S.R.Nirman, Visakhapatnam V. THE ITO, WARD - 3(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 322/VIZ/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6538 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V APPALA RAJU
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence
• Section: 147; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM SMC BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 320 TO 32 2 / VIZ /201 4 (ASST. YEAR : 20 07 - 08 TO 2 009 - 10 ) M/S. S.R. NIRMAN, D.NO. 50 - 116 - 13, LAYOUT SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM. VS. ITO, WARD - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM. PAN NO. ABDFS 9129 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI ADV OCATE . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI V. APPALA RAJU - SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 30 / 1 0 /201 7 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 / 1 1 /201 7 . O R D E R THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 28/03/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2007 - 08, 2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS COMMON, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 320/VIZ/2014 2. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE - FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENTS. A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133 - A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'ACT') WAS CONDUCTED IN THE BU SINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE - FIRM ON 2 ITA NOS. 320 - 32 2 /VIZ/2014 (S.R. NIRMAN) 13/03/2009 . ACCORDINGLY, THE ASS ESSMENT WAS RE - OPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 . DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY , IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID CERTAIN CASH PAYMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONS : 1 Y. VARAHALAMMA & OTHERS 13,19,000/ - 02/12/2006 2 VENKATA LAKSHMI 5,44,000 02/12/2006 3 Y. APPA RAO 3,06,000 02/12/2006 4 D. RAMAYAMMA 2,16,500 02/12/2006 THE ABOVE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER SALE AGREEMENT - CUM - GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY (GPA) REGISTERED ON 02/12/2006 . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED ABOUT THE ABOVE PAYMENTS , THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT HE PAID PAYMENTS IN CASH , BUT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE OF THE ABOVE INCOME . ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING ADDITION OF 34,43,825/ - TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 3. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE SALE AGREEMENT - CUM - GPA , THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 22/02/2007 AND NO CASH PAYMENT ARE MADE AND ONLY FLATS HA VE TO BE ALLOTTED AS PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CALLING REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE , AND ON MERITS, ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF ORDERS IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 3 ITA NOS. 320 - 32 2 /VIZ/2014 (S.R. NIRMAN) 6.7 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. THE AR'S CONTENTION IS THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT GET SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FOR THAT REASON APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE FOR ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THIS IS ONE OF THE PERMISSIBLE GROUNDS PROVIDED IN THE CBDT INSTRU CTION NO.547/1973FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE IT HAS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THESE DOCUMENTS. FOR THE PURPOSE, I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER FOR A.Y, 2007 - 08 AND NOTED THAT TH E AO HAD ISSUED THE SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE ON 26.11,2010 FIXING THE HEARING ON 03.12.2010 GIVING THE APPELLANT OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN ITS SUPPORT . HOWEVER, ONLY AN ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT ON THAT DATE AND ON SUCH REQUEST THE HEARING WAS FIXED ON 09.1 2.2010. ON THIS DATE, THE MANAGING PARTNER HAD APPEARED AND FI L ED LETTER DTD.09.12.2010 GIVING ITS EXPLANATION AGAINST PROPOSED ADDITION AND REQUESTED FOR FURTHER TIME. THE AO HAD GRANTED TIME TO 10.12,2010 ON WHICH DATED THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE AN Y INFORMATION AND THE ASSESSMENT WA S FINALIZED ON 27 . 12.2010. THUS THERE IS SOME MERIT IN THE CONTENTION THAT THERE JOT SUFFICIENT TIME TO PRODUCE THE SAID DOCUMENT AS IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE APPELLANT HAD HEALTH PROBLEMS. AS THE SITUATION FALLS INTO ONE OF THE CATEGORIES STATED IN THE CBDT INSTRUCTION, I CONSIDER IT WOULD BE FAIR TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 4 . ON APPEAL BEFORE US, L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS , WHICH HE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 5 . ON THE OTHER HAND, L EARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6 . I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7 . DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID CERTAIN CASH PAYMENTS TO VARIOUS PARTIES. WHEN IT IS BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE, ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THAT HE MADE CASH PAYMENTS. EVEN DURING THE COU R SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THAT CASH PAYMENTS ARE MADE, BUT NO EXPLANATION IS GIVEN FOR THE SOURCE OF INCOME . ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE ENTIRE CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INV ESTME NT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE - FIRM. 4 ITA NOS. 320 - 32 2 /VIZ/2014 (S.R. NIRMAN) ON APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE SALE A GREEMENT - C U M - GPA DATED 0 2/ 1 2/200 6 , ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND NO CASH PAYMENTS WERE MADE. LD. CIT(A) BY CALLING THE REMAND REPORT ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FINALLY HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE SALE AGREEMENT - CUM - GPA DATED 02/12/2006 , THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH PAYME NTS. NOW THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE REGISTERED AGREEMENT, HE ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 22/02/2007 BUT , NO CASH PAYMENTS ARE MADE. IN THIS CONTEXT, LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT, CASH PAYMENTS ARE MADE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY ADMITTED THE SAME BEFORE THE SURVEY TEAM AND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . T HEREFORE, SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. I FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.321/VIZ/2014 8 . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED 6.5 LAKHS IN A PROPERTY. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION , THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION WAS MADE. 5 ITA NOS. 320 - 32 2 /VIZ/2014 (S.R. NIRMAN) 9 . DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR CONTENDED THAT ONLY AN AMOUNT OF 1 LAKH WAS PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF 5.5 LAKHS W AS PAID IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE DETAILS REL A TING TO THE TRANSACTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF 5.5 LAKHS IS PRESUMED TO BE PAID IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 . THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, CONSIDERED THE INVESTMENT OF 5.5 LAKHS IS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 , WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 7.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. ADMITTEDLY THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,5 IAKHS WAS NOT MADE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVA NT TO THE A.Y.2006 - 07 AND WAS AL SO ADMITTED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN THIS SUBJECT YEAR. NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN AS TO THE SOURCE FOR THIS INVESTMENT. HENCE THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.5.5 LAKHS FOR THIS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED FOR TELESCOPING OF ITS INCOME WHILE DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. I CONSIDER SUCH A PLEA TO BE REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW TELESCOPING BENEFIT. I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 322/VIZ/2014 1 0 . IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT AS PER THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL, ASSESSEE HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF 21.40 LAKH IN CASH UNDER A REGISTERED SALE AGREEMENT - CUM - GPA TO SMT. KAPALA JAYALAKSHMI & OTHERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE ABOVE 6 ITA NOS. 320 - 32 2 /VIZ/2014 (S.R. NIRMAN) PAYMENT S MADE IN CASH WITH REFERENCE TO THE SALE AGREEMENT - CUM - GPA DOCUMENT DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , T HE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EX PLAIN THE SOURCE FOR THE INVESTMENT . A S THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED THE AMOUNT OF 21.40 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 1 1 . BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE VIDE LETTER DATED 07/03/2013 REQUESTING TO ADMIT A REGISTERED CANCELLATION DEED (REGD. AS DOL NO. 677/2010) , WHICH EVIDENCE D THE CANCELLATION OF THE SALE AGREEMENT - CUM - GPA AND SUBMITTED TH A T NO CASH PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO THE PARTIES. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CALLING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED CASH PAYMENTS MADE TO THE PARTIES DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , AND THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT RETRACTED. THEREFORE, THE PAYMENTS MADE AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE AGREEMENT - CUM - GPA OF 21.40 LAKHS , TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER , THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE TRANSACTION RELATED TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 , DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED A DDITION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND DIRECTED HIM TO MADE THE ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 7 ITA NOS. 320 - 32 2 /VIZ/2014 (S.R. NIRMAN) 7.9 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE - APPELLANT HAD MENTIONED ABOUT THE CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT COULD N OT PRODUCE THE SAME. THERE IS SOME MERIT IN THE CONTENTION THAT DOCUMENT COULD NOT BE PRODUCED FOR PAUCITY OF TIME. FURTHER THE DOCUMENT REQUIRED TO BE ADMITTED WAS A REGISTERED DOCUMENT. HENCE I CONSIDER IT FAIR TO ADMIT THEM AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 7.10 THE APPELLANT HAD ADMITTED TO PAYMENT OF CASH CONSIDERATION IN HIS STATEMENT DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, AND ALSO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING PAYMENT OF CASH CONSIDERATION WAS NEVER RETRACTED. HENCE THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR THE AO TO MAKE ANY FURTHER INQUIRIES, AS THE INFERENCE WAS DRAWN BY THE AO WITH REFERENCE TO A REGISTERED DOCUMENT WHOSE RECITALS THERETO WAS ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT WHEN QUESTIONED. THE BURDEN SQUARE LY LIES ON THE APPELLANT TO PROVE IF ANY OF THE RECITALS IN THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT WAS MODIFIED OR INCORRECT. THE ASSESSES HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THE PASSING OF CASH CONSIDERATION UNDER THE SALE CUM GPA. FURTHER, UNDER THE SALE CUM GPA, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED VALUABLE POSSESSORY AND ATTORNEY RIGHTS AND IT IS IMPROBABLE SUCH INVALUABLE RIGHTS WERE CONVEYED WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD PLEADED THAT THE SUBJECT TRANSACTION WAS SAID TO BE CANCELLED AS PER DOCUMENT EXECUTED ON 24M FEBRUARY, 2010. MERE CANCELLATION OF THE DOCUMENT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT CONSIDERATION WAS NOT PASSED UNDER THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. THEREFORE IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS RIGHT IN INFERRING THAT THE CASH CONSIDERATION OF RS.21,40,000/ - WAS PASSED UNDER TH E SALE CUM POA. HOWEVER, AS THE TRANSACTION RELATED TO A.Y.2009 - 10, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION FOR A.Y.2008 - 09. 8. X X X X 8.1 X X X X 8.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. AS ALREADY DISCUSSED, IT IS CLEARLY RECORDED IN THE SALE CUM GPA THAT CASH CONSIDERATION WAS PAID AND WHICH HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BOTH DURING THE SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CLAIM THAT SUCH RECITAL WAS WRITTEN IN A CASUAL MANNER AND SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION IS IMPROVABLE AND INCONCEIVABLE. IT IS NOTED THAT IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE TO PAY SOME CASH CONSIDERATION TOWARDS ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS UNDER A SALE CUM GPA. A MERE CANCELLATION OF THE TRANSACTION AT A SUBSEQUENT YEAR WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY INDICATE THAT NO CONSIDERATION WAS PASSED UNDER THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ADD AN AMOUNT OF RS. 21,40,000/ - TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR THE A.Y.2009 - 10 . 1 2. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMI SSIONS, WHICH HE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 8 ITA NOS. 320 - 32 2 /VIZ/2014 (S.R. NIRMAN) 1 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD.CIT(A). 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 1 5 . THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AN AMOUNT OF 21.4 LAKHS UNDER SALE AGREEMENT - CUM - GPA TO SMT. KAPALA JAYALAKSHMI & OTHERS . DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH TO THE PARTIES, HOWEVER, SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IS NOT EXPLAINED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE AMOUNT OF 21.4 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. BE F ORE THE LD. CIT(A) , IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH REG ISTERED SALE AGREEMENT - CUM - GPA ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE , SUBSEQUENTLY THE SAME IS CANCELLED AND THEREFORE NO CASH PAYMENT IS MADE. THIS ARGUMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BELIEVED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ONCE, ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED CASH PAYMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE, SUBSEQUENTLY BY WAY OF UNREGISTERED CANCELLATION DEED, IT IS EXPLAINED THAT NO CASH PAYMENT IS MADE , CANNOT BE ACCEPTED , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RETRACTED HIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE SURVEY PARTIES IN RESPECT OF CASH PAYMENTS MADE. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9 ITA NOS. 320 - 32 2 /VIZ/2014 (S.R. NIRMAN) 1 6 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 08 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 201 7 . SD/ - ( V. DURGA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 08 TH NOVEMBER , 201 7 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE - M/S. S.R. NIRMAN, D.NO. 50 - 116 - 13, LAYOUT SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE REVENUE ITO, WARD - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE CIT - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE CIT(A) , VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. THE D.R . , VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (VUKKEM RAMBABU) SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM.