M/s Shree Kutch Kadva Patidar Samaj, Visakhapatnam V. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 599/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9542 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2013

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH : VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.595, 596, 597, 598, 599 & 600/VIZAG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03, 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-0 7 & 07-08 M/S. SHREE KUTCH KADVA PATIDAR SAMAJ, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 009. PAN AAAAS6977M VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1) VISAKHAPATNAM. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. C. SUBRAHMANYAM FOR REVENUE : MR. R.K. SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 26.02.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.03.2015 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE BUT IDENTICAL ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 18.07.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2007 -08. AS THE ISSUES ARISING IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF : THE ASSESSEE-SAMAJ WAS ESTABLI SHED IN THE YEAR 1985. IT WAS REGISTERED AS A SOCIETY UN DER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT XXI OF 1860 ON 1 ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1985 AS SOCIETY NO. 31 OF 1985. THE ASSESSEE SOCIET Y CLAIMED THAT IT HAD OBTAINED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE YEAR 1986-87 VIDE REF. NO. III -73/85-86 DATED 05.11.1987 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM. FROM THAT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEE N FILING 2 ITA.NO.595 TO 600/VIZAG/2013 M/S. SHREE KUTCH KADVA PATIDAR SAMAJ, VISAKHAPATNAM RETURNS OF INCOME REGULARLY AND CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS A C HARITABLE INSTITUTION. THESE RETURNS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY TH E REVENUE UP TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2.1. IN THE YEAR 1986 (OCTOBER, 1986) THE SOCIETY ACQUIRED URBAN LAND (SITE) MEASURING 1200 SQ. YARDS, IN THE NAME OF SIX MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY, WITH THE FUNDS BELONGING TO THE SOCIETY. THEREAFTER, IN THE YEAR 2002-03, THE ASSESSEE SOCIE TY CONSTRUCTED A KALYANAMANDAPAM ON THIS LAND. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THIS CLAIM WAS NOT ACC EPTED FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE COPY OF THE PRO CEEDINGS, WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISA KHAPATNAM VIDE REF. NO. III-73/85-86 DATED 05.01.1987. AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH COPY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 TO 2007-08, BY TREATING THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AS AN AOP AND REFUSING ITS CLAIM FOR EXEMPT ION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE MAIN REASON FOR DENIAL O F EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 IS, NON-PRODUCTION OF THE PROCEEDI NGS GRANTING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. 2.2. THE ASSESSEE FILED FRESH APPLICATION WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, VISAKHAPATNAM IN FORM NO.10A ON 31.01.2008 FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTI ON 12A OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER REJECTED THIS APPLICATION VID E HIS ORDER NO. F.TECH.III/115/CIT-1/VSP/2007-08 DATED 21.07.20 08 ON TWO GROUNDS I.E., (I) THE JURISDICTION DOES NOT LAY WITH HIM AND (II) THE ASSESSEE IS ALREADY REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12 A AND HENCE, CANNOT BE REGISTERED ONCE AGAIN. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 20.02.2009 REOPENING THE 3 ITA.NO.595 TO 600/VIZAG/2013 M/S. SHREE KUTCH KADVA PATIDAR SAMAJ, VISAKHAPATNAM ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 200 7-08 AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY DENYING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT AND BY BRINGI NG TO TAX ALL THE RECEIPTS. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE M ATTER IN APPEAL. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONFIRMED THE ORDER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING AS FOLLOWS: 4.7. ADMITTEDLY THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE TH E CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S.12A OF THE I.T. ACT. THE APPELLANT FILED VARIOUS DETAILS SUCH AS I.T. RETURN S, AUDIT REPORTS, COMMUNICATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT ETC., TH E PERUSAL OF WHICH DO NOT CATEGORICALLY GO TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS A REGISTERED TRUST. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A VALID REGISTERED TRUST. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTIO N IN DENYING EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE I.T. ACT FOR WANT O F REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, AND SUB JECTING THE APPELLANT TO TAXATION AS AN AOP. HENCE, GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. (EMPHASIS OWN) 3. ON THE ISSUE OF TAXING THE DONATIONS RECEIVED A S CORPUS TOWARDS BUILDING FUND, THE LD. CIT(A) RELYIN G ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(24) HELD THAT VOLUNTARY CON TRIBUTION EVEN IF IT MEANT TOWARDS CORPUS WOULD CONSTITUTE INCOME AND THAT IN TERMS OF SECTION 164(2) OF THE ACT, ANY INCOME WHIC H IS NOT EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 11 IS TAXABLE, AS IF THE INCOM E NOT SO EXEMPT. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD MR. C. SUBRAHMANYAM, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND MR. R.K. SINGH, LEARNE D D.R. 5. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL CONTENTIONS, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PAPERS ON RECO RD AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS : 5.1. THE SOLE BASIS ON WHICH EXEMPTION WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, IS THAT THE O RIGINAL COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 4 ITA.NO.595 TO 600/VIZAG/2013 M/S. SHREE KUTCH KADVA PATIDAR SAMAJ, VISAKHAPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM, GRANTING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT ON 5 TH NOVEMBER, 1987 WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS IS CLEAR FROM PARA-2, PAGE- 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR R EADY REFERENCE : ON GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE EXPLANATION ALONG WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS AS STATED ABOVE FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION U/S.12A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE OBTAINED CERTIFICATE OF REGISTR ATION U/S.12A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN THE YEAR 1986-87 W HICH IS 23 YEARS BACK. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF THE SAID CERTIFICATE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR VERIFICATION. FURTHER, T HE ASSESSEES PRESENT APPLICATION DT. 26.08.2008 IS RE JECTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, VISAKHAPATNAM AS DISCUSSED SUPRA. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE EXPLANATION FILED IN THIS REGARD I S NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE I S TREATED AS AOP. (EMPHASIS OWN) 5.2. THE LD. CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AS HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED B Y THE ASSESSEE DO NOT CATEGORICALLY PROVE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT BOTH THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT CORRECT IN ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT R EGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. 5.3. ON AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR G RANT OF FRESH REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT ON 31.01.2008 IN FORM 10A, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, VISAKHA PATNAM IN HIS PROCEEDINGS F.NO.TECH/115/CIT-1/VSP/2007-08 DT.21.07.2008 AT PARA-3 HELD AS FOLLOWS : 3. . . . . . FURTHER, THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW STATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION EARLIER. SINCE THE SAID REGISTRATION C ERTIFICATE GOT MISPLACED THE TRUST HAS FILED ITS APPLICATION FOR R EGISTRATION 5 ITA.NO.595 TO 600/VIZAG/2013 M/S. SHREE KUTCH KADVA PATIDAR SAMAJ, VISAKHAPATNAM U/S.12A AFRESH. THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DOES NOT P ROVIDE FOR REGISTRATION OF A TRUST WHICH IS ALREADY REGIST ERED. 5.4. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE CONFIRMED THIS FACT TO THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, NON-PRODUCTI ON OF THE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WERE MORE T HAN 23 YEAR OLD, IN OUR VIEW, CANNOT BE A CIRCUMSTANCE TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REGISTERED UNDE R SECTION 12A OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DENY EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IS REQUIRED T O MAINTAIN THE RECORDS AND WHEN THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VISAKHAPATNAM CONFIRMS THAT REGISTRATION UNDER SECT ION 12A WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE, AS CLAIMED BY IT VIDE REF. NO. III-73/85- 86 DATED 05.01.1987, THE QUESTION OF COMING TO CONT RARY CONCLUSION CANNOT BE COUNTENANCE. HENCE, IN OUR VIE W, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING EXEMPTI ON TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. 5.5. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REG ISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT AND AS THIS REGISTRATI ON HAS NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTI ON UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. 5.6. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED AN APPLICATION UNDE R RULE 29 OF THE I.T. RULES WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED SOCIETY CARRYING ON CHA RITABLE ACTIVITIES. ONE OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RE LATES TO PURCHASE OF LAND ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS CONSTRUCTED A KALYANAMANDAPAM AND THE INCOME REALIZ ED THERETO IS USED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 6 ITA.NO.595 TO 600/VIZAG/2013 M/S. SHREE KUTCH KADVA PATIDAR SAMAJ, VISAKHAPATNAM WHEREAS, THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE SOCIETY FROM OUT OF ITS FUNDS IN THE YEAR 1986 AND THE REGISTRATION WAS DONE IN THE NAMES OF THE THEN TRUSTEES. THE REASON BEING, A T THAT RELEVANT TIME THEY WERE INFORMED THAT THE SOCIETY C ANNOT ACQUIRE LAND IN ITS NAME UNLESS IT IS REGISTERED WI TH INCOME TAX DEPT. A KALYANAMANDAPAM HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE LAND IN A.Y 02-03 & 03-04. SINCE LAND WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE SOCIET IES EXECUTIVE MEMBERS THE SAME HAS BECOME MATTER OF CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT-2 RESULTING IN DISPUTED ADDITIONS. WHEREAS, THE COMMITTEE OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAVI NG REALIZED OF THIS IN NOV'09 MOVED THE DISTRICT COURT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LOK ADALAT FOR CONFERRING THE TITL E IN THE NAME OF THE SOCIETY. ACCORDINGLY, AN ORDER TO THIS EFFECT WAS PASSED BY LOK ADALAT ON 2 N NOV'10. WHEREAS, THE ASST. PROCEEDINGS FOR ALL THE YEARS AS ABOVE COMMENCED IN FEB'09 AND WERE COMPLETED IN DEC'09 BY WHICH TIME THE ABOV E PROCEEDINGS OF THE LOK ADALAT WERE NOT IN ITS EXIST ENCE. HOWEVER, WHEN THE MATTER REACHED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE CASE IN JAN '13 TO JULY'13 THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTS PERTAIN ING TO LAND TRANSFERRED THROUGH LOK ADALAT AND MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT, PLACED IN PAPER BOOK PAGE-33 TO 43, FIL ED BEFORE ITAT. THIS ASPECT IS DEALT BY CIT(A) AT PAGE -4, PARA-4 AND PAGE-7, PARA-4.6. IN AS MUCH AS THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT IN EXIST ENCE AT THE TIME THE PROCEEDINGS WERE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND IN AS MUCH AS THE LEARNED CIT(A), THOUGH THESE DOCU MENTS WERE FILED BEFORE HIM, DID NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF T HIS, AS REFERRED IN PARA-4.6 OF HIS ORDER, IT IS HUMBLY PRA YED THAT THIS HON'BLE BENCH IS REQUESTED TO CONSIDERED AND A DMIT THIS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 5.7. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS, WE FIND TH E AWARD OF LOK-ADALAT AT VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 02.11.20 10 IS AS FOLLOWS : THE PLAINTIFF FILED THE ABOVE SUIT AGAINST THE DEF ENDANTS FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS THE ABSOLUTE OW NER OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND FOR CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANTS OR ANYBODY CLAIMING UNDER THEM FROM INTERFERING WITH THE PLAIN TIFF'S 7 ITA.NO.595 TO 600/VIZAG/2013 M/S. SHREE KUTCH KADVA PATIDAR SAMAJ, VISAKHAPATNAM PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SCHEDULE P ROPERTY AND FOR COSTS. PLAINT PRESENTED ON 20.07.2010. VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE COURT FEE AND JURISDIC TION IS RS.1,09,20,000/-AND A COURT FEE OF RS.1,11,626/- IS PAID U/SEC. 24 (B) SCH.I ART. I (B) AND (C) OF APCF AND SV ACT. THIS SUIT WAS REFERRED TO LOK ADAIAT AT THE REQUEST OF BOTH PARTIES, BY THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPAT NAM. THIS SUIT IS COMING ON 02-11-2010 FOR FINAL SETTLEM ENT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS, .SRI. D. DAKSHINA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF AND OF SRI. P.V. RAM A RAO, ADVOCATE FOR THE DEFENDANTS. AFTER DUE MEDIATION AN D CONCILIATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BOTH PARTIES TO T HE SUIT HAVE AGREED FOR AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AND FILED TERMS OF COMPROMISE WITH FREE WILL AND VOLITION. HENCE, THE FOLLOWING AWARD IS PASSED AS PER THE SETTLEMENT ARRIVED BY TH E PARTIES. AWARD U/S.21 OF LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 & AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4 & 6 TO 9 AL ONG WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL PRESENT. AFTER DUE MEDIATI ON AND CONCILIATION, THE MATTER IS SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADAI AT WITH THE FOLLOWING: TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. ALL THE DEFENDANTS AGREED AND ACCEPTED THAT THE PLA INTIFF SOCIETY IS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND THAT DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4 AND 6 AND THE DECEASED 5 TH DEFENDANT WERE ONLY STANDING IN FIDUCIARY CAPACITY WHILE OBTAINING SALE DEEDS. 2. ALL THE DEFENDANTS AGREED THAT THEY WILL NOT INTERF ERE WITH POSSESSION OF ONE PLAINTIFF IN RESPECT OF THE 'SCHE DULE PROPERTY. 3. BOTH PARTIES SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS. BOTH PARTIES AGREED FOR THE ABOVE TERMS OF COMPROMI SE. AWARD IS PASSED ACCORDINGLY IN TERMS OF COMPROMISE. 8 ITA.NO.595 TO 600/VIZAG/2013 M/S. SHREE KUTCH KADVA PATIDAR SAMAJ, VISAKHAPATNAM COURT FEE PAID BY THE PLAINTIFF/S SHALL BE REFUNDED TO THE PLAINTIFF/S BY THE COURT BEFORE WHICH, THE PROCEEDI NGS HAVE BEEN PENDING U/S.2I(L) R/W.SEC.25 OF THE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 AND IT SHALL NOT FOR M PART OF THE COSTS PAYABLE BY THE DEFENDANTS. BOTH PARTIES HAVE AFFIXED THEIR SIGNATURES IN EVIDE NCE OF THEIR CONSENT FOR THE TERMS OF AWARD. 5.8. FURTHER, A PERUSAL OF THE COPIES OF PROPERTY TAX RECEIPTS DEMONSTRATES THAT THE BUILDING IN QUESTION IS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. ANY HOW AS WE HAVE AL READY HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WRONG IN DENYING EXE MPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE I.T . ACT, 1961, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE US AND ARGUMENTS ON THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DIS CUSSION, ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE HEREBY DELETED AND THE GROUNDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.03.2015. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 03 RD MARCH, 2015. VBP/- 9 ITA.NO.595 TO 600/VIZAG/2013 M/S. SHREE KUTCH KADVA PATIDAR SAMAJ, VISAKHAPATNAM COPY TO 1. M/S. SHREE KUTCH KADVA PATIDAR SAMAJ, D.NO.58-1- 425, SHANTI NAGAR, NEAR NAD KOTHA ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 009. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM 4. CIT-II, VISAKHAPATNAM 5. D.R. ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE //BY ORDER // ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM.