Sri Karam Ali Khan, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 797/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 79722514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITRA
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 797/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN, MALAKPET, HYDERABAD [PAN: AAOPK 9643 H] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSE E : SHRI MOHD. AFZAL, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI RAJAT MITRA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 25 - 11 - 201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 - 01 - 2015 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THIS IS AN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-18, MUMBAI HAVI NG CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER CIT(A)-VI, HYDERABAD D ATED 06-03-2013. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS ABOUT TAXABILITY OF CERTAIN RENTAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INC OME DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,32,000/- U/S.139(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (ACT). THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND INFORMATION SOUG HT WAS SUBMITTED FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED 20% OF SHARE I.T.A. NO. 797/HYD/13 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN :- 2 -: FROM PROPERTY SITUA TED AT 16-11-17/2, SALEEM NAGAR COLONY, MALAKPET, HYDERABAD. THIS PROPERTY ORIGINALLY BELONGS TO SMT. SADATH KHATOON, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO GAVE A DECLARATION ON 10- 08-1998, THE RELEVANT PART IS REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: 'I DECLARE THAT DURING MY LIFE TIME I WILL ENJOY TH E PROPERTY AND AFTER MY DEATH MY HUSBAND SHALL ENJOY THE PROPERTY AS AN EXCLUSIVE OWNER AND IT IS ONLY ON THE DEATH OF MYSELF AND MY HUSBAND MY TWO DAUGHTERS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO HALF EQUAL SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY AND THEY SHALL HOLD AND ENJOY THEIR RESPEC TIVE SHARES AS AN EXCLUSIVE OWNER AND TO USE THE SAME IN ANY MANNE R THEY LIKE.' SMT.SADATH KHATOON EXPIRED ON 24-03-2002, SURVIVED BY HUSBAND, SRI KARAM ALI KHAN, AND TWO DAUGHTERS, SMT. ISHRATH KHATOON, W/O. SRI. SARDAR OMER KHAN AND SMT.ALIYA KHATOON W/O. SR I BASHEER AHMED KHAN. AS PER THE WILL OF THE LADY, HUSBAND S UCCEEDED TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH ERE WERE UNPLEASANTNESS AMONG THE DAUGHTERS IN RESPECT OF SU CCESSION TO THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE BY ENTERING INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE DAUGHTERS AND THE PROPERTY WAS DISTRIBUTED AS UNDER : 1. SRI. KARAM ALI KHAN (HUSBAND) 20% SHARE 2. SMT. ISHRAT KHATOON (DAUGHTER) 20% SHARE 3. SMT. ALIYA KHATOON (DAUGHTER) 20% SHARE 4. SRI. MOHD. SAJJAD ALI KHAN 20% SHARE (S/O.SMT. ISHRAT KHATOON) 5. SRI. IRSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN 20% SHARE (S/O.SMT. ISHRAT KHATOON) ASSESSEE ENTERED IN RENTAL AGREEMENT FOR A SUM OF R S.4,20,000 PER YEAR ON OCTOBER 2003, FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS WIT H M/S RKS MOTORS. FOR THE A.Y.2004-05, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY INCOME IN HIS HANDS. HOWEVER, FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR INCOME WAS DECLARED AT ONLY 20% OF RENTAL INCOME AS PER ABOVE MENTIONED MOU. THE ASSESSING OFFICER R EJECTED THE I.T.A. NO. 797/HYD/13 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN :- 3 -: MOU AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE SRI KARAM ALI KHAN HAS NO RIGHT TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY OR TO DIVIDE THE RENT AMONG THE FAMILY MEMBERS, AND THEREFORE, ASSESSED THE ENTIRE RENTAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF SRI KARAM ALI KHAN. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE LD.CIT(A). 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE S MT. SADATH KHATOON, WHO WAS THE REAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, HA S EXPIRED IN THE YEAR 2002. THE DECLARATION WAS CONSIDERED AS WILL O F THE LADY AND ON HER DEATH THE HUSBAND HAS SUCCEEDED TO THE ENTIRE P ROPERTY OVERLOOKING THE INTEREST OF DAUGHTERS OF THE DECEAS ED. AS LATE SADATH KHATOON WAS A MUSLIM AND WAS GOVERNED BY THE MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW / MAHOMMEDAN LAW, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SRI KA RAM ALI KHAN, SMT. ISHRATH KHATOON AND SMT. ALIYA KHATOON A RE THE LEGAL HEIRS TO THE ESTATE OF DECEASED SADATH KHATOON. ACC ORDING TO THIS LAW A BEQUEST ON ONLY ANYONE OF THE HEIRS IS INVALID WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHERS. THE PERSONS WHO CANNOT BE EX CLUDED FROM SUCCESSION BY A TESTAMENTARY DISP OSITION ARE THOSE WHO ARE ENTITLED UPON THE DECEASE OF THE TESTATOR TO A SHARE IN HIS INHERITANCE WHATEVER MAY BE THE CATEGORY OF THEIR HEIR SHIP. TH IS PRINCIPLE IS FOUNDED UPON DIRECTION CONTAINED IN CHAP.IV, VERSE 7, OF THE KORAN ' TO EVERYONE HAVE WE APPOINTED KINSFOLK AS HEIRS FRO M THEIR PARENTS AND RELATIVES, AND THOSE WITH WHOM WE HAVE JOINED T HEIR RIGHT HANDS; SO GIVE THEM THEIR PORTIONS, FOR VERILY GOD IS OVER ALL A WITNESS.' THE RIGHTS OF THE HEIRS, SAY THE JURISTS, ARE THUS IRRE VOCABLY FIXED BY THE KORAN, AND THE HARMONY WHICH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED B Y THE DIVINE LAW AMONG THE DIFFERENT DEGREES OF RELATIONS WHO WO ULD BE ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION TO THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED PERSON SHOUL D NOT BROKEN BY HIS LEAVING A LARGE SHARE TO ONE HEIR. IN THE LIGH T OF ABOVE LEGAL POSITION THERE WERE DISPUTES AMONG THE FAMILY MEMBE RS I.E., BETWEEN FATHER AND DAUGHTERS AND THEIR SPOUSES. TO MAINTAIN PEACE AND I.T.A. NO. 797/HYD/13 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN :- 4 -: HARMONY IN THE FAMILY KARAM ALI KHAN (ASSESSEE) ENT ERED INTO A MOU WITH HIS DAUGHTERS AS PER WHICH SRI KARM ALI KHAN A ND HIS TWO DAUGHTERS SMT. ISHRATH KHATOON AND SMT. ALIYA KHATO ON AND THE TWO CHILDREN OF ISHRATH KHATOON WERE ALLOTTED 20% OF TH E SHARE TO EACH OF THEM IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UNFORTUNATELY THIS MO U ENTERED ON 01- 04-2004 WAS ALSO NOT ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF MAHOMMEDAN LAW. THE DIFFERENCE AND THE DISPUTES FURTHER CREPT INTO THE FAMILY AND RELATIONS WERE FURTHER STRAINED ON ACCOUNT OF ALLOT TING TO CHILDREN AT 20% SHARE FOR EACH OF THE CHILD OF ONE OF THE DAUGH TER. MEANWHILE THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO SEEK THE CORRECT LEGAL POSITI ON IN RESPECT OF THE SHARING OF THE PROPERTY LEFT BY HIS WIFE. ON ENQUIR IES MADE WITH LEGAL EXPERTS ON MAHOMMEDAN LAW, IT WAS FOUND THE ASSESSE E IS ONLY ELIGIBLE FOR 25% OF THE SHARE IN THE PROPERTY OF HI S WIFE AND BOTH OF DAUGHTERS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR EQUAL SHARE IN THE REMAI NING 75% OF THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, ORALLY IT IS AGREED BETWEEN T HE FATHER AND THE TWO DAUGHTERS THAT THEY WILL SHARE THE PROPERTY ACC ORDING TO THE MOHEMMEDAN LAW TO RESOLVE ALL THE DISPUTES CREPT IN TO THE FAMILY ON ACCOUNT OF NOT DISTRIBUTING THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION TH E ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE ONLY FOR 25% SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. THEREF ORE, REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE FILED ON 30 TH APRIL, 2009, TO CONSIDER THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THE MUSLIM LA W. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) HOWEVER, DID NOT AGREE WITH THE AB OVE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEA L BY STATING AS UNDER: ' I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLAN T, ORDER OF THE A.O. AND FACTS OF THE CASE CAREFULLY, IT IS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE'S WIFE SMT.SADAT KHATOON WAS THE OWNERS OF THE PROPER TY WHICH WAS GIVEN ON RENT. BEFORE HER DEATH, SHE HAS GIVEN A DECLARATION ABOUT ALLOTMENT OF HER PROPERTY BETWEEN HER TWO DAU GHTERS AND THEIR CHILDREN. IN THE DECLARATION SHE HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT I.T.A. NO. 797/HYD/13 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN :- 5 -: AFTER HER DEATH, HER HUSBAND WILL BE THE OWNER OF THIS PR OPERTY AND AFTER HIS DEATH, THE PROPERTY WILL BE SHARED BETWEE N HER TWO DAUGHTERS AND THEIR CHILDREN. IN THE A.Y. 2004-05, THE RENTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, B UT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TH E RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 84,000/- AGAINST THE TOTAL RENT RECEIVED OF RS.4,20,000/-. THEREFORE, THE A.O. HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 AND ASSESSED THE RENTAL INCOME OF RS.4,20,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE LAST YEA R. THE AR HAS SUBMITTED A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHICH W AS REPRODUCED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. MY PREDECESSOR HAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. THE A.O. VIDE LETTER DATED 06.06.2011 HAS SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT, T HE GIST OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM UNDER MUSLIM LAW, HIS CONTENTION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN THIS CASE, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAD NOT DIED INTESTATE. SHE HAS EXECUTED A WILL DURING HER LIFE TIME CLEARLY MENTIONING THAT HER CHILDREN SHALL ENJOY THE PROPER TY AFTER DEATH OF HER HUSBAND. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT THE FAM ILY MEMBERS HAVE A RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY DURING THE LIFE TIME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW IS NOT CORRECT. THERE WOULD NOT ARISE NAY QUESTION OF E XAMINING THE PRINCIPLES OR PROVISIONS OF THE PERSONAL LAW OF THE ASSESSEE IN DETERMINING THE FISCAL LIABILITY FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THE I. T. ACT. WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT ARE CLEAR, THERE WOULD NOT ARISE ANY QUESTION OF INTRODUCING OR FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF PERSONAL LAW FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT FOR INTERPR ETATION OF THE PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS MEANING OF THE STATUTE, THE PRINCIPLES AND PROVISIONS OF PERSONAL LAW ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED. COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT WAS ALSO GIVEN TO THE AS SESSEE WHO HAS SUBMITTED ITS REPLY STATED ABOVE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT AND SUBMISSI ONS OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE WIFE OF THE APPEL LANT WAS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS AN UNDISPUTED ISSUE. SECONDLY , THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A DECLARATION THAT AFTER HER DEAT H HER HUSBAND WILL THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND AFTER THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND THE SHARE THE PROPERTY WILL BE DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN HER TWO DAUGHTERS AND THEIR CHILDREN THIS DECLARATION CLARIFIES THAT SO L ONG THE HUSBAND I.E. THE ASSESSEE IS ALIVE HE IS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY A ND HE IS ONLY ELIGIBLE TO COLLECT THE RENT OF THE PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS .4,20,000/-. ONLY AFTER DEATH, THE PROPERTY WILL BE SHARED BETWEEN TW O DAUGHTERS AND THEIR CHILDREN. AS PER THIS DECLARATION, THE APPELLANT HA S FILED RETURN I.T.A. NO. 797/HYD/13 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN :- 6 -: FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND EARLIER YEARS AND DECLARED THE RENTAL INCOME AND PAID TAXES ACCORDINGLY. BUT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ONLY 1/5 TH OF THE RENT I.E. RS.84,000/- BY DISTRIBUTING THE RENTAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF TWO DAUGHTERS, TWO CHILDREN AND HIMSELF. FROM THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT OF A.Y. 2004-05, TH E A.O. HAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED RENTAL INCOME , THEREFORE, HE HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148. THE A.O. HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,20,000/- MAY NOT BE ASSESS ED IN HIS HANDS. THE AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERST ANDING WHICH IS REPRODUCED BY THE A.O. AT PAGE 5-8 OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. AFTER DISCUSSING THE SAME, THE A.O. HAS HELD THAT TILL TH E DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE WITH THE ASSESSEE ONLY AND CANNOT BE DELINEATED TO ANYBODY BECAUSE HIS OWN TWO DAUGHT ERS ONLY WILL HAVE TO GET RIGHT UPON THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PE R THE MUSLIM LAW THAT MUSLIM CAN DEPRIVE THE LEGAL ENTITLEMENT O F HIS SHARE AND PROPERTY OF A SUCCESSOR. IN THIS CASE, SMT. SADAT KHATOON WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD TOTALLY DEPRIVED THE LEGITIMATE SH ARE OF HER TWO DAUGHTERS BY ALLOWING HER HUSBAND TO ENJOY THE PROP ERTY AS AN EXCLUSIVE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY DURING THE LIFE TI ME. THUS, THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT AS PER THE MUSLIM PERSONA L LAW, THE SHARE OF RENTAL INCOME SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG HER TW O DAUGHTERS AND THEIR TWO CHILDREN. BUT THE A.O. HAS SUBMITTED IN T HE REMAND REPORT THAT AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF SUCCESSION UNDER MUSLIM LAW IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.1BDUL REHMAN M. PATHAN 243 ITR 409W WAS HELD THA T THERE WOULD NOT ARISE ANY QUESTION OF EXAMINING THE PRINCIPLES OR PROVISIONS OF THE PERSONAL LAW OF THE ASSESSEE IN DETERMINING THE FISCAL LIABILITY FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THE I.T. ACT. IT WAS ALSO HELD TH AT WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT ARE CLEAR, THERE WOULD N OT ARISE ANY QUESTION OF INTRODUCING OR FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF PERSO NAL LAW FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS MEANING OF A STATUTE, THE PRI NCIPLES AND PROVISIONS OF PERSONAL LAW ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE C ONSIDERED. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GANPATRAI SAGARMAL (TRUSTEES) FOR CHARITY FUND VS. CIT 471 IT R 625 HELD THAT IF THE PROPERTY IN THE CONCERNED ASSET IS RETAINED BY THE TRANSFEROR, THE ENTIRE INCOME THOUGH TRANSFERRED BY AN OVERRIDING T ITLE FROM SUCH ASSET IS INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE TRANSFEROR BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 60. THE A.O. HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SAIL DSP VR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 1998 VS. UNION OF I.T.A. NO. 797/HYD/13 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN :- 7 -: INDIA 262 ITR 638 (CAL) ARE NOT IDENTICAL/TO THE FA CTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THEREFORE, NOT HELPFUL TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT A ND CALCUTTA HIGH COURT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ARE VERY CLEAR THAT THE PRINCIPLES AND PROVISIONS OF PERSONAL LAW ARE NOT R EQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE , THE RENTAL INCOME ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS.4,20,00 0/- IS UPHELD AND GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED'. 5. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.COUNSEL THAT ASS ESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE SUNNI MUSLIMS. THE LAW RELATING TO PERSONAL MATTERS SUCH AS SUCCESSION ETC., ARE GOVERNED BY MU SLIM PERSONAL LAW AND IN THE MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW ASSESSEE FOLLOWS HANAFI SCHOOL OF LAW WHEREIN AN HANAFI MUSLIM CANNOT DEFEAT THE C LAIM OF ALL HIS REMAINING HEIRS UNDER THE LAW OF INHERITANCE BY BEQ UEATHING ENTIRE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF A CHOOSEN HEIR EXCLUSIVELY ; IN SUCH A CASE THE WILL WILL BE REGARDED AS INVALID. THEREFORE, THE A SSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN THE SHARES OF RENTS IN THE PROP ERTY AS PER THE ELIGIBILITY OF HEIRS AS THE SAID SCHOOL OF LAW APP LIES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS B Y FILING VARIOUS DOCUMENTS INCLUDING REVISED MOUS ENTERED BETWEEN TH E PARTIES. HE RELIED ON THE CASE OF SRI ALLBUX S/O.KHAJASAB VS. SMT. ALLABI W/O.KHAJASAB IN ILR 2007 KAR 4662, 2008 BY HONOURABLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT TO EXPLAIN THAT U/S.118 OF MAHOMMADEN LA W, THERE IS LIMIT OF TESTAMENTARY POWER AND PERSON CANNOT BEQUE ATH THE ENTIRE PROPERTY TO ONE PERSON. THEREFORE, THE WILL GIVEN BY THE DECEASED PERSON SMT.SADATH KHATOON, ENTIRELY TO THE HUSBAND IS NOT VALID. THEREFORE, THE OTHER LEGAL HEIRS, TWO DAUGHTERS ALS O CLAIMED SHARE ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE AN MOU ALLOCATING PROPERTY IN COME TO THE OTHER LEGAL HEIRS ALSO. 6. AS IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE FINAL ALLOCATION OF R ENTAL SHARE IS NOT ACCORDING TO THE MUSLIM LAW AS CLAIMED, FURTHER OPP ORTUNITY WAS I.T.A. NO. 797/HYD/13 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN :- 8 -: GIVEN SEEKING CLARIFICATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS. ACC ORDINGLY, LD.COUNSEL PLACED ON RECORD THE RETURNS FILED BY VA RIOUS PEOPLE AND ADMITTED THAT THE MOU ENTERED IS ALSO NOT ACCORDING TO MUSLIM LAW. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT REVISED COMPUTATION BETWEEN T HREE LEGAL HEIRS WAS FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES ADMITTING 25% SHAR E TO SRI KARAM ALI KHAN AND 37.50% SHARE TO EACH OF THE DAUGHTERS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE RENTAL INCOME CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD.DR HOWEVER, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. BEFORE ADVERTING TO THE CONTENTION THAT AS SESSEE FOLLOWS MUSLIM LAW AND HIS SHARE IN THE PROPERTY IS ONLY 25 %, THE FACTS AS VERIFIED FROM THE RECORDS ARE AS FOLLOWS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT SMT.SADATH KHATOON OWNED PROPERTY AND TH AT PROPERTY WAS GIVEN ON LEASE BY HER HUSBAND FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.4 ,20,000/-. FOR THE A.Y.2004-05, ASSESSEE CLAIMING TO BE OWNER OF T HE PROPERTY FILED RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING 100% OF THE RENTAL INCOM E. HOWEVER, IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR THE AMOUNT WAS SHARED AMONG FI VE PERSONS. ASSESSEE ALONG WITH TWO MARRIED DAUGHTERS AND TWO G RANDSONS DIVIDED THE INCOME AT 20% EACH, STATING THAT TO BE UNDER THE MUSLIM LAW. SINCE THE GRAND CHILDREN WERE ALSO GIVEN THE SHARE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS. IT WAS FAIRLY ADMITTED BEFORE US THAT THIS MOU ENTERED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER PERSONS IS NOT I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE MUSLIM LAW. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SRI KARAM AL I KHAN WILL HAVE 25% SHARE AND TWO DAUGHTERS SMT. ISHRAT KHATOON AND SMT. ALIYA KHATOON WILL HAVE 50% SHARE OF THE BALANCE 75%, IE , 37.50% EACH. I.T.A. NO. 797/HYD/13 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN :- 9 -: ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF RETURNS FILED BY THE THREE INHERITORS IN THE SAME RATIO SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIMS UNDER THE MU SLIM LAW. 9. LD. COUNSEL DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS PLACE D THE EXTRACTS FROM VARIOUS COMMENTARIES OF THE MUSLIM LA W AS UNDER: ALL SCHOOLS OF ISLAMIC LAW RESTRICT THE TESTAMENTAR Y FREEDOM OF MUSLIMS AS FOLLOWS: (I) UP TO ONE THIRD OF HIS 'NET ESTATE' EVERY MUSLIM IS FREE TO MAKE A WILL (SUBJECT OF COURSE, TO THE LEGAL RULES AS TO WHO CAN BE HIS LEGATEES): WHERE HE MAKES WITHIN THIS LIMIT, THE AT TITUDE OF HIS WOULD BE HEIRS TO THE WILL IS LEGALLY IRRELEVANT; T HEY CANNOT VETO IT EITHER WHEN THE WILL IS MADE (I.E. IN HIS LIFETIME) OR WHEN IT BECOMES OPERATIVE (I.E. AFTER THE LEGATORS'S DEATH) ; (II) OVER AND ABOVE ONE THIRD OF HIS 'NET ESTATE' T HE WILL OF A MUSLIM IS NOT VOID. IT IS ORDINARILY, INVALID BUT H IS WOULD-BE HEIRS CAN VALIDATE IT BY THEIR CONSENT,EXPRESS OR IMPLIED , WHICH THEY CAN GIVE, UNDER ITHNA ASHARI AND ISMAILI LAWS, EITHER DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE LEGATO OR AFTER HIS DEATH. UNDE R THE HANAFI LAW THE CONSENT OF THE HEIRS HAS TO BE OBTAINED AFT ER THE LEGATORS DEATH. THE ONE THIRD PORTION (SULS) OF THE HERITABLE ESTATE, WITHIN WHICH MUSLIMS HAVE FULL LEGAL FREEDOM OF TESTAMENTARY DIS POSITION, IS DESCRIBED AS THE 'BEQUEATABLE THIRD'. INHERITANCE AT MUSLIM LAW: - (CH. 12_SYP. B (I) PG 240. 1. BASIC RULES: 1. THE HEIRS CAN CLAIM THEIR SHARES ONLY IN WHAT REMAINS, IF AT ALL, AFTER ALL THE STATUTORY LI ABILITIES HAVE BEEN MET AND THE DEBTS AND VALID LEGACIES AND DEATH -BED GIFTS (IF ANY) PAID, OUT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROP OSITUS. I.T.A. NO. 797/HYD/13 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN :- 10 -: 2. A PERSON WHO ACCORDING TO MUSLIM LAW IS AN HEIR OF THE DECEASED REMAINS SO AND GETS HIS LEGAL DUE. HE OR S HE CANNOT BE EXCLUDED EITHER BY OTHER HEIRS AND SURVIV ORS OF THE DECEASED OR EVEN UNDER A SPECIFIC DIRECTION LEFT IN THAT BEHALF BY THE DECEASED HIMSELF. ONE CAN BE EXCLUDED FROM INHERITANCE ONLY UNDER A RULE OF MUSLIM LAW, IF APP LICABLE IN INDIA. ALSO, (SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF WILLS) THE QUAN TUM OF THE SHARE TO WHICH AN HEIR MAY BE LEGALLY ENTITLED CANNOT BE ALTERED UNDER A DIRECTION OF THE PROPOSITUS. WHERE T WO RELATIVES OF THE DECEASED WHO DIFFER IN SEX ARE REL ATED TO HIM EXACTLY IN AN EQUAL DEGREE (E.G., HIS SON AND DAUGH TER) AND BOTH OF THEM ARE, AT LAW, HIS HEIRS-BETWEEN THE TWO THE SHARE OF THE MALE HAS (SUBJECT TO A FEW EXCEPTIONS) TO BE DOUBLE THE SHARE OF THE FEMALE. SO, WHERE ,1 PERSON IS SURVIVED BY A SON AND DAUGHTER, OUT OF THE PORTION OF HIS ESTATE TO BE ALLOTTED TO THEM THE SON WILL TAKE 2/3 AND DAUGHTER 1/3 SIMILARLY. A WOMAN DIES LEAVING BEHIND (I) HER HUSBAND (II) TW O DAUGHTERS, (III) A FULL SISTER AND (IV) A PATERNAL SECOND COUSIN: HEI RS HANAFI LAW ITHNA ASHARI LAW HUSBAND = 3/12 = TWO DAUGHTERS 2/3=8/12 2/3= FULL SISTER RESIDUE = 1/12 NIL COUSIN NIL NIL EXTRACT FROM COMMENTARIES OF MOHAMMEDAN LAW (BYB.R.VERMA) :-(PG NO.395, 489 & 493). LAW OF INHERITANCE:--- UNLIKE HINDU LAW, ESTATE OF A DECEASED MOHAMMEDAN IF HE HAS DIED INTESTATE, DEVOLVES ON HI S HEIRS AT THE MOMENT OF HIS DEATH. UNDER THE MOHAMMEDAN LAW, BIRTH RIGHT IS NOT RECOGNIZED. THE RIGHT OF AN HEIR APPAR ENT OR PRESUMPTIVE COMES INTO EXISTENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON THE DEATH I.T.A. NO. 797/HYD/13 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN :- 11 -: OF THE ANCESTOR, AND HE IS NOT ENTITLED UNTIL THEN TO ANY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO WHICH HE WOULD SUCCEED AS AN HEIR IF HE SURVIVED THE ANCESTOR. (S189 SYN NO.1 PG 489) THE SECOND RESTRICTION WITH RESPECT TO PERSON IS LIMITED TO HEIRS. THE POLICY OF MOHAMMEDAN LAW IS TO PREVENT A TESTATOR FROM INTERFERING BY WILL WITH THE COURSE OF DEVOLUTION OF PROPERTY AMONG HIS HEIRS ACCORDING TO L AW ALTHOUGH HE MAY GIVE A SPECIFIED PORTION, AS MUCH AS A THIRD, TO A STRANGER. IT SAFEGUARDS AGAINST A BREACH OF THE TIES OF THE KINDRED. IT IS INTENDED TO PREVENT THE SHOW ING OF FAVORITISM TO ANY HEIR TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE OTHERS, AND THUS DEFEATING THE POLICY OF THE QURANIC INJUNCTIONS AS TO THE DIVISION OF HERITAGE ACCORDING TO FIXED PRINCIPLES. BEQUEST IN FAVOUR OF HEIRS: WHILE MOHAMMEDAN LAW PERMITS THE MAKING OF A WILL TO A LIMITED EXTENT IN FAVOUR OF STRANGER SEC. 190), IT DOES NOT ALLOW ANY UNDUE PREFERENCE BEING GIVEN T O SOME PARTICULAR HEIRS AND A BEQUEST TO SOME OF THE HEIRS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER HEIRS WILL BE ALTOGETHER I NVALID. THE CONSENT IS NECESSARY EVEN WHEN INHERITANCE IS GOVER NED BY ANY CUSTOM. THE CONSENTING HEIRS MUST BE MAJOR AND SANE OTHERWISE THEIR CONSENT WOULD NOT BE VALID. THE INSOLVENCY OF THE CONSENTING HEIR IS INVALID. A BEQUEST TO A N HEIR, EITHER IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS INVALID, UNLESS CONSENTED TO BY OTHER HEIR OR HEIRS AND WHOSOEVER CONSENTS, THE BEQUEST IS VALID TO THAT EXTENT ONLY AND BINDS HIS OR HER SHARE. (S-190 SYN NO.2 PG 493) I-B. A BEQUEST TO AN HEIR I S INVALID UNLESS CONSENTED TO BY THE OTHER HEIRS AFTE R THE TESTATOR'S DEATH, --- THE MOHAMNEDAN LAW DOES NOT ALLOW A TESTATOR TO LEA VE LEGACY TO ANY OF HIS HEIRS UNLESS THE OTHER HEIRS AGREE, B UT ANY SINGLE HEIR MAY SO AGREE AS TO BIND HIS OWN SHARE, AND THE BURDEN OF I.T.A. NO. 797/HYD/13 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN :- 12 -: PROVING THE CONSENT OF A PARTICULAR HEIR IS UPON THE LEGATEE. TO THE SAME EFFECT IS THE DECISION IN GHULAM MOHAMMAD VS. GHULAM HUSSAIN,'UNDER THE HANAFI LAW A BEQUEST TO AN HEIR IS INVALID UNLESS CONSENTED TO BY THE OTHER HEIRS AFTER THE TE STATOR'S DEATH. I-C. A MUSLIM UNDER PERSONAL LAW CANNOT BEQUEATH MO RE THAN 1/3 RD SHARE IN HIS PROPERTY UNLESS OTHER HEIRS SIGNIFY THEIR CONSENT. --A MOHAMMEDAN IS NOT ENTITLED TO BEQUEATH MORE THAN 1/3 RD OF HIS ESTATE AFTER PAYMENT OF FUNERAL EXPENSES AND DEBTS. IT FURTHER SPECIFIES THAT ANY B EQUEATH IN EXCESS OF 1/3 RD OF HIS ESTATE CANNOT TAKE EFFECT UNLESS THE HEIRS CONSENT THERETO AFTER THE DEATH OF TESTATOR. LEARNE D SINGLE JUDGE OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT WHILE INTERPRETING THE S COPE OF SEC. 118 OF THE MOHAMMEDAN LAW HELD, THAT KNOWLEDGE OF B EQUEATH AND INACTION FOR A LONG PERIOD BY A HEIR CHALLENGIN G THE BEQUEATH, ARE SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE SAID HEIR HAD SIGNIFIED CONSENT BY HIS CONDUCT. THE HIGH COURT AGREED WITH THE VIEW OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE'. 10. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE PROPOSITIONS OF THE PERSONAL LAW OF A MUSLIM. EVEN IN THE CASE REL IED UPON BY THE LD.COUNSEL OF SRI ALLBUX S/O.KHAJASAB VS. SMT. ALLABI W/O.KHAJASA B (SUPRA) OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, THE FACTS INDICATE THAT THE WILL EXECUTED BY RASOOLMA WAS HELD VALID TO THE EXT ENT OF 1/3 RD SHARE IN THE ENTIRE SCHEDULE PROPERTY. TO THAT EXT ENT, THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REFERENCE TO THE APPLICATION OF THE WI LL TO THE 1/3 RD SHARE THAT GENERALLY KNOWN AS BEQUEATABLE THIRD. UP TO ONE THIRD OF 'NET ESTATE' EVERY MUSLIM IS FREE TO MAKE A WILL (SUBJECT OF COURSE, TO THE LEGAL RULES AS TO WHO CAN BE HIS LEGA TEES): WHERE HE MAKES WITHIN THIS LIMIT, THE ATTITUDE OF H IS WOULD BE HEIRS TO THE WILL IS LEGALLY IRRELEVANT; THEY CA NNOT VETO IT EITHER WHEN THE WILL IS MADE (I.E. IN HIS LIFETIME) OR WHEN IT I.T.A. NO. 797/HYD/13 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN :- 13 -: BECOMES OPERATIVE (I.E. AFTER THE LEGATORS'S DEATH) ; OVER AND ABOVE ONE THIRD OF 'NET ESTATE' THE WILL OF A MUSLI M IS NOT VOID. IT IS ORDINARILY, INVALID BUT HIS WOULD-BE HEI RS CAN VALIDATE IT BY THEIR CONSENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, W HICH THEY CAN GIVE, UNDER ITHNA ASHARI AND ISMAILI LAWS, EITHER DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE LEGATOR OR AFTER HIS DEATH. UND ER THE HANAFI LAW THE CONSENT OF THE HEIRS HAS TO BE OBTAINED AFT ER THE LEGATORS DEATH. THEREFORE THE WILL OR DECLARATI ON GIVEN BY SMT. SADATH KHATOON CANNOT BE CONSIDERED INVALID TO THE EXTENT OF BEQUETABLE THIRD. WITH REFERENCE TO THE 2/3 RD OF THE PROPERTY, THE LEGAL HEIRS HAS A RIGHT TO PROPERTY. AS STATED BEFORE US, ADMITTEDLY THE HUSBAND AND TWO DAUGHTERS HAS A SHAR E. HUSBAND GET 1/4 TH SHARE AND TWO DAUGHTERS GET 1/2 OF THE BALANCE SHA RE. ACCORDINGLY, OUT OF THE TOTAL PROPERTY, THE SAID S MT.SADATH KHATOON WILLED 1/3 RD OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF HUSBAND FOR WHI CH CONSENT OF THE OTHER LEGAL HEIRS IS NOT REQUIRED. ADMITTEDLY, NO OTHER DEBTS OR BEQUEATH EXPENSES ARE CLAIMED AGAINS T THIS PROPERTY. THEREFORE THE PROPERTY IN ITS ENTIRETY IS TO BE DIV IDED OR SHARED. SINCE ONE-THIRD IS BEQUEATHED, OUT OF THE BALANCE 6 6.66% PROPERTY, THE HUSBAND I.E., ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE, HAS A RIGHT OF 25% WHICH IS AT 16.66%. THEREFORE, HIS TOTAL SHARE IN THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE AT 50% I.E., 1/3 RD (33.66%) BEQUEATHED BY SMT.SADATH KHATOON AND 16.66% AS HIS SHARE OUT OF REST OF THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE'S SHARE OF PROPERTY UNDER MUSLI M LAW IS TO BE CONSIDERED AT 50% AND THE BALANCE PROPERTY IS TO BE DIVIDED BETWEEN TWO DAUGHTERS I.E., 25% OF THE WHOLE PROPER TY. ACCORDING TO CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW, ASSESSEE SHAR E OF PROPERTY SHOULD BE 50% OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT 25% CLAIMED/A DMITTED. I.T.A. NO. 797/HYD/13 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN :- 14 -: 11. HOWEVER, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FIRST MOU EXEC UTED ON 1 ST APRIL, 2004, ASSESSEE AND HIS TWO DAUGHTERS AND TWO GRANDSONS WERE GIVEN EQUAL SHARE OF 20%, ADMITTEDLY NOT ACCORDING TO PERSONAL LAW. SUBSEQUENTLY, IGNORING THE WILL OF THE PROPERTY, TH E PROPERTY WAS AGAIN DISTRIBUTED AT 25% TO ASSESSEE AND 37.50% TO TWO DAUGHTERS EACH. EVEN THIS IS NOT ACCORDING TO THE PERSONAL LA W AS SUBMITTED BEFORE US. IN OUR VIEW, THE TENETS OF THE MUSLIM L AW HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED SO AS TO CONTEND BEFORE US THAT ASSESSEE I S GOVERNED BY THE MUSLIM LAW. MAY BE, HIS PERSONAL RIGHTS ARE GOVERNE D BY THE MUSLIM LAW BUT THE WAY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER LEGAL HEIRS CONDUCTED THEMSELVES, THE TENETS OF MUSLIM LAW HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED AS CAN BE OBSERVED FROM THE ABOVE. MOREOVER, THE MOU DT.0 1-04-2004 HAS THIS TO STATE. WHEREAS SMT. SADATH KHATOON WAS ENJOYING THE SAID PROPERTY DURING HER LIFE TIME, SHE EXPIRED ON 24-03-2002. WHEREAS THE SAID SMT. SADATH KHATOON HAD A WILL AN D EXECUTED A DECLARATION DATED 10-08-1998, WHEREIN SHE STATED THAT AFTER HER DEATH, THE FIRST PART SHOULD ENJOY THE PROPERTY AND AFTER THE DEATH OF THE FIRST PART THE SAID PROPERTY BE DIVIDED AMONG T HE TWO DAUGHTERS AND THEIR CHILDRENS AND. WHEREAS THE FIRST PART DECIDED TO LETOUT A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY OF LATE SMT.SADATH KHATOON IN CONSULTATION WITH HIS TWO DAUGHTERS, THEY HAVE AGREED FOR LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE RENTAL INCOME BE DIV IDED AMONG FIVE LEGAL WHEREAS THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PART HAS ENTERED IN TO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH RKS MOTORS (P) LTD., FOR A PORTION OF THE SAID PROPERTY IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2003 FOR A PE RIOD OF 10 I.T.A. NO. 797/HYD/13 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN :- 15 -: YEARS AND COLLECTING THE RENT FROM THE TENANT, WHO IS ISSUING CHEQUES IN THE NAME OF THE FIRST PART AND., WHEREAS THE PARTIES OF THE SECOND PART ARE NOT HAV ING ANY OBJECTION FOR GETTING THE RENT IN THE NAME OF FIRST PARTY AND., ( EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) THIS SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN GIVIN G SHARE IN THE PROPERTY, BUT ONLY SHARE IN THE INCOME. THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 60 OF THE ACT WILL COME INTO PLAY. 12. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 60 ARE AS UNDER: ' 60. ALL INCOME ARISING TO ANY PERSON BY VIRTUE OF A TRANSFER WHETHER REVOCABLE OR NOT AND WHETHER EFFECTED BEFOR E OR AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS ACT SHALL, WHERE THERE IS NO T RANSFER OF THE ASSETS FROM WHICH THE INCOME ARISES, BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE TRANSFEROR AND SHALL BE INCLUD ED IN HIS TOTAL INCOME.' THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE INCOMES ARE TO BE DIVIDED ACCORDING TO THE MUSLIM LAW. HAD ASSESSEE TAKEN RECOURSE TO LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AN D GOT THE PROPERTY DIVIDED BETWEEN THE LEGAL HEIRS THROUGH A COURT OF LAW, MAY BE THE CONTENTIONS CAN BE ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, A SSESSEE CHOSE TO ENTER INTO MOU SO AS TO DIVIDE ONLY THE IN COMES. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENT. 13. THIS ISSUE CAN ALSO BE LOOKED INTO IN AN ALTERN ATE WAY. IT IS ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE PROPERTY DEVOLVED ON HIM AND THAT IS AGAINST THE PERSONAL LAW. THIS CONTENTION IS AL SO NOT CORRECT. AS SEEN FROM THE DECLARATION GIVEN ON 10-08-1998, E XTRACTED IN PAGE 2 OF THIS ORDER, WHAT ASSESSEE GOT FROM THE DE CLARATION OF I.T.A. NO. 797/HYD/13 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN :- 16 -: SMT. SADATH KHATOON, WAS ONLY ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY DURING HIS LIFE TIME. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE DOES NOT ENJOY ANY ABSOLUTE RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY AND ONLY HIS TWO DAU GHTERS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO HALF EQUAL SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERT Y AND THEY SHALL HOLD AND ENJOY THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES AS EXCLUSIVE OWNER AND TO USE THE SAME IN ANY MANNER THEY LIKE. THIS INDICAT ES THAT SMT. SADATH KHATOON, HAS NOT BEQUEATHED THE PROPERTY TO ASSESSEE BUT ONLY POWER TO ENJOY THE PROPERTY DURING HIS LIF E TIME. IN THAT WAY, ASSESSEE'S RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY LIMITED TO TH E INCOME IS EXCLUSIVE AND TO 100% OF THE INCOME. IN THIS CONTE XT ALSO, ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT HE HAS ONLY 25% RIGHT IS NOT CORRECT. LOOKING AT EITHER WAY, ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS CANNO T BE ACCEPTED. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE AFFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES FOR THE ABOVE REASONS. 14. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JANUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (B. RAMAKOTA IAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 16 TH JANUARY, 2015 TNMM I.T.A. NO. 797/HYD/13 SRI KARAM ALI KHAN :- 17 -: COPY TO : 1. SRI KARAM ALI KHAN, D.NO.16 - 11 - 17, SALEEM NAGAR COLONY, MALAKPET, HYDERABAD; C/O. SHRI MOHD. AFZAL, ADVOCAT E, 11-5-465, SHERSON'S RESIDENCY, FLAT NO.402, CRIMINA L COURT ROAD, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD-500 004. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-18, MUMBAI. 4. CIT(A)-VI, HYDERABAD. 5. CIT 5/6, HYDERABAD 6. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD.