ITO, Ward-2(2), Hyderabad V. M/s Heman Fan Components Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 910/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77953 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P SOMASEKHAR REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Depreciation; Search and seizure; Wrong claim

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.910/HYD/13 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000 ITA NO.911/HYD/13 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 2001 ITA NO.912/HYD/13 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 2003 ITA NO.913/HYD/13 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 2004 INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 2(2), HYDERABAD V/S. M/S. HEMA N FAN COMPONENTS P. LTD., HYDERABAD ( PAN - AAACH 5069 H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P,SOMA SEKHAR REDDY DR RE SPONDENT BY : SHRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO DATE OF HEARING 10.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.06.2014 O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE FOUR APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) I, HYDERABAD BOTH DATED 1.3.2013, CANCELLING THE PENALTIES LEVIED UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 1999 - 2000,2000 - 01, 2002 - 03 AND 2003 - 04. SINCE THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FACTS O F THE CASE IN BRIEF, A S TAKEN FROM THE APPEAL FOLDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, ENGAGED IN TH E MANUF A CTURE AND TRADING OF FANS, ORIGINALLY FIL E D RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.12.1999 DECLARING A LO S S OF R S .2,86,31,814. LATER, IN R E SPONSE TO THE NO T I CE U NDER S.153C OF THE ACT, CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION S UNDER S.132 OF THE ACT IN SUJANA G ROUP OF CASES , IT FIL E D RETURN OF IN C OM E , ITA NO.910 TO 913 /HYD/201 3 M/S. HEMA N FAN COMPONENTS P. LTD., HYDERABAD 2 ADHERING TO THE LO S S DECLARED OF RS .2, 8 6,31,814. LATER IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER S .143(3) RE A D WITH S.153 A AND READ WITH S. 153C, ON 11.12.2006, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING THE INTEREST CLAIMED OF RS .2,86,34,759 ON BANK LOANS, COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT , REJECTING THE CLAIM OF LOSS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE , VIDE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 11.12.2006, PASS ED UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.153A READ WITH S.153C OF THE ACT . ON APPEAL AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST THUS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE MATTER, WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS, TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT THAT ENSUED IN PURSUANCE O F THE DIRECTIONS O F THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REPEATED THE INTEREST DISALLOWANCE, VIDE O R DER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 3 0. 1 2.2010, PASSED UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S .254 OF THE ACT, WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS - ON VERIFICATION OF RECORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM TH E BANK, BUT IN S T E AD OF USING IT FOR THE R E GUL A R BUSINESS PU R POSES IT HAD MADE INVESTMENT AND ADVANCED LOANS OUT OF THIS LOAN AMOUNT. HENCE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DIVERTED THE FUNDS. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T OFFERED ANY INCOME FROM THE SAID ASSESSMENT S OR LOANS AND HENCE THE IN TE R E ST ON THE BA N K LOAN CANNOT BE TREATED AS BU S IN E SS EXPENDITURE. ACCORD I NGLY, THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED AS UNDER BY DISALLO W IN G THE BANK INTEREST. WHILE THUS COM P LETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE PENALTY NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ST A TED INTER ALIA THAT THE P E RSON S WHO HANDLED THE ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY HAD LEFT THE COMPANY AND DUE TO SHIFTING OF OFFICE, FEW FILES AND RECORDS W E RE NO T TRACEABLE. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CLAIM E D THE IN T EREST UNDER THE H E AD INTEREST ON WORKIN G CAPITAL AND THE BU S IN E SS ACTIVITY WAS ITA NO.910 TO 913 /HYD/201 3 M/S. HEMA N FAN COMPONENTS P. LTD., HYDERABAD 3 CARRIED ON DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. R E LI A NCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COU R T IN THE CASE O F CIT V/S. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. FINDING NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND OBSERVING INTER ALIA THAT AS P E R THE PROVI S ION S OF S.36(1)(III), ONLY THE AMOUNT OF IN TE REST PAID IN RESPECT OF CAPI T AL BORROWED F OR THE PU R PO S E OF BU S IN E SS OR PROFESSION IS ADMISSIBLE AS EXPENDITURE , ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED, THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF ADDED BACK THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM E D , IT IS CLEAR THAT NO BUSINESS WAS CARRIED OUT DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR, INDICATING THEREBY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DIV E RTED THE FUNDS FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN BUSINESS BUT CL A IM E D INTEREST EXPENDITURE. CONCLU D IN G THUS, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME INTENTIONALLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.1,00,22,165 VIDE ORDER DATED 23.6.2011 PASSED UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. FACTS FOR THE OTHER THREE YEARS UNDER APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL, EXCEPTING FOR THE AMOUNTS OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AND CONSEQUENTLY THE AMOUNTS OF PENALTY IMPOSE D, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE TABULATED BELOW - ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT OF INTEREST DISALLOW E D RS. PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER S.271(1) (C) OF THE ACT RS. 2000 - 01 3,53,07,763 1,35,92,658 2002 - 03 5, 87 , 54 , 458 1,00,22,165 2003 - 04 6,61,97,596 2,43,19,325 5. ON APPEAL AGAINST THE PENALTIES IMPOSED AS ABOVE IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNTS OF INTEREST DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENTS MADE FOR THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL , THE CIT(A), FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS DISCUSSED IN PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ALSO RELYING ON T HE DECISION O F THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AVANTHI L ABORATORI E S L TD. (307 ITR 09 DATED 3.7.2009), ITA NO.910 TO 913 /HYD/201 3 M/S. HEMA N FAN COMPONENTS P. LTD., HYDERABAD 4 DULY EX T RACTING TH E RELEVANT PO R TION THEREOF, CANCELLED THE IMPUGNED PENALTIES LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONCEALMENT. 6. I HAVE SEEN CAREFULLY THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE AND I H A VE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE CA S E LAW ON THE ISSUE. FIRSTLY, IT I S A SETTLED LAW THAT ON A DEBATABLE ISSUE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS NO T L E VIABLE. LOOKING AT THE FACTS OF THE CA S E IT I S CLEAR THA T THE ENTIRE DEBATE WAS ABOUT THE CLAIM OF INTEREST ON BANK LOANS. THE APPELLANT STATED THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO TURNOVER, SOME BUSINESS WAS STILL BEIN G CARRIED OUT AS IT WAS ACTIVELY SCOUTING FOR WORK AND CONTRACTS. TH E REFORE, I T MADE A CLAIM FOR IN TEREST ON WORKIN G CAPITAL LOANS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIFFERED ON TH E I S SUE AND ALLO W ED THE CLAIM. MEANWHILE AS LITIGATION PROGRESSED OVER MANY Y E ARS, BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE CLOSED DOWN AND EMPLOYEES WHO WERE HANDLING ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS ALS O LEFT THE COMPANY. SIN C E THE APPELLANT ALSO FACED A LOT MORE LITIGATION WITH RESPECT TO OTHER LAWS IT COULD NO T P R O D U C E ALL THE DETAILS REGARDING ITS CLAIM OF IN TE REST EXPENDITURE. I T ALSO COULD NO T OBTAIN IN F O R M A TION FROM BANKS DUE TO LITIGATION WITH THE BANKS. HOWEVER AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE APPELLANT CLEARLY TOLD THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE SUMMONS AND DIRECTLY OBTAINED INFORMATION FROM THE BAN. TH E R E FORE, IN MY OPINION THE ONUS OF THE APPELL A N T WAS FULLY DISCHARGED. AT THIS POINT O F TIME IT WAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO COULD H A VE OBTAINED INFORMATION F R OM THE BANK IF HE WANTED TO. HOWEVER THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO IN D I C ATE THAT HE MADE ANY EFFORTS TO OBTAIN THE IN F ORMATION REQUIRED. IT I S ALSO NOT THE CA S E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CLAIM OF IN T ER E ST IS BOGUS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITS THAT THE EXPENSE WAS INCORRECT. HE ONLY HAS STATED THAT THE EXPENSE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. AS PER THE ABOVE FACTS, I T IS CL E AR THAT NO INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WERE EVER FIELD BY THE APPELLANT. IT HA S MADE A CL A IM OF EXPENSES AND THE LATTER I.E. THE EXPENSES PER SE WERE NOT DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH E R E FORE, IN MY OPINION IT WAS ONLY A DEBATABLE ISSUE AND THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAVIN G BEEN FIL E D BY THE APPELLANT. O N TH E FACTS OF THE CA S E, NO PENALTY NEEDS TO BE IMPOSED. AGGRIEVED BY THE CANCELLATION OF THE IMPUGNED PENALTIES BY THE CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CLEARLY GUILTY OF FURNISHIUNG INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, AND CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS A FIT CASE ITA NO.910 TO 913 /HYD/201 3 M/S. HEMA N FAN COMPONENTS P. LTD., HYDERABAD 5 FOR THE LEVY OF IMPUGNED PEN ALTIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DIVERTED THE FUNDS FOR NON - BUSINESS PURPOSES AND NEVER PROVED THAT THE FUNDS WERE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, AND DELIBERATELY MADE A WRONG CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE, WHICH COULD HAVE GONE UNNOTICED, BUT FOR THE SCR UTINY, AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CANCELLING THE IMPUGNED PENALTIES. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND, REITERATING THE CONTENTIONS URGED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT EVERY DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO THE INFERENCE OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS, AND CONSEQ UENTLY IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER S.271(1 ) (C). IN THIS BEHALF, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO - PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA), BESIDES THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AVANTHI LABORATORIES LTD. (SUPRA), RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 8. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, IT IS THE INTEREST PAYMENTS ON THE WORKING CAPITAL BORROWED FROM THE BANK IN THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL, WHICH WERE DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED, THAT LED TO THE IMPUGNED PENALTIES UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED THE PENALTIES IN QUESTION OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THOUGH THERE WAS LULL IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TOTALLY CLOSED DURING THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL, AND THE ACTUAL CLOSURE OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS HAS TAKEN PLACE SUBSEQUENTLY. THE INTEREST AMOUNTS DISALLOWED RELATE TO BORROWALS FROM THE BANK TOWARDS WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE VAR IOUS ITA NO.910 TO 913 /HYD/201 3 M/S. HEMA N FAN COMPONENTS P. LTD., HYDERABAD 6 DIFFICULTIES THAT IT HAD TO ENCOUNTER ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT OF THE CONCERNED ACCOUNTANT AND OTHERS, WHO WERE HANDLING THE ACCOUNTING MATTERS, WHO LEFT THE COMPANY, AND THE HOSTILE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE BANKER, WHICH PREVEN TED IT FROM COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH LED TO THE DISALLOWANCES IN QUESTION DURING THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. THE VERY SAME REASONS WERE ALSO STATED TO HAVE PREV AILED THE ASSESSEE IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, INSTEAD OF PROCEEDING IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME. THUS, THERE WAS A JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR THE NON - COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER S.271(1 ) (C) OF THE ACT. W E ARE SUPPORTED IN THIS BEHALF BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AVANTHI LABORATORIES LTD. (SUPRA), WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 9. FURTHER, M ERELY BECAUSE A CLA I M MADE BY THE AS SESSEE IS DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT, IT CANNOT LEAD TO THE INFERENCE OF EITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE SUPPORTED IN THIS BEHALF BY THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RE LIANCE PETRO PRODU C TS (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS - 9. WE ARE NOT CONCERNED IN THE PRESENT CASE WITH THE MENS REA. HOWEVER, WE HAVE TO ONLY SEE AS TO WHETHER IN THIS CASE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY, THE WORD 'INACCURATE' HAS BEEN DEFINED AS: - 'NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT; NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH; ERRONEOUS; AS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT, COPY OR TRANSCRIPT'. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'PARTICULARS' IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS JUDGMENT. READING THE WORDS IN CONJUNCTION, THEY MUST MEAN THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WE MUST HASTEN TO ADD HERE THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE IS N O FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE. SUCH NOT BEING THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH ITA NO.910 TO 913 /HYD/201 3 M/S. HEMA N FAN COMPONENTS P. LTD., HYDERABAD 7 CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN THE CASE BEFORE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE INTEREST PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BANK. NEITHER THE AMOUNTS OF PAYMENT NOR THE FACTUM OF PAYMENT OF PAYMENT WAS QUESTIONED, SO AS TO ALLEGE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. IF THE DISALLOWANC E WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS BASING ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED ON ANY BUSINESS AND DIVERTED THE FUNDS OF ITS BUSINESS FOR NON - BUSINESS PURPOSES, AND AS SUCH, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR INTEREST PAYMENTS MADE TO TH E BANK IS NOT ALLOWABLE. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (SUPRA), MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, AND CONSEQUENTLY, EVER Y DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT LEAD TO THE INFERENCE OF CONCEALMENT. 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AND AS SUCH THE CIT(A), WA S VERY MUCH JUSTIFIED IN CANCELLING THE IMPUGNED PENALTIES LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE FOUR YEARS UNDER APPEAL. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), REJECTING THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THESE APPEALS. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE F OUR APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18 TH JUNE, 2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( B.RAMAKOTAIAH ) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT/ - 18 TH JUNE, 2014 ITA NO.910 TO 913 /HYD/201 3 M/S. HEMA N FAN COMPONENTS P. LTD., HYDERABAD 8 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . M/S. HEMA N FAN COMPONENTS P. LTD., PLOT NO.1, SURVEY NO.308, JEEDIMETLA, HYDERABAD 2 . INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 2(2) HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) II I HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX II , HYDERABAD 5 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S