C. Suguna, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-6(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 687/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6200 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U MINICHANDRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: G KALYAN DAS; A HARISH ARS
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 687/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SMT. C. SUGUNA, HYDERABAD [PAN: ADZPC5624Q] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI G. KALYANDAS & SHRI A. HARISH, ARS FOR REVENUE : SMT U. MINICHANDRAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 15-12-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-01-2017 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-9, HYDERABAD, DATED 29-02-2016. THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER ASSE SSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE INCOME TAX AC T [ACT] AS CLAIMED ON INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE OF PLOT AND CON STRUCTION OF A SHED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 8,19,550/- AND CLAIMED INVESTMENTS IN A VACANT PLOT P URCHASED FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LAKHS ON 20-08-2005 AND CONSTRUC TION OF HOUSE ON WHICH THE INVESTMENT WAS NOT PLACED ON RECOR D. I.T.A. NO. 687/HYD/2016 SMT. C. SUGUNA :- 2 - : ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MAINL Y INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL PLOT WHICH ITSELF IS DISPUTED AND WAS PENDING REGULARISATION BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. THE AO ALSO DEPUTED HIS INSPECTOR TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTION THAT A HOUSE WA S CONSTRUCTED ON THE SAID PLOT AND FOUND THAT AN ASBESTOS STRUCTURE OF 15X5 FT., WAS CONSTRUCTED AS TWO PORTIONS, OF WHICH ONE PORTION HAS A LOCKED DOOR AND WAS USED AS A GODOWN AND OTHE R PORTION BEING SMALL ONE WITHOUT A DOOR BEING USED AS A WATCHMA N SHED. THIS IS ALSO A TEMPORARY ERECTION WHICH CANNOT BE CONS IDERED AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. FOR THE CONTENTION THAT MUNICIPAL AUTH ORITIES HAVE ISSUED MUNICIPAL TAX NOTICE, AO NOTICED THAT THE STRU CTURE WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED WAS CONSIDERED FOR LEVY OF TAX A T RS. 699/- WHEREAS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 35,641/- WAS LEVIED FOR VAC ANT LAND. HE IS ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED THE SAID SH ED ON THE SOUTH-EAST CORNER AND THERE IS NO KITCHEN TO COOK FOOD OR ANY OTHER FACILITY SO AS TO CONSIDER IT AS A RESIDENTIAL H OUSE. SINCE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED THE AMOUNT ONLY IN CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED PLOT, HE HAS DENIED THE BENEFIT U/S. 54F, WHICH IS AVA ILABLE FOR PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. 3. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE CONTENDED THE SAME A ND RELIED ON VARIOUS CASE LAW. LD.CIT(A) HOWEVER, DID NOT AG REE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY STATING AS UNDER: 5.1 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, TH E APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE AREA OF CONSTRUCTION IS SMALL ON THE VACANT LAND, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THERE IS A CONSTRUCTION ON PART OF THE LAND. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE BOARD'S CIRCULAR NO. 667 DTD . 18.10.1993 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT INVESTED BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS THE COST OF PLOT AND ALSO THE AMOUNT SPENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OUG HT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F. THE ASSESSEE FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 54F IS THAT THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE RESIDENTIAL I.T.A. NO. 687/HYD/2016 SMT. C. SUGUNA :- 3 - : HOUSE AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT A PERSON SHOULD RESIDE IN THE HOUSE TO CALL IT RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON T HE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTIONS: 1) ADDL. CIT VS. NARENDRA MOHAN UNIYAL (2009 34 SOT 152) DELHI ITAT 2) AMIT GUPTA VS. DCIT (2006 6 SOT 403) DELHI ITAT 3) ITO VS. RASIKLAL N SATRA (2006 98 ITO 335) MUMBA I ITAT 4) SEETA SUBRARNANYARN VS. ACIT (1996 59 ITO 94) MA DRAS TRIBUNAL 5.2 HOWEVER, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NO T ACCEPTABLE, AS IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES AND FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO RESIDENTIAL H OUSE ON THE SAID PLOT. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS ONLY A SMALL CONS TRUCTION AT THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF THE PLOT WITH ABOUT 15 FEET WIDTH AND 5 F EET LENGTH. THE ROOF OF THE CONSTRUCTION IS WITH ASBESTOS SHEETS AND THE WA LLS ARE MADE WITH SKY ASH BRICKS. THE FLOORING WAS MADE WITH SOME ROUGH T ILES AND THERE WAS NO PLASTERING INSIDE THE STRUCTURE, AND THERE IS ALSO NO DOOR COVERING THE WALLS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ANNEXED A PHO TOGRAPH OF THE VACANT LAND ALONG WITH THE STRUCTURE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER; WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT IS ONLY A SMALL STRUCTURE WITH ASBEST OS SHEETS. THEREFORE, IS MY OPINION, AT NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN THIS C ONSTRUCTION BE USED FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE AND HENCE THIS STRUCTURE CA NNOT BE CALLED AS A 'RESIDENTIAL HOUSE'. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES WITH MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES AND GATHERED INFORMATION THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 699/- HAS BEEN LEVIED AS TAX ON THE CONSTRUCTION AN D THE BALANCE OF RS. 35,641/- WAS LEVIED AS TAX FOR THE VACANT LAND. THE REFORE, THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS THAT ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON THIS PROPER TY AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND ISSUED NOTICE FOR PAYMENT OF TAX OF RS . 35,600/- IS NOT ON A SOLID FOOTING. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE BOARD C IRCULAR NO. 667 DTD. 18.10.1993 AND AS PER THIS CIRCULAR, IN CASES WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD, THE COS T OF SUCH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CAN BE TAKEN TO INCLUDE THE COST OF PLOT ALSO . SO AS PER THIS CIRCULAR, THE ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE COST OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ALONG WITH THE COST OF PLOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION ION U/S. 54. H OWEVER IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CONSTRUCTED AND IT IS ONLY A SMALL STRUCTURE ON A CORNER OF THE PLOT. THEREFORE, THE BOARD CIRCULAR HAS NO RELEVANCE IN THIS CASE. FURTHER, THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT IN PROVIDING THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54F HAS TO BE SEEN WHEREIN THE PROCEEDS FROM CAPITAL GA INS SHOULD BE UTILIZED IN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN INT RODUCED IN ORDER TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION OR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY THE ASSESSEES. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54F FOR A SMALL STRUCTURE WITHOUT MINIMUM FACILITIES SO AS TO BE CA LLED AS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 5.3 FURTHER, THE FACTS OF THE CASE LAWS AS RELIED U PON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIFFERENT, AND DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE INSTANT CAS E. A) IN THE CASE OF ADD!. CIT VS. NARENDRA MOHAN UNIYAL, THE POINT OF CONTENT ION WAS REGARDING THE I.T.A. NO. 687/HYD/2016 SMT. C. SUGUNA :- 4 - : ALLOWING OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F FOR INVESTMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AS WELL AS FOR THE PURCHASE OF PLOT. THE CONTENTION WA S NOT WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE STRUCTURE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR A R ESIDENCE OR NOT. THERE THE CONSTRUCTION WAS A PROPER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. HO WEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE POINT OF CONTENTION IS WITH REGARD TO 'RE SIDENTIAL HOUSE' VS A SMALL STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED AT THE CORNER OF A PLOT , WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. B) IN THE CASE O F AMIT GUPTA VS. DCIT CIRCLE _ 6(3), IT WAS HELD THAT 'IF IT IS CAPABLE O F BEING USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESIDENCE, THEN REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 54F IS SATIS FIED. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ACTUALLY USED THE SAME FOR HIS RES IDENCE WOULD NOT DISENTITLE HIM TO THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F.' THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THIS CASE THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ACT UALLY USED THE PROPERTY FOR HIS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE THE MAIN DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT WHETHER A SMALL STRUCT URE WITHOUT ANY PLASTERING, DOORS ETC., CAN BE CALLED AS A 'RESIDEN TIAL HOUSE', C) IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. RASIKLAL N. SATRAM, THE ISSUE IS WITH RE GARD TO THE FLAT AT SION, MUMBAI, WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS LIVING ALONG WITH HI S FAMILY, WHICH WAS HELD TO BE A 'RESIDENTIAL HOUSE'. HOWEVER, IN THE, INSTANT CASE, THE STRUCTURE DOES NOT HAVE THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS SO A S TO BE CALLED AS A 'RESIDENTIAL HOUSE'. D) IN THE CASE OF MRS. SEETA S UBRAMANYAM VS. ACIT, THE ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE INVESTMENT OF ENTIR E NET CONSIDERATION IN CONSTRUCTING RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THERE WAS 110 DISPU TE, WHETHER IT IS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OR NOT, BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE T HE MAIN ISSUE IS AS TO WHETHER THE STRUCTURE CAN BE CALLED AS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OR NOT. THEREFORE, ALL THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ON DIFF ERENT FACTS, WHICH ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE AND HENCE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 5.4 FURTHER, I PLACE RELIANCE ON THE CASE OF SUNITA OBEROI VS. ITO (IT AT, AGRA-TM) 30 OTR 474; 126 TT J 745, WHEREIN IT WAS H ELD THAT EXEMPTION U/S. 54F IS ALLOWABLE ONLY IF THE NEW PROPERTY IS U SED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE STRUCTURE HAS NO PLASTERING, NO DOOR AND IT IS ONLY COVERED WITH ASBESTOS SHEETS WHICH HAS N O BASIC AMENITIES SO AS TO BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. THUS, THIS CAS E LAW IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. 7. IN VIEW OF ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JU STIFIED IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54F AND THEREFORE THE ADDIT ION MADE IS UPHELD. 4. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT MUNICIPAL CORPOR ATION ACT DEFINES BUILDING WHICH INCLUDES A HOUSE, OUT- HOUSE ETC., AND RELIED ON SECTION 2(3) OF GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPA L CORPORATION I.T.A. NO. 687/HYD/2016 SMT. C. SUGUNA :- 5 - : ACT, 1955. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LARGE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN INDIA DO NOT OWN A PROPER HOUSE WITH KITCHEN AND TOILET FACILITIES BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A RES IDENTIAL HOUSE. SIMILARLY, ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED A HOUSE WHICH IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. HE RELIED ON CAS E LAW AS RELIED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). ON A QUERY WHETHER ASSESSEE HA S APPLIED FOR BUILDING REGULARISATION SCHEME (BRS) OR PLOT REGULARI SATION SCHEME (PRS), HE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS APP LIED ONLY FOR PRS AND NOT FOR BRS. 5. LD.DR HOWEVER, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT A SSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AND INVESTED MOST OF THE AMOUNT IN PURCH ASE A PLOT ONLY AND CLAIM IS ALSO WITH REFERENCE TO INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PLOT. WHAT ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED IS ONLY A SHED/GODOWN, W ITHOUT ANY OTHER INCIDENTAL AND ATTENDANT REQUIREMENTS TO CONSIDE R IT AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. AS NOTED BY THE AO, THERE IS NO KITC HEN, NO OTHER ROOMS AND MOST OF WHICH IS BEING USED AS A GODO WN ONLY. THE PLOT ON WHICH THE SAID STRUCTURE WAS CONSTRUCTED ITS ELF IS DISPUTED AND ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES FOR RE GULARISATION OF A PLOT WHICH WAS PURCHASED. AS POINTED OUT BY THE AO , THERE IS NO PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE NOR THERE IS ANY APPR OVAL FROM THE AUTHORITIES. EVEN THOUGH, THERE WAS MUNICIPAL TAX PAY MENT ON THE SAID STRUCTURE AS SEEN FROM THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION A CT, ANY STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED AT A PLOT OF LAND IS DUE FOR LEVY OF TAX. THE DEFINITION OF BUILDING AS PER SECTION 2(3) IS AS UN DER: (1). I.T.A. NO. 687/HYD/2016 SMT. C. SUGUNA :- 6 - : (2). (3) BUILDING INCLUDES A HOUSE, OUT-HOUSE, STABLE, LATRINE, GODOWN, SHED HUT, WALL FENCING, PLATFORM AND ANY OTHER STRUCTURE WHETHER OF MASONRY, BRICKS, WOOD, MUD, METAL OR OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL W HATSOEVER. (4). 6.1. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE DEFINITION OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, A GODOWN, SHED ALSO FORMS PART OF B UILDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF MUNICIPAL TAX ASSESSMENT. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT A SHED/GODOWN CONSTRUCTED BECOMES A HOUSE. THE DE FINITION OF BUILDING INCLUDES A HOUSE, A GODOWN AND A SHED. THEREFORE, THE ACT ITSELF DEFINES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HOUSE, GOD OWN/SHED. THE STRUCTURE WHICH HAS CONSTRUCTED BY ASSESSEE IS A GO DOWN ON WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE. IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A HOUSE IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER ATTENDANT FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH A HOUSE. WHAT SECTION 54F REQUIRES IS INVESTMENT IN A RESIDENTIA L HOUSE NOT EVEN A HOUSE. SINCE THE PARAMETERS SPECIFIED ARE DIFFERENT, THE SHED/GODOWN CONSTRUCTED BY ASSESSEE ON THE SAID DISPUTE D PLOT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, EVEN ACC EPTING ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT IT IS A BUILDING. 6.2. IN THE CASE OF DR. VONTELA RAJA REDDY VS. ACIT I N ITA NO. 128/HYD/2013, DT. 02-09-2016, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH H AS CONSIDERED SIMILAR ISSUE WHERE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUC TED A COMMERCIAL CUM RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX. THE ITAT HELD A S UNDER: 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE E XEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT, IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE ENTIRE 3 RD FLOOR OF COMMERCIAL- CUM- RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX AT AMEERPET. THE REQUIREME NT OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD INVEST IN PURCH ASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE PROPE RTY PURCHASED IS A I.T.A. NO. 687/HYD/2016 SMT. C. SUGUNA :- 7 - : COMMERCIAL-CUM-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. IT IS ALSO SEE N FROM THE MUNICIPAL PERMISSION GRANTED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EARMARKED FOR RESI DENTIAL USE. THEREFORE, THE DECISION ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS P LACED RELIANCE UPON I.E. IN THE CASE OF N. REVATHI VS. INCOME TAX OFFIC ER (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE BEFORE US AS IN THE SAID CAS E, THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE WITH ALL AMENITIES LIKE KITCHEN, BATHROOM ETC., WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODA TION AND IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HELD THAT EVEN IF IT IS USED AS A SCHOOL OR FOR ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL PURPOSE, IT CANNOT LOSE ITS CHARAC TER AS THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SO AS TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE AC T. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, AS SEEN FROM THE FLOOR PLAN ANNEXED TO THE SALE DEED, WE DO NOT FIND ANY BEDROOMS, KITCHEN, BATHROOMS ETC., IN THE AREA PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A MERE BARE STRUCTURE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS DIVIDED THE SAME INTO S MALL UNITS TO GIVE IT ON LEASE FOR COMMERCIAL USE. THEREFORE, NEITHER HAS TH E ASSESSEE PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION, NOR HAS HE CONVERTED A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY INTO A RESIDENTIAL -CUM- COMMERCIAL COMPLEX. IN VIE W OF THE SAME WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED A RES IDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION AND IS THEREFORE, NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EX EMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT FROM THE CAPITAL GAIN TAX ON SALE OF A PROPERTY AT JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. 6.3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, SINCE THE SHED/GODOWN CONSTRUCTED BY ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDER ED AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F CA NNOT BE ALLOWED. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE ARE UPHELD AND ASSESSEES GROUNDS ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2017 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED 31 ST JANUARY, 2017 TNMM I.T.A. NO. 687/HYD/2016 SMT. C. SUGUNA :- 8 - : COPY TO : 1. SMT. C. SUGUNA, HYDERABAD. C/O. M/S. KALYANDAS & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 15, VENKATESHWARA COLON Y, NARAYANAGUDA, HYDERABAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-9, HYDERABAD. 4. PR.CIT-6, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.