S.Sanyasi Naidu, Vizianagaram V. THE ITO, Srikakulam

ITA 40/VIZ/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6671 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S RAVI SANKAR NARAYAN
• Assessee Lawyers: A ARUNA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

ITA NO.40/VIZAG/2015 S. SANYASINAIDU, VIZIANAGARAM 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM SMC BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.40/VIZAG/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) S. SANYASI NAIDU VIZIANAGARAM ITO WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM [PAN NO. CAZPS1286F ] ( / APPELLANT) ( ! / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SMT. A. ARUN A, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. RAVI SANKAR NARAYAN, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 28. 0 8.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.09.2017 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST ORDER OF THE CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 13.11.2014 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. GROUND NO.2 I S NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NOS.3 & 4 ARE RELATING TO ESTIMATION OF INCOME FROM IMFL BUSINESS. ITA NO.40/VIZAG/2015 S. SANYASINAIDU, VIZIANAGARAM 2 3. FACTS ARE IN BRIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE PROP RIETOR OF M/S. GANESH WINES AND IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF INDIAN MADE FOREIGN LIQUOR (IMFL) HAD FILED A RETURN OF INCOME BY DECLARING TO TAL INCOME OF 4,73,270/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTE D FOR SCRUTINY AND THE A.O. HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE AS SESSEE AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT FROM THE BUSINESS AT 20% OF TH E STOCK PUT TO SALE. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS SCALED DOWN THE PERCENTAG E OF PROFIT FROM 20% TO 10% AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO RE-COMPUTE THE INCOME AT 10% OF PURCHASE PRICE. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEA L IS SQUARELY COVERED IN THE CASE OF SRI VYSYARAJU SATYANARAYANA RAJU, SR IKAKULAM DIST. IN ITA NO.2/VIZAG/2016, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 3. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED MATTER IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL W HERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS SCALED DOWN THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT FROM 10% TO 5% IN THE CASE OF TANGUDU JOGISETTY IN ITA NO.96/VIZAG/2016 BY ORDER DATED 2.6.2016. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORT ED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERI ALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS ESTIMATION OF PROF IT IN RESPECT OF IMFL BUSINESS CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS RESPECT, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TANGUDU JOGISETTY (SUPR A) HAS CONSIDERED THE PROFIT LEVEL IN THE LINE OF BUSINESS AND DECIDED TH AT 5% OF PURCHASE PRICE ITA NO.40/VIZAG/2015 S. SANYASINAIDU, VIZIANAGARAM 3 IS REASONABLE PROFIT MARGIN IN THE LINE OF IMFL BUSI NESS AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO RE-COMPUTE THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATE RIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. THE A.O. ESTIMATED NET PROFIT OF 20% ON STOCK PUT FOR SALE. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASES AND SALES. TH E A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO MAINTAIN S TOCK REGISTERS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NO T SUSCEPTIBLE FOR VERIFICATION, THEREFORE REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS AND ESTIMATED NET PROFIT OF 20% BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HONB LE A.P. HIGH COURT. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NET PROF IT ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. IS QUITE HIGH WHEN COMPARED TO THE NATURE OF B USINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT WAS THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN ARRACK, WHEREAS IT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN IMFL. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IMFL TRA DE WAS CONTROLLED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT THROUGH A.P. STATE BEVERAGE S CORPORATION LTD. AND THE PRICES OF THE PRODUCTS ARE FIXED BY THE STA TE GOVERNMENT. THE ASSESSEE BEING A LICENSE HOLDER OF STATE GOVERNMENT CANNOT SELL THE PRODUCTS OVER AND ABOVE THE MRP FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE A.O. HAS ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT BY RELYING UPON THE DE CISION OF A.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R. NARAYANA RAO IN ITA NO.3 OF 2003 WHICH IS RENDERED UNDER DIFFERENT FACTS. THE A.P. HIGH C OURT HAS CONSIDERED THE CASE OF AN ARRACK DEALER, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN IMFL. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RELYING UPON THE JUDGEMENT, WHICH WAS RENDERED UNDER DIFFERENT FACTS TO ESTIMATE THE NET PROFIT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH IN THE CASE OF T. APPALASWAMY VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.65 & 66/VIZAG/2012. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT C ASE AND FINDS THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, UNDER SIMILAR CI RCUMSTANCES HELD THAT ESTIMATION OF 5% NET PROFIT ON PURCHASES IS REASONA BLE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS O F THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON R ECORD. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ESTIMATION OF P ROFIT AT 16% IS HIGH AND EXCESSIVE CONSIDERING THE NORMAL RATE OF P ROFIT IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS. WHEREAS, THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A). HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A SSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IS NO MORE RES INTEG RA IN VIEW OF A SERIES OF DECISIONS OF THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN SIMILAR CASES. THE COORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF ITA NO.127/HYD/12 A ND OTHERS ITA NO.40/VIZAG/2015 S. SANYASINAIDU, VIZIANAGARAM 4 DATED 18.05.2012 AS WELL AS A NUMBER OF OTHER CASES HAVE HELD THAT PROFIT IN CASE OF BUSINESS IN INDIAN MADE FOREI GN LIQUOR HAS TO BE ESTIMATED AT 5% OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT HYDER ABAD BENCH, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT FROM THE WINE BUSINESS OF THE A SSESSEE BY APPLYING THE RATE OF 5% OF THE PURCHASES MADE NET O F ALL OTHER DEDUCTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ALSO BEAR IN MIND THAT IN NO CASE THE INCOME DETERMINED SHOULD BE BELOW THE I NCOME RETURNED. 9. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIOS OF COORDINATE BEN CH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE NET PROFIT ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. BY RELYIN G UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WHICH WAS RENDERED UNDER DIFFERENT FACTS IS QUITE HIGH. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESS EE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH AND THE COORDINATE BEN CH UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT OF 5% ON TOT AL PURCHASES NET OF ALL DEDUCTIONS. NO CONTRARY DECISION IS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO ESTIMATE THE NET PROFIT OF 5% ON TOTAL PURCHASES NET OF ALL DEDUCTIO NS. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, I DIRECT THE A.O. TO RE-COMPUTE THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE AT 5% OF PURCHASE PRICE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. GROUND NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RELATING T O UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF ` 12,17,723/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. HA S OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID FIRST INSTALMEN T TENDER AMOUNT (1/6 TH OF THE TENDER AMOUNT) OF ` 24,000/- ON THE DAY OF AUCTION. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PURCHASE OF LIQUOR STOCK WORTH ` 1,97,222/- ON 1.7.2010 AND ` 3,26,362/- ON 2.7.2010 AT THE BEGINNING ITA NO.40/VIZAG/2015 S. SANYASINAIDU, VIZIANAGARAM 5 OF THE OPERATIONS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE BANK GUARANTEE DEPOSIT OF ` 6,95,000/- AND BANK GUARANTEE COMMISSION OF ` 2,49,539/-. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ` 38,68,123/- WHICH IS MORE THAN THE OPENING CAPITAL OF ` 19,05,800/- AND UNSECURED LOANS OF ` 7,44,600/- BY ` 12,17,723/-. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE A.O. HAS ASKE D THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY SUCH AMOUNT OF ` 12,17,723/- SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME AND WHY IMPUGNED AMOUNT SHOULD N OT BE BROUGHT TO TAX FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT HE IS L-1 BIDDER OF THE LIQUOR SHOP AND TO START THE BUSINESS, HE HA S TAKEN CERTAIN ADVANCES FROM PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS AND MADE THE AB OVE INVESTMENT AND REGARDING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FOR ADVANCE S RECEIVED FROM PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE NUMBER IS LARGE SINCE EACH HAD GIVEN HIM AN AMOUNT OF ` 2,000/- TO ` 2,500/- ONLY. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO PRODUCE THEM IMMEDIATELY AND ALSO HE H AS TO INCUR LOT OF EXPENDITURE TO BRING THEM TO THE OFFICE. HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS SUPPLIED LIQUOR TO THEM AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF H IS BUSINESS AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION PROPOSED BY THE A.O. MAY BE DELETED. ITA NO.40/VIZAG/2015 S. SANYASINAIDU, VIZIANAGARAM 6 8. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE, HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY STATED TH AT HE HAS RECEIVED ADVANCES FROM THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS BUT HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY NAMES & DETAILS AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF ` 12,17,723/- IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND THE SAME IS B ROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 7. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FILED ANY DETAILS, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE OR DER OF THE A.O. BEFORE ME, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PA PER BOOK CONSISTING DETAILS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM HE RECEIVED ADVANC E FROM PAGE NO.1 TO 135 CONSISTING NEAR ABOUT 59 PARTIES AND SUBMITT ED THAT THESE ARE THE PEOPLE FROM WHOM HE HAS RECEIVED THE ADVANCES AND T HE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED FOR REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE A.O. FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER ACCORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. OPPOSED THE ADMI SSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. THE ISSUE BEFORE ME IS FOR CONSIDERATION OF UNEXPLAINED AMOUN T OF ` 12,17,723/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THI S AMOUNT WAS ITA NO.40/VIZAG/2015 S. SANYASINAIDU, VIZIANAGARAM 7 RECEIVED BY HIM FROM PROSPECTIVE BUYERS AND NO DETA ILS WERE FILED. THEREFORE, THE A.O. CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. ON APP EAL ALSO NO DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). AFTER HEARING THE AS SESSEES COUNSEL, I FIND THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS RECEIVED AN ADVANCE FROM PROSPECTIVE BU YERS I.E. WHO ARE GOING TO PURCHASE THE LIQUOR. SO FAR AS ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS CONCERNED, THE A.O. PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ON 27. 1.2014. THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED AN ORDER ON 13.11.2014 AND NEAR ABOUT 10 MONTHS TIME IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). NOT ONLY THAT, FROM THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSE E, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT ALL THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS WHO ADVANCED THE LOANS T O THE ASSESSEE ARE FROM SAME VILLAGE OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN I SPECIFIC ALLY POINTED OUT THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHY YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO F ILE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE LOAN CREDITORS WHO ARE BELONGING T O YOUR NATIVE VILLAGE, HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION. UNDER THESE ABOV E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION TH AT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THIS JUNCT URE, THEREFORE, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECT ED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.40/VIZAG/2015 S. SANYASINAIDU, VIZIANAGARAM 8 10. GROUND NO.7 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RELATING TO UNSECURED LOANS OF ` 5 LAKHS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. HAS AS KED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND OTHER SUPPORTIVE E VIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THE SAI D LOANS WERE TAKEN BY CHEQUE OR DEMAND DRAFTS AND THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION PROPOSED BY A.O. MAY BE DROPPED. THE A.O. AFTER VE RIFYING THE SAME AND ALSO AFTER VERIFYING THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE AS SESSEE, HE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 5 LAKHS WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ASSESEES BANK ACCOUNT. THE A.O. AGAIN ASKED THE ASSESSEE WH Y THIS AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOAN AND WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE VIDE REPLY DATED 31.12.2013 SUBMITTED THAT THE UNSECURED LOANS OF ` 5 LAKHS BE TREATED AS UNSECURED BECAUSE THE LOAN E NTRIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE AND THE LOAN PAYMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH BANKERS CHEQUE DIRECTLY DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF DISTRIC T COLLECTOR AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THE SAME TO T HE EXCISE DEPARTMENT FOR LICENSE FEE PAYMENT. THE A.O. HAS C ONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS OBSERVED THA T IN THE CASE OF SHRI N. NEELAKANTESWARA RAO FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS R ECEIVED ` 2 LAKHS HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE ITA NO.40/VIZAG/2015 S. SANYASINAIDU, VIZIANAGARAM 9 ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI N.NEELA KANTESWARA RAO TO PROVE THAT THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN PLACE THR OUGH BANK. SIMILARLY, IN CASE OF B. BALA MURALI KRISHNA ALSO T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 AND BANK ACCOUNT OF B. BALA MURALI KRISHNA HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED. THE ASSESSE E CLAIMS TO HAVE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF ` 1 LAKH FROM SMT. USHA KUMARI BUT NO DETAILS ARE FILED. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE ` 5 LAKHS TREATED BY A.O. IS UNEXPLAINED AND BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCES. ON APPEAL, CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. EVE N BEFORE ME, ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS AND NO CONFIRMAT ION LETTERS. THUS, I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CI T(A). THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 13 TH SEPT17. SD/- ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 13.09.2017 VG/SPS ITA NO.40/VIZAG/2015 S. SANYASINAIDU, VIZIANAGARAM 10 )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT S. SANYASI NAIDU, PROP: SAI GANE SH WINES, GALAVELLI VILLAGE, BALAJIPET, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE ITO, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM 3. + / THE CIT-2, VISAKHAPATNAM 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A), VISAKHAPATNAM 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM