MANOJ KUMAR CHOWRAH,HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1614/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Manoj Kumar Chowrah, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed several additions made by the A.O. during the assessment for the year 2017-18. The primary issues were the additions related to unexplained cash deposits and unexplained investments in property. The A.O. had initially made these additions based on the failure of the assessee to provide satisfactory explanations and evidence for the sources of these transactions. The CIT(A) upheld most of these additions, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision partially favored the assessee, leading to the deletion of some additions while upholding others.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 832346 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained investment; Salary income; Gift; Source of fund

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1614/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Manoj Kumar Chowrah, R/o. Hyderabad. PAN : AFJPC6192F Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 3(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri H. Srinivasulu राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. A.R. सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 05.01.2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ Date of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 06.08.2025 relating to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Hon’ble CIT(A) determining total additions of Rs. 83,49,000/- is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in treating the cash deposits of Rs. 21,05,000/- as unexplained even though the appellant has submitted all the evidences available with him justifying the cash deposits appropriately and thereby erred in making the addition. 3. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee has no evidence for investment in purchase of property to the extent of Rs. 61,44,000/-, though it can be proved otherwise, and thereby erred in making addition of Rs. 61,44,000/- as unexplained investment. 4. The Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee has no evidence for cost of improvement to the property to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-, though the assessee has submitted the evidences justifying the same, and thereby erred in making addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- as unexplained cost of improvement. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, withdraw, modify or raise any further grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, as may be deemed necessary.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 30.08.2017, declaring total income of Rs. 8,72,110/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the cash deposits during the year and investment in sale / purchase of immovable property. During the course of assessment Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah proceedings, the A.O. noticed that, the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 26,05,000/- in Central Bank of India account No. 3304202026. The assessee had also purchased a property for a total consideration of Rs. 1,49,44,000/- and also paid stamp duty of Rs. 8,96,840/-. The A.O. further noted that, the assessee has sold a property for a total consideration of Rs. 74,30,000/-. The A.O. called upon the assessee to furnish relevant details to explain the source for cash deposit and also purchase of immovable property. The assessee has not furnished any details and also not explained the source for cash deposit. In so far as the investment made in purchase of immovable property, the assessee claimed that, the source for purchase of the property is out of sale proceeds of property by himself, his wife and also cash in hand available. The A.O. after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the amount of cash deposited in bank account, has made addition of Rs. 26,05,000/- under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money. The A.O. had also made addition of Rs. 61,44,000/- towards unexplained investment for failure of the assessee to explain source for purchase of the property. Similarly, the A.O. further Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah observed that, the assessee has computed short term capital gain from sale of property and also claimed cost of improvement for Rs. 1,00,000/- for which no supporting evidence has been furnished. Therefore, he observed cost of improvement of Rs. 1,00,000/- is not supported by any evidence. Therefore, disallowed cost of improvement of Rs. 1,00,000/- and added back to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained the source for cash deposit out of gifts received from father, mother, and relatives, and also out of income derived for the year under consideration from salary and income from house property. The assessee had also explained the additions made by the A.O. towards investments made for purchase of property by filing a cash flow statement and claimed that, the property has been jointly purchased along with his wife, and source for investment for purchase of property is out of sale proceeds received from sale of property by himself and by his wife. The assessee has also Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah furnished details of cost of improvement by filing photograph of the building. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, observed that, although the assessee claims to have received cash gifts of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Ms. Prabhavati, Rs. 4,80,000/- from Shri Radhe Shyam, and Rs. 5,00,000/- from Ms. Ratnamala, but failed to file relevant details to explain the creditworthiness of the donors. Therefore, rejected the explanation of the assessee towards cash gifts received from relatives. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that, although the assessee claims to have explained cash deposit of Rs. 8,09,600/- out of salary income and income from house property, but there is no detail as to how the income has been derived by the assessee, whether in cash or cheque. In the absence of these details, credit cannot be given towards income earned for the year under consideration under the head ‘income from salary’ and ‘income from house property’. Therefore, he rejected the explanation of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that, the assessee has re-deposited sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 08.08.2016 out of cash withdrawal of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 04.07.2016, for which necessary bank statements Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah have been furnished. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the A.O. to delete the addition made towards cash deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- which has been explained by the assessee out of previous withdrawals. To sum up, out of the total additions made by the A.O. towards Rs. 26,05,000/-, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the relief to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the balance cash deposit of Rs. 21,05,000/- has been confirmed. 7. In so far as the additions made by the A.O. towards unexplained investment in purchase of property for Rs. 61,44,000/-, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that, although the assessee claims that, the property has been purchased jointly with his wife and major portion of the investment come from his wife, but failed to file documentary evidences substantiating the sale transaction by assessee’s wife, including the sale deeds, bank statements, and capital gain computation, etc. In the absence of cash book and other proof of sources, the assessee’s explanation regarding cash in hand of Rs. 61,44,000/- is not acceptable. Therefore, he rejected the explanation of the assessee and confirmed the additions made by the A.O. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah 8. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the A.O. towards disallowance of cost of improvement of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the ground that, the assessee could not support these expenditures with bills and payment receipts. There is no way to prove whether cost was actually incurred or not. Only photographs were uploaded showing a building supposedly before and after renovation, but there is no construction of gate, sloping shed, and railings in the picture as claimed by the assessee. Without bills and vouchers, the expenditure of Rs. 1,00,000/- cannot be allowed. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee and upheld the additions made by the A.O. 9. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 2 of assessee’s appeal is addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) towards cash deposit of Rs. 21,05,000/-. 11. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate, submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah addition towards cash deposit of Rs. 21,05,000/-, even though the assessee has explained the source for cash deposit out of gifts received from mother and father and also cash gift received by his wife, Ms. Geeta Rani. The learned counsel for the assessee referring to the bank account submitted that, the assessee is operating a bank account jointly with his wife and has made cash deposits on various dates for the purpose of purchase of a School. The assessee has explained part of cash deposits out of salary income and rental income to the extent of Rs. 6,25,000/-. The assessee has further explained cash deposit of Rs. 14,80,000/- out of cash gifts from mother, father and his wife. Although the assessee has furnished relevant gift deeds and also explained that the donors have sufficient source of income to explain the source of gifts, but the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee only on the ground that, the gifts have been received in cash. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the assessee has also explained part of cash deposits out of previous withdrawals from the very same bank account and the same has not been accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee has sufficient source to explain the cash deposit, the A.O. ought not to Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah have made additions towards cash deposit. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, in respect of cash gifts of Rs. 5,00,000/- received from Ms. Ratnamala, the above gifts have been given to assessee’s wife Ms. Geeta Rani and she is an independent assessee filing income tax returns and therefore, gifts received from her mother and deposited into her bank account cannot be added in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, he submitted that, the additions made by the A.O. should be deleted. 12. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, on the other hand, submitted that, the assessee failed to prove the source from known sources of income. Although the assessee claims to have received cash gifts from relatives, but the creditworthiness of the donors has not been explained. Further, the assessee has also failed to explain the salary income and rental income received in cash, so as to deposit the same into bank account. In the absence of relevant details, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly sustained the additions made by the A.O. Therefore, he submitted that, the additions made by the A.O. should be sustained. Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah 13. We have heard both sides and considered the relevant arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee and also the arguments of the learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue. We have also carefully considered the relevant gift deeds furnished by the assessee. The assessee has explained cash deposit from different sources of income. The assessee has explained cash deposit of Rs.6,25,000/- out of rental income and salary income and also cash withdrawals from the very same bank account on different dates. We find that, the assessee has reported salary income of Rs. 2,08,800/- and rental income of Rs. 1,96,000/- and both put together, the assessee had derived income of Rs. 4,04,800/-. The assessee has also withdrawn the cash from the very same bank account on three occasions totaling to Rs. 4,50,000/-. Since the assessee has received salary income and rental income in cash which is evident from the bank statements where the salary and rental income have been periodically deposited and further, the assessee has withdrawn cash of Rs. 4,50,000/-, the assessee had sum of Rs. 8,54,800/- in cash to explain the cash deposit of Rs. 6,25,000/-. Even if you exclude certain portion of salary income and rental income for personal drawing purposes, still the Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah assessee can explain cash deposit of Rs. 6,25,000/- out of previous cash withdrawals of Rs. 4,50,000/- and salary income, and rental income. Therefore, in our considered view, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the explanation of the assessee with regard to cash deposit of Rs. 6,25,000/-. Thus, we direct the A.O. to delete the additions made towards cash deposit of Rs. 6,25,000/-. 14. Coming back to the cash deposit of Rs. 14,80,000/-. The assessee claims to have received gift of cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- from his father and Rs. 4,80,000/- from his mother. The assessee had furnished relevant copies of gift deeds from Ms. Ratnamala, the mother of the assessee, and claimed that, she was working as a Teacher for 30 years in Vivekvardhan School, Hyderabad, and out of her savings, she has donated Rs. 4,80,000/- out of natural love and affection towards her son. Since the gift is between mother and son and a close relative, in our considered view, merely for the reason of receipt of gift in cash, the genuineness of the gift cannot be doubted. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to accept the source of Rs. 4,80,000/- towards gift received by the assessee from his mother. The assessee has also explained the source of Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah cash deposit, out of cash gift of Rs. 5,00,000/- received from his father Shri Radheshyam. We have perused the relevant gift deeds furnished by the assessee. Although the father of the assessee has confirmed the gift given to the assessee, but has not explained the source, except stating that, he has gifted sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- out of his own funds. Since the donor has not explained the source of gift with known source of income, we cannot accept the explanation of the assessee towards gift received from his father for Rs. 5,00,000/-. Thus, we reject the explanation of the assessee and uphold the addition made by the A.O. towards cash deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 15. In so far as further cash deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the assessee has explained the source out of gift received by his wife, Ms. Gita Rani, from Ms. D. Prabhavati, the mother of the assessee’s wife. The assessee claims that, she has received Rs. 5,00,000/- from her mother, and the same has been deposited to her bank account. We find that, the assessee, along with his wife, is operating a joint bank account, and assessee’s wife is also an income tax assessee, and has filed a return of income for the year under consideration. Once gift has been received by his wife and Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah has deposited cash into her bank account, then the same cannot be added as income of the assessee. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards cash deposit, because the assessee has explained cash deposit out of gift received by his wife. To sum up, out of total addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), towards cash deposit of Rs. 21,05,000/-, the assessee is able to explain the source to an extent of Rs. 16,05,000/-. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the addition to an extent of Rs. 16,05,000/-. The remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was although explained out of gifts received from his father, but we have not accepted the explanation of the assessee. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to sustain addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards cash deposited into bank account. 16. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal is addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) towards unexplained investment in purchase of property for Rs. 61,44,000/-. 17. The A.O. made addition of Rs. 61,44,000/- towards investment made in purchase of property on the ground that, although the assessee claims to have invested cash in hand Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah available in his hand and his wife, but failed to file relevant supporting evidence. It was the explanation of the assessee before the A.O. that, he had purchased the property jointly with his wife for a consideration of Rs. 1,58,40,840/- and to an extent of Rs. Rs. 1,58,40,840/- has been explained out of sale proceeds received from sale of property and gifts received from relatives. The A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee only on the ground that, the assessee could not explain the cash in hand with relevant evidences. 18. The learned counsel for the assessee, referring to the copy of sale deed for purchase of property, submitted that, the assessee has purchased the property for a consideration of Rs. 1,58,40,840/-, along with his wife, and the source for purchase of property has been explained out of consideration received towards sale of property by himself and by his wife. The learned counsel for the assessee, referring to the copies of sale deed No. 4549 dated 27.11.2013, submitted that, Ms. Gita Rani has sold the property for a consideration of Rs. 73,77,000/- and received sum of Rs. 51,77,000/- in cash for sale of the property. He further submitted that, the assessee has sold a property for a Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah consideration of Rs. 74,30,000/- vide sale deed No. 3954 dated 10.08.2016. Similarly, the assessee has received gift from his father, mother, and brother, and the total source available to the assessee to explain the property was at Rs. 1,82,29,367/-. As against this, the assessee has made investment of Rs. 1,58,40,840/- and these evidences have been furnished before the A.O. However, the A.O. and Ld. CIT(A), without considering the relevant evidences, simply made addition towards investment made for purchase of property. Therefore, he submitted that, the additions made by the A.O. should be deleted. 19. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A), submitted that, although the assessee claimed to have explained source for purchase of the property out of sale of property for the year 2013, but there is a time gap of more than two years, and the assessee could not explain as to why the cash was kept at home for more than two years, and also failed to explain that the source of cash paid for purchase of property was the cash received from sale of property. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue further submitted that, the assessee has also failed to prove the gift received from his Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah father, and therefore, the source to an extent of gifts from his father is not available to the assessee. Since the assessee has not explained the source to an extent of Rs. 61,44,000/-, the A.O. has rightly made additions under Section 69A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant facts, has rightly sustained the additions made by the A.O. Therefore, he submitted that, the additions made by the A.O. should be upheld. 20. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the investment made for purchase of property. The assessee has made investment of Rs. 1,58,40,840/- for purchase of property. The above property has been purchased vide sale deed dated 12.08.2016 for a consideration of Rs. 1,49,44,000/-. If we consider stamp duty and registration charges, the total investment made for purchase of property was at Rs. 1,58,40,840/-. The assessee has explained the source for purchase of property out of sale of property by himself and his wife, Ms. Gita Rani, and gifts received from his father, mother, and brother. The assessee has sold property for a consideration of Rs. 74,30,000/-. Ms. Gita Rani, the wife of Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah assessee, sold property for a consideration of Rs. 73,77,000/- and received cash of Rs. 51,77,000/-. Similarly, the assessee has received gift of Rs. 9,80,000/- from his relatives. If we consider total source available to the assessee from all sources of income, including the sale of property and gifts, the assessee was having source to an extent of Rs. 1,82,29,367/-. As against this, the assessee has made payment of Rs. 1,58,40,840/- for purchase of the property. In fact, the A.O. has accepted the source explained by the assessee, except to an extent of Rs. 61,44,000/- for cash payment. The assessee has explained the cash payment out of cash receipt of Rs. 51,77,000/- by his wife Ms. Gita Rani from sale of property. On perusal of sale deed, we find that, Ms. Gita Rani has received sum of Rs. 51,77,000/- and paid an advance of Rs. 45,00,000/- in cash for purchase of property. The assessee has also source in the form of cash gift of Rs. 9,80,000/- and the same is available to explain the cash in hand. If we consider the cash availability, the assessee is having sufficient cash in hand to explain the cash payment of Rs. 61,44,000/-. Although these evidences were furnished to the A.O. and Ld. CIT(A), both the authorities have ignored the evidences and sustained the Printed from counselvise.com 18 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah additions towards cash payment for purchase of property. Since the assessee is able to explain the source for the purchase of property with known source of income, in our considered view, the additions made by the A.O. towards cash payment for purchase of property as unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Act cannot be upheld. Thus, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the A.O. to delete the additions made towards cash payment of Rs. 61,44,000/- for purchase of property under Section 69A of the Act. 21. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 4 of assessee’s appeal is addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- made towards cost of improvement. 22. The learned counsel for the assessee, with regard to the disallowance of cost of improvement of Rs. 1,00,000/-, submitted that, the assessee has incurred expenditure towards improvement of the property prior to sale and the same has been supported by photographs showing the condition of the property before and after improvement. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, merely because bills and vouchers were not produced, the genuine expenditure incurred towards improvement Printed from counselvise.com 19 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah of the property cannot be disallowed, particularly when the improvement is evident from the photographs placed on record. Therefore, he submitted that, the A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the cost of improvement and the addition made towards cost of improvement deserves to be deleted. 23. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, strongly supporting the orders of the authorities below, submitted that, the assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidence such as bills, vouchers or payment receipts to substantiate the claim of expenditure incurred towards cost of improvement. He submitted that, mere filing of photographs cannot establish the expenditure was actually incurred by the assessee. In the absence of any supporting evidence, the A.O. has rightly disallowed the claim of cost of improvement, and the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly upheld the same. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. deserves to be sustained. 24. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that, the assessee has claimed cost of improvement of Rs. 1,00,000/- against sale of property while Printed from counselvise.com 20 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah computing short-term capital gain. The A.O. disallowed cost of improvement on the ground that, the assessee, except filing photograph of the property, could not file any bills and vouchers for proving the expenditure incurred for improvement. Before us, the assessee, except filing photograph, could not furnish any evidence. In our considered view, the photograph of the property cannot prove the cost of improvement incurred by the assessee. In absence of any evidence to prove the cost of improvement, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. Therefore, we uphold the additions made by the A.O. towards disallowance of cost of improvement of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 25. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st January, 2025. Sd/- (श्री रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- (मंजूिधथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 21.01.2026. TYNM/sps Printed from counselvise.com 21 ITA No.1614/Hyd/2025 Manoj Kumar Chowrah आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Manoj Kumar Chowrah, 1-7-500/3, Hari Nagar, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(1), Hyderabad. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad Printed from counselvise.com "