M/s K Kumaraswamy., Tadepallegudem V. The ITO, Ward-1., Tadepallegudem

ITA 415/VIZ/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0612 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D MANOJ KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 133A; 54; 154; 69

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.415/VIZAG/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 K. KUMARASWAMY TADEPALLIGUDEM ITO, WARD-1 TADEPALLIGUDEM (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AKZPK 5552A APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI D. MANOJ KUMAR, DR ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. PASSED U/S 154 OF THE I.T. ACT ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY IS ERRONEOUS B OTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIAT ED THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT FOR BY THE APPELLANT IN THE GROUNDS O F APPEAL BEFORE HIM WAS NOT REVISION OR REVIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT. WHAT THE APPELLANT PRAYED FOR WAS ONLY RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKE THAT HAS CREPT IN WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD. CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO MISTA KE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S 154. 3. THE LD. CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT NO PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO MR. MADANA SUBBA REDDY AND THAT THEREF ORE, THE GPA ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT WAS CANCELLED . HE OUGHT TO HAVE NOTICED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT ACCEPTED F OR THE ADDITION NOT BECAUSE HE PAID THE AMOUNT BUT TO PURCHASE PEAC E WITH THE DEPARTMENT. 4. THE LD. CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT RECORD DOES MEAN NOT ONLY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT BUT INCLUDES ALL PROCEEDINGS OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL AS THE RECO RD RELATING TO THE PRECEDING YEAR WHICH CONSTITUTES EVIDENCE ON TH E BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED. 5. THE LD. CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIAT ED THAT THE APPELLANT CONTENDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT NO CONSIDERATION WAS PASSED ON TO THE VENDOR THOUGH GP A CUM SALE AGREEMENTS WERE EXECUTED. 2 6. THE LD. CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIAT ED THAT ALL THE 30 AGRICULTURISTS WITH WHOM THE DEPARTMENT CAUS ED ENQUIRIES HAVE CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THEY PAID THE MONEY TO SRI Y. DAYANIDHI ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. 7. THE LD. CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT PURCHASE AND SALE OF PLOTS OF LAND IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF TH E APPELLANT AND HENCE THE APPELLANT HAD TO DEPEND ON A MIDDLEMAN BY NAME SRI Y. DAYANIDHI. 8. THE LD. CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHILE DEPOSING BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE APPELLANT STATED THAT FULL C ONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PAID TO THE VENDOR BASING ON THE INFORMATION F URNISHED BY THE SAID SRI Y. DAYANIDHI, WHICH IS PROVED TO BE WRONG. 9. THE LD. CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIAT ED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD AGREED FOR ADDITION, AS THE PLOTS OF LAND WERE UNDER ATTACHMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT. 10. THE LD. CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CATEGORICALLY STATED IN WRITING BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DISALLOWANCE PROPOSED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS AND NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL ON HAND. 11. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF H EARING. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS O F APPEAL BUT THEY ALL RELATE TO THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 I. E. WHETHER THE RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IS POSSIBLE IN THE LIGHT O F THE GIVEN FACTS WHERE SOME NEW EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT INTO THE NOTICE OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ISSUE ARE THA T SURVEY OPERATION U/S 133A WAS CONDUCTED UPON THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PRE MISES ON 15.10.2003 IN WHICH IT WAS REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED L ANDED PROPERTIES TO AN EXTENT OF 48,200 SQ.YDS. IN VISAKHAPATNAM IN JULY, 2003 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.98,91,000/- EXCLUDING REGISTRATION CHARGES FR OM ONE SHRI M. SUBBA REDDY AND SHRI RAGHAVA REDDY THROUGH GPA-CUM-SALE A GREEMENT DATED 8.7.2003. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAI N THE SOURCE FOR THE SAID INVESTMENT, ASSESSEE HAD INITIALLY STATED DURING TH E SURVEY OPERATION THAT NO CONSIDERATION HAD PASSED ON TO THE VENDOR SHRI M. S UBBA REDDY BUT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEN HIS STATE MENT WAS RECORDED ON 3 RD MARCH, 2005, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT MONEY HA S BEEN PASSED ON TO THE VENDOR SHRI M. SUBBA REDDY AS ON THE DATE OF RE GISTRATION ITSELF AND THE SOURCE FOR THE SAME WERE THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS NUMBERING 30 WHO HAD EXPRESSED THE INTENTION TO PUR CHASE RESIDENTIAL PLOTS 3 FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE COPIES OF CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF 30 PERSONS WHO WERE STATED TO HAVE ADVAN CED MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID LAND. NOTICING THAT ALL SUCH PERSONS WHO WERE STATED TO HAVE ADVANCED MONEY WERE PARTLY AGRICULTURISTS WITH NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEP T AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAUSED ENQUIRIES THROUGH INSPECTO R AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CORRECT CREDITWORTHINESS OF SUC H 30 PERSONS WORKED OUT TO NOT MORE THAN RS.63,03,790/- AND THUS HAVING BECOME THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTIES UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE ACCORD INGLY DRAW AN INFERENCE THAT DIFFERENTIAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.35,96,210/- H AS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEES FROM HIS UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF INCOME. W HEN ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THIS DIFFERENTIAL CONSIDER ATION, IT WAS EXPLAINED INTERALIA THAT HAVING SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATION LE TTERS FROM THE SAID 30 PERSONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS. BEI NG NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.35,96,210/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE MOVED A PETITION U/S 154 OF THE I.T. ACT ON 3 RD APRIL, 2006 WITH THE SUBMISSION INTERALIA THAT VEN DOR SHRI M. SUBBA REDDY WHO WERE EARLIER EXECUTED 20 DOCUMENTS OF GPA-CUM-S ALE AGREEMENT IN THE ASSESSEES FAVOUR BY REGISTERING THEM ON 3 RD JULY, 2003 UNILATERALLY CANCELLED ALL 20 GPA-CUM-SALE AGREEMENTS ON 29.11.2005 ON THE PLEA THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY CONSIDERATION FROM THE ASSESSEES AND C ONSEQUENT TO THE REGISTRATION OF THE SAID CANCELLATION DEEDS, THE EN TIRE PROPERTY, EVEN THE SITE WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SOLD REVERTED BACK TO THE V ENDOR RESULTING IN DEPRIVATION TO THE ASSESSEE OF THE TITLE TO THE SAI D PROPERTIES AND THAT SINCE THE EVENTS TOOK A FULL CIRCLE AND RETURNED BACK TO THE STARTING POINT ITSELF, WITH NO SUCH PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.3.2005 WAS LIABLE TO BE C ANCELLED, BEING A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISMISSED THE RECTIFICATIO N APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEES ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE W HATSOEVER APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE REMEDY SOUGHT FOR BY THE ASSE SSEE IS A REVISION OR 4 REVIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT ALREADY COMPLETED WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 154 OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT( A) BUT DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH HIM. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US WITH THE SUBMISSIO N THAT AT NO POINT OF TIME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A SSESSEE HAS DEPOSED THAT HE HAS PAID THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION TO T HE VENDOR. ON THE BASIS OF GPA-CUM-SALE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE STARTED SELLIN G SOME PIECE OF PLOTS TO VARIOUS PERSONS AND WHATEVER AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED IT WAS GIVEN TO THE VENDOR. THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY QUESTION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. THE VENDOR UNILATERALLY CANCELLED THE GPA-CUM-SALE AGREEMENT EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR BY EXECUTING THE DEED OF CANCELLATION ON 12.1.2004 AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEES. IN THAT CA NCELLATION DEED, IT WAS STATED THAT SALE CONSIDERATION WAS NOT RECEIVED BY HIM AND IT WAS WRONGLY WRITTEN IN THE GPA-CUM-SALE AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 8 .7.2003. THIS DOCUMENTS CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE AFT ER THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION U/S 154 STATING THEREIN THAT THESE FACTS ARE VERY MATERIAL FACTS WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE AS THE VENDOR HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN PAID TO HIM AS A SALE CONSIDERATION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CON TENTION, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE REGIS TERED CANCELLATION DEED APPEARING AT PG.NO.217 TO 320 OF THE COMPILATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITS TRANSLATED COPY IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON RECORD AT PG.N O.495 TO 570 OF THE COMPILATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THROUGH THIS CANCELLATION DEED, THE VENDOR HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY SALE CONSIDER ATION AND FOR THIS REASON ONLY HE HAS CANCELLED THE EARLIER GPA-CUM-SALE DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THIS DOCUMENT IS LOOKED INTO, IT W ILL GO TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE AND IF IT IS PROVED, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON ACC OUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAS NEVER ADMITTED THAT HE HA S PAID ANY SALE 5 CONSIDERATION TO THE VENDOR IN HIS GPA-CUM-SALE AGR EEMENT. IT WAS WRONGLY WRITTEN THEREIN THAT SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID. WHATEVER PLOTS WERE BOOKED FOR SALE DURING THAT PERIOD, THE BOOKING AMO UNT WAS PASSED ON TO THE VENDOR. HE EVEN DID NOT ADMIT THE RECEIPT OF THAT AMOUNT. THIS CANCELLATION AGREEMENT WAS FILED ALONG WITH APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT AFTER THE ASSESSMENT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE AB OUT THE CANCELLATION DEED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS. IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE PROPERLY THIS CANCELLATION DEE D IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED AND JUSTICE IS TO BE DONE WITH THE ASSESSE ES. 7. WITH REGARD TO THE SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A STAND SINCE BEGINNING DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT HE HAS NOT PAID ANY SALE CONSIDERATION TO THE VENDOR AND THIS DOCUMENT IS ON LY IN SUPPORT OF THAT CONTENTION AND NO NEW PLEA WAS RAISED U/S 154 OF TH E ACT. HE HAS ALSO PLACED THE RELIANCE UPON THE MOU. EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE VENDOR THAT ON EXECUTION OF THIS GPA-CUM-SALE DEED, NO CONSIDERATION WILL BE PAID TO THE VENDOR. HE HAS ALSO PLACED A RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE IN TERNATIONAL CORPORATION PVT. LTD. 211 ITR 666 AND DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUNIL SAHNI VS. ITO 70 ITD 481 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THA T THE RECORD FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 154 INCLUDES THE DOCUMENT NOT ON RECORD AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT BUT PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASS ESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECTIFICATION. 8. THE LD. D.R. PLACED A HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE OR DER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. BESIDES IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF ALL MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CANCELLATION DEED WAS EXECUTED BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IF HE INTEND TO RELY UP ON IT. BUT IT WAS NOT DONE. NOW THE ASSESSEE INTEND TO FILE THIS DOCUMENT FOR I TS ADMISSION AND TO REVIEW THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 1 54 OF THE ACT. 6 9. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THOUGH IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE GPA-CUM-SA LE AGREEMENT EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEES IN JULY, 2003 THAT THE V ENDOR HAS RECEIVED THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION BUT THIS FACT WAS NOT SUP PORTED BY ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE CORRECT CREDITWORTHINESS OF ALL THESE 30 PERSONS TO WHOM 30 PLOTS WERE PROPOSED TO BE SOLD AND WORKED OUT THE DIFFERENTIAL CONSIDERATION PAID TO THE VEND OR WITHOUT HAVING PROPER SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND MADE THE ADDITION OF THE S AME U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE MADE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT REGARDING PAYMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION TO THE VENDOR. THE OTHER FACT THAT T HIS GPA-CUM-SALE AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED BY THE VENDOR EVEN BEFORE T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE IT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEES. IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF DEPARTMENT THAT THE ENTIRE CONSIDERAT ION WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE VENDOR, WE ARE AT LOSS TO UNDERSTAN D AS TO WHY THE VENDOR HAS EXECUTED THE CANCELLATION DEED STATING THEREIN THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY SALE CONSIDERATION. IT IS ALSO NOT UNDERSTANDAB LE THAT IN SUCH A HUGE TRANSACTION, NO PAYMENTS WERE EFFECTED THROUGH A BA NKING CHANNEL. ALL THESE FACTS CREATES A DOUBT IN OUR MIND WITH REGARD TO TH E NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS EFFECTED THROUGH THE GPA-CUM-SALE AGREEMENT AND THE CANCELLATION DEED AS BOTH THE DOCUMENTS ARE JUST OPPOSITE IN NATURE AND THEY WERE EXECUTED BY THE SAME PERSON. THEREFORE WITHOUT VERIFYING THE C ORRECTNESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, ONE DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT BE BLINDLY RE LIED. NO DOUBT THE CANCELLATION DEED WAS FILED ALONG WITH THE RECTIFIC ATION APPLICATION BUT THIS CANCELLATION DEED HAS A GREATER IMPACT ON THE NATUR E OF TRANSACTIONS. THE REAL PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION IS TO IMPART JUSTICE T O THE PARTIES AFTER ASCERTAINING THE CORRECT FACTS. ON READING OF BOTH THE DOCUMENTS THE SITUATION IS QUITE CONFUSED WITH REGARD TO THE NATU RE OF TRANSACTIONS. THOUGH THIS CANCELLATION AGREEMENT WAS FILED ALONG WITH TH E APPLICATION U/S 154 BUT IT RELATES TO THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS. IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD BY THE APEX COURT THAT JUSTICE SHOULD NOT ONLY BE DONE IT SHOUL D SEEM TO HAVE BEEN DONE AND MINOR TECHNICALITIES SHOULD NOT COME IN THE WAY . THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO IMPART JUSTICE TO THE PARTIES THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIO NS SHOULD BE EXAMINED IN THE 7 LIGHT OF THIS CANCELLATION DEED WHICH IS FILED ALON G WITH THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION. WE THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE A. O. OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION AND TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF CANCELLATION DEED FILED BEFORE THE A.O. WE ACCORDI NGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO ADMIT THE CANCELLATIO N DEED AND TO RE-EXAMINE THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THESE DOCUMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL IS STAND DISPOSED OFF. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.7.2010 SD/- SD/- (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 19 TH JULY, 2010 COPY TO 1 KOTYALA KUMARASWAMY, 4-48-2/B, ROAD NO.2B, P&T CO LONY, TADEPALLIGUDEM-534 101 2 ITO, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM 3 THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY 4 THE CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM