Tangudu Jogisetty, Srikakulam V. THE ITO, Srikakulam

ITA 96/VIZ/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1113 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K RAVI
• Assessee Lawyers: S V SATYANARAYANAAR
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Search and seizure
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.96, 97, 98, 102, 103 & 113/VIZAG/2016 TANGUDU JOGISETTY, SRIKAKULAM 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.NO.96/VIZAG/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) TANGUDU JOGISETTY SRIKAKULAM VS. ITO, WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM [PAN: AACHT 2438M ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) ./I.T.A.NO.97/VIZAG/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) KUPPILI BALA PARAMESWARA RAO VISAKHAPATNAM VS. ITO, WARD - 1, ANAKAPALLE [PAN: BBBKP0622B ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) ./I.T.A.NO.98/VIZAG/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) TANGUDU SANTHA RAO, SRIKAKULAM VS. ITO, WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM [PAN: ACYPT 7626F ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.96, 97, 98, 102, 103 & 113/VIZAG/2016 TANGUDU JOGISETTY, SRIKAKULAM 2 ./I.T.A.NO.102/VIZAG/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) KOT HAKOTA BHANU MURTHY SRIKAKULAM VS. ITO, WARD - 2, SRIKAKULAM [PAN: BLQPK7494E ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) ./I.T.A.NO.103/VIZAG/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) PADMANABHUNI SATISH, VISAKHAPATNAM VS. ITO, WARD - 1, ANAKAPALLE [PAN: AXDPP 5916C ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) ./I.T.A.NO.113/VIZAG/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) SIMMA VYKUNTA RAO, SRIKAKULAM VS. ITO, WARD - 1, SRIKAKULAM [PAN: AZXPS7056P ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.V. SATYANARAYANA,AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. RAVI, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 25.05.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.06.2016 ITA NOS.96, 97, 98, 102, 103 & 113/VIZAG/2016 TANGUDU JOGISETTY, SRIKAKULAM 3 / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE, BUT IDENTICAL ORDERS OF CIT(A ), VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 21.12.2015 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. SINCE, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMO N, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF, BY WAY OF THIS COM MON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE FACTS EXTRACTED FROM ITA NO.96/VIZAG/2016 AR E THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A HUF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PURCH ASE AND SALE OF IMFL IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. APPANNAMMATALLI WINE SHOP HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON 28.12.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 6,53,240/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 28.8.2012 WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE, THE AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS A ND OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION CALLED FOR. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS QUITE LESS WHEN COMPARED TO THE NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON AND ALSO THE TOTAL ITA NOS.96, 97, 98, 102, 103 & 113/VIZAG/2016 TANGUDU JOGISETTY, SRIKAKULAM 4 TURNOVER ACHIEVED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE LOW NET PROFIT DECLARED WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES FOR SALES AND PURCHASES ALONG W ITH EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DETAILS CALLE D FOR. THE A.O., CONSIDERING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY STOCK REGISTER AND ALSO SALES BILLS DO NOT CONTAIN QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DETAILS, A ND HENCE, THE NET PROFIT ADMITTED COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. WITH THESE OBSERVAT IONS, ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED AND PROFIT SHALL NOT BE ESTI MATED @ 20% OF TOTAL PURCHASES. 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND CONTENDED THAT THE NET PROFI T PROPOSED BY YOU IS EXCESSIVE WHEN COMPARED TO THE NATURE OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS MAINTAINED REGULAR BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALSO BILLS & VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE AND SA LES, THEREFORE, YOUR PROPOSED ACTION OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS I S NOT CORRECT. AS REGARDS THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT OF 20% ON PURC HASES, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPOSED ESTIMATION OF NET PROFI T OF 20% IS QUITE HIGH AND ALSO CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF JURISDICT IONAL ITAT. IT WAS ITA NOS.96, 97, 98, 102, 103 & 113/VIZAG/2016 TANGUDU JOGISETTY, SRIKAKULAM 5 FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DEA LING IN IMFL PRODUCTS AND THE BUSINESS IS CONTROLLED BY THE STATE GOVERNM ENT THROUGH ANDHRA PRADESH STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD. AND THE PR ICES OF THE PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE ASSES SEE BEING A LICENSEE OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT CANNOT SELL THE PR ODUCTS OVER AND ABOVE THE MRP. THE STATE GOVERNMENT WHILE FIXING T HE MRP OF THE GOODS HAS ALLOWED A GROSS MARGIN OF 20 TO 25%. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS REPORTED A GROSS PROFIT OF MO RE THAN 26%, WHICH IS IN LINE WITH THE RATE FIXED BY STATE GOVERNMENT. I N SUPPORT OF ITS ARGUMENTS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT `B BENC H HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF KANAKADURGA WINES VS. ITI IN ITA NO.591/HYD /2011 DATED 28.7.2011. 4. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE FOR VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED STOCK REGISTER AND ALSO SALES BILLS ISSUED BY THE A SSESSEE NOT CONTAINS QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DETAILS OF SALES. IN VIEW OF THE UNVERIFIABLE NATURE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE A.O. REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145 OF THE ACT AND ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT OF 20% ON TOTAL STOCK PUT FOR SALE. WHILE DOING SO, THE A.O. HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R. NARAYANA RAO IN ITA NOS.96, 97, 98, 102, 103 & 113/VIZAG/2016 TANGUDU JOGISETTY, SRIKAKULAM 6 ITA NO.3/VIZAG/2003 DATED 21.6.2011, WHEREIN THE HO NBLE A.P. HIGH COURT HELD THAT ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT AT 16% ON PURCHASE PRICE WOULD BE REASONABLE. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN IMFL WHICH WA S CONTROLLED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT THROUGH A.P. STATE BEVERAGES CORPO RATION LTD. THE A.P. STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD. WHILE FIXING THE MRP OF THE GOODS HAS ALLOWED 20 TO 25% MARGIN ON PURCHASES. IT IS F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS REPORTED A GROSS PROFIT OF 26% WHICH IS IN LINE WITH THE GROSS PROFIT MARGIN ALLOWED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND H ENCE THE NET PROFIT DECLARED FOR THE YEAR SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHILE ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT OF 20%, THE A. O. RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT, WHICH WAS REN DERED IN THE CONTEXT OF SALE OF ARRACK WHEREAS IT IS INTO THE BU SINESS OF DEALING IN IMFL WHERE THE MARGIN OF PROFIT IS QUITE LESS AND A LSO WHICH WAS CONTROLLED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE A.O. CANNOT MADE APPLICABLE TO THE BUSI NESS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.96, 97, 98, 102, 103 & 113/VIZAG/2016 TANGUDU JOGISETTY, SRIKAKULAM 7 6. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, SCALED DOWN THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT FROM 20 TO 10%. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT S UBSTANTIATED THE BOOK RESULTS WITH ANY EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE FAIL ED TO MAINTAIN STOCK REGISTER AND ALSO THE SALE BILLS ISSUED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE NOT CONTAINS ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE QUANTITATIVE AND QUA LITATIVE DETAILS. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SERIES OF RAIDS CONDUC TED ON LIQUOR TRADERS BY THE ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU AT VARIOUS PLACES IN ANDHRA PRADESH REVEALS THAT THE LIQUOR TRADERS HAVE MARKED UP PRIC E OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BY AS MUCH AS 30% TO 40% HIGHER THAN THE MAXIMUM RETAIL PRICE FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, CO NSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE RETAIL TRADER SELL LIQUOR AT 30% TO 40% HI GHER THAN THE MRP AND ALSO RESORTED TO LOSE SALE OF LIQUOR AND OTHER FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, DIRECT THE A.O. TO ESTIMATE THE NET PROFI T OF 10% ON PURCHASE PRICE. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) IS ERRED IN ESTIMATING NET PROFIT OF 10% ON TOTAL PURCHASE PUT FOR SALE. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS A PPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENC H IN VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS, WHEREIN THE ITAT HAS UPHELD THE ESTIMAT ION OF NET PROFIT OF ITA NOS.96, 97, 98, 102, 103 & 113/VIZAG/2016 TANGUDU JOGISETTY, SRIKAKULAM 8 5% OF PURCHASES NET OF ALL DEDUCTIONS. THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO DIRECT THE A.O. TO ESTIMATE THE NET PROFIT OF 5% ON TOTAL PURCHASES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE A.O. ESTIMATED NET PROFIT OF 20% ON STOCK PUT FOR S ALE. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PR OPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASES AND S ALES. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO MA INTAIN STOCK REGISTERS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E NOT SUSCEPTIBLE FOR VERIFICATION, THEREFORE REJECTED THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS AND ESTIMATED NET PROFIT OF 20% BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF H ONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT T HE NET PROFIT ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. IS QUITE HIGH WHEN COMPARED TO THE NATU RE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN ARRACK, WHEREAS IT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN IMFL. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IMFL TRADE WAS CONTROLLED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT THROUG H A.P. STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD. AND THE PRICES OF THE PR ODUCTS ARE FIXED BY ITA NOS.96, 97, 98, 102, 103 & 113/VIZAG/2016 TANGUDU JOGISETTY, SRIKAKULAM 9 THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE ASSESSEE BEING A LICENSE HOLDER OF STATE GOVERNMENT CANNOT SELL THE PRODUCTS OVER AND ABOVE THE MRP FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMEN TS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE A.O. HAS ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF A.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R. NARAYANA RAO IN ITA NO.3 OF 2003 WHICH IS RENDERED UNDER DIFFERENT FACTS. THE A.P. HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE CASE OF AN ARRACK DEALER, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN IMFL. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RELYING UPON THE JUDGEMENT, WHICH WAS RENDERED UNDER DIFFERENT FACTS TO ESTIMAT E THE NET PROFIT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, RELI ED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH IN THE CASE OF T. APPALAS WAMY VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.65 & 66/VIZAG/2012. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE AND FINDS THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, U NDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD THAT ESTIMATION OF 5% NET PROFIT ON PURCHASES IS REASONABLE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS R EPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS O F THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 16% IS HI GH AND EXCESSIVE CONSIDERING THE NORMAL RATE OF PROFIT IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS. WHEREAS, THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THE ISSUE IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA IN VIEW OF A SERIES OF DECISIONS OF THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN SIMILAR CASES. THE COORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF ITA NO.127/HYD/12 AND ITA NOS.96, 97, 98, 102, 103 & 113/VIZAG/2016 TANGUDU JOGISETTY, SRIKAKULAM 10 OTHERS DATED 18.05.2012 AS WELL AS A NUMBER OF OTHE R CASES HAVE HELD THAT PROFIT IN CASE OF BUSINESS IN INDIAN MADE FOREI GN LIQUOR HAS TO BE ESTIMATED AT 5% OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESS EE. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT FROM THE WINE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING THE RATE OF 5% OF THE PURCHASES MADE NET OF ALL OTHER DEDUCTIONS. THE AS SESSING OFFICER SHOULD ALSO BEAR IN MIND THAT IN NO CASE THE INCOME DETERM INED SHOULD BE BELOW THE INCOME RETURNED. 9. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIOS OF COORDINATE BEN CH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE NET PROFIT ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. BY R ELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WHICH WAS RENDERED UNDER DIFFERENT FACTS IS QUITE HIGH. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH AND TH E COORDINATE BENCH UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT OF 5% ON TOTAL PURCHASES NET OF ALL DEDUCTIONS. NO CONTRARY DECISION IS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. THEREFO RE, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO ESTIMATE THE NET PROFIT OF 5% ON TOTAL PURC HASES NET OF ALL DEDUCTIONS. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 10. THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN ITA NOS.97,98, 102, 103 & 113/VIZAG/2016 ARE IDENTICAL TO ITA NO.96/VIZAG/201 6. THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH S, WE ALLOWED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.96, 97, 98, 102, 103 & 113/VIZAG/2016 TANGUDU JOGISETTY, SRIKAKULAM 11 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IN ITA NOS.96,97,98,102,103 & 113/VIZAG/2016 ARE ALLOWED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND JUN16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 02.06.2016 VG/SPS )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT SHRI TANGUDU JOGISETTY, PROP: AP PANNAMMATALLI WINES, C/O SRI VENKATA SAI MODERN RICE MILL, KOTHA ROAD JUNCTION, THOTADA, SRIKAKULAM 2. / THE APPELLANT SHRI KUPPILI BALA PARAMESWARA RA O, PROP: SRI SANTHI SAI WINES, D.NO.1, BALIGHATTAM, NARSIPATNAM, VISAKH APATNAM 3. / THE APPELLANT SHRI TANGUDU SANTHA RAO, IMFL DEA LER, MARKET ROAD, NARASANNAPETA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 4. / THE APPELLANT KOTHAKOTA BHANU MURTHY, PROP: VE NKATA SAINADH WINES, S/O DASU NAIDU, H.NO.2-74, MAIN STREET, SOLI KIRI VILLAGE, BALERU MANDAL, BAMINI POST, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. / THE APPELLANT PADMANABHUNI SATISH, PROP: VAISH NAVI HAPPY LIQUOR, BHALIGATTAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST. 6. / THE APPELLANT SIMMA VYKUNTA RAO, S/O RAMANUJUL U, D.NO.2-275, POTRINIVALASA VILL., PEDDAPADU POST, SRIKAKULAM DIS T. 7. / THE RESPONDENT THE ITO, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM 8. / THE RESPONDENT THE ITO, WARD-2, SRIKAKULAM ITA NOS.96, 97, 98, 102, 103 & 113/VIZAG/2016 TANGUDU JOGISETTY, SRIKAKULAM 12 9. / THE RESPONDENT THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAKAPALLE 10. + / THE CIT-2, VISAKHAPATNAM 11. + ( ) / THE CIT (A)-2, VISAKHAPATNAM 12. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 13 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 12 . (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) . , # / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM