Kilari Venkata Rosaiah, Guntur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

ITA 608/VIZ/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0909 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S RAVI SHANKAR NARAYAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Capital asset; Retrospective amendment; Revised return; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; TDS; Set aside; Capital Gains; FORM 26AS
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 201; 143(2); 147; 148

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. 60 8 /VIZ/201 8 ( / A SSESSMENT Y EAR : 20 1 1 - 1 2 ) KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH D.NO.25 - 16 - 180 G.T.ROAD, AMC YARD GUNTUR [PAN : ADSPK7598L] VS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1(1) GUNTUR ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHR I G.V.N.HARI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI S.RAVI SHANKAR NARAYAN, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 1 6 .0 3 .2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 .0 6 . 20 20 / O R D E R P ER SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : TH IS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] - 1 , GUNTUR IN A PPEAL NO. 10 6 /201 4 - 1 5 DATED 21 . 0 3 .201 4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 201 1 - 1 2 . 2 I.T.A. NO. 608/VIZ/2018, A.Y.2011 - 12 KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH, GUNTUR 2. GROUND NO.1 AND 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 3. GROUND NO.2 IS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) STATED TO BE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF REASSESSMENT PROVISIONS , SINCE NO ADDITION WAS RESULTED ON THE REASONS RECORDED. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT , THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.30,37,440/ - ON 06.02.2012. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(1), SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF RENTS RECEIVED FROM M/S NRI ACADEMY AND M/S RELIANCE INFRA LTD. , TOTALING TO RS.19,37,640/ - AND ISS UED THE NOTICE U/S 148 AFTER DULY RECORDING THE REASONS. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER STATING THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME ALREADY FILED ON 06.02.2012 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148. SUB SEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) W ERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.45,87,650/ - . IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION REPR ESENTING THE SHORT ADMISSION OF CAPITAL GAINS . NO ADDITION WAS RESULTED RELATING TO THE RENTAL INCOME WHICH WAS BELIEVED TO BE ESCAPED FROM THE ASSESSMENT AS PER THE 3 I.T.A. NO. 608/VIZ/2018, A.Y.2011 - 12 KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH, GUNTUR REASONS RECORDED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND AGITATED THE ISSUE. I N THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE REASON FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ON ACCOUNT OF NON DISCLOSURE OF RENTAL INCOME FROM NRI ACADEMY WHICH PERTAINED TO HUF BUT NOT RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THE RENTAL INCOME WAS DECLARED IN HUF AND ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF HUF. SINCE NO ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 148 IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, WITH REGARD TO RENTAL INCOME, THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO CASE FOR MAKING ANOTHER ADDITION. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF RE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) WITHOUT MAKING THE ADDITIONS RELATING TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD.CIT(A) CO NSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPEAL HEARING AND CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT, THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF M/S MOOKAMBIKA DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE (ITA NO.374/2014 DATED 27.07.2015. 5. AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR NON ADMISSI ON OF RENTAL RECEIPTS FROM M/S NRI ACADEMY 4 I.T.A. NO. 608/VIZ/2018, A.Y.2011 - 12 KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH, GUNTUR AND M/S RELIANCE INFRA LIMITED OF RS.19,37,640/ - . THE SAID RENTAL RECEIPTS WERE RELATED TO THE HUF AND ASSESSED SEPARATELY IN HUF STATUS. THE RENTS RECEIVED FROM BOTH THE TENANTS W ERE DULY ADMITTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN HUF STATUS, THEREFORE, ISSU ING NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS BAD IN LAW. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO IN REPLY TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 AND ALSO BEFORE THE A O VIDE ASSESSEES LETTER 04.11.2013 PLACED IN PAPER BOOK IN PAGE NO.37 AND 38. THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HA D ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS UNDER MISTAKEN IMPRESSION AND THE SAID RECEIPTS D OES NOT BELONG TO THE ASS ESSEE. THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT T H E AO OUGHT TO HAVE DROPPED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON RECEIPT OF REPLY FROM THE ASSESSEE , THE AO DROPPED THE PROPOSED ADDITION, BUT MADE THE ADDITION RELATI NG TO SHORT ADMISSION OF CAPITAL GAINS . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION FOR WHICH THE REASONS WERE RECORDED, THE AO IS NOT PERMITTED TO MAKE ANY OTHER ADDITION AS DECIDED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SWARNA ANDHRA IIJMI INTEGRATED TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. IN ITTA NO.165/2014 DATED 12.03.2014 AND ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSMENT REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE 5 I.T.A. NO. 608/VIZ/2018, A.Y.2011 - 12 KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH, GUNTUR ASSESSEE. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WAS RELATING TO KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH ( HUF ) , BUT NOT KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH ( INDIVIDUAL ) , THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT SINCE TH E VERY BELIEF FOR FORMING THE REASON TO BELIEVE TH E INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HA D ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS NOT RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS BAD IN LAW AND REQUESTED TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER FORM 26AS , THE ASSESSEE WAS PAID THE RENTAL INCOME OF RS.19,05,900/ - FROM M/S NRI ACADEMY AND RS.31,740/ - FROM M/S RELIANCE INFRA LTD. WHICH WAS NOT ADMITTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADMIT THE RENTAL INCOME IN HIS HANDS. THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS PERFECTLY IN ORDER. THE LD.DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T ENQUIRY WAS CAUSED WITH M/S NRI ACAD EMY ON 19.11 .2013 BY ISSUE OF LETTER U/S 133(6), WHEREIN NRI ACADEMY CLARIFIED THAT THE LAND AND ACC SHEDS WERE LEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RUNNING INTERMEDIATE CLASSES FROM THE ASSESSEE ON A RENT OF RS.30,000/ - PER MONTH AND THE NRI ACADEMY DEDUCTED TDS @30 % AND PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. WHILE FILING E - TDS RETURN, RENT WAS SHOWN AT RS.19,05,900/ - AND TDS OF RS.1,90,596/ - IN THE ACCOUNT OF SRI KILARI VENKATA 6 I.T.A. NO. 608/VIZ/2018, A.Y.2011 - 12 KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH, GUNTUR ROSAIAH , I T WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE NRI ACADEMY THAT RENT OF RS.19,05,900/ - WAS PAID TO VA RIOUS PERSONS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. THE MISTAKE WAS RECTIFIED SUBSEQUENTLY BY FILING E - REVISED RETURNS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO DROPPED THE ISSUE AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE RELATING TO THE RENTS. SINCE THE PAN OF THE ASSESSEE WA S MENTIONED IN THE 26AS, THE AO BELIEVED THAT INCOME WAS RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS VALID. THE LD.DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPE NED FOR NON ADMISSION OF RENTAL INCOME AND THE ADDITION WAS NOT MADE ON RENTAL INCOME AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO REGARDING ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET AND THE SAME WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. SINCE THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS VALID , AFTER INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 147, THE AO IS PERMITTED TO MAKE THE ADDITION ON ANY OTHER ISSUE WHICH COMES TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT THE AO RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION WITH REGARD TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, HENCE, REQUESTED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MEHAK FINVEST (P.) LTD. [2014] 52 7 I.T.A. NO. 608/VIZ/2018, A.Y.2011 - 12 KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH, GUNTUR TAXMANN.COM 51 (PUNJAB & HARYANA) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 3 VS. JAKHOTIA PLASTICS (P.) LTD. [2018] 94 TAXMANN.CO M 89 (DELHI) AND REQUESTED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE AO AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 06.02.2012 AND SU BSEQUENTLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WITH REGARD TO RENTAL RECEIPTS STATED TO BE RECEIVED FROM M/S NRI ACADEMY AND M/S RELIANCE INFRA LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.19,37,640/ - . THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE RENTS RECEI VED FROM NRI ACADEMY AND RELIANCE INFRA LTD, HENCE BELIEVED THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HA D ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT. FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE TDS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.30,752/ - AS AGAINST THE TD S STATED TO BE DEDUCTED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,90,900/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CLARIFIED THAT THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED WAS NOT RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT RELATED TO THE HUF WHICH WAS ASSESSED TO TAX SEPARATELY. T HE RENTAL INCOME WAS ADMITTED IN THE HUF RETURN. ON AN ENQUIRY FROM NRI ACADEMY, IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT BY MISTAKE THE RENT WAS SHOWN IN THE NAME 8 I.T.A. NO. 608/VIZ/2018, A.Y.2011 - 12 KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH, GUNTUR OF SRI KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH AND LETTER FILED THE REVISED TDS RETURN. THE AO ALSO DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION IN RESPECT OF RENTAL INCOME. THE ABOVE FACTS SHOWS THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN FORM 26AS, WHICH WAS ISSUED BY THE DEDUCTOR AND THE SAID INCOME WAS NOT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE . TDS ALSO WAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN IT S HANDS. THE BASIS FOR BELIEV ING THE REASON FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT IS WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL OR APPLICATION OF MIND. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE MADE THE VERIFICATION OF ALL THESE ASPECTS BEFORE CON CLUD ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE REASON TO BELIEVE THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE , REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. FURTHER AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION REPRESENTING THE RENTAL INCOME , BUT PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF OTHER ISSUES I.E. CAPITAL GAINS. THE LD.AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SWARNA ANDHRA IJMII INTEGRATED TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., WHEREIN, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT HELD THAT EXPLANATION 3 WILL BE APPLICABLE TO SECTION 147 IN CASE WHERE LIVE ISSUE, WHICH WAS SUBSISTING AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND IF SUCH ISSUE HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT OF AO, CAN BE A GROUND FOR REOPENING. ANY NEW ISSUE THAT HAS C ROPPED UP SUBSEQUENTLY ON NEW SET OF FACTS HAS NO APPLICATION. FOR THE 9 I.T.A. NO. 608/VIZ/2018, A.Y.2011 - 12 KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH, GUNTUR SAKE OF CLARITY AND CONVENIENCE WE EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS UNDER : WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPLANATION - 3 TO SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DOES NOT APPLY. MOREOVER, IN WHICH CASE AND WHEN EXPLANATION - 3 WOULD BE APPLICABLE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS NAME LY, BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.JET AIRWAYS (I) LTD., (331 ITR 236); DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VS. CIT (336 ITR 136), CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MAJO DEEPAK MEHTA (344 ITR 641) AND GUJARAT HI GH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. MOHAMED JUNED DADANI. IN VIEW OF THE CONSISTENT DECISI O N OF THESE HIGH COURTS, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO TAKE A DIFFERENT V IEW AND THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THOSE HIGH COURTS. EVEN, WE FIND THAT INDEPENDENT OF THE DECISION OF THOSE HIGH COURTS THAT THE EXPLANATION - 3 WILL BE APPLICABLE IN CASE WHERE LIVE ISSUE, WHICH WAS SUBSISTING AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND IF SUCH ISSUE HAS ESCAPED THE DETERMINATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CAN BE A GROUND FOR REOPENING, ANY NEW ISSUE THAT HAS CROPPED UP SUBSEQUENTLY ON NEW SET OF FACTS, THE AFORESAID EXPLANATION HAS NO APPLICATION. WE THINK THAT THE EXPLANATION - 3 HAS NOT REALLY DILUTED CARDINAL OBJECT OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR REOPENIN G. THE EXPLANATION - 3, HAS BEEN GIVEN A RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT WITH AN IDEA THERE ARE SO MANY ASSESS M ENT ORDERS, WHICH WERE PASSED EARLIER WITHOUT DECIDING THE ISSUE SUBSISTING AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THIS EXPLANATION HAS HELD TO BE REOPENED IN TH OSE CAS ES. 7.1. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON THE BELIEF THAT RENTAL INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. WHEREAS THE RENTAL INCOME DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND BELONGED TO THE HUF OF THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THE PAN NUMBER OF THE ASSESSEE IS MENTIONED IN THE 26AS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE TDS IN THE RETURN. THESE ISSUES CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW, ACCORDINGLY WE QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148. T HE 10 I.T.A. NO. 608/VIZ/2018, A.Y.2011 - 12 KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH, GUNTUR ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SWARNA ANDHRA IJMII INTEGRATED TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMEN T PVT. LTD., RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, WE HOLD THAT ONCE THE ADDITIONS ARE NOT MADE ON THE ISSUE FOR WHICH THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED, THE AO IS NOT PERMITTED TO MAKE ANY OTHER ADDITION , ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 5 TH JUNE , 2020. SD/ - SD/ - ( . ) ( . . ) (V. DURGA RAO) ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM /DATED : 05. 06. 20 20 L.RAMA, SPS 11 I.T.A. NO. 608/VIZ/2018, A.Y.2011 - 12 KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH, GUNTUR / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1 . / THE ASSESSEE KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH, D.NO.25 - 16 - 180, G.T.ROAD, AMC YARD, GUNTUR 2 . / THE REVENUE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), GUNTUR 3. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GUNTUR 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 , GUNTUR 5 . , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INITIALS 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER SR.PS 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER SR. PS 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER SR. PS 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER SR. PS 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR. PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE OS B.CLK 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE SR.PS OS 10 DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER SR. PS