Garikapati Raghuram, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. DCIT, International Taxation, Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 915/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6065 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2021
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure
• Section: 271(1)(c); 48; 22; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 915/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 RAGHURAM GARIKAPATI, HYDERABAD [PAN: AHXPG7433R] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY, DR DATE OF HEARING : 25-02-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-04-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY.2010-11 ARISES FROM TH E CIT(A)-10, HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 31-03-2017 PASSED IN CASE NO.0026/CIT(A)-10/2015-16, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1 )(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT, THE ACT]. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARED AT ASSESSEES BEHE ST. HE IS ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED EX-PARTE. 2. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE RAISED I N THE INSTANT APPEAL CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION IMPOSING SECTION 271(1)(C) PENALT Y OF ITA NO. 915/HYD/2017 :- 2 -: RS.10,46,957/- PERTAINING TO QUANTUM ADDITION ARISING FROM TREATMENT OF RENTAL INCOME (AS TO WHETHER IT CAME UNDER TH E HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OR INCOME FROM B USINESS). THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION CONFIRMING THE PENAL TY READS AS UNDER: 5.1 IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED RENT FRO M THE TENANT, CAPITAL IQ INFORMATION SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., FULLY. HO WEVER, INSTEAD OF ADMITTING THE RENT UNDER THE HEAD 'HOUSE PROPERTY', THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED HALF OF THE AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS' AND CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD BUSINES S'. THE PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED WITH REGARD TO TH IS AMOUNT OF RS.6,85,389/- WHICH IS ADMITTED UNDER THE HEAD 'BUS INESS INCOME' IS RS.7,37,449/-. HOWEVER, 30% STANDARD DEDUCTION IS A LLOWABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IE., RS.2,05, 516/-. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO FIGURES (RS.7,37,449 - RS.2,05,516) IE., RS.5,31,933/- IS TAKEN FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271( 1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE INCOME TAX ON THIS AMOUNT IS RS.1,59,579/-. IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY ON THIS AMOUNT. IT IS SEEN THAT THE HON 'BLE ITAT, HYDERABAD ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR EARLIER YEARS WHERE IN THE AMOUNT OF HIRE CHARGES W ERE TREATED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND EXPENSES WERE NOT AL LOWED. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THESE AMOUNTS IN THE RETURN O F INCOME, THE CLAIM IS INCORRECT IN THE SENSE THAT VARIOUS EXPENS ES WERE CLAIMED WHICH ARE NOT OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'I NCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT RENT AND HIRE CHARGES RECEIVED FROM CAPITAL IQ INFORMATION SYSTEM S PVT. LTD., HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE ARRIVING AT THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, HENCE, I AM OF THE OPIN ION THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C). THE PEN ALTY IMPOSABLE U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T ACT IN ADDITION TO INCOME TAX PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE, IS A SUM WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN, BU T WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES, THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY REASON OF THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IN THIS CAS E THE MINIMUM PENALTY IMPOSABLE IS RS.1,59,579/- AND THE MAXIMUM PENALTY LEVIABLE IS RS.4,78,737/-. HENCE, I LEVY A MINIMUM PENALTY OF RS.1,70,000/- WHICH SHOULD BE PAID AS PER THE DEMAN D NOTICE ENCLOSED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE A ND PERUSED THE CASE FILE. IT EMERGES DURING THE COURSE O F HEARING ITA NO. 915/HYD/2017 :- 3 -: THAT THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS ALREADY DISPO SED OF THE ASSESSEES QUANTUM APPEALS IN ITA NOS.314 & 315/HYD/2017, DT.20-03-2019 AS UNDER: 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH ARE COMMON IN B OTH THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) - 10, HYDERABAD OUGHT NOT TO H AVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE R EASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT VALID IN THE EYE OF LAW FOR THE REASONS THAT: (A) THERE ARE NO REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME GOT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FROM TAX; (B) FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD F AILED TO FURNISH THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 48 OF THE ACT, DESPITE THE REQUEST MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT( A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY DERIVED FROM THE PROVISION OF AMENITIES TO THE TENANTS OF THE PROPERTY IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME F ROM BUSINESS'. ADDITIONAL GROUND: 3(B) THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED T HAT THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE AMOUNTS BORROWED FOR THE PROVISION OF AMENITIES IS ALLOWABLE AS AN EXPENDITURE. 4. FOR THESE OR ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MA Y BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE HON. TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 3 GROUNDS AND SEVERAL GR OUNDS AS ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, ASSESSE E HAS PRESSED ONLY GROUND NO. 3(B) OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND ACCORDING LY, OTHER ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. TH E ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ORIGINAL 3 GROUNDS AND AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G, NOT PRESSED GROUND NO. 2, ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE SAME AS NOT PRESSED. 4. WE ARE LEFT WITH ONLY TWO GROUNDS TO ADJUDICATE I.E. GROUND NO. 3 OF ORIGINAL GROUND AND GROUND NO. 3(B) OF ADDITIONAL G ROUND. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE, ASSESSEE IS HAV ING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WHICH IS RENTED TO M/S SATYAM COMPUTER SER VICES LTD. ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVING CONSOLIDATED AMOUNT AS RENT AND HIRE CHARGES OF EQUIPMENT, INTERIORS AND FURNITURE. ASSE SSEE IS DECLARING THE ABOVE HIRE CHARGES AN INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR P ROFESSION. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE EQUIPMENT AND FURNITURE, ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM BANK AND TH E RELEVANT ITA NO. 915/HYD/2017 :- 4 -: INTEREST WAS CHARGED TO P&L A/C AS BUSINESS EXPENDI TURE. IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENTS, AO HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE CONSOLIDATED RECEIPT OF RENT AND HIRE C HARGES AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE SAME VIEW WAS UPHELD BY TH E COORDINATE BENCH. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. 6. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION. MEANWHILE, ASSESSEE IS DECLARI NG THE HIRE CHARGES AS BUSINESS INCOME AND CLAIMED THE RELEVANT INTEREST ON LOAN AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. SINCE, THE AUTHORITIES HAV E TREATED THE HIRE CHARGES AS PART OF RENTAL INCOME, THEY ALSO REJECTE D THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMABLE EXPENDITURE, AS IT IS CLAI MED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 7. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 3, THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE, THE RELEVANT EX TRACT IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 9. THE ANNUAL RENT IN A CASE WHEN THE PROPERTY IS LET THROUGH OUT THE YEAR IS THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER. WH EN THE AMOUNT OF THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER, IS KNOWN THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE ANNUAL VALUE AND IT IS THAT VAL UE WHICH WILL HAVE TO FORM THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERT Y AND FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION FROM INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT IS PE RMITTED UNDER THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASS ESSEE MADE TWO AGREEMENTS ONE FOR LET OUT OF THE PROPERTY AND ANOTHER FOR PROVIDING A MENITIES AND THERE IS A DOUBT IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE COR RECTNESS OF THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' AND IN COME FROM BUSINESS. HE HAS TREATED THE ENTIRE INCOME I.E. AS 'INCOME FROM HOUS E PROPERTY'. ADMITTEDLY, THE AUTHORITIES HAVE THE FREEDOM TO GO BEYOND THE DOCUM ENTS TO FIND OUT THE REAL INTENTION OF THE PARTIES. IN THIS CASE, THOUGH THER E IS TWO AGREEMENTS THE REAL INTENTION OF THE PARTIES TO A DOCUMENT IS DIFFERENT WHAT APPEARS FROM IT EX FACIE. SINCE THERE IS A DOUBT, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN GOING BEYOND THE DOCUMENTS TO FIND OUT REAL INTENTION OF THE PARTIES BY IGNORING THE APPARENT HAS TO BE AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONCEDED. IN THIS CIRCUMSTAN CE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO REMOVE THE FAADE TO EXPOSE THE REAL INTENTION OF T HE PARTIES CLEVERLY CLOAKED AND THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT CANNOT BE GIVEN EFFECT. THE ON LY BONA FIDE DOCUMENT TO BE ACTED UPON NOT OTHERWISE. THERE IS A SERIOUS DOUBT AND ALSO IT IS SHOCKING THE CONSCIOUS OF THE BENCH, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS GET TING HIRE CHARGES EQUAL TO THE RENTAL AMOUNT FOR PROVIDING AMENITIES. IT CANNOT BE REAL ONE AND ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED TO SEE THE ACTUAL RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROP ERTY IN THAT PLACE AND BRING THAT AMOUNT INTO TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE P ROPERTY. AS SUCH, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE COR RECT CONCLUSION THAT REAL RENTAL VALUE WAS BIFURCATED INTO TWO SEPARATE INCOME VIZ., ONE IS RENTAL INCOME OF HOUSE PROPERTY AND ANOTHER IS HIRE CHARGES OF THE EQUIPME NT. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF LETTING OF THE MACHINERY, PLANT OR FURNITURE, SEC.56(2) (II I) OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE, BUT ONLY LETTING OF BUILDING WITH CERTAIN AMENITIES, THIS PR OVISION IS NOT APPLICABLE AND IN THAT EVENT, THE INCOME FROM LETTING OUT WAS CHARGEABLE U NDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM ITA NO. 915/HYD/2017 :- 5 -: HOUSE PROPERTY'. THE HIRE CHARGES SAID TO HEVE BEEN COLLECTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AMENITIES AND THE RENT FOR THE BUILDING N OT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF SEC.56(2)(III) OF THE ACT. THE WORD 'PLANT' CANNOT BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED SO AS TO INCLUDE ALL ITEMS NOTED IN ANNEXURE I APPEARING ELS EWHERE IN THE ORDER, WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE WORD 'PLANT'. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GI VE SUCH A WIDE CONSTRUCTION AS SUGGESTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF SULTAN BROTHERS PVT.LTD. V. CIT 51 ITR 353 (SC) WHAT WAS LET OUT TO THE TENANT WAS A BUILDING FITTED UP WITH THE FURNITURE AND FIXTURES, FOR BEIN G RUN AS A HOTEL. THEREFORE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT SINCE THE BUILDING WAS LET ALONG WITH THE FURNITURE AND FIXTURES, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.56(2) (III) WOULD B E APPLICABLE AND THE INCOME FROM BUILDING SHOULD BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'OTHER S OURCES'. BUT ACCORDING TO THE FACT ARISING IN THE PRESENT CASE, PLANT AND MACHINERY OR FURNITURE WAS NOT HIRED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE BUILDING. THEREFORE, THE DE CISION OF THE APEX COURT IN SULTAN BROS CASE SUPRA, WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE. THUS, ON A PLAIN READING OF SEC.56(2)(III) OF THE ACT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT CORREC T. FURTHER, NO PRECISE TEST CAN BE LAID OUT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER INCOME REFERRED TO BY WHATEVER NOMENCLATURE, LEASE AMOUNT, RENT OR LICENCE FEE RECEIVED BY AN ASSESSEE FROM LEASING OR LETTING OUT OF ASSETS WOULD FALL UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND IT HAS TO BE DETERMINED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A BUSINE SSMAN IN THAT BUSINESS DEPENDING UPON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH C ASE AND THERE IS NO READYMADE JACKET FORMULA. THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY ONE CASE CAN NOT BE APPLIED OR FIT TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE HAVE TO SEE THE INTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE WHETHER THE LETTING WAS THE DOING OF A BUSINESS OR TO EXPLOITATION OF H IS PROPERTY BY AN OWNER. THE ASSESSEE WHEN EXPLOITED THE PROPERTY TO DERIVE RENT AL INCOME IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE INCOME REALIZED BY HIM BY WAY OF RENTAL INCOME FROM A BUILDING IF THE PROPERTY WITH OTHER ASSET ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING TO BE ASS ESSED AS 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' ONLY. THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS ARE CASES WHERE THE LETTING OF THE BUILDING IS INSEPARABLE FROM LETTING OF THE MACHINERY, PLANT AN D FURNITURE. IN SUCH CASES, IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE RENTAL WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REAL IZED BUT FOR THE LETTING OUT OF THE MACHINERY, PLANT OR FURNITURE ALONG WITH SUCH BUILD ING AND THEREFORE, RENTAL RECEIVED FOR THE BUILDING IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER T HE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE AS THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING WAS ONLY EXPLOITING THE PROPE RTY AS OWNER BY LETTING OUT THE SAME AND REALIZING INCOME BY WAY OF RENT. SUCH RENT AL INCOME WAS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY .' THE VARIOUS ASSETS LET OUT TO THE TENANTS ARE INCIDENTAL TO LETTING OUT THE BUILD ING BEING INTEGRAL PART OF THE LETTING. ACCORDINGLY, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS AL LOWED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 3(B), WE NO TICE THAT ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED LOAN TO ARRANGE THE RELEVANT FIXED ASSE TS IN THE BUILDING AND INCURRED INTEREST EXPENDITURE. SINCE, THE ASSES SEE WAS CLAIMING THEM AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AS THE INCOME WAS DECL ARED AS BUSINESS INCOME. AS THE AUTHORITIES HAVE TREATED TH E BUSINESS INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THE INTEREST EXPENDI TURE IS CONNECTED ITA NO. 915/HYD/2017 :- 6 -: TO THE EARNING OF INCOME AND HEAD OF INCOME WAS CHA NGED DUE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE RELEVANT EXPENDITURE IS ACCO RDINGLY CLAIMABLE U/S 24(B) OF THE ACT. MERELY ACCEPTING THE INCOME A ND EXCLUDING THE RELATED EXPENDITURE IS NOT PROPER. THEREFORE, WE DI RECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE RELEVANT EXPENDITURE, WHICH ASSESSEE HAS INCURR ED TO EARN THE RENTAL INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. AS THE FACTS AND GROUNDS IN AY 2010-11 ARE MATER IALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF AY 2007-08, FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN THEREIN, GROUND NO. 3 RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 3(B) IS ALLOWED. 4. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO DISPUTE TH AT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS ESSENTIALLY REGARDING TREATMENT OF ASSESSEES RENTAL INCOME THAN INVOLVING CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HON'BLE APEX COURTS LANDMAR K DECISION IN CIT VS RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS LIMITED [322 ITR 158] (SC) HOLDS THAT QUANTUM AND PENALTY ARE PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN EACH AND EVERY DISALLOWANCE/ADD ITION MADE IN FORMER DOES NOT IPSO FACTO ATTRACT LATTER P ENAL PROVISION . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. 5. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND APRIL, 2021 SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.G ODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED: 22-04-2021 TNMM ITA NO. 915/HYD/2017 :- 7 -: COPY TO : 1.SHRI RAGHURAM GARIKAPATI, FLAT NO.303, VISHUNU BL UE LOTUS APARTS, ROAD NO.3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2.THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, INTERNATIONA L TAXATION, HYDERABAD. 3.CIT(APPEALS)-10, HYDERABAD. 4.CIT-(IT & TP), HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6.GUARD FILE.