Sri Bora Rama Naidu (HUF), Visakhapatnam v. The ITO, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 265/V/2010 BORA RAMA NAIDU (HUF) VSKP IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 265 /VIZAG/ 20 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 SRI BO R A RAMA NAID U (HUF) VISAKHAPATNAM ITO WARD - 4(1) VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AHTPB 4058R APPELLANT BY: SHRI T.V.U.B.S. KISHORE BABU ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH SR.DR ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER : - TH IS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.20 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF BORA R AM A NA IDU HUF UNDER THE HEAD `INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES I NSTEAD OF CAPITAL GAIN DESPITE OF THE FACT THE SUBJECT LANDS WERE ACQUIRED AND THE TRANSFER WAS VALIDLY EFFECTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (V) OF SUB - SECTION 47 OF THE SECTION 2 TO SRI B. RAMA NAIDU WHO IN TURN SOLD THE LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.20 LAKHS MADE UNDER THE HEAD `INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS THE RECEIPTS ARE CLEARLY SALE PROCEEDS OF TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS WHICH DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF EITHER DEFINITION OF `CAPITAL ASSET O R WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF `INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ISSUE BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. NOTICED THAT B. RAM A NAIDU EXECUTED A SALE AGREEMENT ON 8.7.1992 BUT THE SALE NEVER TOOK PLACE AND THERE AFTER THERE WERE CERTAIN COURT LITIGATION AND FINALLY THERE WAS A COMPROMISE ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS PAID AN AGGR EGATE AMOUNT OF RS.20 LAKHS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF THE ITA 265/V/2010 BORA RAMA NAIDU (HUF) VSKP 2 AMOUNT ON COMPROMISE BUT NOT TOWARDS ANY CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS SUBJECTED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD `OTHER SOURCES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT HE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND IN THE RETURN FILED BY HIM AS INDIVIDUAL OR HUF FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A.O. HAS TREATED THE ENT IRE RECEIPT OF RS.20 LAKHS AS AN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES HAVING OBSERVED THAT HE WAS NEVER THE OWNER OF THE LAND THEREFORE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON THE COMPROMISE IS BROUGHT TO TAX AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT B. RAM A NAIDU IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY SOLD THE LAND ALONG WITH 4 OTHERS. THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND WAS WITH SHRI B. RAM A NAIDU IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT NOT WITH B. RAM A NAIDU HUF. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE SALE DEED OF THE LAND WHICH WAS SOLD TO NEW VENDEE BY SHRI B. RAM A NAIDU AND OTHERS. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE RECEIPT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE ABOVE LAND IN THE HANDS OF B. RAM A NAIDU HUF IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE DELETED. IN THE ALTERNATIVE HE HAS ARGUED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE LAND SOLD WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. THEREFORE ITS SALE PROCEEDS CANNOT BE TAXED. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS RE - EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF ASSESSEES CONTEN TION AND HAS FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE AND OWNED BY SHRI B. RAM A NAIDU INDIVIDUAL AND NOT BY B. RAM A NAIDU HUF AND HE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION OF THE A.O. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.20 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED BY SRI B. RAMANAIDU (INDL) AND NOT BY B. RAMANAIDU (HUF) AGAINST AGREEMENT TO SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT KAPULUPPADA. IT IS FURTHER CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED IS AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY SRI B. RAMANAIDU (INDL) HENCE IT DOES NOT FALL IN THE AMBIT OF CAPIT AL ASSET UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(14) OF THE INCOMETAX ACT 1961. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SRI ITA 265/V/2010 BORA RAMA NAIDU (HUF) VSKP 3 B. RAMANAIDU (INDL) HAS ALSO FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND DECLARED THE SAME THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS.20 LAKHS MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE HAND OF THE APPELLANT IS UNWARRANTED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE A.O. HAS REPORTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DECLARED ANY CAPITAL GAINS OR SALE OF LAND IN THE RETURNS FILED BY HIM AS INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS HUF FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08. IT IS ALSO BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE BY THE A.O. THAT SHRI B. RAMANAIDU (INDL) HAS NEVER BEEN THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND THEREFORE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON COMPROMISE IS BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM `OTHER SOURCES IN THE HAND OF THE APPELLANT. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE APP ELLANT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE AND THE OWNER OF SUCH LAND IS SRI B. RAMANAIDU (INDL) AND NOT SRI B. RAMANAIDU (HUF) HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. FROM THE FACTS IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE RECEIPT OF RS.20 LAKHS HAS NO LINK WITH THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HAND OF SRI B. RAMANAIDU (HUF). THEREFORE THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY ASSESSED TO TAX BOTH THE RECEIPT INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER ONE AS `LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND ANOTHER AS `INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSION THA T B. RAM A NAIDU HAS PURCHASED 5 ACRES AGRICULTURAL LAND BY ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE LAND OWNER SHRI BANDI RAM A NAIDU. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AN ADVANCE OF RS.1 50 000/ - AND TOOK THE POSSESSION OF TH E LAND. THE ORIGINAL OWNER B. RAM A NAIDU FRAUD ULENTLY SOLD THE LAND TO THIRD PARTY HENCE THERE WAS LITIGATION IN CIVIL COURT. ULTIMATELY THE LITIGATION WAS COMPROMISED AND SETTLED THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHERS EXECUTED SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF NEW VENDEE AND GOT RS .20 LAKHS TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATION FOR RELINQUISHING RIGHTS OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE NEW VENDEE. THEREFORE WHATEVER ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED IT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SURRENDER OF ITS RIGHT IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE THE SAM E IS NOT TAXABLE AND MORE OVER IF IT IS TO BE TAXED ONLY CAPITAL GAIN IS TO BE TAXED AND NOT THE ENTIRE RECEIPT AS AN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WITH REGARD TO THE AGRICULTURAL LAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THIS LAND DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE LIMIT OF GVMC AND THE LAND IS SITUATED IN BHIMILI MANDALAM. THEREFORE IT IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED ON ITS SALE IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. HE HAS PLACED A RELIANCE UPON THE VARIOUS ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL. ITA 265/V/2010 BORA RAMA NAIDU (HUF) VSKP 4 6. THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY OBJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE SALE OF THIS LAND WAS NEITHER DECLARED BY B. RAMU NAIDU INDIVIDUAL IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THIS AMOUNT WAS FOUND TO BE RECEIVED BY B. RAM A NAIDU HUF. THE LD. D .R. INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT FOR SALE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE OBTAINED THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND ON ITS PURCHASE WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT THE LAND WAS AGREED FOR SALE AT RS.50 000/ - PE R ACRE. MEANING THEREBY THE TOTAL COST OF LAND GOES TO RS.2.5 LAKHS AND ASSESSEE HAS PAID ONLY RS.1.5 LAKHS AND CLAIMED TO HAVE OBTAINED THE POSSESSION. NO EVIDENCE IS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHEN THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY B. RAM A NAIDU TO THE VEND OR . IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON PARLANCE THAT NO ONE WILL HAND OVER THE POSSESSION OF ITS LAND WITHOUT TAKING THE FULL SALE CONSIDERATION AND ALLOW HIM TO CONTINUE WITH THE LAND FOR 15 YEARS AS THE LAND WAS FINALLY SOLD ON FEBRUARY 2007. THEREFORE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE SALE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND WAS RIGHTLY TREATED AS AN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AU THORITIES BELOW AND DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE AGREEMENT TO SALE EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER PERSONS AND WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE WITH SHRI BANDI RAMA RAO ON 8.7.1992 FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BUT THIS AGREEMENT WAS NOT MATERIALIZED AND B. RAMA NAIDU THE ASSESSEE FILED A SUIT BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT VISAKHAPATNAM FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WHICH WAS LATER ON DECREED DIRECTING BANDI RAMA RAO TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT UPON DEPOSITING THE BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION. BUT B. RAMA RAO DID NOT EXECUTE THE SALE DEED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN EXECUTION VIDE I.A. NO.204/2004 FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED. B. RAMA RAO FURTHER FILED AN APPEAL AND WHILE THE APPEAL WAS PENDING THE SAID B. RAMA RAO EXECUTED A SALE DEED ON 7.6.2006 IN FAVOUR OF KARRI KUSUMA REDDY BE L LALA SURESH KUMAR S H ARMA B H AWARLAL AND PAN A TA DA SURYANARAYANA. THEREAFTER ON THE BASIS OF THE SALE DEED OF TH E ABOVE SAID 4 ITA 265/V/2010 BORA RAMA NAIDU (HUF) VSKP 5 PERSONS/BUYERS HAVE FILED A SUIT FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND ULTIMATELY THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO LOK ADALAT AND COMPROMISE WAS ARRIVED AND FINALLY ALL THESE PERS ONS HAVE AGREED TO S ELL THE PROPERTY TO A THIRD PERSON AND TO DISBURSE THE SALE PROCEEDS AMONG ST THEM EQUALLY. THE DETAILS OF DISBURSEMENT OF SALE PROCEEDS ARE GIVEN IN THE SALE DEED. IN THE SALE DEED ASSESSEE WAS ALSO SHOWN AS ONE OF THE VENDOR ALONG W ITH THE OTHER BUYERS TO WHOM B. RAMA RAO HAVE SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL LAND . 8. NOW THE QUESTION ARISE WHETHER THE SALE PROCEEDS/CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED IS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE/SURRENDER OF RIGHTS IN THE AGRICULTU RAL LAND? THE REVENUES OBJECTION IS THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS NEVER TRANSFERRED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CALLED TOWARDS THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE THE RECEIPT IS AN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE JUDGEMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF J.K. KASHYAP VS. ACIT 302 ITR 255 IN WHICH IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS INVOLVED AND THEIR LORDSHIP HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING ACQUIRED RIGHT IN A PROPERTY UNDER AN AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNERS AND LATER RELINQUISHED THIS RIGHT IN FAVOUR OF NEW VENDEE BY BECOMING A CONFIRMING PARTY CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RELINQUISHING RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY WOULD ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(1) AND FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF FIRST AGREEMENT IN 1990 AND HAD RELINQUISHED HIS RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF NEW VENDEE IN 1995 WHICH GAVE RISE TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS THE FINDING OF FACT. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE STATED IN PARA 14 OF THE JUDGEMENT ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 1990 PAID A SUM OF RS.3.7 LAKHS AS PART PAYMENT TO J.K. G UHA OUT OF TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.25 LAKHS FOR ACQUIRING 1/3 RD SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. IN THE YEAR 1993 FURTHER PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR PURCHASE OF UNDIVIDED INTEREST OF OTHER OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER DUE TO LITIGATION THE SALE COULD NOT BE MATERIALIZED AND SUBSEQUENTLY ON 26. 9.1995 AN AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED WITH NEW VENDEE NAMELY M/S. FMI INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. SINCE THE PROPERTY HAD NOT YET BEEN TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE SO THE ASSESSEE BECAME A PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT AS CONFIRMING PARTY HAVING ITA 265/V/2010 BORA RAMA NAIDU (HUF) VSKP 6 ACQUIRED INTEREST I N THE PROPERTY BY VIRTUE OF EARLIER AGREEMENT. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BECOME THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DUE TO LITIGATION THE FACT REMAINS THAT HE RECEIVED CONSIDERATION FOR ACQUIRING INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AND THAT INTEREST WAS ULTIMATELY RELINQU ISHED BY HIM IN FAVOUR OF NEW VENDEE BY VIRTUE OF AN AGREEMENT DATED 16.9.1995 AND THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HIM FOR RELINQUISHING HIS RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY THUS ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(1) OF THE ACT MAKING HIM LIABLE TO CAPITAL GAIN TAX. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE RATHER ON STRONGER FOOTINGS. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE VENDOR FOR EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE NEW VENDEE. THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRES THE RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY BY VIRTUE OF THE SALE AGREEMENT AN D THE DECREE OF THE COURT FOR EXECUTION OF SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHATEVER AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF SURRENDER OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY. THEREF ORE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF NEW VENDEE. THEREFORE IT ATTRACTS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. 9 . NOW THE QUESTION ARISE WHETHER THE IMP UGNED AGRICULTURAL LAND IS A CAPITAL ASSET IN TERMS OF DEFINITION OF SECTION 2(14)(III) OF THE I.T. ACT A CCORDING TO WHICH IF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND DOES NOT SITUATE WITHIN THE LIMIT OF MUNICIPALITY TOWN AREA COMMITTEE CANTONMENT BOARD THAT AGRICULTUR AL LAND DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET. IN THE INSTANT CASE IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE LAND DOES NOT SITUATE WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL LIMIT AS IT IS SITUATED IN KAPULUPPADA IN BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDALAM. THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED AGRICULTURA L LAND IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL GAIN TAX. 10 . WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE NOTIFICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS THEY HAVE OUTRIGHTLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ANGLE OF ITS CHARGEABILITY AS CAPITAL GAIN TAX WAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. ITA 265/V/2010 BORA RAMA NAIDU (HUF) VSKP 7 WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND . I F IT IS NOT SITUATED WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT AS NOTIFIED THEN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL GAIN TAX. OTHERWISE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AT LIBERTY TO ASSESS THE RECEIPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 1 1 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7.2 .20 1 1 SD/ - SD/ - (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATE D 7 TH FEBRUARY 20 1 1 COPY TO 1 B ORA RAMA NAIDU (HUF) D.NO.58 - 9 - 35 OLD KARASA VISAKHAPATNAM 2 ITO WARD - 4(1) VISAKHAPATNAM 3 THE CI T VISAKHAPATNAM 4 THE CIT (A) VISAKHAPATNAM 5 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM