Kosaraju Murali Mohan, Hyd, Hyderabad V. Addl. DIT, International Taxation, Hyderabad

ITA 6/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1393 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIC R PATI
• Assessee Lawyers: Y R RAO
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Double taxation relief; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO .6/HYD/12 ASST. YEAR 2009-10 KOSARAJU MURALI MOHAN, HYDERABAD. PAN:AJRPM2016N V/S. ADDITIONAL. DIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SRI Y.R. RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRIC.R. PATI, (CIT-D R) DATE OF HEARING 08-11-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04-01-2013. O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 28-10-2011 PASSED BY THE CIT (A)-V, HYDERABAD P ASSED IN ITA NO.415/ADDITIONAL. DIT(IT)/CIT(A)-V/10-11 PERTAININ G TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE AS ARISES FROM GROUND NO. 1(A) TO 1(F) IS WITH REGARD TO DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION FOR COMPUTING LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS RELATING TO THE DISPUTE ARE THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, T HE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD IMMOVABLE PROPERTY COMPRISING OF LAND AND BU ILDING FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.21,12,69,237/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED I TS RETURN OF ITA NO.6/HYD/2012 SRI KOSARAJU MURALI MOHAN,HYD. 2 INCOME ON 22-12-09 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.15,91 ,88,570/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, A REVISED RETURN WAS FILED CLAIMING BENEF IT OF LOWER RATE OF TAX AS PER ARTICLE-11 OF DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND US A AND THE ASSESSEE IS A NON RESIDENT INDIAN. IN COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WH ILE COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS CLAIMED INDEXATIO N OF COST OF ACQUISITION IN THE YEAR 1981-82. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFF ICER RAISED A QUERY IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE IS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SINCE 1963, BY VIRTUE OF A TRUST DEE D AND ALSO SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE TRUST DEED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VER IFYING THE TRUST DEED AND SPECIFICALLY GOING THROUGH THE CLAUSES 2,4, 5,6 AND 7 CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT AS PER THE TERMS OF THE TRUST DEED THE ASSESSEE BECAME OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2002 ON DE ATH OF HIS MOTHER. THEREFORE, HIS CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP FROM 1963 CA NNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT THE F AIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AT RS.163.93 PER SQ. YARD AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS.60/- PER SFT., AS ON 1-4-1981 ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING UPON THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES DETERMINED THE LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAIN AT RS.22,33,25,902/- BY ADOPTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AT RS.60/- PER SQ. YARD AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.34.10 P ER SFT., AS ON 1-4-1981. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 3. SO FAR AS ASSESSEES CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE SAID PRO PERTY FROM THE YEAR 1963 IS CONCERNED, THE CIT (A) REJECTED SU CH CLAIM AND SUSTAINED THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND, THE CIT (A) DIRE CTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENHANCE THE SRO RATE ADOPTED BY HIM BY 40% . ITA NO.6/HYD/2012 SRI KOSARAJU MURALI MOHAN,HYD. 3 4. THE LEARNED AR MORE OR LESS REITERATING HIS STAND TAKEN BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE TERM S OF THE TRUST DEED THE TRUSTEE WAS NEVER THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT APART FROM THE TRUST DEED T HE EARLIER OWNER AND THE SETTLER OF THE PROPERTY HAD MADE A GIFT OF T HE SAID PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SISTERS AND THE SAID GIFT WA S ALSO DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 19964- 65 AND GIFT TAX WAS ALSO PAID . IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED AR SU BMITTED A COPY OF GIFT-TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 7-1-1965 IN CASE OF SMT. I. MAHALAKSHMAMMA RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1964-65 . THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EXPLANATION (III) TO SECTION 48 READ WITH EXPLANATION 1(B) TO SECTION 2(42A) PROVIDE THAT IN CASE OF A GIFT OF A PROPERTY THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD B Y THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAS TO BE INCLUDED WHILE DETERMINING THE PERIO D OF HOLDING OF THE ASSET BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MU MBAI BENCH IN CASE OF THE DCIT V/S. MANJULA J. SHAH (34 SOT 105) (MUMBAI SB) WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY AFFIRMED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 16 TAXMAN 42. THE LE ARNED AR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST V/S. CIT (18 TAXMAN 261. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRUST DEED IS CLEAR ENOUGH TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE BECAM E THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ONLY IN THE YEAR 2002 AFTER D EATH OF HIS MOTHER. THEREFORE, HIS CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP FROM THE YEAR 1963 CA NNOT BE ACCEPTED. ITA NO.6/HYD/2012 SRI KOSARAJU MURALI MOHAN,HYD. 4 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO APPLIED OUR MIND TO THE DECISIONS R ELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES. UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE, ONE SMT. MAHALAX MAMMA WIDOW OF ONE GURAVAIAH GARU HAS ACQUIRED SOME PROPERTY OUT OF HER STRIDHAN. THE SAID MAHALAXMAMMA DID NOT HAVE ANY CHILDREN OF H ER OWN AND WAS LIVING WITH HER MOTHER AND FOUR BROTHERS FOR ABO UT 25 YEARS AFTER HER HUSBANDS DEATH. THEREAFTER, SHE WAS STAYING WITH HE R SISTER MANIKYAMMA DURING WHICH PERIOD SHE DEVELOPED A SPECIAL ATTACHMENT, LOVE AND AFFECTION TOWARDS SMT. SATYAVATI, THE DAUGH TER-IN-LAW OF MANIKYAMMA. OUT OF HER LOVE AND AFFECTION TOWARDS SM T. SATYAVATI, SMT. MAHALAXMAMMA DECIDED TO GIVE IN TRUST THE HOUSE P ROPERTY SHE HAS PURCHASED OUT OF STRIDHAN FOR THE BENEFIT OF SMT. S ATYAVATI AND HER FIVE MINOR CHILDREN. WITH THIS OBJECT, SMT. MAHALAXMA MMA EXECUTED A DEED OF TRUST BY SETTLING THE HOUSE PROPERTY FOR TH E BENEFIT OF SMT. SATYAVATI AND HER CHILDREN. SMT. SATYAVATI WAS MADE THE TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST PROPERTY. THE PREAMBLE OF THE TRUST DEED CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS SETTLED WITH THE TR USTEE SO THAT THE TRUSTEE AND HER FOUR DAUGHTERS AND ONE SON SHALL DERIVE THE BENEFIT FROM THE PROPERTY. CLAUSE- 2 OF THE TRUST DEED PROVI DES THAT A SUM OF RS.10,000/- EACH SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE FOUR DAUGHTER S OF THE TRUST DEED OUT OF THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE TRUST PROPERTY. I T WAS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT IF THE INCOME FROM THE TRUST PROPERTY I S NOT SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE COMMITMENT OF RS.40,000/- TO BE GIVEN TO FO UR DAUGHTERS OF THE TRUSTEE, THE TRUSTEE WILL BE ENTITLED TO MORTGAGE OR SALE THE TRUST PROPERTY. THE TRUST DEED FURTHER PROVIDED THAT THE SURPLUS INCOME, IF ANY, AFTER MEETING THE COMMITMENT OF RS.40,000/- TO BE GIVEN TO THE DAUGHTERS OF THE TRUSTEE WILL BE ENJOYED BY SMT. SA TYAVATI DURING HER LIFE TIME AND THEREAFTER IT WILL DEVOLVE UPON HER SON, THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. THE TRUST DEED FURTHER MAKES IT CLEAR THAT AFT ER THE ITA NO.6/HYD/2012 SRI KOSARAJU MURALI MOHAN,HYD. 5 FULFILLMENT OF OBLIGATION OF PAYMENT OF RS.40,000/- TO HER FOUR DAUGHTERS THE TRUSTEE, IF SHE SO DESIRES, CAN TRANSFER THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY TO HER SON I.E., THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. T HE TRUST DEED FURTHER PROVIDES THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE THE SOLE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AFTER THE LIFE TIME OF SMT. SATYAVATI OR H ER HUSBAND SRI MADAN MOHAN RAO. CLAUSE 3, 4 AND 5 OF THE TRUST DEED VEST S ABSOLUTE POWER WITH THE TRUSTEE TO DEAL WITH THE PROPERTY IN ANY M ANNER TO HER LIKING TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. AS PER THE AF ORESAID CLAUSES OF THE TRUST DEED, THE TRUSTEE CAN LET OUT THE LAND AND T HE BUILDING, SELL, AND EXCHANGE FOR FULFILLING THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. THE RECITALS IN THE TRUST DEED MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY WILL DEVOLVE UPON THE PRESENT ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER THE D EATH OF HIS MOTHER WHO WAS THE SOLE TRUSTEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TH E CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS BECOME OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF TRUSTEE DEED IN THE YEA R 1963 CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 7. THE READING OF DIFFERENT CLAUSES OF TRUST DEED AS A WHOLE MAKES IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BECOME SOLE OWNE R OF THE PROPERTY AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS MOTHER SMT. SATYAVAT I OR ON FULFILLMENT OF THE OBLIGATION OF PAYMENT OF RS.40,000/- TO THE F OUR DAUGHTERS OF THE TRUSTEE IN CASE THE TRUSTEE DESIRES TO TRANSFER THE OWNERSH IP OF THE PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT SMT. SATYAVATI HAS TRANSFERRED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PR OPERTY TO HER SON I.E., THE PRESENT ASSESSEE BEFORE HER DEATH. WE ARE TH EREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME THE OWNER OF THE PROPE RTY ONLY IN THE YEAR 2002 AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS MOTHER. IN COURS E OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE PROP ERTY IN QUESTION WAS GIFTED BY ITS PREVIOUS OWNER SMT. I. MAHALAXMAMMA TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AS PER THE PROVISION CONTAINED U/S 4 9(1) OF THE ITA NO.6/HYD/2012 SRI KOSARAJU MURALI MOHAN,HYD. 6 INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) READ WITH EXPLANATION (III) TO SECTION 40 AND EXPLANATION -1(B) TO SECTION 2(42A). THE ASSESSEE SHOU LD BE DEEMED TO HAVE HELD THE ASSET FOR THE PERIOD FOR WHIC H THE PREVIOUS OWNER HELD THE ASSET. IN OTHER WORDS, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET ACQUIRED UNDER GIFT THE INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWN ER FIRST HELD THE ASSET AND NOT THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BECAME OWNER O F THE ASSET. THE DECISION OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MANJULA J. SHAH (SUPRA) WHICH WAS SUB SEQUENTLY AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ALSO SUPPORTS SUCH VIEW. 8. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED AR HAS SUBMITTED A CO PY OF THE GIFT TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER IN CASE OF SMT. I. MAHALAXMAMMA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1964-65 EVIDENCING GIVING OF THE PROPERT Y BY WAY OF GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SISTERS. ON GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS AND THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, IT IS NOT CLEAR WH ETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SUCH CONTENTION EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OR BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS AL SO NOT RAISED ANY SPECIFIC GROUND RAISING SUCH CONTENTION BEFORE US. S UCH CONTENTION HAS BEEN RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US IN COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT THE FACT OF GIFT OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY BY I. MAHALAXMAMMA TO THE NOTICE OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES AS THERE IS NO MENTION ABOUT THE GIFT EITHER IN THE F IRST APPELLATE ORDER OR THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ANOTHER CRUCIAL FACT WHICH EMERGE S FROM THE GIFT TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THAT THE GIFT OF THE PROPE RTY WAS MADE BY SMT. I. MAHALAXMAMMA TO ALL CHILDREN OF SMT. K. SATY AVATI I.E., ITA NO.6/HYD/2012 SRI KOSARAJU MURALI MOHAN,HYD. 7 ASSESSEE AND HIS FOUR SISTERS. ALL THESE FACTS, WHICH HAVE NO T AT ALL BEEN CONSIDERED EARLIER, NEEDS TO BE THRASHED OUT AT T HE LEVEL OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR ARRIVING AT A PROPER CONCLUSION. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND TO GIVE A FAIR CHANCE TO BOTH TH E PARTIES BEFORE US, WE CONSIDER IT PROPER TO REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL TAKE A DECISION ON THE ISSUE IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE ASPECTS AND KEEPI NG IN VIEW THE DECISIONS THAT MAY BE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLE SS TO SAY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. SO FAR AS THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED IN GROUNDS 2(A) TO 2 (D) WHICH RELATES TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED, IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE FAIR MARKET VAL UE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.163.93 PER SQ. YARD AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING UPON INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE R EGISTERING AUTHORITIES HAS ADOPTED THE RATE OF RS.60/- PER SQ. YA RD AS ON 1-4- 1981. THE CIT (A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO E NHANCE THE SROI RATE ADOPTED BY HIM BY ANOTHER 40%. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE CIT (A) HAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND MATERIALS PLACED BE FORE THEM WHILE ADOPTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IT WAS SUBMIT TED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A SALE DEED OF A PROPERTY SOLD IN THE SAME VICINITY WHERE THE ASSESSEES PRO PERTY WAS SITUATED WHICH SHOWS THE CONSIDERATION OF SALE AT RS.164/- PER SQ. YARD AS ON 1-4-1981, THE SAME HAS BEEN TOTALLY IGNORED BY T HE CIT (A). IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO T HE COPY OF SALE DEED AT PAGE 24 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ITA NO.6/HYD/2012 SRI KOSARAJU MURALI MOHAN,HYD. 8 10. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING ALL ASPECT S HAS ALLOWED A FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF 40% OVER THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD IS CALLED FOR. 11. AFTER HEARING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SRO RATE CANNOT BE T AKEN TO BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND IN A PARTICULAR AREA. THER EFORE, BEFORE DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF LAND IN A PART ICULAR AREA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED ENQUIRY AND COLLECTE D INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THE RATE AT WHICH PROPE RTY IN THE SAME LOCATION WAS SOLD DURING THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A SALE DEED OF A PROPERTY CLAIMED TO HAVE BE EN SOLD IN THAT AREA AT THE RATE OF RS.164/- PER SQ. YARD AS ON 1-4-19 81. SINCE THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED WHILE DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO REMIT THIS I SSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED B Y THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS MAY HIMSELF CONDUCT NECESSARY ENQUIRY TO FIND OUT THE ACTUAL FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON THE RE LEVANT DATE AND RE- COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCORDINGLY AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 04 -01-2013. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT/- 4 TH JANUARY, 2013. ITA NO.6/HYD/2012 SRI KOSARAJU MURALI MOHAN,HYD. 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. KOSARAJU MURALI MOHAN, C/O RAMESH & CO. CAS, 6-3-661/B /1, SANGEETH NAGAR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD. 2. 3. 4. ADDITIONAL. DIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) V, HYDERABAD. CIT CONCERNED, HYDERABAD. 5 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. JMR *