The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), , Visakhapatnam V. Gateway East India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

ITA 38/VIZ/2021

AI Insights

The case revolves around the dispute concerning the eligibility of M/s. Gateway East India Pvt Ltd to claim deductions under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee, engaged in operating a Container Freight Station, claimed a deduction of INR 20,05,66,144, which was initially disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on interpretations of relevant circulars and legal provisions. However, the CIT(A) reversed this decision, leading to the Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, referencing various judicial precedents and the specific circumstances of the case, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the deduction.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 128563 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Container Corporation of India vs. ACIT, M/s. AL Logistics (P) Ltd, Continental Warehousing Corporation
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: FENIL AMIT BHATT
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣयअͬधकरण, ͪवशाखापटणम पीठ, ͪवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM Įी दुåवूǽ आर एल रेɬडी, ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी एस बालाकृçणन, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.38/Viz/2021 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Vs. M/s. Gateway East India Pvt Ltd., Visakhapatnam. PAN: AABCV 1938 N (अपीलाथȸ/ Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/ Respondent) अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/ Assessee by : Sri Fenil Amit Bhatt, AR Ĥ×याथȸ कȧ ओर से / Revenue by : Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 15/06/2023 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/07/2023 O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member : This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Visakhapatnam [Ld. CIT(A)] in ITA No. 10408/2019-20/CIT(A)-1/SP/2020-21, dated 19/06/2020 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 12/12/2019 for the AY 2017-18. 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the operation of Container Freight Station and deriving income thereof, filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 25/10/2017, declaring NIL income after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA at Rs. 20,17,70,857/- which includes deduction U/s. 80IA(4) of the Act at Rs. 20,05,66,144/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 13/08/2018. Thereafter, due to change in incumbency, as per the provisions of section 129 of the Act, fresh opportunity of being heard was accorded to the assessee vide letter dated 06/08/2019. Subsequently, notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act along with the detailed questionnaire was issued to the assessee on 30/08/2019 calling for detailed information. In response, the assessee furnished its submissions from time to time. On perusal of the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO noted that the assessee’s claim of deduction U/s. 80IA(4) made in its ITR does not fulfill the conditions enumerated in Circular No. 793, 23/06/2000 as well as the Circular No. 10/2005, dated 16/12/2005. The Ld. AO vide para 3.5 of the assessment order further observed that the case laws relied on by the assessee are distinguishable on salient features and facts of the case. Further, 3 the Ld. AR also noted that the reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in ITA No. 149/Vizg/2019, AY 2014-15 wherein the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal regarding deduction U/s. 80IA(4) of the Act was not accepted by the Revenue and an appeal has been preferred before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The Ld. AO strongly relied on the clarification issued by the CBDT regarding the infrastructure activities U/s. 80IA(4)(i) of the Act with respect to CFS and ICDs vide F.No. 178/42/2010-ITA-I, dated 06/01/2011 and came to a conclusion that the assessee is not eligible for claiming deduction U/s. 80IA(4) of the Act and hence issued a show cause notice on 6/12/2019. In response the assessee filed its reply vide letter dated 09/12/2019. Not convinced with the assessee’s reply, the Ld. AO disallowed the assessee’s claim of deduction of Rs. 20,05,66,144/- U/s. 80IA(4) of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee and determined the assessed income at Rs. 20,05,66,144/- vide the assessment order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019- 20/1022223555(1), dated 12/12/2019 U/s. 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam. 4 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) vide para 4.3 of his order observed that the similar issue was raised before him for the AY 2014-15 wherein the Ld. CIT(A) examined the issue with reference to the facts and various submissions made by the assessee. The Ld.CIT (A) further observed that the Hon’ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam has allowed the ground raised by the assessee and sustained his [Ld. CIT(A)’s] decision after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and applying the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Container Corporation [404 ITR 397 (SC) (2018)] and M/s. AL Logistics (P) Ltd of Hon’ble Madras High Court [374 ITR 609, Madras – HC], decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation [374 ITR 645, Bom. – HC] as well as the assessee’s own case in ITA No. 149/Vizag/2019 for the AY 2014-15. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that since there being no change in the facts of the case for the AY 2017-18, the disallowance made by the Ld. AO is deleted and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both on f acts and in law. 5 2. On the f acts and in the circu mstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating that the def inition of inf rastructure f acility as def ined U/s. 80IA(4) includes ‘a port, airport, inland water way, inland port or navigational channel in the sea’ but does not include Container Freight (CFS). 3. On the f acts and in the circu mstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that even as per the letter issued by the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, the Structure (CFS) does not f orm part of the Port and theref ore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Container Corporation of India in 302 CTR 221 (SC) is not applicable to the f acts of the case. 4. On the f acts and in the circu mstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered that the Board, vide circular dated 06.01.2011, clarif ied that an ICD or a CFS is usually located at the Port and theref ore, is not a part of the Port f or the purpose of computation of deduction U/s. 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 5. On the f acts and in the circu mstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the f act that CFS of the assessee has not been built under BOT and BOLT scheme and there is no agreement that the same would be transf erred to VPT on expiry of time stipulated in the agree ment and theref ore, does not form part of the port. 6. On the f acts and in the circu mstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Off icer had categorically pointed out that the CFS is located f ar away f rom the port premises, and theref ore, does not f orm part of port as contemplated U/s. 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add or delete or amend or substitute any ground of appeal bef ore and / or at the time of hearing of appeal. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing, it is prayed that addition made by the Ld. AO on account of disallowance of deduction U/s. 80IA(4) be restored.” 6 4. Before us, at the outset, Sri Fenil Amit Bhatt, the Ld. Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] of the assessee submitted that the issue in question is no more res intigra and is covered by the judgments of various High Courts viz., the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Container Corporation of India vs. ACIT reported in 346 ITR 140 wherein the High Court observed that the CFS is an “Inland Port”. Further, the Ld. AR also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Container Corporation of India Ltd [2018] 93 taxmann.com 31 (SC). Further, the Ld. AR also relied on the decision of the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. The Ld. AR further also relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the assessee’s own case in ITA No. 15/Vizag/2015, dated 29/04/2015. Further, the Ld. AR also relied on the Circular of the CBEC i.e., Circular No. 18/2009, dated 08/06/2009. 5. On the other hand, Sri MN Murthy Naik, Ld. CIT-DR, strongly relied on the order of the Ld. AO and submitted that as per section 80IA(4) there should be an agreement with the Central Government, Statement, Local Authority or any statutory body. In the absence of any such agreement, the Ld. AO’s observation vide para 3.3 holds good. 7 Therefore, the Ld. DR vehemently argued in support of the order of the Ld. DR. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. We have also gone through the case laws cited by the Ld. AR. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction U/s. 80IA(4) of the Act or not? This issue was came up before the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for a the AY 2011-12 in ITA No. 15/Vizag/2015, dated 29/05/2015 wherein the Tribunal discussed the issue at length and came to a conclusion that the assessee is eligible for deduction U/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. For the sake of immediate reference and convenience, relevant portion from the Tribunal’s order is extracted herein below: “8. In circular no. 18/2009 dated 08/06/2009 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in F.No. 434/17/2009-CUS.IV the difference between Inland Container Depots (ICD) and Container Freight Stations(CFS) has been spelt out in the following manner: “(a) DEFINITION OF ICD: An Inland Container Depot may be defined as: A common user facility with public authority status (emphasis supplied) equipped with fixed installations and offering services for handling and temporary storage of import/export laden and empty containers carried under customs control and with Customs and other agencies competent to clear goods for home use, warehousing, temporary admissions, re- export, temporary storage for onward transit and outright export. Transshipment of cargo can also take place from such stations. (b) DEFINITION OF CFS: A Container Freight Station may be defined as: Container Freight Stations are specified as customs area under Clause (b) of the said Section 8 wherein imported goods or export goods are 8 ordinarily kept before clearance by the customs. Firstly, CFS do not have "public authority status" whereas ICD is a place that acts as a "self contained Customs Station" as categorically spelt in Circular of CBEC dt. 08.06.2009. Further the said circular clearly distinguishes ICD and CFS and makes it very obvious that CFS is nothing but a warehouse. (c) Distinction between ICD & CFS: • "Inland Container Depot is a place that acts as a "self contained customs station" like a port or air cargo unit where - Filling of customs manifests, Bills of entry, Shipping bills and other declarations, assessment and all the activities related to clearance of goods for home use, warehousing, temporary admissions, re-export, temporary storage for onward transit and outright export, transshipment, etc., takes place." •"Container Freight Stations are specified as customs area under Clause (b) of the said Section 8 wherein imported goods or export goods are ordinarily kept before clearance by the customs". • An ICD is a 'self contained Customs station' like a port or air cargo unit where filing of Customs manifests, Bills of Entrys, Shipping Bills and other declarations, assessment and all the activities related to clearance of goods for home use, warehousing, temporary admissions, re-export, temporary storage for onward transit and outright export, transshipment, etc., take place. An ICD would have its own automated system with a separate station code [such as INTKD 6, INSNF6 etc.] being allotted by Directorate General of Systems and with in-built capacity to enter examination reports and enable assessment of documents, processing of manifest, amendments, etc. • Container Freight Stations are specified as customs area under Clause (b) of the said Section 8 wherein imported goods or export goods are ordinarily kept before clearance by the customs. A CFS is only a Customs area located in the jurisdiction of a Commissioner of Customs exercising control over a specified Customs port, airport, LCS/lCD. A CFS cannot have an independent existence and has to be linked to a Customs station within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs. It is an extension of a Customs station set up with the main objective of decongesting the ports. In a CFS only a part of the Customs processes mainly the examination of goods is normally carried out by Customs besides stuffing/destuffing of containers and aggregation/segregation of cargo. Thus, Custom's functions relating to processing of manifest, import/export declarations and assessment of Bill of Entry/Shipping Bill are performed in the Custom House/Custom Office that exercises jurisdiction over the parent port/airportlICD/LCS to which the said CFS is attached. In the case of Customs Stations having facility of automated processing of documents, terminals are provided at such CFSs for 9 recording the result of examination, etc. In some CFSs, extension Service Centers are available for filing documents, amendments etc. However, the assessment of the documents etc. is carried out centrally. • An ICD may also have a number of CFSs attached to it within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs just as in the case of a port and its CFSs (as on date there are 28 CFSs linked to Chennai port) [Refer Circular No. 18/2009-Cus. , dated 8- 6-2009]. • A standalone Customs clearance facility in an inland Commissionerate cannot be approved by the Commissioner as a CFS, if there is no ICD/port within its 9 jurisdiction to which the said CFS can be attached. Sucha facility can, however, be notified as an ICD i.e., as an independent Customs station with provision for filing and assessment of documents and examination of goods. A Customs clearance facility could be established as a CFS at a port city for examination of imported/export goods, since the CFS would fall under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, having jurisdiction over the Customs port with which the CFS would be attached. Further, in a port city such as Chennai or Mumbai, it may be possible to develop an ICD within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Customs Commissionerate in addition to existing CFSs. Such an ICD should be capable of providing full-fledged Customs services, independent EDI system, and all procedures meant for transshipment of cargo have to be followed for movement of goods from the port of import to the ICD. Further, such an ICD would function as an independent Customs Station in all respects and would not be attached to any other port or airport. Thus, in respect of proposals for setting up of ICD/Container Freight Station from prospective operators it has to be examined whether the proposed facility is required to be approved as an ICD or CFS. • Movement of goods from a port/airport/LCS to an ICD is in the nature of movement from one Customs station to another, governed by Goods Imported (Condition of Transshipment) Regulations, 1995. On the other hand, movement of goods from a port/airport/LCS or an ICD to a CFS is akin to local movement from a Customs area of the Customs station to another Customs area of the same station, covered by local procedure evolved by the Commissioner of Customs and covered by bonds, bank guarantee, etc. Further, the person undertaking the transshipment would be required to follow the prescribed procedure.” As rightly contended by the learned AR of the appellant, the above circular answers in a very clear and categorical manner the objections raised by the assessing officer. 9. As far as the contention that there is no agreement with any Government or statutory authority, we find that the assessee has placed on record letter of intent. In fact the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, vide letter dated 10/02/2005, written to the Managing Director of the 10 assessee company regarding setting up of a CFS at Visakhapatnam apropos the assessee’s case. 10. In the case of A L Logistics P. Ltd. (supra) the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal at para 7 held as follows: “7. Now, we proceed to the next issue, whether in the absence of specific agreement with the Central/State Government, local authority or Statutory Body, the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of section 80IA( 4 )(i)? The assessee had made an application for setting up of CFS at Haldia. In response to the application of assessee, the Department of Commerce, Infrastructure Division, Ministry of Commerce and Industry approved the proposal of the assessee for setting up of CFS at Haldia for handling import/export of cargo subject to execution of certain documents and compliance of other terms and conditions as stated in the letter. The Id. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record letter dt.27-05-2003 from theMinistry of Commerce and Industry permitting the assessee to set up CFS at Raldia. The contents of the letter are reproduced herein below: "No. 16/6/2003-lnfra-I Government of India Ministry of Commerce & Industry Deptt.of Commerce Infrastructure Division UdyogBhawan, New Delhi, Dated the 27th May,2003. To The Director, M/s A L Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. Subject: Setting up of an CFS at Haldia. Sir, I am directed to refer to your application dated 8.2.2003 on the above subject and to say that the Government has approved your proposal for setting up of an Container Freight Station at Haldia for Handling import and export cargo. The approval is subject to t le following terms and conditions:- (a) The Letter of Intent holder shall take adequate steps to create proper infrastructure keeping in view the indicative norms given in Parts A& B of the Guidelines for setting up Inland container Depots I Container Freight Stations (ICDs/CFs) within a period of one year from the date of issue of this letter. 11 (b) Necessary bond and guarantees, as required, would be executed with the concerned Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. (c) The approval would be subject to cancellation in the event of violation of the Customs and other laws of the land and Rules. (d) A quarterly progress report of the implementation shall be sent to the Ministry of Commerce. (e) The working of the CFS will be open to review by the Inter Ministerial Committee. (f) Formalities in respect of acquisition/possession of the land shall be completed within 60 days and intimated to the Mlo Commerce, failing which the approval granted would be automatically cancelled. 2. The facility to be set up shall be full computerized, with EDI compatibility and a minimum complement of equipment and accessories as necessary shall be made available at the facility. The indicative list of equipment/accessories considered necessary is annexed. The status regarding confirmation of the installation! availability of the items shall be furnished to the appropriate authorities to facilitate issue of requisite notification. 3. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (N.G. Biswas) DIRECTOR" A perusal of clause 'b' of the above letter shows that the assessee was required to execute necessary bond and guarantees with the concerned Commissioner of customs an –Central Excise. It was only on the compliance of all the terms and conditions mentioned in the aforesaid letter that the assessee was allowed to carry on the services of CFS. The assessee on the compliance of the terms and conditions as mentioned in the letter, was notified as CFS Complex for the purpose of receiving, storing, import containers, receiving/consolidating export cargo etc. vide Public Notice OUO-1l-2013. The Public Notices were issued by the office of the Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata. 8. Thus, it is evident that the proposal of the assessee was accepted by the Government on certain conditions which were duly complied with by the assessee. There may not be any specific agreement, but the sequences of events clearly show that the assessee is providing CFS facility in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Government. In such circumstances there is no need to insist for the specific execution of agreements. The coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of United Liner Agencies of India (P.) Ltd (supra), has taken a similar view, Where no specific agreement with the State Government was entered into but 12 from the approvals granted to the assessee it was inferred that assessee should be deemed to have entered into an agreement with the State Government. Thus, we are of the considered view that the assessee has complied with all the provisions of section 80IA(4)(i) and is eligible to claim deduction under the said section. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 11. Respectfully following the Coordinate Bench order, we hold that the contention of the AO that there is no agreement and hence the assessee is not eligible for exemption is not the correct position of law. 12. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Container Corporation Ltd. (supra) held as follows: “The term “infrastructure facility” was defined in section 80- IA(12)(ca) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to mean a road, highway, bridge, airport, port or rail system or any other public facility of a similar nature as may be notified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Finance (No. 2), 1998, included the words “Inland water ways and inland ports” in the definition of “infrastructure facility” in sub-section (12), clause (ca), with effect from April 1, 1999. When the entire section was recast and even after several amendments were thereafter made to the section, inland ports continued to enjoy the dededuction as infrastructure facility. There is no definition of the words “inland ports” in any of the dictionaries. But the words “inland container depot” “were introduced in sec. 2(12) of the Customs Act, 1962, which defines “customs port”. This was by way of an amendment made by the Finance Act, 1983, with effect from May 13, 1983. Simultaneously, clause (aa) was inserted in sec. 7(1) of the Act under which the CCHI issue notification appointing the places which alone shall be considered as inland container depots for the unloading of imported goods and loading of exported goods. The Central Board of Excise and Customs issued a clarification that inland container depots were inland ports. The power to notify infrastructure facilities for the purpose of the section was taken away from the Central Board of Direct Taxes w.e.f. April 1,2002. However, there was no provision made in the Act saying that notifications issued earlier would cease to have from April 1, 2002.The assessee, a public sector undertaking, was engaged in the business of handling and transportation of containerised cargo. The activity of the assessee was carried out mainly on its inland container deports, Central freight stations see had a totala of 45 inland container depots. It claimed special deduction undersection 80-IA(4) for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06. The Assessing Officer denied special deduction but the Tribunal allowed it. On appeal to the High Court: Held, allowing the appeals, that out of the total 45 inland container depots operated by the assessee, except two all others were notified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes for the purpose of sec. 80IA(12)(ca). Having regard to the provisions of the Customs Act, the communication issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs as 13 well as the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the object of including “inland port” as an infrastructure facility and also that customs clearance also takes place in the inland container depot, the assessee’s claim that the inland container depots were inland ports under Explanation (d) to sec. 80IA(4) required to be upheld.” 13. The issue has also been clarified by the Government vide CBEC circular no. 18/2009 dated 08/06/2009. Respectfully following the above decisions, we allow this appeal of the assessee.” 7. Since, the there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case for the AY 2011-12 and 2017-18, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2011-12 (supra) as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Container Corporation [404 ITR 397 (SC) (2018)] and M/s. AL Logistics (P) Ltd of Hon’ble Madras High Court [374 ITR 609, Madras – HC], decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation [374 ITR 645, Bom. – HC], we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) while allowing the assessee’s appeal. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the decision taken by the Ld. CIT (A) is in order and no interference is required. Accordingly, the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 14 Pronounced in the open Court on 14 th July, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (एस बालाकृçणन) (दुåवूǽ आर.एल रेɬडी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ÛयाǓयकसदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated :14/07/2023 OKK - SPS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. Ǔनधा[ǐरती/ The Assessee – M/s. Gateway East India Pvt Ltd., Container Freight Station VPT Exim Park, Opp. GAIL, Ayyappa Swami Temple, Sheela Nagar, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530012. 2. राजèव/The Revenue – Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers, Shankaramatham Road, Santhipuram, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530016. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 4. आयकर आयुÈत (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ͪवशाखापटणम/ DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6. गाड[ फ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam