The ACIT, Circle-1(1)., Guntur v. M/s JOCIL Ltd,, Guntur

ITA 217/VIZ/2007 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 21725314 RSA 2007
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 217/VIZ/2007
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 8 month(s)
Appellant The ACIT, Circle-1(1)., Guntur
Respondent M/s JOCIL Ltd,, Guntur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 21-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 30-11-2010
Next Hearing Date 30-11-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 21-05-2007
Judgment Text
ITA NOS.217 & 218 JOCIL LTD DOKIPARRU 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 NO.217/VIZAG/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 - 05 ACIT CIRCLE-1(1) GUNTUR VS. JOCIL LTD. DOKIPARRU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) GIR NO.J-3 ITA NO.218/VIZAG/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 JOCIL LTD. DOKIPARRU VS. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1) GUNTUR (APPELLANT) GIR NO.J-3 (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI R.K. SINGH D R RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C.V.K. PRASAD ADVOCATE ORDER PER SHRI B. R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 13-3-2007 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) GUNTUR AND THEY RELATE TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. HOWEVER WE ARE DISPOSING THEM ONE BY ONE. 2. THE APPEAL NUMBERED AS 218/V/2007 IS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE IS ASSAILING THE DECISIO N OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER W HO HELD THAT THE INCOME GENERATED FROM FLY ASH BRICKS PRODUCTION DOES NOT F ORM PART OF INCOME DERIVED FROM GENERATION OF POWER FOR THE PURPOSES O F DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. ALTERNATIVELY IT IS CONTE NTED THAT THE COST OF FLY ASH ITA NOS.217 & 218 JOCIL LTD DOKIPARRU PAGE 2 OF 8 ENHANCED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) FROM RS.50/- PER MT TO RS.75/M.T. IS STILL LOW. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE STATED IN BR IEF. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF FATTY ACIDS. IT ESTABLISHED A BIOMASS POWER PLANT AND THE INCOME TH EREFROM IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS USI NG BIOMASS FUEL AND ALSO RESIDUES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE LIKE COTTON STALKS CHILLI STALKS RICE HUSKS ETC. IN THE PROCESS OF GENERATION OF POWER. COAL I S USED AS SUPPORTING FUEL. IN THE POWER GENERATION PLANT FLY ASH IS ALSO PRODU CED AS A BY PRODUCT. ACCORDING TO THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY AP POLLUT ION CONTROL BOARD THE FLY ASH SO GENERATED SHOULD BE SOLD TO MANUFACTURERS OF FLY ASH BRICKS. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY STARTED MANUFACTURING FLY ASH BRICKS ON IT OWN INSTEAD OF SELLING THEM TO THE OTHER MANUFACTUR ERS. THE COMPANY CLAIMED THAT IT FOUND IT TO BE DIFFICULT TO FIND TH E FLY ASH BRICK MANUFACTURERS AND HENCE IT INDULGED IN MANUFACTURING OF BRICKS ON ITS OWN. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT ON THE PROFIT GENERATED ON SALE OF FLY ASH BRICKS ALSO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED DEDU CTION U/S 80IA ON THE PROFITS RELATING TO ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTURE AND SAL E OF FLY ASH BRICKS FOR THE REASON THE FLY ASH BRICKS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PR ODUCT VIS--VIS THE FLY ASH DUST. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF FLY ASH DUST ALONE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 80IA AS THE SAME IS THE BY PRODUCT OBTAINED FROM THE ACTIVITY OF GENERA TION OF POWER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE MARKET VALUE OF FLY ASH DUST AT RS.50/- M.T. AND ACCORDINGLY CALCULATED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF TH E ACT. IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) THE FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY INCREASED THE MARKET VALUE OF FLY ASH FROM RS.50/MT TO RS.75/MT A ND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-COMPUTE THE DE DUCTION U/S 80IA. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NOS.217 & 218 JOCIL LTD DOKIPARRU PAGE 3 OF 8 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISSU E. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE FLY ASH IS GENERATED AS A RESIDUARY PRODUC T IN THE PROCESS OF GENERATION OF POWER. FROM THE COMMERCIAL POINT OF V IEW FLY ASH DUST AND FLY ASH BRICKS ARE ENTIRELY TWO DIFFERENT PRODUCTS. FOR PRODUCTION OF FLY ASH BRICKS THE FLY ASH DUST OBTAINED FROM THE POWER PL ANT MAY BE THE RAW MATERIAL AND FOR THAT REASON ALONE IN OUR VIEW BO TH THE PRODUCTS CANNOT BE PLACED IN THE SAME PLATFORM. HENCE WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES ARE RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE PROFIT FR OM SALE OF FLY ASH BRICKS CANNOT BE TAKEN AS THE INCOME OF THE POWER PLANT. SINCE FLY ASH DUST IS OBTAINED AS A BY PRODUCT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE S AME CAN BE TAKEN AS THE INCOME DERIVED FROM GENERATION OF POWER. THE AS SESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE MARKET PRICE OF FLY ASH DUST AT RS.50/M .T WHERE AS IT WAS INCREASED TO RS.75/-/MT BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). FR OM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ADD ITION TO ITS INTERNAL CONSUMPTION OF FLY ASH HAS SOLD THE SAME TO OUTSID E PARTIES. IT APPEARS THAT TWO TYPES OF DUST ARE GENERATED AND BOTH HAVE DIFFERENCE MARKET VALUE. THE DUST OBTAINED ON CONSUMPTION OF COAL/BI OMASS WAS SOLD AT RS.50/-/MT AND THE DUST GENERATED ON CONSUMPTION OF COAL/RICE HUSK WAS SOLD AT RS.180/M.T. BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION T HESE FACTS THE LEARNED CIT (A) DETERMINED THE MARKET VALUE OF FLY ASH AT R S.75/M.T. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) ARE EXTRACTED B ELOW: I HAVE GONE THROUGH ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMISSION O F THE APPELLANT AND DETAILS OF FUEL CONSUMED INCLUDING BI OMASS HUSK AND COAL. IN THE ANNUAL REPORT OF 2003-04 ON PAGE 4 0 UNDER THE HEADING RAW MATERIAL CONSUMED COMPANY HAS DIS CLOSED BIOMASS/COAL IN POWER PLANT CONSUMED 64635.3 M.T DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH IS TALLIED WITH THE FIGURE GIVEN BY THE APPELLANTS COUNSEL IN THE COURSE OF APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS. IT IS THEREFORE OBSERVED THAT IN GENE RATION OF FLY ASH NOT ONLY THE APPELLANT ARE USING ITEM OF BIOMA SS AND COAL BUT ALSO HUSK. I AM THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN TAKING MARKET PRICE OF F LY ASH @ RS.50PER MT. INSTEAD OF AVERAGE COST TAKING INTO AC COUNT OF TOTAL QUANTITY OF 64635.3 MT. OF BIOMASS/COAL AND H USK ITA NOS.217 & 218 JOCIL LTD DOKIPARRU PAGE 4 OF 8 CONSUMED WHICH INCLUDES CONSUMPTION OF HUSK ONLY 15 804 MT.IN PRODUCTION OF FLY ASH BRICKS. I THEREFORE DIR ECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE AVERAGE COST OF FLY ASH A T RS.75/- PER MT. ACCORDINGLY TOTAL COST WORKS OUT RS.1 38 375/- INSTEAD OF RS.92 250/-. THE PROFIT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE FLY ASH BRICKS THEREFORE WORKS OUT TO RS.4 27 063/- (4 73 188 (- )46 125). THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO EXC LUDE PROFIT OF RS.427063/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF FLY ASH BRICKS WH ILE WORKING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA ON ACCOUNT OF GENERATION OF POWE R. THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS PARTLY ALL OWED . ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CI T (A) WE FIND IT TO BE A REASONABLE ONE. THOUGH THE LEARNED AR CONTENTS THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF FLY ASH SHOULD BE TAKEN AS RS.115/M.T I.E. THE AVER AGE OF RS.50/- AND RS.180/- STATED SUPRA THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE PROPORTION OF BIOMASS ASH AND HUSK ASH OBTAINED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IF IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE HUSK AS H CONSTITUTED MAJOR PORTION IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE TO INCREASE TH E AVERAGE MARKET VALUE. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DETAILS WE ARE UNABLE TO INT ERFERE WITH THE RATES FIXED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOL D THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. 5. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE. THE REVENUE IS ASSAILING THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT (A)IN HOLDING THAT THE FOLLOWING RECEIPTS ARE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE FATTY ACID DIV ISION AND HENCE THEY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. A) INTEREST RECEIVED FROM SUNDRY DEBTORS -RS.13 41 710/- B) INSURANCE CLAIMS -RS. 1 01 701/- C) COMPENSATION FOR INFERIOR OIL SUPPLY -RS. 2 91 978/- D) REFUND FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT -RS. 2 75 915 /- E) COMPENSATION FROM TRANSPORTERS -RS. 5 75 3/- 6. THE LEARNED DR PLACING HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECIS ION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PANDIYAN CHEMICALS LTD (262 ITR 378) ITA NOS.217 & 218 JOCIL LTD DOKIPARRU PAGE 5 OF 8 CONTENDED THAT THE ABOVE SAID RECEIPTS CANNOT BE TA KEN AS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE UNDERTAKING. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE ABOVE SAID RECEIPTS HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. HE ALSO P LACED COPIES OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE COPIES OF ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE INTERESTS RECEIVED FROM SUNDRY DEBTORS IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80I OF THE ACT WAS CONSID ERED BY THE THIRD MEMBER IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.224/VIZ AG/2002 RELATING TO THE A.Y 1998-99. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE THE 3 RD MEMBER IN HIS ORDER DATED 01-02-2008 ARE EXTRACTED BELOW: IT IS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TH AT NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD WHETHER CHARGING OF INTE REST ON DELAYED PAYMENT WAS A PREVALENT TRADE PRACTICE IN T HE NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT M EMBER. THE QUESTION OF LOOKING INTO THE TRADE PRACTICE ARI SES WHEN THERE IS A QUESTION WHETHER THE INTEREST HAS BEEN R IGHTLY CHARGED OR NOT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT. HE RE IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED FOR D ELAYED PAYMENT. UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SUCH INTEREST PARTAKES THE CHARACTER OF SALES CONSI DERATION OR NOT?. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED JUDIC IAL MEMBER AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RELIED U PON BY LEARNED COUNSEL FULLY SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE. IN MY OPINION THE INTEREST CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO WARDS COMPENSATION OF DELAYED PAYMENT AND HENCE IT WILL P ARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF SALES CONSIDERATION ONLY. ACCORDIN GLY AGREEING WITH THE VIEW OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER I HOLE D THAT SUCH INTEREST HAS TO BE TREATED AS DERIVED FROM THE INDU STRIAL UNDERTAKING AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLE D TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I ON SUCH INTEREST. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE ABOVE CITED A PPEAL WE ALSO HOLD THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM SUNDRY DEBTORS IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME ITA NOS.217 & 218 JOCIL LTD DOKIPARRU PAGE 6 OF 8 DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND THE SAM E IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. 9. THE QUESTION OF ELIGIBILITY OF THE INSURANCE REC EIPTS FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80I WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE THIRD MEMBER IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.286 287 AND 322/VIZAG/2000 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 1996-97 AND 1997-98. THE RELEVANT OBSERVAT IONS FROM THE ORDER DATED 31-01-2008 PASSED BY THE THIRD MEMBER ARE EXT RACTED BELOW: 6. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE LEARNED ACCOUN TANT MEMBER FINDS ACCEPTANCE BY ME. IF ONE LOOKS PURELY F ROM THE ACCOUNTING POINT OF VIEW THE CLAIM GIVEN BY THE IN SURANCE COMPANY IS TO MAKE GOOD THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE GE NERATOR. THE INSURANCE COMPANY WOULD ASSESS THE DAMAGE AND T HEN WOULD SANCTION THE CLAIM AS PER THE TERMS OF THE PO LICY. THUS THE CLAIM GIVEN BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY WOULD BE I N THE FORM OF REIMBURSING TO THE ASSESSEE THE REPAIR EXPENSES THAT IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO INCUR FOR THE GENERATOR. IF THE REPAIR E XPENSES ARE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH THEY HAVE TO BE DEBITED THEN ANY RECEIPT WHICH GOES TO REDUCE SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LO SS ACCOUNT. IF SUCH RECEIPT IS NOT SO CREDITED THEN THE PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD UNDULY SHOW LESSER PROFIT AND WHICH WOULD BE IN FACT A DISTORTION OF THE TRUE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. BY CREDITING THE INSURANCE CLAIM TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD GO UP. SINCE THE R ECEIPT FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS TOWARDS THE REIMBURSEMENT OF A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE THE SAID RECEIPT H AS ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED AS A PART OF BUSINESS INCOME. IF IT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A PART OF BUSINESS INCOME IT CANNOT BE EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-I OF THE ACT. 7. VIEWED FROM ANOTHER ANGLE AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED B Y THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE RECEIPT OF INSURANCE CLAIM IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF RECEIPT OR INCOME WHIC H HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-I OF THE ACT. THE DAMAGE TO THE GENERATOR HAS ARISEN IN THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS AND THE CLAIM RECEIVED FROM THE INSURA NCE COMPANY IS TO MITIGATE THE FINANCIAL LOSS WHICH TH E ASSESSEE WAS PUT INTO. THEREFORE THE CLAIM CANNOT BE TREATE D AS AN ITA NOS.217 & 218 JOCIL LTD DOKIPARRU PAGE 7 OF 8 INDEPENDENT SOURCE SO AS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM BUSINE SS INCOME. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE ABOVE SAID AP PEAL WE ALSO HOLD THAT THE INSURANCE CLAIMS ARE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE IN DUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND THE SAME IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. 10. THE NEXT ITEM VIZ. THE REFUND FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT IS TAXED U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. AND THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERE D BY THE DECISION OF THE THIRD MEMBER IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.2 24/V/2002. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS FROM THE ORDER DATED 01-02-20 08 OF THE THIRD MEMBER ARE EXTRACTED BELOW: 11. SO FAR AS THIS ISSUE IS CONCERNED THE LANGUAG E OF SECTION 41(1) ITSELF IS QUITE EXPLICIT. IT IS CLEARLY PROVI DED THAT WHERE AN ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR ANY YEAR I N RESPECT OF LOSS EXPENDITURE OR TRADING LIABILITY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBSEQUENTLY DURING ANY PREVIOUS YEAR IF THE AS SESSEE RECOVERS THE SAME IN ANY MANNER THEN SUCH RECEIPT OR THE VALUE OF BENEFIT ACCRUING TO HIM SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGLY CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX AS THE INCOME OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE LANGUAGE B EING ABSOLUTELY CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS THERE IS NO DOUBT AT ALL THAT THE IMPUGNED INCOMES CREDITED TO THE PROFITS AND LO SS ACCOUNT ARE NOT ONLY BUSINESS INCOME BUT THEY ARE ALSO TO BE HELD AS DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ONLY. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE ABOVE SAID AP PEAL WE ALSO HOLD THAT THE REFUND FROM SALES IS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE IN DUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND THE SAME IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE A CT. 11. NOW WE ARE LEFT WITH TWO ITEMS VIZ. THE COMPE NSATION RECEIVED FOR INFERIOR OIL SUPPLY AND THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED F ROM TRANSPORTERS. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT BOTH THE ITEMS ARE INTRI CATELY CONNECTED WITH THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. THESE RECEIPTS EMANATES FROM THE ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. ACCORDINGLY IN OUR VIEW BOTH THE RECEIPTS SHALL A LSO FORM PART OF THE ITA NOS.217 & 218 JOCIL LTD DOKIPARRU PAGE 8 OF 8 INCOME DERIVED FROM THE UNDERTAKING AND HENCE THEY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. 12. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THAT OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST JANUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATE: 21-01-2011 COPY TO 1 THE A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1(1) GUNTUR 2 M/S JOCIL LIMITED DOKIPARRU 522 438 MEDIKONDURU MANDAL GUNTUR 3 4. THE CIT GUNTUR THE CIT(A) GUNTUR 5 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM