Dr.Katneni Vishnu Mohan, Eluru V. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Eluru Range (I/c), Eluru

ITA 246/VIZ/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9575 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SONOWAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 54F; 147; 54; 263

Judgement Text

2 , , 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.NO. 246 /VIZ/ 201 8 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 20 1 1 ) DR.KATNENI VISHNU MOHAN D.NO.25 - 19 - 10 MALLEMOGGALAVARI STREET N.R.PETA ELURU [PAN : A II PK 5233B ] JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ELURU, RANGE (I/C) ELURU ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.V.N.HARI , AR / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI D.K.SONOWAL , CIT DR / DATE OF HEARING : 2 9 . 1 1 . 2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 . 1 2 .2018 / O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (PR.CIT ), RAJAHMUNDRY VIDE F.NO.HQRS/8/PR.CIT,RJY/2015 - 16 DATED 28 . 03 .201 8 FOR THE A SSESSMENT Y EAR (A.Y.) 20 10 - 11 . 2 I.T.A. NO .246 /VIZ/201 8 DR.KATNENI VISHNU MOHAN, ELURU 2. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.23,59,460/ - ON 15.10.2013. T HE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS ACT) ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.24,31,720/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 AND MADE TH E REASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 BY AN ORDER DATED 22.05.2015 ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.24,31,720/ - I.E. AS PER THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 31.01.2013. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PR.CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY HAS TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR REVISION U/S 263 AND FOUND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED THE LAND WITH IRON SHEETS SHED AND HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE SUPPORTING WHETHER HE HAS CONSTRUCTED THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET OR NOT? FURT HER THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET. THE LD.PR.CIT VIEWED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOR ACQUI RING THE NEW ASSET, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE LD.PR.CIT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER ANY RENTAL INCOME ON THE 3 I.T.A. NO .246 /VIZ/201 8 DR.KATNENI VISHNU MOHAN, ELURU PROPERTY SOLD DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 2009 TO AUGUST 2009, THOU GH THE PROPERTY WAS BEING USED BY THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER. THUS, THE PR.CIT VIEWED THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S 263 CALLING FOR TH E EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE SAID ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE REVISED. 4. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED, THE ASSESSEES AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED AND FILED A DETAILED EXPLANATION BEFORE THE PR.CIT WITH REGARD TO SALE OF THE LAND AND ACQUIRING OF NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AS STIPULATED IN SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. HAVING SATISFIED WITH REGARD TO THE SALE OF LAND AND ACQUIRING THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD, THE LD.PR.CIT ACCEPT ED THE CONTENTION WITH REGARD TO ACQUIRING THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF 263 PROCEEDINGS, THE LD.PR.CIT OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN EXCHANGE DEED VIDE DOCUMENT NO.4200/2009 WITH ONE SRI DANDAMUDI SUMAN BABU BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED 958.2 SQ.YDS OF THE PROPERTY(LAND PLUS SHED) IN FAVOUR OF THE SAID PERSON WHO IN TURN HAS TRANSFERRED 1089 SQ.YDS OF HIS LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.PR.CIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE VALUE OF THE SAID PLOT 4 I.T.A. NO .246 /VIZ/201 8 DR.KATNENI VISHNU MOHAN, ELURU OF LAND WAS RS.95,80,000/ - AND THE CONSTRUCTED AREA OF SHED WAS 6656 SQ.FT., VALUE OF WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.39,93,600/ - AND THE TOTAL COST OF THE SAID LAND AND BUILDING TRANSFERRED WOULD BE RS.1,35,73,600/ - (9580000+3993600). AS PER DOCUMENT NO.3734/ 2002, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE ABOVE PROPERTY FOR A SUM OF RS.13,46,000/ - AND THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS.19,03,069/ - AND THE RESULTANT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WOULD BE RS.1,03,24,531/ - WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER FO R INCOME AND CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. THE PR.CIT OBSERVED AS PER SUB SECTION (4) OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT , IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION OF CAPITAL GAINS, THE NET SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET SHOULD HAVE B EEN UTILIZED OR DEPOSITED IN ANY BANK ACCOUNT SPECIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR THIS PURPOSE BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ANOTHER PIECE OF LAND IN EXCHANGE, BUT NOT IN CASH, THUS THERE IS NO C ASE OF DEPOSIT MADE IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE NEITHER DEPOSITED THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE BUILDING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NOR UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE IN TERMS OF SECTION 54F(3) OF THE ACT, THE LD.PR.CIT, HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 5 I.T.A. NO .246 /VIZ/201 8 DR.KATNENI VISHNU MOHAN, ELURU 5. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF NON - ADMISSION OF RENT FROM THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO IT S TRANSFER FOR THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 2009 TO AUGUST 2009 ALSO, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE RENT WAS NOT RECEIVED FROM THE TENANT, HENCE THE INCOME WAS NOT ADMITTED. THE LD.PR.CIT VIEWED THAT AS PER SECTION 22 OF THE ACT , NOTIONAL RENT REQUIRED TO BE O FFERED FOR THE TAXATION AND FAILURE TO ADMIT THE NOTIONAL RENT RENDERS THE ASSESSME N T ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD.PR.CIT SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO AND DIRECTED THE AO TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE REVISION ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT . 6. AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 263, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED AND COMPLETED U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) BY AN ORDER DATED 22.05.2015. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR REVISION U/S 263 FOR THE TWO REASONS I.E INCORRECT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F AND NON ADMISSION OF RENTAL INCOME. 8. INCORRECT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F . IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED 958.2 SQ.YDS OF PLOT ALONG WITH IRON SHEET SHED OF 6656 6 I.T.A. NO .246 /VIZ/201 8 DR.KATNENI VISHNU MOHAN, ELURU SQ.FT. BY EXCHANGE DEED DATED 03.08.2009 FOR EXCHANGE OF VACANT SITE OF 1,089 SQ.YDS OF LAND WITH ONE SRI DANDAMUDI SUMAN BABU. ACCORDING TO THE LD.PR.CIT, FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY W AS RS.1,35,73,600/ - AND THE RESULTANT CAPITAL GAINS WORKS OUT TO RS.1,03,24,531/ - . THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A PIECE OF LAND IN EXCHANGE OF LAND AND SHE D BUT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CASH CONSIDERATION. REVENUES CASE IS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO CONSTRUCT / ACQUIRE NEW HOUSE AND DEPOSIT THE NET CONSIDERATION IN THE SPECIFIED BANK ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS TAX. THE ASSES SEES CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY IN EXCHANGE OF LAND, THUS, THE NET CONSIDERATION WAS THE CAPITAL ASSET WHICH WAS USED FOR ACQUIRING THE NEW ASSET THUS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F O F THE ACT . WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH T HE SUBMISSIONS OF EITHER PARTIES AND OBSERVE THAT THE LAND WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EXCHANGE OF ANOTHER PIECE OF LAND AND THE SAME WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE . HENCE, T HE LAND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EXCHANGE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED THE LAND AND SHED AND ACQUIRED THE VACA NT PIECE OF LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED EXCHANGE DOCUMENT DATED 7 I.T.A. NO .246 /VIZ/201 8 DR.KATNENI VISHNU MOHAN, ELURU 03.08.2009, AS PER WHICH, BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO VALUE BOTH THE PROPERTIES AT RS.88,08,000/ - . THE SRO VALUE OF THE PROPE RTY TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS VALUED AT RS.6,000/ - PER SQ.YD AS AVAILABLE IN PAGE NO.5 OF THE EXCHANGE DEED DATED 03 . 08 . 2009 AND THE AGR E E D VALUE OF LAND AND SHED WAS RS.88,0800/ - . SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED 1089 SQ.YDS OF VACANT SITE AT AN AGREED COST OF RS.88,08,000/ - FOR WHICH THE MARKET VALUE WAS RS.10,000/ - PER SQ.YD AND THE AGGREGATED DEEMED CONSIDERATION WAS RS.1,08,90,000/ - FROM SRI DANDAMUDI SUMAN BABU. FROM THE RECITALS OF THE ABOVE EXCHANGE DOCUMENT DATED 03.08.2009, IT IS EVIDE NT THAT THE DEEMED CONSIDERATION FOR THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.57,49,200/ - AGAINST WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS VALUED AT RS.88,08,000/ - . SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE VACANT SITE VALUED AT RS.1,08,90,000/ - AGAINST THE AGREED CO NSIDERATION OF RS.88,08,000/ - WHICH IS LESS THAT THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE A CT . THEREFORE, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE EQUAL AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION IN THE FORM OF LAND IN EXCHANGE AND THE ENTIRE LAND WAS US ED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION THUS THERE IS NO CASE FOR CAPITAL GAINS AND THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F. 9. IN THE ORDER U/S 263, THE LD.PR.CIT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. V.R.DESAI (197 TAXMAN 005). THE 8 I.T.A. NO .246 /VIZ/201 8 DR.KATNENI VISHNU MOHAN, ELURU FACTS OF THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD.PR.CIT ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE ON HAND. IN THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE LD.PR.CIT, THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED THE LAND TO THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM TREATING IT AS A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CAPITAL OF THE FIRM. THE FIRM IN TURN CREDITED THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RS.38,62,800/ - AS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION. HOWEVER, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS.38,62,800/ - AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATI ON OF LAND TRANSFERRED TO THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM THE SAID SUM WAS NEITHER UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTR UCTION OF HOUSE NOR DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN SPECIFIED BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE DUE DATE. THE FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND BROUGHT TO THE FI RM BY THE ASSESSEE AS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE AVAILED THE BANK LOAN AND CONSTRUCTED THE NEW HOUSE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 3 YEARS AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT DECIDED THE ISSUE AG AINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION IN THE FORM OF LAND AND THE ENTIRE LAND WAS UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCT ION OF NEW HOUSE, THEREFORE, THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD.PR.CIT IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 9 I.T.A. NO .246 /VIZ/201 8 DR.KATNENI VISHNU MOHAN, ELURU 10. THIS ISSUE OF CAPITAL GAINS WAS EXAMINED BY THE AO IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MADE U/S 147 R.W.S. 14 3(3) OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO PAGE NO.56 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED BY THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 27.04.2015 IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE SALE OF LAND, MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AND THE RESULTAN T CAPITAL GAINS ETC. THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED EXPLANATION VIDE LETTER DATED 08.05.2015 BEFORE THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, ELURU WHICH WAS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK PAGE NOS 29 - 53. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THE SAID DETAILS BEFORE THE LD.PR.CIT DURING THE PROC EEDINGS U/S 263OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 54F AS WELL AS THE NON - ADMISSION OF RENTAL INCOME ANDTHE AO HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE S IN DETAIL AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AND ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F, THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE LAND IN EXCHANGE OF LAND WHICH IS A KIND COMPONENT BUT NOT IN CASH AND THE ENTIRE LAND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS APPLI ED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THERE WAS NO CASH COMPONENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPOSITING IN SPECIFIED ACCOUNT AND THERE W AS NO INVEST MENT . THERE WAS NO FINDING EITHER FROM THE AO OR BY THE LD.PR.CIT THAT THE LAND WAS NOT FULLY UTILIZED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 10 I.T.A. NO .246 /VIZ/201 8 DR.KATNENI VISHNU MOHAN, ELURU HOUSE. AS PER SUB SECTION 1 OF SECTION 54, IN CASE THE ASSESSEE APPLIED THE ENTIRE NET CONSIDERATION FOR ACQUIRING NEW ASSET, THE ENTIRE NET CONSIDERATION IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ENTIRE LAND RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING THE NEW HOUSE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOUSE WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE REFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION, THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED F OR DEDUCTION U/S 54F AS CLAIMED. T HERE IS NO ERROR WHICH CAUSES PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.PR.CIT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. NON - ADMISSION OF RENTAL INCOME . THE ISSUE OF ADMISSION OF RENTAL INCOME WAS ALSO EXAMINED BY THE AO VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 27.04.2015 WHICH WAS PLACED IN PAGE NO.56 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR NON - ADMISSION OF RENTAL INCOME AND THE SAID EXPLANATION WAS PLACED IN PAGE NO.49 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH WAS SUBMITTED TO THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 08.05.2015 . D URING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO HAS SATIS FIED THAT THERE IS NO CASE FOR TAXING THE RENTAL INCOME DUE TO NON - RECEIPT OF THE SAME FROM THE TENANT.THOUGH THE NOTIONAL RENT IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS 11 I.T.A. NO .246 /VIZ/201 8 DR.KATNENI VISHNU MOHAN, ELURU PER SECTION23(1)(A), H AVING EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL DURING THE REASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS AND ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING NON RECEIPT OF RENT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . THE PR.CIT IS PERMITTED TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION ONLY IF THE ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E. THE TWIN CONDITIONS SHOULD BE SATISFIED CUMULATIVELY FOR TAKING UP THE REVISION. IN THE INSTANT CASE THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT IS PREJUDICIAL BUT IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS THUS THERE IS NO CASE FOR INVOKING THE JURISDICTION U/S 263. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE O RDER PASSED BY THE L D.PR,CIT U/S 263 IS UNSUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME IS QUASHED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH D ECEMBER , 2018 . S D/ - S D/ - ( . ) ( . . ) (V. DURGA RAO) ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM /DATED : 20 . 1 2 .2018 L.RAMA, SPS 12 I.T.A. NO .246 /VIZ/201 8 DR.KATNENI VISHNU MOHAN, ELURU / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / THE ASSESSEE DR.KATNENI VISHNU MOHAN, D.NO.25 - 19 - 10 MALLEMOGGALAVARI STREET, N.R.PETA, ELURU 2 . / THE REVENUE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ELURU, RANGE (I/C), ELURU 3 . THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY 4 . , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 5 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM