Ongole Educational Academy Private Limited,, Hyderabad v. ITO, Ward 16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1723/HYD/2013 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 172322514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAACO2388Q
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1723/HYD/2013
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant Ongole Educational Academy Private Limited,, Hyderabad
Respondent ITO, Ward 16(1), Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 26-11-2014
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 16-12-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B' HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1309/HYD/14 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ITA NO.1310/HYD/14 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ITA NO.1311/HYD/14 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ITA NO.1723/HYD/14 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 M/S. ONGOLE EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY (P)LTD. HYDERABAD (PAN - AAACO 2388 Q) V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 16(1) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.RAGHAVENDRA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJAT MITRA DR DATE OF HEARING 24 . 11 .2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.11.2014 O R D E R PER P.M.JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST FOUR SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) V HYDERABAD FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 2008 - 09 AN D 2009 - 10 ALL DAT E D 3 1.3.2014 AND F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 DATED 16.9.2013 INVOLVE A COMMON ISSUE AND T HE SAME THEREFORE HAVE BEEN HE A RD TOGETHER AND ARE BEIN G DISPOSED OF BY A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE SOLITARY COMMON ISSUE INVOL V ED IN ALL TH E SE FOU R APPEALS REL A TE TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEP RE CIATION PERTAINING TO THE EARLIER YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 AND I TA NO. 1309 TO 1311 & 1723/H YD/20 14 M/S.ONGOLE EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY (P)LTD HY DERABAD 2 2004 - 05 AGAIN S T THE INCOME ASSESSED TO TAX IN ALL THE FOUR Y E ARS UNDER CON S I D E R ATION UNDER THE HEAD INC OM E FROM OTHER SOU R CES. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE P R E SE NT CA S E IS A COMPANY WHICH WAS EARLIER ENGA G ED IN THE BUSIN ES S O F RUNNING AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 ONWARDS THE SAID ACTIVITY WAS DI S CONTIN UED BY TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ALL ITS ASSETS REL A TING TO TH E SAID ACTIVIT Y WERE GIVEN BY IT ON LEASE. THE R E SULTANT RENT FOR THE SAID AS S ETS RECEIVED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 AS WELL AS IN THE Y E ARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS DECL A RED BY THE ASSESSEE U NDER THE H E AD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROF E SSION AND THE UNABSORBED DEP RE CIATION PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 A ND 2004 - 05 TOTALLING TO R S .37 21 198 WAS SET OFF AGAINS T THE SAID INCOME. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 AS WELL AS IN ALL THE FOU R Y E ARS UNDER CONSIDERATION THE LEASE RENTAL IN C OM E RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD INCOME F R OM OTHER SOU R CES AND THE CL A IM O F THE ASSESSEE FOR SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 AND 2004 - 05 WAS NO T CON S I D ERED BY HIM AT ALL. 4. ON APPEAL F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSES SING THE RENTAL INCOM E IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE UNDER TH E HEAD INCOM E FROM OT H ER SOURCES; AND ALSO CON F IRM E D THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR SET OFF OF UNAB S O R BED DEPRECIATION PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 AND 2004 - 05 AGAIN S T THE SAID INCOME. ON FURTHER APPEAL THE T R IBUNAL UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 ON BOTH THE ISSUES AND FOLLO W IN G THE SAID ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR THE YEARS UNDE R CONSIDERATION ALSO I TA NO. 1309 TO 1311 & 1723/H YD/20 14 M/S.ONGOLE EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY (P)LTD HY DERABAD 3 CON F IR M ED T H E DISALLOWANCE M A DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR SET OFF OF UNAB S ORB E D DEPRE C IA T ION PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 AND 2004 - 05 AGAINS T THE RENTAL INCOM E ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOU RC ES IN ALL THE FOUR YEARS UN D E R CONSIDERATION. AGGRIEVED BY THE OR DERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET RELIED ON THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF S.57(II) OF THE ACT IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 AND 2004 - 05 AGAINST THE INCOM E FROM LEASE RENTS ASSESSED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE HAS ALSO CITED THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW AND SUBMITTED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THESE CASES - ( A ) CIT V/S. PREMCHAND JUTE MILLS LTD. (164 ITR 288) - CAL. ( B ) DCIT V/S. AKAY FLAVOURS & AROMATICS PVT. LTD. (2011) 130 ITD 41(COCH.)(TM) ( C ) JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 15/09/2012 IN CIT V/S. SPEL SEMI CONDUCTOR LIMITED. 6. THE LEARNE D DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND HAS STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO R I T I E S BELOW IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES CA S E ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN TH E SE APPEALS AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE TR IBUNAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 27 OF THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2010 P A SSED IN ITA NO.288/HYD/2009 AND CO NO.8/HYD/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW - I TA NO. 1309 TO 1311 & 1723/H YD/20 14 M/S.ONGOLE EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY (P)LTD HY DERABAD 4 27. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF VIRAMA NI INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF SOAP AND OIL DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1956 - 57. THE BUSINESS WAS STOPPED IN THAT YEAR WHEREAFTER THE FACTORY WAS LET OUT ON HIRE. TEN YEARS L ATER I.E. IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1965 - 66 THE ASSESSEE STARTED THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF STEEL PIPES. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS BUSINESS A PART OF THE OLD MACHINERY USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF SOAP AND OIL WAS UTILIZED. I N THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1965 - 66 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE UNABSORBED TO THE EXTENT OF PERTAINED TO THE OLD MACHINERY UTILIZED IN THE NEW BUSINESS SHOULD BE BROUGHT FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THE N EW BUSINESS. THIS CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY THE ITO AND BY THE APPELLATE ASST. COMMISSIONER. THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM AND THE HIGH COURT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE IN REGARD TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE APEX COURT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE FACTUAL MATRIX. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE FACTUAL POSITION WAS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF ANY KIND DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION AND THERE IS ONLY A SPECULATIVE SUBMISSION THAT IT IS A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF BUSINESS. IN OUR OPINION THE FACTUAL MATRIX DOES NOT REQUIRE US TO LOOK AROUND IN ANY DIRECTION EXCEPT THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE OF THE REQUIRED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72 AND 32( 2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HENCE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FROM THE BUSINESS COULD NOT BE SET OFF OF AGAINST THE INCOME ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' IN THE CURRENT PREVIOUS YEAR. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF PREMCHAND J UTE MILLS LTD.(SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUN S EL FOR THE ASSESSEE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED A SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE AND THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS RECORDED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS AS CONTAINED IN THE HELD PORTION OF THE HEAD - NOTE ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER - AS R E GARDS THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF THE EARLIER YEARS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1907 - 71 AND 1971 - 2 IT WAS NOT DI S PU T ED TH A T IN THE EAR L IER YEARS DEPRE C IATION WAS SUFFERED BY THE AS S ETS INVOLVED NAMELY TH E JUTE MILL AND THAT SUCH DEPRECIATION REMAINED UNAB S ORB E D. TH E ASSESSEE W AS ENTITLED TO CA R RY FORWARD THE I TA NO. 1309 TO 1311 & 1723/H YD/20 14 M/S.ONGOLE EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY (P)LTD HY DERABAD 5 SAID UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION UN D ER SECTION 32(2) WITHOUT ANY REFER E N C E TO SECTION 57. IN TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED THE ASSESSEE EARNED INCOME FROM L E T TING OUT MACHINERY AND PLANT WHICH WAS NO T CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION BUT TO AS CHARGEABLE UN DE R THE HEAD INCOM E FROM OTHER SOU R CES . FROM SUCH INCOME THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDU C TION IN R E SPE C T OF EXPENDITURE AND DEPR EC IATION IN ACCORDANCE W ITH SECTION 32(2). THE SPECIFIC MENTION OF SECTION 32(2) IN SECTION 57 PERMITS DEDUCTION OF TH E UNABSO R B E D CARRY FORWARD DEP RE CIATION OF EARLIER Y E ARS F R OM THE IN C OM E RECEIVED FORM PLANT MACHINERIES OR FURNITURE LET OUT. THERE IS NO BAR OR LIMITATION IN SEC T I ON 57(II). 8. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED A SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. SPEL SEMI CONDUCTOR LIMITED (SUPRA) AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AS UNDER - 6. .. THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 32(2) IS VERY CLEAR AND THERE IS HARDLY ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 72(2) TO PREVENT SUCH SET OFF OF CARRIED FORWARD DEPRECIATION BEING GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE REVENUE DOES NOT DENY THE FACT THAT AS FAR AS THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ARE CONCERNED THERE COULD BE NO SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS OR CARRIED FORWARD LOSS. HOWEVER WHAT IS CONTENDED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT SECTION 72(2) CONTROLS THE OPERATION OF SE CTION 32(2) TO HAVE THE SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AGAINST THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS LINE OF REASONING. WHAT IS SPOKEN TO UNDER SECTION 72(2) IS AS REGARDS SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS AS AGAINST THE INCOME FROM PROFITS A ND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND IF THERE IS LOSS AS WELL AS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION THE SET OFF SHALL BE FIRST ON THE BUSINESS LOSS AS AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME AND THEN ON UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. WHAT IS SPOKEN TO UNDER SECTION 32(2) IS AS REGA RDS SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS PER CLAUSE (II) OF SUB SECTION (1) AND WHEN THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION COULD NOT BE SET OFF AS AGAINST THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION BY REASON OF THERE BEING NO INCOME AVAILABLE UNDER THE SAID HEADS AND W HERE THERE IS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES EFFECT MUST BE GIVEN TO SECTION 32(2) OF THE ACT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 9. THIS TRIBUNAL ALSO HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER A SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF AKAI FLAVOURS & AROMATICS (P)LTD (SUPRA) AND THE SAME WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE THIRD I TA NO. 1309 TO 1311 & 1723/H YD/20 14 M/S.ONGOLE EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY (P)LTD HY DERABAD 6 MEMBER DECISION OF THE COCHIN BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER - 9. A PLAIN READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 32(2) AND 72(2) MAKES IT CLEAR THAT FIRST BROUGHT FORWARD LO SS WOULD BE ADJUSTED AND AFTER THAT BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WOULD BE SET OFF. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) READS THAT THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WOULD BE DEEMED AS CURRENT DEPRECIATION AND HAS TO BE ALLOWED THE SET OFF OF UNABSORBED D EPRECIATION NOT ONLY WITH THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE CURRENT YEAR BUT ALSO WITH THE INCOME UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN LAW WHICH LAYS DOWN THAT UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WOULD NOT BE SET OFF AGAINST INCOME UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME OTHER TH AN INCOME FROM BUSINESS. I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS HEAVILY RELIED ON TWO DECISIONS ONE BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MOTHER INDIA REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. (SUPRA) AND THAT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN RAVI INDUS TRIES LTD.S CASE (SUPRA). I FIND THAT IN THESE CASES BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURTS THE ISSUE OF SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WITH INCOME UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD APART FROM INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 10(2)(VI) PROVISO (B) OF THE INDIAN INCOME - TAX ACT 1922. THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME - TAX ACT 1961 RELATING TO THE SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS PARI MATERIAL WITH THE CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS OF LAW UNDER THE OLD ACT 1922 THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE COURTS CITED SUPRA WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. A COMBINED READING OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE COURTS I HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE UNABSORBED DEPR ECIATION WOULD BE SET OFF WITH BUSINESS INCOME OR UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD OF INCOME INCLUDING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ACCORDINGLY THE QUESTION REFERRED TO HIM IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR O F TH E ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. IN THI S VIEW O F THE MATTER I AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THE L D. JM WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE THAT WH E TH E R THE P RO VIS I ONS OF SECTION 10B(6)(II) WAS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA S E AND HOL D THAT HE G R OUN D S OF APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE REL A TING TO THE ISSUE OF SET - OF F OF THE UNABSORBED DEPR EC IA T ION GAINS AGAINST THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOU R CES ARE ALLOWED. 10. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT ALTHOUGH THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 IS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE C ALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PREMCHAND JUTE MILLS LTD.(SUPRA) AND THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. SPEL SEMI CONDUCTOR LIMITED (SUPRA) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE HIGHER JUDICIAL FORA B ESIDES THE I TA NO. 1309 TO 1311 & 1723/H YD/20 14 M/S.ONGOLE EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY (P)LTD HY DERABAD 7 THIRD MEMBER CASE DECISION OF THE COCHIN BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AKAI FLAVOURS & AROMATICS (P)LTD (SUPRA) JUDICIAL PROPRIETY AND DISCIPLINE REQUIRES US TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURTS AND THE THIRD MEMBER DECISION WHICH ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PREMCHAND JUTE MILLS LTD.(SUPRA) AND THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. SPEL SEMI CONDUCTOR LIMITED (SUPRA) WE SE T ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHO R ITI E S ON THIS IS S UE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GI V E APPROPRIATE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY ALLOWING SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 3 - 0 4 AND 200 4 - 0 5 AGAINST THE RETINAL I NCOME ASSESSED TO TAX IN THE Y E ARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. A SSESSEES GROUNDS ON THIS ISSUE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26 TH NOVEMBER 2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) ( P.M.JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/ - 26 TH NOVEMBER 2014 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. ONGOLE EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY (P)LTD. A - 23 STEEL & MINE COMPLEX SRINAGAR COLONY HYDERABAD 2 . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 16(1) HYDERABAD 3. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) V HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX IV HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT HYDERABAD. B.V.S