M/s Dredging Corporation of India Limited, Visakhapatnam V. The DCIT, Circle-6(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 9/VIZ/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56777 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TH LUCAS PETER
• Section: 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

ITA NOS 9 TO 11 OF 2011 DREDGING CORPORATION OF IND IA VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.9 TO 11/VIZAG/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2008 - 09 TO 2010 - 11 M/S DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM VS. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1) VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) PAN NO:AAACD 6021 B (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI T.H. LUCAS PETER, CIT (DR) ORDER PER SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 16.11.2010 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), VI SAKHAPATNAM AND THEY RELATE TO THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10. SINCE THE ISSUE URGED IN THESE APPEALS IS IDENTICAL IN NATURE, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS SEVEN GROUNDS IN EACH OF THE APPEAL, ALL OF THEM ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A S INGLE ISSUE NAMELY WHETHER THE CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DEMAND RAISED UNDER SECTION 201(1) FOR SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND ALSO THE INTEREST DEMAND RAISED UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 3. IN THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IS REFERRED TO AS DCIL AND THE PAYEE OF CONTRACT AMOUNT IS REFERRED TO AS DSM. T HE FACTS RELATING TO THE ITA NOS 9 TO 11 OF 2011 DREDGING CORPORATION OF IND IA VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 2 OF 8 ISSUE CONTENDED BEFORE US ARE NARRATED IN BRIEF BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) AS UNDER: 4. THE BACKGROUND FACTS IN THE APPELLANT COMPANY C ASE BRIEFLY STATED ARE THAT IT BEING A GOVT. OF INDIA EN TERPRISE ENGAGED IN THE DREDGING OPERATION AT VARIOUS PORTS IN INDIA AND ABROAD, THE TDS INSPECTION WAS UNDERTAKEN IN TH E ASSESSEES REGISTERED OFFICE PREMISES ON 05.03.2009 IN ORDER TO VERIFY WHETHER IT IS PROPERLY COMPLYING WITH THE TDS PROVISIONS UNDER THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF SUCH INSPECTION IT WAS FOUND INTER ALIA, THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD BEEN PAYING YEAR AFTER YEAR LUMP-SUM AMOUNTS TO ONE MANN ING AGENT M/S DS MARINE (HEREINAFTER CALLED DSM) FOR CA RRYING OUT DREDGING WORK BY ENGAGING THE SERVICES OF HIGHLY TE CHNICAL PERSONNEL. ON FURTHER EXAMINATION IT WAS NOTICED TH AT THE APPELLANT COMPANY TREATED THE PAYMENTS AS MADE TOWA RDS SUPPLY OF LABOUR UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT, AND , ACCORDINGLY, DEDUCTED TAX AT THE RATE OF 2% OF THE GROSS PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PAYEE DSM HAVING RENDERED PROFESSIONAL SER VICE TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY, THE LATTER OUGHT TO HAVE DED UCTED TAX AT THE RATE OF 10% OF THE GROSS PAYMENTS IN TERMS O F THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. WHILE OBSERV ING SO THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDI TIONS STIPULATED IN THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND DSM TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SCREEN THE TECHNICAL ABILITY OF THEIR PERSONNEL OFFERED BY DSM AND, THEREAFTER, SELECT SU CH PERSONNEL, WHICH INDICATED THE NATURE OF THE SERVIC ES BY DSM AS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO THE APPELLANT. ACCORDIN GLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT IN A TABULAR FORM THE QUANTUM OF TAX SHORT DEDUCTED AND THE INTEREST CHARGEABLE O N SUCH SHORT DEDUCTED TAX YEAR WISE AND RAISED TAX DEMANDS UNDER SECTION 201 OF RS.5,09,283/-, RS.7,76,835/- AND RS. 5,36,926/- FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-1 0 RESPECTIVELY, AND INTEREST DEMANDS UNDER SECTION 20 1(1A) OF RS.1,50,929/-, RS.1,50,929/- RS. 1,38,065/- AND RS. /32,520/- FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY WITH REGARD TO DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF P AYMENT TO DSM. FURTHERMORE, IN RESPECT OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 -09, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED INTEREST DEMANDS FOR DELAY ED REMITTANCES OF THE TDS OF RS.1,99,951/- IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS TO FOUR PARTIES TOWARDS PROVISIONS FOR CHA RTERED VESSEL AND ANOTHER AMOUNT OF RS.1,07,734/- IN RESPE CT OF ITS ITA NOS 9 TO 11 OF 2011 DREDGING CORPORATION OF IND IA VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 3 OF 8 MATERIAL ACCOUNTS SECTION. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER RAISED FINANCIAL YEAR WISE AGGREGATE DEMANDS OF RS.6,60,21 2/-, RS.12,22,585/- AND RS.5,69,446/- FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. THUS IT IS SEEN THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S DS MARINE ARE IN THE NATURE OF FEE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, WHICH IS LIABLE FOR TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE UNDER S ECTION 194J OF THE ACT @ 10%. HOWEVER, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS T HAT M/S DS MARINE WAS SIMPLY A MANNING AGENT SUPPLYING TECHNICAL PERS ONNEL AND HENCE THE CONTRACT ENTERED WITH IT IS JUST A LABOUR CONTRACT, WHICH IS LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194C OF TH E ACT AT ONLY 2%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY RAISED DEMAND UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND ALSO CHARGED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. IN THE APPEALS PR EFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS O F THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT TO M/S DS MARINE FOR RENDERING TECHNICAL SERVICES AND HENCE THE TAX IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY HE UPHEL D THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE LEARNE D AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON A LETTER DATE D 11.2.1999 GIVEN BY ITO, W1(7) TDS, CALCUTTA TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SER VICES OF MANNING AGENT IS LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED A.R ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE AGREEMENT E NTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S D.S MARINES, WHEREIN IT IS STA TED THAT THE TAX SHALL BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE LETTER DATED 11.2.1999 REFERRED ABOVE IS NOT A CERTIFICATE ISSUE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 197 OF THE ACT FOR THE YEARS UNDER CO NSIDERATION. HENCE, IN ITA NOS 9 TO 11 OF 2011 DREDGING CORPORATION OF IND IA VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 4 OF 8 OUR VIEW, THE SAID LETTER AS WELL AS THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES CAN NOT OVER RIDE THE APPLICABILITY OF CORRECT PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED ABOUT THE M ODE OF PAYMENT MADE TO THE PERSONNEL EMPLOYED THROUGH D.S MARINE AS UND ER: IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THAT DSM HAS M ERELY SUPPLIED HIGHLY QUALIFIED TECHNICAL PERSONNEL IN RE SPECT OF WHICH IT HAS RECEIVED SERVICE CHARGES AND THERE END ED THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DSM.ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANT MA Y UNDERTAKE DREDGING OPERATIONS ANY NUMBER OF TIMES I N RESPECT OF A PORT DEPENDING UPON THE SPEED/PACE OF THE ACCUMULATION OF SAND/SILT. HENCE, THE MONETARY CON SIDERATION FOR RENDERING OF SUCH TECHNICAL SERVICE HAS BEEN DE TERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO A PERIODIC TIME FRAME VIZ., MONTH LY BASIS, AND NOT WITH REFERENCE TO COMPLETION OF ANY PROJECT . IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT THAT I T IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DSM TO MAKE PAYMENT OF WAGES/SALARIES TO THE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL SELECTED BY THE APPELLANT FOR RENDERING TECHNICAL SERVICE TO TH E APPELLANT IN RETURN FOR MONTHLY LUMP SUM AMOUNTS (SIC PAID) BY THE APPELLANT CALCULATED IN A PRESCRI BED MANNER. THUS, IN CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN MONTHLY PAYMENT S INCLUDING SERVICE CHARGES COMPONENT, DSM RENDERS DE FACTO TECHNICAL SERVICES TO THE APPELLANT. FROM THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY LEARNED CIT(A), IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS MAKING PAYMENT OF LUMP SUM CALC ULATED IN A PRESCRIBED MANNER TO M/S DS MARINE. IT IS THE RESPO NSIBILITY OF M/S DS MARINE TO PAY SALARIES/WAGES TO THE TECHNICAL STAFF S ENGAGED IN THE OPERATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. AT THIS STAGE, IT IS PERTINENT TO EXTRACT THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES FROM THE AGREEMENT DATED 04 TH JULY 2005 ENTERED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S DS MARINE: (8) IT IS DISTINCTLY UNDERSTOOD THAT IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF DSM FOR MAKING PAYMENT OF WAGES TO SUCH SELECTED INDIVI DUAL AS PER THE SALE OF WAGES SET OUT IN THE SAID LETTER OF ENGAGEM ENT AND DCIL SHALL HAVE NOT RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY IN RESPE CT THEREOF. DSM SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF INCOME TAX AND OTHER STATUTORY ITA NOS 9 TO 11 OF 2011 DREDGING CORPORATION OF IND IA VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 5 OF 8 DUES FROM THE WAGES AND THE OTHER ALLOWANCES PAID T O SUCH SELECTED PERSONNEL AND DCIL SHALL HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY OR L IABILITY IN THIS RESPECT. (11) DSM SHALL RAISE MONTHLY INVOICES ON DCIL IN RESPECT OF (A) THE FULLY DAILY WAGES PAYABLE TO THE SELECTED PERSO NNEL FOR THEIR SERVICES RENDERED DURING THE PRECEDING MONTH. (B) SERVICE CHARGES PAYABLE TO DSM CALCULATED AT THE AG REED RATE AS INDICATED IN THE STATEMENT OF DAILY WAGES O N THE AMOUNT PAYABLE AS PER CLAUSE (A) HEREIN ABOVE. (C) SERVICE TAX AT THE APPLICABLE RATE ON THE SERVICE C HARGES PAYABLE TO DSM AS PER SUB-CLAUSE (B) HEREIN ABOVE. ON A COMBINED READING OF BOTH THE CLAUSES, IT IS CL EAR THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MAKES PAYMENT TO M/S DS MARINES, WHO IN TUR N PAYS SALARIES/WAGES TO THE PERSONNEL AFTER DEDUCTING INC OME TAX AND OTHER STATUTORY LIABILITIES. THESE TWO CLAUSES MAKE IT V ERY CLEAR THAT THE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL ENGAGED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE THE E MPLOYEES OF M/S D.S MARINES. 6. WE SHALL NOW REFER TO THE LIABILITY CLAUSE T HAT IS AGREED TO BY BOTH THE PARTIES. CLAUSE 14 OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PA RTIES DISCUSSES ABOUT THE LIABILITY AND THE SAME IS EXTRACTED BELOW: 14. DCIL SHALL HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION TO TERMINATE THE SERVICES OF ANY SELECTED PERSONNEL FO R ANY ACTS OF OMISSION, COMMISSION, MISCONDUCT, MISBEHAVIOUR OR I N THE EVENT THE SELECTED PERSONNEL IS IRRESPONSIBLE OR NEGLIGENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES AS PER RULES AND REGULATIONS OF DCIL. SUC H TERMINATION SHALL BE WITHOUT NOTICES TO EITHER TO THE SELECTED PERSONNEL OR DSM. IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT ANY LOSS SUFFE RED BY DCIL ON ACCOUNT OF ANY ACTS OF OMISSION OR COMMISSION, MISC ONDUCT, MISBEHAVIOUR OR NEGLIGENT CONDUCT SHALL BE BORNE SO LELY BY DSM AND SHALL BE RECOVERED BY DCIL FROM DSM BY APPROPRIATE D EDUCTIONS FROM THE MONTHLY BILL OF DSM. THE DECISION OF DCIL IN TH IS REGARD SHALL BE FINAL AND BINDING ON DSM. ITA NOS 9 TO 11 OF 2011 DREDGING CORPORATION OF IND IA VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 6 OF 8 A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CITED CLAUSE WOULD S HOW THAT IT IS THE FULL RESPONSIBILITY OF M/S DSM FOR THE FAULTS COMMITTED BY THE PERSONNEL SUPPLIED BY THEM. 7. THUS, ON A CONSPECTUS OF THE MATTER, IT IS S EEN (A) THAT M/S DSM TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY TO SUPPLY TH E REQUIRED NUMBER OF APPROVED EMPLOYEES FOR CARRYING OUT THE T ECHNICAL WORK SPECIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE, (B) THAT M/S DSM RECEIVES THE FULL PAYMENT FROM THE AS SESSEE COMPANY FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED, WHICH INCLUDED T HE SALARIES/WAGES OF THE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL, SERVICE CHARGES OF M/S DSM AND OTHER APPLICABLE TAXES. (C) THAT M/S DSM PAYS SALARIES/WAGES TO THE TECHNICAL P ERSONNEL, AFTER DEDUCTING THE INCOME TAX AND OTHER STATUTORY DUES. (D) THAT M/S DSM IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS COMMITTED BY THE SAID TECHNICAL PERSONNEL. ALL THESE FACTS, IN OUR VIEW, WOULD LEAD TO THE CON CLUSION THAT THE CONCERN M/S DSM RENDERS ONLY TECHNICAL SERVICES TO THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY, WHICH IS LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED A.R PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HYDERABAD BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. IIC S YSTEMS (P) LTD (2010) 127 TTJ (HYD) 435 TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION THAT THE CONCERN M/S DSM IS ENGAGED ONLY IN SUPPLY OF PERSONNEL, THOUGH THE SAID PERSONNEL POSSESS TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS. WE FIND THAT THE SAID DECISION WAS RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDAN CE AGREEMENT. FURTHER WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE THEREIN ONLY ACTED AS A N INTERMEDIARY BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES, I.E., A COMPANY NAMED M/S IBM GL OBAL SERVICES REQUIRED SOFTWARE PERSONNEL AND ANOTHER COMPANY N AMED M/S APOLLO CONSULTING SERVICES CORPORATION HAD REQUIRED NUMBER OF SUCH TYPE OF PERSONNEL. THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE ENTERED INTO CONTRACT WITH BOTH THE ITA NOS 9 TO 11 OF 2011 DREDGING CORPORATION OF IND IA VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 7 OF 8 COMPANIES, BY WHICH THE REQUIRED PERSONNEL SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE LATER COMPANY AND SUPPLIED TO THE FORMER COMPANY. THE FA CTS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE S AID DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE. 9. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED A. R SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT M/S DSM WAS RENDERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICE. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A), WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, HAS HELD THAT M/S DSM WAS RENDERING TECH NICAL SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROV IDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN ITS CASE WITH REGARD TO THE ALL EGED CLAIM OF TECHNICAL SERVICES. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED A.R HAS ALREADY AR GUED ON THE SAID POINTS BEFORE US AND WE HAVE ALREADY REACHED A CONCLUSION. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY NECESSITY TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ISSUE AGAIN ON THESE REASONS. 10. THE LEARNED A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT M/S D.S MARINE HAS ALREADY PAID INCOME TAX ON THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS RECEIVED B Y IT. ACCORDINGLY, BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES (P) LTD VS. CIT (2007 ) (292 ITR 226), SUBMITTED THAT THE DEMAND UNDER SECTION 201(1) NEED NOT BE RAISED UPON THE ASSESSEE AGAIN. WE FIND MERIT IN THE SAID CONT ENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT M/S DS MARI NE HAS ALREADY PAID THE TAX ON THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED A T THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE A SSESSEE WOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT EVEN IF THE RECIPIENT HAS ALREADY PAID TAX. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE O RDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF ASSE SSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO MAKE NECESSARY VERIFICATION OF THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NOS 9 TO 11 OF 2011 DREDGING CORPORATION OF IND IA VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 8 OF 8 WORK OUT THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) ON THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF TDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT REFERRED (SUPRA). 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE T REATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD AUGUST, 2011. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATE:03-08-2011 COPY TO 1 M/S DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., DREDGE HO USE, PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM 500035 2 THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1) VIS AKHAPATNAM 3 4. THE CIT 2, VISAKHAPATNAM THE CIT(A), VISAKHAPATNAM 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPAT NAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM