Gadiraju Ramakrishnam Raju, Hyderabad V. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, Visakhapatnam

ITA 584/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6383 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G GURUSWAMY
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Validity of assessment; Block assessment; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYD 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 20 09-10 RESPECTIVELY) GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYDERABAD DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM [PAN NO. ACZPG1800D ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. GURUSWAMY, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 22.03.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.03.2017 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIREC TED AGAINST COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (A)-1, HYDERABAD DATED 17.7.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2009-10. SINCE, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYD 2 COMMON, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOS ED-OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'THE ACT') WAS CONDUCTED ON 9.1.2009 IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT S RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. CONSEQUENT TO SEAR CH, THE CASE HAS BEEN CENTRALIZED TO THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VIS AKHAPATNAM VIDE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, HY DERABAD IN F.NO.CIT/6/JURIS/3/2009-10 DATED 18.6.2009. ACCORD INGLY, NOTICES U/S 153A OF THE ACT, WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 1.2 .2010 REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 003-04 TO 2008-09. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN O F INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2008-09 ON 23.2.2010. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 -10 ON 23.2.2010. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCR UTINY AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT , ALONG WITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WERE ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTI CES, THE ASSESSEE SRI G. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU APPEARED FROM TIME TO TOME AND PRODUCED BOOKS ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYD 3 OF ACCOUNTS AND NECESSARY INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR . THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 TO 2009-10 HAVE BEEN CO MPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT, ON 30.12.2010. IN T HE ASSESSMENT, THE A.O. HAS MADE ADDITIONS TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITS IN VA RIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS, UNEXPLAINED LOANS AND ADVANCES AND UNEXPL AINED CREDITS IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE A SSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A O F THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGED VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE AS SESSEE, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF SE ARCH PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, FOR A DETAILED DISCUSSION IN HIS ORDER DAT ED 17.7.2013, PARTLY ALLOWED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2003-04 TO 2009-10. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMMON GROUNDS FOR ALL TH E FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS. FROM THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, TH E ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED VALIDITY OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND CONSE QUENT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE WARRANT IS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF ONE SHRI G. MANOJ KUMAR, WHER EAS THE ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYD 4 PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESS EE WITHOUT ANY VALID SEARCH WARRANT, THEREFORE, SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND C ONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT, ARE VOI D-AB-INITIO. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGED ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A), TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AND UNEXPLAINED CREDI TS IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS WELL AS LOANS AND ADVANCES. THE ASSESSEE FILED A PETITION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND ON 17.3.2017 RAISING A LEGAL GROUND, CHALLENGING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. TOWARDS UNEX PLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE CONCLUDED ASSES SMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 TO 2006-07 WHICH READS AS F OLLOWS: ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AND THE ISSUE AS TO SCOPE OF ADDITIONS THAT CAN BE MADE IN AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A IS A PURELY LEGAL ISSUE. HENCE, THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THE HONBLE ITAT, VISA KHAPATNAM BENCH TO ADMIT THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AND PASS SUCH ORDERS AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE IN THE INTEREST OF RENDERING SUB STANTIAL JUSTICE. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE ADDITION OF ` 3,50,000 TOWARDS ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF ADDIT IONS THAT CAN BE MADE IN AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A? 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. A.R. FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ABOVE I SSUE ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AND THE ISSUE AS TO SCOPE OF ADDITIONS THAT CAN BE MADE IN AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT, IS PU RELY A LEGAL ISSUE WHICH CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . THEREFORE, ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYD 5 REQUESTED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AND PASS SUCH ORDERS AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE IN THE INTEREST OF REN DERING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY OPPOSED ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED MATER IAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT FACTS WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICA TION OF LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND IS ALREADY ON RECORD AND NO NEW MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WAS RELIED UPON TO CHALLENGE THE LEGAL ISSUE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITION AL GROUND RAISED BY WAY OF PETITION DATED 17.3.2017 CAN BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE DID NOT PRESS THE LEGAL GROUNDS R AISED, CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND CONSEQUENT ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT, FOR ALL THE FOUR ASSESSMENT YE ARS. WE THEREFORE, DISMISS LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, CHALLE NGING VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT AS NOT PRESSED FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS. THUS, EFFECTIVE GROUNDS REMAINS FOR OUR ADJUDICATION ARE (1) ADDITI ONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 003-04 TO ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYD 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, AS SUCH THE A.O. CANNOT MAKE ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT. (2) CHALLENGING THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSI TS IN BANK ACCOUNT, UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND UNEXPLAI NED LOANS AND ADVANCES. 9. THE FIRST ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATI ON IS WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE A.O. IS RIGHT IN MAKING ADDITIONS TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, IN CASE OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS IN THE AB SENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS. THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF CONCLUDED ASSESSMENTS, THE A.O. HAS NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONS TOWARDS RETURNED INCOME IN THE ABSENC E OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. IN THE CASE OF ABATED ASSESSMENT AND ASS ESSMENTS, WHICH ARE PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH, THE A.O. CAN ASSUME JURISDICTION TO ASSESSEE/RE-ASSESS INCOME, WHICH IS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED AND NO PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND HENCE, THE A.O. IS PRECLUDED FROM MAKING ADDITIONS WITHOUT ANY SEIZED MATERIALS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS, RELIED UPO N THE DECISION OF ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYD 7 ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF L. SURYAKANTHAM VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS.300 TO 305/VIZAG/2012 DATED 19.4.2016. 10. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT ONCE A SEARCH IS TAKEN PLACE, THE ASSESSMENT FOR 6 ASSESSMENT YEARS GETS RE-OPENED AND THE A.O. WILL GET JURISDICTION TO ASSESS/RE-ASSESS TOTAL INCOME OF THOSE 6 ASSESSMENTS YEARS WHETHER OR NOT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE D.R. FURTHER ARGU ED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, SHALL BE ATT RACTED UPON INITIATION OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS U/S 132 OF THE ACT IN WHICH C ASE, THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT WILL BE RE-OPENED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, AND SUCH RE-OPENING IS NOT DEPENDING UPON EXISTENCE OR OTHERWISE OF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE LD. D.R. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, IN THE CA SE OF M/S. CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.38 O F 2014 DATED 25.7.2014, SUBMITTED THAT U/S 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN GIVEN THE POWER TO ASSESS OR RE-ASSESS THE TOT AL INCOME OF THE 6 ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION IN SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. THE A.O. IS EMPOWERED TO RE-OPEN THOSE PROCEEDINGS AND RE-AS SESS THE TOTAL INCOME, TAKING NOTE OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IF A NY, UN-EARTHED DURING THE SEARCH. WHEN, ONCE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED U/S 153A OF THE ACT, THE LEGAL EFFECT IS THAT, EVEN IN THE C ASE WHERE THE ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYD 8 ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED IT STANDS RE-OPENED AND IN THE EYES OF LAW THERE IS NO ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. ONCE THE ASSESSME NT IS RE-OPENED, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY CAN TAKE NOTE OF THE INCOME DIS CLOSED IN THE EARLIER RETURN, ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOUND DURING THE SEA RCH OR AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME, WHICH IS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE EARLIER RETURN OR WHICH IS NOT UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH, IN ORDER TO FIND OUT W HAT IS THE TOTAL INCOME OF EACH YEAR AND THEN PASS THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERITS IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE A.O. IS HAVING NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE ADDITIONS IN THE CON CLUDED ASSESSMENTS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS, RELIED UPON THE DECISI ON OF HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOPAL LAL VS. DCIT (2012) 346 ITR 106 AND CIT VS. SMT. GODAVARI DEVI SARAF (1978) 113 ITR 589 . 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATE RIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHE THER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE A.O. IS RIGHT IN MAKING ADDITIONS, IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN CONCLUDED AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, IN THE ABS ENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS. THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSE SSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THE COORDI NATE BENCH OF VISAKHAPATNAM ITAT, IN THE CASE OF L. SURYAKANTHAM VS. ACIT IN ITA ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYD 9 NOS.300 TO 305/VIZAG/2012, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN OBSE RVED THAT THE A.O. HAS NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE ADDITIONS U/S 153A OF T HE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENTS, WHICH ARE NOT PENDING AS ON THE DATE O F SEARCH. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED BELOW: 19. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MAT ERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IS THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED LABOUR CHARG ES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10. BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS FO UND DURING SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THAT HE HAS INFLATED 10% LABOUR CHARGES AND WHICH IS COMMON IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS. CONSEQUE NT TO SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE CASE HAS BEEN CENTRALI ZED AND ACCORDINGLY FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 153A/153C OF THE ACT FOR THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS I MMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REVISED RETURNS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153 A OF THE ACT AND ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS AND RELEVANT BILLS & VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND STATED TH AT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE AND HENCE CANNOT BE FURN ISHED. THEREFORE, THE A.O. ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ASKED TO EXPLAI N WHY THE NET PROFIT FROM THE BUSINESS SHALL NOT BE ESTIMATED. IN RESPON SE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A WRITTEN REPLY AND CONTENDED THAT THE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2007-08 CANNOT BE TINKERED WITH, AS THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERI AL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND AS SUCH NO ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME. IT IS FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT AS PER SEC. 153A OF THE ACT, DE-NOVO ASSESSMENT CAN BE MAD E ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS HAD BEEN ABATED AND THAT IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT HAD ALREADY BEEN REACHED A FINALITY, SUCH ASSESSMEN T COULD NOT BE MADE U/S 153A OF THE ACT UNLESS THERE WAS SEIZED MATERIA LS. 20. THE A.O. HAS PASSED REASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 153 A/153C OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECED ING THE YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. ACCORDING TO THE A.O., AS PE R THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO LIMITATION OR RESTRICTION PROVIDED IN THE NEW PROCEDURE OF SEARCH ASSESSMENTS ON THE POWERS O F A.O. FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT AND THE A.O. IS NOT REQUIRE D TO CONFINE HIS ASSESSMENTS ON THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS WAS THE CASE IN THE OLD PROCEDURE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENTS. TH E NEW PROCEDURE OF ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYD 10 BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS EXPLAINED BY WAY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. AS PER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE A.O. SHALL ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED SIX ASSESSMENT YE ARS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SAID YEARS WERE COM PLETED OR PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, THE A.O. HAS REA SSESSED THE INCOME OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS AND RECOMPUTED THE PROFITS AFR ESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A.O. CANNOT DISTURB THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS UNLESS THERE WAS A SEIZED MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER C ONTENDED THAT WHERE ASSESSMENTS ARE NOT PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARC H AND TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICES U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN EXP IRED, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THOSE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(1) OR 143(3) OF THE ACT, THEN THE A.O. HAS NO POWER TO REASSESS THE INCOME OF THOSE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT YEARS. 21. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ISSUE NO LONGER RES INTEGRA, AS THE ISSUE HAS B EEN ALREADY DECIDED BY THE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH AND HELD THAT WHERE THE ASS ESSMENTS ARE NOT PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE A.O. LOSSES J URISDICTION U/S 153A OF THE ACT TO REASSESS THE INCOME OF THOSE COMPLETED A SSESSMENTS. THOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY ABATED AND COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS, THE NATURAL MEANING ASSIGNED TO IT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO INTERPRET THE PROVISIONS IN SUCH A WAY THA T WHICH SHALL NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE TAX PAYERS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT EXPLAINED THE PROCEDURE OF ASSESSMENTS, ABATED ASSESSMENTS AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE FRAMED, WH ICH WAS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY CIRCULAR NO.7 OF 2003 ISSUED BY THE CB DT. WHEN THE LAW HAS EXPLAINED THE POSITION OF ABATED ASSESSMENTS, THEN THE SAME WAY THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE TREATED SO AS TO UND ERSTAND THAT THOSE ASSESSMENTS ARE REACHED FINALITY AND WHICH CANNOT B E TINKERED WITH UNLESS THERE WAS A SEIZED DOCUMENT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHERE SEARCH IS INITIATED, ALL PENDING ASSESSM ENTS ARE MERGE INTO ONE AND ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR SH ALL BE MADE SEPARATELY ON THE BASIS OF FINDINGS OF SEARCH AND O THER MATERIAL EXISTING OR BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF NON ABA TED OR COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS, THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE MADE ON THE BAS IS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH, BUT NOT PRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT. 22. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, ON PERUSAL OF THE D OCUMENT AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2004-05 TO 2007-08 WERE NOT PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARC H. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(1) & 143(3) O F THE ACT ARE NOT MATERIAL. THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 14 3(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN EXPIRED. ON FURTHER VERIFICATION OF THE DOCUMENTS A VAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUN D DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 TO 200 7-08. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN REASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 TO 2007-08 IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYD 11 SEIZED MATERIALS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, 2005-06 & 200 7-08. 23. IT IS PERTINENT TO DISCUSS HEREIN THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE ITAT, S PECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 287. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WHILE DECIDI NG THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HELD AS UNDER: IN ASSESSMENTS THAT ARE ABATED, THE AO ARETAINS THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AS WELL AS JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON H IM U/S 153A FOR WHICH ASSESSMENTS SHALL BE MADE FOR EACH OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS SEPARATELY. IN OTHER CASES, IN ADDITION TO T HE INCOME THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED, THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A WILL BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, WHICH IN THE CONTEXT OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS MEANS (I) BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , OTHER DOCUMENTS, FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH BUT NOT PR ODUCED IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, AND (II) UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 24. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON, A.P. HIGH COURT DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. AMR INDIA LTD. IN ITTA NO.354 OF 2014 DATED 12.6.2014. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE A.O. HAS NO JURISD ICTION TO RE-AGITATE THE ASSESSMENTS WHICH WERE ALREADY COMPLETED AND SUBSID ING. THE RELEVANT PORTION IS EXTRACTED BELOW: WE HAVE HEARD SRI J.V. PRASAD, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, AND GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDER O F THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL. IT APPEARS THAT THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL FOUND ON FACT T HAT AFTER COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND AFTER REAC HING FINALITY THEREON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TRIED TO REAGITATE T HE ASSESSMENTS. ACCORDING TO US, THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY H ELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REAGITATE THE ASSESSMENTS WHICH WERE ALREADY COMPLETED AND SUBSISTING. WE TH EREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY ELEMENT OF LAW TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEA L. HENCE, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THERE WILL BE NO O RDER AS TO COSTS. 25. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE COORDINATE BEN CH DECISION OF ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF A.T. RAYUDU IN I TA NO.373 TO 379/VIZAG/2014. THE COORDINATE BENCH, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 22. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO REFER TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD (SUPRA):- 57 (F) IN THE CASE OF PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD VS. ITO (106 JTR 57)(SC), IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE LAST PARAGRAP H OF THE JUDGMENT THAT ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYD 12 THE COURT HAS TO BEAR IN MIND THAT THE POLICY OF LA W IS THAT THERE MUST BE A POINT OF FINALITY IN ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, THAT ST ALE ISSUES SHOULD NOT BE REACTIVATED BEYOND A PARTICULAR STAGE AND THAT LAPS E OF TIME MUST INDUCE REPOSE IN AND SET AT REST JUDICIAL AND QUASI JUDICI AL CONTROVERSIES AS IT MUST IN OTHER SPHERES OF HUMAN ACTIVITY. OUR DECISION IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THIS OBSERVATION. THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN MAKE ADDITIONS IN THE CASE OF CONCLUDED ASSESSM ENTS ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS IS ALSO BASED UPON THE DECI SION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PARASHURAM POTTERY WOR KS CO. LTD (SUPRA). 23. WE HAVE EARLIER NOTICED THAT THE HON'BLE JURIS DICTIONAL ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT HAS ALSO UPHELD BY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE C ASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD (SUPRA) IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: - (A) SREE LALITHA CONSTRUCTIONS (J1TA NO 368 OF 2014) (B) M/S. HYDERABAD HOUSE PVT LTD (ITTA NO.266 OF 2 013) (C)M/S. AMR INDIA LTD (FITA NO.357 /V/2014) FURTHER WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF GOPAL DAS BHADRUKA (SUPRA) HAVE BEEN RENDERED ON THE FACTS PREVAILING IN THOSE CASES, SINCE THE ISSUE RELATING TO CONCLUDED ASSESSMENTS AND PENDING ASSESSMENTS WAS NOT BEFORE THE I1ON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT ON TH E CONTRARY, THE ABOVE SAID THREE DECISIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT COMES TO THE SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE LEGAL PROPOSITION AGITATED BEFORE US, BESIDES THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY VARIOU S OTHER HIGH COURTS. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SCOPE OF E NQUIRY IN THE CASE OF UNABATED ASSESSMENTS, I.E., THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT PENDING, IS THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME SHOULD BE ASCERTAINED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH. IF NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL SHOWING ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS FOUND I N THE CASE OF CONCLUDED PROCEEDINGS, THEN THE QUESTION OF MAKING ANY ADDITION DOES NOT ARISE. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD C OMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT OF THOSE YEARS BY DETERMINING THE VERY SAME TOTAL INCO ME THAT WAS ASSESSED IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDING. 24. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE W ITH THE CONTENTIONS OF LD STANDING COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WOULD GET UNFETTERED POWERS IN THE CASE OF UNABATED ASSESSMEN TS, ONCE THEY WERE REOPENED US 153A OF THE ACT. IN OUR VIEW, IN THE CA SE OF UNABATED ASSESSMENTS, THE TOTAL INCOME SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY COMBINING THE INCOME ALREADY ASSESSED/DI SCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IF ANY, FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDING. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT IS SETTLED PR OPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO TAKE SUPPORT OF THE DECISIO N IN HIS FAVOUR, WHEN TWO CONTRADICTORY VIEWS HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE HIGH COURTS. IN THE ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYD 13 INSTANT CASE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT COMES TO THE SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE LEGAL PROPOSITION IN ADDITION TO THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. ACCORDIN GLY, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE LEGAL ISS UE. 26. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE REASSESSMENT U/S 153A/153C OF THE ACT ON THE B ASIS OF INFORMATION/MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN THE RETURN OF INC OME, WITHOUT REFERRING TO ANY SEIZED MATERIAL. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE SPEC IAL BENCH DECISION (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE A.O. HAD NO JURISDICTION T O MAKE ADDITIONS U/S 153A OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENTS WHICH ARE NOT P ENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. IN THIS CASE, THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 14.7.2009. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007 -08, WERE NOT PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE TIME LIMIT F OR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2) HAS BEEN EXPIRED. THEREFORE, THE A.O. H AS NO JURISDICTION TO REASSESS THE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 TO 2007-08 IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIALS. HENCE, WE DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, 2 005-06 & 2007-08. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. 12. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED AND THERE I S NO PROCEEDINGS PENDING FOR THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN EXPIRED. THE A.O. H AS MADE ADDITIONS TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, UNEXPLAINED LOANS AND ADVANCES AND UNEXPLAINED CRED ITS IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIALS. THERE FORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. HAS NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE ADDI TIONS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIALS. IN THIS CASE, THE A.O. HA S MADE ADDITIONS TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS, UNEXPLAINED ADVAN CES AND ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYD 14 UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN CAPITAL ACCOUNTS BASED ON TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE ALREADY PART OF REGULAR RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, BUT NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINAT ING MATERIALS. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT, THE A.O. HAS NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE ADDITIONS TOWARDS ANY INCOME IN THE ABSENCE OF SEIZED MATERIALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH ARE CONCLU DED AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELE TE ADDITIONS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07. 13. IN SO FAR AS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. D .R., WE FIND THAT THE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS. DCIT (2012) 137 ITR 289, HAS CONSIDERED THE RATIOS OF HIGH COURTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF GOPAL LAL BHADRUKA VS. DCIT (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE C ASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD. D.R. IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE. 14. THE NEXT ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATI ON FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLA INED CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 3,50,000/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF ` 3,50,000/- TOWARDS CASH SEIZED BY THE I.T. DEPARTMENT ON 9.1.2009. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THAT THE SOURCES FOR CASH DEPOSIT IS OUT OF RE-PAYMENT OF DEBT OF ` 7 LAKHS RECEIVED FROM SHRI ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYD 15 P.N. RAJU. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMS THAT HE HAD ADVANCED LOANS TO SHRI P.N. RAJU IN THE EARLIER FINANCIAL YEAR WHICH WAS DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR RETURN FILED FOR THE EARLIER YEAR AND THE S AME HAS BEEN REPAID BY THE DEBTOR DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR, WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF CASH BALANCE SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 15. HAVING HEARD BOTH SIDES, WE FIND FORCE IN THE A RGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED NECESSARY EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE DEB TOR WHO HAS CONFIRMED REPAYMENT OF ADVANCE OF ` 7 LAKHS. WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE DEBTOR SHRI P.N. RAJU HAS GIVEN THE DEPOSITION BEFORE THE A.O., WHEREIN HE HAS CONFIRMED THAT HE HAS REPAID THE ADV ANCE. THE A.O. MADE ADDITIONS BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEBTOR. WE FIND NO MERITS IN THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O., FOR THE REASON THAT ONCE THE DEBTOR REPAID THE AMOUNT IN THE CAPACITY AS DEBTOR TO THE ASSESSEE, THE NECESSITY OF PROVING THE CREDITWORTHINESS, IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS IS NOT ON THE ASSESSEE AS IT IS ONLY AMOUNT RECEIVED B ACK OUT OF ADVANCE MADE IN THE EARLIER PERIOD AND SHOWN IN THE RETURN. THE CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS, SIMPLY CONFIRMED ADDITIONS BASED ON THE REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O., WHEREIN THE A.O. HAS REITERATED ITS STAND AT THE TIME ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, HYD 16 OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT TH E A.O. TO DELETE ADDITIONS MADE TOWARDS CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITA NOS.584 TO 587/VIZAG/2013 ARE ALLOWED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 31 ST MAR17. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 31.03.2017 VG/SPS )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT SHRI GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, C/O P. THIMMA RAJU, FLAT NO.301, D.NO.8-2-4- 1/C/9, JVR BANJARA HILLS AVENUE, PLOT NO.9, BANJARA HILLS, ROAD NO.5, HYDERABAD-500 034. 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VIS AKHAPATNAM 3. + / THE CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A)-1, HYDERABAD 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM