Mittapally Kumara Swamy, Hyderabad V. ITO, Karimnagar

ITA 535/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53852 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T DIWAKAR PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Peak credit; Additional evidence
• Section: 142(1); 69; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M. & SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M. ITA NO.535/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 SHRI MITTAPALLY KUMAR SWAMY, KARIMNAGAR (PAN AABCA6529Q) VS THE ITO, W ARD - 4, KARIMNAGAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T. DIWAKAR PRASAD DATE OF HEARING : 24.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.12.2011 ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JM: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) III, HYDERABAD DATED 12.3.201 0 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS 21,09,600/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 HE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME VOLUNTARILY WITHIN THE DUE DATE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC 139(1) OF THE ACT. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE CIT(CIB) REGARDING CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE F.Y. 2004-05, THE AO HAS ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT TO THE APPELL ANT ON 16.8.2007. IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED HI S RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2005-06, ON 26.12.2007, SHOWING AN INCOME OF RS.1.01,000/- LATER, THE AO HAS ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE AC T TO THE APPELLANT ON 3.1.2008. HE HAS ALSO ISSUED STATUTORY NOTICE U /S 143(2) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.535 OF 2010(SHRI METTIPALLY KUMARA SWAMY, KARIMNAGAR. 2 3. AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM CIT(CIB) T HERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS 14,03,400/- AND OF RS. 18,49,300/- M ADE DURING THE F.Y. 2004-05 IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN STA TE BANK OF HYDERABAD AND IN UNION BANK OF INDIA RESPECTIVELY. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPONSE TO QUERY RAISED BY THE AO FOR EXPLAINING THE SOURCES OF SUCH DEPOSITS, THE ASSESS EE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE RETIRED AS A SURVEY INSPECTOR AND THE PROSP ECTIVE BUYERS FOR LAND USED TO APPROACH HIM FOR SELECTION OF SUITABL E LANDS FOR THEIR USE. FOR THIS PURPOSE HE USED TO GET SOME FEES FRO M THOSE PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SOMETIMES THE P ROSPECTIVE BUYERS USED TO DEPOSIT PART SALE CONSIDERATION WITH HIM AN D HE USED TO DEPOSIT THE SAME IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS. AT THE TIME OF PURCH ASE AND REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY HE USED TO WITHDRAW TH E SAME AND MAKE PAYMENT TO THE VENDORS. AS NOTED BY THE AO THE ASS ESSEE HAS FURNISHED A STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF AMOUNTS RECEIVE D FROM THE BUYERS AND ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF SALE DEEDS IN THAT REG ARD. 4. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED SUCH SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A LAND SURVEYOR . HE NOTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF KEEPING SUCH AMOUNTS WITH THE ASSESSE E IS NOT BELIEVABLE. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE VARIOUS AMOU NTS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED DO NOT MATCH WITH THE AMOUNTS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE BUYERS AND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER NOTED IF THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITE D WERE MEANT FOR PAYMENTS TO THE VENDORS THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN DO NE BY ISSUING CHEQUES, WHEREAS THE AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN IN CASH ONLY. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS HE REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE AND ADDED BACK THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.13,21,276/- MADE IN B ANK ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD AND OF RS 18,49,300/- MADE IN BANK ACCOUNT WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA TO THE INCOME IF THE APPEL LANT, TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS AND COMPLETED THE ASSES SMENT DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE YEAR UNDER AP PEAL, AT RS.32,71,576/-. ITA NO.535 OF 2010(SHRI METTIPALLY KUMARA SWAMY, KARIMNAGAR. 3 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT, THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE L D. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL IS A SURVEYOR BY PROF ESSION. HE DERIVES INCOME FROM COMMISSION ON SALE OF PROPERTIES BESIDES PENSI ON AS A RETIRED EMPLOYEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPONSE TO QUERY RA ISED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING THE SOURCES OF CASH DEP OSITS MADE IN THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THA T SOME OF THE BUYERS OF THE PROPERTY WHO APPROACHED THE ASSESSEE HAVE PAID THE AMOUNTS IN ADVANCE. SUCH ADVANCE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOS ITED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND LATER WHEN THE PROPERTI ES WERE PURCHASED THE AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ARRANGE THE REQUIRE D LAND THE AMOUNTS WERE RETURNED TO THE CONCERNED PERSONS. 6. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED WITH HIM AND THE PROPERTIES ACQUIRED FOR THE BUYERS. HOWEVE R THE AO REJECTED SUCH EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT STATING THAT SUCH CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT BELIEVABLE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FURTHE R OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE MATTER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE ANY OPPORTUN ITY TO FILE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVITS AND OTHER DOCUME NTS FROM THE CONCERNED PERSONS DEPOSITING THE AMOUNTS WITH THE A PPELLANT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DID NOT EXAMINE ANY O F THE PERSONS MENTIONED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS STATEMENT FURNISH ED BEFORE THE AO. HE HAS NOT ISSUED ANY SHOW CAUSE LETTER TO THE APPE LLANT. WITH THESE SUBMISSIONS, AND FURNISHING SEVERAL AFFIDAVIT S FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS, THE LD. AR REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WHI LE DECIDING THE APPEAL. ITA NO.535 OF 2010(SHRI METTIPALLY KUMARA SWAMY, KARIMNAGAR. 4 7. REFERRING TO THOSE AFFIDAVITS STATED TO BE FROM THOSE PURCHASERS OF THE PROPERTY AND THE OTHER DOCUMENTS THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THOSE PERSONS HAVE DEPOSIT ED VARIOUS AMOUNTS WITH THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTIFYING S UITABLE LAND FOR THEM. IT WAS STATED THAT SOME OF THEM SUCCEEDED IN GETTING THE REQUIRED LAND AND IN CASE OF OTHERS, THE AMOUNTS WE RE RETURNED. IT WAS STATED THAT SUCH DEPOSITS MADE INTO HIS BANK AC COUNTS DO NOT RELATE TO THE APPELLANT. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITT ED A CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF BOTH THE BANK ACCOUNTS SHOWING THE AMO UNTS DEPOSITED IN BOTH THE ACCOUNTS AND THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM BOT H THE ACCOUNTS WORK OUT TO A THE PEAK AMOUNT AT RS. 6,28,443/-. 8. THE CIT(A) FORWARDED THE RETURN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF SEVERAL AFFI DAVITS FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R VIDE HIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 9.3.2009 TO EXAMINE THE SAME AND FURNISH A RE MAND REPORT. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS LETTER DATE D 18.12.2009 FURNISHED HIS REMAND REPORT RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH HAS BEE N EXTRACTED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 4.4 OF HIS ORDER ON PAGES 5 TO 9 THEREOF. THE CIT(A) ALSO FURNISHED A COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS COMMENTS. 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THEREOF THE CIT(A) CONF IRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10,60,976/-, AS AGAINST THE TOTAL ADD ITION OF RS.31,70,576/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FOLLOWING MANN ER: 5.4........ I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT S RECORDED BY THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, IN COURSE OF ENQUIRIES CON DUCTED BY HIM FROM THOSE PERSONS. DURING SUCH STATEMENT, WHEN IT HAS BEEN ASKED BY THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, WHETHER THEY HAVE GIVEN AN Y AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE, THEY HAVE REPLIED IN AFFIRMATIVE MENTIONI NG THE AMOUNT STATED IN THEIR AFFIDAVITS. HOWEVER, IN NONE OF THE CASES , THE CONCERNED ITA NO.535 OF 2010(SHRI METTIPALLY KUMARA SWAMY, KARIMNAGAR. 5 PERSONS HAVE STATED ABOUT THE DATE OF GIVING SUCH A MOUNTS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF THE FULL PARTICULARS OF SU CH PAYMENT/DEPOSITS GIVEN BY THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS, IN MY VIEW, THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH CASE DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS HAVE B EEN MADE ENTIRELY FROM SUCH AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THEM, CANNOT BE ACC EPTED. 5.5. I MAY MENTION HERE THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIM SELF HAS ARRANGED THOSE AFFIDAVITS FROM THOSE PERSONS, THERE IS NOTHI NG UNUSUAL ON THEIR PART IN AFFIRMING THE CONTENT OF SUCH AFFIDAVITS RE LATING TO PAYMENT OF SUCH SUMS, IN THEIR STATEMENTS BEFORE THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX. HOWEVER, WHEN THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO STATE ABOU T THE DATE(S) OF GIVING SUCH AMOUNTS TO THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE A CCEPTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSES SEE WERE ACTUALLY MADE FROM SUCH AMOUNTS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVE D FROM THOSE PERSONS. UNDER THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, AND AFTER CONSID ERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REM AND REPORT, IN MY VIEW, HE HAS BEEN FAIR ENOUGH IN ACCEPTING THE SOUR CE OF CASH DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,06,976/-. ACCEPTING SUCH REM AND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN HE HAS STATED THE SOURCE OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.21,09,600/- REMAINS UNEXPLAINED AND, M OREOVER, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH BEFORE ME T HE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE SAID TWO BANK ACCOUNTS TO THE ABOVE EXTENT, IN MY VIEW, THE SAME HAS TO BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING THE SAME AS HIS UNEXPLAINED INCOME DURING THE PREVI OUS YEAR. IN PARA- 11 OF THE REMAND REPORT, WHILE STATING THAT THE DEP OSIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,06,976/- MAY BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.21,09,600/- HAS TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. THE SUM TOTAL OF THESE TWO AMOUNTS COMES TO RS.28,16,576/- (RS.7,06,976 + RS.21,09,600). HOWEV ER, IN THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS AT RS.31,70,576/-. IN ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE FINDING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE BALANCE ITA NO.535 OF 2010(SHRI METTIPALLY KUMARA SWAMY, KARIMNAGAR. 6 AMOUNT OF RS.3,54,000/- IT THUS, SHOWS THAT HE ACCE PTS THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSIT AS EXPLAINED. THUS, IT MAY BE SEEN TH AT, AFTER THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SOURCE OF CA SH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS EXPLAINED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10,60,976/-. ACCORDINGLY, OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDI TION OF RS.31,70,576/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN THE ASSESSMENT, ADDITION TO THE ABOVE EXTENT I.E. RS.10 ,60,976/- IS DELETED AND THUS, THE BALANCE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.21,0 9,600/- IS CONFIRMED. 8. STILL AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. 9. WE HEARD THE PARTIES. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAS RECEIVED ADVANCES FROM VARIOUS PERSONS FOR ACQUISIT ION / PURCHASE OF PLOTS FOR THEM. IN SOME CASES HE HAS PURCHASED PLOTS FOR THE CLIENTS AND HAS RETURNED THE EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT INITIALLY GIVEN B Y THE CLIENT OVER AND ABOVE THE COST OF LAND ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HIM. IN SOME CASES AS NO LAND WAS PURCHASED FOR THE CLIENTS, THE ENTIRE AMOU NT GIVEN BY THE CLIENTS TO THE ASSESSEE WAS RETURNED TO THEM. THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES DISBELIEVED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN EFFECT, ADDED BA CK THE AMOUNTS GIVEN BY THE CLIENTS AS REDUCED BY THE VALUE OF THE LAND PUR CHASED FOR THE CLIENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED RS.18,52,00/- FROM 15 CLI ENTS AND HAS PURCHASED LAND FOR AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS. 7,06, 000/- AND AFTER DEDUCTING HIS COMMISSION AND EXPENSES HAS RETURNED THE BALANCE OF RS.10,55,000/- TO THE CLIENTS. THE AO HAS ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.10,55,000/- SAID TO HAVE BEEN RETURNED BY THE AS SESSEE TO THE CLIENTS ON THE GROUND THAT CREDITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED. WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE REASONI NG GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE CLIENTS T O THE EXTENT OF LAND HAS BEEN CONVEYED TO THEM HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. THIS WOULD MEAN THAT EVERY TIME THE CLIENT GIVES AN ADVANCE, THE ASSESSEE ADDS SOME OF HIS UNEXPLAINED INCOME AND DEPOSITS A LUMP SUM AND WHEN LAND IS PUR CHASED, THE ASSESSEE WITHDRAWS THE AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED BY HIM. WE DO NOT SEE ITA NO.535 OF 2010(SHRI METTIPALLY KUMARA SWAMY, KARIMNAGAR. 7 ANY REASON BEHIND SUCH ALLEGED DEPOSIT AND WITHDRAW ALS OF ASSESSEES UNEXPLAINED CASH. ONCE CLIENTS ADVANCES TO THE EX TENT OF THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND ARE ACCEPTED, THERE IS NO REASON TO DISBEL IEVE THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ADVANCES WAS ALSO GIVEN BY THEM TO THE AS SESSEE AND RETURNED TO THEM BY THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE, ACCEPT THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS MORE PROBABLE AND HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE DEPOSIT W OULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE CLIENTS AND TO THE EXTENT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WAS RETURNED TO BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS CLIENTS AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,55,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE C IT(A). 9. AS REGARDS THE SECOND ADDITION, THE CIT(A) HAS LISTED DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO APPROXIMATELY RS. 14,08,400/- ON 18 IN STANCES. THE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED DEPOSITS OF RS. 3,54,000/- IN FIVE CAS ES AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 10,54,000/-. PRIMA F ACIE, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THAT HE HAS BEEN ACCEPTING ADVANCES FROM CLIENTS FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AND HAS PURCHASED LANDS FOR SOME OF THEM AND RETURNED THE BALANCE AMOUNT, THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM OTHER CLIENTS. HOWEVER, AS POINTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OR THAT HE HAS ACTUALLY PURCHASED LANDS FOR THESE 13 PERSONS. IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND CONSIDERING THE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE EVIDENCE, WE UP HOLD THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT SUCH CASH DEPOSITS IN RESPEC T OF THE 13 PERSONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. H OWEVER, WE ACCEPT THE ALTERNATE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT IS TO SAY, ONL Y THE PEAK CREDIT IN SUCH CASES CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION. A WITHDRAWAL OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IS AVAILABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SUBSEQUENT DEPOSIT. THEREF ORE THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF DEPOSITS IN THE NAMES OF THESE 13 PERSON S AGGREGATING TO RS.10,54,000/- SHOULD BE RE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS O F PEAK CASH CREDITS DEPOSITED. TO THIS LIMITED EXTENT, GROUNDS OF TEH ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED IN PART. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED. ITA NO.535 OF 2010(SHRI METTIPALLY KUMARA SWAMY, KARIMNAGAR. 8 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.12.2011 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ( (ASHA VIJAYA RAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 27 DECEMBER, 2011 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHRIYAS E LEGANCE, DOOR NO.3-6-643, ST. 9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 2. THE ITO, WARD-4, KARIMNAGAR 3. THE CIT(A)- III, HYDERABAD 4. THE CIT, HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD NP/