U V Ramana Murthy Raju, Visakhapatnam V. TJE CIT - 1, Visakhapatnam

ITA 27/VIZ/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8858 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R GOVINDARAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: C KAMESWARA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 10B; 147; 27; 148; 263; 63

Judgement Text

ITA NO.27/VIZAG/2014 U.V. RAMANAMURTHY RAJU, VSKP 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.27/VIZAG/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) U.V. RAMANAMURTHY RAJU, VISAKHAPATNAM CIT - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM [PAN NO. AAFPU6285N ] ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI C. KAMESWARA RAO, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. GOVINDA RAJAN, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 01.06.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.06.2017 / O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST ORDER OF THE CIT-1, VISAKHAPATNAM IN F.NO.CIT-1/VSP/263/2013-14 DATED 29.10.2013 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 28 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPE AL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR D ELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE AFFIDAVIT AND HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CONDONE TH E DELAY. ITA NO.27/VIZAG/2014 U.V. RAMANAMURTHY RAJU, VSKP 2 3. ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE RELATED TO THE DIR ECTION OF THE CIT TO INITIATE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) BY EXERCISING THE POWERS U/S 2 63 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INC OME OF RS.11,25,932/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.5,20,000/- ON 27.12.2 007. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE A.O. CONDUCTED THE SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT O N 25.10.2011 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11,25,932/- EXCLUDING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE A.O. FOUND THAT A SUM OF RS.22,75,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN UNION BANK OF INDIA, VISAKHAPATNAM BRANCH ON 9.12.2 005 AND 25.5.2006. CONSEQUENTLY, THE A.O. ISSUED NOTICE U/ S 148 OF THE ACT ON 31.3.2012 BY REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF R S.10,00,000/- BUT COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR THE REMAINING DEP OSIT OF RS.12,50,000/-, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CO MPLETED THE REASSESSMENT ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.23,75,932/- BY M AKING THE ADDITION OF RS.1250000/- BUT PENALTY WAS NOT INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT-1 CALLED FOR THE RECORD FOR REVISION U/ S 263 OF THE ACT AND NOTICED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT BUT THE PENALTY WA S NOT INITIATED BY THE A.O. THE LD.CIT HELD THAT PRIMA FACIE THERE IS A C ASE FOR INITIATION OF ITA NO.27/VIZAG/2014 U.V. RAMANAMURTHY RAJU, VSKP 3 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BUT THE A.O. DID NOT INITIATE P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER TO THE LIMITED EXTENT OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT, THE AS SESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER MADE U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 4. APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. A.R. ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT HAS NO POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT TO DIRECT THE A.O. TO INITIATE THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. INITIATION OF PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS IS A SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS REQUIRED TO BE INITIATED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS B UT NOT AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE A.R. ARGUED THAT ON COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THERE WER E NO PROCEEDINGS PENDING AND NO PENALTY CAN BE INITIATED U/S 271(1)( C). THE LD. CIT IS EMPOWERED TO REVISE THE ORDERS PASSED UNDER VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ACT AND IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO ORDER WHICH REQUI RED TO BE REVISED. THE LD A.R FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PAS SED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE SET ASIDE FOR INITIATION OF THE P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THERE IS NO PENALTY ORDER AVAILABLE TO THE CIT, WHI CH CAN BE TAKEN UP FOR REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE LD. A. R. CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) ITA NO.27/VIZAG/2014 U.V. RAMANAMURTHY RAJU, VSKP 4 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND THE REVISION MADE U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS ERRONEO US AND BAD IN LAW, REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. THE LD. A.R. ALSO RELIED O N THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PARMANAND M. PATEL AND HONBLE ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD IN TH E CASE OF EASY TRANSPORTATION AND SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. CIT . 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. ARGUED THAT NON-INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHERE THE PENALTY IS REQUIRED TO BE INITIATED IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER EST OF THE REVENUE. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U /S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, EVIDENCE WAS FOUND EVI DENCING THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME, WHICH RESULTED IN REOPENING O F THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND THE REASSESSMENT WAS COMPLET ED ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY BY M AKING ADDITION OF RS.12,50,000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. ALL THE FACTS NA RRATED ABOVE LEADS TO THE PRIMA FACIE A CASE FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO D O SO. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143 R.W.S . 147 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. TH E LD. CIT RELIED ON THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. SURENDRA ITA NO.27/VIZAG/2014 U.V. RAMANAMURTHY RAJU, VSKP 5 PRASAD, WHICH SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT OMISSION TO IN ITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISI ON OF PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF R.A. HIMMAT SINGHGA & CO. VS. CIT 34 0 ITR 0253 AND INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE PARA NO.28 OF THE ORDE R WHICH READS AS UNDER: 28. THUS, IN ESSENCE, THE INITIAL WORDS OF SECTION 263 'ANY PROCEEDINGS' UNDER THE ACT ARE OF IMMENSE SIGNIFICATION. SECONDL Y, SECTION 263 WHICH USES THE WORDS 'ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN' BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER ALSO HAS ITS IMPORTANCE. IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM SECTION 26 3 THAT THE SAID PROVISION USES THE WORDS 'PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING... ' THE WORD, 'PROCEEDINGS' HENCE, WE ARE DISPOSED TO THINK, IS A WIDER TERM COMPARE TO THE WORD 'ASSESSM ENT'. IT IS ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THE WORD 'ASSESSMENT' HAS BEEN USED ONL Y AFTER THE WORD 'INCLUDING' TOWARDS THE END OF SECTION 263 AND IN T HE EARLIER PART OF SECTION 263, THE ONLY WORD USED IS 'PROCEEDINGS'. H ENCE, IN ANY PROCEEDING IN WHICH AN ORDER IS PASSED DROPPING PEN ALTY, IS VERY MUCH AN ORDER PASSED IN ANY PROCEEDING AND, THUS, THE SAME WOULD COME UNDER THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 6. FURTHER, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ACT HAS BEEN AMENDED W.E.F. 1.6.2002 INCLUDING THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSION ER OR COMMISSIONER FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT , THUS THE CONJOINT READING OF SECTION 271 & 263 OF THE ACT ESTABLISHES THAT THE CIT IS EMPOWERED U/S 263 OF THE ACT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, HENCE THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND THE SAME REQUI RED TO BE UPHELD. REBUTTING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. D.R., THE LD.A.R PLACED ITA NO.27/VIZAG/2014 U.V. RAMANAMURTHY RAJU, VSKP 6 RELIANCE ON THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 AND BROUGHT TO OU R NOTICE THAT THE CLARIFICATORY AMENDMENTS IN SECTION 271 OF THE ACT RELATING TO PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ETC. WAS AMENDED TO INCLUDE T HE REFERENCE TO THE COMMISSIONER AS BEING AN AUTHORITY WHO CAN INIT IATE PENALTY U/S 271 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE LD. A.R. CONTENDED THAT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE CIT CAN INITIATE THE PENALTY BUT HE CANNOT DIRE CT THE A.O. TO INITIATE PENALTY U/S 271 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE LD. A.R . AFFIRMED THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT REQUIRED TO BE QUAS HED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, EVIDENCE WAS FOUND REGARDING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE FORM OF DEP OSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. CONSEQUENTLY RE-ASSESSMENT WAS MADE B Y THE A.O. THE A.O. IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER DID NOT INITIATE PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE CIT CALLED FO R THE RECORD U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND HELD THAT THOUGH IT IS A PRIMA FACIE CA SE FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. HAS NOT INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, PLACING THE RELIANCE ON ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT JUDGMENT CITED (SUPRA) HELD THAT OMISSION TO INITIATE PENALTY PROC EEDINGS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RENDERS THE ASSESS MENT ORDER ITA NO.27/VIZAG/2014 U.V. RAMANAMURTHY RAJU, VSKP 7 ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT SET ASIDE THE ORDER U/S 143 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE A CT WHICH READS AS UNDER: THE COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECO RD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE 2 ASSESSING] OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HE, MAY, AFTER GIV ING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING OR CAUS ING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THER EON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORD ER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSM ENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. 8. U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE CIT CAN CALL FOR THE REC ORD OF ANY PROCEEDINGS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HE DOES SO. HE CALLED FOR THE RECORD PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, EXAMINED THEM AND WHICH HE IS EMPOWERED TO DO. HE CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF ASS ESSMENT PASSED THEREIN AND FOUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 27 1(1)(C) & 273 OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN INVOKED. AS PER THE AMENDMENT MAD E TO THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE CIT IS EMPOWERED TO INITIATE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AS PER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT , THE CIT IS EM POWERED TO PASS AN ORDER AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE, SUCH AN ORDER AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY INCL UDING AN ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO.27/VIZAG/2014 U.V. RAMANAMURTHY RAJU, VSKP 8 AND DIRECTING THE FRESH ASSESSMENT. FROM SECTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CIT IS EMPOWERED TO ENHANCE, MOD IFY OR DIRECT THE A.O. TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT AND SET ASIDE THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WHICH REQUIRED TO BE INITIATED BY HIM. THE CIT HAS THE POWERS VESTED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) TO INITIATE PENALTY AND CON SEQUENTLY THE CIT IS EMPOWERED TO GET IT DONE THROUGH THE AO BY VIRTUE O F POWERS VESTED IN SECTION 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE CI T HAS DIRECTED THE A.O. TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1) (C). THE LD. A.R. RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PARAMANAND M PATEL 278 ITR 0003 (2005) WHIC H WAS RENDERED BEFORE THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 271 OF THE ACT. SE CTION 271 OF THE ACT IS AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER/CO MMISSIONER TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY FINANCE ACT 200 2, W.E.F.01/06/2002. THEREFORE, SUBSEQUENT TO THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 2 71 WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT CAN INITIATE HIMSEL F OR BY EXERCISING POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 OF THE ACT. THE CASE L AW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 271 OF THE ACT. HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT CIT WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO RECOR D THE SATISFACTION AND ONCE HE IS NOT EMPOWERED TO DO SO ON HIS OWN, H E CANNOT DIRECT THE ITA NO.27/VIZAG/2014 U.V. RAMANAMURTHY RAJU, VSKP 9 ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN REVISION POWERS. THE CASE O N HAND IS RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE AM ENDMENT. AFTER THE AMENDMENT, CIT ALSO EMPOWERED TO INITIATE THE P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HELPFUL TO HIM. THE SECOND CASE LA W RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT AHMEDABAD B BENCH IN THE CASE OF EASY TRANSPORTATION SOFTWARE PVT. LTD. (SUP RA). THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTI ON U/S 10B OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT WIT HOUT INITIATING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE CIT HAS INTE RFERED BY EXERCISING POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND CANCELLED THE ASSESSME NT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE AS SESSEE. IN THE SAID CASE, THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT WAS CANCELLED AND SET A SIDE THE ASSESSMENT WITH A DIRECTION TO THE A.O. TO REFRAME THE ASSESSM ENT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE CIT HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ONLY WITH A LIMITED PURPOSE OF INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U /S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED UPON B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. HONBLE ALLAHAB AD HIGH COURT IN 275 ITR 113 RELIED UPON BY THE CIT HELD THAT NON-INITIA TION OF PENALTY ITA NO.27/VIZAG/2014 U.V. RAMANAMURTHY RAJU, VSKP 10 PROCEEDINGS RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASHOK CONSTRUCTION LIMITED 280 ITR 368 OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HELD THAT NON- INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 271B OF THE ACT RENDER TH E ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND UPHE LD THE REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY EXERCISED THE POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO I NITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 21 ST JUN17. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM: 21.06.2017 /DATED : VG/SPS ITA NO.27/VIZAG/2014 U.V. RAMANAMURTHY RAJU, VSKP 11 /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT SHRI U.V. RAMANAMURTHY RAJY, DR. NO.50-1-59/2/5, ASR NAGAR, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE CIT-1, VISAKHAPATNAM 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A), VISAKHAPATNAM 4. , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 5 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM