Arunachalam Manickave, Guntur V. The CIT (A),-3, Visakhapatnam

ITA 203/VIZ/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3878 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S RAVI SHANKAR NARAYAN
• Keywords: TDS; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 40(a)(ia); 194C; 263

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.201 TO 206 /VIZAG/2017 ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL, GUNTUR 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . .. . . . . . ' , % BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NOS.201 TO 206/VIZAG/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 TO 2010-11) ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL GUNTUR CIT(A) - 3 VISAKHAPATNAM [PAN NO. ACFPA3107K ] ( ' / APPELLANT) ( ()' / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. RAVI SHANKAR NARAYAN, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 03.05.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 9.05.2018 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3 {CIT(A)} , VISAKHAPATNAM VIDE ITA NOS.1 TO 6/2015-16/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2016-17 DA TED 19.1.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2010-11. ITA NOS.201 TO 206 /VIZAG/2017 ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL, GUNTUR 2 2. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE FACTS ARE EXTRAC TED FROM THE APPEAL FOR THE AY 2005-06.THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RE TURN OF INCOME IN THIS CASE ON 16.6.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 81,44,010/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'THE ACT') ON 27.1 2.2011 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT ` 97,74,850/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CIT(CENTAL), VIJAYAWADA HAS TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR R EVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT EXAMINE TH E ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE ON PAYMENTS MADE TO PAC KING MATERIAL AND CONSEQUENT DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, H ENCE, THE CIT(C) PASSED AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT WERE ERRON EOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2005-06 TO 2010-11 AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO CAUSE THE ENQUIRIE S AND MAKE THE INVESTIGATION AND REDO THE ASSESSMENT AS PER LAW. THE LD. A.O. TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR REASSESSMENT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(C) AND CALLED FOR THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO IN TURN STATED THAT THE ENTIRE PACKIN G MATERIAL WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH PROPER BILLS AND VOU CHERS AND THERE WAS NO CONTRACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED THA T CENTRAL EXCISE AND VAT ALSO WAS COLLECTED BY THE VENDOR AND HELD THAT THERE WAS NO ITA NOS.201 TO 206 /VIZAG/2017 ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL, GUNTUR 3 CONTRACT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AND RELIED ON CBDT C IRCULAR NO.681 DATED 8.3.1994 AND ARGUED THAT IT WAS A CONTRACT FOR SALE BUT NOT CONTRACT FOR WORK, HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF TDS DOES NOT ATTRACT IN ITS CASE AND CONSEQUENT DISALLOWANCE ALSO DOES NOT ARISE. HOWEV ER, THE AO MADE SAMPLE VERIFICATION OF THE BILLS PRODUCED BY THE AS SESSEE AND ON VERIFICATION OF INVOICE BILLS, THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE PACKING MATERIAL WAS MANUFACTURED SPECIFICALLY FOR PACKING THE ASSESSEE S PRODUCTS. THE PACKING MATERIAL HAS THE ASSESSEES TRADE NAME, LOG O, PARTICULARS OF PRODUCT AND OTHER INFORMATION PRINTED ON IT, MAKING SUCH PRODUCTS SPECIFIC TO THE ASSESSEE AND IT CANNOT BE SOLD TO A NY OTHER PARTY. THUS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT CERTAIN VALUE OF TOT AL INVOICE PERTAINS TO PACKING MATERIAL AND REST OF THE INVOICE VALUE PERT AINS TO THE AMOUNT CHARGED FOR PRINTING WORK, HENCE, VIEWED THE AMOUNT CHARGED FOR PRINTING AS WORK CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED THE VALUE A T 25% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE, WHICH ATTRACTS TDS AND ACCORDINGLY DIS ALLOWED THE SAME U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR MANUFACTURING & PACKING MATERIAL WAS NOT SUPPLIED B Y THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THE SAME CAN BE CALLED AS CONTRACT FOR SALE AND SUCH CONTRACT CANNOT BE CALLED AS WORKS CONTRACT. HOWEVER, THE L D. CIT(A) OBSERVED ITA NOS.201 TO 206 /VIZAG/2017 ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL, GUNTUR 4 FROM MODEL BOXES THAT THE ASSESSEE RETAINED RIGHT T O RETURN THE GOODS, WHICH IS NOT COMMON IN TRADING. IN TRADING COMMONL Y USED MAXIM IS GOODS ONCE SOLD CANNOT BE TAKEN BACK, HENCE, DIRECT ED THE A.O. TO DISALLOW 10% ON THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE GOODS PURCHA SED INSTEAD OF 25%. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. A.R . ARGUED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED PACKING MATERIAL A ND THERE WAS NO SUPPLY CONTRACT INVOLVED FOR PURCHASE OF THE PACKIN G MATERIAL. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUPPLIED ANY MATERIAL SHO WS THAT THERE IS NO WORKS CONTRACT BUT THERE WAS ONLY CONTRACT FOR SALE AND ARGUED THAT CONTRACT FOR SALE DOES NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS O F TDS U/S 194C OF THE ACT. MERELY BECAUSE THE SUPPLIER HAS SUPPLIED THE MATERIAL WITH TRADE NAME, LOGO, PARTICULARS OF PRODUCT AND OTHER INFORM ATION, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS WORKS CONTRACT. THE SUPPLIER HAS SUPPLIED THE MATERIAL AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, A RGUED THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY CIRCULAR NO. 681 OF CBDT DATED 8.3.1994 AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT, RAJAHMUNDRY VS. CHANDANA BROTHERS VIDE ITA NO.59/VI ZAG/2009 DATED 21.12.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE LD . A.R. FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DABUR INDIA LIMITED (283 ITR 0197) AND THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL ITA NOS.201 TO 206 /VIZAG/2017 ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL, GUNTUR 5 HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTINTENTAL WINES LIMITED , VIJAYAWADA IN ITTA NO.335/2013 DATED 20.8.2013. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. ARGUED THAT CONT RACT FOR CUSTOMIZED GOODS ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF T HE ASSESSEE WITH LOGO, BRAND NAME, TRADE NAME, PARTICULARS OF PRODUC T AND OTHER INFORMATION PRINTED ON IT CANNOT BE CALLED AS CONTR ACT FOR SALE AND THE SAME IS WORKS CONTRACT. SINCE THE ITEMS ARE SPECIF ICALLY PRINTED FOR THE SAKE OF THE ASSESSEE AND CANNOT BE USED BY OTHERS, THE SAME SHOULD BE TREATED AS WORKS CONTRACT. THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF WORKS CONTRACT INVOLVED IN THE SUPPLY OF THE PRINTED MATERIAL. TH EREFORE, ARGUED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) RIGHTLY ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE U/S 40 (A)(IA) @ 10% OF PACKING MATERIAL, HENCE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMEN T OF INDIA, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO.1119, WHEREIN THE CBDT C LARIFIED THAT TDS WOULD APPLY IN RESPECT OF PRINTED MATERIAL AS PER P RESCRIBED SPECIFICATIONS AND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. IN THIS CASE, THE CIT(C), VIJAYAWADA HAS TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 143 (3) R.W.S 153A TO THE ITA NOS.201 TO 206 /VIZAG/2017 ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL, GUNTUR 6 FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 40(A)(IA). WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(C) THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENTS FO R PRINTED MATERIAL SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHICH INVOL VED THE PRINTING CHARGES, HENCE, ATTRACTS THE PROVISIONS OF TAX DEDU CTION AT SOURCE. CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE A.O. HAS TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR ASSESSMENT AND ESTIMATED 25% OF THE PRINTED MATERIAL TOWARDS THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) SCALED DOWN DISALLOWANCE AT 10% OF THE PRINTED MATERIAL. THE YEAR-WISE BREAKUP OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS FURNISHED HEREUNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR TOTAL EXPENDITURE ( ` ) DISALLOWANCE BY A.O. @ 25% ( ` ) SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) @ 10% ( ` ) 2005-06 48,00,125 12,00,031 4,80,012 2006-07 48,11,001 12,02,750 4,81,100 2007-08 78,74,868 19,68,717 7,87,487 2008-09 1,95,87,537 48,96,884 19,58,754 2009-10 1,19,64,518 29,91,129 11,96,452 2010-11 1,58,05,283 39,51,321 15,80,528 7. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEES CASE IS THAT HE HAS PURCHASED THE PRINTING MATERIAL AND THERE WAS NO ELEMENT OF CONTR ACT INVOLVED. DEPARTMENTS CASE IS THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE HAD PURCH ASED THE PRINTING ITA NOS.201 TO 206 /VIZAG/2017 ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL, GUNTUR 7 MATERIAL AND SOME PART OF THE PACKING MATERIAL INVO LVED THE WORKS CONTRACT, WHICH REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT. BOTH THE CIT(A) AND THE A.O. MADE THE DISALLOWANCE BY ES TIMATION. NEITHER THE A.O. NOR THE CIT(A) QUANTIFIED THE EXPENDITURE AND SPECIFIED THE ELEMENT WHICH ATTRACTS THE PROVISIONS OF TDS U/S 19 4C OF THE ACT. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, ANY SUM PAYABLE TO A RESIDENT ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UNDER CHAPTER XVII-B AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED OR AFTER DEDUCTION H AS NOT BEEN PAID REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO CASE FOR ESTIMATION OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. IT IS OBLIGATION O N THE PART OF THE A.O. TO QUANTIFY THE AMOUNT, WHICH ATTRACTS THE TDS U/S 194C OF THE ACT. ONLY SUCH AN AMOUNT REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 4 0(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE C ASE IS COVERED BY CIRCULAR NO.681 DATED 8.3.1994, WHICH READS AS UNDE R: THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C WOULD NOT COVER C ONTRACTS FOR SALE OF GOODS. IT HAS FURTHER STATED THAT, WHERE A CONT RACTOR UNDERTAKES TO SUPPLY AND ARTICLE OR THING FABRICATED ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER SPECIFIED PERSON, AN D THE PROPERTY IN SUCH ARTICLE OR THING PASSES TO THE GOVERNMENT OR S UCH PERSON ONLY AFTER SUCH ARTICLE OR THING IS DELIVERED, THE CONTRACT WI LL BE A CONTRACT FOR SALE AND AS SUCH WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194C. 8. THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER GIVEN A FINDING THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPLY OF RAW MATERIAL, THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PRINTER AND THE ASSESSEE IS CONTRACT FOR SALE. HOWEVER, SINCE THE LOGO, COLOUR, SIZE OF ITA NOS.201 TO 206 /VIZAG/2017 ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL, GUNTUR 8 THE BOXES AND COST OF MATERIAL PURCHASED BY THE ASS ESSEE LENDS AN ELEMENT OF DOUBT REGARDING THE SUPPLY OF PACKING MA TERIAL AND THE MAXIM USED BY THE SUPPLIER THAT RIGHT TO RETURN THE GOODS ALSO HAS GIVEN SUSPICION TO THE LD.CIT(A) AND TO TEND TOWARDS THE WORKS CONTRACT AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A )(IA) OF THE ACT @ 10% ON ESTIMATION. HOWEVER, HONBLE ITAT IN THE CA SE OF CHANDANA BROTHERS CITED (SUPRA) RELIED UP ON BY THE ASSESSEE , ON SIMILAR FACTS HELD THAT BUYING THE PACKING MATERIAL WITH SOME SPECIFIC ATIONS DOES NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS U/S 194C OF THE ACT. FOR RE ADY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT RELEVANT PART OF THE ITAT ORDER, WHICH READ S AS UNDER: THE LEARNED CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT THE PACKING MATERIAL ETC., FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF CO NTRACT FOR SALES AND NOT UNDER WORK CONTRACT AND ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS FALL OUTSIDE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. ACCORD INGLY HE DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE IN ALL THESE CASES. THE LEAR NED CIT (A) RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF BDA LTD. VS. ITO (TDS) (2006) 281 ITR 99 AND THE HON'BLE DELHI H IGH COURT DECISION ON THE CASE OF CIT VS. DABUR INDIA LTD. (2006) 283 ITR 197. 5. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE C ASE OF M/S DEVI FISHERIES LTD., AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF SHRI BOMMANA RAMACHAN DRA RAO, WHEREIN THIS TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE MAIN PURPOSE IN BUYING THE PACKING MATERIAL WAS TO OBTAIN GOODS FOR THE PURPOS E OF PACKING AND THE FACT THAT INCIDENTALLY SOME PRINTING WAS REQUIRED T O BE DONE BY THE SUPPLIER WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE; THEREFORE, THE PROV ISIONS OF SEC. 194C ARE NOT ATTRACTED. WHILE ARRIVING AT THE SAID DECI SION, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF M/S DABUR INDIA LTD (SUPRA). WE NOTICE THAT THE LEARNED CIT ( A) ALSO HAS DECIDED THE IMPUGNED ISSUE ON SIMILAR LINES AND HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH HIS DECISION. ITA NOS.201 TO 206 /VIZAG/2017 ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL, GUNTUR 9 9. THE HONBLE ITAT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONB LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DABUR INDIA LIMITED CITED (SUP RA) WHERE IN, IT WAS HELD THAT PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY OF CORRUGATED BOXES WITH PRINTED LABELS WAS FOR SALE OF GOODS AND THERE FORE, THE CONTRACT WAS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. HO NBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WINES LTD. CIT ED (SUPRA) FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF DABUR INDIA LIMITED (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT EVEN IF THERE IS SOME LOGO OF THE ASSESSEE PRINTED ON IT, IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF TR ANSACTIONS TO WORKS CONTRACT. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE RELE VANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS FOLLOWS: THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL ON FACT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS INCURRED ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE. THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL FU RTHER FOUND THAT THE PREDOMINANT OBJECT UNDERLYING THE TRANSACTION OF RE CEIVING THE T-SHIRTS AND MAKING THE PAYMENTS IS LARGELY FOR PURCHASE OF GOODS AND EVEN IF THERE IS SOME LOGO OF THE ASSESSEE PRINTED ON IT, I T WOULD NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION TO WORKS CONTRACT, SO AS TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DABUR INDIA LTD., (283 ITR 197) AND APPLIED THE LAW CORRECTLY AND AS SUCH WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAM E. THUS, WE DO NOT WANT TO ADMIT THIS APPEAL. 10. IN THIS CASE THOUGH THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE CLARIFICATION OF THE CBDT REFERRED ABOVE, THE SAME IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURTS AND IT IS A MERE CLARIFICATION BUT NOT THE BINDING CIRCULAR. TH E SAID CLARIFICATION DID ITA NOS.201 TO 206 /VIZAG/2017 ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL, GUNTUR 10 NOT CONTAIN ANY DETAILS. WHEREAS CIRCULAR NO.681 OF CBDT IT IS VERY CLEARLY SPECIFIED THAT CONTRACT FOR SALE WOULD NOT COVER THE PROVISIONS U/S 194C OF THE ACT. THOUGH THE LD. D.R. REFERRED ONE OF THE PURCHASE BILLS FURNISHED IN THE PAPER BOOK AND ARGUED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY CST OR VAT AND THE SAME WAS IN THE NATURE OF SU PPLY CONTRACT, THE AMOUNT OF THE BILL WAS MARGINAL AND ALL THE REMAINI NG SAMPLE BILLS ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK PROVES THAT THE TRANSACT IONS WERE SALE TRANSACTIONS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID CST AND SALE S TAX ON ALL THE PURCHASE BILLS. THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED TWICE ONCE AT THE TIME ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A AND SECOND TIME IN GIVING EFFECT TO THE LD.CIT (C) ORDER BUT NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS BROU GHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE SAME IS WORKS CONTRACT. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO WORKS CONTRACT INVOLVED IN SUPPLY OF PRINTED MA TERIAL AND THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF CHANDANA BROTHERS CITED (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CITED (SUPRA) AND NO DIS ALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE. ITA NOS.201 TO 206 /VIZAG/2017 ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL, GUNTUR 11 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E FOR THE AYS 2005-06 TO 2010-11 ARE ALLOWED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH MAY18. SD/- SD/- ( . .. . . . . . ' ) ( . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (V. DURGA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 09.05.2018 VG/SPS )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT SRI ARUNACHALAM MANICKAVEL, PROP : M/S. BHARATHI SOAP WORKS, 1 ST LANE, INDIRA GANDHI NAGAR, NALLACHERUVU, GUNTUR-52 2 003. 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE CIT(A)-3, VISAKHAPATNAM 3. + / THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM 4. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 5 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM