Matrika Hospital, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad

MA 185/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8060 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-03-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B NAGESWSAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: C P RAMASWAMY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER. M.A. NO. 172/HYD/10 (IN ITA NO. 382 TO 387/HYD/2009) : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 TO 2005-06 M.A. NO. 183/HYD/10 (IN ITA NO. 383/HYD/2009) : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 M.A. NO. 184/HYD/10 (IN ITA NO. 384/HYD/2009) : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 M.A. NO. 185/HYD/10 (IN ITA NO. 385/HYD/2009) : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 M.A. NO. 186/HYD/10 (IN ITA NO. 386/HYD/2009) : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 M.A. NO. 187/HYD/104 (IN ITA NO. 387/HYD/2009) : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 M/ S. MATRIKA HOSPITALS, HYDERABAD (PAN: AAFFFM 6403 L) V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI C.P. RAMASWAMY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. NAGESWSAR RAO DATE OF HEARING 27 4.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.5.2012 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BY THESE SIX APPLICATIONS UNDER S.254(2) OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 19061, THE APPLICANT-ASSESSEE SEEKS RECTIFICAT ION/RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 30.2010 IN ITA NOS. 382 TO 3 87/HYD/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 TO 2005-06, ON THE GROUND THAT CERTAIN MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD HAVE CREPT INTO THE S AME. INITIALLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED A SINGLE APPLICATION, BEING M.A. NO. MA 172/HYD/10 (IN ITA NO.382/HYD/200 9) AND FIVE OTHERS M/S. MATRIKA HOSPITAL, HYDERABAD 2 172/HYD/2009, FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CO NSIDERATION, VIZ. 2000-01 TO 2005-06, THOUGH SUBSEQUENTLY, PROBABLY R EALIZING ITS MISTAKE, SEPARATE APPLICATIONS HAVE COME TO BE FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2005-06, BEING ITA NOS. 182 TO 186/HYD/2 009. SINCE ALL THESE APPLICATIONS INVOLVE COMMON AVERMENTS/CONTENT IONS AND SEEK RECALL OF A COMMON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.6.2010, THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. REITERATING THE ELABORATE CONTENTIONS URGED IN THESE APPLICATIONS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ETH TRIBUNAL HAS PROCEEDED ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY HOLDING THAT CPWD RATES HAVE TO BE APP LIED FOR PROPERTIES IN HYDERABAD AND PWD RATES HAVE TO BE APPLIED FOR PROP ERTIES OUTSIDE HYDERABAD. CITING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNA L, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SA ID PRESUMPTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT H ELD IN ANY OF ITS DECISIONS THAT THE CPWD RATES SHOULD BE APPLIED WHE N THE CONSTRUCTION TAKES PLACE IN HYDERABAD AND STATE PWD RATES ARE NO T TO BE CONSIDERED, AND HENCE THE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO THAT E FFECT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSISTENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE HYDERABAD BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA- 5 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, RELATING TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDU CTION TOWARDS SELF SUPERVISION, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED MORE SPEC IFICALLY AS FOLLOWS- IN THE REPENT CASE, AS SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A BUSY DOCTOR WORKING 16 HOURS A DAY FO R SEVEN DAYS IN A WEEK IN HER HOSPITAL AND WE CANNOT FIND ANY REASO N HOW SHE IS ABLE TO DEVOTE ANY TIME IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. MORE SO, SHE IS A DOCTOR AND HAVING NO TECHNICAL COMPETE NCY TO CARRY OUT SUPERVISION OF CONSTRUCTION BUILDING. HER VISI T TO THE CONSTRUCTION PLOT ONCE IN A WHILE IN A WEEK DOES NO T HELP ANY WAY IN REDUCTION OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. FOR HER P ERSONAL SATISFACTION SHE MIGHT HAVE VISITED THE CONSTRUCTI ON SITE FEW TIMES IN A WEEK AND THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SHE PURCHASED HERSELF ALL MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUIL DING. MA 172/HYD/10 (IN ITA NO.382/HYD/200 9) AND FIVE OTHERS M/S. MATRIKA HOSPITAL, HYDERABAD 3 SERIOUSLY DISPUTING THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, IT IS S UBMITTED THAT THE HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED ONLY IN THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, THE SAME HAVIN G STARTED WAY BACK IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1995-96. THE ASSESSEE WAS PU TTING IN LONG HOURS OF WORK ONLY AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOSPITAL AFTER MARCH, 2002. PRIOR TO THIS DATE, SHE WAS RUNNING A SMALL CLINIC FOR ONLY CONSULTANCY AND WAS DEVOTING SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF HER TIME FOR SUPERVISING CONSTRUCTION DURING THE YEARS 1995-96 T ILL MARCH, 2002. SHE HAS MADE THE PURCHASES AND ALSO SENT HER PEOPLE TO MAKE PURCHASES WHENEVER POSSIBLE TO ECONOMISE ON THE COST. THIS FA CTUAL POSITION HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED WHILE DENYING DEDUCTION FOR SELF SU PERVISION. ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY SUBMITTED THESE FACTS IN THE COURS E OF ARGUMENTS DURING APPEAL HEARING. THE CONSTRUCTION TOOK SEVERAL YEAR S ONLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPERVISING THE SAME AT HER FREE TIMES . IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PLEADINGS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS BEHALF DURING THE APPEAL HEARING ESCAPED THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSING IT S ORDER DATED 30.6.2010. 3. FURTHER REFERRING TO PARA 8 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.6.2010, WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSES SEE NUMBERING TO 22 HAVE BEEN NOTED, AND AGAINST SL. NO. 13, IT IS NOTE D AS FOLLOWS- 13. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL MADE AN ARGUM ENT THAT THE SUPPRESSED CASE RECORDS ARE NOT AT 60 NOS. INSTEAD OF THERE ARE ONLY 41 CASE RECORDS WHICH ARE NOT REC ORDED AS RECEIPTS IN THE REGULAR ACCOUNTS. IT IS SUBMITTED IN THIS BEHALF THAT THE ABOVE OBSER VATION OF THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 13 IS NOT CORRECT AND THIS WAS NEVER THE SUBMI SSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LE ARNED COUNSEL IS THAT ALL THE RECEIPTS TALLIED AND IN 41 CASES IT COULD B E TRACED THROUGH THE CASE SHEETS DIRECTLY AND FOR THE REMAINING 19 CASES, RE CEIPTS INCLUDED THOUGH MA 172/HYD/10 (IN ITA NO.382/HYD/200 9) AND FIVE OTHERS M/S. MATRIKA HOSPITAL, HYDERABAD 4 THE CORRESPONDING BILLS COULD NOT BE FOUND. IT IS S TATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE ALL ALONG WAS THAT THERE ARE NO SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS AS ALLEGED, AND TH E TRIBUNAL HAS INCORRECTLY NOTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D HENCE, NEEDS RECTIFICATION. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TAKING US THROUGH THE SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS FURNISHED IN THE CONTEXT OF APPEAL HEARING, MORE SPECIFICALLY PAGE 14 THEREOF, SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE VARIOUS DISTINGUISHING FEATURES IN SU PPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJNIK & CO.(251 ITR 561) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME A ND DECIDED THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE A. P. HIGH COURT. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALL THE RECORDS ARE VERIFIED FOR ALL T HE YEARS AND ONLY THOSE RECEIPTS WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED ARE INCLUDED IN DET ERMINING THE INCOME OF THE RESPECTIVE YEARS, AND THAT BEING SO, THE DIRECT ION THAT SUCH SUPPRESSION HAS TO BE ADOPTED AS A BASIS TO DETERMI NE THE INCOME O THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS WOULD NOT ARISE FOR CONSIDER ATION AS ALL THE RECORDS FOR ALL THE YEARS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED. THE D IRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS BEHALF ARE INCONSISTENT AND HAVE TO BE AMEN DED SUITABLY. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE OPPOSIN G THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT T HERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AND THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE ELABORATE CONTENTIONS/AVERMENTS MADE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS, IN THE MA 172/HYD/10 (IN ITA NO.382/HYD/200 9) AND FIVE OTHERS M/S. MATRIKA HOSPITAL, HYDERABAD 5 LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 30.6.2010 , GIVING RISE TO THESE RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS. ON A CLOSE EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER, WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D EVOID OF MERIT, AS THE SAME FAIL BRING OUT ANY SPECIFIC MISTAKE APPARENT F ROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. ALL THAT THE ASSESSEE SEEKS THROU GH THE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS, IS A MERE REVIEW OF THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN OUR ORDER, BY REAPPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS URGED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ON THE APPEALS. THE OBSERVA TIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL WITH REGARD TO APPLICABILITY OF CPWD/STATE PWD RATE S TO THE CONSTRUCTIONS TAKEN UP WITHIN THE METROPOLITAN/OUTSIDE THE METROP OLITAN AREAS ARE OF GENERAL NATURE AND THEY DO NOT HAVE MUCH BEARING ON ITS ULTIMATE CONCLUSION THAT THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE PRESENT CAS E, BEING WITHIN THE CITY OF HYDERABAD, IT IS THE CPWD RATES WHICH ARE MORE A PPROPRIATE. IN ANY EVENT, THE TRIBUNAL CONCEDED THAT CERTAIN ADJUSTMEN TS HAVE TO BE MADE TO THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DETERMINED BY THE DVO, AND ACCORDINGLY ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT ARE WARRAN TED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE C IT(A) THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM REGARDING APP LICATION OF PWD RATE AND ALSO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE VARIOUS JUDGEM ENTS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE APPLIED. IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT WHILE APPLYING THE CPWD PLINTH AREA RATE, COST OF ITEMS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIFICATION APPLICABLE TO THE STANDARD PLINTH AREA RATE ADOPTED BUT PROVIDED IN THE STRUCTURE HAD ALSO BEEN WORKED OUT AND ADDED SEPARA TELY BASED ON THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE. SIMILARLY, THE VALUATION O FFICER HAD ALSO GIVEN DEDUCTION FOR NOT PROVIDING ITEMS SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIFICATION APPLICABLE TO THE STANDARD PLINTH AREA RATES ADOPTED. IT IS AL SO ON RECORD THAT SUITABLE ADDITIONS AND DEDUCTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE FO R DEVIATING FROM THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PLINTH AR EA RATE ADOPTED BASED ON THE PREVAILING LOCAL MARKET RATE/RELEVANT STANDA RD SCHEDULE OF RATES FOR BUILDING WORKS, PUBLISHED BY THE PWD, R&B, HYDERABA D, GOVT. OF A.P. AS MA 172/HYD/10 (IN ITA NO.382/HYD/200 9) AND FIVE OTHERS M/S. MATRIKA HOSPITAL, HYDERABAD 6 AGAINST THE OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE VALUAT ION OFFICER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COME OUT WITH ANY EXPLANATION BEFO RE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO REBUT REA SON FOR DEVIATION FROM LOCAL PWD RATE IN HER OWN CASE BY FURNISHING ANY EV IDENCE OR EXPLANATION. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CIT(A) NOT CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. VINODKUMAR AGARWAL (257 ITR 65 (AT) (HYD) AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BE NCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. REKHA DEVI VS. ACIT, 49 TTJ 530 (JAIPUR). THE POSI TION IS SIMILAR EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. EVEN THE OTHER CASE-LAW RELIE D ON BY ASSESSEES COUNSEL BEFORE US DO NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. EACH CASE HAS TO BE DECIDED ON ITS OWN SET OF FACTS. BEING SO, THE TRI BUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON DENYING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION TOWARDS SELF-SUPERVISION AS WELL AS PWD RATE. IN THE PRESE NT APPLICATIONS, EXCEPT FOR DISPUTING THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL WITH REGARD TO THE DEDUCTION TOWARDS SELF SUPERVISION AND APPLICATION OF CPWD RA TE BY REITERATING THE CONTENTIONS URGED DURING THE APPEAL HEARINGS, WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT FORWARD AN Y MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 8. EVEN WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPP RESSED RECEIPTS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE IT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD A ND THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND PASSED A SPEAKING ORDE R. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN NOTE OF, IN PARA 11 OF ITS ORDER DATED 30.6.2010, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WITH REGARD TO INAPPLICABILIT Y OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJNIK & C O. (SUPRA). THE CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED IN DEPTH THE POINTS OF DISTINCTION AR GUED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, WITH REGARD TO THAT CASE, IN HIS IMPUGN ED ORDER DATED 13.2.2009, AND ULTIMATELY FOUND NO MERIT IN THE SAM E. THE TRIBUNAL, CONCURRING WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) IN THA T BEHALF, DID NOT ELABORATE ON THAT ASPECT OVER AGAIN, AND HAS PROCEE DED TO CONSIDER THE MA 172/HYD/10 (IN ITA NO.382/HYD/200 9) AND FIVE OTHERS M/S. MATRIKA HOSPITAL, HYDERABAD 7 MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THAT DECISION AND ALSO THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX V/S. H.M. ESUFALI HM ABDULALI (90 ITR 271), AND ULTIMATELY DIRECTED T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER ONLY THOSE CASE RECORDS WHICH ARE NOT RECO RDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER TO USE THAT SUPPRESSION AS A BASIS TO DE TERMINE THE INCOME OF THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS AS HELD BY THE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT TINT EH CASE OF RAJ V/S. ACIT (251 ITR 561). AS FAR AS THE ALLEGED SUPPRESSION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 IS CONCERNED, SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS MERELY RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER, FOR RE- EXAMINATION, THE ASSESSEE CAN HAVE NO GRIEVANCE AGA INST THAT DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. AS FAR AS APPLICATION OF THAT SUPPRE SSION FOR DETERMINING THE INCOMES OF THE OTHER YEARS, THE DIRECTION OF THE TR IBUNAL IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATIO OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT AND THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF H.M. ESUFALI HM ABDULALI (SUPRA), AF TER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO INAPPLICABI LITY OF THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJNIK AND CO. (SUPRA ) TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FIND NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE ACCOR DINGLY REJECT THE SAME. 9. EVEN IF THERE IS ANY MISTAKE IN THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION, IT IS NOT AN OBVIOUS OR PATENT MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, IT IS SO PROJE CTED BY THE ASSESSEE, ONLY BY DISPUTING THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL, AND SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE SAME BY REVIEWING OUR ORDER BY REAPPRAISING THE EVIDENCES AND CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES BEFORE US, SINCE SUCH A REVIEW IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.254(2) OF THE ACT, THESE APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DEVOID OF MERIT, AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. MA 172/HYD/10 (IN ITA NO.382/HYD/200 9) AND FIVE OTHERS M/S. MATRIKA HOSPITAL, HYDERABAD 8 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE SIX APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18TH MAY, 2012 SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. HYDERABAD, DATED THE 18TH MAY, 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/ S. MATRIKA HOSPITALS, DR. NO. 6 - 3 - 1100/2, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6(1), HYDERABAD 3. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) - I V HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL III HYDERABAD 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT HYDERABAD B.V.S.