The ACIT, Circle-4(1)., Visakhapatnam v. Sri P Janaki Rama Raju,, Visakhapatnam

ITA 266/VIZ/2008 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 26625314 RSA 2008
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 266/VIZ/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT, Circle-4(1)., Visakhapatnam
Respondent Sri P Janaki Rama Raju,, Visakhapatnam
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 08-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 30-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 30-12-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 13-05-2008
Judgment Text
ITA NOS 265 AND 266 OF 08 P JANAKI RAMA RAJU VIZAG PAGE 1 OF 15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 265 & 266/VIZAG/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 ACIT CIRCLE-4(1) VISAKHAPATNAM VS. P. JANAKI RAMA RAJU VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO:AHGPP 0390 R APPELLANT BY: SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH SR.DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C.V.S. MURTHY CA ORDER PER SHRI B. R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE O F THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE ORDERS OF LD CIT(A) VISAKHAPATNAM AND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05. SOME OF THE ISSUES URGED IN THESE TWO APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE. HENCE B OTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CO MMON ORDER. 2. THE COMMON ISSUES RELATE TO A) DETERMINATION OF THE HEAD OF INCOME UNDER WHICH THE POULTRY LEASE RENT RECEIPT IS ASSESSABLE. B) DETERMINATION OF INCOME FROM POULTRY REARING ACTIVI TY. 3. THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE WHICH IS URGED IN THE A PPEAL RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS REGARDING THE TREATMENT AND TAXABILITY OF INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIPT OF RS.15.00 LAKHS. ITA NOS 265 AND 266 OF 08 P JANAKI RAMA RAJU VIZAG PAGE 2 OF 15 4. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXECUTION OF CIVIL CONTR ACT WORKS AND ALSO CARRYING ON POULTRY BUSINESS. INITIALLY THE ASSESSM ENTS FOR BOTH THE YEARS WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY THE LD CIT-2 VISAKHAPATNAM BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2 63 SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF BOTH THE YEARS. CONSEQUENT TH ERETO THE PRESENT ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED BY DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.98 34 324/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND AT R S.88 59 370/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF BOTH T HE YEARS WERE PARTLY ALLOWED. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE RELI EF GRANTED BY LD CIT(A) AND HENCE THEY ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE T REATMENT AND TAXABILITY OF INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIPT OF RS.15.00LAKHS. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAID ISSUE ARE DISCUSSED IN BRIEF. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THE AO NOT ICED CERTAIN DEFICIENCIES IN THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS RELATING TO THE EXPENSE CLAIM LIKE HIRE CHARGES HSD & LUBRICANTS JOB WORK LABOUR MACHIN ERY VEHICLE MAINTENANCE METAL PURCHASES TRAVELING CONVEYANCE REMUNERATION AND SALARIES. HENCE HE REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT A ND ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM CONTRACT WORKS AT 6% IN RESPECT OF MAIN CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND AT 2% IN RESPECT OF SUB CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THE AO ALSO ASSESSED SEPARATELY A SUM OF RS.36 15 840/- UNDER INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES AND HE DID NOT GIVE ANY REASON FOR ASSESSING THE SAME SO. THE ABO VE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.36 15 840/- INCLUDED INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIPT OF RS.15.00 LAKHS. BEFORE LD CIT(A) IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE FOLLOWING RECE IPTS FORM PART OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND SINCE THE BUSINESS PROFIT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE SAID RECEIPTS C ANNOT BE ASSESSED AGAIN UNDER INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ITA NOS 265 AND 266 OF 08 P JANAKI RAMA RAJU VIZAG PAGE 3 OF 15 DISCOUNT ALLOWED 2 46 471 INSURANCE CLAIMS 15 00 000 SALE OF SCRAP 3 00 000 -------------- 20 46 471 ======== THE LD CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AN D ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE ABOVE SAID THREE ITEMS SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED S EPARATELY. NOW THE REVENUE IS CHALLENGING THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) ON LY IN RESPECT OF INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIPT OF RS.15.00 LAKHS. 5.1 THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LEAD TO THE RECEIPT OF INSURANCE CLAIM HAVE BEEN NARRATED BY LD CIT(A) AS UNDER. IN SO FAR AS THE INSURANCE CLAIM IS CONCERNED IT WAS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DONE A PROTECTION WORK TO TH E VAMSADHARA RIVER DOWNSTREAM AT GOTTA BARRAGE HIRA MANDALAM SRIKAKULAM DURING 2001-02. DUE TO SUDDEN FLOOD IN THE RIVER THE BARRAGE GATES WERE LIFTED BY THE D EPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE WORK EXECUTED BY THE APPELLANT WAS WASHED AWAY. HENCE THE APPELLANT HAD TO REDO THE WHOLE WORK. AS THE APPELLANT HAD INSURED WITH U NITED INDIA INSURANCE AS PER THE NORMS OF THE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT THE APPELLANT PREFERRED A CLAIM AGAINST THE SAID DAMAGES FOR RS.22 LAKHS BEFORE THE SAID INSURANCE C OMPANY. THE SAID CLAIM WAS SETTLED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 20 02-03 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.15 LAKHS. THUS THE INSURANCE CLAIM RE CEIPTS WERE IN COURSE OF CARRYING ON THE CONTRACTUAL BUSIN ESS ONLY . SINCE BUSINESS INCOME RELATING TO THE CONTRACTUAL WORK HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AN D THE ABOVE THREE RECEIPTS ARE ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRACTUAL BUSINESS ONLY TAXING THE SAME AGAIN UNDER THE HEAD INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAM E RECEIPTS WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. 5.2 WE NOTICE THAT THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWI NG GROUND IN ITS GROUND OF APPEAL IN THIS REGARD. ITA NOS 265 AND 266 OF 08 P JANAKI RAMA RAJU VIZAG PAGE 4 OF 15 THE CIT(A) IS ERRED IN TREATING THE RECEIPT OF INS URANCE CLAIM AT RS.15 LACS AS A PART OF CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS FOR THE FY 2002-03 (AY 2003-04) AND NEED NOT BE ASSESSED SEPARATELY SI NCE THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS (CONTRACTS) IS ESTIMATED. THE INSURANCE CLAIM OF RS.15 LACS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FY 2002- 03 PERTAINED TO AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN FY 2001-02 AND THE RELEVANT EXPENDITURE WITH REGARD TO THE INSURANCE CLAIM BELONGS TO THE ASST. YEAR 2002-03. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING LD DR ALSO REITERATE D THE CONTENTIONS MADE IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL CITED ABOVE. HOWEVER THE CONTENTION OF LD AR IS THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT THE CONSTRUCTION WORK SECOND TIME AND IN RESPECT OF THE SAME THE ASSESSEE HAS LODGED INSURA NCE CLAIM TO THE TUNE OF RS.22.00 LACS AGAINST WHICH IT GOT ONLY RS.15.0 0 LACS AS INSURANCE CLAIM. ACCORDING TO LD AR THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED THE E XPENDITURE TWICE AND HENCE THE INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIPT OF RS.15.00 LACS SHOULD ALSO BE TREATED AS PART OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS. 5.3 THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE IMPUGNED INSUR ANCE CLAIM RECEIPT RELATES TO THE WORK CARRIED OUT IN THE DOWN STREAM OF VAMSADHARA RIVER. THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT THE WORK INITIALLY WH ICH WAS WASHED AWAY DUE TO SUDDEN FLOODS. HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS CONST RAINED TO EXECUTE THE SAME WORK FOR SECOND TIME. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THESE FACTS. THE AMOUNT INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON REDOING THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD RESULT IN LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE IF HE IS NOT COMPENSATED BY HIS CLIENT FOR REDOING THE WORK. HENCE IN ORDE R HEDGE SUCH LOSSES INSURANCE POLICY IS TAKEN. 5.4 FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE NOTICE THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT EXAMINE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO THE RECE IPT OF THE IMPUGNED INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIPTS. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH IS EXTRACTED IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPH IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE R EVENUE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES HAS BEEN BOOKED IN THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2001-02 ITA NOS 265 AND 266 OF 08 P JANAKI RAMA RAJU VIZAG PAGE 5 OF 15 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND THE INS URANCE CLAIM WAS RECEIPT WAS RECEIVED IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR I.E. I N THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002- 03 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE SA ID CLAIM OF THE REVENUE IS NOT BORNE OUT OF RECORD. AS STATED EARLIER THE ASSESSEE HAS EXECUTED THE SAME WORK TWICE. ACCORDING TO LEARNED AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT FROM HIS CLIENT FOR E XECUTING THE WORK FOR THE FIRST TIME AND HE HAS RECEIVED INSURANCE COMPEN SATION FOR EXECUTING THE WORK SECOND TIME. HOWEVER THE DETAILS WITH REGA RD TO THE PERIODS DURING WHICH THE WORKS WERE EXECUTED WERE NOT BORNE OUT OF RECORD. THOUGH THE LD CIT(A) HAS NARRATED THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO THE RECEIPT OF INSURANCE COMPENSATION YET THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE WORK WAS EXECUTED FOR SECON D TIME. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD A.R ALSO COULD NOT READILY FURNISH THE DETAILS REGARDING THE PERIOD CITED ABOVE. FROM THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) W E NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD LODGED INSURANCE CLAIM FOR RS.22.00 LA KHS AGAINST WHICH HE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.15.00 LAKHS AS COMPENSATION FR OM THE INSURANCE COMPANY. THUS IN OUR VIEW THE DETAILS WITH REGAR D TO THE PERIOD OF EXECUTION OF WORK ARE CRUCIAL TO DECIDE THE INSTANT ISSUE. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD EXECUTED THE WORK SECOND TIME DURING THE SAME F INANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE INSURANCE CLAIM HAS BEEN RECEIVED THE GROUND R AISED BY THE REVENUE GOES AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THAT CASE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF MAKING SEPARATE ADDITION AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EA RN ANY PROFIT ON EXECUTING THE WORK FOR SECOND TIME. IF THE WORK FO R SECOND TIME WAS EXECUTED IN THE PRECEDING FINANCIAL YEAR AS CONTES TED BY THE REVENUE THEN THE INSURANCE COMPENSATION OF RS.15.00 LAKHS HAS TO BE ASSESSED SEPARATELY. HENCE IN OUR VIEW THIS ISSUE NEEDS T O BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE O F AO FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF DISCUSSIONS MADE ABOVE. ITA NOS 265 AND 266 OF 08 P JANAKI RAMA RAJU VIZAG PAGE 6 OF 15 6. THE COMMON ISSUES STATED ABOVE ARE INTER LINKED . THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE WAS CAR RYING ON THE BUSINESS OF POULTRY FARMING IN THE EARLIER YEARS UP TO THE FINA NCIAL YEAR 2001-02. THE ASSESSEE LEASED OUT THE POULTRY SHED TO A CONCERN N AMED M/S SUZI FARMS FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS. BESIDES THE ASSESSEE ALSO UNDERTOOK TO BREED THE CHICKS BY GIVING APPROPRIATE FEEDS AND MEDICINES. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEES RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.12 09 608/- AS LEASE RENT AND FURTHER A SUM OF RS.6 03 580/- AS BREEDING CHARGES DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. SIMILARLY FOR THE YEAR RE LEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SU M OF RS.13 92 156/- AS LEASE RENT AND A SUM OF RS.6 94 632/- AS BREEDIN G CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE TREATED BOTH THE RECEIPTS AS BUSINESS RECE IPTS. 6.1 THE AO ASSESSED THE LEASE RENT UNDER THE HE AD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED THE INCOME BY AL LOWING STATUTORY DEDUCTION OF 30% TOWARDS REPAIRS. IN THE PROCESS T HE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ON THE SHEDS WAS NOT ALLOWED SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE LEASE RENT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE POULTRY SHEDS WERE LEASED OUT FOR TEMPORARILY AND FURTHER THE ASS ESSEE IS CONTINUING THE POULTRY BUSINESS BY CARRYING OUT THE ACTIVITY OF MA INTAINING BROOD STOCK (BREEDING OF CHICKS) UP TO A PARTICULAR STAGE. THE LD CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DECISIONS OF HONB LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NEW INDIA INDUSTRIES LTD (201 IT R 208) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 114 ITR 779 AND ALWO FOLLOWING FACTS PECULIAR TO THE INSTANT CASE. A) THE LEASE PERIOD IS SPECIFIED WITHOUT ANY CLAUSE OF RENEWAL. B) UNDER CLAUSE 13 OF THE LEASE DEED THE ASSESSEE SHA LL BE OBLIGED TO CARRY OUT REGULAR MAINTENANCE AS AND WHEN REQUI RED. C) THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTINUED TO CARRY ON THE BREEDING OF BIRDS. ITA NOS 265 AND 266 OF 08 P JANAKI RAMA RAJU VIZAG PAGE 7 OF 15 D) THUS THE INTENTION OF LEASING OUT THE POULTRY SHEDS FOR EXPLOITATION OF IT FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE ONLY. THE LD CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ASSESS THE LEASE INCOME UNDER TH E HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND ALSO TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATI ON ON POULTRY SHEDS AGAINST THE LEASE RENT RECEIPTS. 6.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISSUE. WE NOTICE THAT THE ISSUE WHETHER THE LEASING OUT OF POULTRY SHED SHALL CONSTITUTE A BUSINESS ACTIVITY OR NOT WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S PUJYA SUJATHA AGRO FARMS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.490/VIZAG/2 009. THE TRIBUNAL MADE A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS CASE LAWS AND HELD T HAT THE SAID LEASE INCOME CANNOT BE TAKEN AS THE BUSINESS INCOME. TTHE RELEVA NT OBSERVATIONS ARE EXTRACTED BELOW: 6. HEAVY RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED UPON THE JUDGEMEN TS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. G.V. RATTAIAH AND CO. (SUPRA) C IT VS. VIKRAM COTTON MILLS LTD. 169 ITR 597 (SC) AND CIT V S. ARYAN INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. 138 ITR 718. 8. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS REFERRED TO BY THE PARTIES AND WE FIND T HAT PERIOD OF DISCONTINUANCE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IS NOT A SOLE FACTOR TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE RENTAL INCOME EARNED FROM LEASING OUT OF ITS ASSET. THE PREDOMINANT FAC TOR IS INTENTION OF ASSESSEE WITH WHICH THE ASSET WAS LEAS ED OUT. PERIOD OF DISCONTINUANCE IS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT FA CTOR TO DRAW AN INFERENCE ABOUT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIKRAM COTTON MILLS LTD. (SUPRA ) THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT IT I S PREDOMINANTLY MATTER OF INTENTION. INTENTION IS AN INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN FROM THE RELEVANT FACTS. IN EACH CASE IT HAS TO BE GATHERED AS TO WHETHER THE COMMERCIAL ASSETS WAS INTENDED TO BE EXPLOITED BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER IT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED BY LETTING IT OUT FOR A TEMPORA RY PERIOD. IT DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. IN THAT CASE LEASING WAS GIVEN FOR 10 YEARS AND THE INTENTION ITA NOS 265 AND 266 OF 08 P JANAKI RAMA RAJU VIZAG PAGE 8 OF 15 OF THE ASSESSEES WAS CONSIDERED TO BE THE EXPLOITAT ION OF THE ASSETS. THE FACTS OF THAT CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE COMPANY CARRIED ON BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF TEXTI LE. FROM 1949 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY STARTED RUNNING INT O LOSSES. AT THE END OF DECEMBER 1953 THE POSITION WAS THAT AS AGAINST THE CAPITAL OF RS.11 LAKHS THE ACCUMULA TED LIABILITIES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AMOUNTED TO RS. 26 LAKHS BECAUSE OF THIS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY STOPPED ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY FROM DECEMBER 1953. THIS S TATE OF AFFAIRS CONTINUED TILL 21 ST MAY 1956 WHEN ONE OF THE CREDITORS OF THE COMPANY FILED A WINDING UP PETITIO N IN THE HIGH COURT. M/S. INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION O NE OF THE MAJOR CREDITORS OF THE COMPANY HAD IN EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS UNDER AN ENGLISH MORTGAGE OF THE FIXED ASSET S OF THE COMPANY TAKEN ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE IM MOVABLE PROPERTIES HYPOTHECATED TO THEM. UNDER SECTION 153 OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1913 THE HIGH COURT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE CREDITORS EVOLVED A SCHEME WHERE UNDER THE BUSINESS ASSETS OF THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY WERE LET OUT TO M/S. GENERAL FIBRES DEALERS (P) LTD. CALCUTTA ON RS.2 50 000/- PER YEAR RENT. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENTIRELY INVOLVED IN THE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. THEREFORE THE HONBLE APEX C OURT HAVE HELD THAT IT WAS A POSSIBLE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASS ESSEE INTENDED THAT THERE SHOULD BE A TEMPORARY SUSPENSIO N OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECONSTRUCTION OF THE C OMPANY AND FILED MATTER THERE MUST BE A STOPPAGE OF THE US ER OF THE MACHINERY BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS A TEMPORARY LEAS E THOUGH FOR 10 YEARS OR 19 YEARS ON RENEWAL AND AFTE R EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD THE PROPERTY REVERTED BACK TO THE ASS ESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE APEX COURT HAVE APPROVED FINDING O F THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TO PART WITH THE MACHINERY BUT TO LEASE IT OUT FOR A TEMPOR ARY PERIOD AS A PART OF EXPLOITATION. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT NO BUSINESS WAS CARRIED ON AND THEIR I NCOME DERIVED FROM THE MACHINES LETTING WAS ONLY ON A REN TAL INCOME. THERE WAS A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF THE BU SINESS FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD WITH THE OBJECT OF TIDING OV ER THE CRISIS CONDITION. THERE WAS NEVER ANY ACT INDICATI NG THAT ASSESSEE NEVER INTENDED TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS. 9. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. G.V. RATTAIAH AND CO. THE ASSESSEE LEASED OUT ITS BUSINESS ASSETS TO TWO COMPANIES WHO WERE TRADER IN VIRGINIA TOBACCO. TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT STOP ITS TRADING ACTIVITIES IN TOB ACCO. IT WAS ITA NOS 265 AND 266 OF 08 P JANAKI RAMA RAJU VIZAG PAGE 9 OF 15 PURCHASING TOBACCO AND SELLING IT OF COURSE WITHOU T GRADING AND PROCESSING IT IN A SMALL WAY. IT WAS ALSO EARNI NG HUGE COMMISSION AMOUNTS BY PURCHASING TOBACCO FOR OTHERS . IT WAS ALSO GETTING COMMISSION BY FINDING EXPORT MARKE T TO OTHER TOBACCO DEALERS AND EXPORTERS THUS IT WAS MAINTAINING CONTACTS WITH MANY OF THE IMPORTERS OF TOBACCO IN USSR AND CHINA. WITH THESE FACTS THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAVE HELD THAT THE INTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE TO TREAT THE DEMISED PREMISES AS WELL AS T HE ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS ITS BUSINESS ASSETS THRO UGH OUT THE PERIOD OF LEASE AND IT HAD NEVER ABANDONED THE IDEA OF RESUMING ITS BUSINESS AFTER FINDING A FAVOURABLE AT MOSPHERE. THEIR LORDSHIP HAVE FURTHER HELD THAT LENGTH OF LEA SE PERIOD IS UNDOUBTEDLY A RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES IN FINDING OUT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCONTINUE ITS BUSINE SS CAN BE GATHERED FROM THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES. 10. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ARYAN INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) DESPITE OF COMPOSITE LETTING OF FACTORY AND BUILDIN G THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAINTAINING ITS WORK FORCE AND UNDERTAKING TO SUPPLY RAW MATERIALS RECEIVED ON QUO TAS IN ITS NAME. INDUSTRIAL LICENSE CONTINUED IN THE NAME OF T HE ASSESSEES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO AGREED THAT ALL T HE RAW MATERIALS MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS CHEMICALS ETC. REMA INING WITH THE LESSEE AT THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF LEAS E SHALL BE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM VALU E OF RS.1 LAKH. THESE FACTS ARE QUITE INDICATIVE OF THE ASSESSEES INTENTION TO DO BUSINESS AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LE ASE. THE ADDITIONAL MACHINERY INSTALLED FOR EXPANDING THE PR ODUCTION CAPACITY OF THE FACTORY WAS TO BE PAID FOR AND RETA INED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. THE POWER SUPPLY WAS ALSO CON TINUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. ALL THESE FACTS FUR THER SUGGEST THAT ASSESSEE HAD AN INTENTION TO CONTINUE ITS BUSINESS AFTER THE LEASE PERIOD. THEREFORE THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT HAVE CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESS EE LETS OUT FACTORY ON LEASE AND THE ATTENDANT FACTORS CLEA RLY INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT INTEND TO DISCO NTINUE ITS BUSINESS AND IT CONTINUES TO EXPLOIT THE ASSET COMM ERCIALLY THE INCOME FROM SUCH LEASE IS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINES S INCOME. 11. WAY BACK IN 1969 THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAVE H ELD IN THE CASE OF NEW SAVAN & GUR REFINING LTD. VS. CI T 74 ITR 7 (SC) THAT WHERE THE FACTORY AND PREMISES ARE LEAS ED OUT IN ITA NOS 265 AND 266 OF 08 P JANAKI RAMA RAJU VIZAG PAGE 10 OF 15 RETURN OF ROYALTY WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF PRODUC TION THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TO TREAT THE ASSE T LEASED OUT AS COMMERCIAL ASSET BUT TO OPERATE WITH MACHINE RY FOR EARNING RENTAL INCOME. INCOME THEREFORE CANNOT BE CALLED TO BE THE BUSINESS INCOME. IN THE CASE OF UNIVERSAL CO ILS LIMITED VS. CIT 237 ITR 454 THEIR LORDSHIP OF THE A PEX COURT HAVE HELD THAT NO PRECISE TEST CAN BE LAID DOWN TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER INCOME (REFERRED TO BY WHATEVER NOMENCLATUR E LEASE AMOUNT RENTS LICENSE FEE) RECEIVED BY AN AS SESSEE FROM LEASING OR LETTING OF ASSETS WOULD FALL UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS AND BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. IT IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND HAS TO BE DETERMINED F ROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A BUSINESS MAN IN THAT BUSINESS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE INCLUDING TRU E INTERPRETATIONS OF THE AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THE AS SETS ARE LET OUT. WHERE ALL THE ASSETS OF THE BUSINESS ARE LET OUT THE PERIOD FOR WHICH ASSETS ARE LET OUT IS A RELEVANT F ACTOR TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS ALTOGETHER OR TO COME BACK AND RESTART THE SAME. IF ONLY OR A FEW OF THE BUSINESS ASSETS ARE LET OUT TEMPORARILY WHILE THE ASSESSEE IS CARRIED OUT HIS OTHER BUSINES S ACTIVITIES THEN IT IS A CASE OF EXPLOITING OF THE BUSINESS ASS ETS OTHERWISE THEN EMPLOYING THEM FOR ITS OWN USE FOR M AKING PROFIT FOR THAT BUSINESS BUT IF THE BUSINESS NEVER STARTED OR HAS STARTED BUT CEASED WITH NO INTENTION TO BE RESU MED THE ASSETS ALSO WILL CEASE TO BE BUSINESS ASSETS AND TH E TRANSACTIONS WILL ONLY BE THE EXPLOITATION OF PROPE RTY BY A OWNER THERE OF BUT NOT EXPLOITATION OF BUSINESS AS SET. SIMILAR VIEW WAS EXPRESSED BY DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS IN FOLLOWING CASES: 1. METAL PRODUCTS OF INDIA VS. CIT (P&H) 293 ITR 6 18 2. MADRAS SILK & RAYON MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO AND ANOTHER (MADRAS) 262 ITR 122. 12. TURNING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT O F LEGAL PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN THROUGH VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF APEX COURT AND THE VARIOUS HIGH C OURTS WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN I TS BUSINESS ONLY FOR 2 YEARS I.E. FROM FEB97 TO OCT 2000. THEREAFTER IT DISCONTINUED ITS POULTRY BUSINESS AN D THE POUNTRY COMPLEX WAS LET OUT INITIALLY FOR 4 YEARS A ND THERE AFTER TIME TO TIME FOR 11 MONTHS AND TILL DATE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT STARTED ITS POULTRY BUSINESS AND HAS FINALL Y OFFERED THE RENTAL INCOME AS AN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES I N A.Y. 2010-11. EXCEPT ONE LETTER DATED 10.8.2009 FOR FIN ANCIAL ITA NOS 265 AND 266 OF 08 P JANAKI RAMA RAJU VIZAG PAGE 11 OF 15 ASSISTANCE TO BANKER AND ITS REFUSAL DATED 9.9.2009 NOTHING IS PLACED ON RECORD WHERE FROM AN INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT ASSESSEE WAS EVER INTENDED TO RESTART ITS POUL TRY BUSINESS. THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES CAN ONLY BE INFERRED FROM THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BUT UNFORTUNATELY NO THING IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHERE FROM IT CAN BE INFERRED T HAT ASSESSEE HAS EVER INTENDED TO RESTART ITS BUSINESS. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND WE ARE AT LOSS TO UNDERSTAND HOW HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HAD AN INTENTION TO RESTART ITS BUSINESS. HE HAS SIMPLY RELIED UPON CERTAIN CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT BUT HE HAS OVER LOOKED THE REAL FACTOR THAT NO EFFORTS WER E MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RESTART OR REVIVAL OF ITS BUSI NESS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT STARTED ITS BUSINESS AND HAS F INALLY CLOSED DOWN WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D NEVER INTENTION TO RESTART ITS BUSINESS THEREFORE THE L EASED RENTAL INCOME WAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AS AN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 13. NOW THE QUESTION OF ALLOWABLE EXPENSES ARE CONCERNED WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN THE INCOME WAS CONSIDERED TO BE THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHAT EVER EXPENSES ARE NECESSARY TO BE INCURRED TO EARN THE I NCOME ARE ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE U/S 57(III) OF THE I.T. AC T. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION OR THE INSURANCE EXPENSES. THE OTHER EXPENDITURES WERE DIS ALLOWED BY THE A.O. THE OTHER EXPENSES ARE TO BE EXAMINED INDEPENDENTLY WHETHER THEY ARE NECESSARY TO BE INCU RRED IN EARNING THE AFORESAID INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. TH E ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE A VAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FROM ITS PERUSAL WE FIND THAT THE POULTRY EQUIPMENT REPAIRS SALARY AND WAGES STAFF WELFARE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE PRINTING AND STATIONERY MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES TAX PRESENTATION FEES AUDI T FEES FILING FEES AND BANK CHARGES ARE TO BE ALLOWED BECA USE THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND THE MINIM UM EXPENDITURES ARE TO BE INCURRED TO KEEP THE ASSESSE E COMPANY ALIVE. THE REASONABLENESS IS TO BE ESTIMAT ED BY THE A.O. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO RECOMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ITA NOS 265 AND 266 OF 08 P JANAKI RAMA RAJU VIZAG PAGE 12 OF 15 IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD LEASE D OUT POULTRY COMPLEX AND CLAIMED THE LEASE RENT RECEIPTS AS BUSINESS INC OME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT CASE HELD THAT THE LEASE RENT INC OME IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WHILE COMPUTING T HE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ALLOWED ONLY DEPRECIATION AND INSURANCE AMOUNT AND REJECTED THE CLAIM WITH REGARD TO OTHER EXPENSES. IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASS ESSEE THE LEARNED CIT(A) REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE THE REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM AND ACCORDINGLY THE ABOVE MENTIONED ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 6.3 THE JUDICIAL VIEW IS THAT THE NATURE OF RENT AL RECEIPT HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN TH E INSTANT CASE THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS LEASED OUT THE POULTRY SHEDS FOR FIVE YEARS IT WAS ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REVIVED THE BUSINESS TILL DATE. HENCE IT IS NOT DISCERNIBLE WHETHER THE INTENTION WAS TO LEASE OUT THE POULTRY SHEDS ONLY FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS DOING T HE WORK OF BREEDING THE CHICKS UP TO A PARTICULAR STAGE IN OUR VIEW THE S AID ACTIVITY WILL NOT HELP TO DECIDE THE NATURE OF LEASE RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE. HENCE WE HOLD THAT THE LEASE RENTAL INCOME CANNOT BE ASSESSED UND ER BUSINESS HEAD AND ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C IT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 6.4 HOWEVER IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS ASSESSED THE LEASE RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUS E PROPERTY. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE POULTRY SHEDS ARE SPECIALLY DESIGNED IN A PARTICULAR FASHION IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE TEMPERATURE AND HU MIDITY AT PREDETERMINED LEVELS WHICH ARE CONDUCIVE FOR THE BIRDS. FOR THAT PURPOSE THE FLOOR AND ROOF OF THE SHEDS ARE FILLED WITH PARTICULAR MATERI ALS. BESIDES THE ABOVE HANGING PLATES ARE FITTED INSIDE THE SHEDS IN ORDER TO STORE FOOD AND WATER TO THE BIRDS. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEA RNED A.R THAT THE POULTRY ITA NOS 265 AND 266 OF 08 P JANAKI RAMA RAJU VIZAG PAGE 13 OF 15 SHEDS BEING OF SPECIAL TYPE FITTED WITH MANY FACILI TIES THE LEASE RENTAL INCOME SHOULD ALTERNATIVELY BE ASSESSED UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 6.5 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER SECTION 56(1) OF THE ACT INCOME OF EVERY KIND WHICH IS NOT BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IF IT IS NOT CHAR GEABLE TO INCOME TAX UNDER ANY OF THE OTHER HEADS. SEC. 56(2) WITH OUT PREJUDICE TO THE GENERALITY OF PROVISION OF SUB SECTION (1) LISTS O UT OF CERTAIN TYPES OF INCOME MEANING THEREBY THE SAID LIST IS AN INCLUSI VE LIST AND NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST. IN THE SAID LIST AS PER CLAUSE ( III) THE INCOME RECEIVED ON HIRING OF MACHINERY ETC. AND BUILDINGS AND THE LETT ING OF BUILDINGS IS INSEPARABLE FROM THE LETTING OF SAID MACHINERY ETC. IS CHARGEABLE UNDER OTHER SOURCES IF THE SAME IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO I NCOME TAX UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. SEC. 57 PROVID ES FOR DEDUCTIONS WHICH ARE ALLOWABLE AGAINST THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . 6.6 WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE SAID ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION WAS NOT RAI SED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE IN THE INTEREST OF NATUR AL JUSTICE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE ALSO TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECT ION TO CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE LAW. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE DETERMINATION O F INCOME FROM CHICK BREEDING ACTIVITY. DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04 THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CHICK REARING CHARGES OF RS.6 03 580/- AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.6 00 9 40/- AND DEPRECIATION ITA NOS 265 AND 266 OF 08 P JANAKI RAMA RAJU VIZAG PAGE 14 OF 15 OF RS.2 03 319/-. SIMILARLY IN THE YEAR RELEVANT T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CHICK REARING CHARGE S OF RS.6 94 632/- AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF R S.5 85 450/- AND DEPRECIATION OF RS.3 87 267/-. THUS IN BOTH THE Y EARS THE ASSESSEE RETURNED LOSS FROM THIS ACTIVITY. 7.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED EXPENDITURE O F ONLY 25% OF THE CHICK REARING CHARGES AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSED 75% OF CHI C REARING CHARGES RECEIPTS IN BOTH THE YEARS. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF REARING CHARGES RECEIVED . BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT MAJOR COMPONENT OF EXPE NDITURE CONSISTED OF LABOUR CHARGES AND DEPRECIATION. THE LEARNED CIT(A ) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.29D(XIX-14) DATED 31-08-1965 ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM REARING OF CHI CKS AT 10% OF THE RECEIPTS BEFORE ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AND THERE AFT ER ALLOWED DEPRECIATION THEREON. THE REVENUE IS OBJECTING TO THE COMPUTATI ON MADE BY LEARNED CIT(A). 7.2 WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE INSTANT ACTIVITY IS LABOUR ORIENTED AND HENCE EXPEN DITURE ON WAGES IS HEAVY. HOWEVER THIS FACT WAS PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY LEAR NED CIT(A) AND HENCE HE RESORTED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME FROM THIS ACTIVI TY AT A REASONABLE RATE. FROM THE FACTS MENTIONED ABOVE WE NOTICE THE ASSES SEE HAD RETURNED INCOME FROM THIS ACTIVITY AS UNDER: ASST. YEAR GROSS RECEIPTS EXPENSES NET RECEIPTS (BEFORE DEPN) 2003-04 6 03 580 6 00 940 2 640 2004-05 6 94 632 5 85 450 1 09 182 HOWEVER THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOM E BEFORE DEPRECIATION AT RS.60 358/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND AT RS.69 463/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THUS THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 APPEAR TO BE LESS THAN THE INCOME THAT WAS ITA NOS 265 AND 266 OF 08 P JANAKI RAMA RAJU VIZAG PAGE 15 OF 15 ORIGINALLY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE MAY CAUTIO N HERE THAT WE HAVE COLLATED THESE FIGURES FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CI T(A) AND HENCE THEY NEED VERIFICATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-0 4. HOWEVER WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04-05 TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING NECESSARY VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED ABOVE. IF THE INCOME BEFORE DEPRECIATION THAT WAS O RIGINALLY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN THE ESTIMATE MADE BY LEAR NED CIT(A) THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ADOPT THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. OTHERWISE THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) S TANDS. 8. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AR E TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH MARCH 2011. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATE:08-03-2011 COPY TO 1 THE ACIT CIRCLE-4(1) 3 RD FLOOR DIRECT TAXES BUILDING DOUBLE ROAD MVP COLONY VISAKHAPATNAM 500017 2 SRI P. JANAKI RAMA RAJU 58-21-50 BUTCHIRAJUPALEM GOPALAPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM 3 4. THE CIT 2 VISAKHAPATNAM THE CIT(A)-I VISAKHAPATNAM 5 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM