L.S.Patro, Vizinagaram V. ITO, Ward-2, Vizinagaram

ITA 377/VIZ/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6512 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIM K SETHI
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRI GVN HARI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

IN THEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAMBENCH,VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORESHRI V. DURGA RAO,HONBLEJUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S.SUNDERSINGH,HONBLEACCOUNTANTMEMBER ITA NO.377/VIZ/2017 (ASST.YEAR :2009-10) L.S.PATRO, 7-120,MRO OFFICEROAD, KOTHAVALASA, VIZIANAGARAM. VS. ITO,WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM. PAN NO.ACTPL 9942 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRIG.V.N.HARI ADVOCATE. DEPARTMENTBY : SHRIM.K. SETHI SR.DR DATE OFHEARING : 14/11/2017. DATE OFPRONOUNCEMENT : 17/11/2017. ORDE R PERV.DURGA RAO,JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 26/04/2017 FORTHEASSESSMENT YEAR2009-10. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM WHOLESALE TRADE IN DHALLS AND PULSES, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME BY DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 2,89,420/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE 2 ITANO.377/VIZ/2017 (L.S.PATRO) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'ACT') BY MAKING ADDITIONS TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES AND SALES AT RS.4,18,000/- AND UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 2,73,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THUS, DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.9,80,510/- AND ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WHY PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE NEITHER CONCEALED ANY INCOME NOR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS, BUT HE AGREED FOR THE ABOVE TWO ADDITIONS TO AVOID ANY FURTHER LITIGATION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF MINIMUM PENALTY AND ACCORDINGLY PENALTY OF RS. 2,07,237/- WAS LEVIED UNDERSECTION271(1)(C)OFTHEACT. 3. ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT WITH REGARD TO UNDECLARED CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE OF CREDITS AND THE GENERAL EXPLANATION THAT ALL THE TRANSACTION IN THE SAID ACCOUNT PERTAINS TO OTHERS WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED WITH ANY EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, LD.CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMEDTHEORDEROF THEASSESSINGOFFICER. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THEFOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND:- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER DT. 30-03-2012 LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED 3 ITANO.377/VIZ/2017 (L.S.PATRO) IN AS MUCH AS THE NOTICE DT.27-10-2011 INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS DID NOT SPECIFY CLEARLY AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FORFURNISHINGINACCURATEPARTICULARSOFINCOME.' 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 27/10/2011, IS A VAGUE NOTICE AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS A LEGAL ISSUE, WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER ANDTHEREFORETHE SAME MAY BEADMITTED. 6 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLEONRECORDANDORDERSOFTHEAUTHORITIESBELOW. 8 . WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LEGAL ISSUE AND ALL THE FACTS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT (229 ITR 383) HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND HELD THAT WHERE THE TRIBUNAL IS ONLY REQUIRED TO CONSIDER A QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FROM THE FACTS WHICH ARE ON RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WE FAIL TO SEE WHY SUCH A QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THAT QUESTION IN ORDER TO CORRECTLY ASSESS THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE . FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO FRESH INVESTIGATION ON 4 ITANO.377/VIZ/2017 (L.S.PATRO) THE FACTS IS REQUIRED AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ADJUDICATED. BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD., (SUPRA), THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTED. 9 . NOW COMING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 27/10/2011. IN THIS CONTEXT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT A VALID NOTICE IN THE LIGHT OF THE LATEST JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS [(2016) 73 TAXMAN.COM 248 (SC)] AND ALSO THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA & A.P. IN I.T.T.A. NO. 684/2016 IN PCIT VS. SMT. BAISETTY REVATHI DATED 30/07/2017. 10 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SURE ABOUT THE PENALTY EITHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THEREFORE, IT IS A 5 ITANO.377/VIZ/2017 (L.S.PATRO) PREMATURE NOTICE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERISA VALIDNOTICE. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLEONRECORDANDORDERSOFTHEAUTHORITIESBELOW. 12 THE ONLY ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE NOTICEISSUED BY THE ASSESSINGOFFICER DATED 27/10/2011 ISVALIDOR NOT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE NOTICE ISEXTRACTEDASUNDER:- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274READ WITH5ECTION 271 OFTHE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 OFFICEOF THE INCOMETAXOFFICER, WARD-2 KOPPUGURANNABUILDINGS, SIDDARDANAGAR, VIZIANAGARARN ACTPL.9942P/W-2/VZM/2009-10 DT.27.10.2011 TO SRI LADI SUSARITA PATRO #77-120,MPOOFFICEROAD,KOTHAVALASA, VIZIANAGARAM. WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 , IT APPEARS TO ME THATYOU:- *HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO FURNISH ME RETURN OF INCOME WHICH YOU WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISH BY A NOTICE GIVEN UNDER SECTION 22(1) / 22(2)/31 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1922 OR WHICH YOU WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISH UNDER SECTION 139(1) OR BY A NOTICE GIVEN UNDER SECTION 139(2)/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, NO.____DATED_______ HAS WITHOUT REASONABLECAUSEFAILED TOFAILEDTOFURNISH ITWITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED ANDTHE MANNER- REQUIRED-BY THESAIDSECTION139(1) ORBYSUCHNOTICE. *HAVEWITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLYWITH A NOTICE UNDER SECTION22(4)/23(2)OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1922 OR UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO._____DATED______ HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME ON 14.11.2011 AND SHOW CAUSE WHY ON ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY ON YOU SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF THIS OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN PERSON OR THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, YOU MAY SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING ONOR BEFORE THE SAIDDATE WHICH WILL BECONSIDEREDBEFORE ANYSUCHORDER ISMADE UNDERSECTION271(1) (C). SEAL (KVRK - SARMA) INCOMETAXOFFICER,WARD-2 VIZIANAGARAM. 6 ITANO.377/VIZ/2017 (L.S.PATRO) 13. FROM THE READING OF THE ABOVE, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A VAGUE NOTICE AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. BAISETTY REVATHI (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA). THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF KONCHADA SREERAM VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 388/VIZ/2015, BY ORDER DATED 06/10/2017 HAS CONSIDERED THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE REFERRED TO JUDGMENTS AND HELD THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT A VALID NOTICE AND ACCORDINGLY QUASHED. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTIONOFTHEORDERIS EXTRACTEDAS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE DEPARTMENT HAS CONDUCTED THE SURVEY U/S 133A AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.15,43,041/- AND INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C). THE FACT IS THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS FOR SALE OF THE PROPERTY HAVE COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE OF THE EFFORTS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) AND ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN THE PRINTED PROFORMA OF PENALTY. THE AO HAS ISSUED THE PENALTY NOTICE WHICHREADS ASUNDER : WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING BEFORE ME FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2007-08 IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU HAVE CONCEALED THE 7 ITANO.377/VIZ/2017 (L.S.PATRO) PARTICULARS OF YOUR SOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCHINCOME. 6.1. FROM THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED THE NOTICE FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. AS PER THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SURE OF WHICH LIMB OF THE OFFENCE HE SOUGHT THE EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE, WHETHER IT WAS FOR THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CITED, FOR STARTING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BE SATISFIED THAT A PERSON HAS EITHER CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THE GROUNDS ON WHICH IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS PROPOSED AS HE HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST SUCH PROCEEDINGS AND SHOULD HAVE THE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE CASE OF THE REVENUE SO AS TO SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONSSTIPULATEDIN SECTION271(1)(C)DO NOTEXISTAND THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY THE PENALTY. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE LAW CITED HELD THAT THE PRACTICE OF THE REVENUE IN SENDING THE PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN 271(1)(C) ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW WHEN THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE ASSESSEE NOT REBUTTING THE INITIAL PRESUMPTION IS SERIOUS IN NATURE AND HAS TO PAY THE PENALTY RANGING FROM 100% TO 300% OF THE TAX LIABILITY. AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) HAVE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA MANDATED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED SHOULD BE SET OUT THE GROUNDS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY, OTHERWISE THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WOULD BE OFFENDED AS THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WOULD BE VAGUE. ON THE SIMILAR FACTS, HONBLE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE SLP IN THE CASE OF SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (2016) 73 TAXMAN.COM 248(SC). LD. DRS ARGUMENT THAT THE CASE IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE SINCE THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE PASSING OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF AP. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE ISSUE IS THE DEFECTIVE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) BUT NOT THE PENALTY ORDER. UNLESS THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1)(C) IS VALID THE PENALTY ORDER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE VALID. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT STRIKE OFF THE IRRELEVANT COLUMN IN THE NOTICE AND MADE KNOWN THE ASSESSEE WHETHER THE PENALTY WAS INITIATED FOR THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO THE AO SIMPLY RECORDED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ARE INITIATED SEPARATELY. NEITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR IN THE PENALTY NOTICE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PUT THE ASSESSEE ON NOTICE FOR WHICH OFFENCE, THE PENALTY U/S 271 WAS INITIATED. THEREFORE, THE CASE IS SQUARELY 8 ITANO.377/VIZ/2017 (L.S.PATRO) COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF CITED(SUPRA)WHEREINTHE HONBLE HIGHCOURTHELDAS UNDER: ON PRINCIPLE, WHEN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SOUGHT TO BE INITIATED BY THE REVENUE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF 1961, THE SPECIFIC GROUND WHICH FORMS THE FOUNDATION THEREFORE HAS TO BE SPELT OUT IN CLEAR TERMS OTHERWISE, ON ASSESEE WOULD NOT HAVE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FORTH HIS DEFENCE. WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENAL IN NATURE RESULTING IN IMPOSITION OF PENALTY RANGING FROM 100% TO 300% OF THE TAX LIABILITY, THE CHARGE MUST BE UNEQUIVOCAL AND UNAMBIGUOUS. WHEN THE CHARGE IS EITHER CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF, THE REVENUE MUST SPECIFY AS TO WHICH ONE OF THE TWO IS SOUGHT TO BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE AND CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO CLUB BOTH BY INTERJECTING AN 'OR' BETWEEN THE TWO, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE. THIS AMBIGUITY IN THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE IS FURTHER COMPOUNDED PRESENTLY BY THE CONFUSED FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GUILTYOFBOTH. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL DOES NOT BROOK INTERFERENCE ON ANY GROUND. WE FIND NO QUESTION OF LAW, MUCH LESS A SUBSTANTIAL ONE, ARISING FOR CONSIDERATION WARRANTING ADMISSIONOFTHISAPPEAL. 6.2. ON THE SIMILAR FACTS, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM IN ITA NO.229/VIZ/2015 IN THE CASE OF NARAYANA REDDY ENTERPRISES, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. MAKINA ANNAPURNA VS. ITO, VISAKHAPATNAM IN ITA NOS.604 & 605/VIZAG/2014 DATED 2.2.2017 HELD THAT NON-STRIKING OF THE IRRELEVANT COLUMN RENDERS THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271 AS INVALID. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE AP HIGH COURT CITED SUPRA AND THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL CITED (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271 IS INVALID AND CONSEQUENT PENALTY IMPOSEDBY THE AO ISCANCELLED. 14 . WE THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. BAISETTY REVATHI (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KONCHADA 9 ITANO.377/VIZ/2017 (L.S.PATRO) SREERAM (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 IS INVALID AND, THEREFORE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THEASSESSINGOFFICERIS CANCELLED. 15 . INTHERESULT,APPEAL FILEDBY THEASSESSEEISALLOWED. ORDERPRONOUNCED INOPENCOURT ONTHIS17 TH DAY OFNOV.,2017. SD/- SD/- (D.S.SUNDER SINGH) (V.DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER DATED : 17 TH NOVEMBER, 2017. VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE L.S. PATRO, 7-120, MRO OFFICE ROAD, KOTHAVALASA,VIZIANAGARAM. 2. THE REVENUE ITO, WARD-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE PCIT-1, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE CIT(A)-1, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. THE D.R., VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BYORDER (VUKKEMRAMBABU) SR.PRIVATESECRETARY, ITAT,VISAKHAPATNAM.