Duvva Uma Rani, Hyderabad v. ITO, Karimnagar

ITA 1785/HYD/2008 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 178522514 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AIBPD3101C
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1785/HYD/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant Duvva Uma Rani, Hyderabad
Respondent ITO, Karimnagar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 14-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 03-05-2010
Next Hearing Date 03-05-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 23-12-2008
Judgment Text
ITA NO.1785/HYD/2008 M/S DUVVA UMA RANI KARIMNAGAR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANSAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.1785/HYD/2008 A.Y. 2005-06 M/S DUVVA UMA RANI KARIMNAGAR (PAN AIBPD 3101 C) VS ITO WARD 3 KARIMNAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI H. PHANI RAJU O R D E R PER: CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) III HYDERABAD DATED 1/10 /2008 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DEPOSITS OF RS.83 62 294/- REPRESENTS SALE S EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATION OF I NCOME AT 12% THEREOF. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.11 38 000 OUT OF RS.12 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.69 OF THE IT ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS F THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON 20 TH MARCH 2006 ADMITTING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS.50 400/- AND INCOME FR OM BUSINESS/PROFESSION AT RS.74 000/-. IN THE ABSENCE OF BO OKS OF ITA NO.1785/HYD/2008 M/S DUVVA UMA RANI KARIMNAGAR 2 2 ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSEE ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF TA ILORING AND EMBROIDERY. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS OPERATING TWO BANK ACC OUNTS WHEREIN SUBSTANTIAL CASH WAS DEPOSITED DURING THIS YEAR AT RS.11 36 200 WAS FOUND DEPOSITED IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD VEMULAWADA AND RS.83 62 294/- WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH CRE DIT ACCOUNT WITH THE SAME BANK. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THA T THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE SAID TWO ACCOUNTS DID NOT BELONG TO HE R BUT THESE ACCOUNTS WERE USED BY DIFFERENT HAWKERS/TRADERS OF THE L OCALITY. SHE ALSO ENCLOSED THE LIST OF 14 PERSONS WHO UTILIZED HER BA NK ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THIS EXPLANATION. ON THE ENQUIRIES MADE WITH THE MANAGER OF THE BANK IT WAS FOUND THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED DID NOT MATCH WITH THE 14 NAMES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT WAS OPENED ON LY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS NOT ALL OWABLE FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE OTHER PERSONS AS PER THE NORMS OF THE BANK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT ALL THE DEPOSITS MAD E IN THE BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENTED THE TRADING RECEIPTS OF THE BUSINESS O F THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH NET PROFIT @ 12% WAS ESTIMATED AND TAXED. 4. REGARDING THE FIRST GROUND THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED ON ANY BUSINESS I N THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT HAVING ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CARRYING O N THE BUSINESS. FURTHER HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN ASSUMING THAT THERE IS ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE THE PROFIT MARGIN IS NOT AT ALL 12% SINCE THE ASSESSEE BEING A LADY CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT A VE RY REMOTE VILLAGE VIZ. VEMULAVADA AND THE MAXIMUM PROFIT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ABOUT 5% OF SALES. ITA NO.1785/HYD/2008 M/S DUVVA UMA RANI KARIMNAGAR 3 3 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT WITH THE BANK AND HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE BANK ACCOUNT THE ASSESSE E WITH THE STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD VEMULAVADA. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A CASH CREDIT A/C NO.016600600037 (STOCKS) SBF. THUS HE SUBM ITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING CASH CREDIT LIMIT FOR SMALL BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HER. THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THIS ACCOUNT REPRESENT THE SALES PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE INCOME WAS ESTIMATED AT 12% OTHERWISE THE WHOLE AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ENQUIRY CAUSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF BRONZE ARTICLES. HE NCE HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION TO BE CONFIRMED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED A N AMOUNT OF RS.83 62 294 /- IN THE CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE W ITH THE SBH VEMULAVADA. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE COU NSEL IS THAT BANK ACCOUNTS WERE USED BY DIFFERENT HAWKERS AND THESE P ARTIES HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THEY USED THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT TO DE POSIT MONEY INTO THIS ACCOUNT. SINCE THE IDENTITY OF THE PA RTIES WHO HAVE DEPOSITED MONEY WERE FURNISHED TO THE DEPARTMENT AND IT WAS PROVED TO WHOM THIS MONEY BELONGS TO NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE AS SALES RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COUNSEL CANNOT BE ACCEPTED ON THE REASON THAT THE ACCOUNT WITH TH E SBH IS A CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT AND STOCKS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HYPOTHECATED T O THE BANK. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT STOCK IS NOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE HENCE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HYPOTHECATE THIRD PARTIES STOCK TO THE BANK. THIS ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO HOLDS NO M ERIT SINCE ASSESSEE CAN HYPOTHECATE THE STOCK ONLY WHEN THE STOCK BELO NGS TO HER. ITA NO.1785/HYD/2008 M/S DUVVA UMA RANI KARIMNAGAR 4 4 THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM VA RIOUS PARTIES REGARDING THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE ADVANCED MONEY TO T HE ASSESSEE BUT THESE PARTIES ARE NOT INCOME TAX ASSESSEES AND ARE OF PERSON S HAVING SMALLER MEANS. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE IN THE TYPED FORM AND HAVING SAME STYLE LANGUAGE AND CONTENTS AND IT CANNOT BE BELIEVED AS GENU INE DOCUMENT. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF THE HAWK ERS TO WHOM SHE ADVANCED MONEY. HOWEVER THIS LIST DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE PERSONS WHO WERE WITHDRAWN MONEY FROM THE BANK. THERE IS NO MER IT IN THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THOSE PARTIES ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO AVAIL CREDIT LIMIT FROM THE BANK AS THEY ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED SECURITY AND ON THEIR BEHALF ASSESSEE GOT THE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE BANK. IN OUR OPINION THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE PROFITS OF THOSE IMPUGNED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT SINCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOT PR ODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT 12% O N GROSS RECEIPTS IS AT HIGHER SIDE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE BEING A LAD Y CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN BRONZE ARTICLES NEAR A TEMP LE IN A VILLAGE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE RATE OF PROFIT AT 8% ON GROSS RECEIPTS (IMPUGNED DEPOSITS) IS REASONABLE INSTEAD OF 12% ON GR OSS RECEIPTS. ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE IMPUGNED DEPOSIT AT 8% NET OF ALL EX PENDITURE INCLUDING DEPRECIATION AND THE ASSESSEE NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY OTHER DEDUCTION TOWARDS EXPENSES. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE PA RTLY ALLOWED. 7. REGARDING THE SECOND GROUND THE BRIEF FACTS OF TH E CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS FOUND T HAT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.11 38 000/- IN HER TWO B ANK ACCOUNTS AGAINST WHICH EIGHT DEMAND DRAFTS OF RS.1 50 000 /- EACH WERE ITA NO.1785/HYD/2008 M/S DUVVA UMA RANI KARIMNAGAR 5 5 PURCHASED IN FAVOUR OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SA ID CASH AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED BY 8 PERSONS TO PURCHASE THE DEMAN D DRAFTS SO AS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EXCISE AUCTION. IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT THE SAID 8 PERSONS WERE CARRYING ON SMALL BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND DID NOT HAVE ANY BANK ACCOUNTS OF THEIR OWN. SINCE THE BANK WAS NOT ISSUING THE DEMAND DRAFT OF 1 50 000 WITHOUT THE BANK ACCOUNT TH E ASSESSEE ALLOWED THOSE PERSONS TO USE HER BANK ACCOUNTS TO PURCHASE T HE DEMAND DRAFTS THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CONFIRMATION LETTE RS AND AFFIDAVITS OF THE SAID 8 PERSONS TO SUBSTANTIATE HER EXPLANATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THOSE PERSONS FOR EXAMI NATION. HOWEVER ONLY TWO PERSONS COULD BE PRODUCED WHOSE SWORN STA TEMENTS WERE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 27 TH DECEMBER 2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE SAID DEPOSIT OF RS.12 00 000 WAS UNEX PLAINED AND DEEMED TO BE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF T HE ACT. 8. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT ALL THE EIGHT PERSONS WHO DEPOSITED CASH AND PURCHASE D DEMAND DRAFTS USING THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIR MATIONS AND AFFIDAVITS CONFIRMING THE CASH DEPOSITS BY THEM AND SOUR CE OF CASH. THE CONTRADICTION IN THE CONFIRMATIONS AND AFFIDAVITS POIN TED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE INSIGNIFICANT. TWO PERSONS WHO WERE EX AMINED ON OATH BY ASSESSING OFFICER RECONFIRMED THE AFORESAID FACTS. THE SAID AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF BIDDIN G IN THE EXCISE AUCTION. SINCE NONE OF THEM COULD SUCCEED IN THE AUCTION THE DEMAND DRAFTS WERE RE-DEPOSITED IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS AND CASH WITHDRAWN AND REPAID TO THE SAID PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST ON HER TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOU NT AND PRAYED TO DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION. ITA NO.1785/HYD/2008 M/S DUVVA UMA RANI KARIMNAGAR 6 6 8.1. FURTHER THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER DID NOT EXAMINE THE FACTS AS TO WHICH PURPOSE THE DEMAND DRAF TS WERE TAKEN AND THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THA T THE IMPUGNED DEMAND DRAFT AMOUNT IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALT ERNATIVELY PRAYED THAT AN INCOME AT 5% MAY BE ESTIMATED ON THE IMPUGNED DEPOSIT. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING INCONSISTENCY AND PARTIES WHOSE NAME FURNISHED TO THE DEP ARTMENT REGARDING PURCHASE OF DEMAND DRAFTS THEY ARE NOT INCO ME TAX ASSESSEES. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS: 1. R.B. MITTAL VS. CIT (246 ITR 283) (AP HC) 2. CIT VS. P. MOHANAKALA (SC) (291 ITR 278) 3. CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE (82 ITR 540) (SC) 4. SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (SC) (214 ITR 801) 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SHE A LLOWED HER BANK ACCOUNT TO BE USED BY EIGHT PERSONS FOR PURCHASING TH E DDS SO AS TO ENABLE THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AUCTION CONDUCTED BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE I S NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I) IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS SUBMITTED ON 26.12.2006 BY THE EIGHT CREDITORS EXTRACTED ON PAGE 3-4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALL THE CREDITORS HAVE STATED THAT THEY ADVANCED RS.1 50 000 /- EACH TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SOURCE OF THE ADVANCED MONEY WAS THEIR PAST SAVINGS OF THE LAST 10 TO 20 YEARS OF THEI R ITA NO.1785/HYD/2008 M/S DUVVA UMA RANI KARIMNAGAR 7 7 BUSINESS. IN NONE OF THESE CONFIRMATION LETTERS IT WAS STATED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY THEM IN THE ASSESSEE S BANK ACCOUNT TO PURCHASE THE DDS. NONE OF THESE CREDITORS WERE ASSESSED TO TAX. THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY WAS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED. II) IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ON 13.12.2007 I.E. AFTER ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF AFORESAID CONFIRMATION LETTER THE CREDITORS STA TED THAT ALL THE EIGHT PERSONS JOINED TOGETHER TO PARTICIPATE I N THE AUCTION FOR A WINE SHOP. THEY USED THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TO OBTAIN THE DDS. THE CASH DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT WAS NEITHER A LOAN NOR A DEPOSIT. III) IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT ONE OF THE CREDITOR SRI M. RAJ U HAS STATED THAT HE RECEIVED DOWRY OF RS.1 50 000/- FROM HIS FAT HER IN LAW IN AUGUST 1997 AND TOOK A LOAN IN THE MONTH OF OCTOB ER 2005. HIS ANNUAL INCOME WAS RS.15 000/- P.A. AND HE WAS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX. IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT THE CREDITOR WHO TOOK LOAN IN OCTOBER 32005 AND HAD THE ANNUAL INCOME OF RS.15 000 ONLY CANNOT HAVE THE PAST SAVINGS OF RS.3 50 000 IN CASH TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.1 15 000 AS STATED IN HIS CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 26.12.2006. HO WEVER IN HIS AFFIDAVIT HE HAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 50 0000 WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF THE LOAN TAKEN BY HIM FROM HIS FRIEN D SRI G.ASHOK. THIS PERSON WAS NOT ABLE TO RECOLLECT THE NAME S OF THE OTHER THREE PERSONS WITH WHOM HE JOINTLY PARTICIPA TED IN THE AUCTION. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID CONTENTIONS THE CONFIRMATION AND AFFIDAVIT FILED CANNOT BE RELIED UPO N. IV) SRI M. SRINIVAS ANOTHER CREDITOR WHOSE SWORN STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON 27.12.2007 STATED THAT HE HAD NO SAVINGS T ILL ITA NO.1785/HYD/2008 M/S DUVVA UMA RANI KARIMNAGAR 8 8 31.3.2004 RECEIVED CASH GIFT OF RS.2 00 000 IN THE MON TH OF MAY 2004 FROM HIS PARENTS WHICH WAS KEPT WITH HIS FATH ER IN LAW AND USED FOR PURCHASING DDS THROUGH ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.14 HE AGAIN STATED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.1 50 000 WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN. THUS THERE ARE APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS I N THE CONFIRMATION LETTER AFFIDAVIT AND THE SWORN STATE MENT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CREDITOR COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF THE AFORESAID INCOME. V) IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS/CASH DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. IF THE AMOUNTS ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RECEI VED FROM OTHER PERSONS ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AS WEL L AS THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE COULD NEITHER PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION NOR THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED CREDITORS. 11. CONSIDERING ALL THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN OUR OPINION THE CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE AFORESAID CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ASSESSEE BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS AND DEEMED TO B E HER UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 12. FURTHER AS OBSERVED BY CIT(A) WE DIRECT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING AND ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL TREAT THE INCOME COMPUTED ON TRADING RECEIPTS DEPOSITED IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT AS A SOURCE FOR MAKING IMPUGNED DEPOSIT OF RS.11 38 000/ - AND BALANCE TO BE ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1785/HYD/2008 M/S DUVVA UMA RANI KARIMNAGAR 9 9 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT : 14. 5.2010 SD/- SD/- N.R.S. GANESAN CHANDRA POOJARI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 14TH MAY 2010 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT. DUVVA UMA RANI KARIMNAGAR C/O SHRI S. RAMA RAO ADVOCATE FLAT NO.103 INDIR ADEVI NILAYAM H.NO.3-6-542/4 HIMAYATNAGAR HYDERABAD. 2. ITO WARD 3 KARIMNAGAR 3. CIT(A)-III HYDERABAD. 4. CIT HYDERABAD 5. THE D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD. NP