad V. Addl.CIT, Range-15, Hyderabad

ITA 528/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 98399 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: FR MR S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Non-deduction of tax; Reasonable cause
• Section: 133A; 194C; 201(1); 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B(SMC)', HYDERABAD BEFORE : SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.527/HYD/2013 - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ITA NO.528/HYD/2013 - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 M/S SRINIVASA CIVIL WORKS (P) LTD, HYDERABAD. (PAN AAECS1716J) VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 15, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESS E E FR : MR. S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE : MR. RAJAT MITRA DATE OF HEARING FR : 24.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.08.2015 ORDER THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, HYDERABAD DATED 28.1.2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AN D 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE TWO APPEALS IS COMMON, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVEN IENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED COMMON GROUND IN THESE TWO APPEALS, CHALLENGING THE ORDERS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, HYDERABAD, CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271C BY THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-15, HYDERABAD. ITA NO.527 & 528/HYD/2013 M/S. SRINIVASA CIVIL WORKS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. 2 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BRIEFLY ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVI L CONTRACT WORKS MOSTLY EXECUTING GOVERNMENT PROJECTS . A SURVEY OPERATION U/S 133A OF THE I.T. ACT, WAS COND UCTED ON 11-02-2004. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IT WAS N OTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO CREDITORS FOR EXPENSES, UNPAID LAB OUR CHARGES, JOB WORK CHARGES, TRANSPORT CHARGES, LABOU R CHARGES AND ROYALTY PAYMENTS MADE TO GAYATHRI CONSTRUCTIONS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, I.E. A .Y. 2003-04 AND A.Y. 2004-05. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AF TER EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS QUANTIFIED THE DEFA ULTS AND LEVIED TAX AND INTEREST U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A). 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AGAINST THE O RDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A). THE LE ARNED CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 17-9-2007 CONFIRMED THE ORD ER OF ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A). THE ASSES SEE FURTHER, CHALLENGED THE CIT(A) ORDER BY FILING APPE AL BEFORE THE ITAT. THE ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH UPHELD CIT(A) ORDERS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, I.E. 2003-04 AND 2004-05. 5. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE- 15, HYDERABAD, INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 27 1C, SHOW CAUSING WHY PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED FOR DEFAU LTS IN TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF ITA NO.527 & 528/HYD/2013 M/S. SRINIVASA CIVIL WORKS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. 3 INCOME TAX, RANGE-15, HYDERABAD, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE, LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271 C OF RS. 14,40,045/- AND RS.17,63,772/- RESPECTIVELY FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 AND A.Y. 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE PREFERR ED APPEALS BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) -II, HYDERABAD AND CHALLENGED THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 27 1C. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, HYDERABAD, CONFIRMED THE PEN ALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR BOTH THE YEARS VIDE ORDER DATED 28-01-2013. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 6. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER ENGAGED THE MAIST RIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLY OF LABOUR AND THE ASSESSE E ITSELF ARRANGED THE LABOURERS AND APPOINTS ONE OF THEM AS MAISTRY, A GROUP LEADER, IT GETS THE WORK DONE THRO UGH THEM AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH THEM. HE FURTHE R, SUBMITS THAT NO LABOURER EARNS EVEN RS. 15,000/- DU RING THE YEAR AS CANAL WORKS ARE PURELY SEASONAL AND THE WORK IS EXECUTED FOR 5 TO 6 MONTHS IN A YEAR. HE FURTHER , ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASS ESSEE AND THE MAISTRY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF WRITTEN AGREE MENT THE QUESTION OF APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 194C DOES NOT ARISE. THE AR CONTENDED THAT BOTH LABOURER S AND MAISTRY ARE EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY AND WHEN BOTH A RE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY, THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED IN NOT DEDUCTING THE TAX AT SOURCE FROM PAYMENTS MADE TO T HE LABOUR CHARGES. THE AR, FURTHER, ARGUED THAT THE AS SESSEE ITA NO.527 & 528/HYD/2013 M/S. SRINIVASA CIVIL WORKS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. 4 IS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT NO TAX IS TO BE D EDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM PAYMENTS MADE TO CHARGES COVERED UND ER SECTION 194C OR 194J UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE AR, FURTHER, SUBMITS THAT WITH REGARD TO JOB WORK CHARG ES, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE BUT, THERE WAS ONLY A SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE WHICH IS UNINTENTI ONAL. THE AR, FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE LAPSES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIONS AND THERE WAS NO SUCH LAPSES, EITHER IN THE PAST OR THE FUTURE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECTIFIE D THE MISTAKES AND COMPLIED WITH THE TDS PROVISIONS. HE A LSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ENTIRE TAX AND INTEREST LEVIED U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) BEFORE FILIN G APPEAL BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, I.E. CIT (A).THER EFORE, REQUESTED TO RESTRICT THE PENALTY TO THAT EXTENT, W HEREVER SHORT DEDUCTION IS THERE AND DELETE THE PENALTY LEV IED FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 194C AND 194J. 7. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORIT IES. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BUSINESS MAGNITUDE IS VERY HIGH AND LABOUR ORIENTED, AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE ITSELF CANNOT MOBILIZE SUCH LARGE NUMBER O F LABOURERS BY ITSELF AND EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THEM. THIS JOB OF MOBILIZATION OF LABOUR IS ASSIGNED TO LABOUR CONTRACTORS, ALSO CALLED AS MAISTRY AND PAYMENTS WE RE MADE TO THEM AND SUCH PAYMENTS ARE NOTHING BUT PAYMENTS MADE TO SUB- CONTRACTORS. HE FURTHER ARGUE D ITA NO.527 & 528/HYD/2013 M/S. SRINIVASA CIVIL WORKS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. 5 THAT, THE ASSESSEE PUT FORTH SIMILAR ARGUMENTS BEFO RE THE ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH IN QUANTUM APPEAL AND THE ITA T DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEE CONTENTION, AS SUCH THE RE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE EXISTS FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE. TO THIS EFFECT, HE HAS FURNISHED COPY OF OR DERS OF ITAT IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE. THEREFORE, HE URGED TO C ONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 8. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F EXECUTION OF WORKS CONTRACT MOSTLY ON GOVERNMENT PROJECTS. A SURVEY OPERATION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 11.02.2004. AT THE TIME OF SUR VEY, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEFAULTED IN DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO LABOUR CHARGES, JOB WORK CHARGES, TRANSPORTATION CH ARGES AND ROYALTY PAYMENTS MADE TO GAYATRI CONSTRUCTIONS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. SO, THE A.O. AFTER EXAMINING OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS QUANT IFIED THE DEFAULTS UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND ALSO LEVIED I NTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A). THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER UP TO TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL FINALLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-15, LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271C F OR THE REASONS RECORDED IN HIS ORDER. THE LEARNED CIT(A), UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. ITA NO.527 & 528/HYD/2013 M/S. SRINIVASA CIVIL WORKS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. 6 9. THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE BECAUSE OF WHICH, THE REQUIREMENT OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS COULD NOT BE COMPLIED WITH IS PRIMARILY ESSENTIAL QUESTION OF FACT AND IT HAS TO BE DECIDED IN EACH CASE ON CONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY. LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER S. 271C IS NOT AUTOMATIC. BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY, THE CONCERNED OF FICER IS REQUIRED TO FIND OUT THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS ANY FAI LURE REFERRED TO IN THE CONCERNED PROVISION THE SAME WAS WITHOUT A REASONABLE CAUSE. THE INITIAL BURDEN IS O N THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THERE EXISTED REASONABLE CAUS E WHICH WAS THE REASON FOR THE FAILURE REFERRED TO IN THE CONCERNED PROVISION. THEREAFTER THE OFFICER DEALING WITH THE MATTER HAS TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE PERSON, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AS REGARDS THE REASON FOR FAILURE, WAS ON ACCOUNT O F REASONABLE CAUSE. 10. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE MAKES OUT IT S CASE AND CONTENDED THAT, IT WAS ON THE BONAFIDE BEL IEF THAT NO TDS IS APPLICABLE, WHEN PAYMENTS ARE MADE T O LABOURERS EMPLOYED BY IT ON ITS OWN WITHOUT ASSIGNI NG ANY CONTRACT WORK TO THE LABOUR CONTRACTORS. THOUGH, TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT SUCCEED IN ITS ARGUMENTS IN THE QU ANTUM APPEAL BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES, THE REASONABLENESS I N ITS ARGUMENT THAT IT HAS MAKE THE PAYMENT THROUGH ITS O WN LABOURERS WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY CONTRACT WORK TO TH E LABOUR CONTRACTOR CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE REVENUE HAS ITA NO.527 & 528/HYD/2013 M/S. SRINIVASA CIVIL WORKS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. 7 NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO RULE OUT T HE ARGUMENTS PUT FOURTH BY THE ASSESSEE, OTHER THAN PL ACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES. ONE CANN OT COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT IT CANNOT MOBILIZE SUCH HUGE L ABOUR FORCE BY ITS OWN, AND ASSIGNED THE WORK TO LABOUR CONTRACTOR, BY JUST CONSIDERING THE MAGNITUDE OF TH E BUSINESS OR NATURE OF THE BUSINESS ALONE. ONE HAS T O CONSIDER THE FACTS, SUCH AS PLACE OF WORK AND NATUR E IF WORK EXECUTED. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT HAS EXECUTED WORK AWAY FROM ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS, FOR WHICH IT HAS HIRED LABOURERS LOCALLY BY PAYING THEM DIREC TLY, THOUGH GROUP LEADER APPOINTED BY THE COMPANY, THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT THAT IT WAS HIRED ITS OWN LABOURERS AND PAYMENTS ARE DIRECTLY MADE, THEREBY BELIEVED THAT NO TDS IS DEDUCTIBLE IS HAVING SOME S ENSE OF REASONABLENESS. THEREFORE, IT IS RELEVANT TO CONSID ER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA (P) LTD. V. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 745 (DELHI). IN THE CASE OF WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDI A (P) LTD. V. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 745 (DELHI), IT IS HELD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271C IS NOT AUTOMATIC. BEF ORE LEVYING PENALTY, THE CONCERNED OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO FIND OUT THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS ANY FAILURE REFERRED TO IN T HE CONCERNED PROVISION THE SAME WAS WITHOUT A REASONAB LE CAUSE. THE INITIAL BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHO W THAT THERE EXISTED REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH WAS THE REASON TOR THE FAILURE REFERRED TO IN THE CONCERNED PROVISION. THEREAFTER THE OFFICER DEALING WITH THE MATTER HAS TO CONSIDER THE ITA NO.527 & 528/HYD/2013 M/S. SRINIVASA CIVIL WORKS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. 8 EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE PERSON, AS THE CASE MAY BE. 'REASONABLE CAUSE' AS APPLIED TO HUMAN ACTION IS THAT WHICH WOULD CONSTRAIN A PERSON OF AV ERAGE INTELLIGENCE AND ORDINARY PRUDENCE. IT CAN BE DESCR IBED AS PROBABLE CAUSE. IT MEANS AN HONEST BELIEF FOUNDED U PON REASONABLE GROUNDS, OF THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH ASSUMING THEM TO BE TRUE, WOUL D REASONABLY LEAD ANY ORDINARY PRUDENT AND CAUTIOUS M AN, PLACED IN THE POSITION OF THE PERSON CONCERNED, TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SAME WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. THE CAUSE SHOWN HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND ONLY IF IT FOU ND TO BE FRIVOLOUS, WITHOUT SUBSTANCE OR FOUNDATION, THE PRE SCRIBED CONSEQUENCES FOLLOW. 11. NOW COMING TO THE CASE ON HAND, I FIND THAT I T IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE RIGHT FROM THE BE GINNING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON SUCH PAYMENTS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE PAYMENT S IN QUESTION BEING LABOUR CHARGES WERE IN THE NATURE OF LABOUR PAYMENTS PAID FOR ITS OWN LABOURERS AND THER EFORE, NOT LIABLE TO TDS U/S.L94C, WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN ACC EPTED BY THE AUDITOR WHO HAD ISSUED TAX AUDIT REPORT ISSU ED U/S 44AB WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY LAPSES IN HIS REPORT. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED AS 'REASONABLE CAUSE'. BUT, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ON BONAFIDE BELIEF FOUNDED UPON REASONABLE GROUNDS, WH ICH ASSUMING THEM TO BE TRUE, WOULD REASONABLY LEAD ANY ORDINARY PERSON, PLACED IN THE POSITION OF THE PERS ON ITA NO.527 & 528/HYD/2013 M/S. SRINIVASA CIVIL WORKS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. 9 CONCERNED, TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SAME WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS GIVEN EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING AND UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT TAX WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S.194C ON THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION. MOREOVER, NO SUCH ISSUE WAS MADE OUT BY REVENUE IN A.Y. 2002-03, IN WHICH YEAR ASSESSEE HAS PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.1060.0 4 LAKHS AS AGAINST RS.948.09 LAKHS DURING THIS YEAR. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE NON-DEDUCTION OF TA X AT SOURCE ON SUCH PAYMENTS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE WITHOU T A REASONABLE CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 273C . THEREFORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271C IN THE INSTA NT CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 12. AS FOR AS THE SHORT DEDUCTION IS CONCERNED, T HE ASSESSEE ITSELF DID NOT PURSUE THE MATTER AND CONCE DED THE LAPSES, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN QUANTUM APPEAL. THEREFORE, THERE WAS LAPSE ON TH E PART OF THE ASSESSEE BY SHORT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE FR OM PAYMENTS MADE TO JOB WORK CHARGES AND TRANSPORTATIO N CHARGES U/S 194A AND 194C FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 AND U/S 194C FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY TH E AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE THE BENCH. 13. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED V IEW ITA NO.527 & 528/HYD/2013 M/S. SRINIVASA CIVIL WORKS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. 10 THAT THE NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON LABOUR C HARGES U/S 194C FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2003-04 AND 2004-05 CANNOT BE SAID TO BE WITHOUT A REASONABLE C AUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 273C. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271C IN THE INSTANT CASE IN RESP ECT OF LABOUR CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 13,12,025/- AND RS. 17,19,672/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 20 04- 05 RESPECTIVELY IS NOT JUSTIFIED, AND HENCE, DELETE D. AS FOR AS THE SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 194A AMOUNTING TO RS. 38,268/- AND JOB WORK CHARGES AND TRANSPORTATION CHARGES U/S 194C AMOUNTING TO RS. 65,555/- FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 AND SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 194C FOR LAB OUR CHARGES AND TRANSPORTATION CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 40,900/- FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 IS CONFIRMED. A.O. IS DIRECTED TO MODIFY THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.08.20 15. SD/- (B.R AMAKOTAIAH ) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 12 TH AUGUST, 2015 VBP/- ITA NO.527 & 528/HYD/2013 M/S. SRINIVASA CIVIL WORKS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. 11 COPY TO 1. M/S. SRINIVASA CIVIL WORKS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD. C/O. MR. S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHRIYA S ELEGANCE, H.NO.3-6-643, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 029. 2. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 15, HYDERABAD 3. CIT(A) - II, HYDERABAD 4. CIT - I, HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT B (SMC) BENCH, HYDERABAD 6. GU ARD FILE