Sri T Nandagopal, Hyderabad v. ITO, Hyderabad

ITA 182/HYD/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2012 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 18222514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAAHT4617C
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 182/HYD/2009
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant Sri T Nandagopal, Hyderabad
Respondent ITO, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 15-02-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 26-04-2011
Next Hearing Date 26-04-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 06-02-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JUDICIAL MEMBE R. ITA NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 180/HYD/2009 2005-06 SHRI T. VISWAMBER HYDERABAD (PAN AAAHT 4617 C) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1) HYDERABAD 181/HYD/2009 2005-06 SHRI T. SRINIVASULU HYDERABAD (PAN AAAHT 3773 P) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1) HYDERABAD 182/HYD/2009 2005-06 SHRI T.NANDA GOPAL HYDERABAD (PAN AAAHT 4614 B) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1) HYDERABAD 183/HYD/2009 2005-06 SHRI T.NAVEENKUMAR (ALIAS T.BALAGOVIND RAJ) HYDERABAD (PAN AAAHT 0162 P) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1) HYDERABAD APPELLANTS BY : SHRI K.A.SAI PRASAD RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHAKAR RAO DATE OF HEARING 25. 1.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15.2.2012 O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE FOUR APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEES WHO ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SIMILAR BUT SEPARATE OR DERS OF THE CIT(A)-V HYDERABAD ALL DATED 15.1.2009 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED THESE APPEAL S ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVE NIENCE. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS AS TAKEN FROM THE A PPEAL-FOLDER IN ITA NO.180-183/HYD/2009 SHRI T. VISWAMBER HYDERABAD 2 THE CASE OF SHRI T.VISWAMBER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DECLARING AN INCOM E OF RS.62 490 AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.20 94 830 . DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED T HAT THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THREE OTHER CO-OWNERS NAMELY SHRI T. NAVEEN KUMAR @ BALA GOVINDA RAJU SHRI T.SRINIVASULU AND SH RI T.NANDGOPAL HAVE SOLD PROPERTY BEARING MUNICIPAL NO.3-4-784 3-4- 785 AND 3-4- 1082 KNOWN AS TOURIST HOTEL SITUATED AT KACHIGUDA STA TION HYDERABAD ON 28.09.2004 VIDE AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM G ENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY TO ONE M/S. LEGEND CONSTRUCTIONS. THE CO-O WNERS HAVE ACQUIRED THE SAID PROPERTY THROUGH FAMILY SETTLEMENT CO VERED BY DEED DATED 25.6.1960 BEARING DOCUMENT NO.1516 OF 1960. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE PROPERTY ORIGINALLY CONSISTED OF 1580 SQ. YARDS AND BUILDING COMPRISING SHOPS OF GROUND FLOOR SECOND FLO OR AND THIRD FLOOR. AFTER THE SAID FAMILY SETTLEMENT ONE SMT. R AJAMANIAMMA BELONGING TO THEIR FAMILY FILED A SUIT IN THE YEAR 1 986 IN OS NO.1160 OF 1986 IN COURT OF IVTH ADDITIONAL JUDGE CITY CIVIL COURT HYDERABAD MAKING THE ABOVE FOUR CO-OWNERS AS DEFENDANTS. A DECRE E BY THE HONBLE JUDGE IN THE SAID SUIT AS PER THE COMPROMISE ARR IVED AT BY THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANTS WAS PASSED. AS PER THE DECR EE SMT.RAJAMANIAMMA WAS GIVEN 109 SQ. YARDS OF LAND AND CO NSTRUCTED STRUCTURE THEREON COMPRISING THREE FLOORS. AS NOTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THE BALANCE OF 1471 SQ. YARDS VIZ. 1580 SQ.Y ARDS 109 SQ.YARDS AND BUILT UP AREA AS PER SCHEDULE ENCLOSED TO T HE AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS SOLD BY ALL THE FOUR CO-OWNERS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2 76 54 000 TO M/S. LEGEND CONSTRU CTIONS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. ON THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2 76 54 000 THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED HIS 1/4 TH SHARE AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.20 95 980 AS UNDER- ITA NO.180-183/HYD/2009 SHRI T. VISWAMBER HYDERABAD 3 SALE CONSIDERATION RS.2 76 54 000 LAND @ 1000 PER SQ. YARD 1 471 X 1000X 480/100 RS. 70 66 800 BUILDING @ RS.100 PER SFT. 25436 X 100 X 480/100 RS.1 22 09 280 RS.1 92 76 080 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS RS. 83 83 920 1/4 TH BEING HIS SHARE RS.20 95 980 IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE COMPUTATION THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS CONSIDERED RATE OF RS.1 000 PER SQ. YARD AS THE MARKET V ALUE OF LAND AS ON 1.4.1981 FOR ESTIMATING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AREA OF 1471 SQ. YARDS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON ENQU IRY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE SUB-REGISTRAR CHIKKADP ALLY HYDERABAD THE LATTER HAS FURNISHED THE LAND RATE AT R S.80 PER SQ. YARD FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND OF RS.150 PER SQ. YARD FO R COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE PROPOSAL OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO ADOPT THE VALUE OF THE LAND AS PER SUB-REGISTRAR FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS ON THE GROUND THAT THE VALUE AS PER SU B-REGISTRAR IS MUCH LOWER THAN THE REAL MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AT THAT TIME AND RELYING ON THE CERTAIN DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL SUBMI TTED THAT THE VALUE OF THE LAND WAS CORRECTLY TAKEN AT RS.1 000 PER SQ . YARD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HELD THAT THE RATE OF RS.750 PER SQUARE YARD WOULD BE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND IN THAT LOCALITY AS ON 1.4.1981 AND ACCORDING LY ESTIMATED THE INDEXED COST OF THE SAID LAND MEASURING 1471 SQ. YARDS AT RS.52 95 670. IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD VIDE THE ABOVE SALE AGREEMENT CUM GPA FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITA L GAINS THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE BUILT UP AREA AT 25 436 SQ. FT. HO WEVER SINCE AS PER THE SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY AT PAGE 12 OF THE AGR EEMENT OF SALE ITA NO.180-183/HYD/2009 SHRI T. VISWAMBER HYDERABAD 4 CUM GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY REGISTERED ON 28.9.200 4 THE AGGREGATE BUILT UP AREA IS SHOWN AT 5636 SQ. FT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS THE SAME HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS AGAINST THE FIGURE OF 25 436 SQ. FT. AS THE BUILT UP AREA TRANSFERRED/SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE A REA OF 5636 SQ. FT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE INDEXED COST IN RESP ECT THEREOF AT RS.27 05 280. HE THUS COMPUTED THE TOTAL INDEXED CO ST OF ACQUISITION IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY COMPRISING OF VACANT LAND MEASURING 1471 SQ.YARDS AND THE ABOVE BUILT UP AREA A T RS.80 00 880. AFTER DEDUCTING THIS AMOUNT FROM THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDE RATION OF RS.2 76 54 000 HE COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI NS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE FOUR CO-OWNERS AT RS.1 96 53 120 AN D ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT THE 1/4 TH AMOUNT ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.49 13 280. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ABOVE FIGUR E TOWARDS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSE SSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.49 75 7 74 VIDE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 20.12.2007 PASSED UNDER S.14 3(3) OF THE ACT. 3. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) HELD IN THE FIRST PLACE THA T ADOPTION OF A RATE OF RS.900 PER SQ. YARD AS THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 FOR COMPUTING THE COST IN RESPECT OF THE LAND SO LD WOULD BE JUSTIFIED. THE CIT(A) THEREAFTER CONSIDERING THE TERM S OF THE SALE DEED AND THE SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY HELD THAT SINCE THE BUILT UP AREA WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE VENDEE IS CLEARLY MENTIONED AT 5 636 SQ. FT. AS AGAINST 25 463 SQ. FT. TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CONSIDERING THE BUILT UP AREA OF TH E BUILDING WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 5 436 SQ. FT IS JUSTIFIED . ITA NO.180-183/HYD/2009 SHRI T. VISWAMBER HYDERABAD 5 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ASSESSEES ARE IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL COMMON IN ALL THESE AP PEALS READ AS FOLLOWS- 1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DECISION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2 76 54 000 RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND OTHER CO-OWNERS WAS TOWARDS THE TRANSFER OF LAND AND 5636 SFT. OF BUILT UP AREA ONLY AND NOT LAND AND 25 4336 SFT. OF BUILT UP AREA AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 2) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE TRANSFER TOOK EFFECT ON THE VERY DAY OF ORAL AGREEMENT FOLLOWED BY PART PAYMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS AND PASSING ON THE POSSESSION ON THE PROPERTY TO THE VENDEE (AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE IT ACT). 3) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ( APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CONFIRMATION OF THE VENDEE THAT THE BUILDING WAS GO T DEMOLISHED BY THE VENDEE ONLY BEFORE REGISTRATION O F WRITTEN AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA. 4) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A PPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING OTHER CLAUSES IN THE WRITTEN AND REGISTERED AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GENERA L POWER OF ATTORNEY DT. 28.9.2004 SHOWING CLEARLY TH AT WHAT WAS AGREED TO BE SOLD IS THE LAND AND 25436 SF T. OF BUILT UP AREA. 5) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT SOLD ONL Y 5636 SFT BUILT UP AREA ONLY AND THUS IGNORING THE VALUE OF THE BALANCE BUILT UP AREA FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRIVING A T THE COST FOR THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. 6) FOR THESE AND ANY OTHER GROUND OR THAT MAY BE URGED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE APPELLANT PRAYS T HAT THE HONBLE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BEE PLEAS ED TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE 25 436 SFT. OF BUILT UP AREA FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE CA PITAL GAINS. ITA NO.180-183/HYD/2009 SHRI T. VISWAMBER HYDERABAD 6 THUS THE ONLY DISPUTE INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE GROUNDS O F APPEAL RELATES TO THE EXTENT OF THE BUILT UP AREA WHICH HAS TO BE TA KEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF THE CAPI TAL GAINS. 6. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATING THE CONTENTIONS URGED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITT ED THAT THE PURCHASER WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PRESERVING POSSESSION OF THE LAND PURCHASED WITH THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE THEREON AND HENCE SO ON AFTER SECURING POSSESSION OF THE SAME ON PAYMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS BY WAY OF ADVANCE DEMOLISHED THE UNWANTED PART OF THE STRUCTURE THEREON. HENCE THE DEMOLITION WORK ALSO FALLS UNDER THE CATEGOR Y OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND HENCE THE INDEXED COST OF BUILDING WHICH WAS EXISTING AT THE TIME OF SALE AGREEMENT AND PRIOR TO REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY HAS TO BE DEDUCTED AND TAX HAS TO BE COMPUTED ONLY ON THE BALANCE. HE PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HYD ERABAD BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRABHANDA M PRAKASH V/S ITO (22 SOT 58). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES A LETTER FROM THE PURCHASER INDICATING THEREIN THE DETAILS OF THE STRUCTURE EXISTIN G ON THE LAND PURCHASED PRIOR TO DISMANTLING PART THEREOF BY THE VEN DEE. HE HAS ALSO FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES 8. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS FILED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY DISPU TE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS RELATES TO THE EXACT BUILT UP AREA WHICH H AS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS ASSESS ABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES VIZ. WHETHER IT IS 25 436 SQ. FT. WHICH WAS ITA NO.180-183/HYD/2009 SHRI T. VISWAMBER HYDERABAD 7 HANDED OVER BY THE ASSESSEES TO THE VENDEE ON RECEIPT OF RS.50 LAKHS BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR THE ACTUAL BUILT UP AREA WHICH FI GURED IN THE SCHEDULE OR PROPERTY. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT AT T HE BUILT UP AREA OF 25 436 SQ. FT. EXISTED ON THE LAND IN QUESTION AS O N THE DATE OF SALE AGREEMENT AND SOON AFTER THE PAYMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS B Y WAY OF ADVANCE ON 19.7.2004 POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS HAND ED OVER TO THE VENDEE AND THE VENDEE WITH THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE VENDORS DEMOLISHED THE PORTIONS OF THE BUILT UP AREA NOT WANT ED BY IT BEFORE REGISTRATION OF AGREEMENT OF SALE CUM GPA ON 28.9.2004 . A LETTER DATED 1.12.2007 FROM THE VENDEE M/S. LEGEND CONSTRUCT ION TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY UNDERTOOK THE DISMANTLING OF THE BUI LDING WAS ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT A SIMILAR CASE DEAL ING WITH THE ASPECT OF TREATMENT TO BE GIVEN TO THE COST OF SUPERSTRUCT URE WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS ON TRANSFER OF LAND COORDIN ATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRABHANDAM PRAKASH (SUPRA ) HELD AS FOLLOWS: IN THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION IT WAS DECLARED THA T THE PROMOTER SHALL DEMOLISH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCT THEREON A NEW COMPLEX. IT WOULD BE AT THE COST OF THE PROMOTER ONLY. THIS CLEARLY INDICATED THAT UNLESS T HE SUPERSTRUCTURE WAS ALSO TRANSFERRED THE PROMOTER C OULD NOT TAKE POSSESSION AND DEMOLISH THE SAME. FURTHER THE QUESTION OF NOT ALLOWING THE COST OF THE HOUSE WOULD ARISE O NLY IF IT WAS RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. THIS WAS NOT THE CASE IN THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION. WHAT THE TRANSFEREE DID TO THAT ASSET WAS NOT THE CONCERN OF THE TRANSFEROR. IT WAS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE INCOME GENERATED IF ANY F ROM THE SALE OF SCRAP WAS APPROPRIATED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN AC CEPTING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT THE SUPERSTRUCTURE HAD NO VALUE FOR THE PROMOTER IT COULD NOT BE DENIED THAT THE LAND BELOW THAT STRUCTURE WAS CERTAINLY OF VALUE AND WAS USEFUL FOR THE PROMOTER. THIS WAS BECAUSE IF HE HAD TO BUILD A N EW COM PLEX HE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE USE OF THAT LAND. THEREFORE IN ORDER TO USE THE LAND WHICH WAS BENEATH THE STRUCTURE HE HA D TO ACQUIRE THE STRUCTURE ALSO AND THEN HE MIGHT DEMOLI SH IT. THEREFORE THERE WAS NO GAINSAYING THAT THE SUPERST RUCTURE WAS NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE PROMOTER. CONSIDERING THE I SSUE FROM ITA NO.180-183/HYD/2009 SHRI T. VISWAMBER HYDERABAD 8 THE VIEW POINT OF THE TRANSFEROR SINCE HE WAS PART ING WITH AN ASSET FOR WHICH HE HAD INCURRED COST THAT COST HA D TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. THEREFORE THE SUPERSTRUCTURE ON THE LAND WAS ALSO TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PROMOTER AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTI ON THEREOF WAS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING H IS CAPITAL GAINS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT A SIMILAR MATTE R IN THE CASE OF BODA DINESH REDDY(HUF) VIDE OUR ORDER DATED 25 .1.2012 IN ITA NO.296/HYD/2009 HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL OF HYDERABAD BENCH. THOUGH THE QUESTION OF LAW WHETHER THE INDEX COST OF THE BUILDING WHICH EXISTED PRIOR TO REGISTRATION OF SALE A GREEMENT CUM GPA AND DEMOLISHED BY THE VENDEE HAS TO BE DEDUCTED WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY VARIOUS DECISION S THE FACTUAL ASPECT AS TO WHETHER THE ENTIRE AREA OF 25 436 SQ.FT. A ND NOT MERELY 5 636 SQ. FT. WHICH ALONE WAS MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDUL E OF THE PROPERTY WHICH HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WH ILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO B E VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE PERSONS INVOL VED WITH THE DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING. HENCE WE SET ASIDE THIS ISS UE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROCURE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES AN D DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 15.2.2012 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. JUDICIAL MEMBER. DT/- 15.2. 2012 ITA NO.180-183/HYD/2009 SHRI T. VISWAMBER HYDERABAD 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI T.VISWAMBER (HYDERABAD ) C/O. M/S. CH.PARTHASA RATHY & CO. 1-1-298/2/B/3 1 ST FLOOR SOWBHAGYA AVENUE STREET NO.1 ASHOKNAGAR HYDERABAD 500 020. 2. SHRI T.SRINIVASULU (HYDERABAD ) C/O. M/S. CH.PART HASARATHY & CO. 1-1-298/2/B/3 1 ST FLOOR SOWBHAGYA AVENUE STREET NO.1 ASHOKNAGAR HYDERABAD 500 020. 3. SHRI T.NANDAGOPAL (HYDERABAD ) C/O. M/S. CH.PARTH ASARATHY & CO. 1-1-298/2/B/3 1 ST FLOOR SOWBHAGYA AVENUE STREET NO.1 ASHOKNAGAR HYDERABAD 500 020. 4. SHRI T.NAVEENKUMAR (HYDERABAD ) C/O. M/S.CH.PARTHASA RATHY & CO. 1-1-298/2/B/3 1 ST FLOOR SOWBHAGYA AVENUE STREET NO.1 ASHOKNAGAR HYDERABAD 500 020. 5. 6 7. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1) HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-V HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IV HYDERABAD 8. THE D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD. B.V.S. 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2.2..2012 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SE NIOR P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER AND OTHER MEMBER 6.2.2012 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER GOES TO THE SR. P.S. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REG ISTRAR 9. DATE OF THE DESPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER