K..Pratibha, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-7(3), Hyderabad

ITA 675/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74758 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI JEEVAN LAL LAVIDIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 54F; 12; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.675/HYD/11 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 SMT. K. PRATIBHA , HYDERABAD ( PAN - AHWPK 2037 N) V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHRI JEEVAN LAL LAVIDIYA DR DATE OF HEARING 24.2.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) VI, HYDERABAD DATED 3.12.2010 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. 2. THE ONLY GRIE V ANCE O F THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWIN G THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER S.54 OF RS.22,73,732. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE LEADING TO THE FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, DERIVING INCOME BY WAY OF RENT FROM PROPERTY AND CAPITAL GAINS FROM SALE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE DURING THE Y E AR UNDER APPEAL, HAS FILED RETUR N DEC L AR ING A LOSS OF R S .4,54,269 FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. DURIN G THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE INHERITED A HOU S E PROPERTY SITUATED AT BANJARA H ILLS, HYDERABAD FROM HER FATHER THROUGH A WILL DEED IN THE YEAR 1997. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED THROUGH A EXCHANGE DEED ON 24.5.2004, WI TH ONE MOHD. KHUDRATH KHAN FOR A ITA NO. 675 / HYD/20 1 1 SMT. K.PRATIBHA,HYDE RABAD 2 CON S I D ERATION OF RS .49,46,000. THE S ALE PROC E EDS WERE BIFURCATED AS RS.25,00,000 IN CASH AND THE B ALAN C E CON S I D ERATION IN THE FORM OF COMM E RCIAL PROPERTY IN SG M MALL AT 12 - 2 - 625/626, MEHDIPATNAM, HYDERABAD ADMEASURING 2028. 155 SFT. AFTER DEDUCTING THE IN D E X ED COST OF ACQUISITION COMPUTED AT RS.26,72,268, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS DECL A RED AT R S .22,73,732 AND AGAINST THE SAME, ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER S.54 OF THE AC T, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SALE PROCE E DS WERE I NVESTED IN HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED AT PLOT IN SURVEY NO.186 AT G A GANMAHAL VILLAGE, HYDERABAD. THE SAID PROPERTY COMPRISED OF 10,490 SFT IN A B UI L D IN G CALLED LOTUS GOLDEN PLAZA WHICH WAS ACQUIRED ALON G WITH UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND ADMEASURING 371 SQ.YDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALS O NOTED THAT T H E ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED EIGHT CAR PARKINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY SO ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DEVELOPED BY M/S. LOTUS PROPERTIE S LTD. AS PER THE SANCTIONED PERMIT OF MUNICIPAL COR P ORATION OF HYDERABAD NO.28/2 OF 2002 DATED 1.11.2002. SUCH A PERMISSION WAS ACCORDED TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL BUIL D IN G CONSISTING OF FIVE FLOORS WITH STILT PARKING WITH CON S TRUC T ION OF 15 FLATS, THREE ON EACH FLOOR FOR A TOTAL SANCTIONED PLAN AREA OF 12,830 SQ. FT. (1270 SQ. MTRS). THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE DEVELOPER DEVIATING FROM SUCH AN APPROVED PLAN DEVELOPED A COMMERC I AL PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL USE. IT WAS NOTED THAT A SHOW CAU S E LETTER WAS ISSUED BY MUNICIPAL CORP OR ATION OF HYDERABAD ON 20.9.2006, WHEREIN THE FACT OF SUCH A DEVIATION WAS BROU GH T TO THE NOTICE OF THE DEVELOPER, AND SIN C E IT IS AGAINST THE PROVI SI ON S OF THE HYDERABAD MUNICIPALITY ACT, 1955, THE DEVELOPER WAS DIRECTED TO B R IN G THE BUI L DIN G CONSTRUCTION TO CONFORM WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED TH A T AS AGAIN S T SANC T ION E D PLAN AREA, THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCT ED 20,000 SFT. APPROXIMATELY, AND THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED SUPER BUILT UP AREA OF 10,490 SFT. ON DIFFERE NT FLOORS AS PER SCHEDULE 2 ANNEXED TO THE S ALE DEED DATE D 29.5.2004, WHICH WAS MADE P A RT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR D ER . IT WAS A L S O NOTED T HAT AS PER THE SCHEDULE, THE ASSESSEE GOT ENTIRE THREE FLATS CON S TRUCTED WITH AN AREA OF 4,479 SFT EACH ON 3 RD AND 4 TH FLOOR, 8 CAR PARKIN G S, 7620 AND 830 SFT. IN 1 ST FLOOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACQUI R ED ITA NO. 675 / HYD/20 1 1 SMT. K.PRATIBHA,HYDE RABAD 3 BUILT UP SPACE IN DIFFERENT FLOORS, AND THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED WAS LEASED FOR COMMERCIAL USAGE BY THE ASSESSEE . WHILE 1675 SFT ON THE GR OUND FLOOR AND 2250 SFT I N THE STILT PORTION WAS LEASED OUT TO M / S. VENKATESHWARA MOTORS, AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR HERO HONDA MOTO R S, ENTIRE 3 RD FLOOR AND 4 TH FLOOR AREA ADMEASURING 8,940SFT. WAS L E ASED TO ST. JOSEPH EDUCA T ION SOCIETY, WHO IN TURN R UNS A COLL EGE. T HE ENTIRE CAR PARKING , CONVERTED IN THE STILT PORTION ADMEASU R IN G 2,250 SQ.FT., WAS L E ASED OUT TO V E NK A TESWARA M OT O RS FOR THE PU R PO S E OF SHOW ROOM WHICH IS IN GROSS VIOLATION OF TH E PERMISSION FROM MUNICIPAL AUTHO R ITI E S. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THIS FACT UAL BACKGROUND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED, SINCE SUCH EXEMPTION IS AVAILABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF ACQUISITION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. IN SUPPORT OF THAT VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE AP HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIVA REDDY VS. ITO3(6), HYDERABAD, IN ITTA NO.76 OF 2000, WHEREIN THE EXPRESSION, RESIDENTIAL HOU S E OCCURRING IN SECTION 54F HAS BEEN EXPLAINED. OPPOSIN G THE PROPOSAL OF T H E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENYING THE EXEMPTION UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT RELIED UPON IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED E XE MPTION OF CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THE 4 TH FLOOR CONSTRUCTED IN THE BUILDING, I.E. LO T US GOLDEN PLAZA. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT ONCE THE INVESTMENT IS MADE IN A BUILDING CONSTRUCTED BY TAKING PERMISSION AS RESIDENTIAL, ASSESSEE BECOMES ENTITLED FO R RELIEF UNDER S.54, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE END USER OF THE SAID PROPERTY WHICH BECOME IMMATERIAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOT CONCURRING WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT, OBSERVING THA T THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY WAS IN TOTAL VIOLATION OF THE MUNICIPAL PERMISSION AND THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AS A G AIN S T THE SANCTIONED PLAN OF RESIDENTIAL FLATS, AND ALSO TH E FACT THAT THE END USE BY THE ASSESSEE IN LEASING OUT SUCH CON S TRUCTED AREA BY COMM E R C IAL EXPLOITATION CLEARLY INDICATED THA T THE REINVESTM E NT WAS NO T FOR PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL ITA NO. 675 / HYD/20 1 1 SMT. K.PRATIBHA,HYDE RABAD 4 HOUSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY DENIED EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER S .54 OF THE ACT, AND BROUGHT TO TAX THE ENTIRE LON G TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.22,43,732, WHILE COMPL E TING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S.143(3 ) OF THE ACT , V IDE ORDER DATED 28.2.2007. 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A), OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUCCESSFULLY BRO UGHT ON RECORD, THE FACTS CONTRARY TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE PROPERTY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE REINVESTED THE PROCEE D S OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IS IN THE NATURE OF COMM E R C IAL ONE. EVEN THOUGH THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSE E T HAT THE U S AGE OF T HE TENANT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF A PROPERTY HAS SOME F ORCE, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED, THE SURROU N DIN G FACTS AND CIR C UM S TANCES O F THE CA S E CLEARLY IN D I C ATE THAT IT WAS NEVER THE INTENTION OF THE DEVELOPER TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WHICH I S EVIDENT F R OM THE SHOW - CAUSE LETTER OF THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES, WHEREIN THE FACT THAT THE DE VIATION F R OM THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS BROUGHT TO THE NO T I C E OF THE DEVELOPER. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, ASSESSEE PREFERRED THIS SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATING THE CONTENTIONS URGED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH ENTITLED FOR RELIEF UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT AND GOT IN RETURN , CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEVELOPER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. IN THIS BEHALF, HE SUBMITTED THAT IN SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL IT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT SUBSEQUENT CHANGE IN THE USA GE OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO THE RELIEF UNDER S.54, IF WHAT WAS ACQUIRED WAS ORIGINALLY A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , IN ITA NO. 675 / HYD/20 1 1 SMT. K.PRATIBHA,HYDE RABAD 5 SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE A.P. HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. J.V.DESAI V/S. CIT(154 ITR 828) . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, VIZ. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OF RESIDENTIAL NATURE ONLY, AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HA VE BEEN DENIED EXEMPTION UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT, BASED ON THE SUBSEQUENT USER BY THE TENANT. , 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY ACQUIR ED, HAS CLEARLY BEEN DEMONSTRATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER S TO BE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY , AND EVEN THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE DEVIATIONS FROM THE APPROVED PLAN AND ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, IN THAT BEHALF DIRECTING THE DEVELOPER TO C ONFORM TO THE APPROVED PLAN, AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE WAS CLEARLY HELD TO BE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE IMPUG NED ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT INTENTION OF THE PARTIES WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO WAS TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. MUNICIPAL PERMISSION HAS ALSO BEEN OBTAINED ONLY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX. ULTIMATELY, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED POSSESSION OF SUCH PROPERTY. IT MAY BE TRUE THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PUT TO USE SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF OR BY THE ULTIMATE USER FOR COMMERCIAL USE. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY REMAINED RESIDENTIAL ONLY. MERELY BECAUSE OF CHANGE IN THE USE R OF SUCH PROPERTY FOR NON - RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES BY AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR AN AUTOMOBILE DEALER TO WHOM IT WAS LEASED OUT , I T CANNOT BE SAID THAT WHAT WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, BUT A COMMERCIAL ONE. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE CIVIC AUTHORITIES MERELY TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE DEVIATIONS MADE BY THE DEVELOPER FROM THE APPROVED PLANS, AN D WARNED THE DEVELOPER TO CONFORM TO SUCH APPROVED PLANS, AND WARNED AGAINST ANY ITA NO. 675 / HYD/20 1 1 SMT. K.PRATIBHA,HYDE RABAD 6 DEVIATION. SUCH A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CANNOT CLINCH THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES WHEN THE DEV ELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO AND THE MUNICIPAL PERMISSIONS WERE OBTAINED, WHICH DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE ACQUIRED, AND S UBSEQUENT CHANGE IN THE USER OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO RELIEF UNDER S.54 OF TH E ACT . WE ARE SUPPORTED IN THIS BEHALF BY VARIOUS DECISION S OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR MATTES . IN ONE SUCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI M.V. SUBRAMANYESWARA REDDY (HUF), HYDERABAD ITA NO.1014/HYD/2009, THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 48 OF ITS ORDER DATED 27.12.2011, HELD AS FOLLOWS - 48. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE CIT( A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEES FOR RELIEF UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S.54F OF THE ACT, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FOLLOWING FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER - A ) PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEED SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ESPECIALLY THE NAR RATION AT PARA 10 AT PAGE 14 OF THE DEED, WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) AT PAGE 4 AT PARA 2.4 OF HIS ORDER. B ) THE PLAN ATTACHED TO THE SALE DEED SHOWS THE CONSTRUCTION OF BED ROOM, KITCHEN, STUDY ETC., SHOWING THAT THE PROPERTY IS RESIDENTIAL ONE . C ) THE MCH PERMISSION DATED 10.05.2000 HAS APPROVED THE PROPERTY AS RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX D ) THE BANK GUARANTEE FOR SECURITY DEPOSIT GIVEN BY STATE BANK OF INDIA TO MCH ALSO REFERS TO THE PROPERTY AS RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX. E ) PERMISSION / NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE FIRE SERVICE DEPARTMENT ALSO REFERS TO THE PROPERTY AS RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX F ) THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 14.01.2001 ENTERED FOR THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID PROPERTY ALSO REFERS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) AS TO THE RESIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEES, CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL ASPECTS NOTED ABOVE. EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY LEASED OUT TO M/S.APP LAB TECHN OLOGY P LTD, AND IT HAS BEEN USED FOR NON - RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, ON THAT GROUND, THE DEDUCTION U/S.54F CANNOT BE DENIED. MERE NON RESIDENTIAL USE SUBSEQUENTLY WOULD NOT RENDER THE PROPERTY INELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT U/S.54F, IF IT IS OTHERWISE A RESIDENTIAL PR OPERTY, AS HELD BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA VS JCIT (5 SOT 353). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S.54F. ITA NO. 675 / HYD/20 1 1 SMT. K.PRATIBHA,HYDE RABAD 7 8. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT CASE BEING SIMILAR TO THOSE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE CASE, CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE ABOVE ORDER, TO WHICH ONE OF US, VIZ. THE AUTHOR MEMBER, WE HOLD THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUS TIFIED IN DENYING THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF RELIEF UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH, AND GRANT RELIEF UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT, SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF OTHER CONDITIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ACCORDINGLY REDECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT , ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21.3.2014 SD/ - SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI ) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT/ - 21 ST MARCH , 2014 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT. K.PRATIBHA C/O. SHRI S.RAMA RAO, FLAT NO.102, SHIRYA'S ELEGANCE, NO.3 - 6 - 643, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500029 2 . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) VI HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX V, HYDERABAD 5 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S