PILLI NOOKA RAJU,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
Per Shri S.Balakrishnan, Accountant Member :
Condonation of Delay : These appeals are filed by the assessees against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-3, Visakhapatnam dated
2 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
2018 for the Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2008-09 to 2013-14 with the delay of 54 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay, submitting that Sri P.Nooka Raju, father of the assessee who manages the affairs of the assessee, fell sick and he was advised bed rest for 2 months. He took all the necessary steps for filing the appeal after he recovered. The assessee submitted that the delay of 54 days in filing the appeal was due to the genuine reasons stated above that were beyond the control of the assessee, which are neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing.
We have heard the Ld.AR and find reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals. Hence, the delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing. I.T.A.No.98/Viz/2019, A.Y.2011-12
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)]-3, Visakhapatnam in ITA No.263/2015-16/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2017-18 dated 15.10.2018, arising out of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2011-12, admitting total income of Rs.3,74,950/-. A search and seizure operation was carried out in the case
3 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
of the assessee on 13.07.2011 and the case was centralised to Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam on 28.10.2011. Subsequently, notice u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 was issued on 05.06.2012. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return of income, admitting the same income. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 03.10.2012 followed by a notice u/s 142(1) along with detailed questionnaire. In response to the above notice, the assessee requested time to submit the required information. Due to change in incumbency, another notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 14.02.2014, where, he was given final opportunity to comply with the notices issued earlier on 03.10.2012. In response to the notices, the assessee’s authorized representative appeared but failed to submit any information. In view of the non compliance for the various notices issued by the Ld.AO, a detailed final show cause notice was issued on 19.03.2014. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted his reply on 03.10.2014. Considering the replies filed by the assessee, the Ld.AO made the following additions
(a) Undisclosed / unaccounted income - Rs.62,48,500
(b) Deposits in bank accounts - Rs,25,57,294/-
4 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee’s representative submitted the same documents as filed before the Ld.AO. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering the submissions, accepted the same that the assessee has received loan against the property for Rs.37,12,000/-, which is evidenced by the copy of GPA cum sale deed dated 10.11.2010 between Shri Veer Raghava Reddy, Shri N.Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy and the assessee. Out of the entire addition of Rs.62,48,500/-, the Ld.CIT(A) granted relief to the extent of Rs.37,12,000/-, considering the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders established by the assessee. Considering the similar issue with respect to addition of Rs.25,36,500/-, the Ld.CIT(A) allowed Rs.25,36,500/- to the assessee. With respect to cash deposits, the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs.18,74,950/- made by the AO.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. Originally, the assessee had raised four grounds of appeal and later on, revised to three grounds which are extracted as follows :
The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in partly sustaining the addition of Rs.18,74,950/- out of the total
5 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
addition of Rs.25,57,294 made by the assessing officer towards unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts.
Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.
Ground No.1 and 3 are general in nature and needs no adjudication.
Ground No.2 is with respect to sustaining the addition of Rs.18,74,950/- made by the AO. The main contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee has received Rs.15,00,000/- by way of cheque against sale cum GPA agreement from Sri S.Veera Raghavareddy as advance. The Ld.AR further submitted that the same Rs.15,00,000/- has been considered for tax, while disallowing Rs.62,48,500/- and also while disallowing Rs.25,57,294/-. The Ld.AR referred to page No.17 of the order of the Ld.AO, detailing the breakup of Rs.25,57,294/- and pointed out that the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- also included. Therefore, the Ld.AR pleaded that the same amount cannot be taxed twice and prayed for relief.
Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.AO and pleaded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee on this ground.
We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed on record. Admittedly, the assessee has received Rs.15,00,000/- by way of 6 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
cheque from Shri Veera Raghava Reddy as loan against property by way of execution of GPA cum sale agreement for security . This fact was not disputed by the revenue. Further, we find from the arguments of the Ld.AR that the Ld.AO in page No.17 of his order has given a detailed breakup of cash deposits and cheque deposits in assessee’s bank account amounting to Rs.25,57,294/-. We find from the table as extracted in Ld.AO’s order that the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was included while disallowing the cash deposits of Rs.25,57,294/-. We, therefore find merit in the argument of the Ld.AR that the same amount cannot be taxed twice in the hands of the assessee. Further, as submitted by the Ld.AR , the Ld.CIT(A) also has granted relief for Rs.15,00,000/- while it being included in the amount of Rs.62,48,500/-, but has failed to discuss on taxation of Rs.15 lakhs under cash deposits made by the assessee which is included in the disallowance of Rs.25,57,294/-. We are therefore of the considered view that since the same amount cannot be taxed twice, we direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition of Rs.15,00,000/- and hence, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is partly allowed.
7 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
I.T.A.No.99/Viz/2019, A.Y.2012-13
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)- 3, Visakhapatnam in I.T.A.No.299/2015-16/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2017-18 dated 15.10.2018 for the A.Y.2012-13. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2012-13, admitting total income of Rs.3,62,810/-. Subsequently, search and seizure operation was carried out on 13.07.2011 and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 08.08.2013 calling for the return of income for the A.Y.2012-13. Since the assessee has not complied with the notice, another letter was issued by the AO on 14.02.2014 by providing final opportunity. In response, the assessee filed his return of income admitting same income on 19.02.2014. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along with detailed questionnaire was issued to the assessee. Since the assessee did not comply with the notices, show cause notice was issued on 19.03.2014 to submit objections, if any for the proposed additions by the Ld.AO. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee vide his letter dated 27.03.2014 sought time to give comprehensive reply and submitted his reply on 27.03.2014. Considering the replies made by the assessee, the Ld.AO made the additions as follows :
8 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
(a) Addition towards unexplained cash deposits - Rs.12,07,534/- (b) Addition towards unexplained Marriage expenses - Rs.7,94,239/-
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee furnished the same information as furnished before the Ld.AO. Considering the replies and submissions made by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A), by providing substantial relief, has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee on this ground.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following 3 grounds :
The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam is not justified in partly sustaining the addition of Rs.1,09,750/- out of the total addition of Rs.2,19,500/- made by the assessing officer towards unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts.
Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.
Ground No.1 and 3 are general in nature, which needs no adjudication.
9 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
Ground No.2 is with respect to sustaining the addition of Rs.1,09,750/- by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has deposited cash for Rs.2,19,500/-, but admitted that the assessee could not produce vouchers for the same.
Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and pleaded to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee on this ground.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. As admitted by the Ld.AR, the assessee could not produce any vouchers before the revenue authorities or before us. The Ld.CIT(A) has therefore, rightly considered the issue based on the facts and circumstances of the case and has held as follows :
(iv) Regarding the credit of Rs.2,19,500/-, it is the contention of the appellant that the amount was deposited by Sri P.Ravinder Kumar, General Secretary, Association of Transport Department Technical Officers. The fact that the appellant is holding the post of General Secretary of All India Federation of Motor Vehicles is not disproved by the Assessing Officer. It is logical that the appellant would have incurred some expenditure, whether it is Rs.2,19,500/- or otherwise needs to be seen. The appellant had not produced any vouchers before me. In that event, it is felt that the disallowance of 50% of expenditure would meet both the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to calculate the disallowance of amount at 50% of Rs.2,19,500/- as it is not verifiable in nature. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) considering the facts and circumstances of the case has granted substantial relief and therefore, we are not 10 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
inclined to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee accordingly.
I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2019, A.Y.2013-14
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)- 3, Visakhapatnam in I.T.A.No.537/2015-16/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2017-18 dated 15.10.2018. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2013-14, admitting total income of Rs.3,54,550/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. On verification of the bank accounts and details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.4,05,000/- in Axis Bank, Ongole A/c No.293010100094391. The assessee was asked to furnish explanation regarding the sources of cash deposits. The assessee furnished written explanation, stating that out of the cash deposits of Rs.4,05,000/-, an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was received from the Association of Transport Department of Technical Officers, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in connection with the association activities, towards reimbursement of expenses like Transport, Telephone expenses, printing and stationery, xerox etc and the balance amount of 11 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
Rs.1,65,000/- is gross receipt from real estate commission. But the assessee failed to produce any supporting evidence with regard to the sources of deposit of Rs.2,40,000/- and in the absence of supporting evidence, the AO treated the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- as unexplained income and charged to tax u/s 69 of the Act. The AO passed assessment order on 30.03.2014 by making addition of Rs.2,40,000/- in the form of unexplained cash deposits and Rs.1,23,450/- in the form of unexplained cash deposits (real estate commission) and raised a demand of Rs.63,450/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and reiterated the submissions made before the AO, but, failed to produce any vouchers even before the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the AO to disallow the amount at 50% of Rs.2,40,000/-. With respect to cash deposits of Rs.1,23,450/-, since no details were filed regarding the real estate business, except claiming that certain expenses were incurred, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.1,23,450/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :
12 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam is not justified in partly sustaining the addition of Rs.1,20,000/- out of the total addition of Rs.2,40,000/- made by the assessing officer towards unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,23,450/- made by the assessing officer towards unexplained cash deposits.
Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.
Ground No.1 and 4 are general in nature, which does not require specific adjudication.
Ground No.2 and 3 are with respect to sustaining the addition made by the AO towards unexplained cash deposits. The Ld.AR contended that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.4,05,000/- in Axis Bank, Ongole A/c No.293010100094391. Out of the cash deposits of Rs.4,05,000/-, an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was received from the Association of Transport Department of Technical Officers, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in connection with the association activities, towards reimbursement of expenses like Transport, Telephone expenses, printing and stationery, xerox etc and the balance amount of Rs.1,65,000/- is gross receipt from real estate commission. He, therefore,
13 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
submitted that the sources for the cash deposits are explained and hence, pleaded to set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee on this ground.
Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A), pleaded to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee on this ground.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. As admitted by the Ld.AR, the assessee could not produce any vouchers before the revenue authorities or before us. The Ld.CIT(A) has therefore, rightly considered the issue based on the facts and circumstances of the case and has held as follows :
“(ii) Regarding the credit of Rs.2,40,000/-, it is the contention of the appellant that the amount was deposited by Sri P.Ravinder Kumar, General Secretary, Association of Transport Department Technical Officers. The fact that the appellant is holding the post of General Secretary fo All India Federation of Motor Vehicles is not disproved by the Assessing Officer. It is logical that the appellant would have incurred some expenditure, whether it is Rs.2,40,000/- or otherwise needs to be seen. The appellant had not produced any vouchers before me. In that event, it is felt that the disallowance of 50% of expenditure would meet both the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to calculate the disallowance of amount at 50% of Rs.2,40,000/- as it is not verifiable in nature. (iii) The remaining amount of Rs.1,65,000/- (i.e.Rs.4,05,000 – Rs.2,40,000) represents real estate commission. It is the claim of the appellant that certain expenses were incurred in real estate business and the net income would be Rs.41,550/-. Since no details were filed regarding the real estate business, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the 14 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.1,23,450/- (Rs.1,65,000- Rs.41,550) is confirmed.” We find that the Ld.CIT(A) considering the facts and circumstances of the case has granted substantial relief and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee accordingly.
I.T.A.101/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2010-11
These appeals are filed against the orders of the CIT(A)-3, Visakhapatnam dated 15.10.2018 arising of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act. Since the grounds involved in these appeals are common these appeals are clubbed and the facts are extracted from I.T.A.No.101/Viz/2019. 24. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is an individual and an advocate by profession. Search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Sri Pilli Nooka Raju, husband of the assessee on 13.07.2011. During the course of search, certain incriminating material / documents pertaining to the assessee was found and seized. A notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee on 02.11.2012, calling for the return of income for the A.Y.2008-09. In response to the notice issued, the assessee had filed the return of income for the 15 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
A.Y.2008-09 on 19.02.2014 admitting income of Rs.1,44,300/- apart from agricultural income of Rs.6,25,000/-. The AO during the assessment proceedings rejected the agricultural income admitted by the assessee in the absence of any documentary proof / evidence. The AO completed the assessment proceedings and passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act on 30.03.2014, rejecting the agricultural income admitted by the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :
The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam is not justified in partly sustaining the addition of Rs.29,800/- out of the total addition of Rs.6,25,000/- made by the assessing officer towards agricultural income.
Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.
Ground No. 1 and 3 are general in nature which needs no adjudication.
16 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
Ground No.2 is with respect to sustaining the addition of Rs.29,800/- out of the total addition of Rs.6,25,000/- made by the AO towards agricultural income. The Ld.AR contended that the assessee owns Ac.29.76 cnts of agricultural land and cultivating cash crops such as casuarina, pulses, cashew etc and produced income certificate from the Village Revenue Officer (VRO) in support of her claim. The Ld.AR further contended that the AO, rejected the claim of the assessee without verifying the records and without bringing any contrary facts on record. During the assessment proceedings, the AO held that the assessee has not produced any evidence with regard to earning of agricultural income and the assessee was showing the agricultural income from the agricultural lands which were also belonging to her son. The AO further held that the agricultural income was inflated and the assessee failed to furnish any revenue records in support of her claim.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Ld.AR contended that the assessee is deriving agricultural income by cultivating cash crops and produced
17 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
income certificate obtained from VRO in support of her claim. Therefore, pleaded to set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee on this ground.
Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A), pleaded to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee on this ground.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the Ld.AR that the assessee is deriving agricultural income from Ac.29.76 cnts owned by her. But the AO rejected the contention of the assessee holding that the assessee has not produced revenue records in support of her claim. The Ld.CIT(A) after careful consideration of the facts and copies of the documents of the lands owned by the assessee, held as under :
“(c) I have carefully considered the facts and I have also perused the copies of documents of the lands owned by the appellant. There is n dispute regarding the ownership of the lands. The only doubt in the mind of the Assessing Officer is that the agricultural income was inflated by the appellant since the same income was alleged to have been claimed by her son, Sri P.Raja Raghavendra. On verification of records, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant had been in cultivation of Casurina, Pulses, Cashew etc. as indicated in the records. It is an accepted proposition that any agricultural land with commercial cash crop will fetch net income of Rs.20,000/- per acre. The extent of land being Ac.29.76 cnts, it is reasonable to earn Rs.5,95,000/- (i.e.Rs.20,000/- x Ac.29.76 cnts = 5,95,200/-). The appellant made a claim of Rs.6,25,000/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to restrict the addition to 18 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
Rs.5,95,200/. The remaining amount of Rs.29,820/- (i.e.Rs.6,25,000 – Rs.5,95,200) is confirmed.” We find, that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly estimated the agricultural income of the assessee basing on the valid proposition. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee on this ground.
In the result, appeals of the assessees for the A.Ys 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2012-13 and 2013-14 are dismissed and the appeal for the A.Y.2011-12 is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st April, 2023. (दुव्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (एस बालाकृष्णन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 21.04.2023 L.Rama, SPS
19 I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2019 to 103/Viz/2019, A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 Pilli Nooka Raju & Pilli Sujatha, Visakhapatnam
आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee– (i) Smt.Pilli Sujatha, D.No.45-57-10/1/1, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam (ii) Shri Pilli Nooka Raju, D.No.45-57-10/1/1, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle-2, 4th Floor, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Visakhapatnam 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम / DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5..गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
