M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems & Jewels, Hyderabad V. DCIT, CC-5, Hyderabad

ITSSA 16/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0443 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SUDHAKAR RAO
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Advance ruling
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 16/HYD/2011 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04 M/S. GHANSHYAMDAS GEMS AND JEWELS HYDERABAD PAN: AADFG0280F VS. THE DEPUTY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5 HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL , MANAGING PARTNER RESPONDENT BY: SRI D. SUDHAKAR RAO DATE OF HEARING: 30 .10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07.11.2014 O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD DATED 10.12.2010 F OR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1997-98 TO 2003-04. 2. IN THIS CASE ORIGINAL APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD ON 14.03.2005 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.02.2005 PASSED UNDER SECT ION 144 R.W.S. 158BC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR TH E BLOCK PERIOD 1997-98 TO 2003-04 BY THE ACIT, CENTRA L CIRCLE-5, HYDERABAD. VIDE CIT (APPEALS)-I, HYDERAB AD ORDER IN ITA NO. 0451/CC-5/CIT(A)-1/04-05 DATED 25.08.2008, THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. THEREAFTER, T HE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL TO THE ITAT, HYDERABAD. THE ITAT IT A NO. 16/HYD/2011 M/S. GHANSHYAMDAS GEMS AND JEWELS ============================ 2 VIDE THEIR ORDER IN IT(SS)A NO. 26/HYD/2008 DATED 16.04.2010 RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE C IT(A). 3. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FI RM CONSISTING OF 5 PARTNERS AND CAME INTO EXISTENCE W. E.F. 18.03.1998. ITS BUSINESS IS THAT OF PURCHASE AND S ALE OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND GEMS. THERE WAS A SEARCH OPERATI ON CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES AT C-1, MAYUR KU SHAL COMPLEX, ABIDS, HYDERABAD ON 14.02.2003. THE SEARCH WAS CONCLUDED ON 25.02.2003 AND CONSEQUENTLY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 29.04.2003. IN RESPONSE TO THE AFOREMENTIONED NOTI CE, THE FIRM FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME WITH RESPECT TO THE BLOCK PERIOD ON 25.08.2003 DECLARING NIL UNDISCLOSED INCO ME. 4. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AFTER NEARLY 20 MONTHS I.E., ON 02.02.2005. THEREAFTER, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 25.02.2005. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 68,65,389 WAS ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD CONFIRMED THE ENTIRE ADDITION VIDE HIS ORDER IN ITA NO. 0451/CC-5/CIT(A)-1/04-05 DATED 25.08.2008. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL TO THE ITAT , HYDERABAD AND TOOK AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL A S BELOW: 'THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE IT ACT AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF STATUTE, THEREFORE, THE FAILURE ON THIS COUNT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ASSESSMENT SO COMPLETED IS AB INITIO VOID.' 5. THIS TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE CASE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) BY GIVING THE FOLLOWING REASONS: IT A NO. 16/HYD/2011 M/S. GHANSHYAMDAS GEMS AND JEWELS ============================ 3 '3. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN GROUND NO. 1.7 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 'THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE IT ACT AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF STATUTE, THEREFORE, THE FAILURE ON THIS COUNT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ASSESSMENT SO COMPLETED IS AB INITIO VOID.' IN THE ABOVE GROUND, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) OF THE ACT AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID STATUTE AND THEREFORE THE FAILURE ON HIS COUNT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE ASSESSMENT SO COMPLETED IS AB INITIO VOID. THIS GROUND WAS NOT TAKEN BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND WE FIND THAT THIS GROUND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND HENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRES H ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SINCE WE ARE REMITTING THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A), WE ARE NOT ADJUDICATING THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL.' 6. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS VIDE HIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 09.11.2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO SEN D HIS COMMENTS BY 26.11.2010. IN SPITE OF REMINDER, NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED UNTIL NOW. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTHING TO SAY IN THE MATTER. 7. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE STRESSED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS NULL AND VOID IN VIEW OF THE NON-ISS UE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IN TIME. IT WAS STATED THAT THE IT A NO. 16/HYD/2011 M/S. GHANSHYAMDAS GEMS AND JEWELS ============================ 4 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT CANNOT HAVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. 8. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT A PLAIN READING OF THE ACT REVEALS THAT THE SAID NOTICE IN THE YEAR IN QUESTIO N WAS TO BE ISSUED WITHIN 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONT H IN WHICH THE BLOCK RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICE COULD HAVE BEEN ISS UED UP TO 31.08.2004, HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS ISSUED IN FEBRUARY, 2005 AND THIS WAS CLEARLY LATE AS PER THE STATUTE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS AND EVEN DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS UNDERTAKEN EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OBJECT TO THE LATE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND THAT THIS PLEA WAS TAKEN FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE ITAT. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2008, SECTION 292 BB OF THE ACT WAS INTRODUCED IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT, WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: 'SECTION 292BB: WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN ANY PROCEEDING OR CO-OPERATED IN ANY INQUIRY RELATING TO AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED UPON HIM, HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND SUCH ASSESSEE SHALL BE PRECLUDED FROM TAKING ANY OBJECTION IN ANY PROCEEDING OR INQUIRY UNDER THIS ACT THAT THE NOTICE WAS- (A) NOT SERVED UPON HIM; OR (B) NOT SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME; OR (C) SERVED UPON HIM IN AN IMPROPER MANNER: PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SUCH OBJECTION BEFORE COMPLETION OF SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT.' IT A NO. 16/HYD/2011 M/S. GHANSHYAMDAS GEMS AND JEWELS ============================ 5 9. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE SECTION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IF AN ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THEN THAT PLEA CANNOT BE TAK EN LATER ON DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS 10. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD (2009) 312 ITR 122, THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS HAS STATED THAT AN AMENDMENT SHOULD ORDINARILY BE TREATED AS PROSPECTI VE UNLESS IT IS MADE SPECIFICALLY RETROSPECTIVE. HOWEV ER, AN AMENDMENT TO PROCEDURAL LAW IS APPLICABLE FROM THE DATE ON WHICH IT IS SOUGHT TO BE APPLIED, SO THAT IT COU LD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR ALL PENDING ASSESSMENT S AND APPEALS. THE CIT(A) STATED THAT AN AMENDMENT TO A PROCEDURAL SECTION DOES NOT TAKE EFFECT RETROSPECTI VELY. HOWEVER, IT DOES TAKE EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF AMEND MENT I.E. THE DATE IT IS BROUGHT INTO OPERATION AND THE AMENDMENT IS THEN APPLICABLE TO ALL PENDING ASSESSM ENTS AND APPEAL CASES AS ON THE DATE IT IS BROUGHT INTO OPERATION. HENCE, THE CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THIS IM PLIES THAT STARTING FROM 01.04.2008, SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY TO ALL PENDING ASSESSMENT AND APPEAL PROCEEDINGS REGARDLESS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTI ON. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT IN THE CURRENT CASE, THE APPEA L PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING CONDUCTED AND AS PER LAW, THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT IS OPEN SINCE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS POWERS COTERMINOUS AND BEYOND THOSE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND, THEREFORE, F OR THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT IS APPL ICABLE, FURTHER EVEN DURING EARLIER APPEAL PROCEEDINGS SECT ION 292BB OF THE ACT WAS APPLICABLE. IT A NO. 16/HYD/2011 M/S. GHANSHYAMDAS GEMS AND JEWELS ============================ 6 11. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSES SEE DID NOT OBJECT TO THE LATE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 143(2) OF THE ACT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING EARLIER APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, APPL YING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT, IT CANNOT T AKE THE PLEA NOW THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS L ATE AND THE PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT STANDS VITIATED. GIVEN THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROVISIONS, HE HELD THAT SECTIO N 292BB OF THE ACT APPLIES IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E AND THE ASSESSMENT IS IN ORDER AND DECIDED THE ADDITION AL GROUND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 12. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW, OPPOSED TO FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSMENT IS IN ORDER, IN SPITE OF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT IS NULL AND VOID IN VIEW OF NON-ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IN TIME AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB ARE PROSPECTIVE. 3. HAVING ACCEPTED THE FACTUAL POSITION THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED BEYOND 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE RETURN WAS FILED, HE OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED WAS NOT VALID. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE OTHER GROUNDS ON MERIT IT A NO. 16/HYD/2011 M/S. GHANSHYAMDAS GEMS AND JEWELS ============================ 7 WHEN THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL TO HIM WERE TO DISPOSE OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, WHICH IS LEGAL IN NATURE AND THAT TOO WITHOUT GIVING REASONS THEREAFTER AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 13. THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT IS IN ORDER, WITHOUT CONSIDERI NG THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS NULL AND VOID FOR NOT I SSUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IN TIME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB ARE PROSPECTIVE AND THE CIT(A) HAVING ACCEPTED FACTUAL POSITION THAT THE NO TICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED BEYOND 12 MONTHS FROM THE EN D OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE RETURN WAS FILED, THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE WAS INVA LID. 14. THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. P . VENKATARAMANA GOOTY, IT(SS)A NO. 8/HYD/2010 DATED 11.2.2011 AND ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KUBER TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, 117 ITD 273 (SB) (ND). THE MANAGING PART NER OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MR. SALMAN KHAN IN ITA (L) NO. 2362 OF 2009. 15. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 144 R.W.S. 158BC OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED IN THIS CASE ON 29.4.2008 AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON IT A NO. 16/HYD/2011 M/S. GHANSHYAMDAS GEMS AND JEWELS ============================ 8 2.2.2005. SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB CU RTAILS THE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE IT WAS HELD BY THE SPECIA L BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN KUBER TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, 117 ITD 273 THAT SECTION 292BB WOULD OPERATE PROSPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, SECTION 292BB WILL NOT A PPLY TO THE NOTICE ISSUED ON 29.4.2003 U/S. 144 R.W.S. 158B C OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MR. SALMA N KHAN IN ITA(L) NO. 2362 OF 2009, THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT H ELD AS UNDER: 'FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED IN THE APPEAL: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN CANCELLI NG THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT - FRAMED U/S. 143(3)/147 CANNOT BE HELD TO BE A VALID ASSESSMENT AS THE AO HAS NOT ASSUMED JURISDICTION BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) FOR COMPLETION OF TH E ASSESSMENT? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT SECTIONS 292BB AND 292B WERE AMENDED W.E.F. 01/04/2008 AND ARE NOT APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY AND MANDATORY NOTICE U/S .143(2) HAS TO BE ISSUED I N THIS CASE, WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THROUGH TH E SECTION WAS INTRODUCED W.E.F. 01/10/1975? 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3)/147, WITHOU T ISSUING A NOTICE U/S. 143(2), THOUGH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HI S CASE AND HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED BY THE A.O.? IT A NO. 16/HYD/2011 M/S. GHANSHYAMDAS GEMS AND JEWELS ============================ 9 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT BROUGHT TO O UR NOTICE A JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS. HUF OF H.H. LATE J.M. SCINDIA (2008) 300 ITR 193 (BOM). FOLLOWING T HE SAID JUDGMENT, THE APPEAL BEING ITXA (L) NO. 3475 O F 2008 WAS DISPOSED OF WHEREIN THE SAME QUESTION OF L AW WAS INVOLVED, WHICH IS QUESTION NO. 1 HEREIN THIS APPEAL. 3. SO FAR AS FIRST QUESTION INVOLVED IN THE PRESEN T APPEAL IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS SQUARELY COVERED B Y AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT. 4. SO FAR AS SECOND QUESTION IS CONCERNED, IT RELAT ES TO THE OPERATION OF 292BB & 292B WHICH WAS AMENDED W.E.F. I' APRIL, 2008 AND WAS CAME INTO OPERATION PROSPECTIVELY FOR THE A.Y. 1999-2000. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, SECOND QUESTION CAN HARDLY SURVIVE AND SO F AR AS QUESTION NOS. 3 AND 4 ARE CONCERNED, THEY ARE NO TING BUT DIFFERENT SHADE OF QUESTION NO.2.' 17. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS THE PROVISIONS OF S. 2 92BB CANNOT BE INVOKED FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. AS THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS SERVED BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT PRESCR IBED BY THE ACT, THE SUBSEQUENT SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS ARE NULL AND VOID. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 7 TH NOVEMBER, 2014. SD/ - (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 7 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 TPRAO IT A NO. 16/HYD/2011 M/S. GHANSHYAMDAS GEMS AND JEWELS ============================ 10 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. GHANSHYAMDAS GEMS AND JEWELS, C - 1, MAYUR KUSHAL COMPLEX, GUNFOUNDRY, HYDERABAD-500 001. 2. THE ITO, WARD - 5(3), 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, HYDERABAD-500 001. 3. THE CIT(A) - V , HYDERABAD . 4. THE CIT - IV , HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD