Erramilli Gurunadha Sastry, Visakhapatnam V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), , Visakhapatnam

ITA 424/VIZ/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9258 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALIK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Validity of assessment; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C; 142(1); 250; 201; 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T. A.NO. 424 & 425 /VIZ/201 8 ( / A SSESSMENT Y EAR : 20 07 - 08 & 2008 - 09 RESPECTIVELY ) ERRAMILLI GURUNADHA SASTRY D.NO.50 - 97 - 3 SEETHAMMADHARA VISAKHAPATNAM [PAN : AACPE5039M ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 3( 2 ) VISAKHAPATNAM ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : S HRI GVN HARI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : S MT SUMAN MALIK, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 28 . 0 8 . 201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .09. 201 9 / O R D E R P ER SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : TH E S E APPEAL S ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER S OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] - 10, HYDERABAD VIDE ITA NO. 0065/CIT(A) - 10/2017 - 18/CIT(A), HYD - 10/10196/2017 - 18 DATED 11 .0 6 .201 8 AND ITA NO.0095/CIT(A) - 10/2017 - 18/CIT(A), HYD - 2 I.T.A. NO . 424 & 425 /VIZ/201 8 , A.Y.20 0 7 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 ERRAMILLI GURUNADHA SASTRY, VISAKHAPATNAM 10/10195/2017 - 18 DATED 11.06.2018 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 20 07 - 08 AND 2008 - 09. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 BY AN ORDER DATED 20.03.2015. FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 ON 25.03.2014 AND SERVED THE NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE IN THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS ON 30.03.2014. AS THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148, SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) ALONG WITH A LETTER REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE T O FURNISH THE RETURN IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT FOR THE A.Y.2007 - 08. SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT ON 20.03.2015. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT I T HAS COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY ADMEASURING 127 SQ.YDS TOGETHER WITH AC SHEET ADMEASURING 250 SFT. AT D.NO.55 - 6 - 49/2, SURVEY NO.29 PART OF MADDILAPALEM VILLAGE, VISAKHAPATNAM TO SRI MARADANA GURUMURTHY, TATICHETLA PALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM FOR A CONSIDERATION O F RS.4,00,000/ - VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED BEARING NO.937/2007 DATED 06.02.2007. THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE STAMP DUTY WAS FIXED AT RS.9,34,800/ - . THEREFORE, THE AO HAVING FOUND THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF THE 3 I.T.A. NO . 424 & 425 /VIZ/201 8 , A.Y.20 0 7 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 ERRAMILLI GURUNADHA SASTRY, VISAKHAPATNAM PROPERTY, ISSU ED A LETTER TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22.01.2014 CALLING FOR THE INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE A.Y.2007 - 08 AND THE ADMISSION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF THE LAND . THE LETTER SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WAS RETURNED UNSE RVED, SINCE, HE WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THE AO STATED TO HAVE CAUSED THE ENQUIRIES THROUGH INSPECTOR AND COULD NOT LOCATE THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE AO ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND SERVED THE NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE ON 30.03.2014 ON THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS. SINCE THERE WAS NO REPLY FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HAS TAKEN THE MARKET VALUE OF RS.9,35,000/ - ADOPTING THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES AS PER SECTION 50C AND ALLOWED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS PER DOCUMENT NO.614 OF 2005 DATED 15.02.2005 AND TAXED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.7,35,000/ - UNDER SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN BELOW : SALE CONSIDERATION RS.4,00,000 MARKET VALUE AS PER 50C RS.9,35,000 (A) PURCHASE COST (DOC.NO.614/2005, DT.15.02.2005) RS.2,00,000 (B) TOTAL SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (A) - (B) RS.7,35,000 ACCORDINGLY, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7,35,000/ - . 4 I.T.A. NO . 424 & 425 /VIZ/201 8 , A.Y.20 0 7 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 ERRAMILLI GURUNADHA SASTRY, VISAKHAPATNAM 3 .1. SIMILARLY FOR THE A.Y.2008 - 09 ALSO , THE AO SERVED THE NOTICE U/S 148 BY AFFIXTURE AS PER THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS. FOR THE A.Y.2008 - 09, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ONE PROPERTY ADMEASURING 333.33 SQ.YDS TOGETHER WITH BUILT UP AREA OF 750 SQ.FT. RCC HOUSE SITUATED AT D.NO.4 - 46 - 9/8, PEDA WALTAIR, VISAKHAPATNAM TO SHRI ANDH A VARAPU VEKATA NAGENDRA PRASAD, D.NO.16 - 3 - 111, GUJARATHIPETA, SRIKAKULAM FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.14,36,320/ - VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED BEARING NO.4236/2007 DATED 19.09.2007. THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS DETERMINED AT RS.23,54,478/ - AS PER STAMP DUTY. 3 .2. THE ASSESSEE SOLD ANOTHER PROPERTY CONSISTING OF SITE ADMEASURING 333.33 SQ.YDS TOGETHER WITH BUILT UP AREA OF 750 SFT. RCC HOUSE SITUATED AT D.NO.4 - 46 - 9/8, PEDA WALTAIR, VISAKHAPTNAM TO M/S TAIYO RESORTS & DEVE LOPERS PVT. LTD. FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.14,36,320/ - VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED BEARING NO.4237/2007 DATED 19.09.2007. THUS, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE TWO PROPERTIES WITH THE SAME DOOR NUMBER TO TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS FOR A CONSIDERA TION OF RS.14,36,320/ - EACH AND MARKET VALUE OF EACH PROPERTY WA S RS.23,54,478/ - AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES . 5 I.T.A. NO . 424 & 425 /VIZ/201 8 , A.Y.20 0 7 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 ERRAMILLI GURUNADHA SASTRY, VISAKHAPATNAM 3 . 3 . THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS TAX ON THE PROPERTIES SOLD BUT NOT FILED THE RETURN S OF INCOME . THEREFORE, T HE AO ISSUED L ETTER ON 04.03.2013 CALLING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS, BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 ON 13.03.2015 AND SERVED THE NOTICE ON 09.04.2015 BY WAY OF AFFIXTURE AT THE LAST KNOWN AD DRESS SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE, THE AO HA D ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) AND SERVED THE SAME BY AFFIXTURE FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.47,08,956/ - FOR THE A.Y.2008 - 09 . 4 . AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE GROUNDS ON MERITS AS WELL AS ON TEC HNICAL ISSUES. WITH REGARD TO NON SERVICE OF NOTICE AND CONSEQUENT VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 148, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS VALIDLY ISSUED, HENCE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND. 6 I.T.A. NO . 424 & 425 /VIZ/201 8 , A.Y.20 0 7 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 ERRAMILLI GURUNADHA SASTRY, VISAKHAPATNAM 4 .1. WITH REGARD TO THE AS SESSMENT FOR THE A.Y.2008 - 09 ALSO, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY SERVED THE NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS, ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND. 5 . THE COMMON GROUND FOR THE A.Y.2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 IS THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WHICH RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT VOID AB INITIO. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE AO HAS NOT SERVED THE NOTICE U/S 148 TO THE ASSE SSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE, THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS NOT SERVED, THE SAME REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED AS VOID AB INITIO. 6 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR ARGUED THAT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE AO CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES BY ISSUE OF LETTERS ON 22.01.2014 FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 AND ON 04.03.2013 FOR THE A.Y.2008 - 09, CALLING FOR THE INFORMATION. THE LETTERS SENT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND ENQUIRIES WERE CAUSED BY THE FIELD FUNCTIONARIES OF THE DEPARTMENT AND FOUND THAT THE PRESENT WHEREABOUTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT KNOWN. THEREFORE, THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 148 WERE SERVED BY AFFIXTURE ON THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS , T H US , ARGUED THAT , SINCE, THE NOTICES WERE SERVED BY AFFIXTU RE IN THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS , THE SAME SHOULD BE TREATED AS VALID SERVICE , HENCE REQUESTED TO UPHOLD THE VALIDITY OF ISSUE OF 7 I.T.A. NO . 424 & 425 /VIZ/201 8 , A.Y.20 0 7 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 ERRAMILLI GURUNADHA SASTRY, VISAKHAPATNAM NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF THE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE, THE LD.DR PRODUCED THE COPIES OF THE REPORTS OF INCOME TAX INSPECTORS, WHEREIN, THE INCOME TAX INSPECTOR HAS GIVEN REPORT STATING THAT THE NOTICES WERE SERVED BY AFFIXTURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD.DR ARGUED THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 148 ARE VALID, HENCE REQUESTED TO UPHOLD THE VALIDITY OF ISSU ANCE OF NOT ICES AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENTS FRAMED U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US BY THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTA NT CASE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE NOTICES U/S 148 / 142(1) WERE NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, HENCE THE ASSESSMENTS MADE U/S 147 ARE INVALID. THE DEPARTMENT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT KNOWN AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE LETTERS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT, HENCE, NOTICES WERE SERVED BY AFFIXTURE IN THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS , T HEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 148 WERE VALIDLY SERVED BY AFFIXTURE. FOR A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD.DR FURN ISHED THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTORS STATING THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 148 WERE SERVED BY AFFIXTURE. THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE 8 I.T.A. NO . 424 & 425 /VIZ/201 8 , A.Y.20 0 7 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 ERRAMILLI GURUNADHA SASTRY, VISAKHAPATNAM NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEES ADDRESS I.E. PRIOR TO THE SERVICE BY AFFIXTURE EITHER B Y POST OR THROUGH NOTICE SERVER TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH COULD NOT BE SERVED. HOWEVER, THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX HAS GIVEN UNDATED REPORT STATING THAT THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT KNOWN AND THE NOTICE S ISSUED U/S 148 WAS SERVED BY AFFIXTURE. THE REPORT DOES NOT BEAR SIGNATURE OF ANY INDEPENDENT WITNESSES AND THE DATE OF SERVICE. HOWEVER, THE NOTICES U/S 148 BEAR THE SIGNATURE OF TWO PERSONS WITHOUT THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE WITNESSES. ORDER V, RULE 12 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROVIDES THA T WHEREVER, IT IS PRACTICABLE, SERVICE HAS TO BE AFFECTED ON THE DEFENDANT IN PERSON OR ON HIS AGENT. ORDER V, RULE 17 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FURTHER PROVIDES THAT AFFIXTURE CAN BE DONE ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AGENT REFUSES TO SIGN THE ACKNOWLEDG EMENT OR CANNOT BE FOUND. THAT IS, FOR RESORTING TO AFFIXTURE, EFFORTS HAVE TO BE MADE TO SERVE THE NOTICE UPON THE ASSESSEE AND ONLY AFTER REACHING A FINDING THAT THE NOTICE CANNOT BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, THE MODE OF AFFIXTURE CAN BE RESORTED. FURT HER RULE 17 OF ORDER V OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE MANDATES THAT AN INDEPENDENT LOCAL PERSON TO BE THE WITNESS OF SERVICE THROUGH AFFIXTURE AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN TH E INSTANT CASE, THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE DEPARTMENT 9 I.T.A. NO . 424 & 425 /VIZ/201 8 , A.Y.20 0 7 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 ERRAMILLI GURUNADHA SASTRY, VISAKHAPATNAM HAS MADE THE EFFORTS TO SERVE THE NOTICE IN PERSON. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF HAVING MADE THE EFFORTS TO SERVE THE NOTICE EITHER BY POST OR THROUGH NOTICE SERVER. THOU GH THERE WAS A REPORT OF INSPECTOR HAVING SERVED THE NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE, THERE WAS NO PANCHNAMA DRAWN BY INSPECTOR FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE, SPECIFYING THE PLACE WHICH IS BEING WITNESSED BY INDEPENDENT WITNESSES. THE NOTICES U/S 148 BEAR THE SI GNATURE OF TWO WITNESS ES WITHOUT THE DETAILS OF NAME S AND ADDRESS ES . THERE WAS NO ENDORSEMENT ON THE NOTICE S HAVING SERVED THE NOTICE S BY AFFIXTURE. WITHOUT THE PROPER ENDORSEMENT HAVING SERVED THE NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE IN THE PRESENCE OF LOCAL PERSON IDENTIFYING PLACE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME CANNOT BE HELD AS VALID SERVICE. SIMILARLY THOUGH THE AO HAS STATED TO HAVE SERVED THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) ALSO BY AFFIXTURE, NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE NOTICES WERE SERVED BY AFFIXTURE IN THE PRESENCE OF INDEPENDENT WITNESSES. PERUSAL OF THE INFORMATION SHOWS THAT THERE WAS NO INDEPENDENT LOCAL PERSON AS WITNESS AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IDENTIFYING THE PLACE AS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE SUCH AFFIXTURE. THE HONBLE PUNJ AB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NAVEEN CHANDER REPORTED IN 323 ITR 49 HELD THAT FIXATION IS REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND WHERE IN THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OR NOTICE SERVER, WHO CLAIMED TO 10 I.T.A. NO . 424 & 425 /VIZ/201 8 , A.Y.20 0 7 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 ERRAMILLI GURUNADHA SASTRY, VISAKHAPATNAM HAVE AFFIXED THE NOTICE, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY INDEPENDENT LOCAL PERSON HAVING BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLACE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF MANDATE OF RULE 17 OF ORDER V OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WHICH LAID DOW N THE PROCEDURE TO SERVE NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE. IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE AO TO COMMUNICATE THE ISSUE OF NOTICE AND THE PENDING INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS TO THE ASSESSEE. UNLESS THE COMMUNICATION REACHES THE ASSESSEE, THE PURPOSE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE CANNOT BE SER VED. THEREFORE, IT IS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE AO TO MAKE ENQUIRIES REGARDING PRESENT WHEREABOUTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TO LOCATE THE CORRECT ADDRESS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THOUGH THE LETTERS HAVE STATED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED FROM 2013 ONWARDS AND THE CO RRECT ADDRESS COULD NOT BE LOCATED , SUBSEQUENTLY, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE DEMAND NOTICES WERE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME ADDRESS WHICH SHOWS THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT MADE PROPER EFFORTS OR THE ENQUIRIES TO LOCATE THE ASS ESSEE. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT MAKE PROPER SERVICE OF THE NOTICE AS PER THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. SINCE THERE WAS NO VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE I NVALID AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE BEFORE EMBARKING UPON THE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO OPTION EXCEPT TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS. 11 I.T.A. NO . 424 & 425 /VIZ/201 8 , A.Y.20 0 7 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 ERRAMILLI GURUNADHA SASTRY, VISAKHAPATNAM ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALL OW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH S E PTEMBER, 2019 S D/ - S D/ - ( . ) ( . . ) (V. DURGA RAO) ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM /DATED : 30 . 09.2019 L.RAMA, SPS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / THE ASSESSEE - ERRAMILLI GURUNADHA SASTRY, D.NO.50 - 97 - 3 , T.P.T.COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 2 . / THE REVENUE - INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM 3. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 0 , HYDERABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM