V.S. Maheswaran, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-12(4), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 552/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2287 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Source of fund
• Section: 234B; 10

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A-SMC, HYDERABAD SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 552/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI V.S MAHESWARAN, HYDERABAD. PAN ABYPV0482A VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SRI T. CHAITANYA KUMAR REVENUE BY : SRI RAVI BABU DATE OF HEARING : 08-11-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-12-2017 ORDER PER SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-1, HYDERABAD, DATED 02-12-2016. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 2. THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 19,08,540/-. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 57,408/- U/S 10 OF INCOME TAX ACT. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGS TO HUF ONLY. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 21,02,250/-. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE IT ACT AT RS. 1,98,255/-. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. 2. THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REFERENCE TO AN ADDITION OF RS. 19,08,540/-, THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK 2 ITA NO. 552/HYD/2017 SRI V.S MAHESWARAN, HYD. ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. A.O SEEMS TO HAVE RECEIVED AIR INFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 19,08,540/- IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH KARUR VYSYA BANK (KVB). A.O ASKED THE SOURCE OF FUNDS OF THE ABOVE AMOUNTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS TWO BANK ACCOUNTS I.E., ONE IN HDFC BANK, IN WHICH SALARY PAYMENTS ARE CREDITED AND BELONGS TO HIS INDIVIDUAL STATUS AND, ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT IN KARUR VYSYA BANK USED FOR HUF STATUS, CONSISTING OF HIMSELF, HIS WIFE AND MR. GANESH. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING AN AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHICH IS AN ANCESTRAL PROPERTY IN HIS VILLAGE IN PALLIPATTU TALUK, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, TO AN EXTENT OF 1.59 HECTORS, WHICH WAS RELINQUISHED IN HIS BROTHERS FAVOUR AND HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6.50 LAKHS BEFORE F.Y 1999- 2000. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT, ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A FLAT IN VIJAYAWADA FOR A SUM OF RS. 4 LAKHS AND WITH THESE FUNDS, HE WAS ROTATING FROM YEAR AFTER YEAR, SO HIS ACCUMULATION AS ON 31-03-2009 WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 16.45 LAKHS. THE AMOUNT GIVEN TO VARIOUS SUNDRY DEBTORS WAS RECEIVED IN THE YEAR AND THESE ARE THE SOURCES FOR THE DEPOSITS IN KARUR VYSYA BANK. A.O ISSUED DETAILED QUESTIONER ABOUT THE FORMATION OF HUF AND WAS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE EXPLANATION THAT ASSESSEE HAS RELINQUISHED THE PROPERTY IN HIS NATIVE VILLAGE, AS THOSE PROPERTIES CONTINUED TO BE IN ASSESSEES NAME. FURTHER, A.O WAS NOT SATISFIED SINCE, NO CAPITAL GAINS WAS PAID ON THE SALE OF APARTMENT, THAT SOURCE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. FURTHER, AS NO INTEREST WAS OFFERED IN EARLIER YEARS, THE CIRCULATION OF MONEY ON INTEREST BASIS AMONGST VARIOUS 3 ITA NO. 552/HYD/2017 SRI V.S MAHESWARAN, HYD. PEOPLE, FROM WHOM CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED, WAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED. ACCORDINGLY, ENTIRE OF AMOUNT OF RS. 19,08,540/- WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF ASSESSEE. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, A.O ALSO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF HRA U/S 10 OF THE ACT TO AN EXTANT OF RS. 57,408/-. THUS, AS AGAINST RS. 1,36,302/- OFFERED BY ASSESSEE, THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 21,02,250/-. 3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE RELIED ON SAME CONTENTIONS AND CONFIRMATIONS FILED, CASH FLOW STATEMENT PREPARED AND FILED BEFORE A.O TO SUBMIT THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOURCES FOR THE ABOVE AMOUNTS AND NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED. WITH REFERENCE TO HRA DISALLOWANCE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT A.O HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY AND, EVEN WITHOUT CALLING FOR EXPLANATION THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED EVEN THOUGH THE SAME WAS CLAIMED IN FORM-16. 4. LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A.O AND DISMISSED THE CONTENTIONS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.3 HUF IS THE LEGAL STATUS AS PER INCOME TAX ACT AND IT IS NOT ANYTHING WHICH IS AUTOMATIC OR SUGGESTS TO BE PRESUMED. THE APPELLANT ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF HUF FUNDS OR LOADING AND RECEIVING BACK OF MONEYS. IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT IT IS HUF MONEYS, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, NO STAND CAN BE TAKEN IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE, THE GROUND IS DISMISSED. 6.2 BEFORE ME, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF HRA DEDUCTION, WHICH HE WAS CLAIMING THAT SUBMITTED WHILE ISSUING FORM-16. HENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 57, 408/- MADE BY THE A.O IS UPHELD. 5. IT WAS A CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL THAT ASSESSEE DID HAVE HUF STATUS AND HAS FUNDS IN THAT STATUS FOR WHICH 4 ITA NO. 552/HYD/2017 SRI V.S MAHESWARAN, HYD. THE BANK ACCOUNT OF KVB WAS UTILIZED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A.O HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A CONFIRMATION FROM ASSESSEES BROTHER. IT WAS ALSO FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE APARTMENT FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 4 LAKHS, THE SOURCE OF WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY A.O. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING CAPITAL OF RS. 16.45 LAKHS AS ON 31-3-2009 AND SO, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THIS YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED PROPER SOURCES AND WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY A.O SIMPLY DISBELIEVED THE CONTENTIONS. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES HDFC BANK HAS ONLY CREDIT OF SALARIES AND A.O HAS ALSO NOT MADE OUT ANY ISSUE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THAT BANK ACCOUNT. REFERRING TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF KVB, PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 13,438/- AND THERE ARE SMALL AMOUNTS OF DEPOSITS BELOW ONE LAKH UP TO SEPTEMBER 2009 AND THE SAME WAS ALSO WITHDRAWN BY REGULARLY, AND BALANCES NEVER EXCEEDED AMOUNT OF RS. 55,000/- FROM APRIL TO SEPTEMBER. ONLY IN OCTOBER THERE WAS A CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 1,05,000/- AND RS. 44,500/- WHICH WAS ALSO REGULARLY WITHDRAWN BY WAY OF ATM CARD. HEREIN ALSO, THE CASH BALANCES TILL END OF OCTOBER NEVER EXCEEDED RS. 1,20,000/-. IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER THERE WAS A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1 LAKH, WHICH WAS ALSO WITHDRAWN REGULARLY, AND A DEPOSIT OF RS. 1 LAKH IN DECEMBER. IT WAS THE CONTENTION THAT UP TO JANUARY 2010, THE CASH BALANCES WERE NEVER EXCEEDED RS. 1,67,354/-, WHICH WAS REGULARLY WITHDRAWN EITHER BY CASH OR THROUGH ATM. THUS, IT WAS THE CONTENTION THAT ASSESSEE 5 ITA NO. 552/HYD/2017 SRI V.S MAHESWARAN, HYD. WAS RECEIVING SMALL SMALL FUNDS AND ALSO WITHDRAWING AND DEPOSITING AND THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS UP TO JANUARY 2010 IS SOURCED BY SUCH WITHDRAWALS. IT WAS ONLY IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED LARGE SUMS, WHEREIN THE CASH BALANCE AS ON 31.01.2010 OF ABOUT RS. 45,794/- HAS INCREASED TO RS. 9,72,464/- AS ON 11.02.2010. THEREAFTER, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5,25,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN ON 28 TH FEBRUARY AND 04 TH MARCH WHICH IN TURN WAS DEPOSITED ON 5 TH AND 6 TH MARCH. THUS, CONSIDERING ONLY THE DEPOSITS WITHOUT BY EARLIER WITHDRAWALS IS ALSO NOT CORRECT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN FROM THE BALANCE AVAILABLE IN ACCOUNT, ASSESSEE WITHDREW MONEY TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 6 LAKHS IN APRIL 2010 I.E., NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, THE ONLY PEEK DEPOSIT TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 9,74,464,/- COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY A.O RATHER THAN THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS, FOR WHICH THERE ARE WITHDRAWALS THROUGH ATM OR SELF CHEQUES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THESE AMOUNTS ALSO CAN BE EXPLAINED BY WAY OF HUF RESOURCES AND ALSO CONFIRMATION GIVEN BY VARIOUS DEBTORS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ASSESSEE HAD ENOUGH SOURCES TO SUPPORT THE DEPOSITS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ENQUIRY BY A.O, DISPROVING THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY ASSESSEE, THE SAME SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. 6. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HOWEVER RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF A.O AND CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WITH REFERENCE TO HUF STATUS AND ALSO THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WITH REFERENCE TO MONEYS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AS CLAIMED BY HIM. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HUF WAS NEVER ASSESSED AND SO THE CLAIMS ARE NOT GENUINE. 6 ITA NO. 552/HYD/2017 SRI V.S MAHESWARAN, HYD. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT MAY BE TRUE THAT THE AIR HAS REPORTED DEPOSITS OF CASH IN BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, AS SEEN FROM THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE, THE ONE IN HDFC BANK IS EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR SALARY DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWAL FOR PERSONAL EXPENDITURE. THE OTHER BANK ACCOUNT IN KVB, IN WHICH THERE ARE DEPOSITS REGULARLY BY WAY OF CASH, IS SHOWING WITHDRAWALS THOUGH ATM PERIODICALLY. FOR WHAT PURPOSES ASSESSEE IS WITHDRAWING THESE FUNDS, REGULARLY ABOUT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10,000/- EACH, IS NOT EXPLAINED. HOWEVER, THERE ARE FEW WITHDRAWALS BY WAY OF SELF CHEQUES ALSO REGULARLY FROM THE ACCOUNT. AS POINTED OUT BY LD. COUNSEL IN THE ARGUMENTS, THE FIRST MAJOR DEPOSIT WAS ON 11-10-2009 FOR RS. 1,05,000/-. AFTER WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 50,000/- THROUGH ATM, THERE WAS A DEPOSIT OF RS. 44,500/- ON 27-10-1997. LIKEWISE, THERE WAS A DEPOSIT OF RS. 1 LAKH ON 07-11-2009, WHICH WAS AGAIN WITHDRAWN BY WAY OF SELF CHEQUE / ATM AND THE CASH BALANCE BY THE DATE 04-12-1997 WAS IN FACT LESS THAN THE BALANCE AVAILABLE ON THE DAY OF DEPOSIT I.E., 07-11-2011 (RS. 1,83,654). THIS INDICATES EITHER ASSESSEE IS USING THE MONEY FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSES, WHICH ARE NOT INFORMED, OR AS CLAIMED UTILIZED IN MONEY LENDING ACTIVITY. AS SEEN FROM THE ACCOUNT TILL 29-01-2011, MAXIMUM CASH DEPOSIT OR CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE NEVER EXCEED RS. 1,83,654/- AND THE BALANCE AS ON 22-01-2010, WAS ONLY RS. 35,794/-. THEREAFTER, THERE ARE DEPOSITS BETWEEN 29- 01-2010 TO 11-02-2010 SO THAT THE CASH BALANCE HAS INCREASED TO RS. 9,72,464/- IN WHICH THERE ARE CLEARING CHEQUES ALSO TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 1,22,690/-. IF ONE 7 ITA NO. 552/HYD/2017 SRI V.S MAHESWARAN, HYD. EXCLUDES THE CHEQUES , THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 8,50,000/-. THIS IS THE AMOUNT WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE WENT ON EXPLAINING ABOUT TOTAL OF THE DEPOSITS AND, SOURCES ARE CLAIMED TO BE MONEY FROM THE BROTHER, CLAIMED TO BE RELINQUISHED THE RIGHT IN THE FAMILY RELATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4 LAKHS ON SALE OF FLAT AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6.30 LAKHS OUT OF DEBTORS / INTEREST INCOME. EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE CLAIMED HUF STATUS, THERE IS NO SEPARATE HUF ACCOUNT AND AS SUBMITTED THE FUNDS ARE MIXED. HOWEVER, THE EXISTENCE OF HUF CANNOT BE DENIED AS ASSESSEE HAD ANCESTRAL PROPERTY IN VILLAGE. WHETHER THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY IS RELINQUISHED OR NOT CAN BE DISPUTED, AS NO TRANSFER OF PROPERTY HAS OFFERED IN REVENUE RECORDS, BUT THE SOURCE THEREFROM CANNOT BE DENIED. HIS BROTHER HAS ADMITTED TO HAVE GIVEN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6.50 LAKHS OVER A PERIOD WHICH COULD BE AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSEE. THAT MAY BE SOURCE FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN VIJAYAWADA AND SUBSEQUENT SALE THEREON. THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE FLAT FOR ABOUT RS. 4 LAKHS CANNOT BE DENIED. JUST BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED THE TRANSACTIONS PROPERLY OR NOT OFFERED CAPITAL GAINS IN THE RELEVANT YEAR, SALE OF THE FLAT CANNOT BE IGNORED. EVEN IF HIS BROTHER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY MONEY TO RELINQUISH THE SHARE, INCOME FROM 1.54 HECTORS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ITS AVAILABILITY TO ASSESSEE CANNOT BE IGNORED. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT OUT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 8,50,000/- NET DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, AS WORKED OUT, THE SOURCE TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 5 LAKHS IS EITHER BY WAY OF RECEIPT FROM THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OR SALE PROCEEDS OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY. EVEN IF ONE IGNORES 8 ITA NO. 552/HYD/2017 SRI V.S MAHESWARAN, HYD. CLAIM OF DEBTORS AND CONFIRMATION FROM VARIOUS PEOPLE TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 6 LAKHS, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FUNDS TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 5 LAKHS, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. AS SEEN FROM A.OS ORDER ALSO OUT OF THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 19,08,540/- EXPLANATION OF SOURCES WAS TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 16,50,000/-, LEAVING THE GAP OF MORE THAN RS. 2.5 LAKHS. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT OUT OF THE RS. 8.50 LAKHS NET DEPOSIT OR PEEK DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THE CREDIT CAN BE GIVEN TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 5 LAKHS, OUT OF VARIOUS SOURCES CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE. AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,50,000/- IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN AMOUNT FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OR FOR WHICH PROPER EXPLANATION COULD NOT BEEN OFFERED. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, I HEREBY CONFIRM THE ADDITION TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 3,50,000/- AND DIRECT THE A.O TO DELETE THE BALANCE AMOUNT. GROUNDS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED ON THIS ISSUE. 8. THERE IS ONE MORE CLAIM WITH REFERENCE TO DENIAL OF HRA DEDUCTION. AS SEEN FROM THE FILE, A.O HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE AND THE REASONS FOR DENYING THE CLAIM IS NOT FULLY FORTHCOMING. IT STATES THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED RELEVANT EVIDENCES. IF ASSESSEES CLAIM IS BASED ON FORM-16 ITSELF, THEN, THOSE COULD HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE DDO WHILE ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION. WHY A.O REQUIRED FURTHER EVIDENCE IS NOT FORTHCOMING. SINCE DUE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN TO ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE CAN BE REEXAMINED BY A.O BY GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE SO THAT THE CLAIM CAN BE ALLOWED. THIS GROUND IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF A.O FOR FRESH EXAMINATION AFTER GIVING 9 ITA NO. 552/HYD/2017 SRI V.S MAHESWARAN, HYD. OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS. 9. IT IS NOTICED THAT A.O AS WELL AS CIT(A) WANTS EVIDENCE OF HUF. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHAT SORT OF EVIDENCE THEY ARE SEEKING. HUF IS NOT AN INCORPORATED BODY LIKE A FIRM OR COMPANY OR AOP. IF THE INDIVIDUAL IS A HINDU AND THEE IS ANCESTRAL PROPERTY HUF IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE. EVEN WITHOUT ANCESTRAL PROPERTY A HUF CAN EXIT. THESE ARE TO BE VERIFIED BY A.O BUT WHAT SORT OF EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED IS NOT STATED. EVEN BANK ACCOUNTS ARE NOT OPENED WITH SUFFIXES (HUF) OR (INDIVIDUAL). SO THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY A.O OR CIT(A) 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH DECEMBER, 2017. SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 20 TH DECEMBER, 2017 KRK 1 SHRI V.S MAHESWARAN, C/O T. CHAITANYAKUMAR, ADV, FLAT NO. 102, GOURI APARTMENT, URDULANE, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYD. 2 ITO, WARD- 12(4), HYDERABAD. 3 CIT(A)-1, HYDERABAD. 4 PR. CIT-1, HYDERABAD. 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE