M/s Maddi Lakshmaiah & Co. Ltd., Chilakaluripet, Guntur V. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur

ITA 324/VIZ/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2697 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T L PETER
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Difference of opinion; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO.324/VIZAG/2010 - VIZAG PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.324/VIZAG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S. MADDI LAKSHMAIAH & CO. LTD. GUNTUR VS. CIT GUNTUR (APPELLANT) PAN NO:AABCM 4998B (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI T.L. PETER, CIT(DR) ORDER PER SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.3.2010 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT, GUNTUR UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A), IN HIS REVISION ORDER, H AS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES. A. DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE ON THE BUILDING. B. EXPENDITURE INCURRED PRIOR TO THE SETTING UP OF BUSINESS TO BE DISALLOWED. C. DISALLOWANCE TO BE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA). THE ASSESSEE IS ASSAILING THE SAID DECISION OF LEAR NED CIT. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUES ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROCESSING AND TRADING I N TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PROVIDING WARE HOUSE FACILITIES. BESIDES THE ABOVE , IT ALSO ENTERED INTO THE BUSINESS OF SETTING UP OF AN INDUSTRIAL PARK NAMED A S ML TOWERS AT NAVI MUMBAI. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENTERE D INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH ITA NO.324/VIZAG/2010 - VIZAG PAGE 2 OF 8 MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (MIDC ) FOR ACQUISITION OF THE SAID INDUSTRIAL PARK ON 17.11.2000. THE MIDC HANDE D OVER THE PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSEE ON 16.6.2004. THE ASSESSEE LET OUT THE SA ID PARK TO M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD., ON 1.3.2005. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY OFFERED THE RENTAL I NCOME RECEIVED BY IT FROM THE INDUSTRIAL PARK UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE P ROPERTY IN ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 01.11.2005. WHILE COMPU TING THE RENTAL INCOME UNDER THAT HEAD, THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FROM 16.6.2004 TO 31.3.2005 AND DEDUCTED THE APPROPRIATE RENT RELATABLE TO THE VACANT PERIOD. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.12.2005, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE SAID R ENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. IN THE REVISED COMPUTATION, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS AVAILABLE IN THE ML TOWE RS AND ALSO THE EXPENDITURE RELATING TO THE PERIOD FROM 16.6.2004 TO 31.3.2005. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXTRACTED BOTH THE COMPUTATIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY O F NOTIFICATION DATED 17.11.2006 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, APPROV ING THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK PROMOTED BY THE ASSESSEE (NAMED AS ML TOWERS, MUMBAI) UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ACCEPTED THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 31.12.200 7 UNDER SECTION 143(3) BY MAKING CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES. 3.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) INVOKED THE POWERS VESTE D UPON HER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, AS ACCORDING TO HER THE IMPUGNED AS SESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THE F OLLOWING POINTS. A) THE DATE OF SETTING UP OF THE INDUSTRIAL PARK SHOULD BE TAKEN AS ON 1.3.2005, I.E., THE DATE ON WHICH THE SAID INDUSTRI AL PARK WAS LET OUT. HENCE THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD FROM 16. 6.2004 TO 28.2.2005 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.324/VIZAG/2010 - VIZAG PAGE 3 OF 8 B) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED DEPRECIATION FOR FULL YEAR ON THE ASSETS AVAILABLE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK. SINCE THE DATE OF SETTING UP OF THE BUSINESS IS ONLY 1.3.2005, THOSE ASSETS HAVE BEEN P UT TO USE FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS AND HENCE THE DEPRECIATION ON THOSE ASSETS SHO ULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AT 50% OF THE NORMAL AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION, AS PROVID ED FOR UNDER THE ACT. C) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY CONSID ERED THE DETAILS PROVIDED IN ANNEXURE-XII OF THE AUDIT REPORT, WHEREIN THE DET AILS OF BELATED PAYMENT OF TDS ARE SHOWN, FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING DISALLOWA NCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THESE ISSUES. THE FIRST TWO DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED CIT REVOLVE AROUND THE Q UESTION OF DATE OF SETTING UP OF BUSINESS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE BUSINE SS IS SET UP WHEN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK WAS HANDED OVER TO IT BY MIDC ON 16. 6.2004 AND HENCE THE ACTUAL LETTING OF THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. WITH REGARD TO THIS PROPOSITION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SARABHAI MANAGEMENT CORPORATION LTD. (19 91) (192 ITR 151), WHERE IN IT WAS HELD THAT THE BUSINESS IS SET TO HAVE COM MENCED, WHEN THE PROPERTY IS MADE READY FOR USE AND HENCE THE RECEIPT OF ACTUAL RENT IS NOT ESSENTIAL. 4.1 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED CIT WAS OF TH E VIEW THAT ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE CONSIDERED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SARABHAI MANAGEMENT CO RPORATION LTD, (SUPRA) AND HENCE RELIANCE CANNOT BE PLACED UPON IT. THE B USINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS SPECIFIC, I.E. AN INFRASTRUCTURE INDUST RY AND IS BASED ON PRE-AGREED CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED BY THE DIRECTO R, STPI, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. ACCORDING TO LEARNED CIT, THE BUSINESS WAS SET UP O NLY ON 1.3.2005 AND HENCE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED PRIOR TO THAT DATE HAS TO BE DISALLOWED AND THE DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 50% OF NORMAL DEPRECIATION. ITA NO.324/VIZAG/2010 - VIZAG PAGE 4 OF 8 5. THUS, IT CAN BE SEEN THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED CIT ON THE DATE OF SETTING UP OF BU SINESS. IF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN ITS CLAIM. HOWEVER, IF THE VIEW OF THE LEARNED CIT IS ACCEPTED, THE DISALLOWANCES PROP OSED BY THE LEARNED CIT HAVE TO BE MADE SINCE THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE W ITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSITION THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SETTING UP OF THE BUSINESS IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE VERY DISPUTE REVOLVES AROUND THE DATE OF SETTIN G UP OF BUSINESS. 5.1 WE NOTICE THAT THE LEARNED CIT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED ITS STAND AND OFFERED THE RENTAL INCOME FRO M THE INDUSTRIAL PARK UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS IN ITS REVISED RETU RN OF INCOME, ONLY AFTER THE RECEIPT OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80IA ON 17.11.200 6. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE SAID OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED CIT IS AGAINST THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.12.2005, I.E. PRIOR TO THE RECEIPT OF APPROVAL LETTER. THE ASSESSEE HAS AL SO PLACED A COPY OF LETTER DATED 31-12-2004, WRITTEN BY THE DESK OFFICER OF DEPARTME NT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY & PROMOTION, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVER NMENT OF INDIA, IN ITS PAPER BOOK WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PURSUIN G ITS INDUSTRIAL PARK APPLICATION EARLIER ALSO. HENCE THE OBSERVATIONS O F LEARNED CIT THAT THE APPROVAL LETTER UNDER SECTION 80IA HAS PROMPTED THE ASSESSEE TO CHANGE ITS STAND DO NOT APPEAR TO BE CORRECT. IN ANY CASE, THERE IS NO DISP UTE WITH REGARD TO THE HEAD UNDER WHICH THE SAID RENTAL INCOME IS TAXABLE AND H ENCE SAID OBSERVATIONS OF LEARNED CIT ARE ALSO NOT RELEVANT FOR THE ISSUE UND ER CONSIDERATION. 5.2 WE NOTICE FROM THE RECORD THAT THE SAID IN DUSTRIAL PARK WAS CONSTRUCTED ON AN AREA OF 22,231 SQ. MTS., AND THE CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE MIDC. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID INDUSTRIAL PARK ON 16.6.2004. THE MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HAS ALSO COLLECTED THE MUNICI PAL TAX FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.6.2004 TO 30.9.2004. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE INDUSTRIAL PARK ITA NO.324/VIZAG/2010 - VIZAG PAGE 5 OF 8 WAS READY BY THAT DATE AND HENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE QUESTION OF DATE OF SETTING UP OF BUSINESS, THE DATE ON WHICH IT WAS ACTUALLY LET OUT IS NOT RELEVANT. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT HAS EXPRESSED H ER STRONG VIEWS IN SUPPORT OF HER PROPOSITION THAT THE INDUSTRIAL PARK CAN BE SAID TO BE READY ONLY ON 01.3.2005. 6. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE FEEL IT PERTINE NT TO DISCUSS THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE COURTS ON THE R EVISION PROCEEDING CARRIED OUT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE HON'B LE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. V CIT (321 IT R 92) HAS DEALT WITH THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 AS UNDER: SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 EMPOWERS TH E COMMISSIONER TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD O F ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT AND, IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEO US IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENU E, TO PASS AN ORDER UPON HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER AN ENQUIR Y AS IS NECESSARY, ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. TH E KEY WORDS THAT ARE USED BY SECTION 263 ARE THAT THE ORD ER MUST BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. TH IS PROVISION HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN SEVERAL JU DGMENTS TO WHICH IT IS NOW NECESSARY TO TURN. IN MALABAR INDUS TRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WI LL BE ATTRACTED. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT AN INCORREC T ASSUMPTION OF FACT OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF L AW, WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE O R WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, WOULD BE AN ORDER FALLING IN T HAT CATEGORY. THE EXPRESSION PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD, IT IS OF WIDE IMPORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO A LOSS OF TAX. WHAT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IS EXPLAINED IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT (HEA DNOTE) : THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE RE VENUE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PA SSED BY THE ITA NO.324/VIZAG/2010 - VIZAG PAGE 6 OF 8 ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CON SEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CANNOT BE TREA TED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME-TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IN MALABAR I NDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND EXPLAINED IN A SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. MAX INDIA LTD. [2007] 295 ITR 282. 7. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF T HE CASE, ONE CAN COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE BY THE LEARNED CIT ARE TWO POSSIBLE VIEWS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS ACCEPTED THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE BOTH THE VIEWS AR E POSSIBLE VIEWS, THE QUESTION RELATING TO THE DATE OF SETTING UP OF BUS INESS BECOMES A HIGHLY DEBATABLE ISSUE. IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL PROPOSITIONS SETTLED BY THE COURT, WHICH HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPHS, IT CAN NOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE PO SSIBLE VIEWS. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE LEARNED CIT IS WRONG IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE IMPUGNED ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRE CIATION AND THE EXPENDITURE BY DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE DAT E OF SETTING UP OF THE BUSINESS AS 1.3.2005. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEAR NED CIT ON THESE TWO ISSUES. 8. THE LEARNED CIT HAS ALSO DIRECTED THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO EXAMINE ABOUT THE DISALLOWANCES TO BE MADE UNDER SECTION 40 (A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR THE BELATED REMITTANCE THE TDS AMOUNT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE DETAILS OF DELAYED PAYMENT OF TDS AMOUNT WERE B ROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VIDE THE LETTER DATED 30. 11.2007 FILED BEFORE HIM ITA NO.324/VIZAG/2010 - VIZAG PAGE 7 OF 8 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED TH E SAME. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA), IF THE TDS DEDUC TED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REMITTED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETU RN OF INCOME AND IN THIS REGARD, HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2010 P ASSED BY THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF REGMA CERAMICS LTD., IN ITA NO.2/VIZAG/ 2010. 8.1. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THIS BEN CH CITED ABOVE AND ALSO THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE REGMA CERAMICS LTD., CASE, (SUPRA), THE TDS WAS DEDUCTED ON THE LAST MON TH OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND HENCE IT WAS HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UN DER SECTION 40(A)(IA) CANNOT BE MADE ON A PROPER READING OF THE SAID SECT ION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED THE DETAILS OF DEDUCT ION AND REMITTANCE OF TDS IN PAGES 39 TO 41 OF THE PAPER BOOK COMPILED BY IT. ON A PERUSAL OF THE SAID PAGES, WE NOTICE THAT THE DELAY IN REMITTA NCE OF TDS AMOUNT HAS OCCURRED NOT ONLY IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE DURIN G THE LAST MONTH OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR BUT ALSO TO THE PAYMENTS MADE IN OTHER MONTHS. HENCE THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF REGMA CERAMICS LTD., CANNOT APPLY UNIFORMLY ON ALL THE TDS AMOUNTS REPORTED BY THE AS SESSEE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO DISCUSS ABOUT THE IMPLICATION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA), THOUGH A QUERY WA S RAISED IN THAT REGARD. HENCE, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS EXAMINED THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) IN RESPECT OF PA YMENTS MADE IN THE MONTHS OTHER THAN THE LAST MONTH. FROM THE STATEME NT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.4,09,259/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER THE DE TAILS OF THE SAID DISALLOWANCE ARE NOT AVAILABLE. HENCE, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAS PRIMA FACIE, FAILED TO PROPE RLY EXAMINE THE IMPLICATION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ON THE BELATED PAY MENTS OF TDS, WHICH RENDERS THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSU E ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. ACCOR DINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ITA NO.324/VIZAG/2010 - VIZAG PAGE 8 OF 8 INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE DATE WISE AND PARTY WISE. ACCOR DINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT ON THIS ISSUE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATE:19-11-2010 COPY TO 1 M/S. UMA MAHESWARA RAO & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTAN TS, SAMATA, 6 TH LINE, MAIN ROAD, BRODIPET, GUNTUR-522 002 2 THE CIT, GUNTUR 3 THE CIT(A), GUNTUR 4 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM