Sri B Naga Mahesh, Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward - 2, Nandyal

ITA 936/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 93622514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G APARNA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Assessment record
• Section: 40A(3); 263; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.936/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 MR. B. NAGA MAHESH NANDYAL. KURNOOL DIST., PAN AAOPB7734L VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 NANDYAL, KURNOOL DIST.. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. K.A. SAI PRASAD FOR REVENUE : SMT. G. APARNA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.02.2015 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2014 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYDERABA D FOR THE A.Y. 2009-2010. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUA L. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE F ILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 21.08.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.3,51,004. AFTER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.40,000 ON AGREED BASIS, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.08.2011 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,91,004. LD.CIT IN EXERCISE OF HER POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, CALLED FOR THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND AF TER EXAMINING THE SAME WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER 2 ITA.NO.936/HYD/2014 MR. B. NAGA MAHESH, NANDYAL PASSED IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AS THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE FOLLOWING ISS UES. 2. ON EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS FOR A. Y. 2009-10, IT WAS SEEN THAT (I) THE ASSESSEE WHO IS A DEALER IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF LANDS HAD SHOWN A PURCHASE OF RS.9,00,000 AND DEBITED IT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THIS PURCHASE WAS MADE IN CASH AND THEREFORE, ATTRACTED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A93) OF THE I .T. ACT. HOWEVER, THE A.O. FAILED TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THIS SECTION RENDERING THE ASSESSMENT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. (II) THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED INTERESTS OF RS.2,34,367 ON CREDITORS FOR FINANCE WHICH THE A.O. ALLOWED WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY INTO THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITS. (III) AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED HAD REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEES SB ACCOUNT WITH ING VYSYA BANK HAD CASH DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.24,90,000. APART FROM THE DECLARED SALES TURNOVER OF RS.9,68,800, TH E ASSESSEE HAD NO OTHER KNOWN SOURCES FOR THE CASH DEPOSITS. HOWEVER, THE A.O. COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT CARRYING OUT ANY VERIFICATION ON THE SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SB ACCOUNT. 3. ACCORDINGLY, A NOTICE WAS ISSUED DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHO ULD NOT BE REVISED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED ITS REPLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE ISSUES R AISED THEREIN. AS FAR AS DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) IS CONC ERNED, IT WAS SUBMITTED, ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 9 LAKHS THROUGH REGISTERED SAL E DEED. IT WAS SUBMITTED AS REGISTRATION COULD BE COMPLETED BE FORE SUB- REGISTRAR, NANDYAL ON 07.03.2009 AT ABOUT 4.00 PM A ND THE SELLER ALSO INSISTED FOR PAYMENT IN CASH, ASSESSEE OUT OF 3 ITA.NO.936/HYD/2014 MR. B. NAGA MAHESH, NANDYAL BUSINESS COMPULSIONS MADE PAYMENT IN CASH. IT WAS SUBMITTED AS IDENTITY OF SELLER IS ESTABLISHED, WHO IS ALSO AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THE SELLER HAS CONF IRMED OF RECEIVING THE AMOUNT, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION IS ALSO ESTABLISHED. THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(3). AS FAR AS INTEREST PAYMENT TO CREDI TORS IS CONCERNED, IT WAS SUBMITTED, MOST OF THE CREDITS AR E BROUGHT FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEAR. EVEN, WITH REGARD TO FRE SH CREDITORS ALSO, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION LETTERS. 4. IN SO FAR AS CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE DEPOSITS ARE REF LECTED IN THE CASH BOOK AND THE MAJOR SOURCE FOR DEPOSITS ARE FRO M THE WITHDRAWALS MADE EARLIER FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT . IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED A STA TEMENT SHOWING SOURCE FOR DEPOSIT INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. L D. CIT AFTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD AS FAR AS CASH PAYMENTS OF RS.9 LAKHS TOWARDS PURCHASE AND SALE OF LAND, IT WOULD NOT COME UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 6DD OF THE I.T. RULES. LD. CIT OBSERVED THAT W HETHER THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE OR NOT IS NOT OF MUCH RELEVA NCE WHILE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE AC T. SHE OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) WILL NOT APPLY ONLY UNDER THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN RULE 6DD. AS NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 6DD APPLIES TO T HE CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 A(3) ARE CLEARLY ATTRACTED. SINCE THE A.O. HAS NOT AT ALL EX AMINED THIS ISSUE, LD. CIT HELD THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONE OUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. SHE TH EREFORE, FOLLOWING CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS DIRECTED THE A.O. TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) WITH RESPECT TO CA SH PAYMENTS 4 ITA.NO.936/HYD/2014 MR. B. NAGA MAHESH, NANDYAL OF RS. 9 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHAS E OF LAND. AS FAR AS INTEREST PAYMENT TO CREDITORS IS CONCERNE D, LD. CIT THOUGH, AFTER VERIFYING THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY AS SESSEE WAS CONVINCED THAT MOST OF THE CREDITS ARE BROUGHT FORW ARD FROM THE EARLIER YEARS EXCEPT TWO AMOUNTS STANDING IN TH E NAME OF MR. C.S. KIRAN KUMAR AND M/S. PHANEENDRA COTTON CORPORATION WHICH WERE ALSO FOUND TO HAVE RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES BUT NEVERTHELESS SHE DIRECTED THE A.O. TO V ERIFY WHETHER THESE TWO PARTIES HAVE FILED RETURNS OF INC OME AND REFLECTED THESE AMOUNTS AS LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 5. IN SO FAR AS CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.24,90,000 IN T HE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT IS CONCERNED, LD. CIT ACKNOWLE DGED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN PROPERLY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS MAIN TAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, SHE DIRECTED THE A.O. TO VER IFY THE DEPOSITS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED WAS SET ASIDE WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS. 6. LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT AT THE TI ME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. HAS NOT ONLY EXA MINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT HAS ALSO ENQUIRED INTO ALL TH E ISSUES ON WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 HAS BEEN IN ITIATED. IT WAS SUBMITTED, AS FAR AS APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 4 0A(3) IS CONCERNED, THE A.O. HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE AS THE E NTIRE TRANSACTION RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF LAND WAS BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ONLY AFTER EXAMINING THE SALE DE ED ETC., THE A.O. HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. LEARNED A.R. SUB MITTED THAT THE A.O. AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT HA D ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT POINTING OUT TH AT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DUE TO NON-CONSIDER ATION OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) IN RESPECT OF CASH PAYM ENT OF RS. 9 5 ITA.NO.936/HYD/2014 MR. B. NAGA MAHESH, NANDYAL LAKHS. THOUGH, ASSESSEE HAS REPLIED TO THE SAID NOT ICE THERE IS NO FURTHER ACTION BY A.O. LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED TH AT WHEN THE IDENTITY OF THE SELLER, INCOME TAX PARTICULARS IS ON RECORD AND FURTHER WHEN THE SELLER HIMSELF HAS CONFIRMED O F HAVING RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 9 LAKHS, THEN THE RE COULD BE NO DOUBT WITH REGARD TO GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACT ION. LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF B RINGING SECTION 40A(3) IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING USE OF BLACK MONEY IN SUCH CASH TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, WHEN TH E TRANSACTION IS GENUINE, THERE IS NO REASON TO APPLY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3). THUS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LE ARNED A.R. THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSME NT ORDER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF REVENUE FOR NOT COMPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 40A(3). AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO CREDI TORS AND CASH DEPOSITS TO THE BANK ACCOUNT IS CONCERNED, LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT NOT ONLY THE FACT THAT A.O. DURING T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS EXAMINED THIS ISSUE BUT DURING THE REVISION PROCEEDING ALSO AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE, LD. CIT WAS CONVINCED WITH T HE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, NEVERTHELESS SHE SET A SIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THESE TWO ISSUES ALSO WHICH IS NOT PROPER. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, LEARNED A.R. RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : (I) SARASWATI HOUSING & DEVELOPERS VS. ADDL. CIT (2013) 142 ITD 198 (DELHI) (TRIBU.) (II) AYUSHI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS. DCIT (2014) 50 TAXMANN.COM 396 (JODHPUR) (TRIBU.) 7. LEARNED D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT SUBMITT ED THAT 6 ITA.NO.936/HYD/2014 MR. B. NAGA MAHESH, NANDYAL THE A.O. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HAS NOT AT ALL EXAMINED THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(3) TO THE CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE WHILE PURCHASING THE LAND . LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 0A(3) ARE MANDATORY AND MAY NOT BE MADE APPLICABLE ONLY UNDER THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN RULE 6DD. UNLESS THE ASSESSE E PROVES THAT CASH PAYMENTS MADE COME UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEP TIONS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 6DD THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 0A(3) WILL HAVE TO APPLY. LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT AS IN TH E PRESENT CASE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE CASH PAY MENTS MADE COME UNDER ANY ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 6DD, THE CASH PAYMENT IS TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER SEC TION 40A(3). A.O. HAVING NOT AT ALL EXAMINED THIS ISSUE OR APPLIED HIS MIND, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOU S BUT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. AS FAR AS OTHER TWO ISSUES ARE CONCERNED, LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT T HE CIT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTION BUT HAS ONLY DIREC TED THE A.O. TO VERIFY ASSESSEES CLAIM. HENCE, THERE IS NO PREJ UDICE CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONTENTION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT AND ANOTHER VS. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD., (2012) 341 I TR 290 (KARNATAKA) (HC). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF T HE ACT IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE INVALID, ATLEAST AS FAR AS APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT IS CONCE RNED. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH PAYMENTS OF RS. 9 LAKHS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF LAND. HOWEVER, T HE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, AS IT APPEARS FROM THE ASSE SSMENT 7 ITA.NO.936/HYD/2014 MR. B. NAGA MAHESH, NANDYAL ORDER ITSELF, HAS NOT AT ALL EXAMINED THE APPLICABI LITY OF SECTION 40A(3). LEARNED A.R. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL T O OUR NOTICE WHICH COULD EVEN REMOTELY ESTABLISH THAT DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A.O. HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(3) TO THE AFORESAID CA SH PAYMENT. IN FACT, NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT BY THE A.O. ITSELF PROVES THE FACT THAT A.O. HAS FAILED TO EXAM INE THIS ISSUE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, T O THAT EXTENT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. HENCE, THE COMMISSIONER WA S JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE A CT. HOWEVER, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIREC TING THE A.O. TO APPLY SECTION 40A(3) TO THE CASH PAYMENTS MADE B Y ASSESSEE STRAIGHTAWAY. IN OUR VIEW, ASSESSEE DESERVES AN OPP ORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN BEFORE THE A.O. WHETHER THE CASH PAYMENTS A RE COMING WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 6DD. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY LD. A.R. ALSO SAY SECTION 40A(3) HAS TO BE LOOKED INTO IN CONJUNCTION WITH RULE 6DD. WE, THERE FORE, DIRECT THE A.O. TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE CASH PAYMENTS ARE C OMING WITHIN EXCEPTIONS OF RULE 6DD OF THE RULES AND ONLY THEREAFTER, MAY DECIDE WHETHER TO APPLY SECTION 40A(3) OF THE A CT TO SUCH CASH PAYMENTS. THE A.O. MUST AFFORD REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER. 9. AS FAR AS OTHER TWO ISSUES ARE CONCERNED, AS CA N BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT HERSE LF HAS ADMITTED THE FACT THAT AS FAR AS INTEREST TO THE CR EDITORS ARE CONCERNED, MOST OF THE CREDITORS WERE BROUGHT FORWA RD FROM EARLIER YEARS. EVEN IN RESPECT OF BALANCE TWO CREDI TORS ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY BUT HAS ALSO FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND IT IS ALSO FACT THAT THE C REDITS ARE 8 ITA.NO.936/HYD/2014 MR. B. NAGA MAHESH, NANDYAL THROUGH REGULAR BANKING CHANNEL. THEREFORE, WITHOUT BRINGING SOME MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THESE TWO CRED ITORS ARE NOT GENUINE OR THEY DO NOT HAVE CREDITWORTHINESS, L D. CIT CANNOT HOLD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS AN D PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. MOREOVER, AS IT APPEARS FROM RECORD AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM CREDITO RS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT EXAMINED THE CREDITS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. SIMILARLY, IN SO FAR AS CASH DEPOSITS M ADE TO THE S.B. ACCOUNT IS CONCERNED, IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE REVISION ORDER THAT LD. CIT HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE DEPOSITS H AVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. MOREOVER, ASSES SEE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS. IT IS ALSO N OT DISPUTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O. HAS EX AMINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS THE BANK STATEMENT . THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE A.O. AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT AND HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR DEPOSIT WHICH HAVE NO T BEEN DISPUTED OR FOUND TO BE INCORRECT BY THE LD. CIT, I N OUR VIEW, IT WAS NOT PROPER ON THE PART OF LD. CIT TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THAT ISSUE AS THE DIRECTIONS GI VEN BY THE LD. CIT, WITHOUT ANY POSITIVE FINDING OF ERROR OR P REJUDICE TO THE REVENUE, IS ONLY IN THE NATURE OF A ROVING AND FISHING ENQUIRY TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE A.O. WHICH IS NOT TH E INTENT AND PURPOSE OF SECTION 263. IN THE AFORESAID VIEW O F THE MATTER, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO ONLY EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF APP LICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(3) WITH REFERENCE TO RULE 6DD AFTER GIV ING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT IS MODIFIED TO THIS EXTENT. 9 ITA.NO.936/HYD/2014 MR. B. NAGA MAHESH, NANDYAL 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.02.2015. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 VBP/- COPY TO 1. MR. B. NAGA MAHESH, NANDYAL. C/O CH. PARTHASARATHY & CO. 1-1-209/2/B/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOWBHAGYA AVENUE, ST.NO.1, ASHOKNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 020. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NANDYAL 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, HYDERABAD. 4. ADDL. CIT, KURNOOL RANGE, KURNOOL. 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH, HYDERABAD.