ASHISH DWIVEDI, ALLAHABAD V. ITO RANGE-1(1), ALLAHABAD

ITA 158/ALLD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6683 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 201; 13; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH SMC ALLAHABAD [ THROUGH PHYSICAL COURT ] BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 158 /ALLD/20 19 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 13 - 14 ASHISH DWIVEDI, S/22, SHOPING COMPLEX CENTER, RAMANAND NAGAR, ALLAHAPUR, PRAYAGRAJ (ALLAHABAD) VS. I.T.O., RANGE 1(1), 38, M.G. MARG, CIVIL LINES, ALLAHABAD - 211001 PAN: AFFPD 7707 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR YADAV , ADV. RESPONDENT BY SHRI A.K. SINGH, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 24 /03 /2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07 /04 /2021 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2019 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. BECAUSE THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD NOT PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. 2. BECAUSE THE ORDER OF THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY AGAINST THE NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. BECAUSE THE ORDER OF THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY IS ARBITRARY BAD IN EYE OF LAW. 4. BECAUS E THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. 5. BECAUSE THE CIT (APPEAL) AND LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ADDING A SUM OF RS. 49,670 U/S 69. 6. BECAU SE THE CIT (APPEAL) AND LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ADDING A SUM OF RS. 5,30,120/ - U/S 69. ITA NO. 158/ALLD/2019 2 7. BECAUSE THE CIT (APPEAL) AND LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ADDING A SUM OF RS. 1,41,800/ - U/S 69. 8. BECAUSE, THE CIT (APPEAL) NOT ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80TTA OF RS. 3,097/ - . THEY ONLY DIRECT TO AO FOR THE ALLOWANCE THE DEDUCTION U/S 80TTA, INSTEAD ALLOW THE SAME IN APPEAL. 2. GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION EXC EPT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE GROUNDS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING OTHER ISSUE RAISED ON MERITS OF EACH ISSUE. 3. GROUND NO. 5 IS REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 49,670/ - MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 69 ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS INCOME FROM M/S ASHU MARKETING PROPR IETORSHIP CONCERN ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF CLOTHES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME ESTIMATED BY APPLYING NET PROFIT @ 8% ON GROSS SALES. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJEC TED THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED LOSS OF RS.495.07 AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 44AF AND CONSEQUENTLY AN ADDITION OF RS.49,670/ - MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID INCOME WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69 OF THE ACT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AS WELL AS LAW BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE HDFC BANK. THUS THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ADDITION CANNOT BE ADDED U/S 69 OF THE ACT AS IT IS ONLY A BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LD. AR HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF COCHIN BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 09.06 .2020 IN THE CASE OF SM. HONEY RAHULAN V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITA NO. 150/COCH/2020) . 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM O F EXPENDITURE AND CONSEQUENTLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.49,670/ - . THEREFORE, T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ARE APPLICABLE ON ITA NO. 158/ALLD/2019 3 THE SAID ADDITION. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS ACTIVIT Y OF M/S ASHU MARKETING AND IT WAS DETECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEV ANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.09.2013, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF M/S ASHU MARK ETING. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR NOT DIS CLOSING THIS INCOME AS THERE WAS A LOSS OF RS.495.07 IN THE SAID BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND HENCE IT WAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME DUE TO SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE TRANSACTIONS AS RECORDED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH HDFC BANK IN THE NAME OF PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN AS WELL AS THE GROSS SALES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE SAID COMPUT ATION OF THE LOSS AS PER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE IN RESPECT OF RETAIL BUSINESS OF CLOTH . ONCE THE RETAIL BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF CLOTH IS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND GROSS SALES AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN DISPUTE THEN THE LOSS OF RS.495.07 NOT REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WOULD NOT L EAD TO THE RE - CLASSIFICATIO N OF THE INCOME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED THIS BUSINESS INCOME/LOSS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS.49,670/ - . HOWEVER, THE RE - CLASSIFICATION OF THE INCOME BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AS WELL AS LAW AND ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HIGHLY UN JUSTIFIED AND UN REASONABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.49,670/ - IS DIRECT ED TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 158/ALLD/2019 4 6 . GROUND NO. 6 IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.5,30,120/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED ANY IMMOV ABLE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,30,120/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SAID INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE SAID ADDITION FOR WANT OF ANY EXPLANATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CHALLE NGE THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND EXPLAIN ED THE SOURCE AS WITHDRAWAL FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S SOFT SOLUTIONS OF RS.9,00,0000/ - WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE AXIS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN CA SH OF RS.6,00,000/ - . THUS THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT AS RS.6,00,000/ - WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND ALSO THE WITHDRAWING OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF RS.9,00,0000/ - . THE CIT(A) HAS NOT ACCEPTED THIS EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE SALE DEED DATED 27.04.2012 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FROM WITHDRAWAL MADE FROM BANK ON 23.04.2012. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF THE BANK ACCOUNT. HENCE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNJUSTIFIED AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,30,120/ - . THUS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INVESTMENT IS MADE FROM THE WITHDRAWAL OF CASH OF RS.6,00,000/ - FROM THE BANK IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8 . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.5,30,120/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WHICH WAS ITA NO. 158/ALLD/2019 5 PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE SALE DEED DATED 27.04.2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE AS CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS.6,00,000/ - FROM THE AXIS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 2 3 .04. 2012 . T HE AVAILABILITY OF FUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS ALSO EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S SOFT SOLUTIONS OF RS.9,00,000/ - WHICH IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE AXIS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH AXIS BANK THAT ON 18.04.2012 THERE WAS A CREDIT OF RS.9,00,000/ - BY CLAIMING OF TRANSFER FROM SOFT SOLUTIONS THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM IN WHICH ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE WITHDRAWN CASH OF RS.6,00,000/ - ON 23.04 .2012 AND THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.6,00,000/ - WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR PAYMENT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,30,120/ - OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY PURCHASED VIDE SALE DEED DATED 23.04.2012. THE ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE AND THEREFORE WHEN THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.6,00,000/ - AND PAYMENT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,30,120/ - ARE CONTEMPORANEOUS TRANSACTIONS THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.6,00,000/ - WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON 23.04.2012 WAS UTILIZED FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE THEN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ON 27.04.2012. THE WITHDRAWAL OF T HE CASH FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AND PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION ARE MATCHING TRANSACTIONS WITHOUT ANY DELAY OR TIME GAP. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD AND PARTICULARLY FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF EXPLAINING SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.5,30,120/ - IS DELETED. 9 . GROUND NO. 7 IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 1,41,800/ - MADE U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT S I N THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS DAUGHTER WITH HDFC BAN K AND AXIS BANK . THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH UNITED BANK OF INDIA BUT THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK IN THE NAME OF KUMARI ITA NO. 158/ALLD/2019 6 KAVYA DWIVEDI AND TWO SAVING ACCOUNTS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE HDFC BANK AND AXIS BANK WERE NOT DISCLOSE D BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE CASH OF RS.58,300/ - AND RS.73,000/ - WERE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TWO SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS WITH HDFC BANK AND AXIS BANK RESPECTIVELY. FURTHER, THE SUM OF RS.10,500/ - WAS ALSO DEPOSITED ON BANK ACCOUNT OF KUMARI KAVYA DWIVEDI WITH THE HDFC BANK. THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THESE 3 ACCOUNTS COM ES TO RS.1,41,800/ - WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10 . BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN SAVING ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK AND AXIS BANK ARE TRANSFERRED FROM THE OTHER BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE NO. 76 TO 87 OF THE PAPER BOO K AND SUBMITTED THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE FROM THE OTHER BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, CANNOT BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. AS REGARDS THE DEPOSITS OF RS.10,500/ - IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF KUMARI KAVYA D WIVEDI T HE LD. AR HAS REFERRED TO T HE CASH FLOW STATEMENT PLACED AT PAGE NO. 82 TO 83 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AS OPENING CASH BALANCE AS SHOWN IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH ES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ADISHWAR K. JAIN V. CIT (2019) 201 TTJ 77 (MUMBAI). THUS THE LD. A R SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE DEPOSIT WAS MADE FROM THE OPENING CASH BALANCE WITH THE ASSESSEE THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THESE BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS COMPUTED U/S 44A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE, THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ITA NO. 158/ALLD/2019 7 THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR ANY OTHER ADMISSIBLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS DECLARED . THE INCOME FROM MEDICAL BUSINESS ONLY AND NO OTHER INCOME WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOTHING WAS PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THE OPENING CASH BALANCE IN HAND. THEREFORE, THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE CA NNOT BE ACCEPTED AT THIS STAGE. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,41,800/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS MADE IN THE TWO SAVING BANK ACCOUNT S OF THE ASSESSEE AND ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF KUMARI KAVYA DWIVEDI. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS AS TRANSFER THE FUND FROM OTHER BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE OPENING BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT ALL THESE EXPLANATIONS AND DETAILS AS WELL AS EVIDENCES WERE NOT PRODUCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE CA SH FLOW STATEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE EXPLANATION THAT THE DEPOSIT S IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FROM OTHER BAN KS ARE TO BE VERIFIED. HENCE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND INTEREST OF JUSTICE THIS ISSUE IS S ET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROPER VERIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF THE TRANSFER FROM THE OTHER BANK ACCOUNTS AND AVAILABILITY OF OPENING CASH BALANCE AS PER THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE PASSING THE FRESH ORDER. 13 . GROUND NO. 8 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80TTA OF RS.3 ,097/ - . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3,0 97/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80TTA AS THE INTEREST IN COME WAS IN RESPECT OF SAVING BANK ACCOUNT IS LESS THAN THE THRESHOLD LIMIT. THE ITA NO. 158/ALLD/2019 8 CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE NECESSARY DEDUCTION AS PER LAW FROM INCOME OF RS.3 , 097/ - BEING IN THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 14 . ONCE THE CIT(A) HA S DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION AS PER LAW NO GRIEVANCE IS LEFT AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80TTA AND ALLOW THE SAME IF THE ASSESSEE SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION. 1 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7TH APRIL , 2021. SD/ - ( VIJAY PAL RAO) ALLAHABAD JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 0 7 /0 4 /2021 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR, I.T.A.T. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER (I.T.A.T., ALLAHABAD) TRUE COPY