DCIT, Kurnool v. K E Prathap (HUF), Kurnool

ITA 593/HYD/2010 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 59322514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AABHK5840L
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 593/HYD/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Kurnool
Respondent K E Prathap (HUF), Kurnool
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-07-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 26-07-2010
Next Hearing Date 26-07-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 23-04-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A' HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR ITA NO.592/HYD/10 : ASSTT. YE AR 2003-04 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX CIRCLE 1 KURNOOL. V/S. SHRI K.E.KRISHNA MURTHY(HUF) KURNOOL. ( PAN AABHK 5840 L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.593/HYD/10 : ASSTT. YE AR 2003-04 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX CIRCLE 1 KURNOOL. V/S. SHRI K.E.PRATAP (HUF) KURNOOL. ( PAN AABCB 3190 G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND ITA NO.594/HYD/10 : ASSTT. YE AR 2003-04 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX CIRCLE 1 KURNOOL. V/S. SHRI K.E.PRABHAKAR (HUF) KURNOOL. ( PAN AABHK 5837 L ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. MADHUVANI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.RAMA RAO ITA NO592-594./HYD/10 SHRI K.E.KRISHNA MURTHY(HU F) & TWO OTHERS. KURNOOL 2 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE THREE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE CONCERNING THREE DIFFERENT BUT RELATED ASSESSEE-HUFS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TIRUPATI DATED 21.1.2010 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. SINCE THERE ARE CERTAIN COMMON FEATURES INVO LVED THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.592/HYD/10 : ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL CONCERNING K.E.KRISHNAMURTHY (HUF) READ AS UNDER- '1. THE HON'BLE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) TIRUPATI HAS DISALLOWED ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIONS I) 15% DUE TO RATE DIFFERENCE BETWEE N CPWD DELHI AND CPWD HYDERABAD AND II)10% DUE TO PERSONAL SUPERVISION ARE TO BE ALLOWED FROM THE GROSS VALUE ARRIVED AT BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUERS FOR VALUATION OF HOUSE PROPERTY. DEPARTMENT STAND ON ITAT DIRECTION IN OTHER CASES A ND AS PER THE SECTION 142A OF INCOMETAX ACT 1961 DOES NOT PR OVIDE FOR ANY SUCH DEDUCTIONS OVER AND ABOVE THE VALUATION. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS DIS ALLOWED ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT DIFFERENT SYSTEM OF ACC OUNTING (I.E. CASH OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM) COULD BE USED FOR DIFFER ENT SOURCES OF INCOME UNDER THE SAME HEAD OF INCOME. THE DIRECT IONS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) TIRUPATI ARE NOT ACC EPTABLE SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT 1961 THE INCOME IS TO BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EIT HER CASH OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTANCY REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE.' 3. AS FOR FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-HUF IS CO-OWNER OF A HOUSE PROPERTY IN DOOR NO. 8-2- ITA NO592-594./HYD/10 SHRI K.E.KRISHNA MURTHY(HU F) & TWO OTHERS. KURNOOL 3 686/7/5 & 6 ROAD NO.12 BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS REFLECTED AT RS.92.1 3 LAKHS. WHEN THE MATTER HAS BEEN REFERRED TO VALUATION CELL UNDER S.142A OF THE ACT THE D.V.O. HAS DETERMINED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTIO N OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.110.09 LAKHS WHICH RESULTED IN A DIFFE RENCE OF RS.17.96 LAKHS OVER AND ABOVE THE COST DECLARED BY THE A SSESSEE. OUT OF THIS EXCESS INVESTMENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.3.6 LAKHS. OUT OF TH IS ASSESSEE'S SHARE HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS.82.440 AND THE SAME HA S BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. 4. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT HAS BEEN SUBMIT TED THAT THE VALUATION OF THE D.V.O. WAS BASED ON CPWD DELHI BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ADJUSTED TO THE RATE DIFFERENCE TO HYDERA BAD PWD RATES. FURTHER IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCT ED UNDER PERSONAL SUPERVISION OF THE CO-OWNERS AND AS SUCH 10% DEDU CTION FOR PERSONAL SUPERVISION HAS TO BE GIVEN. IF THESE TWO DEDUCT IONS ARE ALLOWED COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS DETERMINED BY THE D.V.O . WOULD WORK OUT TO RS.90 19 987. THE CIT(A) OBSERVING THAT THESE TWO DEDUCTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF RATE VARIATION AND PERSONAL SUPERVISION AR E ADMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF SETTLED POSITION OF LAW AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNA L IN SIMILAR CASES CONCLUDED THAT IF THOSE DEDUCTIONS ARE GIVEN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. HE ACCORDI NGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION ON THIS GROUND. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE R EVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO592-594./HYD/10 SHRI K.E.KRISHNA MURTHY(HU F) & TWO OTHERS. KURNOOL 4 5. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUP PORTING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT THE CI T(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFF ERENCE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER H AND REITERATING THE CONTENTIONS URGED BEFORE THE LOWER AU THORITIES STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN ALLOWING DEDUCTIONS FROM T HE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DETERMINED BY THE D.V.O. ON ACCOUNT OF RAT E VARIATION AND PERSONAL SUPERVISION IS BASED ON THE CONSISTENT VIEW T AKEN BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR CASES. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD AND GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS REJECTED. 8. AS FOR GROUND NO.2 FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HUF HAS OFFERED CERT AIN AMOUNTS ON CASH BASIS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT INTEREST PAYABLE TO THE SUNDRY CREDIT ORS IN RESPECT OF FUNDS BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSES OF INVESTMENT AS SHARE AP PLICATION IN M/S. K.M. POWER PVT. LTD IS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION ON ME RCANTILE BASIS. OBSERVING THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S.145 ASSESSEE SH ALL FOLLOW EITHER CASH OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WHICH IS REG ULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ARRIVING AT THE INCOME UND ER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ALSO OBSERVING THAT THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE INTEREST-FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE INVEST MENT IN M/S. ITA NO592-594./HYD/10 SHRI K.E.KRISHNA MURTHY(HU F) & TWO OTHERS. KURNOOL 5 K.M. POWER P. LTD. DISALLOWED INTEREST PAYMENT TO SUN DRY CREDITORS OF RS.11 35 800. 9. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE. 10. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT THE CI T(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY DISALLOWIN G INTEREST ON BORROWINGS OF RS.11 35 800. 11. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND REITERATING THE CONTENTIONS URGED BEFORE THE LOWER AU THORITIES STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS EV IDENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSE E ON THE VERY DAY ON WHICH MONIES WERE RECEIVED CONVERTED THE SAME I NTO DEMAND DRAFTS IN FAVOUR OF KMPPL TOWARDS THEIR INVESTMENT IN SHARE CAPITAL CONCLUDED THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O SATE THAT MONIES INVESTED WERE OUT OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ITSEL F DECLARED FROM OTHER SOURCES. HE FURTHER OBSERVED IN PARA 5.2 O F HIS ORDER AS FOLLOWS- '5.2. ..IT IS ALSO NOT CORRECT TO STATE THAT THE 'IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES' SHALL BE EITHER IN CASH OR MERCANTILE B ASIS FROM ALL THE SOURCES THEREIN UNDER THIS HEAD. THE INCOMES OFFERE D ON CASH BASIS UNDER OTHER SOURCES ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE DIVI DENDS THAT MAY ACCRUE OR ARISE FROM THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN KMPPL. AS THE INVESTMENT IN THE SHARE CAPITAL ON KMPPL HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BORROWED FUNDS THE INTEREST OUTGO ON SUCH BORROWAL FUNDS IS A CHARGE AGAINST SUCH DIVIDEND INCOMES AND THERE IS NOTHI NG WRONG IN ITA NO592-594./HYD/10 SHRI K.E.KRISHNA MURTHY(HU F) & TWO OTHERS. KURNOOL 6 CLAMING THAT EXPENDITURE ON MERCANTILE BASIS. AS LAID D OWN IN THE CITED AUTHORITY (CIT V/S. M.ETHURAJAN (2005) 273 ITR 95) (MAD)) WHAT QUALIFIES FOR THE EXPENDITURE TO BE ALLOWED IS TH AT THE EXPENDITURE MUST BE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND E XCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING INCOME EVEN IF SUCH INCOME IS NOT MADE OR NOT EARNED IN THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. ACCOR DINGLY IT IS HELD THAT THE INTEREST OUTGO IS RIGHTLY ARRIVED AT ON MERCANTILE BASIS AS REPRESENTING ANOTHER SOURCE WITHIN THE OVERALL HEAD I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS ELIGIBLE T O BE CARRIED OUT INTO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR SETTING OFF AGAINST OTHE R INCOMES. ' WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ABOVE REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.11 35 800 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REJECT GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE IN THI S APPEAL. 13. IN THE RESULT APPEAL ITA NO.592/HYD/2010 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.593/HYD/10 : ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04 14. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE IN THIS APPEAL CONCERNING K.E.PRATAP (HUF) READ AS UNDER- '1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS DISALLOWED ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT DIFFERENT SYSTEM OF ACC OUNTING (I.E. CASH OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM) COULD BE USED FOR DIFFER ENT SOURCES OF INCOME UNDER THE SAME HEAD OF INCOME. THE DIRECTION S OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) TIRUPATI ARE NOT ACC EPTABLE SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 THE INCOME IS TO BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EITHER CASH OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTANCY REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE.' THUS THE ABOVE GROUND IS IDENTICAL TO THE ONE ALRE ADY CONSIDERED BY AS GROUND NO.2 IN ITA NO.592/HYD/2010 HEREINABOVE. B UT FOR THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION WHICH IS MADE IN THE CASE OF K.E.PR ATAP(HUF) WHICH IS RS.11 12 000 FACTS OF THE CASE AND CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES ARE IDENTICAL. HENCE FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN PARA 1 3 HEREINABOE ITA NO592-594./HYD/10 SHRI K.E.KRISHNA MURTHY(HU F) & TWO OTHERS. KURNOOL 7 IN THE CONTEXT OF APPEAL ITA NO.592/HYD/2010 WE UPHO LD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REJECT THE LONE GROUND OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL. 15. CONSEQUENTLY THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NO.594/HYD/10 : ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04 16. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE IN THIS APPEAL CONCERNING K.E.PRABHAKAR (HUF) READ AS UNDER- '1. THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX( A) TIRUPATI HAS DISALLOWED ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PURCHASED A CAR IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND NOT IN THE STATUS OF HUF. ON VERIFICATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL RETURN OF I NCOME INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY INCOME/EXPENDITU RE STATEMENT AND HENCE NOT VERIFIABLE. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE RESERVED SUCH RELIEF SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RECEIPT/PAYMENT ACCOUNT TO ASCERTA IN WHETHER INDIVIDUAL HAS ACCOUNTED FOR THE SAME IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS.' 17. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER NOTICING THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CERTAIN AMOUNT FROM M/S SRIRAM INVESTMENTS BY HYPOTHECATING OLD MERCEDES BENZ CAR HAS CAL LED FOR EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE PROPOSING TO BRING TO TAX AN AMOUNT OF RS.5 LAKHS. ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE SUBMITTED THAT THE CAR WAS PURCHASED IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND HENCE THE INVEST MENT DID NOT APPEAR IN HUF BOOKS. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE CAR W AS HYPOTHECATED WITH M/S. SRIRAM INVESTMENTS AND ONE OF TH E CHEQUES FOR RS.3 00 000 WAS DEPOSITED IN HUF BANK ACCOUNTS. NOT CONVI NCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUG HT THE INVESTMENT IN CAR OF RS.5 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE HUF. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKH S ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF CAR. O N APPEAL THE ITA NO592-594./HYD/10 SHRI K.E.KRISHNA MURTHY(HU F) & TWO OTHERS. KURNOOL 8 CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. HENCE REVENUE PRE FERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 18. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT THE CI T(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEES INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF CAR OF OF RS.5 00 000. 19. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HA ND REITERATING THE CONTENTIONS URGED BEFORE THE LOWER AU THORITIES STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 20. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKHS MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN CAR OF RS.5 LAKHS WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION VIDE PARA 4.3 O F HIS ORDER - SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE CAR WAS PURCHASED IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED WHETHER THE INVESTMENT WAS REFLECTED IN THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS OR NOT AND IF SO FOR HOW MUCH A MOUNT. THE SAID TRANSACTION FROM M/S.SRIRAM INVESTMENT IS A LO AN THE VERACITY OF WHICH IS NOT SUSPECTED. HENCE THERE IS NOTHING SHAM OR UNTRUE OF THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT OF THE RECEIP T. IT IS ALSO NOT CORRECT TO TEAT THE PURCHASE OF CAR AS UNACCOUN TED INVESTMENT THAT TOO WITHOUT QUANTIFYING THE VALUE OF THE CAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MERELY TAKEN THE AMOUNT O F LOAN TO BE THE VALUE OF THE CAR WHICH CANNOT BE THE CASE. THUS CONCEPTUALLY ALSO THE LOAN AMOUNT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS VALUE OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT. ESPECIALLY SO WHEN THE SOUR CE OF THE LOAN AMOUNT IS PROVED.. WE HAVE GONE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). THE CIT( A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN MERCEDES BENZ CAR ITA NO592-594./HYD/10 SHRI K.E.KRISHNA MURTHY(HU F) & TWO OTHERS. KURNOOL 9 WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RETURN OF INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS REQUIRE TO VERY THE INDIVIDUAL RETURN OF THE CO NCERNED PERSON IN WHOSE NAME THIS INVESTMENT IS SHOWN. ACCORDINGLY WE DIRE CT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE AFRESH AND DECIDE T HEREUPON. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO LEAD EVIDENCE IN SUPP ORT OF ITS CLAIM. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 21. IN THE RESULT APPEAL ITA NO.594/HYD/2010 OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 22. IN THE RESULT THE REVENUE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.592 & 593/HYD/2010 ARE DISMISSED AND ITA NO.594/HYD/2010 IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30.7.2010 SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (CHANDRA POOJARI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/- 30 TH JULY 2010 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI K.E.KRISHNA MURTHY(HUF) DOOR NO. 43- 118 N.R .PETA KURNOOL 2. SHRI K.E.PRATAP(HUF) DOOR NO. 43- 118 N.R.PETA KURNOOL 3. SHRI K.E.PRABHAKAR (HUF) DOOR NO. 43-118 N.R.PET A KURNOOL 4. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1 KURNOOL. 5. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) TIRUPATI 6. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TIRUPATI 7. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT HYDERABAD. B.V.S