T. Surya kumari, Srikakulam V. The ITO, Srikakulam

ITA 198/VIZ/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6796 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S ARAVINDAKSHAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Rejection of books of accounts; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 198 / VIZ /201 6 (ASST. YEAR : 20 11 - 1 2 ) T. SURYA KUMARI , PLOT NO.19, RAJEEV NAGAR COLONY, SRIKAKULAM. V S . ITO, WARD - 1 , SRIKAKULAM. PAN NO. AEZPT 7686 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI - ADV OCATE . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI R.S. ARAVINDAKSHAN SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 4 / 0 6 /201 7 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 / 0 8 /201 7 . O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2 , VISAKHAPATNAM , DATED 03 /0 2 /201 6 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 . 2. FACTS ARE IN BRIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMFL (INDIAN MADE FOREIGN LIQUOR) IN SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RETURN OF INCOME BY DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 6,29,476 / - , 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. 198/VIZ/2016 (T. SURYA KUMARI) 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 AGGRIEV ED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE L D. C OUNSEL 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 PROFIT 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 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE 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, T HE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TANGUDU 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 PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 3 ITA NO. 198/VIZ/2016 (T. SURYA KUMARI) 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 O F 20% ON STOCK PUT FOR SALE. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION 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 SUSCEPTIBLE 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 WHEN 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 BEFO RE THE HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS 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 BEV ERAGES 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 ARGUMENT S OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE A.O. HAS ESTIMATED 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 CONSIDE RED THE CASE OF AN ARRACK DEALER, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE 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 PROF IT. 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 O F THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND FINDS THAT THE COORDINATE 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 HEAR D THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES 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 BUSINE SS. WHEREAS, THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA IN VIEW OF A SERIES OF DECISIONS OF THE ITAT HYDERABAD 4 ITA NO. 198/VIZ/2016 (T. SURYA KUMARI) BENCH IN SIMILAR CASES. THE C OORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF ITA NO.127/HYD/12 AND OTHERS 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, WE 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 DEDUC TIONS. 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 AR E 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 A ND 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 COORDIN ATE BENCH. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO ESTIMATE 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 NEX T GROUND OF APPEAL REL A TING TO UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OF 23,30,000/ - . 9 . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATION OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH INDIAN BANK NOTED THAT , CASH DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF 23.30 LAKHS BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS I.E. ON 01/07/2010 AS FOLLOWS: - 5 ITA NO. 198/VIZ/2016 (T. SURYA KUMARI) 0 6/04/2010 9,00,000/ - UNSECURED LOAN OBTAINED OFFERED TO TAX 07/04/2010 1,00,000/ - UNSECURED LOAN OBTAINED OFFERED TO TAX 12/05/2010 1,00,000/ - CASH ON HAND 19/06/2010 5,00,000/ - CASH ON HAND 30/06/2010 5,00,000/ - CASH ON HAND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ABOVE CASH CREDITS, THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF 12.40 LAKHS FOR TAX FOR WANT OF STRICT PROOF OF UNSECURED LOAN CREDITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT . THE SAID INCOME WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE LOSS OF 5,51,163/ - FROM W INE BUSINESS AND NET PROFIT OF 6,88,836/ - WAS ARRIVED AT IN RESPECT OF WINE BUSINESS . THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE OF 12.40 LAKHS WAS SUBJECTED TO ASSESSMENT AS ASSESSEES UNEXPLAINED INCOME. WITH REFERENCE TO THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF 10,90,000/ - ( 23,30,000 12,40,000) , THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FA I LED TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION EXCEPT STATING THAT I T WAS CASH ON HA ND . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH C REDITS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF 23,30,000/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 10 ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALRE A DY OFFERED AN INCOME OF 12.40 LAKHS , WHICH IS PART OF THE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE A SEPARATE ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. I T WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE 6 ITA NO. 198/VIZ/2016 (T. SURYA KUMARI) IMPUGNED AMOUNT GOT TELESCOPED WHEN THE PROFIT HAS BEEN ESTIMATE D AT HIGHER RATE. THEREFORE, REQUESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF 12.40 LAKHS MAY BE DELETED. 11 THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION O F THE ASSESSEE, CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 5.3 FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FILED IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE IMPUGNED CREDITS WERE IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2010 MUCH PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE LIQU OR BUSINESS IN JULY, 2010. THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,40,000/ - WAS CREDITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS CASH. IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ADJUSTMENT ACCOUNT AGAINST THE NET LOSS OF RS.5,51,168/ - THE 'UNSECURED LOAN OFFERED TO TAX FOR WANT OF PROOF' HAS BEEN ADDED AND NE T PROFIT OF RS.6,88,836/ - WAS ARRIVED AT. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THE IMPUGNED CREDITS CLAIMED AS UNSECURED LOANS HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO TAX, AND IT HAS NO NEXUS TO THE INCOME FROM LIQUOR BUSINESS. THE IMPUGNED ITEM IS A CREDIT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT SOURCE OF W HICH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THEREFORE THE PLEA THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS NOT WARRANTED AS I T IS PART OF ESTIMATED INCOME IS WITHOUT MERITS. 5.4 IN THIS REGARD, IT IS RELEVANT TO REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V G.S.TIWAR I &CO 356 I TR 651 WHEREIN THE HONOURABLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE CERTAIN UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE FOUND IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHOSE BUSINESS INCOME IS DETERMINED ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF HIS RETURNED INCOME, THE AO IS NOT PREVENTED FROM TREATING THE UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS STANDING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE H ONOURABLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL AP HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT V. MADURI RAJAIAHGARI RISTAIAH(120 ITR 294) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE CERTAIN UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE FOUND IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHOSE BUSINESS INCOME IS DETERMINED ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF HIS RETURNED INCOME, THE AO IS NOT PREVENTED FROM TREATING THE UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS STANDING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. DEVI PRASAD VISHWANATH PRASAD; 72 ITR 194 WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED 7 ITA NO. 198/VIZ/2016 (T. SURYA KUMARI) THAT WHERE THERE IS AN UNEXPLAINED CREDIT, IT IS OPEN TO THE AC) TO HOLD THAT IT IS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, AND NO FURTHER BURDEN LIES ON THE AO TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME IS FROM ANY PA RTICULAR SOURCE. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT, EVEN IF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS REPRESENT I NCOME, IT IS INCOME FROM A SOURCE WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED. THERE IS NOTHING IN LAW WHICH PREVENTS THE AO IN AN APPROPRIATE CASE IN TAXING THE SUNDRY CREDIT, THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF WHICH IS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED, AND THE BUSINESS INCOME ESTIMATE BY HIM AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNRELIABLE. 5.5 IN THIS REGARD, IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE AS TO WHETHER ADDITION U/S.68 OR 69 COUID BE MADE WHEN THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME WAS DEALT BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF SMT . SHOBA GUPTA (ITA NO.461/HYD/2013, DT.10.7.2013), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT EVEN IF THE INCOME IS ESTIMATED, THE AO MAY INVO KE THE PROVISIONS OF SC.68/69 OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED I TS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF P.V. SITARAMASWAMY NADU IN ITA NO.26/HYD/12 VIDE ORDER DT.9.1.2013. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL TOOK THE VIEW THAT UNLESS THE ASSESSEE, BY INDEPENDENT AND SATI SFACTORY EVIDENCE, ESTABLISHES THAT THESE AMOUNTS RELATE OR REFERABLE TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM KNOWN OR DISCLOSED SOURCES, I.E. THE BUSINESS, WHOSE INCOME HAD ALREADY BEEN ESTIMATED, THE ITO IS ENTITLED TO TREAT UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE HON'BLE TRIBU NAL PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDG MENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V MADURI RAJAIAHGARI KISTARAH(120 ITR 294) AND OF TH E APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DE VI PRASAD V I SWANATH PRASAD 72 ITR 194 . THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL ALSO REFERRED TO THE OBSERVATION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KALE KHAN MOHAMMED HANIF VS. CIT (50 ITR 1 SC), 'IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES WERE PRECLUDED FROM TREATING THE AMOUNTS OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ENTRIES APPEAR IN THE BOOKS OF A BUSINESS WHOSE INCOME THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY COMPUTED ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS' WHILE RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION. IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE THE IMPUGNED CREDITS OFFERED TO TAX CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS REF ERABLE TO THE LIQUOR BUSINESS WHOSE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THIS REGARD ARE REJECTED. 5.6 WITH REGARD TO THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF 10,90,000/ - ALSO N DETAILS WERE FILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE. 8 ITA NO. 198/VIZ/2016 (T. SURYA KUMARI) THEREFORE, I FIND THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN MA KING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF 23,30,000/ - AND THE SAME IS UPHELD . 12 BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE AND ALSO NOT ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY ERROR COMMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE DETAILS, RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A). THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 13 I N THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TH IS 1 1 T H DAY OF AUGUST , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 1 T H AUGUST , 201 7 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE . 3. THE CIT . 4. THE CIT(A) . 5. THE D.R . 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., VISAKHAPATNAM