Gudivada Shyam Kumar Naidu Represented by Gudivada Shiva Satish Naidu, Visakhapatnam V. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

ITA 333/VIZ/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9948 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C DAS
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Retrospective amendment; Time period of passing order; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , 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. 3 33 /VIZ/ 201 8 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 08 - 09 ) GUDIVADA SHYAM KUMAR NAIDU C/O GUDIVADA SHIVA SATISH NAIDU 55 - 43 - 2, HILL VIEW, DOCTORS COLONY SEETHAMMADHARA VISAKHAPATNAM [PAN : A FDPG6225M ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) VISAKHAPATNAM ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI I.KAMA SASTRY , AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.C.DAS , DR / DATE OF HEARING : 20 . 0 9 .201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 . 0 9 .201 8 / O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS)[ CIT (A) ] - 1 0 , HYDERABAD VIDE I.T.A .NO. 0 018 /CIT(A) - 10 /201 6 - 1 7 /CIT(A),HYD - 10/10 031 /201 6 - 1 7 DATED 23 . 0 4 .201 8 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08 - 09 . 2 ITA NO . 3 33 /VIZ/201 8 GUDIVADA SHYAM KUMAR NAIDU, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. THIS IS A CASE OF REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE. SRI GUDIVADA SHYAM KUMAR NAIDU, NON - RESIDENT HAS SOLD THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO SMT. BHEEMARASETTY SUNITHA COMPRISING OF 226 SQ.YARDS OF VACANT SITE SITUATED AT ALLIPURAM, WARD ( D.NO.30 - 15 - 173), DABAGARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007 - 08 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 VIDE DOCUMENT NO.3187/2007 WHICH WAS REGISTERED BEFORE THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. THE SALE CONSIDERATION AND THE SRO VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS.49,72,000 / - . SHRI GUDIVADA SIVA SATISH NAIDU WHO HAS AC TED AS SPECIAL POWER AGENT (SPA) FOR THE TRANSACTION IS TREATED AS AN AGENT AND REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE SHRI GUDIVADA SHYAM KUMAR NAIDU, NON - RE SIDENT AND ACCORDINGLY PASSED THE ORDER U/S 163(1) OF THE I NCOME T AX ACT (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS ACT) ON 16.02.2015. THE AO ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 TO THE REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE ON 10.03.2015 AND PASSED THE ORDER U/S 143(3) ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.44,23,797/ - BY ORDER DATED 28.03.2016. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE A SSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND RAISED OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO THE VALIDITY OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 147 BEYOND THE TIME PERIOD OF TWO YEARS U/S 149(3). ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT CONSEQUENT AMENDMENT TO FINANCE ACT, 2012 , THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF SIX YEARS IS APPLICABLE SINCE THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE 3 ITA NO . 3 33 /VIZ/201 8 GUDIVADA SHYAM KUMAR NAIDU, VISAKHAPATNAM APPLICABLE TO THE EARLIER YEARS ALSO AS PER EXPLANATION OF SECTION 149(3). ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2008 - 09 AND THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 10.03.2015 WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 149(3) WAS MADE BY FINANCE ACT 2012 W.E.F. 01.07.2012. PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT, THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE CASE OF REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE WAS TWO YEARS. THE LIMITATION OF TWO YEARS WAS EXPIRED BY MARCH 2011. ON THE SIMILAR FACTS THE ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM IN T HE CASE OF V.PRATIMA RAO AND 5 OTHERS IN ITA NOS.69 TO 74/VIZ/2018 HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR ENLARGEMENT OF THE TIME LIMIT ALREADY E XPIRED FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 . F OLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF MADH UCON SINO HYDRO JV VS. DCIT IN I.T.A. NO.246/HYD/2015 DATED 15.07.2015 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE . FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN SMT. V.PRATIMA RAO AND FIVE OTHERS IN ITA NO.69 TO 74/VIZ2018 DATED 6 TH JUNE 2018 PARA NO.7 TO 7.2 WHICH READS AS UNDER : 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE REP.ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM 4 ITA NO . 3 33 /VIZ/201 8 GUDIVADA SHYAM KUMAR NAIDU, VISAKHAPATNAM LALITHAD.V.RAO AND 7 OTHERS AND OUT OF THE 8 VENDORS, THE FOLLOWING ARE NON RESIDENTS : 1. SMT. LALITHADEVULAPALLIVENKATARAO, 2. SMT. V.UJWALARAO 3. SRI V.GAUTAMRAO 4. SMT.V.PRATIMARAO 5. SRI R.MANI KUMAR 6. SMT.R.SMITHASARMA ALL SIX OF THEM ARE NON RESIDENTS AND PAYMENT MADE TO NON RESIDENTS ATTRACTS THE TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE U/S 195 OF I.T.ACT. THE REP.ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE AS REQUIRED U/S 195 OF I.T.ACT, HENCE, THE AO HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S 163 (1)(C) TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS AN AGENT OF NON RESIDENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON 24.03.2014. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER SECTION 149(3), THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 GOT EXPIRED ON 31.03.2010 WHICH WAS TWO YEARS DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT RELEVA NT SECTION 149(3) OF I.T.ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER : (3) IF THE PERSON ON WHOM A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IS TO BE SERVED IS A PERSON TREATED AS THE AGENT OF A NON - RESIDENT UNDER SECTION 163 AND THE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE COMPUTATION TO BE MADE IN PURSUANCE OF THE NOTICE IS TO BE MADE ON HIM AS THE AGENT OF SUCH NON - RESIDENT, THE NOTICE SHALL NOT BE ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. PLAIN READING OF SECTION 149(3) SHOWS THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IN CASE OF AGENT OF NON RESIDENTS WAS TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE. HOWEVER, THE ACT HAS BEEN AMENDED W.E.F. 1.7.2012 BY SUBSTITUTING THE PERIOD WITH SIX YEARS IN PLACE OF TWO YEARS. IN EXPLANATION TO SUB SECTION (3) OF 149, IT WAS C LARIFIED THAT THE AMENDMENT MADE BY FINANCE ACT 2012 SHALL ALSO BE APPLICABLE FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR BEGINNING ON OR BEFORE 1 ST DAY OF APR 2012. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT RELEVANT PART OF THE EXPLANATION TO INSTRUCTION 149(3) WHICH READS AS UNDER : EXPLANATION. FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY CLARIFIED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTIONS (1) AND (3), AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012, SHALL ALSO BE APPLICABLE FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR BEGINNING ON OR BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2012. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR AND THE AO, AS PER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 149(3) , THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IS SIX YEARS INSTEAD OF TWO YEARS. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE TIME LIMIT WAS TWO YEARS. 5 ITA NO . 3 33 /VIZ/201 8 GUDIVADA SHYAM KUMAR NAIDU, VISAKHAPATNAM 7.1. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED WAS 2007 - 08 AND THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE CASE OF AGENT OF NON - RESIDENT WAS TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEV ANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHICH WAS EXPIRED ON 31.03.2010. AS ARGUED BY THE LD.AR THE ISSUE WAS DEAD AS ON 31.03.2010. THE AMENDMENT HAS COME INTO FORCE W.E.F. 1.7.2012 AND THE AMENDMENT WAS ALSO NOT RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THE AMENDMENT MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME LIMIT CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENTS WHICH WAS ALREADY TIME BARRED BY THAT DATE AND THE ISSUE STANDS DEAD. THE ISSUE WHICH WAS ALREADY DEAD CANNOT BE REVIVED WITH A SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT UNLESS THE SAME AMENDMENT IS MADE W ITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT COORDINATE BENCH OF HYDERABAD, RELIED UPON BY THE LD.AR AND THE ITAT EXPRESSED SIMILAR VIEW AND HELD THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. FOR SAKE OF CLARITY AND CONVENIENCE WE EXTRACT RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF MADHUCON SINO HYDRO JV VS. DCIT (SUPRA). 13. WE ALSO NOTICE FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, ONE MORE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THIS CASE, WHICH IS NOT EVEN POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT, IS BARRED BY LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (3) OF SEC. 149 OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 149 OF THE ACT AS THEY STOOD AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME READ AS FOLLOWS: - '(3) IF THE PERSON ON WHOM A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IS TO BE SERVED IS A PERSON TREATED AS THE AGENT OF A NON - RESIDENT UNDER SECTION 163 AND THE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE - COMPUTATION TO BE MADE IN PURSUANCE OF THE NOTICE IS T O BE MADE ON HIM AS THE AGENT OF SUCH NON - RESIDENT, THE NOTICE SHALL NOT BE ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF *[SIX] YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. [EXPLANATION FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY CLARIFIED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (1) AND (3), AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012, SHALL ALSO BE APPLICABLE FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR BEGINNING ON OR BEFORE THE J DAY OF APRIL, 2022.]' *SUBSTITUTED FOR 'TWO' BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012, W.E.F 1.7. 2012. THUS, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 149 MANDATES THAT WHERE THE INCOME ESCAPING THE ASSESSMENT BELONGS TO A NON - RESIDENT, AND THE REASSESSMENT IS TO BE MADE ON AGENT OF NON - RESIDENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 163 OF THE ACT, T HE NOTICE U/S.148 SHOULD BE ISSUED ONLY WITHIN THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UP TO 6 ITA NO . 3 33 /VIZ/201 8 GUDIVADA SHYAM KUMAR NAIDU, VISAKHAPATNAM 30.06.2012 OR WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX TEARS SUBSEQUENT TO 3006.2012. IN THIS CASE, THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2006 - 07. REASSESSMEN T NOTICE WAS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED ON OR BEFORE 31.3.2008. WHEREAS, IN THE CASE ON HAND THE REASSESSMENT NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 30.03.2013, WHICH IS CLEARLY BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 149 OF THE ACT. THE AMEND ED PERIOD OF SIX YEARS IS APPLICABLE ONLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 ONWARDS AS PER THE EXPLANATION TO THE ABOVE SUB - SECTION. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CLAGGETT BRONCHI CO. LTD. V. CIT [19891 177 ITR 409 (PARA 9) HAD HELD AS UNDER: - ..THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT TO THE AGENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS PROHIBITION BY THE STATUTE. THE SAME RATIO WAS FOLLOWED IN THE FOLLOWING TWO CASES (I) CIT V. S.G. SAMBANDAM& CO., ( 2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (MAD); (II) INGRAM MICRO INDIA LTD. V. DEPUTY CIT (2012) 347 ITR 221 (BORN).' 14. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASES, WE HOLD THAT THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THIS EASE ARE ALSO BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THE REFORE VOID AB INITIO. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.S.GADGIL VS. LAL&COMPANY (SUPRA)HELD THAT LIMITATION HAVING EXPIRED UNDER THE OLD PROVISION BEFORE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE AMENDING LAW AND THE AMENDING LAW HAVING NOT BEEN MADE RETROSPECTIVE, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 34 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT RELEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN PARA NO.9 OF THE ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER : 9. AS WE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT, THE RIGHT TO COMMENCE A PROCEEDING FOR ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS AN AGENT OF A NON - RESIDENT PARTY UNDER THE IT ACT BEFORE IT W A S AMENDED, ENDED ON 31ST MARCH, 1956. IT IS TRUE THAT UNDER THE AMENDING ACT BY 5. 18 OF THE FINANCE ACT, 1956, AUTHORITY WAS CONFERRED UPON THE ITO TO ASSESS A PERSON AS AN AGENT OF A FOREIGN PARTY UNDER S. 43 WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE YEAR OF ASSESSMENT. BUT AUTHORITY OF THE ITO UNDER THE ACT BEFORE IT WAS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT OF 1956, HAVING ALREADY COME TO AN END, THE AMENDING PROVISION WILL NOT ASSIST HIM TO COMMENCE A PROCEEDING EVEN THOUGH AT THE DATE WHEN HE ISSUED THE NOTICE IT IS WITHIN THE PERIOD PROVIDED BY THAT 7 ITA NO . 3 33 /VIZ/201 8 GUDIVADA SHYAM KUMAR NAIDU, VISAKHAPATNAM AMENDING ACT, THIS WILL BE SO, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO DETERMINABLE POINT OF TIME BETWEEN THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME PROVIDED UNDER THE OLD ACT AND THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE AMENDING ACT. THE LEGISLATURE HAS GIVEN TO S. 18 OF THE FINANCE ACT, 1956, ONLY A LIMITED RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION, .E,, UP TO 1ST APRIL, 1956, ONLY. THAT PROVISION MUST BE READ SUBJECT TO THE RULE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION OR CLEAR IMPLICATION, THE LEGISLATURE DOES N OT INTEND TO ATTRIBUTE TO THE AMENDING PROVISION GREATER RETROSPECTIVITY THAN IS EXPRESSLY MENTIONED, NOR TO AUTHORISE THE ITO TO COMMENCE PROCEEDINGS WHICH BEFORE THE NEW ACT CAME INTO FORCE HAD BY THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD PROVIDED BECOME BARRED. 7.2. HO NBLE AP HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADDL.CIT VS. WATAN MECHANICAL AND TURNING WORKS (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER : IT IS WELL - SETTLED THAT THE IT ACT AS IT STANDS AMENDED ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL OF ANY FINANCIAL YEAR, MUST APPLY TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THAT YEAR. AN Y AMENDMENTS IN THE ACT WHICH COME INTO FORCE AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL OF FINANCIAL YEAR, WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THAT YEAR, EVEN IF THE ASSESSMENT IS ACTUALLY MADE AFTER THE AMENDMENTS COME INTO FORCE.' IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2007 - 08 AND THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 31.10.2010. THE AMENDMENT TO SUB SECTION 149(3) HAS COME INTO FORCE FROM 01.04.2012 I.E. AFTER EXPIRY OF TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE AMENDMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR ENLARGEMENT OF THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND THE CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT HYDERABAD CITED (SUPRA) AND THE RA TIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.S.GADGIL (SUPRA). THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH, HYDERABAD, WE HOLD THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE AO IN THIS CASE IS ALSO BARRED BY LIM ITATION. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS SQUASHED AND THE CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENTS MADE ARE HELD TO BE VOID AB INITIO. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REMAINING GROUNDS ARE CONSIDERED NOT NECESSARY TO BE ADJUDICA TED. 5. IN THE INSTANT CASE AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION OF TWO YEARS WAS EXPIRED BEFORE THE AMENDMENT CAME IN TO FORCE . THEREFORE SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE CITED, WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 TO THE 8 ITA NO . 3 33 /VIZ/201 8 GUDIVADA SHYAM KUMAR NAIDU, VISAKHAPATNAM REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND ACCORDINGLY, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS QUASHED AND THE C ONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) DATED 28.03.2016 IS ANNULLED. 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH SEPTEMBER , 20 1 8 . S D/ - S D/ - ( . ) ( . . ) (V. DURGA RAO) ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM /DATED : 26 .0 9 .2018 L.RAMA, SPS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / THE APPELLANT - GUDIVADA SHYAM KUMAR NAIDU , C/O GUDIVADA SHIVA SATISH NAIDU , 55 - 43 - 2, HILL VIEW, DOCTORS COLONY , SEETHAMMADHARA VISAKHAPATNAM 2 . / THE RESPONDENT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) VISAKHAPATNAM 3 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( IT&TP) , H YDERABAD 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 10, HYDERABAD 5 . , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM