The ITO, Ward-1, Kakinada v. Sri J Venkateswara Rao & Others, Mandapeta

ITA 512/VIZ/2004 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 51225314 RSA 2004
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 512/VIZ/2004
Duration Of Justice 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-1, Kakinada
Respondent Sri J Venkateswara Rao & Others, Mandapeta
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 24-03-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 03-09-2004
Judgment Text
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 NOS.512/VIZAG/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 ITO WARD-1 KAKINADA VS. M/S JONNALA VENKATESWARA RAO & OTHERS MANDAPETA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI B. SASMAL DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C.V.S. MURTHY CA ORDER PER SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON LAW A ND ON FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .35 01 012/- MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS THE DIFFERENCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTI ON OF THE GODOWNS. 3. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DECISION O F THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 262 ITR 407 (SMT. AMIA BA LA PAUL VS CIT) IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. THE LD CIT (A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE REFE RENCE MADE TO THE VALUATION CELL WAS NEITHER U/S 55 A OF THE I.T. ACT NOR U/S 16A OF THE W.T. ACT AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE REFERENCE WAS NO T VALID. 5. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE AMOUNT OF RS.2 99 336/- BROUGHT TO TAX AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES TOWARDS UNPRO VED LIABILITIES. PAGE 2 OF 8 6. THE LD CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE A SSESSEE DID NOT ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE LIABILITIES C LAIMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2 99 336/- 7. THE LD CIT (A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ADMITTED FRESH EVI DENCE SINCE NONE OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN RULE-46 A (1) (A) TO (D ) ARE FULFILLED. 8. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE IN CO NTRAVENTION OF RULE- 46A(3) SINCE NEITHER OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OF RULE-46 A (3) HAVE BEEN FULFILLED. 9. THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE SUSTAINED THE AMOUNT OF R S.2 99 336/- BROUGHT TO TAX TOWARDS IMPROVED LIABILITIES. 10. ANY OTHER GROUND (S) THAT MAY BE TAKEN UP AT THE TI ME OF APPEAL HEARING. THOUGH VARIOUS GROUNDS ARE RAISED BY THE REVENUE B UT THEY ALL RELATE MAINLY ON TWO ISSUES: I) DELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF GODOWNS. II) DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2 99 336/- MADE ON ACCOU NT OF UNPROVED LIABILITIES. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES AND DOCUMENTS PLACED O N THE RECORD. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENT IN THE GODOWNS THE FACTS BORNE OUT ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PART NERSHIP FIRM AND HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 (1) OF THE ACT. NOTICE U/S 142 (1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE AO ON 28-03-2002 AND THEREAFTER T HE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 07-02-2003 DECLAR ING NIL INCOME. AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET THE ASSESSEE OWN TWO SITES VALUED AT RS.4 74 200/- AND 3 GODOWNS THE COST OF WHICH WAS SHOWN AT RS.58 54 89 5/-. A SURVEY OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHRI JONN ALA VENKATESWARA RAO WHO IS THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ON 15-03-2001. SOME VOUCHERS AND BILLS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION OF GODO WNS WERE FOUND BUT REGULAR PAGE 3 OF 8 BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. FOR ASCERTAINING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION THE AO REFER RED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION CELLS AND THE S.E (VALUATION) HAS FILED H IS REPORT ON 17-3-2003 ESTIMATING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF 3 AC SHEETS GODOWNS AND RCC FRAME STRUCTURE AT RS.1 11 13 452/-. WHILE ARRIVING THIS COST THE S.E. ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF RS.5 80 163/- BEING 5% OF THE COST ARR IVED BY HIM TOWARDS SELF SUPERVISION ON ACCOUNT OF DIRECT PURCHASE OF MATERI AL AND LABOURS ENGAGED. 3. A COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VALUATION CELL WAS FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19-3-2003 CALLING FOR ITS OBJECTIONS. T HE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY DATED 19-5-2003 STATING THEREIN THAT PERIOD OF CONS TRUCTION OF GODOWNS WAS FROM FEBRUARY 2000 TO MARCH 2001 AND THAT THE WOR K OF CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE BUILDING LAYING OF ROADS FENCING ETC. WAS DONE IN A PHASED MANNER DURING 2001-02 AND 2002-03. HAVING APPRISED OF THES E FACTS THE S.E. (VALUATION CELL) HAS FURNISHED THE REPORT ON 4-8-20 03 BIFURCATING COST OF GODOWNS AND THE OFFICE BUILDING AND AS PER THIS REP ORT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF GODOWNS WAS ARRIVED AT RS.98 37 128/- AFTER ALLO WING A REBATE OF 5%. THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTI MATED BY THE S.E. (VALUATION CELL) AND HAS FILED THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED OBJECTION BEFORE THE AO TH AT THE REFERENCE TO VALUATION CELL CANNOT BE MADE IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. AMIYABALA PAUL VS. CIT 262 ITR 407. HE HAS ALSO FILED THE OTHER EV IDENCES TO JUSTIFY THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DECLARED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE WORKED OUT THE DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 35 01 012/-. BESIDES TH E AO HAS ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2 99 336/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED LI ABILITIE THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE NAME OF SUPPLIERS OF THE RAW MATERIAL. ACCORDINGLY THE AO DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.38 00 348/ -. PAGE 4 OF 8 4. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM THAT THE LAPSES IN CONSISTENCY AND MISTA KE IN FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME TAX WAS ABSOLUTELY ON ACCOUNT OF INDIFFERENC E AND IGNORANCE ON THE PART OF THE INCOME TAX CONSULTANT T.CHIRANJEEVI RAO OF MANDAPETA. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUATION REPORT GIVEN BY THE S. E CPWD IS NOT VALID AND CANNOT BE TAKEN TO ACCOUNT IN VIEW OF THE SUPREME C OURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SMT. AMIYA BALA PAUL VS. CIT (SUPRA). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SUPP ORTED BY BILLS VOUCHERS ETC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF GODOWNS AND THE VOUCHERS AND BILLS PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION HAVE BEEN TAKEN UP BY THE IT DEPTT.AT THE TIME OF SURVEY OPERATION U/S 133(A) ON 15-3-2001. THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS HAVE BEEN KEPT AT THE GODOWNS AND THE SAME WERE NOT ASKED FOR BY THE DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY OPERATION. WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER RELEVANT RECORDS T HE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE D.V.O. THE CIT (A) RE-EXAMI NED THE ISSUE AND HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 7-2-2003. SUBSEQUENTLY V IDE LETTER DATED 17-12-2003 THE AO D IRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE DOCUMENTS LIS TED THEREIN ON 31-12-2003 ON WHICH THE DATE AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER WAS FILED R EQUESTING TO ADJOURN THE HEARING AFTER 3 RD JANUARY AS THE MANAGING PARTNER HAS GONE TO PUTTAP ARTHI ON 27 TH DECEMBER 2003 AND IS EXPECTED ON 3 RD JANUARY. CONSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 23-1-2004. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOR DOES THE AO APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN INSISTED ON THIS ISSUE. THE CIT (A) HOWEVER OBSERVED THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO FUR NISH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE AO AND THE SAME WAS NOT DISCHARGED BY TH E ASSESSEE. HE HOWEVER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS REFERRED T HE ISSUE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE VALUATION CELL WITHOUT VERIFYIN G THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS THEREIN. RELYING U PON THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF AMIYA BALA PAUL VS. CIT ( SUPRA) AND JUDGMENT OF PAGE 5 OF 8 THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRA TAP SINGH AND OTHERS 200 ITR 788 THE CIT (A) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT TH E REFERENCE MADE BY THE AO TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR ESTIMATING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE GODOWNS IS INCORRECT AND INVALID. MORE SO IT WAS MA DE WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSE E. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THE REFERENCE TO BE INVALID AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 35 01 012/- TOWARDS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE GODOW NS. 6. NOW THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITH REGARD TO THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE GODOWNS. THOUGH HE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE SAME BY THE AO BUT IT WAS NOT PRODUCED . DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION THE AO HAS COLLECTED SOME VOUCHERS AND EVIDENCE WHICH INDICATES UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. A CCORDINGLY THE REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DVO AND ON THE BASIS OF THE DVOS REPORT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED TO BE THE UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. THE LD DR HAS ALSO PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 7. THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAN D HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS FIRST TIME ISSUED A LETTER DATED 17-12-2003 TO FURNISH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ON 31-12-2003 ON WHICH THE MANAGING PARTNER WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THERE AFTER THE HEARING WAS FIXED ON 23-01-2004 BUT THE AO DID NOT ASK FOR THE PRODUC TION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTE NDED THAT THE REFERENCE WAS MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT ASKING THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALSO WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS THEREIN. AS SUCH THE REFERENCE IS INVALID IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S R.K. PALACE TANUKU IN ITA NO.361/VIZAG/2003 IN WHI CH THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT BOOKS NEED NOT BE WRI TTEN ON DAY TO DAY BASIS AND SO LONG AS THE BOOKS WERE WRITTEN ON REGULAR BA SIS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF THAT THE BOOKS WERE WRITTEN AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR SUCH BOOKS CANNOT PAGE 6 OF 8 BE REJECTED. WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S A REFERENCE TO THE DVO IS ALSO NOT PROPER. HE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON T HE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF AMIYA BALA PAUL VS.CIT SUPRA I N SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO U/S 155(A) OR 131(1) CANNOT BE MADE TO ASCERTAIN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES AND THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT REFERRED TO BY THE PARTIES. UNDISPUTEDLY THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT FILED U/S 139 (1) IT WAS RATHER FILED CONSEQUENT TO THE NOTIC E ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE IT ACT DECLARING NIL INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF SURV EY CONDUCTED ON 15-3-2001 IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF JONNALA VENKATESWARA RAO THE MANAGING PARTNER SOME VOUCHERS AND BILLS RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTIO N OF GODOWNS WERE FOUND. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT CALLED FOR BY THE AO TIL L 17-12-2003. THE AO WROTE HIS LETTER ON 17-12-2003 FOR PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ON 31-12-2003 AND ON THAT DATE THE ASSESS EE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT ITS MANAGING PARTNER HAD GONE TO PU TTAPARTHI AND IS EXPECTED BACK ON 3-1-2004. CONSEQUENTLY THE HEARING WAS ADJO URNED AND THE CASE WAS POSTED ON 23-1-2004. IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORD WHETHER ON 23-1-2004 THE AO FURTHER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER MATERIAL WITH REGARD TO THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. T HE REFERENCE TO THE DVO WAS MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT MAKING PROPER VERIFICATION O F THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD. BOOK S WERE CALLED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE AO BY ISSUING A LETTER DATED 17-12-2003 WHER EAS THE REFERENCE WAS MADE EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER FILING OF THE RETURN IN AS MUCH AS THE VALUATION REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DVO ON 17-3-2003 MEANING THEREBY R EFERENCE TO THE DVO WAS MADE WITHOUT VERIFYING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AL SO WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS THEREIN. THE IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS EXAMINED B Y THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE NO.361/VIZAG/2003 IN THE CASE OF ITO WARD-1 TANUKU VS. R.K. PALACE AND THE TRIBUNAL WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS THEREIN WITH REGARD TO THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DECLARED IN IT THE PAGE 7 OF 8 REFERENCE TO THE DVO IS NOT PROPER. THE ASSESSEE HA S ALSO FILED THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER IN SUPPORT OF THE V ALUATION DECLARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 9. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX C OURT IN THE CASE OF AMIYA BALA PAUL VS. CIT (SUPRA) IN WHICH THEIR LORD SHIP HAVE HELD THAT THE AO CANNOT MAKE A REFERENCE FOR ASSESSMENT REGARDING TH E COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE VALUATION OFFIC ER. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE APEX COURT IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: FROM THIS IT IS CLEAR THAT WHENEVER REFERENCE TO A VALUATION OFFICER APPOINTED UNDER THE WEALTH-TAX ACT IS PERMISSIBLE U NDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT IT HAS BEEN STATUTORILY SO PROVIDED. APART FROM THE AFORESAID THE VALUATION OFFICER IS APPOINTED UNDER THE WEALTH-TAX ACT AND CAN DISCHARGE FUNCTIONS WITH IN THE STATUTORY LIMITS UNDER WHICH HE IS APPOINTED. IT IS NOT OPEN T O A VALUATION OFFICER TO ACT IN HIS CAPACITY AS VALUATION OFFICER OTHERWISE THAN IN DISCHARGE OF HIS STATUTORY FUNCTIONS. HE CAN NOT BE CALLED UPON NOR WOULD HE HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO GIVE A REPORT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT EXCEPT WHEN A REFE RENCE IS MADE UNDER AND IN TERMS OF SECTION 55A OR TO A COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 269L. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE HIGH COURT I NCORRECTLY ANSWERED THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IT IN THE AFFIRMA TIVE. THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT REFER THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR ESTIMATING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY. THE APPEAL IS A CCORDINGLY ALLOWED AND THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT SET ASID E. 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS THE REFERENCE MADE B Y THE AO TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINING OF THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF GODO WNS IS NOT PROPER ON BOTH THE COUNTS. THUS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED BY THE DVO CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. WE THEREFORE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF THE CIT (A) AND WE CONFIRM THE SAME IN THIS REGARD. 11. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.2 99 336/- ARE CON CERNED WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE NAME OF TEN PERSONS EACH OF WHOM WAS STATED TO BE MATERIAL SUPPLIERS AND THE AMOUNTS ARE RANGING FROM RS.10 000/- TO RS.72 000/- PAGE 8 OF 8 AS DUE TO EACH OF THEM. THE LIABILITY WAS DULY EXPL AINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND BEING CONVINCED THAT THE CIT (A) DE LETED THE ADDITION. DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL NO DEFECTS WERE POINTED OUT BY THE LD DR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. WE HO WEVER CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THIS CREDIT LIABILITY AND THE CIT (A) HAS EXAMINED IT IN ITS PARA 5.2 OF HIS ORDER. SINCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS OR DER WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24-03-2010. SD/- SD/- (B R BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATE: 24 TH MARCH 2010. COPY TO 1 ITO WARD-1 KAKINADA 2 M/S JONNALA VENKATESWARA RAO & OTHERS YEDIDHA ROAD MANDAPETA EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3 THE CIT (A) RAJAHMUNDRY 4 THE CIT RAJAHMUNDRY 5 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM