Ranjith Kumar Vuppu, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation-II, Hyderabad

ITA 86/Hyd/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6194 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2021
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KANIKA AGARWALDR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHERRY GOYAL
• Keywords: Residential status; Salary income; Double taxation relief; Services rendered outside India; Advance ruling; TDS
• Section: 5(2); 143(2); 22; 90; 15

Judgement Text

ITA NO 86 OF 2021 RANJIT KUMAR VUPPU HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD SMC BENCH, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO 86./HYD/2021 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SRI RANJIT KUMAR VUPPU HYDERABAD PAN:AHZPV7869G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-II HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SMT. SHERRY GOYAL REVENUE BY : SMT. KANIKA AGARWAL,DR DATE OF HEARING: 08/04/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/04/2021 ORDER THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2014-15 AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-10, HYDERABAD, DATED 14.07 .2020. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A NON- RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2014-15 ON 31.07.2014 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10,04,58 0/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT PU RSUANT TO SELECTION OF HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR SCRUTINY UNDE R CASS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH CERTAIN INFORMATIO N AND THE SAID INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON VERIFICATION OF FORM-16 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSE ES EMPLOYER I.E., IBM INDIA (P) LTD FOR THE A.Y 2014-1 5, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT DURING THE RELEVANT A.Y, THE GRO SS SALARY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.31,11,185/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE EMPLOYER HAD DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE OF RS.7 ,76,564/-. ITA NO 86 OF 2021 RANJIT KUMAR VUPPU HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 7 FURTHER, ON VERIFICATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2014-15 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIM ED DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF UNDER SECTION 90 OF THE I.T. ACT AN D ADMITTED NIL TOTAL INCOME BUT CLAIMED TDS OF RS.7,66,567/- IN HI S RETURN. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: A) TAX RESIDENCY CERTIFICATE TO CLAIM THE RELIEF UN DER SECTION 90 FOR THE SALARY RECEIVED OUTSIDE INDIA WI TH RESPECT TO THE SERVICES RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA, B) COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT LETTER BETWEEN THE EMPLOY ER AND EMPLOYEE. 2.1 IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A REPLY DAT ED 9.9.2016 GIVEN AS UNDER: 'AS THE ASSESSEE HAS SPENT LESS THAN 60 DAYS IN IND IA DURING THE FY 201314, HE QUALIFIES AS A NON-RESIDENT UNDER SECTION 6(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE FOREIGN ALLOWANCE O F RS.20,72,238/- WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX IN INDIA IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME AS THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BY HIM OUTSIDE INDI A FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA AND SHALL NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 5(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61.' 2.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ALLOWED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I. DESPITE GIVING MANY OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE TAX RESIDENCY CERTIFICATE OF BELGIUM FO R CLAIMING THE DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF UNDER SECTION 90 AS IT I S STATUTE U/S 90(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 W.E.F. FROM A .Y. 2013- 14. II. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE SUPPORTI NG EVIDENCES FOR RECEIVING THE FOREIGN ALLOWANCES OUTS IDE INDIA TO COME UNDER PURVIEW OF SECTION 5(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER PRODUCED A NY BANK ACCOUNT OUTSIDE INDIA TO PROVE ANY CREDITS REC EIVED OUTSIDE INDIA. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT CERT AIN AMOUNTS WHICH ARE RECEIVED THROUGH TRAVEL CARD PERT AINS TO ALLOWANCE RECEIVED OUTSIDE INDIA, THE SAME IS NOT A CCEPTABLE ITA NO 86 OF 2021 RANJIT KUMAR VUPPU HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 7 AS THE RECEIPTS RECEIVED THROUGH TRAVEL CARD DOES N OT PROVE TO BE RECEIPTS RECEIVED OUTSIDE INDIA AS IT IS MOBILE CARD WHICH CAN BE USED ANYWHERE. FURTHER, THE EMPLOYER HAS NOT CONFIRMED THE SAME EITHER IN LETTER SUBMISSION OR I N FORM 16 THAT THESE RECEIPTS PAID THROUGH TRAVEL CARD. III. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE RECEIPTS WHICH ARE REFLECTING IN FORM 16 ARE THE SA LARY RECEIPTS EARNED OUTSIDE INDIA, AS THERE IS NO EVIDE NCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT OF BELGIUM. IV. EMPLOYER IN FORM NO. 16 HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SO URCE OF RS.7,76,564/-ON THE GROSS SALARY I.E. RS.31,11,185/ - RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE IN INDIA. HOWEVER, AS PER SECT ION 5(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PREVIOU S YEAR OF A PERSON WHO WAS A NON-RESIDENT INCLUDED ALL INCOME F ROM WHATEVER SOURCES DERIVED, WHICH WAS RECEIVED OR DEE MED TO BE RECEIVED IN INDIA IN SUCH YEAR BY OR ON BEHALF O F SUCH PERSON OR ACCRUE OR ARISES TO HIM IN INDIA DURING S UCH YEAR. HENCE THE TOTAL SALARY INCOME AND ALLOWANCE RECEIVE D BY EMPLOYEE IS TAXABLE. V. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED WHICH IS REPROD UCED AS UNDER: HENCE AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF SALARY, AS THE RESIDENTIAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS UNKNOWN TO HIS EMPLOYER, IBM HAS TREATED THE ENTIRE SALARY PAI D TO ASSESSEE AS TAXABLE IN INDIA AND TAXES WERE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON THE ENTIRE SALARY. AS THE ACT HAS PUT PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY AND ONUS ON THE DEDUCTOR EMPLOYER TO DEDUCT TAXES, IBM WITH ABUNDANT CAUTION AND FOLLOWING A CONSERVATIVE BASIS HAS DEDUCTED TAXES ON THE ENTIRE SALARY PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE F OR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: A) IT IS VERY MUCH TRUE THAT THE EMPLOYER IS NOT AWARE OF THE RESIDENTIAL STATUS OF THE EMPLOYEE DURING THE YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY IT IS STATUTE TO DEDUCT. TAX AT SOURCE. BUT AFTER THE COMPLETION OF PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. 2013-14, THE E MPLOYER IS VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE RESIDENTIAL STATUS OF EMP LOYEE. THEREFORE, THE ONUS LIES ON THE EMPLOYER TO FILE A REVISED TDS RETURN DULY CATEGORISING THE SALARY AND ALLOWAN CES THAT ARE TAXABLE IN INDIA OR NOT. B) FURTHER THE EMPLOYER HAS NOT FILED ANY REVISED TDS RETURNS DULY REFLECTING ONLY SALARY INCOME BY DISCA RDING ALLOWANCE RECEIVED OUTSIDE INDIA. HENCE, IT INFERS THAT THE TOTAL RECEIPTS REFLECTING IN FORM -16 ARE THE RECEI PTS RECEIVED IN INDIA ONLY. ITA NO 86 OF 2021 RANJIT KUMAR VUPPU HYDERABAD PAGE 4 OF 7 C) FURTHER THE EMPLOYEE HAS NOT MADE ANY REQUEST TO EMPLOYER TO REVISE THE FORM -16 DULY REFLECTING ONL Y TAXABLE INCOME THAT IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE IN IN DIA. AND ALSO ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY REQUEST TO EMPLOYER TO REVISE THE TDS RETURNS EVEN AT THE TIME OF FILING T HE RETURN OF INCOME, AS ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH AWARE THAT HE I S NON-RESIDENT. MOREOVER, WHEN THE ISSUE IS APPARENT DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, NEITHER THE EMPLOY EE NOR THE EMPLOYER MADE ANY SUBMISSION FOR REVISED TDS RETURNS. THEREFORE, THE SAME I.E, RECEIPTS REFLECTI NG IN FORM-L6 IS TREATED AS INCOME TAXABLE IN INDIA AND ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT TO TAX. VI. WITH RESPECT TO THE NON-SUBMISSION OF TRC, THE A.R OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF STATED THAT HE CANNOT PRODUCE THE TRC EVEN TILL 31 DECEMBER, 2016 I.E. THE LAST DAY FOR THE TI ME BARRING ASSESSMENTS. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF TAX RESIDENCY CERTIFICATE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DOUBLE TAXATI ON AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. 2.3 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE REIT ERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW H AVE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME ISSUE HAD ARISEN IN THE CAS E OF SIMILAR EMPLOYEES OF IBM LTD BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TR IBUNAL HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT THERE SEV ERAL ORDERS OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL ARE PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 2.4 THE LEARNED DR WAS ALSO HEARD WHO SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, I FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF SREENIVASA RE DDY CHEEMALAMARRI VS. ITO IN ITA NO.1463/HYD/2018, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AT HYDERABAD VIDE ORDER DATED 5.3.2020 HAD CONSIDERED SIMILAR ISSUE AND AT PARAS 11 TO 17 HAS HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO 86 OF 2021 RANJIT KUMAR VUPPU HYDERABAD PAGE 5 OF 7 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAR EFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LD. REVE NUE AUTHORITIES , I FIND THAT THE LD. AO HAS DISALLOWED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER ARTICLE 15(1) OF THE INDIA-AUSTRIA D TAA ONLY FOR WANT OF TAX RESIDENCE CERTIFICATE (TRC) FROM AUSTRIA. TH E SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS THAT DESPITE BEST P OSSIBLE EFFORTS HE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROCURE TRC FROM COUNTRY OF RESIDEN CE AND THE SITUATION MAY BE TREATED AS 'IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFO RMANCE'. I FIND MERITS IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. NORMALLY IT IS A HERCULEAN TASK TO OBTAIN CERTIFICATES FROM ALIEN COUNTRIES FO R COMPLIANCE OF DOMESTIC STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANC ES THE TAXPAYER CANNOT BE OBLIGATED TO DO IMPOSSIBLE TASK AND PENAL IZED FOR THE SAME. IF THE ASSESSEE PROVIDES SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN SUCH CASES, THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 90(4) OUGHT TO BE RELAXED. FURTHER, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WHERE THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN T HE TREATY AND THE ACT, THE TREAT SHALL OVERRULE THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, BY VIRTUE OF THE TREATY, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO TAX IN AUSTRIA FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED IN AUSTRIA AND NOT IN INDIA. THER EFORE, THOUGH THE ACT MANDATES TAX RESIDENCY CERTIFICATE OF AUSTRIA , NON-PRODUCTION OF THE SAME BEFORE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL N OT ENABLE THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES NOT TO GRANT THE BENEFIT OF THE TREATY TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HA VE ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF THE TREATY TO THE ASSESSEE JUST FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE TAX RESIDEN CY CERTIFICATE FROM AUSTRIA. THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SKAPS INDUSTRIES INDIA (P.) LTD VS. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TA XATION, AHMEDABAD REPORTED IN 171 ITD 723 TAKING CUE FROM T HE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE P & H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SECRO B PO (P.) LTD VS. AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING REPORTED IN 379 ITR 25 6 HAD HELD THAT 'WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE LAWMAK ERS AND WHATEVER THE WORDS EMPLOYED IN SECTION 90(4) MAY PR IMA FACIE SUGGEST, THE GROUND REALITY IS THAT AS THE THINGS S TAND NOW, THIS PROVISION CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A LIMITATION TO TH E SUPERIORITY OF TREATY OVER THE DOMESTIC LAW. IT CAN ONLY BE PRESSE D INTO SERVICE AS A PROVISION BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE.....'. THEREFO RE, THE STAND OF THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE IS DEVOID OF MERITS. 12. AS PER ARTICLE 15(1) OF THE INDIA -AUSTRIA DTAA , 'SALARIES, WAGES AND OTHER SIMILAR REMUNERATION DERIVED BY A RESIDEN T OF A CONTRACTING STATE IN RESPECT OF AN EMPLOYMENT SHALL BE TAXABLE ONLY IN THAT STATE UNLESS THE EMPLOYMENT IS EXERCISED IN THE OTHER CON TRACTING STATE. IF THE EMPLOYMENT IS SO EXERCISED, SUCH REMUNERATION A S IS DERIVED THEREFORE MAY BE TAXED IN THAT OTHER STATE.' FURTHE R, ARTICLE 4(1) THE INDIA-AUSTRIA DTAA DEFINES THE TERM RESIDENT AS UND ER: 'FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CONVENTION, THE TERM 'RES IDENT OF A CONTRACTING STATE' MEANS ANY PERSON WHO, UNDER THE LAWS OF THAT STATE, IS LIABLE TO TAX THEREIN BY REASON OF HIS DOMICILE, RESIDENCE, PLACE OF MANAGEMENT OR ANY OTHER CRITERION OF A SIMILAR NATU RE, AND ALSO INCLUDES THAT STATE AND ANY POLITICAL SUB-DIVISION OR LOCAL AUTHORITY THEREOF.' ITA NO 86 OF 2021 RANJIT KUMAR VUPPU HYDERABAD PAGE 6 OF 7 13. THEREFORE, IN THE CASE BEFORE ME THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER A RTICLE 15(1) OF THE INDIA -AUSTRIA DTAA: - THE PERSON SHOULD BE A RESIDENT OF AUSTRIA AND - THE SALARY AND OTHER REMUNERATION SHOULD BE EARNE D IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYMENT EXERCISED IN AUSTRIA. 14. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS APPARENT THAT DURING THE PREVIOUS RELEVANT TO AY 2014-15, THE ASSESSEE QUALIFIES AS A NON-RESIDENT IN INDIA AND AS A TAX RESIDENT IN AUSTRIA. THE SALARY AND ALLOWANCES ARE EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYMENT REN DERED IN AUSTRIA DUE TO HIS FOREIGN ASSIGNMENT. HENCE, THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS ENUMERATED UNDER ARTICLE 15(1) OF THE INDIA-AUSTRIA DTAA STANDS SATISFIED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE 'S CLAIM OF EXEM PTION IN REGARD TO HIS SALARY INCOME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 15(1) OF THE INDIA- AUSTRIA DTAA IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HIM I S APPROPRIATE. 15. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SUNIL CHITRANJAN MUNCIF (2013 58 SOT 356 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD), ON WHICH RELIANCE PLACE D BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE ABO UT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A NRI AND THE SALARY INCOME RECEIVED BY HIM IN INDIA FOR EMPLOYMENT EXERCISED IN UK HAS BEEN OFFERED BY HIM FOR TAXATION IN UK IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 16 OF DTAA WITH UK. HENC E, THE SALARY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA I N PURSUANCE OF DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND UK. 16. IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. PRAHLAD VIJENDRA RAO (23 9 CTR 107), ON WHICH RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE ACT EVEN ON ACCRUAL BASIS SALARY INCOME IS TAXABLE I.E. IT BECOMES TAXABLE IR RESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER IT IS ACTUALLY RECEIVED OR NOT; ONLY WHEN S ERVICES ARE RENDERED IN INDIA IT BECOMES TAXABLE BY IMPLICATION . HOWEVER, IF SERVICES ARE RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA SUCH INCOME WOU LD NOT BE TAXABLE IN INDIA. 17. THE OTHER OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE LD. AO THAT EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR RECEIVING THE FOREIGN ALLOWANCE OUTSID E INDIA AND THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED ABROAD WAS NOT PRODUCED IS NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE THE FACTS OF THE CASE ESTABLIS H ES THAT THE SALARY AND THE FOREIGN ALLOWANCE WAS RECEIVED IN INDIA FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED ABROAD AND BY VIRTUE OF DTAA AND THE ACT, THERE IS NO BAR IN LAW FOR RECEIVING THE MONEY IN INDIA. FOR THE ABOVE -MENTIONED REASONS, I HEREBY DIRECT THE LD.AO TO DELETE THE TA X IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO HIS SALARY INCOME OF RS. 1 2,90,846/- AND THE FOREIGN ALLOWANCES OF RS. 22,48,501/ - AGGREGATING TO RS. 3539347/- EARNED BY HIM OUTSIDE INDIA DURING THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR. 4. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN IN MANY OTHER EMPLOYEES OF IMB INDIA LTD. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE APPEAL OF THE ITA NO 86 OF 2021 RANJIT KUMAR VUPPU HYDERABAD PAGE 7 OF 7 ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIREC TED TO ALLOW EXEMPTION UNDER DTAA. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND APRIL, 2021. SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 22 ND APRIL, 2021. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: S.NO ADDRESSES 1 SRI RANJIT KUMAR VUPPU, 2-2-1105/5/8, GF-1, SUJAN A APARTMENTS, STREET NO.9, TILAK NAGAR, HYDERABAD 500046 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-II, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR B HAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A) - 10, HYDERABAD 4 CIT (IT & TP) - HYDERABAD 5 DR, ITAT HYDERABAD BENCHES 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER