M/s. Fusion Voice Solutions India Pvt.Ltd, Vijayawada V. The ITO, Vijayawada

ITA 335/VIZ/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8678 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEBAKUMAR SONOWAL
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 260A; 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO.335/VIZAG/2017 M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., VIJAYAW ADA 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.335/VIZAG/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., VIJAYAWADA ITO, WARD - 2(2), VIJAYAWADA [PAN NO AABCF2029A ] ( ' / APPELLANT) ( ()' / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEBA KUMAR SONOWAL, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 08.03.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 4.03.2018 / 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 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIJAYAWAD A DATED 28.3.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. ITA NO.335/VIZAG/2017 M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., VIJAYAW ADA 2 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 8.9.2012 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,53,760/-. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF MOBILES AND ACCESSORIES. THE ASSESSEE IS A WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTOR FOR NOKIA MOBILES AND ACCESSO RIES. THE CASE IS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLE TED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7,74,178/-. SUBSEQUE NTLY, THE CIT(A) HAS TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT A ND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED A SUM OF RS.4,46,924/- TOWARDS INCENTIVES AND AND THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED TO DEDUCT THE TDS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T DEDUCTED THE TDS FROM THE ABOVE PAYMENTS, THE SAID EXPENDITURE REQUI RED TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER DEDUCTED THE TDS NOR THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, HENCE THE CIT HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ASSES SMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT DO-NOVO. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT, THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD. COUN SEL ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION O F NOKIA MOBILES AND ACCESSORIES FOR RETAIL TRADING. THE ASSESSEE RECEI VES THE SCHEME INCENTIVES FROM THE NOKIA COMPANY WHICH WERE PASSED ON TO THE RETAIL ITA NO.335/VIZAG/2017 M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., VIJAYAW ADA 3 TRADERS AS PER THE TARGETS ACHIEVED. THE DETAILS O F THE TRADE DISCOUNTS RECEIVED AND PASSED ON TO THE RETAIL TRADERS ARE AS UNDER; 4. OUT OF THE SAID SCHEME INCENTIVE CREDITS OF RS.1,86 ,15,697/- (AFTER EXCLUSION OF RS.9,57,154/- REPRESENTING VAT REFUND BY C.T. DEPARTMENT) ASSESSEE HAS ALLOWED THE DISCOUNTS TO RETAIL DEALER S WHO PURCHASED NOKIA HAND SETS FROM THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2011-12. THE INCENTIVES WERE PASSED ON TO THE RETAIL DEALERS BY CREDIT NOTES WHO PURCHASED FROM THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THEIR SALES TU RNOVER. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE TRADE INCENTIVES ARE NO THING BUT DISCOUNTS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS PURCHASES, HENCE, TH E SAME IS NEITHER COMMISSION NOR BROKERAGE, HENCE, ARGUED THAT THE TA X DEDUCTION AT SOURCE U/S 194H OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATION IN TH E ASSESSEES CASE. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER ARGUED THAT FOR DEDUCTION OF T AX AT SOURCE U/S 194H OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE PAID THE BROKE RAGE OR COMMISSION AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION (1) OF SECTION 194H OF TH E ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE WERE NO SERVICE RENDERED BY THE RECIPIE NTS AND NO BROKERAGE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT IN RS. 1. TRADE SCHEME INCENTIVES ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE ON ITS PURCHASES BY THE MANUFACTURER DURING THE F.Y. 2011- 12 (SUBJECT TO POINT B INFRA) 1,95,72,851.20 2. TRADE SCHEME INCENTIVES PASSED ON BY THE ASSESSEE T O ITS DEALERS BASED ON THEIR PURCHASES FROM THE ASSESSEE 1,41,51,791.65 3. NET TRADE SCHEME INCENTIVES RETAINED BY THE ASSESSE E AS ITS PROFIT [(1) (2)] 54,21,059.55 ITA NO.335/VIZAG/2017 M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., VIJAYAW ADA 4 OR COMMISSION WAS PAID TO THE PAYEES. IT IS ONLY A N INCENTIVE PASSED ON TO THE RETAILERS WHICH GOES TO REDUCE THE PURCHA SE COST IN THE HANDS OF THE RETAILERS AND RELATION BETWEEN THE RETAILER AND THE ASSESSEE IS PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BUT NOT PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. THE RELATION BETWEEN THE RETAIL DEALER AND THE ASSESSEE IS A PURE PURCHA SE TRANSACTION AND THE INCENTIVES PASSED ON ARE DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE PUR CHASES, HENCE ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE PAID TO TH E RECIPIENTS, HENCE SECTION 194H OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE AS SESSEES CASE AND CONSEQUENT DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AL SO IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED 387 ITR 150(AP). THE ASSESSEE AL SO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF DCIT, CIRCLE-7, KOLKATA VS. M/S. BCH ELECTRIC LTD, IN ITA NO.1336/K OL/12 DATED 18.3.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HELD THAT WHILE PASSING ON THE INCENTIVE TO T HE DEALERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING ITS GOODS BEYOND TARGET QUANTUM, THERE IS NO RELATION OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT AND NO APPLICABILITY OF SECT ION 194H OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE LD. A.R. ALSO ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE ENTIRE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO BY PRODUCTION OF ALL T HE DETAILS REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE PAGE NO.9 OF THE LD. PR.CITS ORDER WHERE IN IT IS STATED THAT THE A.O. HAS COLLECTED THE ITA NO.335/VIZAG/2017 M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., VIJAYAW ADA 5 DETAILS, OBTAINED THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF VARIOUS TR ADE SCHEMES IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 5. FURTHER, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF SALARIES AND THE INCENTIVES PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN THE SALARIES AND THE TDS WAS MADE AS APPLICABLE FROM THE SALARY PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES. THUS, THE LD. CO UNSEL ARGUED THAT AS DECIDED BY THE COURTS, THE INCENTIVES ARE NOT COVER ED U/S 194H OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE. TH E A.O. HAS VERIFIED THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED THE I NCENTIVES AS DEDUCTION HOLDING THAT INCENTIVES PASSED ON TO THE RETAILERS WERE NOT COVERED AS BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION. SINCE THE A.O. HAS ALLOW ED THE EXPENDITURE AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O., HENCE REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER U/S 26 3 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE PR.CIT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. ARGUED THAT THER E IS NO WHISPER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH REGARD TO THE VERIFICATIO N OF THE SALARIES AND INCENTIVES PASSED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE INCENTIV ES WERE COVERED U/S 194H OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BROKERAGE AND CO MMISSION, HENCE, REQUESTED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL CIT AND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE PRINCIPAL CIT. ITA NO.335/VIZAG/2017 M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., VIJAYAW ADA 6 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A WHOLESALE DISTRIBUT OR OF NOKIA MOBILE PHONES AND ACCESSORIES. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR R ELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE INCE NTIVES AND OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PASSED ON INCENTIVES TO THE RETAILERS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,38,34,314/- AND PASSED ON THE INCENT IVES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,46,924/- TO ITS EMPLOYEES. DURING THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. HAS CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS WITH RESPECT TO THE INCENTIVES PASSED ON TO THE RETAILERS AND EXAMINED THE SAME BY THE A.O. AS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIT IN PAGE NO.9 OF THE ORDER. SIMILARLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE INCENTIVES PASSED ON TO THE EMPLOYEES, IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE SALARIES AND THE SAME WAS EXAMINED BY THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESS MENT. 8. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE INCENTIVES ARE COVERED U/S 194H OF THE ACT OR NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BROKERAGE AND COMMISS ION IS AN ISSUE WHICH REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED IN THIS CASE. EXPLANA TION (1) TO SECTION 194H OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER; COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE INCLUDES ANY PAYMENT RECEI VED OR RECEIVABLE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY A PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON FOR SERVICES RENDERED OR FOR ANY SERVICES IN THE COURSE OF BUYIN G OR SELLING OF PRODUCTS OR IN RELATION TO ANY TRANSACTION RELATING TO ANY ASSET V ALUABLE, VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING NOT BEING SECURITIES. ITA NO.335/VIZAG/2017 M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., VIJAYAW ADA 7 9. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF MOBILE PHONES AND ACCESSORIES. IN THE PROC ESS OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY, THE ASSESSEE SELLS THE GOODS TO RETAILERS AND THE INCENTIVES WERE PASSED ON TO THE RETAILERS WHO HAVE ACHIEVED THE QU ANTUM TARGET. NO SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THE RETAILERS TO THE ASSE SSEE AND IT IS A MERE PURCHASE AND SALE TRANSACTION. IN THE MERE PURCHAS E AND SALE TRANSACTION, THERE IS NO PRINCIPAL AGENT RELATIONSH IP EXISTS AND ONLY PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL RELATION EXISTS, HENCE THE INCENTIVES PASSED ON TO THE RETAILERS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE COMMISSION OR BR OKERAGE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF KOLKATA A BENCH IN THE CASE O F DCIT CIRCLE-7 KOLKATA VS. M/S. BCH ELECTRIC LTD. (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT THERE IS NO PRINCIPAL AND AGENT RELATIONSHIP AND THE PAYMENTS M ADE TO THE DISTRIBUTORS/DEALERS BY WAY OF INCENTIVES WOULD NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT AND INVOCATION T HERE ON U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT RELEVANT PARAGRAPH OF THE ORDER OF THE COOR DINATE BENCH WHICH READS AS UNDER: 9. THE FACTS INVOLVED TO DECIDE THE GROUND NO.2 ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS MANUFACTURING ELECTRICITY PUMPS AS EQUI PMENT AND ACCESSORIES WHICH INCLUDES CONTROL GEARS, MOTOR CONTROL CENTRES , CONTROL PANELS AND ENCLOSURES ETC. THE DEALERS/ DISTRIBUTORS, UNDER AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE WOULD PURCHASE GOODS FROM ASSESSEE AGAINST CASH PAYMENT OR ON CREDIT DEPENDING UPON THE AGREEMENT UNDER SCHEME OF PROMOTION IN SELLING THE ASSESSEES GOODS BEYOND TARGETTED QUANTUM FOR W HICH THE INCENTIVE IS ITA NO.335/VIZAG/2017 M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., VIJAYAW ADA 8 BEING GIVEN TO THE SAID DEALERS/ DISTRIBUTORS FOR A CHIEVING CERTAIN SALES TARGET AS FINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. A SIMILAR CASE CAME UP BEFORE THE HON'BLE DELHI HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF C1T-VS- JAI DRINKS (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 336 ITR 383, WHEREIN THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE THEREIN PERMITTED TH E DISTRIBUTOR TO SELL ITS PRODUCTS IN A SPECIFIED AREA. THE PRODUCTS WERE TO BE PURCHASED BY THE DISTRIBUTOR FROM THE ASSESSEE AND WAS ALLOWED DISCO UNT PER CASE ON THE PRINTED MRP. THEREAFTER, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY O F THE DISTRIBUTOR TO SELL THOSE GOODS FURTHER TO THE CONSUMERS. THE HON'BLE DELHI H IGH COURT HELD THAT THE RELATION BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND DISTRIBUTOR THEREIN A RE NOT OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT AND IT IS A RELATIONSHIP OF PRINCIPAL TO PRIN CIPAL, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW: '8. A PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT SHOWS THAT THE 'ASSE SSEE HAD PERMITTED THE DISTRIBUTOR TO SELL ITS PRODUCTS IN A SPECIFIED AREA. THE DISTRIBUTOR WAS TO EXCLUSIVELY DEAL IN THE PRODUCTS OF ASSESSEE IN A SPECIFIED TERRITORY. THE PRODUCTS WERE TO BE PURCHASED BY THE DISTRIBUTOR FROM THE ASSESSEE AGAINST 100 PER CENT ADVANCE PAYMENT, THOU GH DECISION RESTED WITH THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE THE PRODUCTS ON CR EDIT TO THE DISTRIBUTOR. THE DISTRIBUTOR WAS TO MAINTAIN AT ALL TIMES THE MINIMUM STOCK AND WAS TO DEAL ONLY IN THE PRODUCTS OF THE A SSESSEE. THE DISTRIBUTOR WAS TO MAINTAIN ITS OPERATIONAL INFRAST RUCTURE INCLUDING REQUISITE STAFF UNDER ITS EMPLOYMENT WITH LIABILITY OF PF CONTRIBUTION, ESI CONTRIBUTION, ETC. AS PER THE LAWS. IT WAS SPECIFICA LLY STATED IN CI. 16 THAT THE ARRANGEMENTS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT ARE ON PRINCI PAL-TO-PRINCIPAL BASIS AND NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSTR UED TO CONFER THE AUTHORITY OF AN AGENT TO BIND THE ASSESSEE. IN CI. 1 7 IT WAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE DISTRIBUTOR WAS TO PURCHASE THE PRODUCTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS TO BE ALLOWED DISCOUNT PER CASE ON THE PRINTED MRP. IN CASE OF ANY BREAKAGE, LEAKAGE, ETC., IT WAS THE DISTRIBUTOR WHO WAS LIABLE AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. NOT ONLY THIS, EVEN AL L THE APPROVALS, CONSENTS, REGISTRATIONS, LICENSES, ETC. WHATEVER MA Y BE REQUIRED FROM DEPARTMENTS OR AUTHORITIES WERE TO BE OBTAINED BY T HE DISTRIBUTOR. 9. FROM ALL THAT HAS BEEN NOTED ABOVE, IT IS EVIDEN T THAT THE DISTRIBUTOR WAS TO PURCHASE PRODUCTS AT PREDETERMIN ED PRICE FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR SELLING THE SAME WITHIN SPECIFIED AREA . THE PRODUCTS WERE TO BE PURCHASED BY THE DISTRIBUTOR AGAINST 100 PER CENT ADVANCE PAYMENT OR MAY BE SOMETIMES ON CREDIT AT THE DISCRE TION OF THE ASSESSEE. BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE DISTRIBUTOR HAV E BEEN COLLECTING AND PAYING THEIR SALES-TAX SEPARATELY. BOTH THE PAR TIES HAVE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTED THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM. THAT BEING THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DISTRIBUTO R, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE RELATION BETWEEN THEM WAS THAT OF PRI NCIPAL-AGENT. ON THE OTHER HAND IT WAS CLEARLY STIPULATED TO BE AN AGREE MENT BETWEEN THEM ON PRINCIPAL-TO-PRINCIPAL BASIS. BOTH THE C'IT('A) AND ALSO THE TRIBUNAL RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS BEING MADE BY THE AS SESSEE TO THE DISTRIBUTOR WERE INCENTIVES AND DISCOUNTS AND NOT C OMMISSION. WE FIND ITA NO.335/VIZAG/2017 M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., VIJAYAW ADA 9 NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND ALSO TRIBUNAL. 10. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE-MENTIONED FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS NO MERITS AND I S HEREBY DISMISSED.' 11. RECENTLY, HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS- INTERVET INDIA PVT. LTD. IN 364 ITR 238 DEALT WITH THE SAME I SSUE AS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IN CLAIMING DEDUCTION TOWARDS EXPEN DITURE INCURRED UNDER THE SALES PROMOTION SCHEME. THE FACTS INVOLVED THER EIN, WAS, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN SALES PROMOTIONAL SCHEME UN DER WHICH ASSESSEE THEREIN HAD OFFERED AN INCENTIVE ON CASE TO CASE BA SIS TO ITS STOCKISTS/DEALER/AGENTS. THE DISTRIBUTORS WERE THE CUSTOMERS OF ASSESSEE THEREIN TO WHOM THE SALES WERE EFFECTED. THE HON'BL E HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE DISTRIBUTORS/ STOCKISTS WERE THE PERSONS TO WHO M THE PRODUCT WAS SOLD, NO SERVICES WERE OFFERED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DISTR IBUTORS/ STOCKISTS WERE NOT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, IT COUL D NOT BE SAID TO BE A COMMISSION PAYMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATIO N (I) TO SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS REPROD UCED HEREIN AS BELOW: '7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CONCURRENT ORDERS WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN SALES PROMOTIONAL SCHEME VIZ. PRODUCT DISCOUNT SCHE ME AND PRODUCT CAMPAIGN AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE UNDER WHICH THE A SSESSEE HAD OFFERED AN INCENTIVE ON CASE TO CASE BASIS TO ITS S TOCKISTS /DEALERS/AGENTS. AN AMOUNT OF RS. 70,67,089/- WAS C LAIMED AS A DEDUCTION TOWARDS EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER THE SA ID SALES PROMOTIONAL SCHEME. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AS SESSEE AND THE DISTRIBUTOR / STOCKISTS WAS THAT OF PRINCIPAL TO PR INCIPAL AND IN FACT THE DISTRIBUTORS WERE THE CUSTOMERS OF THE ASSESSEE TO WHOM THE SALES WERE EFFECTED EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH THE CONSIG NMENT AGENT. AS THE DISTRIBUTOR / STOCKISTS WERE THE PERSONS TO WHOM TH E PRODUCT WAS SOLD, NO SERVICES WERE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHAT W AS OFFERED BY THE DISTRIBUTOR WAS A DISCOUNT UNDER THE PRODUCT DISTRI BUTION SCHEME OR PRODUCT CAMPAIGN SCHEME TO BUY THE ASSESSEE 'S PROD UCT. THE DISTRIBUTORS / STOCKISTS WERE NOT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT MOST OF THE CREDIT WAS BY WAY OF GOODS ON MEET ING OF SALES TARGET, AND HENCE, IT COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE A COMMISSION PAYMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION (I) TO SECTION 194H OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IN REGARD TO TH E APPLICATION OF EXPLANATION (I) BELOW SECTION 194H BEING APPLICABLE TO ALL CATEGORIES OF SALES EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. SUCH READING OF EXPLANATION (I) BELOW SECTION 194H WOULD AMOUNT TO READING THE SAID PROVISION IN ABSTRACT. THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISION IS REQUI RED TO BE CONSIDERED TO THE RELEVANT FACTS OF EVERY CASE. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THAT AS REGARDS SALES PROMOTIONAL EXPE NDITURE IN QUESTION, THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION (I) BELOW SECTION 194 H OF THE ACT ARE RIGHTLY HELD TO BE NOT APPLICABLE AS THE BENEFIT WH ICH IS AVAILED OF BY THE DEALERS / STOCKISTS OF THE ASSESSEE IS APPROPRIATEL Y HELD TO BE NOT A PAYMENT OF ANY COMMISSION IN THE CONCURRENT FINDING S AS RECORDED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.335/VIZAG/2017 M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., VIJAYAW ADA 10 7. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE C IT (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PROV ISIONS OF EXPLANATION (I) TO SECTION 194H OF THE ACT, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE APPEAL GIVES RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. IT IS ACCORDING LY DISMISSED.' 12. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CA SE, FALLS WITHIN FACTS OF THE CASES DEALT BY THE HON'BLE DELHI AND HON'BLE BO MBAY HIGH COURT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) EXAMINED THE COPIES OF AGREEMENTS OF DEALERS AND HE FOUND THAT DEALERS ARE THE RECEIPTS OF THE A MOUNT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCENTIVE. THE DEALERS ARE BUYING THE G OODS FROM THE ASSESSEE ON THEIR OWN RISK. THE ASSESSEE PAID THE INCENTIVE TO THE DEALERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTION IN SELLING ITS GOODS BEYOND A TARGETED QUANTUM. THEREFORE, WE SEE NO RELATION OF PRINCIPAL AND AGEN T AS AGITATED BY THE ID. DR. IF THAT BE THE CASE, THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTIO N 194H AND INVOCATION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTI ON 194H IS BAD UNDER LAW. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TDS UNDER SECTION 194H OF THE ACT ARISES ONLY WHEN A PERSON ACTS ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER . THE INCENTIVES RECEIVED BY THE DISTRIBUTORS/DEALERS IS NEITHER CONTRACTUAL TRANSACTION NOR PAYMENT COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE UNDER THE RELATION OF PRINC IPAL AND AGENT AND WHICH ARE A STRICT REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT TO DEDUCT THE TDS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW, THAT THE PRINCIPLE L AID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AT DELHI AND BOMBAY IN THE DECISIONS (S UPRA) APPLICABLE TO THE CASE ON HAND. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE H OLD THAT THE PAYMENTS PAID TO THE DISTRIBUTORS/ DEALERS BY WAY OF INCENTI VES WOULD NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194H AND INVOCATION THEREON UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS BAD AND HENCE NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED WITH T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, IT IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE A ND THE CO. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 10. HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UNITED B REWERIES LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: 4. IN THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER EXTRA CTING SECTION 194H OF THE ACT, HELD THAT THE DEFINITION OF 'COMMI SSION OR BROKERAGE' MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY A PERSON FOR ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER FOR SERVICES RENDERED OR FOR ANY SERVICES IN THE COURSE OF BUYING OR SELLING OF GOODS ETC FELL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF 'COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE'; PROVISION OF SERVICE, BY A PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON, SIGNIFIED THE PRINCIPA L-AGENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PAYER AND PAYEE, SINCE THE AGENT ACTS O N BEHALF OF THE PRINCIPAL; IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A SERVICE PROVID ED BY ONE PERSON ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON, AND THE SAID PAYMENT CANN OT FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF 'COMMISSION'; IN THE CASE ON HAND, TH E ASESSEE SUPPLIED BEER TO APBCL, A GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH UNDER TAKING, WHICH, IN TURN, SOLD BEER TO VARIOUS RETAIL DEALERS; IN EF FECT THERE WAS NO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE RE TAIL DEALERS; HOWEVER, SINCE THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD D EPEND UPON THE ITA NO.335/VIZAG/2017 M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., VIJAYAW ADA 11 SALES EFFECTED WITH THE RETAIL DEALERS, THE ASSESSE E HAD PROMOTED A SALES PROMOTION SCHEME UNDER WHICH INCENTIVES WERE GIVEN TO RETAIL DEALERS UPON ACHIEVEMENT OF CERTAIN TARGETS IN SALE S; BY THIS SCHEME RETAIL DEALERS WERE MOTIVATED TO PURCHASE MORE QUAN TITY OF BEER MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IN TURN WOULD I NCREASE THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE; IN ORDER TO MARKET THE TR ADE DISCOUNT SCHEME, AND ALSO IN ORDER TO PROMOTE SALES OF ITS P RODUCTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD APPOINTED DEL-CREDERE AGENTS; THERE WA S NO DISPUTE THAT PAYMENT MADE TO DEL-CREDERE AGENTS, FOR THE SERVICE S PROVIDED BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE, WAS TREATED AS COMMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE; TDS HAD BEEN DEDUCTED, UNDER SECTION 194H OF THE AC T, FROM THEM; THE INCENTIVES PAYABLE UNDER THE TRADE DISCOUNT SCH EME WAS DISBURSED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE RETAIL DEALERS THROUGH DEL-C REDERE AGENTS WHO HAD OPENED SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE SAID PURP OSE; AND THE DEL- CREDERE AGENTS HAD ONLY ACTED AS A CONDUIT FOR TRAN SFERRING INCENTIVES TO THE RETAIL DEALERS. 5. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COU RT IN BHOPAL SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. STO THE TRIBUNAL H ELD THAT THE ESSENCE OF A 'CONTRACT OF AGENCY' WAS THAT THE AGEN T DID NOT SELL THE GOODS AS HIS OWN, BUT SOLD THE SAME AS THE PROPERTY OF THE PRINCIPAL UNDER HIS INSTRUCTIONS AND DIRECTIONS; AN AGENT ALW AYS ACTS ON BEHALF OF HIS PRINCIPAL, AND THE BENEFITS OF THE ACTIVITIES O F THE AGENT WOULD BE REAPED BY THE PRINCIPAL; SINCE THE AGENT WAS NOT TH E OWNER OF THE GOODS, THE LOSS, IF ANY, SUFFERED BY THE AGENT WAS TO BE BORNE BY THE PRINCIPAL, AND THE AGENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE INDEMNI FIED BY THE PRINCIPAL; AND THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE AGENT FO R THE SERVICES RENDERED TO THE PRINCIPAL IS UNDERSTOOD AS 'COMMISS ION'. 6. AFTER REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AHMEDABAD STAMP VENDORS ASSOCIATION VS. UNI ON OF [21 INDIA, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE 'ELEMENT OF AGENCY' WAS AN ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT IN ORDER TO CHARACTERISE A PAYMENT MADE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED AS 'COMMISSION'. THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON TH E JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN HARIHAR COTTON PROCESSING FACT ORY VS. CI AND HELD THAT COMMISSION WAS IN THE NATURE OF RECOMPENS E OR REWARD FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED, AND EXPRESSED ITS INABILITY TO AGREE WITH THE VIEW OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT TH E DISCOUNT SHOULD BE SHOWN AS A REDUCTION IN THE SELLING PRICE. 7. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE VISAKH APATNAM BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. PEARL BOTTLING (P) LTD. WHEREIN DISCOUNTS OFFERED T O RETAILERS, AND ALSO PROMOTIONAL DISCOUNT, WERE HELD NOT TO BE 'COMMISSI ON' AS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE THEREIN AND ITS D ISTRIBUTOR WAS ON A PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THA T, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE GOODS TO APBCL AND THE RETAIL DEALERS HAD PURCHASED THE GOODS FROM APBCL, THE SALE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND APBCL, AND THE SALE BETWEEN APBCL AND RETAIL DEALERS, WAS ON A PRI NCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS; THE RETAIL DEALERS HAD NOT PROVIDED ANY SERV ICES TO THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THERE WAS NO DIRECT CONNECTION BETW EEN THE ASSESSEE AND RETAIL DEALERS; THE TRADE DISCOUNT SCHEME WAS A NNOUNCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO PROMOTE ITS SALES; UNDER THE S AID SCHEME, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISBURSED THE ELIGIBLE AMOUNT OF INCEN TIVE OR REBATE OR DISCOUNT TO THE RETAIL DEALERS THROUGH ITS DEL- CRE DERE AGENTS; PAYMENT WAS ACTUALLY MADE TO THE RETAIL DEALERS; AND, AS SU CH, THE PAYMENT CONSTITUTED SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES AND DID NOT FA LL WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF 'COMMISSION' ATTRACTING SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. ITA NO.335/VIZAG/2017 M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., VIJAYAW ADA 12 8. BEFORE US SRI K. RAJI REDDY, LEARNED SENIOR STAN DING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX, WOULD REITERATE THE VERY SAME SUBMISSIO NS AS WERE URGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AS HAS BEEN NOT ED BY THE T RIBUNAL, IN THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL, THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 194H OF THE ACT DEFINES 'COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE' TO INCLUD E ANY PAYMENT RECEIVED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY A PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON FOR SERVICES RENDERED, OR FOR ANY SERVICES I N THE COURSE OF BUYING OR SELLING OF GOODS, OR IN RELATION TO ANY T RANSACTION RELATING TO ANY ASSET, VALUABLE ARTICLES OR THING, NOT BEING SE CURITIES. PAYMENT RECEIVED BY A PERSON FROM ANOTHER, FOR SERVICES REN DERED, CONSTITUTES 'COMMISSION' UNDER THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. 9. FROM THE FACTS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE OR DER UNDER APPEAL, IT IS EVIDENT THAT BEER WAS SOLD BY THE RES PONDENT-ASSESSEE TO APBCL, AND APBCL HAD, IN TURN, SOLD THE BEER, PURCH ASED BY THEM FROM THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, TO RETAIL DEALERS. BO TH THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER, AND WE RE ON A PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS. NO SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY TH E RETAIL DEALER TO THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE, AND THE INCENTIVE GIVEN B Y THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE, TO THE RETAILERS AS TRADE DISCOUNT, WAS O NLY TO PROMOTE THEIR SALES. THE TRIBUNAL RIGHTLY HELD THAT IN THE ABSENC E OF RELATIONSHIP OF A PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, AND AS THERE WAS NO DIRECT REL ATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE AND THE RETAILER, THE DISCO UNT OFFERED BY THE RESPONDENT-ASESSEE TO THE RETAILERS COULD ONLY BE T REATED AS SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES, AND NOT AS COMMISSION, AS NO SE RVICES WERE RENDERED BY THE RETAILERS TO THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSE E. 10. AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE ACT WOULD LIE ONLY ON A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. SAVE PERVERSITY, OR A FINDING BASED ON NO EVIDENCE, THE FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY THE TRIB UNAL WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. THE FINDINGS OF THE FACT RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE SAID TO SUFFER FROM ANY S UCH INFIRMITY. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT ALSO SUFFER FROM ANY ERROR OF LAW NECESSITATING INTERFERENCE IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC TION 260-A OF THE ACT. WE SEE NO REASON, THEREFORE, TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EXERCISE OF OUR JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE ACT. 11. THE APPEALS FAIL AND ARE, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSE D. THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS PENDING, IF ANY, SHALL ALSO STAND DISMISS ED. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 11. FROM THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, IT IS E VIDENT THAT PASSING ON INCENTIVES BY THE WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTOR TO THE RETAIL DEALER, THERE IS NO PRINCIPAL AND AGENT RELATIONSHIP AND CA NNOT BE HELD TO BE COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE PAID TO THE RECIPIENT. THE REFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE U/S 194H OF T HE ACT WOULD NOT ITA NO.335/VIZAG/2017 M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., VIJAYAW ADA 13 ATTRACT THE TAX AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWANCE U/S 40 (A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE, THUS THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) CAN NOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SINCE THE INCENTIVES PASSED ON BY CREDIT NOTE TO THE RETAIL DEALERS IS NEITHER COMMISSION NOR BROKERAGE AS DISC USSED ABOVE, THE SECTION 194H OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATION IN THIS CASE. IN THE INSTANT CASE AS OBSERVED FROM TH E LD. PRINCIPAL CITS ORDER, THE A.O. HAS CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF THE L EDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE INCENTIVES AND THE DETAILS OF SALARIES PAID TO ITS EMPLOYEES. IN RESPECT OF SALARIES PAID TO EMPLOYEES, THE A.O. DID NOT MAK E ANY ADDITION IN THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 29.12.2017. IN RESPECT OF THE INCENTIVES PASSED ON TO THE RETAILERS, THE A.O. HAS OBTAINED THE DETAILS OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS AN D EXAMINED THE SAME. THEREFORE, IT IS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT TH AT THE A.O. HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VI EWS. NOT EXAMINING THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION AND SALES BY THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY TO ITS RETAIL DEALERS AND SALES BY ITS DEALERS TILL TO THE END US ERS AND VERIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL AGENT RELATIONSHIP ETC. AT BEST CAN BE TR EATED AS INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT NOT LACK OF ENQUIRY. ONCE THE A.O. HAS CONDUCTED THE ENQUIRY AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AND THE ENQUIR Y CONDUCTED WAS INADEQUATE, THERE IS NO CASE FOR REVISION U/S 263 O F THE ACT FOR INADEQUATE ENQUIRY. LACK OF ENQUIRY IS A REASON FO R TAKING UP THE CASE ITA NO.335/VIZAG/2017 M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., VIJAYAW ADA 14 FOR REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BUT THE INADEQUATE ENQUIRY CANNOT BE A REASON FOR TAKING UP THE CASE FOR REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT S IN THE CASE OF CIT (CENTRAL) LUDHIANA VS. MAX INDIA LTD 166 TAXMAN 0188 (SC) AND CIT GUJARAT-2 VS. QUALITY STEEL SUPPLIES COMPLEX 84 TAXMAN.COM 234 (SC). THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONB LE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARATI CELLULAR, WHEREIN THE ISSUE IS COMMISSION RECEIVABLE IN FUTURE BUT NOT RELATED TO THE INCENTI VES PASSED ON TO THE RETAIL TRADERS. THEREFORE, THE DECISION RELIED UPO N BY THE LD. D.R. IS IN NO WAY HELPFUL TO THE REVENUE. SINCE THE A.O. HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT THERE IS NO ERROR, WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNA BLE TO SUSTAIN ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX AND ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 14 TH MAR18. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . .. . . . . . ' ) (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.335/VIZAG/2017 M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., VIJAYAW ADA 15 # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 14.03.2018 VG/SPS )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT M/S. FUSION VOICE SOLUTIONS INDIA (P) LTD., D.NO.36-14- 2, 2 ND FLOOR FUSION TOWERS, OPP. SIDDHARTHA PUBLIC SCHOOL , MOGHALRAJPURAM, VIJAYAWADA-520 020. 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE ITO, WARD-2(2), VIJAYAWADA 3. + / THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA 4. + ( ) / THE PRINCIPAL CIT, VIJAYAWADA 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM