The ACIT, Circle-1(1)., Vijayawada v. M/s Venkatadri Oils Ltd,,

ITA 422/VIZ/2007 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 42225314 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AAACV7404J
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 422/VIZ/2007
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT, Circle-1(1)., Vijayawada
Respondent M/s Venkatadri Oils Ltd,,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 19-08-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 08-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 08-04-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 15-10-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.422/VIZAG/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 ACIT CIRCLE-1(1) VIJAYAWADA M/S. VENKATADRI OILS LTD PENAMALURU (M) (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AAACV 7404J APPELLANT BY: SHRI J. SIRI KUMAR DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI CA ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH ARE EXTRACTED HEREU NDER: 1) THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AS PER LA W AND ON FACTS. 2) THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE PRODUCED THE SUPPLIERS O F PADDY AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF WITH SUPPORTI NG DOCUMENTS. IN FACT THE DELAY IN FURNISHING THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR IS ONLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS CAN BE OBSERVED FROM THE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 18.7.2006 ON PAGE 3 THE ASSESSE E WAS TO FURNISH DETAILS CALLED FOR THROUGH NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 7.7.2006 ON OR BEFORE 1.8.2006. SUBSEQUENT TO THIS HEARING THE AS SESSEE APPEARED ONLY ON 15.12.2006 AND THAT TOO IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE DATED 1.12.2006. HENCE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INSUFFICI ENT TIME OR INADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. HENC E SUBSEQUENT EVIDENCES PRODUCED WHICH WERE HIDDEN FROM THE PURVI EW OF ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE TAKEN ON FACE VALUE AND NEEDS TO BE DISCOURAGED. 3) IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2002- 03 THE ASSESSEE IN HIS LETTER DATED 18.3.2005 HAS STATED WE IN THE PROCESS DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE FARMER IS A OWNER O R LEASEHOLDER OR IS REALLY A FARMER OR NOT OR HIS CREDITWORTHINESS O R WHETHER HE IS AN AGENT OF OTHER FARMERS ETC. WHEN THE POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE IS NOT ABLE TO DISTINGUISH A FARMER OR AN AGENT HAS NOT UNDERGONE ANY CHANGE THE CIT(A) HAVING CONSIDERED ALL SUPPLI ERS AS FARMERS IS INCORRECT. 4) THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FINDING OF THE ITAT IN ITS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IN THE SAME A SSESSEES CASE WITH REGARD TO THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES SUBMITTED S UBSEQUENTLY I.E. 2 THE DOCUMENTATION SO METICULOUSLY MADE WAS APPAREN TLY AIMED AT AVOIDING THE CLUTCHES OF 40A(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT HENCE IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF A.Y. 2002-03 A ND THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. 5) ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF H EARING. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED VAR IOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT THEY ALL RELATE TO THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 40A(3 ) OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEES. THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FIL ED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE QUITE IDENTICAL WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03 IN WHICH THE SAID CLAIMS WERE DISALLOWED BY THE CIT(A). IN A.Y. 2002 -03 THE MATTER HAS TRAVELED TO THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS FINAL LY DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEES AFTER HOLDING THAT THE PAYM ENTS MADE TO THE COMMISSION AGENTS WHO ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E FARMERS ARE COVERED BY THE EXEMPTION UNDER CLAUSE-F OF RULE 6 DD AND HE NCE THE A.O. WAS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL IS PLACED ON RECORD FOR PERUSAL. 3. THESE FACTS WERE NOT DISPUTED BY THE LD. D.R. 4. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CA REFUL PERUSAL OF RECORD WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE A.Y. 2002-03 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED THE VARIOUS A SPECT AND THE CIRCULARS OF THE CBDT BEFORE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT TH E PAYMENTS MADE TO THE COMMISSION AGENTS WHO ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E FARMERS ARE COVERED BY EXEMPTION UNDER CLAUSE-F OF RULE 6DD OF THE I.T. RULES. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER : 3 WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE OBSERVE THAT TH E TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE HEAVILY PLACED THEIR RELIANCE ON THE CIRCULAR NO.34 DATED 5.3.1970 OF CBDT WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED PAYMENT MADE TO AR HATIYA ARE HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AND ACCORDINGLY THEY H AVE ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE IMPUGNED COMMISSION AGENTS ARE ARHATIYAS. THE ISSUE BEFORE US CAN BE EASILY ADDRESSED IF WE DECIDE THE POSITION OF THE COMMISSION AGENT IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE CIRCULAR NO.452 D ATED 17.3.1986 OF THE CBDT WHERE IN THE CBDT CONSIDERED THE POSITION OF THE AGENCY ACTIVITIES/BUSINESS. THOUGH THE SAID CIRCULAR WAS ISSUED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 44AB YET IT IS RELEVANT IN ORDER TO ANALYS E THE POSITION OF COMMISSION AGENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM THE SAID CIRCULAR ARE AS UNDER:- THERE ARE VARIOUS TRADE PRACTICES PREVALENT IN TH E COUNTRY IN REGARD TO AGENCY BUSINESS AND NO UNIFORM PATTERN IS FOLLOWED BY THE COMMISSION AGENTS CONSIGNMENT AGENTS BROKERS KACHHA ARAHTIA S AND PACCA ARAHTIAS DEALING IN DIFFERENT COMMODITIES IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. THE PRIMARY NECESSITY IN EACH INSTANCE IS TO ASCERTAIN WITH PRECISION WHAT ARE THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE PARTICULAR CONTRACT UNDER CONS IDERATION. EACH TRANSACTION THEREFO4RE REQUIRES TO BE EXAMINED WI TH REFERENCE TO ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND NO HARD AND FAST RULE CAN BE LAI D DOWN AS TO WHETHER THE AGENT IS ACTING ONLY AS AN AGENT OR ALSO AS A PRINC IPAL. THE CBDT THEN PROCEED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BE TWEEN A KACHHA ARAHTIA AND A PACCA ARAHTIA IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: - A) A KACHHA ARAHTIA ACTS ONLY AS AN AGENT OF HIS CONST ITUENT AND NEVER ACTS AS A PRINCIPAL. A PACCA ARAHTIA ON THE OTHER HAND IS ENTITLED TO SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN GOODS TOWARDS THE CONTRACT MA DE..AND THUS HE (PACCA ARAHTIA) ACTS AS A PRINCIPAL AS REGARDS HIS CONSTITUENT. B) A KACHHA ARAHTIA BRINGS A PRIVITY CONTRACT BETWEEN HIS CONSTITUENT AND THE THIRD PARTY SO THAT EACH BECOMES LIABLE TO THE OTHER. THE PACCA ARAHTIA ON THE OTHER HAND MAKES HIMSELF LIA BLE UPON THE CONTRACT NOT ONLY TO THE THIRD PARTY BUT ALSO TO HI S CONSTITUENT. C) KACHHA ARAHTIA IS AN AGENT FOR AN UNNAMED PRINCIPAL . THE PUCCA ARAHTIA ON THE OTHER HAND DOES NOT INFORM HIS CON STITUENT AS TO THE THIRD PARTY WITH WHOM HE HAS ENTERED INTO A CON TRACT ON HIS BEHALF. D) THE REMUNERATION OF A KACHHA ARAHTIA CONSISTS SOLEL Y OF COMMISSION AND HE IS NOT INTERESTED IN THE PROFITS AND LOSSES MADE BY HIS CONSTITUENT AS IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE PUCCA ARAHT IA. E) THE KACHHA ARAHTIA UNLIKE THE PUCCA ARAHTIA DOES NO T HAVE ANY DOMINION OVER THE GOODS. F) THE KACHHA ARAHTIA HAS NO PERSONAL INTEREST ON HIS OWN WHEN HE ENTERS INTO A TRANSACTION AND HIS INTEREST IS LIMIT ED TO THE COMMISSION AGENTS CHARGES AND CERTAIN OUT OF POCKE T EXPENSES WHEREAS A PACCA ARAHTIA HAS A PERSONAL INTEREST OF HIS OWN WHEN HE ENTERS INTO A TRANSACTION. 4 G) IN THE EVENT OF ANY LOSS THE KACHHA ARAHTIA IS ENTI TLED TO BE INDEMNIFIED BY HIS PRINCIPAL AS IS NOT THE CASE WIT H PACCA ARAHTIA. THE POSITION OF THE COMMISSION AGENTS IN THE PRESEN T CASE IS DESCRIBED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)S O RDER AS UNDER:- (A) ASSESSMENT ORDER:- (A) THE COMMISSION AGENTS WERE SPREAD OVER THE VILLAGES AND THEY PROCURED PADDY FROM THE FARMERS AND SUPPLIED T HE PADDY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN THESE TRANSACTION S THERE IS NO DIRECT CONTACT BETWEEN THE FARMERS AND THE COMPANY. (B) ONE OF THE COMMISSION AGENTS NAMELY MR. YELLA REDD Y OF MUNNANGI VILLAGE WAS EXAMINED. HE HAS NARRATED TH AT HE USED TO RECEIVE THE CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF PADDY BY CASH FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND IN TURN DISTRIBUTE TH E AMOUNT TO FARMERS. BY DEDUCTING HIS COMMISSION. HENCE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE COMPANY IS ALWAYS PAY ING CASH TO THOSE COMMISSION AGENTS FOR PURCHASE OF THEIR PA DDY (PAGE 4) (B) CIT(A) S ORDER:- (A) THE TRANSACTION WAS WITH THE COMMISSION AGENT OR MIDDLEMEN WHO HAD BEEN SUPPLYING THE PADDY TO THE COMPANY OVER THE YEARS. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY CONTRACT WITH TH E FARMERSTHE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND T HE COMMISSION AGENTS WAS OF MUTUAL TRUST (PAGE 9) (B) FOR DOCUMENTATION THE APPELLANT DID DEPEND SOLELY A ND EXCLUSIVELY ON THE COLLABORATION OF THE COMMISSION AGENTS. THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE COMMISSION AGENTS. T HE APPELLANT DID NOT KNOW WHO WAS THE GROWER OR PRODUC ER AND HOW MUCH AMOUNT WAS REALLY PAID TO THEM (PAGES 10-1 1). THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN HIS ARGUMENT HAS REFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS MANAGING DIRECTORS STATEMEN T REPRODUCED IN PAGE 3 OF LD. CIT(A)S ORDER WHERE IN HE HAS STATED THAT T HE COMMISSION AGENTS ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FARMERS. ONE OF THE COM MISSION AGENTS NAMED ARAGA YELLA REDDY FROM WHOM A STATEMENT WAS TAKEN H AS STATED AS UNDER:- (A) Q.NO.3: SINCE HOW LONG YOU ARE A BROKER AND FOR HOW MANY COMPANIES YOU ARE SUPPLYING PADDY? I AM DOING BROKERAGE SINCE 2000. I AM SUPPLYING PADD Y TO VENKATADRI BRAN OIL MILL (B) Q.NO.5 : WHAT IS THE MODUS OPERANDI OF YOUR BUS INESS:- I AM ARRANGING THE PADDY TO THE MILL FOR ITS PROCURE MENT OF PADDY. THE MILL IN TURN PAY THE AMOUNT TO ME FOR THE PADDY PURCHASED. I AM DEDUCTING MY COMMISSION AND I AM PAYING THE BALANCE AMOUNT TO THE FARMERS. Q.NO.8: WHAT IS THE MODE OF PAYMENT OF THE COMPAN Y TO YOU? I RECEIVE CASH FROM THE COMPANY ON BEHALF OF THE FAR MERS. 5 THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPEAR TO HAVE ACCEPTED THESE COMMISSION AGENTS AS BROKER WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE QUESTI ON NO.3 PUT TO ARAGA YELLA REDDY. IN PAGE 1398 OF P. RAMANATHA IYERS THE LAW OF LEXIC ON (2 ND EDITION REPRINT 2000) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAKKA ADATIA AND BROKER IS EXPLAINED AS UNDER:- THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PAKKA ADATIA AND A BROKER IS THAT THE BROKER ENTERS INTO THE CONTRACT AS AGENT FOR HIS CLIENT H E HIMSELF BEING NOT PERSON LIABLE TO THE PERSON WITH WHOM HE CONTRACTS WHILE T HE ADATIA DOES NOT MAKE THE CONTRACT WITH THIRD PARTIES AS THE AGENT BUT AS PRINCIPAL. THE ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF ARAHTYAS AN D THE POSITION OF THE COMMISSION AGENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE SHOW THAT THE IMPUGNED COMMISSION AGENTS ARE AKIN TO KACHHA ARAHTYAS/BROKER. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THEY ACT AS AGENTS AND ONLY THE NAME OF FARMERS ARE ENTERED IN THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. AS STATED BY THE CBDT IN ITS CIR CULAR NO.452 SUPRA THE TRADE PRACTICES IN THE AGENCY BUSINESS IS NOT UNIFO RM THROUGH OUT THE COUNTRY. THE NEXT QUESTION THEN NATURALLY ARISES IN THIS CAS E IS WHOSE AGENTS ARE THEY? THE LD. D.R. HAS ARGUED THAT THEY ARE NO T THE AGENTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SINCE NO COMMISSION IS PAID TO THE M BY THE COMPANY. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR HAS ALSO STATED THAT THEY ARE REP RESENTATIVES OF THE FARMERS. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT THEY ALSO ACT AS THE AGENTS OF THE COMPANY. HENCE IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED C OMMISSION AGENTS ARE THE AGENTS/BROKERS OF THE FARMERS. THE DEFINITIO N OF THE AGENT IS GIVEN AS UNDER IN PAGE 63 OF K.J. AIYARS JUDICIAL DICTIONAR Y (TWELFTH EDITION). A PERSON EMPLOYED TO DO ANY ACT FOR ANOTHER OR TO REPRESENT THE OTHER IN DEALINGS WITH THIRD PERSONS.. BROKERS ARE COMMERCIAL AGENTS. ..CONTRACT OF AGENCY NEED NOT BE CREATED BY A WRIT TEN DOCUMENT. IT MAY BE INFERRED FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES (BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY V. GOKUL DAS 1986 ALL LJ 31 AT 36 (B.D. AGARWAL J). IN THE SWORN STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE AGENTS SHRI ARA GA YELLA REDDY HE STATES THAT HE IS A BROKER; THAT HE RECEIVES MON EY ON BEHALF OF THE FARMERS HE DEDUCTS HIS COMMISSION AND PAY THE BALA NCE AMOUNT TO THE FARMERS. THE COMPANY HAS ALSO ENTERED THE NAME OF RESPECTIVE FARMERS ONLY IN ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND LEDGER OF THE ACCOUNTS. THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.34 DATED 5.3.1970 REFERS TO TH E PURCHASES MADE FROM THE ARHATIYA. AT THAT TIME THE CBDT DID NO T FURTHER CLASSIFY THE ARHATIYA INTO KACHHA ARHATIYA AND PUCCA ARHATIYA. IN ITS SUBSEQUENT CIRCULAR NO.452 DATED 5.3.70 SUPRA SUCH CLASSIFIC ATION WAS MADE AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM WERE EXPLAINED AS STATED EA RLIER. ON ANALYZING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE KACHHA ARHATIYA AND PUCCA A RHATIA IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ARHATIYAS REFERRED TO IN CIRCULAR NO.34 ARE O NLY PUCCA ARHATIYAS. 6 ON A CONSPECTUS OF THE MATTER WE COME TO THE FOLLO WING CONCLUSIONS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. (A) THE IMPUGNED COMMISSION AGENTS ARE AKIN TO THE KACHHA ARHATIYAS AND HENCE THE CIRCULAR NO.34 OF TH E CBDT RELIED UPON BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PRESENT CASE. (B) THE IMPUGNED COMMISSION AGENTS ARE THE AGENTS/REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FARMERS. (C) AS PER THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF THE TERM AGENT TH ERE NEED NOT BE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND IT MAY BE INFERRED BY THE CONDUCT. THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNE D COMMISSION AGENTS ARE THE AGENTS OF THE FARMERS IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THEN IN THE EYES OF LAW WHATEVER AN AGENT DOES IS DEEMED TO BE AN ACT OF HIS PRINCIPAL BECAUSE THE AGENT ENTERS INTO THE SHOES OF THE PRINCIPAL. (D) IN THE PRESENT CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESS EE COMPANY THOUGH ENTERED INTO THE TRANSACTIONS THROUGH THE COMMISSION AGENTS HAS DULY RECORDED THE NAME OF RESPECTIVE FARMERS (PRINCIPALS) ONLY IN ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE AVERMENT OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE DIRE CT CONTACT WITH THE FARMERS SHOULD ONLY BE CONSTRUED A S NO DIRECT PERSONAL CONTACT. (E) THE OBJECT OF INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 40A(3) HAS BE EN EXPLAINED IN CIRCULAR NO.6P DATED 6.7.1968 AS UNDER :- THIS PROVISION IS DESIGNED TO COUNTER EVASION OF T AX THROUGH CLAIMS FOR EXPENDITURE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN CASH WITH A VIEW TO FRUSTRATE PROPER INVESTIGATION BY TH E DEPARTMENT AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE PAYEE AND THE REASONABLEN ESS OF THE PAYMENT. THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES HAVING BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) THE RE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE DOCUMENTATION AND BOOKS OF ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE COMMISSION AGENTS WHO ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E FARMERS ARE COVERED BY THE EXEMPTION UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF RU LE 6DD AND HENCE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE AD DITION MADE U/S 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.3.2008. 5. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A PARTICULAR VIEW I N A SIMILAR SET OF FACTS IN A.Y. 2002-03 WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. WE 7 THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT FINDING OF THE CIT(A) AR E IN CONSONANCE OF THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2002-03. THEREFORE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE ACCORD INGLY CONFIRM THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.8.2010 SD/- SD/- (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 19 TH AUGUST 2010 COPY TO 1 ACIT CIRCLE-1(1) VIJAYAWADA. 2 M/S. VENKATADRI OILS LTD. GANGUPRU PENAMALURU ( M) KRISHNA DIST. 3 THE CIT VIJAYAWADA 4 THE CIT(A) VIJAYAWADA 5 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM