Sri G Narasinga Rao., Srikakulam v. The JCIT, Range-4,, Visakhapatnam

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.318/VIZAG/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 G. NARASINGA RAO SRIKAKULAM JCIT VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AGIPG0340H ITA NO.360/VIZAG/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 ITO WARD-2 SRIKAKULAM G. NARASINGA RAO SRIKAKULAM (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) CO NO.5/VIZAG/2008 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.360/VIZAG/2007) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 G. NARASINGA RAO SRIKAKULAM ITO WARD-2 SRIKAKULAM (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI B. SASMAL DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI CA ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) . SINCE THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF T HROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. WE HOWEVER PREFERRED TO ADJUDICATE THEM ON E AFTER THE OTHER. 2 ITA NO.318 OF 2008: 2. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT CIT(A) HAS ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED AMOUNTING TO RS.2 LAKHS U/S 271D OF THE ACT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DOCUMENTS PLACED O N RECORD. 4. THE FACTS BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS TAKEN A CASH LOAN OF RS. 2 LAKHS FROM HIS SON SHRI G. KRISHNA MU RTHY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE PROPERTY. AS ACCEPTING LOAN BY CASH OF RS. 2 LAKHS WAS VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 26 9SS OF THE ACT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271D WAS LEVIED BY THE A.O. WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEES. THE ASSESSEE PREFER RED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THOUGH HOUSE PROPER TY WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEES IT WAS COMMON PROPERTY OF THE ASSESS EES FAMILY WHERE THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE AND HIS SON WERE THE MEMBERS. T HE ASSESSEES SON HAD NOT PAID ANY CASH LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE BUT PAID FOR CERTAIN ITEMS OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL. IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENTS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEES SON WAS SHOWN AS INFLOW AND THE C ORRESPONDING OUTFLOW WAS SHOWN AS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THOUGH HE H AS PLACED A RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL OF CHENNAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. B. PRABHAKARAN 2 SOT 564 BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE CIT(A) AND CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVE RED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VANAMADI SATYANARAYANA KAK INADA VS. ACIT 189/VIZAG/2008 IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T WAS INTRODUCED WITH THE INTENTION TO CURB THE TRANSACTIONS OF 3 THE BLACK MONEY. WHILE LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271 D ONE HAS TO EXAMINE THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH LOAN IN CASH WAS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEES. IN CASE OF FAMILY TRANSACTIONS THE BONA FIDE OF THE ASSESSEES SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL IS PLACED ON RECORD. 6. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CA REFUL PERUSAL OF RECORD WE FIND THAT THERE IS A FAMILY LOAN AND THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED THE PROPERTY WHICH IS USED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON FOR WHICH HE TOOK A LOAN FROM HIS SON FOR THE PURCHASE OF VARIOUS RAW M ATERIALS. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF V ANAMADI SATYANARAYANA KAKINADA VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AND WE FIND THAT TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED THIS ISSUE OF LOAN FROM THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IN CASE OF FAMILY TRANSACTIONS BONAFIDE OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT B E DOUBTED. THE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE SAKE OF REFEREN CE ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CARE FUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THE JUDGEMENTS REFERRED TO WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A LOAN WITHOUT INTEREST FROM HIS FATHER A ND HIS WIFE WHEN HE WAS BURDENED WITH THE OBLIGATION OF BORROWED FUNDS OF T HE OUTSIDERS. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNIL KUMAR GOEL (SUPRA) THE LORDSHIP OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT FAMILY TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN TWO INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES BASED ON AN ACT OF CASUALNESS SPECIALLY IN A CASE WHERE THE DISCLOSURE THEREOF IS CONTAINED IN THE COMPILATION OF ACCOUNTS AND WHICH HAS NO TAX EFFECT ESTABLISHES REASONABLE CAUSE U/S 273B FOR NOT INVOKING THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271D AND 271E. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURTS ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDE R FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE: THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN RECORDING ITS CONCLUSIO N THAT A REASONABLE CAUSE HAD BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED H IS CASH BOOKS DEPICTING LOANS TAKEN BY HIM UNILATERALLY BEFORE TH E REVENUE IN THE INSTANT ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN AS MUCH AS THE AS SESSEE DID NOT ATTEMPT BY THE IMPUGNED ACT TO AVOID ANY TAX LIABIL ITY. FURTHERMORE THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THA T THE INSTANT CASH TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE WITH THE SIS TER CONCERN AND THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE BETWEEN THE FAMILY A ND DUE TO BUSINESS EXIGENCY. A FAMILY TRANSACTION BETWEEN T WO INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES BASED ON AN ACT OF CASUALNESS SPECIALLY IN A CASE WHERE THE DISCLOSURE THEREOF IS CONTAINED IN THE COMPILAT ION OF ACCOUNTS AND WHICH HAS NO TAX EFFECT ESTABLISHES REASONABL E CAUSE UNDER S. 273B. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SATISFACTORILY EST ABLISHED REASONABLE CAUSE UNDER S. 273B HE MUST BE DEEMED TO HAVE ESTABLISHED SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT INVOKING THE P ENAL PROVISIONS (SS. 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT) AGAINST HIM. 4 IN THE CASE OF STAR ELECTROPLATERS VS. ITO (SUPRA) THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING ACCEPTED LOAN S IN CASH MAINLY FROM THE PARTY FOR WHOM IT WAS DOING JOB WORK TO MEET ITS BU SINESS EXIGENCIES AFTER MAKING HUGE INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS THERE WAS N O WILLFUL NEGLECT OF LAW ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE PENALTY U /S 217D WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN THE CASE OF SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST VS. ACIT (SU PRA) THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED THE CIRCULAR NO.387 DATED 6.7.84 ISSUED BY THE CBDT AND HAS HELD THAT THE OBJECT OF INTRODUCTION FOR PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 269SS AND 269T WAS TO CURB THE TRANSACTION OF BLACK MONEY. IT SHOULD N OT BE INVOKED FOR A VENIAL BREACH OR TECHNICAL DEFAULT. FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID JUDGEMENTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T WERE INTR ODUCED WITH THE INTENTION TO CURB THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLACK MONEY. WHILE LEVYING A PENALTY U/S 271D ONE HAS TO EXAMINE THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANC ES UNDER WHICH THE LOAN IN CASH WAS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEES. IN CASE OF FAMILY TRANSACTIONS THE BONAFIDE OF THE ASSESSEES SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED AS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNIL KUMAR GOEL (SUPRA). IN THE INSTANT CA SE ASSESSEE HAS MADE OUT A CASE THAT THE FAMILY LOAN WAS OBTAINED TO CLE AR THE LOAN LIABILITIES OF THE OUTSIDERS AND REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANYTHING ON RE CORD TO FALSIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES. UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE INVOCATION OF PROVISIONS O F SECTION 271D IS NOT PROPER. WE THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDG EMENTS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DELETE THE PENALTY. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 7. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A PARTICULAR VIEW I N A SIMILAR SET OF FACTS WE FIND NO REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS A PPEAL. WE THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLD THAT UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES PENALTY IN THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT SU STAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AN D DELETE THE PENALTY. ITA NO.360 OF 2007: 8. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.5.2007 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-II VISAKHAPATNAM AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 9. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE REVENUE EF FECT IN THIS CASE IS LESS THAN RS.2 00 000/- AND AS SUCH THE SAME ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN VIEW OF JUDGEMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF C.I.T. VS A. RAJENDRA 5 PRASAD (299 ITR 227) . IN THE SAID DECISION HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE CBDT INSTRUCTIONS FIXING MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING APPEALS ARE STATUTORY IN NATURE AS THEY WERE ISSUED BY THE CBDT IN EXERCISE OF POWERS UNDER SECTION 119 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THE REVENUE HAS TO NE CESSARILY FOLLOW THEM AND IF A CASE FALLS UNDER ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS PRO VIDED IN THE CIRCULARS A SPECIFIC GROUND SHOULD BE RAISED IN THAT REGARD. A DMITTEDLY THE REVENUE HAS NOT RAISED A SPECIFIC GROUND TO SHOW THAT THE CASE FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN THE CIRCULARS OF CBDT. 10. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW ING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT CITED SUPRA WE D ISMISS THE APPEAL AS UN- ADMITTED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS CONTRARY TO THE P OLICY DECISION TAKEN BY THE CBDT. C.O. NO.5 OF 2008: 11. THROUGH THIS C.O. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED T HE ENTIRE ADDITIONS OF RS.5 26 199/- MADE BY THE A.O. TOWARDS DIFFERENCE I N COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE WITHOUT REALIZING THAT THE REFERENCE TO V ALUATION CELL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND VALUATION REPORT SO OBTAINED WAS NONE ST-IN-LAW AND CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR MAKING THE ADDITIONS TOWARDS DIFFEREN CE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RE CORD. THE FACTS BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A.O. NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED A HOUSE PROPERTY AT SRIKAKULAM ON WHICH HE ADMITTED AN INVESTMENT OF RS.14 LAKHS. THE VALUE OF RS.14 LAKHS WAS FOUND TO BE EXCLUSIVE OF THE ORIGINAL COST OF T HE HOUSE WHICH WAS RS. 5 LAKHS AND FURTHER INVESTMENT OF RS. 9 LAKHS TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PR EVIOUS YEAR WAS ONLY RS.9 LAKHS. THE BUILDING CONSISTED OF A PLINTH AREA OF 4500 SFT. AND COMPRISED OF 3 FLOORS INCLUDING THE GROUND FLOOR. THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT MAINTAIN ANY CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT. THE A.O. MADE THE REFERENCE TO THE D.V.O. U/S 142A OF 6 THE ACT FOR ESTIMATING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. T HE D.V.O. ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.23.69 LAKHS. A COPY OF VALUATION REPORT OF D.V.O. WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR COMMENTS. THE AS SESSEE OBJECTED THE VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION AS ESTIMATED BY THE D.V.O. FO R VARIOUS REASONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE REGISTERED VALUERS REP ORT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS. THE A.O. EXAMINED BOTH THE REPORTS AN D REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEES. THE A.O. HOWEVER ALL OWED THE SELF-SUPERVISION CHARGES @ 10% AND REBATE TOWARDS RATE DIFFERENCE @ 15% FROM THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED BY THE D.V.O. THE A.O. ALSO ALLOWED THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2 004-05 AND 2005-06 OF RS.5 LAKHS FROM THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION. TH US THE A.O. ARRIVED AT A DIFFERENCE OF RS.5 26 199/- BETWEEN THE ADJUSTED CO ST OF CONSTRUCTION AS ESTIMATED BY THE D.V.O. AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTIO N AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEES. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES. 13. THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH HIM. 14. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US WITH THE SUBMISSI ONS THAT THOUGH IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE CIT(A) THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A REBATE OF 10% ON ACCOUNT OF SELF-SUPERVISION CHARGES AND 15% TOWARDS THE RATE DIFFERENCE OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED BY THE D.V.O. BUT IN FACT THE REBATE WAS NOT ALLOWED. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER CO NTENDED THAT AS PER THE REBATE GIVEN BY THE A.O. 25% OF THE COST OF CONSTRU CTION ESTIMATED BY THE D.V.O. IS TO BE REDUCED. THE D.V.O. HAS ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.23.69 LAKHS AND ITS 25% COMES TO RS.5.92 LAKHS. BESIDES THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED T HE SUBSEQUENT INVESTMENT OF RS.5 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN FINANCIAL YEA R 2004-05 AND 2005-06 FROM THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION. IF THAT IS TO BE ALLOWED THEN TOTAL REBATE COMES TO RS.10 92 000/-. WHEREAS THE DIFFERENCE BE TWEEN ADMITTED INVESTMENT I.E. RS.14 LAKHS AND THE COST OF CONSTRU CTION ESTIMATED BY THE D.V.O. AT RS.23.69 LAKHS IS ONLY RS.9.69 LAKHS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES NO ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS 7 CALLED FOR. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTH ER CONTENDED THAT BEFORE THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REGISTERED VALU ERS REPORT IN SUPPORT OF THIS COST OF CONSTRUCTION ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEES BUT HE DID NOT EXAMINE IT. 15. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HAS PLACED A REL IANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 16. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) AND WE FIND IN PARA NO.4.1 THAT CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT A.O. HAS ALLOWED THE SELF-SUPERVISION CHARGES @ 10% AND REBATE TOWARDS THE RATE DIFFERENC E @ 15% FROM THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED BY THE D.V.O. HE HAS FUR THER STATED THAT A.O. HAS FURTHER ALLOWED THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTMENT MADE BY T HE ASSESSEES IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 & 2005-06 OF RS.5 LAKHS FROM THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE CIT(A) FURTHER STATED THAT AFTER GIVING THIS REBATE THE A.O. HAS ARRIVED AT A DIFFERENCE OF RS.5 26 199/- BETWEE N THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED BY THE D.V.O. AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTIO N AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEES. BUT FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE CALCU LATIONS WE FIND THAT THE CALCULATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT PROPER. IF 25% OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED BY THE D.V.O. ON ACCOUNT OF SELF-SUPERVISION CHARGES AND RATE DIFFERENCE ARE TO BE REDUCED FROM THE COS T OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. IT COMES TO RS.17.77 LAKHS. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT A.O. HAS FURTHER GIVEN A DISCOUNT OF RS.5 LAKH S WHICH WAS INVESTED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 & 2005-06 FROM THE TOTAL COS T OF CONSTRUCTION AND IF IT IS ALLOWED THEN THE FINAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTI MATED BY THE D.V.O. COMES TO RS.12.77 LAKHS WHICH IS LESS THAN THE INVESTMENT ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED. IF THE REBATE ON ACCOUNT OF SELF-SUPERVISION AND THE RATE DIFFERENCE AND ALSO INVESTMENT IN FURTHER YEARS ARE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY. WE THEREFORE SET ASI DE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 17. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ALLOWED. 8 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.4.2010 SD/- SD/- (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 13 TH APRIL 2010 COPY TO 1 SRI G. NARASINGA RAO PAPPULA STREET SRIKAKULAM 2 JCIT RANGE-4 AAYAKAR BHAVAN MVP COLONY VISAKH APATNAM 3 THE CIT-2 VISAKHAPATNAM 4 THE CIT(A)-I VISAKHAPATNAM 5 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM