ITO, Ward-2(2), Hyderabad V. M/s. Goodwill Homes (P) Ltd., Hyderabad

ITA 830/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66268 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K GNANAPRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: C P RAMASWAMY
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 133A; 37(1); 145; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 830/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2(2), APPELLANT HYDERABAD VS. M/S GOODWILL HOMES (P.) LD., RESPONDE NT HYDERABAD (PAN AABCG4589J) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. GNANA PRAKASH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C.P. RAMASWAMY DATE OF HEARING : 02/07/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 28/02/2011 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INC OME ON 31/10/2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 20,64,775/ - AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED ON 24/07/2008. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CONDUCTED A SURVEY U/S 133A ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2008 AND DURING THE SURVEY A STATEMENT ON OATH WAS RECORDED FROM SH RI B. SUNIL KUMAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ACCOR DANCE WITH THE DECLARATION MADE IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 18, REVISED RETURN ITA NO. 830/HYD/11 M/S GOODWILL HOMES (P) LTD. 2 OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 10 TH MARCH, 2008 DECLARING ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 30,04,317/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MA INTAINING ITS ACCOUNTS ON MERCANTILE BASIS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AS-1. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE ACCOUNTED FOR INCOME ON T HE BASIS OF SALE OF PLOTS REGISTERED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT FOR AY 2007-08 AND ON MATCHING PRINCIPLES, THE DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE ESTIMATED ON PROPER BASIS WAS DEBITED A S COST OF SITE DEVELOPMENT. AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS, THE ASSESSEE IS OBLIGED TO INCUR THE EXPENDITURE FOR SITE DEVELOPME NT AND THE SALE PRICE IS INCLUSIVE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. WHEN THE AS SESSING OFFICER QUESTIONED SUCH DEBIT, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED IN DETA IL BY ITS LETTERS DATED 04/12/2009, 24/12/2009 AND 29/12/2009, WHICH WERE REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PAGES 2,3 AND 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELI ANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA(P) LTD. VS. CIT, 314 ITR 62. HOWEVER, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS ACCE PTABLE ONE NOR DID THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVE ANY OTHER REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LIABILITY TO INCUR SITE DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE IS LIABILITY IN PRAESENTI A ND NOT A CONTINGENT LIABILITY. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS A ND THE CONTENTS OF WHICH WERE EXTRACTED BY THE CIT(A) IN H IS ORDER ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- A) AS NOTED ABOVE IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, THE RE VISED RETURN WAS FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SURRENDER O F INCOME ESTIMATED @8% OF THE GROSS TURNOVER VIZ., THE ACTUA L AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED DURING THE FI NANCIAL YEAR 2006-08 RELEVANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. SINCE THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31/10/20 07 AS A VALID RETURN, THE REVISED RETURN FILED ON 10/03/200 8 IS ALSO A ITA NO. 830/HYD/11 M/S GOODWILL HOMES (P) LTD. 3 VALID RETURN. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AD NO REASON TO IGNORE THE REVISED RETURN. B) THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED ON HIS COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME BY ADOPTING THE INCOME AS PER ORIGINAL RETUR N OF INCOME, WHICH WAS BASED ON THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT DRAWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS REGU LARLY MAINTAINED AND AUDITED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID N OT FIND ANY DEFECTS IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS. CONSEQUENTLY, HE HAD NO REASON NOR GAVE AN REASON TO DISALLOW THE PROVIS ION MADE IN THE ACCOUNTS TOWARDS AN ESTIMATED COST OF SITE DEVELOPMENT FOR AN AGGREGATE SUM OF RS. 1,48,45,500 /- AS DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT (THOUGH THE ASSESSING OF FICER ADDED ONLY RS. 1,48,45,000/-.) C) IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THIS ESTIMAT ED COST IS PROVIDED ON A REALISTIC BASIS @ RS. 250/- PER SQ.YA RD SOLD, WITH REFERENCE TO ACTUAL NUMBER OF SITES SOLD AND R EGISTERED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THESE ALL ARE EXPENDITURE COMMITTED TO BE INCURRED IN TERMS OF TH E SALE AGREEMENTS, BESIDES THE REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY T HE LOCAL AUTHORITIES. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS EXPENDITURE PARTL Y ACTUALLY INCURRED AND PARTLY TO BE INCURRED. CONSEQUENTLY, T HERE IS NO REASON FOR DISALLOWING THIS EXPENDITURE EITHER ON F ACTS OR IN LAW. AS QUOTED ABOVE IN PARA 5 OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS , THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN (2009) 314 ITR 62 IN THE CASE OF ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA(P) LTD. VS. CIT IS RE LEVANT IN THIS REGARD. INDEED, THE APEX COURT HELD IN THAT CA SE THAT A PROVISION IS RECOGNIZED WHEN AN ENTERPRISE HAS A PR ESENT OBLIGATION AS A RESULT OF PAST EVENT, IT IS PROBABL E THAT AN OUTFLOW OF RESOURCES WILL BE REQUIRED TO SETTLE THE OBLIGATION AND A RELIABLE ESTIMATE CAN BE MADE FOR THE AMOUNT OF OBLIGATION. IT IS APPLICABLE ON ALL FOURS TO THE FA CTS OF THIS CASE. IT IS NOT A MERE PROVISION. IT IS A LIABILITY IN PRAESENTI. LIABILITY ON ACCRUAL BASIS HAS TO BE RECOGNIZED WHE N THE APPELLANT IS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACC OUNTING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCOUNTING STANDARD-1, WHICH IS RECOGNIZED IN SECTION 145 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 19 61. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DEFECTS FOUND BY THE AO IN THE A CCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT, REJECTION OF ONLY ONE ITEM FROM T HE P&L A/C HAS NO BASIS. SIMILARLY, THE AO COULD NOT IGNORE TH E REVISED RETURN FILED VALIDLY. ITA NO. 830/HYD/11 M/S GOODWILL HOMES (P) LTD. 4 D) SIGNIFICANTLY, AS EXTRACTED BY THE AO ON PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REVISED RETURNS FILED FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 DECLARING HIGHER INCOME, COMPUTED @8% ON THE TURNOVER HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS BY HIS PREDECESSORS. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT CONSEQUENT TO THE SURVEY ACTIO N, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN OFFERING AN ADDITIO NAL INCOME OF RS. 30,04,317/- AS PER THE COMMITMENT GIVEN BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT. HE FURTHER OBSERVE D THAT THE REVISED RETURN FILED ON 10/03/2008 IS A VALID RETUR N. HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ACCOUNTING THE SALE OF PLOTS AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION AND AGAINST THIS SALE, THE COST OF THE PLOT IS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE C OMPONENT OF COST OF SITE DEVELOPMENT. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE TOWARDS SITE DEVELOPMENT MAY HAVE BEEN INCURRED DUR ING THE RELEVANT PERIOD OR IS YET TO BE INCURRED. THE CIT(A ) OBSERVED THAT IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FUTURE EXP ENDITURE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOTAL LAYOUT IS BASED ON THE COM MITMENT GIVEN IN RESPECT OF THE AMENITIES PROMISED IN THE S ALES BROCUHERS AND THE SPECIFICATIONS LAID DOWN BY THE STATUTORY A UTHORITIES. HE NOTED THAT ONLY THE PROPORTIONATE SITE DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO THE AREA OF PLOTS SOLD AND REGISTERED DURING THE YEAR IS CLAIMED AS AN ADMISSIBLE EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEA R, WHILE, THE TOTAL AREA OF SALEABLE LAND IS 1,13,721 SQ.YDS, ONL Y 59,328 SQ.YDS HAVE BEEN SOLD DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. HE FURTH ER NOTED THAT THE AVERAGE SALE PRICE WORKS OUT TO RS. 1089/- SQ.Y DS IS QUANTIFIED BY ADOPTING AN AVERAGE RATE OF RS. 250/- PER SQ.YD. WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS. 1,48,45,500/- AND THE TOTAL COST OF PLOTS SOLD WORKS OUT TO RS. 777/- PER SQ.YD. WHICH IS INC LUSIVE OF THE FUTURE EXPENDITURE ON SITE DEVELOPMENT OF RS. 250/- PER SQ.YD. ITA NO. 830/HYD/11 M/S GOODWILL HOMES (P) LTD. 5 5. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THERE CAN BE NO DISPU TE OVER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO DE VELOP THE SITE AS PER THE STATUTORY APPROVALS FROM THE AUTHORITIES AND SUCH AN EXERCISE WOULD NECESSARILY RESULT IN OUTFLOW OF RES OURCES TO MEET THE OBLIGATION. THEREFORE, A REASONABLE AND RELIABL E ESTIMATE OF THE OBLIGATION TO DEVELOP THE SITE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY ADOPTING AN AVERAGE RATE OF RS. 250/- PER SQ.YD FOR THE PROPOSED EXPENDITURE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED T HAT AS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEMONST RATED BEFORE THE AO THAT WHENEVER THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN S PENT, APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS HAD BEEN MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HO NORING THE COMMITMENT MADE TO ITS CLIENTS. THE CIT(A) FOUND FR OM ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN COGNIZAN CE OF THE REVISED RETURN FILED AND THAT NO REASONS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED FOR REJECTING THE DETAILED EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE A SSESSEE. THE CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT THE REVISED RETURNS FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07, FILED CONSEQUEN T TO THE SURVEY ACTION DECLARING HIGHER INCOME AT 8% ON THE TURNOVER, HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESS EE HAS FOLLOWED THE SAME METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WHILE CLAIMI NG THE EXPENDITURE ON SITE DEVELOPMENT IN THESE RETURNS OF INCOME. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT SUCH A PRACTICE HAS BEEN PREVALEN T EVEN PRIOR TO THE SURVEY ACTION AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE RETURNS FILED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SURVEY. 6. THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA PVT. LTD . VS. CIT 314 ITR 62 (2009), HELD THAT THE PROVISIONAL COST OF SI TE DEVELOPMENT DEBITED TO THE P&L A/C IS TO BE TREATED AS AN ADMIS SIBLE EXPENDITURE AS THE COST OF SITE DEVELOPMENT IS HELD TO BE AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. ITA NO. 830/HYD/11 M/S GOODWILL HOMES (P) LTD. 6 1,48,45,000/- MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS LIABL E TO BE DELETED. HE, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE REVISED RETURN FILED ON 10/03/2008 BEING VALID, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2007-08 IS TO BE ADOPTED AT RS. 51,69,667/- AS PER THE REVISED RETURN. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL:- 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PROVISIONAL SITE DEVELOPMENT EXPEN DITURE OF RS. 1,48,45,000/-. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RS. 2.60 CRORES AS OUTS TANDING LIABILITY AS ON 31/03/2007 RELATING TO PROVISIONAL SITE DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS NOT DISBURSED I.E. EXPENDITURE BEIN G PREDOMINANTLY LABOR. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IGNORING TH AT THE ASSESSEE BUILDER HAD STATED DETAILS OF SITE DEVELOP MENT EXPENDITURE AT RS. 28.85 LAKHS. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IGNORING TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CHARACTERIZED THE SITE DEVELO PMENT EXPENDITURE AS PROVISIONAL. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1 ,48,45,000/- TOWARDS PROVISIONAL COST OF SITE DEVELOPMENT REJECT ING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COST OF PLOTS S OLD INCLUDED THE PROVISION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE WHICH WA S IN PROPORTION TO THE CORRESPONDING SALES FIGURES AND T HE FUTURE EXPENDITURE BEING PROVISIONAL COST OF SITE DEVELOPM ENT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS SUB MITTED TO BE AN ADMISSIBLE EXPENDITURE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. THE CI T(A), FOLLOWING ITA NO. 830/HYD/11 M/S GOODWILL HOMES (P) LTD. 7 THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA (P) LTD. (SUPRA), ON WHICH RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT THE PROVISIONAL COST OF SITE DE VELOPMENT DEBITED TO THE P&L A/C IS TO BE TREATED AS AN ADMIS SIBLE EXPENDITURE AS THE COST OF SITE DEVELOPMENT IS HELD TO BE AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY. HE, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE R EVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING VALID, THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2007-08 IS TO BE ADOPTED AT RS. 51,69,667/- AS PER THE REVISED RETURN. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA(P) LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT A PROVISION IS RECOGNIZED WHEN AN ENTERPRISE HAS A PRESENT OBLIGATION AS A RE SULT OF PAST EVENT, IT IS PROBABLE THAT AN OUTFLOW OF RESOURCES WILL BE REQUIRED TO SETTLE THE OBLIGATION AND A RELIABLE ESTIMATE CA N BE MADE FOR THE AMOUNT OF OBLIGATION. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT WHENEVER THE AMOUNTS ARE ACTUALLY SPENT, APPROPRIATE REVERSAL EN TRIES ARE MADE FOR ADJUSTMENT IN THE PROVISION FOR SITE DEVELOPMEN T ACCOUNT. THE ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THIS EXPENDITURE IS A CRYSTALISED OR A CONTINGENT LIABILITY. WE ARE OF THE OPINION T HAT LIABILITY ON ACCRUAL BASIS HAS TO BE RECOGNIZED WHEN THE ASSESSE E IS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE METHOD OF ACCOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AS-I, WHICH IS RECOGNIZED IN SECTION 145 OF THE IT ACT. THE EXP ENDITURE COMMITTED TO BE INCURRED IN TERMS OF SALE AGREEMENT BESIDES THE REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES ARE EXPENDITURES, WHICH ARE PARTLY ACTUALLY INCURRED AND PARTLY TO BE INCURRED. IT IS NOT A MERE PROVISION BUT LIABILITY IN PRAESENTI. 9. THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CA LCUTTA CO. LTD., 37 ITR 1 SUPPORTS THE VIEW TAKEN BY US. 10. THE EXPENDITURE IN-QUESTION IS PARTLY A PROVISI ON AND OF COURSE ASCERTAINED ONE. SOME PROVISIONS ARE ALLOWAB LE ONLY IN VIEW OF THE CITED JUDGMENT READ WITH ANOTHER JUDGME NT OF THE ITA NO. 830/HYD/11 M/S GOODWILL HOMES (P) LTD. 8 HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT EARTH M OVERS LTD, 245 ITR 428(SC). HOWEVER, THERE ARE CERTAIN REQUIRE MENTS TO BE MET BEFORE SUCH PROVISIONS ARE ALLOWED AND THEY REV OLVE AROUND REASONABLE ESTIMATIONS. IN THAT SENSE, THE REVENUE S OBJECTION ON THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE SAME IS DEFINITELY JUSTIF IED. THE SAID JUDGMENTS CONCUR WITH EACH OTHER IN ALLOWING SUCH LIABILITIES, AS LONG AS SUCH LIABILITIES ARE CAPABLE OF BEING ESTIM ATED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY. TILL THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE S ATISFIED, THE LIABILITY IS NOT A CONTINGENT ONE, AS HELD IN THE C ASE OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LTD. (SUPRA). 11. IN THAT SENSE, THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO EXPLAIN TO ASSESSING OFFICER THE MODE AND MANNER OF ARRIVING A T THE FIGURE OF RS. 250/- PER UNIT TOWARDS THE SITE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED IN FUTURE. IT IS NOT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN DEBIT THE SAID EXPENDITURE ON ACTUALLY INCURRING THE SAME. THEREFORE, IN PRINCIPLE, WE AGREE WITH THE VI EWS OF THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE SAME IS SUBJECTED TO THE ASSES SEES ENDEAVOUR TO EXPLAIN AND JUSTIFY THE QUANTIFICATION ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. FOR THIS LIMITED PURPOSE, WE SET ASIDE THE CORE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/09/2012. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED: 7 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. ITA NO. 830/HYD/11 M/S GOODWILL HOMES (P) LTD. 9 KV COPY TO:- 1) ITO, WARD-2(2), 8 TH FLOOR, C BLOCK, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD, 2) M/S GOODWILL HOMES (P) LTD., 6-2-30/B, FLAT NO. 202 , 2 ND FLOOR, ABOVE MERCEDEZ BENZ SHOW ROOM, EMPRESS COURT, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA. 4) CIT(A)-II, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABA D.