Chandana Brothers (General Bazaar Branch), V. Addl.CIT, Rajahmundry

ITA 86/VIZ/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67370 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SASMAL
• Keywords: Notional interest
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.85 & 86/VIZAG/2009 - CHANDANA BROTHERS, H YDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.85/VIZAG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 CHANDANA BROTHERS, B.O. AMEERPET HYDERABAD ADDL. CIT RAJAHMUNDRY RANGE RAJAHMUNDRY (APPELLANT) PAN NO: AADFC 6522G VS. (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.86/VIZAG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 CHANDANA BROTHERS, B.O. GENERAL BAZAR SECUNDERABAD ADDL. CIT RAJAHMUNDRY RANGE RAJAHMUNDRY (APPELLANT) PAN NO: AABFC 4966G VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI B. SASMAL, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 29.04.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.05.2013 ORDER PER SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEALS FILED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY LD CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY IN THEIR RE SPECTIVE HANDS AND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. SINCE CERTAIN ISSUES URGED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE, WE HEARD THESE APPEALS TOGETHE R AND ACCORDINGLY THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE. 2. BOTH THE PARTIES ARE AGITATING THE DECISION TAKEN BY LD CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:- (A) DISALLOWANCE OF FREIGHT CHARGES BY INVOKING SE C. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT (B) ADDITION OF INTEREST CALCULATED ON LOANS AND A DVANCES BALANCES. ITA NOS.85 & 86/VIZAG/2009 - CHANDANA BROTHERS, H YDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 7 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ABOVE SAID ISSUES ARE STATED IN BRIEF. BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE ENGAGED IN TEXTILE BUSINESS. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTICED THAT THESE ASSES SEES HAVE PAID FREIGHT CHARGES WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C OF THE ACT AND HENCE HE DISALLOWED THE SAID CLAIM BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THESE ASSESSEES HAVE PAID INTEREST FREE ADVANC ES TO CERTAIN CONCERNS, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE PAYING INTEREST ON THE LOANS OBTAI NED BY THEM FROM BANKS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO COMPUTED THE INTEREST ON THE LO ANS AND ADVANCES @ 15.5% AND ASSESSED THE SAME IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HANDS. THE L D CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON BOTH THE ISSUES CITED A BOVE IN THE HANDS OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES. 4. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE M ADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO LD A.R, THE ASSESSEES HEREIN ARE USED TO PURCHASE CLOTHS IN BULK QUANTITIES FROM MUMBAI, AHMEDABAD, SURAT AND OTHER PLACES AND THE SUPPLIERS OF SUCH GOODS USUALLY DISPATCH THE GOODS THROUGH THE T RANSPORT AGENCIES. THUS, THE SUPPLIERS ONLY SELECT THE TRANSPORT AGENCIES, FINAL ISES THE TERMS AND THEN DISPATCH THE GOODS. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE LD A.R, THESE ASSESS EES DID NOT ENTER INTO ANY CONTRACT WITH THE TRANSPORT AGENCIES AND HENCE THER E IS NO LIABILITY FOR THE ASSESSEES HEREIN TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE FREIGHT CHARG ES PAID BY THEM, AS THEY ARE MAKING PAYMENTS ONLY ON BEHALF OF THE SUPPLIERS. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THESE ASSESSEES HAVE USED THE TRANSPORT SERVICES OF THE TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS AND HENCE IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE LORRIES ARE BOOKED BY THE SUPPLIER OR THE ASSESSEES HEREIN. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSPORT BILLS/RECEIPTS BY THEMSELVES CONSTITU TE A CONTRACT AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURC E ON THE FREIGHT CHARGES PAID BY IT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISSUE AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. WE AGREE WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY LD CIT (A) THAT THE TRANSPORT BILLS/VOUCHERS BY THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT. HOWEVER, THE QUESTION THAT ARISES ITA NOS.85 & 86/VIZAG/2009 - CHANDANA BROTHERS, H YDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 7 HERE IS WHETHER THERE WAS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE AS SESSEES HEREIN AND THE TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE P RESENT CASE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEES, THE SUPPLIERS THEMSELVES DISPATCH THE GO ODS TO THEM BY ENGAGING THE LORRIES AT THEIR END. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSES SEES, THE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE SUPPLIERS AND THE TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS AND NOT BET WEEN HIM AND THE TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS. 7. IN OUR VIEW, THE PARTIES TO A CONTRACT HAV E TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES. MERE PAYMENT OF FREIGHT CH ARGES, BY ITSELF, CANNOT CONSTITUTE CONTRACTUAL PAYMENTS SO AS TO ATTRACT THE PROVISION S OF SEC. 194C OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, THE FACT THAT THE SUPPLIERS HAVE ONLY EN GAGED LORRIES DOES NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE CONTRACT EXISTS BETWEEN THE SUPPLIERS AND LORRY OWNERS ONLY. WE SHALL ELABORATE FURTHER THIS POINT. IF A SUPPLIER ENGAGE S LORRIES TO TRANSPORT GOODS ON HIS OWN VOLITION, THEN IT MAY BE SAID THAT THE CONTRACT EXISTS BETWEEN THE SUPPLIER AND THE TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF HE ENGAGES THE LORRIES ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE BUYERS, THEN HE IS ACTING AS TH E AGENT OF THE BUYERS ONLY AND IN THAT CASE, THE CONTRACT ACTUALLY EXISTS BETWEEN THE BUYERS AND THE TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS. IF THE BUYERS THEMSELVES ENGAGES THE LORRIES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS, THEN THERE MAY NOT BE ANY CONFUSION AS TO TH E FACT THAT THE CONTRACT EXISTS BETWEEN THE BUYERS AND THE TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS. 8. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSE SSEES HEREIN HAVE REITERATED THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT INSTRUCTED THE SUPPLIERS TO DISP ATCH THE GOODS IN A PARTICULAR LORRY OR AGENCY. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEES, THE SUPPLI ERS THEMSELVES HAVE ENGAGED THE LORRIES FOR SENDING GOODS TO THEM. THE LD CIT(A) H AS HELD AS UNDER ON THIS MATTER:- ADMITTEDLY, THE TRANSPORT SERVICES HAD BEEN PROVID ED BY VARIOUS TRANSPORTERS, AS EVIDENT FROM COPIES OF TRANSPORT CHARGES RECEIPT S/BILLS AND THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE PAYMENTS WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH RECEIPTS/B ILLS. IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE APPELLANT NEVER DIRECTED THE SUPPLIERS TO DISPA TCH GOODS THROUGH A PARTICULAR TRANSPORTER OR THAT THE SUPPLIER OF GOOD S ENTRUSTED THE JOB OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE APPELLANTS GOODS TO VARIOUS TRANSPORTERS DEPENDING UPON THE WILLINGNESS AND READINESS OF A PARTICULAR TRANS PORTER AT THE GIVEN POINT OF TIME TO TRANSPORT THE GOODS OF THE APPELLANT AT A C OST AGREEABLE TO THE APPELLANT, SINCE, EVENTUALLY, A PARTICULAR TRANSPOR TER DELIVERS GOODS AT THE APPELLANTS PREMISES AND THE APPELLANT PAYS THE FRE IGHT CHARGES TO THE ITA NOS.85 & 86/VIZAG/2009 - CHANDANA BROTHERS, H YDERABAD PAGE 4 OF 7 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TRANSPORTER (WHETHER THE DRIV ER OR ANYBODY ELSE) IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH DELIVERY OF GOODS HENCE, TH ERE DOES EXIST UNAMBIGUOUS CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VA RIOUS TRANSPORTERS, (WHO FREIGHTED THE GOODS OF THE APPELLANT FOR WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS PAID THE AGREED TRANSPORT CHARGES), AND THE APPELLANT. WE NOTICE THAT THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY LD CIT(A) IS N OT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LEGAL POSITION DISCUSSED BY US IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH ON THE IMPUGNED MATTER. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT RE BUTTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES HEREIN THAT THEY HAVE NOT INSTRUCTED THE SUPPLIERS TO DISPATCH THE GOODS BY A PARTICULAR AGENCY. IT WAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECO RD THAT THE ASSESSEES HEREIN HAVE ONLY REQUESTED THE SUPPLIERS TO DISPATCH THE GOODS BY LORRIES. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT MERE PAYMENTS OF LORRY FREIGHTS, BY ITSELF, CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEES HEREIN AND THE TRANSPORT AGENCIES. ACCORDINGLY, IN OUR VIEW, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40 (A)(IA) CANNOT BE INVOKED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE CASES. ACCORDINGL Y, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN BOTH THE CASES. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT OF INTEREST ON LOANS AND ADVANCES. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEES HEREIN HAVE PAID INTEREST FREE LOANS AND ADVANCES TO CERTAIN PARTIES WITH WHOM THEY DID NOT HAVE BUSI NESS DEALINGS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALCULATED INTEREST @ 15.75% AND ASSESSED THE SAME IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED T HE SAME. 10. THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEES HEREIN ARE HAVING HUGE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND FURTHER THE INT EREST BEARING FUNDS ARE MEAGER OUT OF THE TOTAL FUNDS EMPLOYED IN THE BUSINESS. A DVERTING OUR ATTENTION TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE SE ASSESSEES HAVE AVAILED SPECIFIC PURPOSE BUSINESS LOANS LIKE CASH CREDITS AND TERM L OANS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH CREDIT LOAN CONSTITUTE MAJOR PORTION OF LOAN, WHICH IS GIVEN FOR PURCHASE OF BUSINESS STOCK. THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE IN CASH CREDIT ACCO UNT IS FAR LESS THAN THE CLOSING STOCK VALUE AND HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AS SESSEES HEREIN HAVE DIVERTED THE CASH CREDIT LOAN FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADVANCE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ITA NOS.85 & 86/VIZAG/2009 - CHANDANA BROTHERS, H YDERABAD PAGE 5 OF 7 TERM LOANS ARE GRANTED FOR PURCHASE OF ASSETS AND H ENCE THOSE LOANS CANNOT ALSO BE DIVERTED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT, SINCE THE ASS ESSEE IS HAVING BOTH INTEREST FREE AND INTEREST BEARING FUNDS, THEN THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE INTEREST FREE LOANS WERE GIVEN OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS ONLY. IN THIS REG ARD, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD (2009)(313 ITR 340). THE LD COUNSEL FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THESE TWO CASES, HAS NOT DISA LLOWED A PORTION OF INTEREST CLAIM, BUT INSTEAD, HAS CALCULATED NOTIONAL INTEREST ON TH E LOANS AND ADVANCES AND ASSESSED THE SAME. THIS IS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT THE I NTEREST ASSESSED IN BOTH THE CASES IS MORE THAN THE INTEREST ACTUALLY PAID BY THESE AS SESSEES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT RIGHT IN LAW IN ASSESSING NOTIONAL INTEREST AND FOR THAT PROPOSITION HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF H ONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HIGHWAYS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD VS. CIT (199 ITR 702). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLL OWED THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF T.RAMACHANDRA PRA BHU IN ITA NOS. 482 & 483/V/2006 & ITA NO.509/V/2007). 11. THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A LSO BOOKED EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD BANK COMMISSION BESIDES INTEREST PAYMENTS AND IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE BANK COMMISSION INCLUDES INTEREST PAYMENT OR NOT. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISSUE. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSESSED FOLLOWING AMOUNTS IN THE CASES UNDER CONSIDERATION. CHANDANA BROS. (AMEERPET) (ITA NO.85/V/2011) - RS .21,63,711/- CHANDANA BROS (GENERAL BAZAAR) (ITA NO.86/V/2011) RS.7,81,988/- THE INTEREST PAID BY THESE TWO CONCERNS, AS NOTICED FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED BY THEM, IS RS.3,86,560/- AND RS.7,82,378/- R ESPECTIVELY. WE NOTICE THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE AVAILED LOANS FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IT REPRESENTS CASH CREDIT LOAN. WE FURTH ER NOTICE THAT THE CLOSING STOCK HELD BY THESE TWO PARTIES IS MORE THAN THE CASH CREDIT L OAN, MEANING THEREBY THE CASH CREDIT LOAN HAS BEEN FULLY UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. M/S CHANDANA BROS (GENERAL BAZAR) HAS AVAILED CAR LOAN AND THERE SHOU LD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE CAR ITA NOS.85 & 86/VIZAG/2009 - CHANDANA BROTHERS, H YDERABAD PAGE 6 OF 7 LOAN COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIVERTED. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE HAVING SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS. H ENCE THERE IS A FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTEREST FREE A DVANCES HAVE BEEN GIVEN OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS. 13. IN THE CASE OF CHANDANA BROS (AMEERPET), TH E INTEREST ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FAR MORE THAN THE INTEREST EXP ENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SAID CASE, THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE REPRESEN TED ONLY THE INTEREST PAID TO M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA TOWARDS THE CASH CREDIT LOAN. IN THE CASE OF CHANDANA BROS (GENERAL BAZAAR), MAJOR PORTION OF INTEREST PAID IS TO STATE BANK OF INDIA C.C ACCOUNT AND ICICI BANK CAR LOAN. FURTHER THERE IS INTEREST PAYMENT TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT RS.1.95 LAKHS TO TWO OTHER PERSONS. THESE FACTUAL A SPECTS SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY CALCULATED NOTIONAL INTEREST ON TH E INTEREST FREE LOANS AND ADVANCES. IN THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE VIZ., H IGHWAYS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (199 ITR 702), THE HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, IN THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HAS HELD AS UNDER: THERE IS NO FINDING OF THE FACT TO THE EFFECT THAT ACTUALLY LOAN HAD BEEN GRANTED TO MANAGING DIRECTOR OR ANY OTHER PERSON ON INTEREST, OR THAT INTEREST HAD ACTUALLY BEEN COLLECTED AND THE COLLECTION OF T HE INTEREST WAS NOT REFLECTED ON THE ACCOUNTS. THE FINDING OF THE ITO IS THAT TH E ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE COLLECTED INTEREST. IN OTHER WORDS, IN THE VIEW OF THE ITO WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE AS A GOOD BU SINESS CONCERN SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED INTEREST FREE LOAN, OR SHOULD HAVE INS ISTED ON PAYMENT OF INTEREST. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BARGAINED FOR IN TEREST, OR HAD NOT COLLECTED INTEREST, ONE FAILS TO SEE HOW THE IT AUTHORITIES C AN FIX A NOTIONAL INTEREST AS DUE, OR COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ATTENTION HAS N OT BEEN INVITED TO ANY PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT EMPOWERING THE IT AUTHORIT IES TO INCLUDE IN THE INCOME INTEREST WHICH WAS NOT DUE OR NOT COLLECTED. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED TO ASS ESS INTEREST ON NOTIONAL BASIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN BOTH THE CASES. ITA NOS.85 & 86/VIZAG/2009 - CHANDANA BROTHERS, H YDERABAD PAGE 7 OF 7 14. IN THE CASE OF CHANDA BROTHERS (AMEERPET), THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ONE MORE GROUND RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF A PORTION OF PHA MPLETS EXPENSES. SINCE THESE EXPENSES WERE SUPPORTED BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED A PORTION OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIM AND THE SAME WAS C ONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT(A). BEFORE US NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED TO REBUT THE FINDI NGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTER FERE WITH HIS DECISION ON THIS ISSUE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE NUMBE RED AS ITA 85/V/09 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE OTHER APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.05.2013. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (B R BASKARAN ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT M EMBER VISAKHAPATNAM, DATE: 3 RD MAY, 2013 VG/SPS COPY TO 1 M/S. CHANDANA BROTHERS (AMEERPET) B.O.S AMEERPET, HYDERABAD, H.O. 45-12-17/1, CHANDANA CLOTH COMPLEX, TADITHOTA, RAJA HMUNDRY 2 M/S. CHANDANA BROTHERS (GENERAL BAZAR), B.O. GENE RAL BAZAR, SECUNDARABAD, H.P. TADITHOTA, RAJAHMUNDRY 3 THE ADDL. CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY RANGE, RAJAHMUNDRY 4 5 THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY THE CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY 6 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 7 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM