Goka Jagga Rao, Srikakulam V. THE ITO, Srikakulam

ITA 133/VIZ/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8837 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R S NARAYAN
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM SMC BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 13 3 / VIZ /201 5 (ASST. YEAR : 20 11 - 1 2 ) GOKA JAGGA RAO, D.NO. 2 - 35 / 9, JADUPETA, L.N. PET, HIRAMANDAL A M, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT . V . ITO, WARD - 1 , SRIKAKULAM. PAN NO. AVCPG 6515 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI - ADV OCATE . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.R.S. NARAYAN SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 22 / 0 6 /201 7 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 / 0 7 /201 7 . O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2 , VISAKHAPATNAM , DATED 30 /0 1 /201 5 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 . 2. FACTS ARE IN BRIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE ( HUF ) IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMFL (INDIAN MADE FOREIGN LIQUOR) IN SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME BY DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 2,04,420/ - , WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'THE ACT'). LATER ON , CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT WAS 2 ITA NO. 133/VIZ/2015 (GOKA JAGGA RAO) COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY ESTIMATING NET PROFIT AT 20% OF THE STOCK PUT TO SALE. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) SCAL ED DOWN THE PERCENTAGE FROM 20% TO 10% AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO RE - COMPUTE THE INCOME AT 10% OF PURCHASE PRICE. 4 . ON BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS SCALED DOWN THE ESTIMATION OF PROFI T FROM 10% TO 5% IN THE CASE OF TANGUDU JOGISETTY IN ITA NO.96/VIZAG/2016 BY ORDER DATED 2.6.2016. 5 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6 . I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVA ILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS ESTIMATION OF PROFIT IN RESPECT OF IMFL BUSINESS CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS RESPECT, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TANG UDU JOGISETTY (SUPRA) HAS CONSIDERED THE PROFIT LEVEL IN THE LINE OF BUSINESS AND DECIDED THAT 5% OF PURCHASE PRICE IS REASONABLE PROFIT MARGIN IN THE LINE OF IMFL BUSINESS AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO RE - COMPUTE THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTI ON OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 3 ITA NO. 133/VIZ/2015 (GOKA JAGGA RAO) 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE A.O. ESTIMATED NET PROFIT OF 20% ON STOCK PUT FOR SALE. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASES AND SALES. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO MAINTAIN STOCK REGISTERS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT S USCEPTIBLE FOR VERIFICATION, THEREFORE REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATED NET PROFIT OF 20% BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NET PROFIT ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. IS QUITE HIGH WHE N COMPARED TO THE NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE I S INTO THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN ARRACK, WHEREAS IT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN IMFL. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IMFL TRADE WAS CONTROLLED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT THROUGH A.P. STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD. AND THE PRICES OF THE PRODUCTS ARE FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE ASSESSEE BEING A LICENSE HOLDER OF STATE GOVERNMENT CANNOT SELL THE PRODUCTS OVER AND ABOVE THE MRP FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE A.O. HAS EST IMATED THE NET PROFIT BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF A.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R. NARAYANA RAO IN ITA NO.3 OF 2003 WHICH IS RENDERED UNDER DIFFERENT FACTS. THE A.P. HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE CASE OF AN ARRACK DEALER, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSE E IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN IMFL. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RELYING UPON THE JUDGEMENT, WHICH WAS RENDERED UNDER DIFFERENT FACTS TO ESTIMATE THE NET PROFIT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH IN THE CASE OF T. APPALASWAMY VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.65 & 66/VIZAG/2012. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND FINDS THAT THE COO RDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD THAT ESTIMATION OF 5% NET PROFIT ON PURCHASES IS REASONABLE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHO RITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 16% IS HIGH AND EXCESSIVE CONSIDERING THE NORMAL RATE OF PROFIT IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS. WHEREAS, THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE 4 ITA NO. 133/VIZ/2015 (GOKA JAGGA RAO) VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA IN VIEW OF A SERIES OF DECISIONS OF THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN SIMILAR CASES. THE COORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF ITA NO.127/HYD/12 AND OTHER S DATED 18.05.2012 AS WELL AS A NUMBER OF OTHER CASES HAVE HELD THAT PROFIT IN CASE OF BUSINESS IN INDIAN MADE FOREIGN LIQUOR HAS TO BE ESTIMATED AT 5% OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH, W E SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT FROM THE WINE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING THE RATE OF 5% OF THE PURCHASES MADE NET OF ALL OTHER DEDUCTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ALSO BEAR IN MIND THAT IN NO CASE THE INCOME DETERMINED SHOULD BE BELOW THE INCOME RETURNED. 9. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIOS OF COORDINATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE NET PROFIT ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WHICH WAS RENDERED UNDER DIFFERENT FACTS IS QUITE HIGH. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH AND THE COORDINATE BENCH UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT OF 5% ON TOTAL PURCHASES NET OF ALL DEDUCTIONS. NO CONTRARY DECISION IS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO ESTIMA TE THE NET PROFIT OF 5% ON TOTAL PURCHASES NET OF ALL DEDUCTIONS. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7 . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TH IS TRIBUNAL, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO RE - COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 5% OF PURCHASE PRICE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8 . THE SECO ND GROUND OF APPEAL RE L A TING TO UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AND INTEREST INCOME . IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID FIRST INSTALMENT OF LICENCE FEE OF 18,35,000/ - ON THE DATE OF AUCTION. BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LIQUOR OF 2,59,202/ - AND INVESTMENT IN FDR OF 7,55,375/ - 5 ITA NO. 133/VIZ/2015 (GOKA JAGGA RAO) TH E ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THESE EXPENDITURE AGGREGATING TO 28,49,577/ - WAS MORE THAN THE OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE OF 7,50,116/ - THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF 20,99,461/ - SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF 7,50,000/ - FROM SMT. GOKA BUJJAMMA, 7,50,000/ - FROM GODA JAGANNADAM AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM HUF S TATUS OF 2,50,000/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THAT THE UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN FROM SMT.GOKA BUJJAMMA AND SHRI GODA JAGANNADAM OF 7,50,000/ - , EACH WAS AVAILABLE TO E XPLAIN PART OF INITIAL INVESTMENT OR EXPENDITURE. 9 . IN REGARD TO CREDITOR - SMT. GOKA BUJJAMMA, SHE DEPOSED THAT LOAN OF 7,50,000/ - WAS ADVANCED OUT OF HER SAVINGS FROM WINE BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE CASH BALANCE WAS SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED WITH REFERENCE TO BALANCE SHEET FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10 & 2 010 - 11 . IT WAS ALSO STATED , IN THE DEPOSITION THAT CASH AVAILABLE AFTER CLOSURE OF HER WINE BUSINESS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEES WINE BUSINESS TO EARN PROFIT. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT SHE WAS ASSESSED TO TAX AND HAS REFLECTED THE TRANSACTION IN THE R ETURN FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSITION WAS REFLECTED IN HER BANK ACCOUNTS. WHEN THIS WAS PUT TO HER, SHE REPRESENTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF 7,50,000/ - WAS 6 ITA NO. 133/VIZ/2015 (GOKA JAGGA RAO) GIVEN FROM HER CASH ON HAND AS BUSINESS INVESTMENT TO THE ASSESSEE. SHE ALSO STATED THAT SHE WOULD VERIFY HER RECORD TO CLARIFY HOW THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN HER RETURN. W I TH REFERENCE TO HER SW O RN DEPOSITION AND BANK STATEMENT AND VERIFICATION WITH THE IT RETURN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED TH A T THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITW O RTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR TO ADVANCE THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT. ACCORDINGLY , AN AMOUNT OF 7,50,000/ - WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 10 . ON APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE CREDITOR SMT. GOKA BUJJAMMA WAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE, AS PER WHICH , AN AMOUNT OF 7,50,000/ - WAS INVESTED BY EACH OF THEM WITH AN ENTITLEMENT TO 10% PROFIT. IT WAS FURTHER S UBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT SMT. G OKA BUJJAMMA IS ASSESSED TO TAX ; FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 . SHE FILED BALANCE SHEET HOWEVER, IN THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 , THE BALANCE SHEET WAS NOT FILED . A COPY OF THE SAID AGREEMENT AND BALANCE SHEET FILED FOR 31/03/2010 WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OBSERVED THAT HER CASH ON HAND AS ON 31/03/2010 WAS 94,882/ - . NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED TO SHOW THAT SHE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADVANCE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT FILE ANY STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS TO S H OW THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANS A CTION WAS REFLECTED IN HER RETURN FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7 ITA NO. 133/VIZ/2015 (GOKA JAGGA RAO) 11 . BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL , L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CREDITOR - SMT. GOKA BUJJAMMA IS HAVING A SUFFICIENT MEANS TO ADVANCE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE AND SHE WAS ALSO IN THE BUSINESS OF WINE AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT. 12 . ON THE OTHER HAND , L EARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE H AS SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 13 . I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. I FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) GAVE A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31/03/2010, THE CASH IN HAND WAS 94,882/ - . THERE WAS NO OTHER EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT SHE IS HAVING SUFFICIENT MEANS TO ADVANCE THE LOAN. EVEN BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL, ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS TO SHOW T HAT SHE IS HAVING SUFFICIENT MO N E Y TO ADVANCE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , I FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY BELIEVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. THEREFORE, I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 14 . WITH REGARD TO CREDITOR - G. JAGANNADAM , HE DEPOSED THAT HE ADVANCED THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT IN CASH FOR HIS BROTHERS BUSINESS , OUT OF HUF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND SAVINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAID CREDITOR G. JAGANNADAM NEITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, 8 ITA NO. 133/VIZ/2015 (GOKA JAGGA RAO) LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED T O PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) . THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 15 . WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM HUF TO THE TUNE OF 2,50,000/ - FROM 5.5. ACRES OF LAND IS CONCERNED , THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK A VIEW THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF 55,000/ - IS ACCEPTABLE . H OWEVER, LD. CIT(A) HAS ENHANCED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF 1 LAKH IN THE I NDIVIDUAL STATUS AS AVAILABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR THE INITIAL EXPENDITURE/INVESTMENT. I FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A REASONABLE VIEW IN CALCULATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, HENCE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 16 . A SSESSEE HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF 3,49,461/ - BEING UNEXPLAINED AMOUNT . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS A S KED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF 3,49,461/ - . IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT FORMS PART OF OPENING CAPITAL AND IT COULD N O T BE ADDED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT F ILED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT IT FORMS PART OF THE OPENING BALANCE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , HE DID NOT FILE ANY DETAILS. EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, NO DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ABOVE ADDITION ARE FILED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9 ITA NO. 133/VIZ/2015 (GOKA JAGGA RAO) 17 WITH REGARD TO ADDITION IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IT HAS TO BE TREATED FROM THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS POINTED OUT THAT INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FROM BANK DEPOSITS OF THE ASSESSEE , IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FROM BUSINESS . I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST INCOME FROM THE BANK DEPOSITS, THE RE FORE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THUS, LD. CIT(A) CORRECTLY HELD THAT INTEREST INCOME REC EI VED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THEREFORE, I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 18 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TH IS 2 6 T H DAY OF JULY , 201 7 . S D / - ( V. DURGA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 2 6 T H JULY , 201 7 . VR/ - 10 ITA NO. 133/VIZ/2015 (GOKA JAGGA RAO) COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE - GOKA JAGGA RAO, D.NO. 2 - 35/9, JADUPETA, L.N. PET, HIRAMANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE - ITO, WARD - 1 , SRIKAKULAM. 3. THE CIT - 2, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE CIT(A) - 2 , VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. THE D.R . , VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (VUKKEM RAMBABU) SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., VISAKHAPATNAM