PBS Developers, Sec'bad, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-10(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 73/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6343 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KURMI NAIDU
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Right to appeal
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 73/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 PBS DEVELOPERS, SECUNDERABAD [PAN: AALFP9461B] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI K.C. DEVDAS, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI B. KURMI NAIDU, DR DATE OF HEARING : 19-04-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-07-2016 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI, HYDERABAD, DATED 15-10-2015. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL STATI NG THAT ASSESSEE WITHDREW ITS APPEAL. 2. ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING G ROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AS WELL AS FACTS OF THE CASE. I.T.A. NO. 73/HYD/2016 PBS DEVELOPERS :- 2 -: 2. THE HON'BLE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE SUSTAINED T HE ADDITION OF RS. 6,49,554/- AS THE SAME WAS STAMP DUTY INCURRED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY IN THE COURSE OF ACQUISI TION AND THEREFORE THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION. 3. ANY OTHER GROUND WILL BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF H EARING OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THERE WAS A SURVEY OPERATION U/S. 1 33A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [ACT] ON 03-03-2009. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, CERTAIN PAPERS WERE IDENTIFIED. ON THIS BASIS , ASSESSEE DECLARED RS. 16.69 CRORES AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HOWEVER, IN THE ASSESSMENT, SINCE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE EVID ENCE IN SUPPORT OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 6,49,554/-, AO ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME DECLARED WHICH WAS FINALLY COMPUTED AT RS. 16.75 CRORES VIDE ORDER U/S. 143(3) DT. 29-12-2013. THOUGH ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT DID NO T FURNISH ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE . CONSEQUENTLY, LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY STATIN G AS UNDER: 04.0 IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE, SRI B. NARASINGH RAO, AR APPEARED AND THE C ASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH HIM. 05.0 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS WITHDRAWING ITS AP PEAL. IN VIEW OF IT, THE APPEAL IS CONSIDERED TO BE INFRUCTUOUS AND IS DISMISSED. 4. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO POWER TO THE CIT(A) TO DISMISS THE APPEAL AS WITHDRAWN AND RELYIN G ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT(CENTRAL), CALCUTTA VS. RAI BAHADUR HARDUTROY MOTILAL CHAMARIA [66 ITR 443] (SC), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) IS BOUND TO DECI DE THE APPEAL I.T.A. NO. 73/HYD/2016 PBS DEVELOPERS :- 3 -: ON MERITS. LD. COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING OBSE RVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. IT IS ALSO WELL-ESTABLISHED THAT AN ASSESSEE HAVIN G ONCE FILED AN APPEAL CANNOT WITHDRAW IT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE A SSESSEE HAVING FILED AN APPEAL AND BROUGHT THE MACHINERY OF THE AC T INTO WORKING CANNOT PREVENT THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FROM ASCERTAINING AND SETTLING THE REAL SUM TO BE ASSESS ED, BY INTIMATION OF HIS WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEAL. EVEN IF THE ASSESS EE REFUSES TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMM ISSIONER CAN PROCEED WITH THE ENQUIRY AND IF HE FINDS THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN UNDER-ASSESSMENT, HE CAN ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT (SE E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. NAWAB SHAH NAWAZ KHAN *). IN THIS CONTEXT REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF TH E COURT OF APPEAL IN KING V. INCOME-TAX SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS* * IN WHICH THE TAXPAYER SOUGHT TO WITHDRAW A NOTICE OF APPEAL WHIC H HAD BEEN GIVEN ON HIS BEHALF AGAINST AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMEN T UNDER SCHEDULE D. THE COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE WER E NOT SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS ADEQUATE. THE SPE CIAL COMMISSIONERS THEN PROPOSED TO PROCEED WITH THE HEA RING OF THE APPEAL IN THE ORDINARY WAY. AT THAT STAGE THE TAXPA YER SOUGHT A WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO PROHIBIT THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER S FROM HEARING THE APPEAL. IT WAS HELD BY THE COURT OF APPEAL THAT NOT ICE OF APPEAL HAVING ONCE BEEN GIVEN, THE COMMISSIONERS WERE BOUN D TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INCOME-TAX ACTS AND DETERMIN E THE TRUE AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT. 5. IT WAS THE CONTENTION THAT LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS, WHEREAS THE APPEAL WAS AL LOWED TO BE WITHDRAWN WHICH IS NOT CORRECT ACCORDING TO LAW. IT W AS PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO THE CIT(A) SO THAT ASSE SSEE CAN SUBMIT THE EVIDENCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXPENDITURE IN CURRED TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 6,47,955/- WHICH WAS INCURRED IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING THE PROPERTY REGISTERED. 6. LD. DR HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAVING WITHDRAWN THE APPEAL, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE C IT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL, AS ASSESSEE IS NOT AGGRIEVED AN D ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO MERIT IN ASSESSEES APPEAL. I.T.A. NO. 73/HYD/2016 PBS DEVELOPERS :- 4 -: 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES. AS SEEN FROM THE ASSES SMENT ORDER, IT IS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 19,45,364/- TOWARDS EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR OBTAININ G ABUTTING LAND (EXCHANGE). THE AR WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE EVIDE NCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. THE AR HAS PRODUCED EXCHANGE DEED, WHE REIN THE STAMP DUTY PAID WAS RS. 12,95,810/- ONLY. AS THE AR COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 6,49,554/-, THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ADMITTED BY ASSESSEE. EVEN THOUGH ASSESSE E HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL AND RAISED THE ISSUE SIMILAR TO TH E GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL, FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO AS SESSEE/ITS AR, THE APPEAL WAS WITHDRAWN AS STATED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE ORDER EXTRACTED ABOVE. 8. BEFORE US, NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURE, EXCEPT STATING THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING THE DOCUMENT REGISTER ED. ON FACTS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF TH E EXPENDITURE CLAIMED, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO APPRECIATE ASSES SEES CONTENTIONS. THERE IS NO NEED TO RESTORE THE APPEAL TO TH E FILE OF THE CIT(A), WHEN ASSESSEE AFTER MAKING A CLAIM, FAIL S TO SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. IN FACT, NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD EITHER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OR BEFORE US SO A S TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 6,47 ,955/- IS ALLOWABLE OR NOT? 9. AS STATED ABOVE, LD. COUNSELS MAIN CRUX OF ARGUM ENT IS THAT LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE ON ME RITS AND NOT ALLOWED THE APPEAL TO BE WITHDRAWN. IN THIS CONTEXT, WE MAY NOTICE I.T.A. NO. 73/HYD/2016 PBS DEVELOPERS :- 5 -: THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED IN THE CONTEXT OF POWERS OF THE AAC IN DISPOSAL OF AN APPEAL, BUT THE PRINCIPL ES LAID DOWN THEREIN DO NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RIGHT OF APPEAL IS CONFERRED UNDER STATUTE. EVEN IF AN ADDITION IS MADE CONTRARY TO LAW, IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CHOOSE TO FILE AN APPEAL , IT IS NOT INCUMBENT UPON APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO TAKE UPON ITSELF , BY SUPERVISING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AOS. GOING BY THE SAME ANALOGY, WHEN AN ASSESSEE PREFERS AN APPEAL BUT DOES NOT TO PURSUE AN ISSUE, BY NOT FURNISHING SUFFICIENT EVIDENC E, IT IS NOT INCUMBENT UPON THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO GO INTO THE SHOES OF ASSESSEE TO VERIFY AS TO WHAT FACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE IN MAKING A CLAIM AND BY FURTHER ASSUMING THAT UNDER THOSE CIRCU MSTANCES, WHETHER THE CLAIM IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT. THE POWERS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ARE CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE AO IN A LIMITED SENSE THAT IF THE AO HAS OMITTED TO CONSIDER ANY INCOME W HICH IS OTHERWISE LIABLE TO TAX HE HAS THE POWER OF ENHANCEMENT AND IN A GIVEN CASE IF THE ASSESSEE HAVING FILED AN APPEAL BU T CHOOSES TO WITHDRAW ITS APPEAL, SUCH AN ACT SHOULD NOT DEBAR THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FROM EXERCISING THE RIGHT CONFERRE D UNDER THE STATUTE VIZ-A-VIZ ENHANCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT. IN THE INSTA NT CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY CHOSE TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT. IN FACT, THE ADDITION WAS AL READY MADE BY THE AO AND THERE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY FURTHER DISALLOWANCE AND HENCE, THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE HIS OPTION OF EXAMINING THE ISS UE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF REVENUE SO AS TO ENABLE HIM TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT IN WHICH EVENT, THE BURDEN WOULD BE UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE ITS CASE THAT THE CLAIM MADE IS IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW AND ONLY UPON FURNISHING SUFFICIENT EVIDENC E BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WOULD BE UNDER AN OBLIGATION I.T.A. NO. 73/HYD/2016 PBS DEVELOPERS :- 6 -: TO CONSIDER SUCH EVIDENCE TO DECIDE AS TO WHETHER THE AO DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE CORRECTLY OR NOT. IN OTHER W ORDS, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT (SU PRA) IS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY RA THER THAN MAKING ANY COMMENT UPON THE ASSESSEES ATTITUDE OF NOT FURNISHING EVIDENCE AND EXPECTING THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DISPOSE-OFF, EVEN IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES ON MERITS . 10. MERIT PRE-SUPPOSES FURNISHING OF PROPER EVIDENC E WHICH COMPELS A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO PONDER OVER IT AND TO DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER A CLAIM MADE BY AN ASSESSEE I S JUSTIFIED OR NOT WHEREAS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CHOSE NO T TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR EVEN BEFORE THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BUT AFTER LONG LAPSE OF TIME, HE CHOOSES TO M AKE A CLAIM BEFORE THE SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS DUTY BOUND TO CONSIDER THE MATTER ON MERITS. WE MAY OBSERVE HERE THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM AMOUNTS TO PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE, SINCE IN A NY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, EVIDENCE WOULD GIVE OXYGEN TO THE ARTERIE S OF AN ISSUE IN DISPUTE; IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE MISERABLY FAILE D TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE CIT(A) ; EVEN BEFORE US, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES, IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION, THE FIST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NO OTH ER ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF EV IDENCE THOUGH UNDER THE CAPTION WITHDRAWN. 10.1. IT IS NOT OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION THAT THERE MUST BE A POINT OF FINALITY IN ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND STALE ISSUES SHOULD NOT BE RE-ACTIVATED BEYOND A PARTICULAR STAGE, AS OBSERVED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PARASHURAM POTTE RY WORKS I.T.A. NO. 73/HYD/2016 PBS DEVELOPERS :- 7 -: CO. LTD., VS. ITO [106 ITR 1]. IF ASSESSEE DOES NOT PURSUE ITS APPEAL AND CHOOSES NOT TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE JUSTIF YING ITS CLAIM, EITHER THE AO OR THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CANNOT BE EXP ECTED TO CULL OUT THE EVIDENCE WHICH IS WITHIN THE PERSONAL KNOWLED GE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN SUCH AN EVENT, NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOU LD BE SERVED BY CONTINUING THE PROCEEDINGS AND OBVIOUSLY THE ONLY OPTION, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WOULD BE TO FINALISE THE PROCEEDIN GS ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD. 10.2. IN THIS CASE, OBVIOUSLY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FU RNISHED ANY EVIDENCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE MADE. EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMS TO HAVE AGGRIEVED AND PREFERRED AN APPEAL, FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO ASSESSEE, IT WITHDREW THE A PPEAL PREFERRED BEFORE THE CIT(A). CONSEQUENTLY, IT CANNOT B E ARGUED BEFORE A HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO DISMISS APPEAL FOR WANT O F PROSECUTION. FAILURE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM S HOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE. HAD ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE N ECESSARY EVIDENCE, LD. CIT(A) WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A POSITION T O DECIDE THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED. IT IS TH E FAILURE OF ASSESSEE IN PURSUING THE APPEAL WHICH RESULTED IN DIS MISSAL BY WAY OF WITHDRAWAL BUT NOT LACK OF JURISDICTION OR PO WERS OF CIT(A) IN DECIDING THE APPEAL. 10.3. AS ALREADY STATED HEREIN ABOVE, DECISION OF TH E APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT(CENTRAL), CALCUTTA VS. RAI BAH ADUR HARDUTROY MOTILAL CHAMARIA [66 ITR 443] (SC) WAS REN DERED ON DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS; IN THAT CASE, WHEN FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY CHOSE TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO E SCAPE I.T.A. NO. 73/HYD/2016 PBS DEVELOPERS :- 8 -: FROM THE RIGOUR OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 251 IN TH E GARB OF EXERCISING HIS RIGHT TO WITHDRAW ITS APPEAL AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APEX COURT AFFIRMED THAT THERE IS NO A UTOMATIC RIGHT CONFERRED ON THE ASSESSEE TO WITHDRAW AN APPEAL ; EVEN IF ASSESSEE SEEKS NOT TO PURSUE HIS APPEAL IT IS FOR THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO TAKE A DECISION, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HA VING REGARD TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 251 OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COUR T CLARIFIES THAT IF A FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FINDS ANY MATERIAL W HICH MAY NECESSITATE ENHANCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT, SUCH A POWER SH OULD NOT BE SCUTTLED BY ALLOWING ASSESSEE TO WITHDRAW ITS APPEAL. SIMILARLY, IF ON A PLAIN MEANING OF A PROVISION OR ON THE BASIS OF AVAILABLE EVIDENCE/PRECEDENTS, IF A CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS DUTY BOUND TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERITS, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO WITHDRA W ITS APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE RATIO OF THE AFORESAID CITED JUDGMENT HAS NO APPLICATION IN THE INSTANT CASE SINCE THE ASSESSEE CHOS E NOT TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 10.4. ON A CONSPECTUS OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE DOES NOT WISH TO PURSUE ITS APPEAL. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO ME RIT IN RE- AGITATING THE ISSUE. ASSESSEE CANNOT APPROBATE AND REP ROBATE AT THE SAME TIME AND SINCE THE ISSUE HAS BECOME FINAL BEF ORE THE CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED IN ENTERTAINING ASSESSEES PRESENT APPEAL, BAS ED ON THE SUBMISSIONS THAT IT WAS IN A POSITION TO FURNISH THE NEC ESSARY EVIDENCE. AS ALREADY STATED BY US, ASSESSEE DID NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE AND HENCE GIVING AN I.T.A. NO. 73/HYD/2016 PBS DEVELOPERS :- 9 -: EXTENDED INNINGS TO ASSESSEE DOES NOT SERVE ANY USEF UL PURPOSE AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE CONTENTIONS MADE IN THE GROUNDS C ANNOT BE ACCEPTED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WI TH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL, ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 15 TH JULY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER HYDERABAD, DATED 15 TH JULY, 2016 TNMM COPY TO : 1. PBS DEVELOPERS, SECUNDERABAD. C/O. B. NARSING R AO & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, PLOT NO. 554, ROAD NO. 92, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-VI, HYDERABAD. 4. PR.CIT-6, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.