The DCIT, Circle-2(1), Guntur V. M/s Andhra Trade Development Corporation (P) Ltd., Guntur

ITA 41/VIZ/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0723 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRATA SARKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: K TIRUMALA RAO
• Keywords: Deemed dividend
• Section: 2(22)(e); 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.41/VIZAG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1) GUNTUR M/S. ANDHRA TRADE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (P) LTD, GUNTUR (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AABCA 8777C APPELLANT BY: SHRI SUBRATA SARKAR, DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K. TIRUMALA RAO, CA ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ISSUES ON MERITS. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT T HE LOAN RECEIVED FROM M/S. RAHAMANKHAN TOBACCO ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. IS A PURE TRANSFER OF MONEY BY WAY OF CHEQUES AND IT HAS NO R ELEVANCE TO THE EARLIER TRADE AND HENCE IT ATTRACTED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF NCK SONS EXPORTS (P) LTD., VS. ITO, THE ITAT, MUMBAI `E BENCH, VIDE ITA NOS.1088 & 1089/MUM/2002 DATED 31.3.2006, REPORTED IN (2006) 1 02 ITD 311 (MUMBAI), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 2(22)(E) DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TRADE ADVANCES AND ADVANCES FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF EXTEMPORE SECURITIES & INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. VS. DCIT, THE ITAT, MUMBAI `E BENCH (ITA NO.6996/MUM/2006) REPORTED IN (2208) 116 TTJ ( MUMBAI) 525: (2008) 7 DTR 446, IT WAS HELD THAT ANY PAYMENT MADE BY A COMPANY IN WHICH PUBLIC ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INTER ESTED, OUT OF ITS ACCUMULAT6ED PROFITS, TO A SHARE HOLDER OR TO ANY C ONCERN IN WHICH SUCH A SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER OR PARTNER AND HAS S UBSTANTIAL INTEREST, BY WAY OF LOAN OR ADVANCE IS DEEMED DIVID END INCOME OF THE RECIPIENT. 5. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE O N THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER A REGISTERED NOR A BENEFIC IAL SHARE HOLDER 2 FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(22)(E) AS THER E IS NO SUCH PRECONDITION IN THE ACT TO THAT EFFECT. 6. THE CIT(A) FURTHER IGNORED THE CLEAR PROVISION U/S 2(22)(E) THAT EVEN A CONCERN WHERE THE SHAREHOLDER (WITH MORE THA N 10% SHARE) HAS A CONTROLLING INTEREST IS ALSO COVERED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PROVISION IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE BUT THE CIT(A) REL IED UPON ON EXTENDED LOGIC THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT RE GISTERED AND BENEFICIAL SHAREHOLDER. 7. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF H EARING. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS TIME BARRED BY 3 DAYS. THE LD . D.R. HAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS A SLIGHT DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOVEMENT OF THE FILE. SINCE THE DELAY IS NOT ATTRI BUTED TO ANY OF THE OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE SAME MAY BE CONDONED. FINDING FORCE IN THE REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE APPEA L IS ADMITTED FOR HEARING. 3. THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT THEY ALL RELATE TO THE INVOCATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 (22)(E) OF THE ACT TO THE LOAN RECEIVED FROM M/S. RAHAMANKHAN TOBACCO ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RE CORD. THE FACTS BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A LOAN OF RS.15 LAKHS FROM M/S. RAHAMANKHAN TOBACCO ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT DIRECTORS OF THE TWO COMPANIES W ERE COMMON AND EACH HAD A STAKE OF MORE THAN 10% IN THE COMPANY. FURTH ER, HE FOUND THAT LOAN HAD BEEN FINANCED OUT OF THE ACCUMULATED SURPLUS AN D M/S. RAHAMANKHAN TOBACCO ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. WAS OUTSIDE THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES. HE FURTHER INVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT AND TREATED THE LOAN AMOUNT TO BE DEEMED DIVIDEND I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT O F RS.57 LAKHS WAS ADDED BACK TO THE ASSESSEES INCOME OF PREVIOUS YEAR. AS SESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE AMOUNTS TAKEN FROM M/S. RAHAMANKHAN TOBACCO ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. WERE NOT UTILIZED INDIVIDUALLY BY THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE MONIES WERE ONLY 3 UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS BUSINESS. IT WAS F URTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NEITHER A SHAREHOLDER NOR HAVI NG ANY SHARES IN THE M/S. RAHAMANKHAN TOBACCO ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. WHAT EVER MONEY WAS TAKEN FROM M/S. M/S. RAHAMANKHAN TOBACCO ENTERPRISES (P) LTD., IT WAS DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND TRADE TRANSACTIONS. HE HAS PLACED THE RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF MARC MANUFACTURES PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (ITA NO.555/HYD/08) AND THAT OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. BH AUMIK COLOURS PVT. LTD. (118 ITD 1) WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT SIMILAR SITUA TIONS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THESE CASES. 5. THE CIT RE-EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF AF ORESAID JUDGEMENTS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT LOAN RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM M/S. RAHAMANKHAN TOBACCO ENTERPRISES ( P) LTD. CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT IS E XTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE: 3.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AP PELLANT. THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER OF M/S. RAHM AN KHAN TOBACCO ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. HOWEVER 3 OF THE DIRECTORS AR E COMMON AND HOLD A STAKE OF MORE THAN 10% OF THE COMPANIES. THE APPELLANT H AS SUBMITTED A STATEMENT SHOWING THE UTILIZATION OF THE FUNDS RECE IVED FROM M/S. RAHMAN KHAN TOBACCO ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. TO SUBSTANTIATE T HE CLAIM THAT THE FUNDS WERE NOT UTILIZED BY ANY OF THE COMMON SHAREHOLDERS , BUT WERE USED IN THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 3.2 THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS PRIMARILY R ELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. MARC TECHNOLOGIES (SUPRA) AND OF THE SPECIAL BENCH, MUMB AI ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. BHAUMIK COLOUR (P) LTD., WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN R ELIED UPON BY THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE ITAT. IN BOTH CASES, THE CO MPANY RECEIVING THE LOAN WAS NOT A SHAREHOLDER OF THE COMPANY ADVANCING THE LOAN. AS IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT APPELLANT, THE TWO COMPANIES IN THESE C ASES HOWEVER HAD COMMON DIRECTORS HOLDING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. 3.3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF THE APPEL LANT COMPANY HAD HELD THAT A DEEMED DIVIDEND AROSE IN THE HANDS OF T HE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF SEC. 2(22)(E) OF THE AC T. 4 ANY PAYMENT BY A COMPANY, NOT BEING A COMPANY IS W HICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED, OF ANY SUM (WH ETHER AS REPRESENTING A PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY OR OTHERWISE) [MADE AFTER THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 1987, BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN TO A SHAREHOLDER, BEING A PERSON WHO IS THE BENEFIC IAL OWNER OF SHARES (NOT BEING SHARES ENTITLED TO A FIXED RATE O F DIVIDEND WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT A RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN P ROFITS) HOLDING NOT LESS THAN TEN PER CENT OF THE VOTING POWER, OR TO ANY CONCERN IN WHICH SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER OR A PARTNER AND IN WHICH HE HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST (HEREAFTER IN T HIS CLAUSE REFERRED TO AS THE SAID CONCERN) ] OR ANY PAYMENT BY ANY SUCH COMPANY ON BEHALF, OR FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT, O R ANY SUCH SHAREHOLDER, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COMPANY IN EITHER CASE POSSESSES ACCUMULATED PROFITS. 3.4 IN THE CASE OF M/S. BHAUMIK COLOUR PVT. LTD. RE LIED UPON BY THE HYDERABAD BENCH, THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT HAD HELD AS UNDER: 3.5 THE BASIS OF BRINGING IN THE AMENDMENT TO SEC . 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1987 W.E.F. 1.4.1998 IS TO ENSURE THAT PERSONS WHO CONTROL THE AFFAIRS OF A COMPANY AS WELL AS THA T OF A FIRM CAN HAVE THE PAYMENT MADE TO A CONCERN FROM THE COMPANY AND THE PERSON WHO CAN CONTROL THE AFFAIRS OF THE CONCERN CAN DRAW THE SAM E FROM THE CONCERN INSTEAD OF THE COMPANY DIRECTLY MAKING PAYMENT TO T HE SHAREHOLDER AS DIVIDEND. THE SOURCE OF POWER TO CONTROL THE AFFAI RS OF THE COMPANY AND THE CONCERN IS THE BASIS ON WHICH THESE PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. IT IS THEREFORE PROPER TO CONSTRUE THOSE PROVISIONS AS CO NTEMPLATING A CHARGE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE SHAREHOLDER AND NOT IN T HE HANDS OF A NON- SHAREHOLDER VIZ., CONCERN. A LOAN OR ADVANCE RECEI VED BY A CONCERN IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS A DEEMED ACCRUAL OF INCOME EVEN U/S 5(1)(B) IN THE HANDS OF THE SHAREHO LDER ONLY AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE PAYEE, VIZ., NON-SHAREHOLDER (CONC ERN). SECTION 5(1)(A) CONTEMPLATES THAT THE RECEIPT OR DEEMED RECEIPT SHO ULD BE IN THE NATURE OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE DEEMING FICTION CAN BE A PPLIED ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE SHAREHOLDER AND NOT THE NON-SHAREHOLDE R, VIZ., THE CONCERN. 3.6 THE DEFINITION OF `DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF T HE ACT IS AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION. SUCH INCLUSIVE DEFINITION EN LARGES THE MEANING OF THE TERM DIVIDEND ACCORDING TO ITS ORDINARY AND NATUR AL MEANING TO INCLUDE EVEN A LOAN OR ADVANCE. ANY LOAN OR ADVANCE CANNOT BE DIVIDEND ACCORDING TO ITS ORDINARY AND NATURAL MEANING. THE ORDINARY AND NATURAL MEANING OF THE TERM DIVIDEND WOULD BE A SHARE IN PROFITS TO AN INVESTOR IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF A LIMITED COMPANY. TO THE EXTENT THE MEANING OF THE WORD DIVIDEND IS EXTENDED TO LOANS AND ADVANC ES TO A SHAREHOLDER OR TO A CONCERN IN WHICH A SHAREHOLDER IS SUBSTANTI ALLY INTERESTED DEEMING THEM AS DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF A SHAREHOLDER THE ORDINARY AND NATURAL MEANING OF THE WORD DIVIDEND IS ALTERED. TO THIS EXTENT THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM DIVIDEND CAN BE SAID TO OPERATE. IF THE DEFINITION OF DIVIDEND IS EXTENDED TO A LOAN OR ADVANCE TO A NON-SHAREHOLD ER, THE ORDINARY AND NATURAL MEANING OF THE WORD DIVIDEND IS TAKEN AWAY. IN THE LIGHT OF THE INTENTION BEHIND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) AN D IN THE ABSENCE OF 5 INDICATION IN SEC. 2(22)(E) TO EXTEND THE LEGAL FIC TION TO A CASE OF LOAN OR ADVANCE TO A NON-SHAREHOLDER ALSO, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT LOAN OR ADVANCE TO A NON-SHAREHOLDER CANNOT BE TAXED AS DEE MED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF A NON-SHAREHOLDER. 3.5 THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH HAS ALSO REFERRED TO AND RELIED ON THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN IN THE CASE OF HOTEL HILL TOP (SUPRA), IN WHICH IT IS HELD AS UNDER: 7. THE MORE IMPORTANT ASPECT, BEING THE REQUIREME NT OF SEC.2(22)(E) I.E., THAT THE PAYMENT MAY BE MADE TO ANY CONCERN, IN WHICH SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER, OR THE PARTNER, AND IN WHICH HE HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST, OR ANY PAYMENT BY ANY SUCH CO MPANY, ON BEHALF, OR FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT OF ANY SUCH SHAREHOLDER .. THUS, THE SUBSTANCE OF THE REQUIREMENT IS, THAT THE PAYMENT S HOULD BE MADE ON BEHALF OF, OR FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT OF ANY SUC H SHAREHOLDER, OBVIOUSLY, THE PROVISION IS INTENDED TO ATTRACT THE LIABILITY OF TAX ON THE PERSON, ON WHOSE BEHALF, OR FOR WHOSE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT, THE AMOUNT IS PAID BY THE COMPANY, WHETHER TO THE SHAREHOLDER, OR TO THE CONC ERNED FIRM. IN WHICH EVENT IT WOULD FALL WITHIN THE EXPRESSION DEEMED DIVIDEND. OBVIOUSLY, INCOME FROM DIVIDEND, IS TAXABLE AS INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES, U/S 56 OF THE ACT, AND IN THE VERY NATURE OF THINGS, THE INCO ME HAS TO BE OF THE PERSON EARNING THE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRE SENT CASE IS NOT SHOWN TO BE ONE OF THE PERSONS, BEING SHAREHOLDER. OF COURSE THE TWO INDIVIDUALS BEING ROOP KUMAR AND DEVENDRA KUMAR, AR E THE COMMON PERSONS, HOLDING MORE THAN REQUISITE AMOUNT OF SHAR EHOLDING, AND ARE HAVING REQUISITE INTEREST, IN THE FIRM, BUT THEN, T HERE BY THE DEEMED DIVIDEND WOULD NOT BE DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM, RATHER IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUALS, ON WHOSE BEHALF, OR ON WHOSE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT, BEING SUCH SHAREHOLDER, THE AMOUNT IS PAID BY THE COMPANY TO THE CONCERN. 3.6 THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS IDEN TICAL TO THAT COVERED IN THE DECISIONS CITED SUPRA. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER OF THE COMPANY ADVANCI NG THE LOAN. THE APPELLANTS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED A STATEMENT SHOWING THAT THE FUNDS RECEIVED FROM M/S. RAHMAN KHAN TOBAC CO ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES O F THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT BROUGH T ON RECORD ANY FINDINGS TO CONTROVERT THIS STATEMENT OF THE APPELL ANT, OR TO SHOW THAT THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMON SHAREHOLDER DIRECTORS. 4.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOW ING CASE LAWS A) TARULATHA SHYAM V/S. CIT (198 ITR 345) (SC) SEC. 2(22)(E) IS APPLICABLE EVEN IF LOAN IS REPAID BEFORE THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IN OTHER WORDS, THE LIABILITY I S ATTRACTED AT THE MOMENT THE LOAN IS GIVEN. 6 B) CIT V/S. BHAGWAT TIWARI (105 ITR 62) (CAL.) EVEN A BONA-FIDE LOAN FOR SHORT DURATION IS TREATE D AS DEEMED DIVIDEND, IF, ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) A RE SATISFIED. C) CIT V/S. K. SRINIVASAN (50 ITR 788) (MAD.) AN OVER DRAFT TAKEN BY A SHARE HOLDER FROM THE COM PANY IS TREATED AS LOAN AND TAXABLE AS DIVIDEND IF CONDITIONS OF SE C. 2(22)(E) ARE SATISFIED. 4.2 HOWEVER, THESE DO NOT COVER THE ISSUE AT HAND. SINCE THE FACT OF THE CASE DECIDED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH, MUMB AI ITAT AND THE HYDERABAD BENCH (SUPRA) ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE APPELLANT. I RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DECISION IN THESE CASES. I THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE LOAN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY FROM M/S. RA HMAN KHAN TOBACCO ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE ADDITI ON TO THE APPELLANTS INCOME ON THIS ACCOUNT IS DELETED. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, NO I NFIRMITY WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. D.R. IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). MO REOVER, THE CIT(A) HAD ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND NOTHING CONTRARY IS PLACED BEFORE US BY THE LD. D.R. WE TH EREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN THE LIG HT OF ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HOLDS THE FIELD EVEN TILL DATE AS THE VIEW TA KEN BY THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT BEEN REVERSED BY THE APPELLATE FORUM. THEREFORE, W E CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4.6.2010 SD/- SD/- (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 4 TH JUNE, 2010 7 COPY TO 1 THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR 2 M/S. ANDHRA TRADE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (P) LTD ., D.NO.8-24-33, MANGALAGIRI ROAD, GUNTUR 3 THE CIT, GUNTUR 4 THE CIT(A), GUNTUR 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM