Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Sri Karam Ali Khan,, Hyderabad vs Assessee on 16 January, 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES "B", HYDERABAD
BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
Smt. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 797/Hyd/2013
Assessment Year: 2005-06
Sri Karam Ali Khan, Income Tax Officer,
Malakpet, Vs Ward-9(1),
HYDERABAD HYDERABAD
[PAN: AAOPK 9643 H]
(Appellant) (Respondent)
For Assessee : Shri Mohd. Afzal, AR
For Revenue : Shri Rajat Mitra, DR
Date of Hearing : 25-11-2014
Date of Pronouncement : 16-01-2015
ORDER
PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. :
This is an assessee's appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Mumbai having concurrent jurisdiction over CIT(A)-VI, Hyderabad dated 06-03-2013. The issue in appeal is about taxability of certain rental income in the hands of the assessee.
2. Briefly stated, assessee filed his return of income declaring an income of Rs.1,32,000/- u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act (Act). The case was taken up for scrutiny and information sought was submitted from time to time. The assessee admitted 20% of share :- 2 -: I.T.A. No. 797/Hyd/13 Sri Karam Ali Khan from property situated at 16-11-17/2, Saleem Nagar Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad. This property originally belongs to Smt. Sadath Khatoon, wife of the assessee, who gave a declaration on 10-08-1998, the relevant part is reproduced here under:
"I declare that during my life time I will enjoy the property and after my death my husband shall enjoy the property as an exclusive owner and it is only on the death of myself and my husband my two daughters shall be entitled to half equal share in the said property and they shall hold and enjoy their respective shares as an exclusive owner and to use the same in any manner they like."
Smt.Sadath Khatoon expired on 24-03-2002, survived by husband, Sri Karam Ali Khan, and two daughters, Smt. Ishrath Khatoon, W/o. Sri. Sardar Omer Khan and Smt.Aliya Khatoon w/o. Sri Basheer Ahmed Khan. As per the will of the lady, husband succeeded to the ownership of the property. It was submitted that there were unpleasantness among the daughters in respect of succession to the property. Therefore, the assessee tried to resolve the issue by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the daughters and the property was distributed as under:
1. Sri. Karam Ali Khan (Husband) 20% Share
2. Smt. Ishrat Khatoon (daughter) 20% Share
3. Smt. Aliya Khatoon (daughter) 20% Share
4. Sri. Mohd. Sajjad Ali Khan 20% Share (S/o.Smt. Ishrat Khatoon)
5. Sri. Irshad Hussain Khan 20% Share (S/o.Smt. Ishrat Khatoon) Assessee entered in rental agreement for a sum of Rs.4,20,000 per year on October 2003, for a period of ten years with M/s RKS Motors.
For the A.Y.2004-05, the assessee filed his return of income declaring the entire property income in his hands. However, for this assessment year income was declared at only 20% of rental income as per above mentioned MOU. The Assessing Officer rejected the :- 3 -: I.T.A. No. 797/Hyd/13 Sri Karam Ali Khan MOU and held that the assessee Sri Karam Ali Khan has no right to divide the property or to divide the rent among the family members, and therefore, assessed the entire rental income in the hands of Sri Karam Ali Khan. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before Ld.CIT(A).
3. It was submitted that the wife of the assessee Smt. Sadath Khatoon, who was the real owner of the property, has expired in the year 2002. The declaration was considered as will of the lady and on her death the husband has succeeded to the entire property overlooking the interest of daughters of the deceased. As late Sadath Khatoon was a Muslim and was governed by the Muslim Personal Law / Mahommedan Law, it was contended that Sri Karam Ali Khan, Smt. Ishrath Khatoon and Smt. Aliya Khatoon are the legal heirs to the estate of deceased Sadath Khatoon. According to this law a bequest on only anyone of the Heirs is invalid without the consent of the others. The persons who cannot be excluded from succession by a testamentary disposition are those who are entitled upon the decease of the testator to a share in his inheritance whatever may be the category of their heir ship. This principle is founded upon direction contained in Chap.IV, verse 7, of the Koran "To everyone have we appointed kinsfolk as heirs from their parents and relatives, and those with whom we have joined their right hands; so give them their portions, for verily God is over all a witness." The rights of the heirs, say the jurists, are thus irrevocably fixed by the Koran, and the harmony which has been established by the divine law among the different degrees of relations who would be entitled to succession to the estate of a deceased person should not broken by his leaving a large share to one heir. In the light of above legal position there were disputes among the family members i.e., between father and daughters and their spouses. To maintain peace and :- 4 -: I.T.A. No. 797/Hyd/13 Sri Karam Ali Khan harmony in the family Karam Ali Khan (assessee) entered into a MOU with his daughters as per which Sri Karm Ali Khan and his two daughters Smt. Ishrath Khatoon and Smt. Aliya Khatoon and the two children of Ishrath Khatoon were allotted 20% of the share to each of them in the subject property. Unfortunately this MOU entered on 01- 04-2004 was also not according to the principles of Mahommedan Law. The difference and the disputes further crept into the family and relations were further strained on account of allotting to children at 20% share for each of the child of one of the daughter. Meanwhile the assessee tried to seek the correct legal position in respect of the sharing of the property left by his wife. On enquiries made with legal experts on Mahommedan Law, it was found the assessee is only eligible for 25% of the share in the property of his wife and both of daughters are eligible for equal share in the remaining 75% of the property. Therefore, orally it is agreed between the father and the two daughters that they will share the property according to the Mohemmedan Law to resolve all the disputes crept into the family on account of not distributing the property in accordance with law. Therefore, according to the above legal position the assessee is eligible only for 25% share in the property. Therefore, revised grounds of appeal were filed on 30th April, 2009, to consider the distribution of property according to the Muslim Law.
4. The Ld.CIT(A) however, did not agree with the above contentions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal by stating as under:
" I have considered the submissions of the appellant, order of the A.O. and facts of the case carefully, it is noticed that assessee's wife Smt.Sadat Khatoon was the owners of the property which was given on rent. Before her death, she has given a declaration about allotment of her property between her two daughters and their children. In the declaration she has clearly mentioned that :- 5 -: I.T.A. No. 797/Hyd/13 Sri Karam Ali Khan after her death, her husband will be the owner of this property and after his death, the property will be shared between her two daughters and their children. In the A.Y. 2004-05, the rental income was assessed in the hands of the assessee, but in the year under consideration, the assessee has shown the rental income of Rs.84,000/- against the total rent received of Rs.4,20,000/-. Therefore, the A.O. has issued notice u/s.148 and assessed the rental income of Rs.4,20,000/- in the hands of the assessee as per the assessment made in the last year. The AR has submitted a memorandum of understanding which was reproduced by the A.O. in the assessment order. My predecessor has called for a remand report from the A.O. The A.O. vide letter dated 06.06.2011 has submitted the remand report, the gist of which is reproduced as under:
As regards the assessee's claim under Muslim law, his contention is not acceptable. In this case, the owner of the property had not died intestate. She has executed a will during her life time clearly mentioning that her children shall enjoy the property after death of her husband. As such, the assessee's claim that the family members have a right in the property during the life time of the assessee as per muslim personal law is not correct. There would not arise nay question of examining the principles or provisions of the personal law of the assessee in determining the fiscal liability for assessment under the I.T. Act. When the provisions of the I.T. Act are clear, there would not arise any question of introducing or following the principles of personal law for the simple reason that for interpretation of the plain and unambiguous meaning of the statute, the principles and provisions of personal law are not required to be considered.
Copy of the remand report was also given to the assessee who has submitted its reply stated above.
From the perusal of the remand report and submissions of the appellant, it is noticed that the wife of the appellant was the owner of the property which is an undisputed issue. Secondly, the wife of the assessee has made a declaration that after her death her husband will the owner of the property and after the death of her husband the share the property will be distributed between her two daughters and their children This declaration clarifies that so long the husband i.e. the assessee is alive he is owner of the property and he is only eligible to collect the rent of the property amounting to Rs.4,20,000/-. Only after death, the property will be shared between two daughters and their children. As per this declaration, the appellant has filed return :- 6 -: I.T.A. No. 797/Hyd/13 Sri Karam Ali Khan for A.Y. 2004-05 and earlier years and declared the rental income and paid taxes accordingly. But in the year under consideration, the assessee has shown only 1/5th of the rent i.e. Rs.84,000/- by distributing the rental income in the hands of two daughters, two children and himself.
From the perusal of assessment of A.Y. 2004-05, the A.O. has noticed that the assessee has escaped rental income, therefore, he has issued notice u/s.148. The A.O. has asked the assessee as to why the total income of Rs.4,20,000/- may not be assessed in his hands. The AR has submitted that the memorandum of understanding which is reproduced by the A.O. at page 5-8 of the assessment order. After discussing the same, the A.O. has held that till the death of the assessee, the property should be with the assessee only and cannot be delineated to anybody because his own two daughters only will have to get right upon the death of the assessee.
On the other hand, the AR has submitted that as per the muslim law that muslim can deprive the legal entitlement of his share and property of a successor. In this case, Smt. Sadat Khatoon wife of the assessee had totally deprived the legitimate share of her two daughters by allowing her husband to enjoy the property as an exclusive owners of the property during the life time. Thus, the appellant has argued that as per the muslim personal law, the share of rental income should be distributed among her two daughters and their two children. But the A.O. has submitted in the remand report that as regards the assessee's claim of succession under muslim law it was submitted that hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs.1bdul Rehman M. Pathan 243 ITR 409W was held that there would not arise any question of examining the principles or provisions of the personal law of the assessee in determining the fiscal liability for assessment under the I.T. Act. It was also held that when the provisions of the I.T. Act are clear, there would not arise any question of introducing or following the principles of personal law for the simple reason that for interpretation of the plain and unambiguous meaning of a statute, the principles and provisions of personal law are not required to be considered. On a similar issue, the Calcutta High Court in the case of Ganpatrai Sagarmal (Trustees) for Charity Fund Vs. CIT 471 ITR 625 held that if the property in the concerned asset is retained by the transferor, the entire income though transferred by an overriding title from such asset is includible in the total income of the transferor by virtue of Sec. 60. The A.O. has also held that the decision relied on by the assessee in the case of SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 Vs. Union of :- 7 -: I.T.A. No. 797/Hyd/13 Sri Karam Ali Khan India 262 ITR 638 (Cal) are not identical/to the facts of the present case, therefore, not helpful to the assessee. In view of these facts & circumstances and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat and Calcutta High Court that the provisions of the Income Tax Act are very clear that the principles and provisions of personal law are not required to be considered in the income tax proceedings, therefore, the rental income assessed in the hands of the assessee of Rs.4,20,000/- is upheld and ground of appeal is dismissed".
5. It was the submission of the ld.Counsel that assessee and his family members are Sunni Muslims. The law relating to personal matters such as succession etc., are governed by Muslim Personal Law and in the Muslim Personal Law assessee follows Hanafi School of law wherein an hanafi muslim cannot defeat the claim of all his remaining heirs under the law of Inheritance by bequeathing entire property in favour of a choosen heir exclusively ; in such a case the Will will be regarded as invalid. Therefore, the Assessing Officer ought to have taken the shares of rents in the property as per the eligibility of heirs as the said School of Law applies to the assessee. The ld.Counsel further reiterated the submissions by filing various documents including revised MOUs entered between the parties. He relied on the case of Sri Allbux S/o.Khajasab Vs. Smt. Allabi W/o.Khajasab in ILR 2007 KAR 4662, 2008 by Honourable Karnataka High Court to explain that u/s.118 of Mahommaden Law, there is limit of testamentary power and person cannot bequeath the entire property to one person. Therefore, the Will given by the deceased person Smt.Sadath Khatoon, entirely to the husband is not valid. Therefore, the other legal heirs, two daughters also claimed share accordingly, assessee an MOU allocating property income to the other legal heirs also.
6. As it was noticed that the final allocation of rental share is not according to the Muslim Law as claimed, further opportunity was :- 8 -: I.T.A. No. 797/Hyd/13 Sri Karam Ali Khan given seeking clarifications and explanations. Accordingly, ld.Counsel placed on record the returns filed by various people and admitted that the MOU entered is also not according to Muslim Law. It was submitted that revised computation between three legal heirs was filed before the authorities admitting 25% share to Sri Karam Ali Khan and 37.50% share to each of the daughters. It was submitted that entire rental income cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee.
7. The ld.DR however, relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A).
8. We have considered the issue and examined the documents on record. Before adverting to the contention that assessee follows Muslim Law and his share in the property is only 25%, the facts as verified from the records are as follows. There is no dispute to the fact that Smt.Sadath Khatoon owned property and that property was given on lease by her husband for an amount of Rs.4,20,000/-. For the A.Y.2004-05, assessee claiming to be owner of the property filed return of income admitting 100% of the rental income. However, in this assessment year the amount was shared among five persons. Assessee along with two married daughters and two grandsons divided the income at 20% each, stating that to be under the Muslim Law. Since the grand children were also given the share, the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) did not agree with the assessee's contentions. It was fairly admitted before us that this MOU entered between the assessee and the other persons is not in accordance with the Muslim Law. It was contended that Sri Karam Ali Khan will have 25% share and two daughters Smt. Ishrat Khatoon and Smt. Aliya Khatoon will have 50% share of the balance 75%, ie, 37.50% each.
:- 9 -: I.T.A. No. 797/Hyd/13
Sri Karam Ali Khan
Assessee filed copies of returns filed by the three inheritors in the same ratio so as to justify the claims under the Muslim Law.
9. Ld. Counsel during the course of arguments placed the extracts from various commentaries of the Muslim Law as under:
All schools of Islamic law restrict the testamentary freedom of muslims as follows:
(i) Up to one third of his 'net estate' every muslim is free to make a will (subject of course, to the legal rules as to who can be his legatees): where he makes within this limit, the attitude of his would be heirs to the will is legally irrelevant; they cannot veto it either when the will is made (i.e. in his lifetime) or when it becomes operative (i.e. after the legators's death);
(ii) over and above one third of his 'net estate' the will of a muslim is not void. It is ordinarily, invalid but his would-be heirs can validate it by their consent,express or implied, which they can give, under Ithna Ashari and Ismaili laws, either during the lifetime of the legato or after his death. Under the Hanafi law the consent of the heirs has to be obtained after the legators death.
The one third portion (Suls) of the heritable estate, within which Muslims have full legal freedom of testamentary disposition, is described as the 'bequeatable third'.
Inheritance at Muslim Law: - (Ch. 12_Syp. B (I) Pg 240.
1. Basic Rules: 1. The heirs can claim their shares only in what remains, if at all, after all the statutory liabilities have been met and the debts and valid legacies and death-bed gifts (if any) paid, out of the property of the propositus.
:- 10 -: I.T.A. No. 797/Hyd/13
Sri Karam Ali Khan
2. A person who according to Muslim law is an heir of the deceased remains so and gets his legal due. He or she cannot be excluded either by other heirs and survivors of the deceased or even under a specific direction left in that behalf by the deceased himself. One can be excluded from inheritance only under a rule of Muslim law, if applicable in India. Also, (Subject to the law of wills) the quantum of the share to which an heir may be legally entitled cannot be altered under a direction of the propositus. Where two relatives of the deceased who differ in sex are related to him exactly in an equal degree (e.g., his son and daughter) and both of them are, at law, his heirs-between the two the share of the male has (subject to a few exceptions) to be double the share of the female. So, where,1 person is survived by a son and daughter, out of the portion of his estate to be allotted to them the son will take 2/3 and daughter 1/3 similarly.
A woman dies leaving behind (i) her husband (ii) two daughters,
(iii) a full sister and (iv) a paternal second cousin:
Heirs Hanafi Law Ithna Ashari
Law
Husband ¼ = 3/12 ¼=¼
Two 2/3=8/12 2/3=¾
daughters
Full sister Residue = 1/12 nil
Cousin nil nil
Extract from Commentaries of Mohammedan Law
(ByB.R.Verma) :-(Pg No.395, 489 & 493).
Law of Inheritance:--- Unlike Hindu Law, estate of a deceased Mohammedan if he has died intestate, devolves on his heirs at the moment of his death. Under the Mohammedan law, birth right is not recognized. The right of an heir apparent or presumptive comes into existence for the first time on the death :- 11 -: I.T.A. No. 797/Hyd/13 Sri Karam Ali Khan of the ancestor, and he is not entitled until then to any interest in the property to which he would succeed as an heir if he survived the ancestor.
(S189 Syn No.1 Pg 489) The second restriction with respect to person is limited to heirs. The policy of Mohammedan Law is to prevent a testator from interfering by will with the course of devolution of property among his heirs according to law although he may give a specified portion, as much as a third, to a stranger. It safeguards against a breach of the ties of the kindred. It is intended to prevent the showing of favoritism to any heir to the prejudice of the others, and thus defeating the policy of the Quranic injunctions as to the division of heritage according to fixed principles.
Bequest in favour of heirs: While Mohammedan Law permits the making of a will to a limited extent in favour of stranger Sec.190), it does not allow any undue preference being given to some particular heirs and a bequest to some of the heirs without the consent of the other heirs will be altogether invalid. The consent is necessary even when inheritance is governed by any custom. The consenting heirs must be major and sane otherwise their consent would not be valid. The insolvency of the consenting heir is invalid. A bequest to an heir, either in whole or in part, is invalid, unless consented to by other heir or heirs and whosoever consents, the bequest is valid to that extent only and binds his or her share.
(S-190 Syn No.2 Pg 493) I-B. A bequest to an heir is invalid unless consented to by the other heirs after the testator's death, ---
The Mohamnedan Law does not allow a testator to leave legacy to any of his heirs unless the other heirs agree, but any single heir may so agree as to bind his own share, and the burden of :- 12 -: I.T.A. No. 797/Hyd/13 Sri Karam Ali Khan proving the consent of a particular heir is upon the legatee. To the same effect is the decision in Ghulam Mohammad Vs. Ghulam Hussain,"Under the Hanafi Law a bequest to an heir is invalid unless consented to by the other heirs after the testator's death.
I-C. A Muslim under Personal Law cannot bequeath more than 1/3rd share in his property unless other heirs signify their consent. --·A Mohammedan is not entitled to bequeath more than 1/3rd of his estate after payment of funeral expenses and debts. It further specifies that any bequeath in excess of 1/3rd of his estate cannot take effect unless the heirs consent thereto after the death of testator. Learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court while interpreting the scope of sec. 118 of the Mohammedan Law held, that knowledge of bequeath and inaction for a long period by a heir challenging the bequeath, are sufficient circumstances that the said heir had signified consent by his conduct. The High Court agreed with the view of the learned Single Judge".
10. There is no dispute with reference to the above propositions of the personal law of a Muslim. Even in the case relied upon by the ld.Counsel of Sri Allbux S/o.Khajasab Vs. Smt. Allabi W/o.Khajasab (supra) of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the facts indicate that the Will executed by Rasoolma was held valid to the extent of 1/3rd share in the entire schedule property. To that extent, there is no dispute with reference to the application of the Will to the 1/3rd share that generally known as bequeatable third. Up to one third of 'net estate' every muslim is free to make a will (subject of course, to the legal rules as to who can be his legatees):
where he makes within this limit, the attitude of his would be heirs to the will is legally irrelevant; they cannot veto it either when the will is made (i.e. in his lifetime) or when it :- 13 -: I.T.A. No. 797/Hyd/13 Sri Karam Ali Khan becomes operative (i.e. after the legators's death); over and above one third of 'net estate' the will of a muslim is not void. It is ordinarily, invalid but his would-be heirs can validate it by their consent, express or implied, which they can give, under Ithna Ashari and Ismaili laws, either during the lifetime of the legator or after his death. Under the Hanafi law the consent of the heirs has to be obtained after the legators death. Therefore the will or declaration given by Smt. Sadath khatoon cannot be considered invalid to the extent of bequetable third. With reference to the 2/3rd of the property, the legal heirs has a right to property. As stated before us, admittedly the husband and two daughters has a share. Husband get 1/4th share and two daughters get 1/2 of the balance share. Accordingly, out of the total property, the said Smt.Sadath Khatoon willed 1/3rd of the property for the benefit of husband for which consent of the other legal heirs is not required. Admittedly, no other debts or bequeath expenses are claimed against this property. Therefore the property in its entirety is to be divided or shared. Since one-third is bequeathed, out of the balance 66.66% property, the husband i.e., assessee in the present case, has a right of 25% which is at 16.66%. Therefore, his total share in the property should be at 50% i.e., 1/3 rd (33.66%) bequeathed by Smt.Sadath Khatoon and 16.66% as his share out of rest of the property. Therefore, assessee's share of property under Muslim Law is to be considered at 50% and the balance property is to be divided between two daughters i.e., 25% of the whole property. According to correct interpretation of the law, assessee share of property should be 50% of the property and not 25% claimed/admitted.
:- 14 -: I.T.A. No. 797/Hyd/13
Sri Karam Ali Khan
11. However, as can be seen from the first MOU executed on 1st April, 2004, assessee and his two daughters and two grandsons were given equal share of 20%, admittedly not according to personal law.
Subsequently, ignoring the Will of the property, the property was again distributed at 25% to assessee and 37.50% to two daughters each. Even this is not according to the personal law as submitted before us. In our view, the tenets of the Muslim Law have not been followed so as to contend before us that assessee is governed by the Muslim Law. May be, his personal rights are governed by the Muslim Law but the way the assessee and other legal heirs conducted themselves, the tenets of Muslim Law have not been followed as can be observed from the above. Moreover, the MOU dt.01-04-2004 has this to state.
WHEREAS Smt. Sadath Khatoon was enjoying the said property during her life time, she expired on 24-03-2002.
WHEREAS the said Smt. Sadath Khatoon had a Will and executed a declaration dated 10-08-1998, wherein she stated that after her death, the first part should enjoy the property and after the death of the first part the said property be divided among the two daughters and their childrens and.
WHEREAS the first part decided to letout a portion of the property of Late Smt.Sadath Khatoon in consultation with his two daughters, they have agreed for letting out the property with an understanding that the rental income be divided among five legal WHEREAS the party of the first part has entered into a Lease Agreement with RKS MOTORS (P) LTD., for a portion of the said property in the month of October 2003 for a period of 10 :- 15 -: I.T.A. No. 797/Hyd/13 Sri Karam Ali Khan years and collecting the rent from the tenant, who is issuing cheques in the name of the first part and., WHEREAS the parties of the second part are not having any OBJECTION for getting the rent in the name of first party and., ( emphasis supplied) This shows that assessee is not interested in giving share in the property, but only share in the income. Therefore, provisions of section 60 of the Act will come into play.
12. The provisions of section 60 are as under:
"60. All income arising to any person by virtue of a transfer whether revocable or not and whether effected before or after the commencement of this Act shall, where there is no transfer of the assets from which the income arises, be chargeable to income-tax as the income of the transferor and shall be included in his total income."
Therefore, we are not convinced with the claim of the assessee that the incomes are to be divided according to the Muslim Law. Had assessee taken recourse to legal proceedings and got the property divided between the legal heirs through a court of law, may be the contentions can be accepted. However, assessee chose to enter into MOU so as to divide only the incomes. Therefore, we are not convinced with the assessee's argument.
13. This issue can also be looked into in an alternate way. It is assessee's contention that the property devolved on him and that is against the personal law. This contention is also not correct. As seen from the declaration given on 10-08-1998, extracted in page 2 of this order, what assessee got from the declaration of :- 16 -: I.T.A. No. 797/Hyd/13 Sri Karam Ali Khan Smt. Sadath Khatoon, was only enjoyment of property during his life time. It is very clear that assessee does not enjoy any absolute right on the property and only his two daughters shall be entitled to half equal share in the said property and they shall hold and enjoy their respective shares as exclusive owner and to use the same in any manner they like. This indicates that Smt. Sadath Khatoon, has not bequeathed the property to assessee but only power to enjoy the property during his life time. In that way, assessee's right in the property limited to the income is exclusive and to 100% of the income. In this context also, assessee's contention that he has only 25% right is not correct. Looking at either way, assessee's contentions cannot be accepted. In view of this, we affirm the orders of the authorities for the above reasons.
14. In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in open Court on 16th January, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated 16th January, 2015
TNMM
:- 17 -: I.T.A. No. 797/Hyd/13
Sri Karam Ali Khan
Copy to :
1. Sri Karam Ali Khan, D.No.16-11-17, Saleem Nagar Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad; C/o. Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate, 11-5-465, Sherson's Residency, Flat No.402, Criminal Court Road, Red Hills, Hyderabad-500 004.
2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad.
3. CIT(A)-18, Mumbai.
4. CIT(A)-VI, Hyderabad.
5. CIT 5/6, Hyderabad
6. D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad.