Nukala Ramaksrishana, , , Viskahapatnam V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

CO 62/VIZ/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4885 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 56; 2; 40A(3); 40(a)(ia); 133(6); 192

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधधकरण, धिशाखापटणमपीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री लधलत कु मार, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृ ष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.60/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Vs. Nukala Ramakrishna Naga Hanuman Fish Packers Sri Balaji Residency 5-3, Sector-9, MVP Colony Near DRDA Office,Visakhapatnam [PAN : AAQPN1119F] (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.62/Viz/2021 आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.60/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2010-11) Nukala Ramakrishna Naga Hanuman Fish Packers Sri Balaji Residency 5-3, Sector-9, MVP Colony Near DRDA Office, Visakhapatnam [PAN : AAQPN1119F] Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR प्रत्यधथीकीओरसे/ Respondent by : Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख/ Date of Hearing : 28.03.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member This appeal is filed by revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short CIT(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam in ITA 2 ITA No.60/Viz/2021 & CO No. 62/Viz/2021, A.Y.2010-11 Nukala Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam No.241/2013-14/CIT(A)-1/VSP/2020-21 dated 21.07.2020 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.)2010-11 and cross objections are filed by the assessee in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A), Visakhapatnam is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition pertaining to lease rentals for an amount of Rs.1,84,97,792/-. As per the exceptions laid down in Rule 6DD, no disallowance under sub section (3) of section 40A shall be made where the payment is made in a village or town, which on the date of such payment is not served by any bank to any person who ordinarily resides, or is carrying on any business, profession or vocation in any such village or town. Even in the remand report, the AO clearly stated that and obtained confirmation letters from 3 VROs stating that there were no nationalized banks in the villages, but co-operative banks were operational in these villages. This submission of the AO was mistaken in the appellate order stating that “.. in the remand report, the AO accepted the fact that no nationalized bank is located in the villages.” As per the exceptions laid down in Rule 6DD, the village or town where the payment is made is not served by any bank, but not a nationalized bank as noted in the appellate order. Further, as noted by the AO in the assessment order, as seen from the copies of lease agreements submitted by the assessee, they were not found signed by the lessee and hence such lease deeds do not have any evidentiary value. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs.12,16,000/- claimed under the head Bangladesh Freights as observed by the AO in the assessment order, the payment each of Rs.19,000/- were doctored by the assessee to escape the clutches of the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia). It was also observed by the AO that two vehicles for which the amount claimed were found to be tractors as per the data extracted from the RO website. This issue has not been dealt during the course of appellate proceedings. 3 ITA No.60/Viz/2021 & CO No. 62/Viz/2021, A.Y.2010-11 Nukala Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs.7,70,300/- Rs.6,33,600/-, Rs.3,65,800/- and Rs.18,70,600 as cash payments under the relevant heads were made in contravention to the provisions of sec. 40A(3), but has not mentioned the threshold limit of either Rs.20,000/- or Rs.35,000/-. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the 2% disallowance on purchases of Rs.26,17,20,503/-. The appellant produced only self made vouchers for purchases of local jetty. Further the defects in the additional evidences produced by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) were discussed in detail in the remand report submitted by the AO. In view of the above, the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue needs to be contested in further appeal. 6. The appellant craves leave to add or delete or amend or substitute any ground of appeal before and / or at the time of hearing of appeal. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing, it is prayed that these above additions made on relevant disallowances be restored. 3. Ground No.1 and 6 are general in nature, which does not require specific adjudication. 4. Ground No.2 is related to the disallowance of lease rentals. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of fish trading. The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y.2010-11 on 01.10.2010 admitting income of Rs.30,51,250/-. The main business of the assessee is cultivating, processing and trading and export of own fish as well as sea Fish. For cultivation the assessee uses his own tanks as well as leased tanks in Eluru / Krishna & West Godavari Dist. The assessee also exports fish to West Bengal and Bangladesh. He procures sea fish from 4 ITA No.60/Viz/2021 & CO No. 62/Viz/2021, A.Y.2010-11 Nukala Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam / Kakinada / Srikakulam and process it in leased plants and export to China, Korea, UAE and USA. He also procures sea fish from Bhubaneswar. The assessee had submitted books, ledger account and all details to the Assessing Officer (AO). On verification of the information filed, the AO observed that the assessee had debited total expenditure of Rs.2,06,94,476/- towards lease rents paid for the fish tanks taken on lease by the assessee from owners of the lands / tanks and such lease was spread over 7 villages. It was observed by the AO that the assessee has not deducted tax at source under the provisions of section 194I against the lease rent paid by way of cheque and held to be payments made in contravention to the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and as such made an addition of Rs.32,15,275/-. As regards the payments made by way of cash exceeding Rs.20,000/-, the AO made an addition of Rs.1,52,82,517/- in contravention of provisions of section 40A(3). 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and produced additional evidence in the form of confirmation letters from the village revenue officers, stating that there is no nationalized banks in the villages apart from lease agreements. As regards the disallowance of Rs.1,52,82,517/- made u/s 40A(3) of the Act, the Ld.CIT(A) gave relief on two counts. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that there 5 ITA No.60/Viz/2021 & CO No. 62/Viz/2021, A.Y.2010-11 Nukala Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam was no nationalized bank in the village where the payees were residing and the services of the co-operative bank were available only to its members. Secondly, the Ld.CIT(A) found that each payment was less than Rs.20,000/- which remains controverted. 6. As regards the disallowance of Rs.32,15,275/- u/s 40(a)(ia), the Ld.CIT(A) observed that payment in respect of each person was less than Rs.1,20,000/- and hence the provisions of TDS are not applicable and consequently held that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that the case falls under exception under Rule 6DD, accordingly deleted the addition made by the AO u/s 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Attention of the Bench was drawn to paragraph 4.1.5 of the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), wherein, the Ld.CIT(A) has dealt with the issue of 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld.DR that the Ld.CIT(A) after rejecting the plea of the assessee had allowed the ground raised by the assessee and there is contradiction and defect in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). 6 ITA No.60/Viz/2021 & CO No. 62/Viz/2021, A.Y.2010-11 Nukala Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam 8. Per contra, the Ld.AR has submitted that paragraph 4.1.5 is divided into two parts, the first part deals with 40(a)(ia), whereas, the second part deals with 40A(3). The Ld.AR had fairly submitted that he has no objection for remitting the issue with regard to 40(a)(ia) back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Further in respect to second issue, namely, 40A(3), it was submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has categorically recorded the finding that there is no nationalised bank in the area and further, the individual payments made were not more than Rs.20,000/- 9. We have heard the contention of both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The AO in para 3 of the remand report, forming part of CIT(A) order mentioned as under “3. Aggrieved with the order so passed, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam and subsequently filed additional evidence before the Ld.CIT(A) with regard to purchases and also filed the copies of certificates from Village Revenue Officer for establishing the lack of banking facilities in the villages from where purchases were made. On receipt of the later from the Ld.CIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam, to examine the additional evidence filed by the assessee, the then ACIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Village Revenue Officers and obtained confirmation letters from 3 VROs stating that there were no nationalized banks in the villages but cooperative banks were operational in these villages. “ 9.1. From the perusal of the remand report (supra), it is clear that the AO has confirmed that there is no branch of nationalised bank, however, the AO had categorically mentioned that there exist cooperative banks. Perusal 7 ITA No.60/Viz/2021 & CO No. 62/Viz/2021, A.Y.2010-11 Nukala Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam of the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) make it abundantly clear that with respect to 40A(3), the Ld.CIT(A) has recorded the finding namely that the lessor cannot be expected to use the cooperative bank as the villagers may not be members of the cooperative banks and it is not accepted fact that all the members in the bank are not farmers. Further the AO has not doubted that the payment of lease rent made in cash and that no payment made in cash was more than Rs.20,000/-. We reproduce section 40A(3) of the Act as well as Rule 6DD of the IT Rules to the following effect : 40A(3). Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account [or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed], exceeds ten thousand rupees, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such expenditure. 9.2. From the perusal of the Act and Rules, it is abundantly clear that if in case any payment is made to a person in cash which is more than Rs.20,000/-, the same is disallowable, unless the case falls in the realm of exception that there is no banking facilities available in the area. The Explanation to Rule 6DD made it abundantly clear as under : Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause and clause (g), the term “bank” means any bank, banking company or society referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (a) and includes any bank [not being a banking company as defined in clause 8 ITA No.60/Viz/2021 & CO No. 62/Viz/2021, A.Y.2010-11 Nukala Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949)], whether incorporated or not, which is established outside India; 6DD. No disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under sub- section (3A) of section 40A where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account 2 [account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account or through such other electronic mode as prescribed under rule 6ABBA, exceeds ten thousand rupees] (a) where the payment is made to (i) the Reserve Bank of India or any banking company as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949); (ii) the State Bank of India or any subsidiary bank as defined in section 2 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959); (iii) any co-operative bank or land mortgage bank; (iv) any primary agricultural credit society or any primary credit society as defined under section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949); (v) the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956); (b) where the payment is made to the Government and, under the rules framed by it, such payment is required to be made in legal tender; (c) where the payment is made by— (i) any letter of credit arrangements through a bank; (ii) a mail or telegraphic transfer through a bank; (iii) a book adjustment from any account in a bank to any other account in that or any other bank; (iv) a bill of exchange made payable only to a bank; (v) to (vii) [ *** ] Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause and clause (g), the term “bank” means any bank, banking company or society referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (a) and includes any bank [not being a banking company as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949)], whether incorporated or not, which is established outside India; 9 ITA No.60/Viz/2021 & CO No. 62/Viz/2021, A.Y.2010-11 Nukala Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam (d) where the payment is made by way of adjustment against the amount of any liability incurred by the payee for any goods supplied or services rendered by the assessee to such payee; (e) where the payment is made for the purchase of (i) agricultural or forest produce; or (ii) the produce of animal husbandry (including livestock, meat, hides and skins) or dairy or poultry farming; or (ii) fish or fish products; or (iv) the products of horticulture or apiculture to the cultivator, grower or producer of such articles, produce or products; (f) where the payment is made for the purchase of the products manufactured or processed without the aid of power in a cottage industry, to the producer of such products; (g) where the payment is made in a village or town, which on the date of such payment is not served by any bank, to any person who ordinarily resides, or is carrying on any business, profession or vocation, in any such village or town; (h) where any payment is made to an employee of the assessee or the heir of any such employee, on or in connection with the retirement, retrenchment, resignation, discharge or death of such employee, on account of gratuity, retrenchment compensation or similar terminal benefit and the aggregate of such sums payable to the employee or his heir does not exceed fifty thousand rupees; where the payment is made by an assessee by way of salary to his employee after deducting the income-tax from salary in accordance with the provisions of section 192 of the Act, and when such employee— is temporarily posted for a continuous period of fifteen days or more in a place other than his normal place of duty or on a ship; and does not maintain any account in any bank at such place or ship; [ *** ] where the payment is made by any person to his agent who is required to make payment in cash for goods or services on behalf of such person; where the payment is made by an authorised dealer or a money changer against purchase of foreign currency or travellers cheques in the normal course of his business. 10 ITA No.60/Viz/2021 & CO No. 62/Viz/2021, A.Y.2010-11 Nukala Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, the expressions “authorised dealer” or “money changer” means a person authorised as an authorised dealer or a money changer to deal in foreign currency or foreign exchange under any law for the time being in force.] 9.3. We are of the view that as regards the disallowance of Rs.1,52,82,517/- made u/s 40A(3) of the Act, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gave relief on two counts. Firstly, that there was no nationalised bank in the village where the payees were residing and the services of the Co-Operative Bank were available only to its members. Secondly, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gave a finding that each payment was less than Rs.20,000/-. However, no facts have been brought on record in support of these two facts. Hence, the case on this ground is remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication for the purpose of verification whether the farmers were having bank account in cooperative bank or not and also to verify whether each payment made to “a person” in a “a day” was less than Rs.20,000/- or not. 9.4. Our attention was drawn by the Ld.CIT(DR) for paragraph 3.2 of the assessment order, wherein, the AO has categorically mentioned that the copies of lease rents were unsigned, therefore do not constitute the lease agreement in the eyes of law. Further, if we look into the order of the 11 ITA No.60/Viz/2021 & CO No. 62/Viz/2021, A.Y.2010-11 Nukala Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam Ld.CIT(A), it is abundantly clear that the Ld.CIT(A), after accepting the argument of the assessee paragraph 4.1.4 and 5 of the Ld.CIT(A) has allowed the ground raised by the AO. In our view, when the Ld.CIT(A) comes to conclusion that the assessee with a view to avoid rigors of section 40(a)(ia), then the consequences to follow. As the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is inherently contradictory and not in accordance with law, therefore, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the ground pertains to 40(a)(ia) raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 10. Ground No.3 is related to disallowance of Bangladesh freight of Rs.12,16,000/-. The assessee cultivates fresh water tank fish and also purchase from local markets and exports to Bangladesh via Kolkata (Malda) by road, through trucks. While starting from Eluru, the truck driver is being paid an advance of Rs.19,000/- in cash and the balance if any will be paid after completion of the trip etc. For each trip, the total amount will be disbursed in two instalments. The AO observed that the amounts exceeded the limits on Rs.19,000/- each on various dates and disallowed the said amounts u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 12 ITA No.60/Viz/2021 & CO No. 62/Viz/2021, A.Y.2010-11 Nukala Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam 11. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO, observing that initial advance was given for meeting the expenses and the final payment was made after delivery of goods was completed. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee cannot sell the fish in the local markets without incurring transport charges. The. Ld.AR relied on the decision of the coordinate bench of ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the case of Merylin Shipping and Transport, wherein, the Tribunal opined that the provisions of 40(a)(ia) of the Act is applicable to the amounts outstanding as on 31 st March, but not for the amounts already paid. Since the amounts are already paid disallowance is not warranted by applying the judicial pronouncement. The Ld.CIT(A) perused the ledger account and found that the expenditure for single trip is Rs.19,000/- i.e. below the limit prescribed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. He observed that when the sales are not doubted, there is no scope to doubt the freight charges and accordingly directed the AO to delete the addition. 12. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.DR argued that in order to escape the clutches of provisions of sec.40(a)(ia), the assessee made payment each of Rs.19,000/- and requested to uphold the addition made by the AO. 13 ITA No.60/Viz/2021 & CO No. 62/Viz/2021, A.Y.2010-11 Nukala Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam 13. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record . The Ld.CIT(A) appreciated the fact that the initial advance was given for meeting the expenses and the final payment was made after the delivery of goods was completed. There is no evidence brought by the Revenue to controvert the submissions of the Ld.AR. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised by the revenue. 14. Ground No.4 is related to the disallowance of freight charges. The assessee had incurred charges towards transport freight to the tune of Rs.12,93,000/-, out of which the amounts paid from 01.02.2010 to 25.03.2010 of Rs.7,70,300/- and balance freight of Rs.6,33,600/- and Rs.3,65,000/- was disallowed by the AO being the amounts exceeded the limits of Rs.20,000/- prescribed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 15. Aggrieved by the order of the AO , the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition made observing that the threshold limit has been enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.35,000/- from 01.10.2009 u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 16. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us and relied on the ground raised by the revenue. 14 ITA No.60/Viz/2021 & CO No. 62/Viz/2021, A.Y.2010-11 Nukala Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam 17. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The Ld.CIT(A) found that the AO applied the provisions of section 40A(3) incorrectly without noticing the enhanced limit of Rs.35,000/-. In the interest of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the AO to re- examine the same, hence the ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 18. Ground No.5 is related to disallowance of on account of cash purchases of Rs.26,17,20,503/-. The assessee purchases include fresh water fish / sea water fish / crab / packing material / fish seed and de- oiled bran as feed. The AO made disallowance on account of cash purchases of Rs.26,17,20,504/- at the rate of 2% i.e. Rs.52,34,400/-. 19. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee made cash purchases of Rs.26,17,20,504/- and produced self-made vouchers for purchases at local jetty. In this trade, cash purchases are inevitable as the sellers are uneducated and small traders and the assessee obtained sale patties from the sellers. The assessee had filed return of income of Rs.30,51,250/- which is nearly 1% of the turnover. The AO made disallowance of expenses after examination of books of account and ledger account. On verification of the ledger account, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that 15 ITA No.60/Viz/2021 & CO No. 62/Viz/2021, A.Y.2010-11 Nukala Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam summary disallowance on purchase of raw material without a clear finding regarding non-genuine bills / purchases is not warranted. Accordingly deleted the disallowance of 2% on purchases. 20. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us and relied on the ground raised. 21. Per contra, the Ld.AR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and pleaded to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 22. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld.CIT(A) found fault with the AO in resorting to ad-hoc disallowance without pointing out any specific defects in the bill / vouchers, particularly in view of the fact that profit admitted by the assessee is far higher than normal profit reported in this line of business. It is admitted fact that the AO has not doubted the sales disclosed by the assessee. The AO made disallowance of expenses after examination of books of account and ledger account. It is an admitted fact that the assessee made cash purchases of Rs.26,17,20,504/- and produced only self-made vouchers for purchases at local jetty, stating that in this trade purchase of material and fish in cash is inevitable as the sellers are uneducated and small traders. It is established fact that the AO has not doubted the sales 16 ITA No.60/Viz/2021 & CO No. 62/Viz/2021, A.Y.2010-11 Nukala Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam disclosed by the assessee. It is pertinent to mention that Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi introduced Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, on 28 August 2014. The objective of "Pradhan Mantri Jan-Dhan Yojana (PMJDY)" is ensuring access to various financial services like availability of basic savings bank account, access to need based credit, remittances facility, insurance and pension to the excluded sections i.e. weaker sections & low income groups with zero balance. RuPay debit card is also provided to the PMJDY bank holders. Hence the conduct of the assessee is not natural and had wrongly taken shelter of uneducated and small traders in the reply and made cash purchases. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we partly allow the appeal and disallowance of 2% on purchases is restricted to 1%. The relief is granted in peculiar circumstances. Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed. 23. The assessee filed cross objections in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 24. In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed. 17 ITA No.60/Viz/2021 & CO No. 62/Viz/2021, A.Y.2010-11 Nukala Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam Order Pronounced in open Court on 31 st March,2022. Sd/- Sd/- (एस बालाकृ ष्णन) (लधलत कु मार) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 31.03.2022 L.Rama, SPS आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1.ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee– Nukala Ramakrishna, Naga Hanuman Fish Packers, Sri Balaji Residency, 5-3, Sector-9, MVP Colony, Near DRDA Office, Visakhapatnam 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam 3. प्रधान आयकरआयुक्त/ The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Visakhapatnam 4.आयकरआयुक्त (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Visakhapatnam 5.नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम/ DR,ITAT,Visakhapatnam 6.गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam