THE ITO WARD - 2, Bhimavaram V. Sri Medapati Gopala Reddy, Bhimavaram

ITA 31/VIZ/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9651 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI SHANKAR NARAYANA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Peak credit; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 44AD; 142(1); 133(6); 68; 69; 6

Judgement Text

ITA NO.31/VIZAG/2014 SRI M. GOPALA REDDY, BHIMAVARAM 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.31/VIZAG/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) ITO, WARD - 2, BHIMAVARAM VS. SRI M. GOPALA REDDY, BHIMAVARAM [PAN: ADPPM9377A ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SRI RAVI SHANKAR NARAYANA, DR / RESPONDENT BY : SRI G.V.N. HARI, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 19.12.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.12.2016 / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), GUNTUR DATED 31.10.2013 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.31/VIZAG/2014 SRI M. GOPALA REDDY, BHIMAVARAM 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONTRACT S, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 29.3.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 2,55,450/-, BESIDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 1,52,600/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND ACCOR DINGLY, NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER CALLED AS 'THE ACT') WERE ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES, TH E AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME T O TIME AND FURNISHED INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR. DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH COPI ES OF BANK ACCOUNTS HELD BY HIM. SINCE, ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH BAN K ACCOUNT DETAILS, THE A.O. OBTAINED INFORMATION FROM THE BANKS U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS OPERATING BANK ACCOUNT S AT AXIS BANK AND VIJAYA BANK. ON VERIFICATION OF THE SAME, IT WAS N OTICED THAT THERE WERE CREDITS BY WAY OF CASH/CLEARING. THEREFORE, ISSUED A NOTICE AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDITS FOUND IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A RECEIP T AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT EXPLAINING THE CREDITS AND DEBITS FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 3. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE RECEIPT AN D PAYMENT ACCOUNT, ITA NO.31/VIZAG/2014 SRI M. GOPALA REDDY, BHIMAVARAM 3 PREPARED A DATEWISE RECEIPT AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT AND ARRIVED AT A PEAK DEFICIT CASH BALANCE OF ` 7,12,610/-. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR NEGATIVE PEAK CASH BALANCE, THE SAI D AMOUNT OF ` 7,12,610/- IS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. SIMILARLY, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT AN AMOUNT OF ` 1 LAKH WAS CREDITED IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT HE LD WITH AXIS BANK. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN T HE NATURE OF CREDIT, THE SAID AMOUNT OF ` 1 LAKH IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 6 8 OF THE ACT. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BALANCES SHOWN IN BALANCE SHEETS IN THE NAME OF M/S . JANA HARSHA ESTATES N CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. (JENCPL) WHEN COM PARED TO CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE CREDITOR. THOUGH THE A.R . OF THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2009 A T ` 38,69,247/-, HE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTY, THEREFORE, OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXCESS LIABILITY TO THE TU NE OF ` 5,85,937/-. THIS EXCESS CLAIM OF LIABILITY IS EVIDENCED BY CONF IRMATION FROM M/S. JENCPL. THE SAID AMOUNT OF ` 5,85,937/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. SIMILARLY, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS D ECLARED NET PROFIT OF 12.5% ON GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPT OF ` 35 LAKHS BY CLAIMING EXPENDITURE OF ` 30,62,500/-. AS NOTICED FROM THE CASH FLOW WORKIN G, THE ASSESSEE DID ITA NO.31/VIZAG/2014 SRI M. GOPALA REDDY, BHIMAVARAM 4 NOT CLAIM ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EXECUTING THE CIVIL C ONTRACT WORKS AND ALSO FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR EXPENDITURE TO EX ECUTE THE WORKS CONTRACT. THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AGAINST CIVIL WO RKS CONTRACT OF ` 30,62,500/- IS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITUR E U/S 69 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO TOTAL INCOME. SIMILARLY, THE A.O. MAD E ADDITIONS OF ` 5,892/- TOWARDS INTEREST CREDITED IN THE SAVINGS BA NK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED AT VIJAYA BANK AND AXIS BANK. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE A SSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE A.O. TH E ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AS REGARDS ADDITIONS TOWARDS PEAK NE GATIVE CASH BALANCE, THE A.O. WAS NOT CONSIDERED ADVANCES RECEI VED BACK FROM THE SUB CONTRACTORS AND NET PROFIT EARNED FROM THE BUSI NESS OF THE PERIOD WHILE ARRIVING AT NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE. IF THE AD VANCES RECEIVED BACK HAS BEEN CONSIDERED, THE NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE ARRI VED AT BY THE A.O. WOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED. IN SO FAR AS ADDITIONS TO WARDS EXPENDITURE AGAINST WORKS CONTRACT, HE HAD GIVEN ADVANCE TO SUB CONTRACTORS FOR EXECUTING THE WORK AND OFFERED NET INCOME, THEREFOR E, THE EXPENDITURE PART HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE BY THE SUB CONTRACTORS AND ACCORDINGLY NOT CONSIDERED IN HIS CASH FLOW STATEMENT. THE A.O., W ITHOUT CONSIDERING ITA NO.31/VIZAG/2014 SRI M. GOPALA REDDY, BHIMAVARAM 5 THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE SUB CONTRACTORS, MADE ADD ITIONS BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION. 5. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THE A.O. HAS WORKED OUT PEAK NEG ATIVE CASH BALANCE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ADVANCES RETURNED FROM THE SUB CONTRACTOR. IF THE ADVANCES RETURNED FROM THE SUB CONTRACTOR HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, THE NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE WOULD TURN TO BE POSITIVE . THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. TOWARDS NEGATIVE PEAK CREDIT BALAN CE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DELETE ADDITIONS MADE TOWARDS PEAK CREDIT BALANCE OF ` 7,12,610/-. SIMILARLY, THE CIT(A) DELETED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. TOWAR DS EXPENDITURE INCURRED AGAINST WORKS CONTRACT BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS TO SUB CONTRACTORS OUT OF THE ADVANCES REC EIVED FROM THE CONTRACTORS. THE SUB CONTRACTORS HAVE EXECUTED WOR KS AND ADJUSTED ADVANCES PAID AGAINST WORKS BILLS, THEREFORE, THE N ECESSITY OF EXPLAINING THE SOURCES FOR EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NO T ARISE. THE A.O. HAS MISTAKENLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE IN CASH AGAINST WORKS CONTRACTS. B UT, THE FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUB CONTRACTED WORK TO SUB CONTRAC TORS AND THEY HAVE INCURRED EXPENDITURE, THEREFORE, EXPLAINING THE SOU RCES FOR EXPENDITURE ITA NO.31/VIZAG/2014 SRI M. GOPALA REDDY, BHIMAVARAM 6 IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ARISE. IN SO FAR AS ADDITIONS TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OF ` 1 LAKH AND UNEXPLAINED LIABILITY OF ` 5,85,937/-, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE CREDIT FOUN D IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO FAILED TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIABILITY SHOWN IN HIS BALANCE SHEET TO THE CONFIRMATION LETTER ISSUED BY THE CREDITOR. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE FIRST ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATI ON IS ADDITIONS TOWARDS PEAK NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE OF ` 7,12,610/-. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT WHEN THE DEFICIT CASH BALANCE WAS WORKED OUT ON DATE SPE CIFIC AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROV E THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. THE D.R. FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED INCOME U/S 44AD OF THE ACT AND THAT THE AS SESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HAS SIMPLY FILED BALANCE SHEET BY MENTIONING THE CLOSING BALANCE ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE A.O. HAS WORKED OUT THE PEAK NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE BY TAKING INTO A CCOUNT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER WHICH ARRIVE D AT A NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE FOR WHICH ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER ANY SOUR CES, THEREFORE, THE ITA NO.31/VIZAG/2014 SRI M. GOPALA REDDY, BHIMAVARAM 7 CIT(A) WAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE ADVANCES RETURN ED FROM THE CUSTOMERS TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE TOWARDS NEGA TIVE CASH BALANCE. 7. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT T HE A.O. ARRIVED AT NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE WITHOUT CONSIDERING TOTAL BUS INESS TRANSACTIONS INCLUDING ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE SUB CONTRACTOR . THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN ADVANCES TO S UB CONTRACTORS, OUT OF WHICH RECEIVED BACK PART OF ADVANCES, AFTER ADJU STING AGAINST BILLS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED TO ARRIVE AT NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE. ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN N ET PROFIT IS DECLARED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT, TH E ASSESSEE NEED NOT TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HENCE, ADDITIONS TOWARDS PEAK CREDIT BALANCES WITHOUT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALSO WIT HOUT CONSIDERING OVER ALL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS IS INCORRECT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE A.O. MADE ADDITIONS OF ` 7,12,500/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT, TOWARDS PEAK NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING ENOUGH SOURCES FOR CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOU NT. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE RECEIV ED ADVANCES FROM ITA NO.31/VIZAG/2014 SRI M. GOPALA REDDY, BHIMAVARAM 8 SUB CONTRACTORS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM WI TH NECESSARY EVIDENCES, THEREFORE, OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS N OT HAVING SUFFICIENT SOURCE OF INCOME TO EXPLAIN THE DEFICIT CASH BALANC E. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT, FOR COMPUTING PROFITS & GA INS OF BUSINESS ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS NEED NOT TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS AND HENCE ADDITIONS TOWARDS PEAK NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE WITHOU T THE AID OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS INCORRECT. THE ASSESSEE FURTH ER CONTENDED THAT WHILE ARRIVING AT THE PEAK NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE, T HE A.O. HAS NOT CONSIDERED ADVANCES RECEIVED BACK FROM THE SUB CONT RACTORS AND ALSO INCOME OF THE CURRENT YEAR. IF THE INCOME OF THE C URRENT YEAR AS WELL AS ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS ARE CONSIDERED , THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE. 9. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED MATER IAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS ARRIVED AT PEAK NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE BASED ON THE ENTRIES FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT CO NSIDERING THE OVERALL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS INCLUDING ADVANCES RECEIVED F ROM THE SUB CONTRACTORS. WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR COMPUTING THE PROFITS & GAINS OF BUS INESS ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE A CT. WHEN ASSESSEE IS ITA NO.31/VIZAG/2014 SRI M. GOPALA REDDY, BHIMAVARAM 9 FOLLOWING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT , HE NEED NOT TO MAINTAIN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ONCE THERE IS NO REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE A.O. WAS ERRED IN COMPUTING NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE BASED ON THE CREDITS FOUND IN BANK ACCOUNTS, WITHOUT CONS IDERING OTHER BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS INCLUDING ADVANCES RECEIVED F ROM SUB CONTRACTORS. WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE RECEIVED ` 17,46,000/- ADVANCES RECEIVED BACK FROM THE SUB CON TRACTORS AND IF ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE SUB CONTRACTORS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED, THE NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE ARRIVED BY THE A.O. WOULD TUR N TO BE POSITIVE CASH BALANCE. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DELETE ADDITIONS MADE TOWARDS PEAK NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR INFIRMITY IN T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND HENCE, WE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE CIT (A) ORDER AND REJECT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 10. THE NEXT ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATI ON IS ADDITIONS TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF ` 30,62,500/-. THE A.O. DISALLOWED EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AGAINST CONTRACT REC EIPTS AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69 OF THE ACT, BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR EXPENDITURE. IT IS THE CON TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD GIVEN ADVANCES TO SUB CONTRACTORS FOR E XECUTION CONTRACT ITA NO.31/VIZAG/2014 SRI M. GOPALA REDDY, BHIMAVARAM 10 AND THE SUB CONTRACTORS HAVE CARRIED SAID WORK BY I NCURRING SUCH EXPENDITURE AND RAISED BILLS FOR THE SAME. THE ASS ESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT HE HAD ESTIMATED NET PROFIT FROM THE BUSINESS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT ON PRESUMPTIV E BASIS. ONCE THE NET PROFIT IS ESTIMATED ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS, HE NE ED NOT TO PROVE THE EXPENDITURE, THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS ERRED IN MAKIN G ADDITIONS TOWARDS EXPENDITURE AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69 OF TH E ACT. 11. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND FORCE IN T HE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AWAR DED SUB CONTRACTS TO VARIOUS PARTIES AND GIVEN ADVANCES. THE SUB CONTRA CTOR HAS EXECUTED THE WORKS AND SUBMITTED BILLS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADJUSTED CONTRACTORS BILLS AGAINST ADVANCES GIVEN TO THEM IN THE EARLIER OCCASION. THEREFORE, ONCE AGAIN EXPLAINING SOURCES FOR EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS INCURRED BY THE SUB CONTRACTORS DIRECTLY DOES NOT ARISE. WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTIMATED NE T PROFIT U/S 44AD OF THE ACT ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. ONCE, NET PROFIT IS ESTIMATED U/S 44AD OF THE ACT, HE NEED NOT TO PROCESS THE EXPENDITURE. T HEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. WAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING EXP ENDITURE. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DIRECTLY NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE AGAI NST WORKS CONTRACTS ITA NO.31/VIZAG/2014 SRI M. GOPALA REDDY, BHIMAVARAM 11 AND IT WAS INCURRED BY THE SUB CONTRACTORS. THE FA CTS REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE D.R. FAILS TO BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACTS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) IS INC ORRECT. HENCE, WE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE CIT(A) ORDER AND REJECT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DEC16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 30.12.2016 VG/SPS )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT THE ITO, WARD-2, BHIMAVARAM 2. / THE RESPONDENT SRI MEDAPATI GOPALA REDDY, 24-0 8-2/2, SRI RAM PURAM, BHIMAVARAM 3. + / THE CIT, GUNTUR 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A), GUNTUR 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 12 . (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) . , # / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM