Dharmana Chinna Chandrudu, Srikakulam V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, , Srikakulam

ITA 36/VIZ/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9477 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Retraction
• Section: 131; 69; 148; 143(3); 142(1); 133A; 271D; 143(2); 13

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलȣयअͬधकरण, ͪवशाखापटणमपीठ, ͪवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM Įीदुåवूǽआरएलरेɬडी, ÛयाǓयकसदèयएवंĮीएसबालाकृçणन, लेखासदèयकेसम¢ BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.414/Viz/2019 (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/ Assessment Year :2012-13) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam. Vs. Dharmana Projects (P) Ltd., Srikakulam. PAN:AADCD 2657 C (अपीलाथȸ/ Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/ Respondent) C.O. No.29/Viz/2020 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 414/Viz/2019) (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dharmana Projects (P) Ltd., Srikakulam. PAN:AADCD 2657 C Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथȸ/ Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.36/Viz/2020 (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) DharmanaChinnaChandrudu, Srikakulam. PAN: AGUPD 6588 J Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Srikakulam. (अपीलाथȸ/ Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/ Respondent) 2 आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.138/Viz/2019 (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) DharmanaSasidhar, Srikakulam. PAN: AEUPD 0044 D Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh. (अपीलाथȸ/ Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 35/Viz/2020 (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/ Assessment Year : 2014-15) Dharmana Dharma Rao, Srikakulam. PAN: AEUPD 0050 R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh. (अपीलाथȸ/ Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/ Respondent) अपीलाथȸकȧओरसे/ Appellant by : Sri M V Prasad, CA Ĥ×याथȸकȧओरसे/ Respondent by : Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr AR सुनवाईकȧतारȣख/ Date of Hearing : 23/08/2022 घोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 30/09/2022 O R D E R PER Bench : Out of the captioned five appeals, ITA No. 414/Viz/2019 is filed by the Revenue and the C.O. No.29/Viz/2020 is filed by the assessee in the case of Dharmana Projects (P) Ltd for the AY: 2012-13. ITA Nos. 36/Viz/2020; ITA No.138/Viz/2019 and ITA No.35/Viz/2020 are filed by the three assessees in the case of Dharmana China 3 Chandrudu, DharmanaSasidhar and Dharmana Dharma Rao respectively. In all these appeals, the assessees are connected to each other and some of the issues raised in their respective appeals are identical. Therefore, considering the connectivity of the appeals with respect to the issues involved as well as the assessees, all these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed off in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs of this order. I.T.A. No.414/Viz/2019 (AY: 2012-13) (By Revenue) 2. This appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Visakhapatnam [Ld. CIT(A)] in ITA No.10179/2016-17/JCIT, R-4/VSP/2018-19, dated 12/02/2019 arising out of the order passed U/s. 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the Assessment year 2012-13. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of real-estate and trading in automobiles. During the financial year 2011-12, the assessee has accepted from its Directors share capital and unsecured loan of Rs. 86,80,000/- in the form of cash as detailed below: 4 Share Capital: 1. Sri D. Dharma Rao 01-02-2012 9,20,000 2. -do- 31-03-2012 10,40,000 Total 19,60,000 1. Sri D. Sashidhar 01-02-2012 8,10,000 2. -do- 15,60,000 Total 23,70,000 Unsecured Loans: 1. Sri D. Dharma Rao 24-05-2011 6,00,000 2. -do- 20-07-2011 3,00,000 3. -do- 26-09-2011 2,50,000 4. -do- 28-09-2011 1,60,000 5. -do- 11-10-2011 6,00,000 6. -do- 21-10-2011 3,00,000 7. -do- 04-11-2011 5,00,000 8. -do- 05-11-2011 5,00,000 9. -do- 31-12-2011 50,000 10. -do- 23-01-2012 1,90,000 Total 34,50,000 4. Considering the reply submitted by the assessee’s representative and on perusing the submissions, the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Visakhapatnam observed that the assessee violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act accepting the share capital of Rs. 43,30,000/- from the Directors viz., Sri D. Dharma Rao and Sri D. Sashidhar and unsecured loan of Rs. 29,00,000/- from Sri D. Dharma Rao and levied penalty of Rs. 72,30,000/- u/s. 271D of the Act. Aggrieved 5 by the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions made by the assessee’s representative allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty for Rs.72,30,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. The Learned Departmental Representative [Ld. DR] argued that as per section 69 of the Companies Act, 1956 share application money shall be treated as deposit and hence provisions of the section 269SS of the IT Act, 1961 are applicable. The Ld. DR also further submitted that Regulation 50 of LODR stated that the subscription money paid either by cheque or demand draf t or o ther banking channel and not by cash. The Ld. DR also placed before us the admission of the SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Object Frontier Software (P.) Ltd [2016] 75 taxmann.com 196 (SC). Per contra, the Learned Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] argued that the share capital is neither a deposit nor a loan attracting the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the unsecured loans were given by the Directors where the current account is maintained by the company in its books of accounts and it is common for the 6 Directors to withdraw and invest from the unsecured loans maintained by the company. The Ld. AR further submitted that the unsecured loans are in the nature of running current account. The Ld. AR also relied on the following case laws: 1. Bhalo tia Engineering Works (P) Ltd vs. CIT – High Cour t of Jharkhand [2005] 275 ITR 399 (JHAR). 2. CIT vs. Numero Uno Financial Services Pv t Ltd – High cour t of Delhi – ITA No. 857/2011. 3. CIT, Chennai vs. Objec t Frontier Software (P) Ltd – High court of Madras [ 2016] 75 tax mann.co m 169 (Madras) 4. CIT, Delhi-IV, vs. I.P. India (P.) Ltd – High court of Delhi – [2011] 16 tax mann.co m 407 (Delhi). 5. CIT vs. Rugmini Ram Ragavd Spinners (P.) Ltd. – High Cour t of Madras – [2008] 304 ITR 417 (Madras). 6. CIT, Tamilnadu-1, Madras vs. M/s. Idhayam Publications Limited – High Cour t of Madras – [2006] 285 ITR 221. 7. CIT vs. Shree A mbica Flour Mills Corporation – High Cour t of Gujarat [2008] 6 DTR (Guj) 169. 8. Department of Inco me Tax vs. M/s. Bhandari Precision Forgings – ITAT Bangalore – ITA Nos. 777 & 778/Bang/2010. 9. Assistant Director of Inspection vs. Kum. A.B. Shanthi – Supre me Cour t of India – [2002] 122 Tax man 574 (SC). 10. Chamundi Granites (P.) Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inco me Tax – High Cour t of Karnataka – [2000] 112 Tax man 404 (Karnataka). 11. CIT vs. Preeti Fuels & Flames (P.) Ltd – High ?Court of Chhattisgarh – [2011] 12 tax mann.co m 212 (Chhattisgarh). 12. M/s. Coastal Tea (P.) Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax – ITAT, Visakhapatnam, ITA Nos. 261 to 262/Viz/2013. 7 6. The Ld. AR placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Idhayam Publications Limited reported in [2006] 285 ITR 221 (Mad.). The Ld. AR pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ADA Investigation vs. Kumar A B Shanti 255 ITR 258 explained the objects of introducing section 269SS of the IT Act, 1961. “The object of introducing section 269SS is to ensure that a taxpayer is not allowed to give false explanation for his unaccounted money, or if he has given so me false entries in his accounts, he shall no t escape by giving false explanation for the same. During search and seizures, unaccounted money is unear thed and the taxpayer would usually give the explanation that he had borrowed or received deposits from his relatives or friends and it is easy for the so-called leader also to manipulate his records later to suit the plea of the taxpayer. The main object of sec tion 269SS was to curb this menace.” 8. Further, under the companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, under Rule 2(b)(ix), deposit does not include any amount received from a Director or Shareholder of a private limited company. Therefore, the transaction between the Director and the company is not in the nature of a loan or deposit. In the 8 case law quoted by the Ld. AR in CIT vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd reported in 285 ITR 221 (supra) the Hon’ble Madras High Court observed as follows: "We heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revenue. We have perused the materials available in record. Admittedly Mr. S V S Manian was one of the directors. Therefore the order of the lower authority clearly shows that there was a running current account in the books of account of the assessee in the name of Mr. S V S Manian. Mr. S V S Manian used to pay the money in the current account and used to withdraw the money also from the current account. The revenue should establish that what was received by the assessee is a loan or deposit within the meaning of section 269SS. The deposit and the withdrawal of the money from the current account could not be considered as a loan or advance. Further it was also found that the assessee filed a letter dated September 29, 1997, and in that letter he explained that the amount received from Mr. S V S Manian had been shown as "unsecured loan from directors" in the balance sheet. As per the Companies Act, under the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, under rule 2(b)(ix), deposit does not include any amount received from a director or a shareholder of a private limited company. Therefore, the transaction between the appellant and the director cum shareholder is not a loan or deposit and it is only a current account in nature and no interest is being charged for the above transaction. In the foregoing conclusions, we are of the view that since the said transaction does not fall within the meaning of loan or advance, there is no violation of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act. We find no error in the order of the Tribunal and the same requires no interference. Hence, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court. Accordingly, we dismiss the above tax case”. 9. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we are of the considered view that the amount paid by the Directors / Shareholder towards share capital and unsecured loans in the form of cash does not attract the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and penalty U/s. 271D cannot be levied on the same. We 9 therefore find no error in order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hence no interference is required in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. C.O. No. 29/Viz/2020 (By assessee) AY: 2012-13 11. This Cross Objection is filed by the assessee. It is noted that there is a delay of 391 days in filing the Cross Objection before the Tribunal. The reasons stated in the affidavit filed by the assessee for filing the cross objection beyond the prescribed time limit are (i) the appeal memo filed by the Department received by the assessee but inadvertently it was misplaced and could not be informed about this to the assessee’s Auditor and (ii) Covid Pandemic situation during the relevant period. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee that prevented the assessee in filing the Cross Objections, we are of the considered opinion that there is a reasonable cause in filing the cross objection beyond prescribed time limit. Considering the same, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the Cross Objection on merits. 10 12. The grounds raised by the assessee in its Cross Objection are in support of the decision taken by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the considered view that the there is no need to adjudicate the Cross Objection and accordingly it becomes infructuous. 13. In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.36/Viz/2020 (DharmanaChinnaChandrudu) (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) 14. This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Guntur in appeal No.10427/GNT/CIT(A)-2/2016- 17,Dated 25/11/2019 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3)r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. 15. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee being an individual, a partner of M/s. Dharmana Motors, filed his return of income admitting a taxable income of Rs. 2,65,394/- and agricultural income of Rs. 14,00,000/-. The Ld. AO, based on the deposition made by the family members of the assessee, had reasons to believe that there is income chargeable to tax escaping 11 assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act issued a notice U/s. 148 on 22/2/2016 and served on the assessee on the same date. In response to the said notice, the assessee stated that the return of income filed on 19/03/2015 may be treated as return of income filed in compliance of the notice U/s. 148 of the Act. Subsequently, statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on 4/4/2016. In response, the Assessee’s Representative furnished the information called for by the Ld. AO. After examining the submission made by the Assessee’s Representative regarding the admission of agricultural income of Rs. 14 lakhs, the Ld. AO being not convinced with the reply, assessed the income of Rs. 14 lakhs from unexplained sources. The Ld. AO also rejected the telescoping benefit requested by the assessee where the income of the firm M/s. Dharmana Motors in which the assessee is a partner offered income subsequent to a survey U/s. 133A of the Act for Rs. 28 lakhs. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). Considering the submissions made by the Assessee’s Representative, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 12 16. The assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Guntur is contrary to l aw an d facts of the case. 2. The CIT (A)-2, Guntur ought to have al lo we d the appe al as reg ards the addi tion made by the Assessing Authority wi thout making any addi tion. He ought to h ave accep ted. Hence, the appell ant prays for rel ief. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Guntur instead of confirming the addition made by the Assessing Authority ought to h ave grante d rel ief by del eting the additions made by the Assessing Authority on the basis of submission made by the appell ant an d gran ted rel ief in respect of the agricul tural income of Rs. 14 l akhs. Hence, the appell ant prays for rel ief. 4. For these and o ther grounds th at may b e urged at the time of appe al hearing the appell ant prays fo r rel ief.” 17. The Ld. AR argued that the assessee owns 4 ½ Acres of Wet Land at Mabagam and 9 Acres of Dry Lands at Bommika. The Ld. AR submitted that in the sworn statement recorded U/s. 131 of the Act, the assessee has declared that he received income from agricultural activities from 13 ½ Acres of land owned by him. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has Coconut grove and planted Eucalyptus trees in his land and the agricultural income is arising out of the sale of Eucalyptus Trees and Coconut grove. The Ld. AR further submitted the PattadarPass Book and Adangal / Pahani in pages 23 to 34 of the paper book showing the details of agricultural lands owned by the assessee. 13 Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the statement recorded from Sri M. Rama Rao S/o. Venkata Rao, to whom the assessee claimed to have sold the Eucalyptus trees during the impugned assessment year for Rs. 14 lakhs, stated that he did not purchase any Eucalyptus trees from the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. DR pleaded that it is not the agricultural income earned by the assessee and the Ld. AO has rightly treated the said income as income from unexplained sources. The Ld. DR pleaded that the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities be upheld. 18. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Authorities below. Admitted facts are that the assessee owns 4 ½ Acres of Wet Land at Mabagam and 9 Acres of Dry Lands at Bommika and has indulged in agricultural activities in the said lands. This fact was not disputed by the Revenue. The only issue before us is the realization value of the agricultural produce by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. We also see from the paper book submitted by the Ld. AR that the PattadarPass Book and Adangal / Pahani reveal the agricultural lands owned by the assessee. Further, it is noted from the paper book that the assessee has been regularly admitting the agricultural income in 14 the earlier assessment years. It was also not disputed by the Ld.AO in earlier years. It is also noted that the statement recorded U/s. 131 of the Act by M. Rama Rao does not have any evidentiary value and cannot be enforced upon. We also find from the paper book that the assessee has filed a letter from the Sarpanch of Vaddangi Gram Panchayat regarding the planting of Eucalyptus trees in the assessee’s lands. The submission of the Ld.AR that harvesting of Eucalyptus trees will take 4 to 5 years cannot be denied. The assessee in his statement has accepted the fact that they used to get Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1.5 lakhs per Acre from the agricultural operations. In the sale of agricultural produce viz., Coconut grove, Paddy and Eucalyptus, the receipt of cash is common among agriculturists. We find merit in the arguments of the Ld. AR that assessee has engaged in agricultural activities, not contested by the Revenue, and therefore we are of the considered view, considering the 13½ acres of wet and dry lands owned by the assessee, it can be reasonably estimated that the assessee would have earned Rs. 7 lakhs per annum during the impugned assessment year in agricultural activity carried on by him from his agricultural lands of13 ½ Acres. We therefore direct the Ld. AO to consider the 15 agricultural income of Rs. 7 lakhs. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.138/Viz/2019 (DharmanaSasidhar) (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) 20. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Visakhapatnam [the Ld. CIT (A)] in appeal no. 10395/2016-17/ITO,W- 3,SKLM/VSP/2018-19, dated 30/01/2019 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. 21. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Visakh ap atn am is contrary to l aw and f acts of the case. 2. The CIT(A) is not justified in not accepti ng the submissions as reg ards agricul tural income at Rs. 23,80,085/- without appreci ating the submissions made by the appell ant. The appel l ant el aboratel y g ave his expl anation as reg ards gro wing of Eucal yptus Trees in his l and and ho w he had got th at kind of income. But the CIT(A)-2, Visakh ap atn am, did not accept the sai d expl an ation wi thout b asis and confirmed the addi tions made by the Assessing Authority 16 under the he ad ‘unexpl ained income’. Hence, the appell ant prays for rel ief. 3. The appell ant h ad made certain withdrawal s through Citi Bank Debit / Cre dit Cards to the tune of Rs. 11,56,600/- by paying the amounts to Citi Bank. As the appell ant h ad expl ained the detail s up to Rs. 7,52,651/- as the sources up to that ex tent and produced evidence inspite of l ong gap of time, the CIT( A)-2 ought to have accepted at l east the sai d amount inste ad of adding the entire amount of Rs. 11,56,600/-, Rs. 2,65,379/- as he got proper expl an ation. The Ld. CIT(A)-2, wi thout discussing the issue wi th any cl ari ty, made the entire expenditure met through Bank Card Account, which is not in accordance wi th l aw. Hence, the appel l ant prays for rel ief. 4. For these and o ther grounds th at may b e urged at the time of appe al hearing, the appell ant prays fo r rel ief.” 22. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is general in nature and therefore need not be adjudicated. 23. Ground No.2 relates to the addition of Rs.23,80,085/- by disallowing the agricultural income claimed by the assessee at Rs. 24,00,500/-. The Ld AO allowed a sum of Rs 20415/- from sale of coconut and bananas but disallowed a sum of Rs 23,80,085/- from sale of Eucalyptus. The Ld. AO treated the amount of Rs. 23,80,085/- as income from unexplained sources against the assessee’s claim of agricultural income for Rs 24,00,500/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. This issue is identical to that of the one raised by the assessee in the case of DharmanaChinnaChandrudu in ITA No.36/Viz/2020 for the AY 2014-15. While adjudicating this issue in the case of 17 DharmanaChinnaChandrudu we have gone through the material available before us, orders of Ld. Revenue Authorities as well as the arguments of both the sides and granted partial relief to the assessee. Since the facts and circumstances of the case in the present case of DharmanaSashihar is identical to that of the one decided by us in the above paras of this order except for the fact that in the instant case there is no retraction by M Rama Rao, proprietor of M/s Siva surya Traders, Srikakulam. This is evident from the confirmation provided in the instant case, by M/s Siva surya Traders, Srikakulam towards the purchase of Eucalyptus from the assessee. Therefore, we direct the Ld. AO to consider the same as agricultural income of the assessee at Rs.23,80,085/- as claimed by the assessee and thereby allow the appeal of the assessee.Thus, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 24. Ground No.3 pertaining to the expenses incurred by the assessee through Credit Cards to the tune of Rs. 11,56,600/-. On this issue, the Ld. AR claimed that the Credit Card payments were made from the withdrawals of capital account for Rs. 5,30,757/- and Rs. 2,21,900/- by taking loans from friends. Further, the assessee has clarified before the Revenue that there 18 iswithdrawals from the capital account and accommodation from friends for an amount of Rs 5,30,757/- and Rs 2,21,900/- respectively. The assessee has also offered the difference amount of Rs 2,65,379/- due to the inability of the assessee to produce evidence for the same. The Ld AO has rightly distinguished the facts and in the absence any cogent evidence we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A)’s decision is in accordance with law and based on the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore we find no reason to interfere with the of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. It is ordered accordingly. Thus, this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 25. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 35/Viz/2020 (Dharmana Dharma Rao) (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/ Assessment Year : 2014-15) 26. This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guntur in appeal No.10379/GNT/CIT(A)-2/2016-17, dated 25/11/2019 arising out 19 of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. 27. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT( A)-2, Guntur is contrary to l aw an d f acts of the case. 2. The CIT(A)-2, Guntur ought to h ave accepted the ag ricul tural income decl ared by the ap pell ant inste ad of stating th at these we re no sal e of Eucal yptus trees. 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-2, Guntur instead of confirming the addition made by the Assessing Authority ought to have gran ted rel ief by del eting the addition made for the rate purpose by the Assessing Authority. Hence, th e appell ant prays for rel ief. 4. The Ld. CIT(A)-2, Guntur ought to have accepte d the ag ricul tural income of Rs. 24,25,000/- inste ad of considering onl y 3,24,330/- and tre ated the b al ance as income from other sources. Hence, the appel l ant prays for rel ief. 5. For these and o ther grounds th at may b e urged at the time of appe al hearing, the appell ant prays fo r rel ief.” 28. The core issue involved in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs.19,20,670/- as income from unexplained sources. The agricultural income claimed by the assessee in the return of income filed by the assessee is Rs. 24,25,000/-. The agricultural income admitted by the assessee during assessment proceedings is Rs. 22,45,000/-. The Ld. AOtherefore, treated the difference amount of Rs. 19,20,670/- as income from unexplained sources against the assessee’s claim of agricultural income while allowing an amount of Rs. 3,24,330/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) 20 confirmed the same and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. This issue is identical to that of the one raised by the assessee in the case of DharmanaChinnaChandrudu in ITA No.36/Viz/2020 for the AY 2014-15. While adjudicating this issue in the case of DharmanaChinnaChandrudu we have gone through the material available before us, orders of Ld. Revenue Authorities as well as the arguments of both the sides and granted partial relief to the assessee. Since the facts and circumstances of the case in the present case of Dharmana Dharma Rao is identical to that of the one decided by us in the above paras of this order ie., in the case of DharmanaChinnaChandrudu, our decision given thereof mutatis mutandis applies to the instant appeal also. Accordingly, we direct the Ld. AO to consider the agricultural income of the assessee at Rs.11,22,500/- and grant relief to that extent. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 29. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 30. Ex-consequenti, the Revenue appeal in ITA No. 414/Viz/2019 as well as the Cross Objection raised by the assessee in CO No.29/Viz/2020 are dismissed. ITA No. 36/Viz/2020; ITA No. 138/Viz/2019 and ITA No. 35/Viz/2020 are partly allowed. 21 Pronounced in the open Court on the 30 th September, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (दुåवूǽआर.एलरेɬडी) (एसबालाकृçणन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) ÛयाǓयकसदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated :30.09.2022 OKK - SPS आदेशकȧĤǓतͧलͪपअĒेͪषत/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. Ǔनधा[ǐरती/ The Assessee– (i) M/s. Dharmana Projects (P) Ltd., Plot No.5, SBI Colony, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh – 532001. (ii) DharmanaChinnaChandrudu, Near New Bridge, Day & Night Junction, Srikakulam – Andhra Pradesh – 532001. (iii)DharmanaSasidhar, Near New Building, Day & Night Jn., Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh – 532001. (iv) Dharmana Dharma Rao, Near New Bridge, Day & Night Junction, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh – 532001. 2. राजèव/The Revenue –(i) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), 3 rd Floor, Direct Taxes Building, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530017. (ii) The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Palakonda Road, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh – 532001. (iii) The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh. (iv) Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Palakonda, Road, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh – 532001. 22 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Visakhapatnam. 4. आयकरआयुÈत (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Visakhapatnam. (ii) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guntur. 5. ͪवभागीयĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकरअपीलȣयअͬधकरण, ͪवशाखापटणम/ DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6. गाड[फ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam