Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad V. Sridhar Palakurthi, Hyderabad

ITA 393/Hyd/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0923 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GUNA SEKHAR REDDY
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Business income; TDS
• Section: 148; 263; 144; 44AD; 40A(3); 80C; 143(3); 142(1); 194C; 143(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA Nos.393 and 394/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. Vs. Sridhar Palakurthi, 6-3-860/8/3, Lakshmi Vishnu Sadan, Thakur Mansion Lane, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500082. PAN: AIKPP8040P अपीलधर्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri Guna Sekhar Reddy, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Raja Kumar, Sr.AR. O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. The captioned appeals are filed by the Revenue feeling aggrieved by the common order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, dt.29.05.2023 invoking proceedings under sections 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), respectively, for the A.Y.s. 2018-19 and 2019-20. सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 27.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 09.10.2023 2 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue in both the appeals are same and hence, we are reproducing the grounds of ITA No.393/Hyd/2023 for A.Y. 2018-19 only, for the sake of brevity and the same read as under : “1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts of the case in granting relief to the assessee. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in Law by partly allowing the assessee's appeal against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the l. T Act, 1961 dated 15.04.2021 stating that the said sum of Rs.9,10,146/- and Rs.2,53,23,830/- not to be treated as unexplained expenditure of the assessee. 3. Ld. CIT (A) erred in Law as findings this case has to be dealt as a whole not as specific year. 4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in Law that after initiating the proceedings u/s.148 the filing of return of incomes by the mestrys has only been made as the assessment in the assessee's case held them as non filers.” 3. As the facts and issues in both the appeals are same, we are reproducing the facts of appeal in ITA No.393/Hyd/2023 for the sake of brevity. 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is the proprietor of M/s. PSR Granites and is into the business of mining of granite. The assessee filed his original return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 31.10.2018 admitting total income of Rs.1,55,71,830/- and revised return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,60,38,270/- on 28.11.2018. 4.1. In this case, a survey u/s.133A of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of the assessee at the assessee’s business premises at Somajiguda, Hyderabad on 04.03.2020 and the assessee admitted to file return of income for AY 2019-20 with total income at Rs.3,33,72,427/-, being 7% of gross receipts for 3 that year. Subsequently, the assessee filed his return of income for AY 2019-20 on 03.07.2020 admitting total income of Rs.3,46,30,940/-. The case of AY 2018-19 was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the case of AY 2019-20 was selected for compulsory scrutiny as a result of the Survey. Subsequently, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the appellant for both the AYs. After examining the material on record and the information furnished, assessments were completed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making the disallowance of Rs.2,53,23,830/- claimed towards expenditure on account of payments to contractors, Rs.9,10,146/- towards expenditure on account of non-submission of bills and vouchers and Rs.7,30,972/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the assessing officer, assessee filed the captioned appeals before the ld.CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeals of assessee 6. Aggrieved with the orders of ld.CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 7. Before us, ld. DR had drawn our attention to the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and our attention was drawn to Para 6 at page 33 of the order of ld.CIT(A), whereby the ld.CIT(A) had deleted the additions made in the hands of the assessee. The findings of the ld.CIT(A) are captured at pages 39 to 42 of its order, which are to the following effect : “It is seen that the appellant is having leased mine and is into granite mining for more than two decades and is into mining of Tan brown colour granite. The appellants mining process involves the following stages. Development Activity Separating the Granite block called mass from Mother rock 4 Cutting the mass into manageable sized blocks Transferring the split blocks to inspection area Marking the granite block by buyer Dressing of the marked block Dispatching the blocks after clearance from Mines & Geology Department. The granite mining process is summarized as per the submission of the appellant: Initially, the top layers of earth and loose stones/rocks called as over burden will be removed to uncover the granite, where the hired labour would be utilized to in blasting and clearing the waste. Then, mass blocks are cut from the mother rock byplacing holes and using specialized equipment. The mass rock is then cut into manageable sized blocks and majority of the hired labour work goes into in this stage. These small blocks are then inspected in open area by quarry managers and also buyers for any defects, which if found, the defected part would be cut away. The blocks are then marked. These marked blocks would then be dressed/trimmed into optimal shape for transportation. This process also requires services of non-technical staff. Thereafter, the officials of the Department of Mines and Geology of the state of Telangana would be e quarry to check the blocks being dispatched to arrive at the age fee, which is to be paid to the Government. After that, the blocks will be exported to China through various modes of transportation. The appellant stressed upon the requirement of hired labour and non-technical staff at various stages of granite mining process. It is seen that for both the years block cutting charges have been disallowed by the AO in toto and certain amount of labour charges. It is important to consider the activity of the appellant and the quantum of expenditure incurred under the specific head. The block cutting activity is essential and one of the main activity for the mining purpose and there are no other charges of similar nature which have been debited. There is no case made out by the AO that these are over invoicing and the block cutting charges are already accounted by the appellant under a difference head, thereby inflating expenses. There is no case made out that the payments are unreasonable or the payments under the said head are not required. As can be observed, this is a specific head of expenditure and has been allowed in the earlier years and for A.Y. 2017-18, where no addition was made in the assessment order in this regard, the block cutting charges percentage was 5.02% of the sales. For the present years under adjudication i.e. A.Y. 2018-19 the percentage block cutting charges to sales is 5.31% and for A.Y. 2019-20 it is 5.68%, which implies that the same is in the acceptable zone as not abnormal to past records of the appellant. further justified the activity, no doubt that block cutting charges Thus, there is no case of observing any case of accommodation or over invoicing or non genuineness of such payments. Further, the recipients have filed their returns and in one case the scrutiny assessment of the said recipient did not have any adverse view regarding the bonafides of the recipients activity. Just because the recipients seem to withdraw the funds immediately in cash cannot be a justification to conclude that the payer is using them for accommodation. 5 The recipients execute a very labour intensive job for the appellant and as a primary activity requires sizable number of labour and they have to be paid in cash at frequent intervals. It is important to note that the said labour is migrant most of the time and the frequency of hiring and accretion both of it is very high, therefore, considering the peculiarity of the situation, there is no basis to hold the fact that the recipients have withdrawn the funds and paid in cash to be against the appellant. It is seen that even large organizations withdraw money from the bank and pay the labourers in cash and this a general feature observed across labour intensive industries. If the appellant would have hired the labour directly, it would also need to withdraw money from the bank and would have paid the labourers in cash in the same manner as the recipients. Therefore, the withdrawal of the cash from the bank could have been from the appellants account if he would have hired them directly but in the present case the appellant has engaged a contractor who provides the labour with specific skills and in turn pad _in cash to such labour. The appellant has are required to be paid by the appellant. Therefore, in view of the past history and the fresh circumstances and evidences and the bonafides of the business activity, there is nothing on record to observe anything adverse with regard to these payments. In view of the above discussion, the additions made on account of disallowance of contract payment expenses amounting to Rs.2,53,23,830/-for AY 2018-19 and Rs.2,74,36,472/- for AY 2019-20 are hereby deleted. Accordingly. The ground no. 4 of the appeal for AY 2018-19 and ground no.5 of the appeal for AY 2019-20 are allowed. 2. Disallowance of expenditure on account of non-submission of bills & vouchers: The Assessing Officer, for both the years under consideration, has disallowed 20% of expenses debited to P&L account under certain heads such as Brokerage/Commission, Food & Office Maintenance, General Expenses, Medical Expenses, Office Maintenance, Operators/Drivers Batha, Petrol/Diesel Expenses, Pooja Expenses, Printing & Stationery, Registration Fee-, Travelling & Conveyance, Vehicle Maintenance, Repairs & Maintenance, consumables etc. for non-submission of bills and vouchers during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, made addition on account of the disallowance amounting to Rs.9,10,146/- for AY 2018-19 and Rs.20,94,637/- for AY 2019-20. The appellant during the appeal proceedings contended that he had furnished ledger account copies of the above expenses during the assessment proceedings. However, the appellant stated that he could not submit the bills and vouchers through online portal owing to huge volume of the bills. Further, the appellant has also contended that he was not provided an opportunity to submit the bills and vouchers in physical form during the assessment proceedings as well as remand proceedings. The Assessing Officer in the remand report, noted that the appellant failed to submit any supporting bills 86 vouchers, in support of the expenses incurred, during the assessment and remand proceedings. It is seen that the appellant failed to furnish any supporting bills and vouchers for the expenses disallowed. The appellant could have at least furnished reasonable number of vouchers on a random basis, which was not done either during assessment or remand proceedings. Further, it is also seen that similar disallowance was also made by the Assessing Officer in the case of the appellant for AY 2017-18 and the Assessing Officer noted in the said assessment order that the appellant has agreed for the said disallowance of expenses for that assessment year. 6 These observations make it clear that the appellant is not properly maintaining the supporting bills and vouchers for certain expenses, which was the reason for disallowance of expenses in the assessment years under consideration as well as the earlier AY. It is important to note that the heads in which the expenditure is debited is under the ordinary course of business and the appellant needs to incur these expenses of the ledger accounts submitted by the appellant, it is seen , 50% of the expenses were paid through cheque and remaining in cash. No primary defect was observed with regard to payments made in cheque and therefore it would be reasonable to restrict the disallowance to the expenditure incurred in cash. Thus, 20% disallowance of cash expenditure translates to 10% of the total expenditure. Accordingly, the addition made in this regard on account of adhoc disallowance is to be restricted to 10% of the expenses and the appellant gets relief to the extent of 10%. Thus, for AY 2018-19, out of the disallowance made of Rs.9,10,146/-, the addition is restricted to the extent of Rs.4,55,073/- and the appellant gets relief to the extent of Rs.4,55,073/-. Accordingly, ground nos.1 and 2 of the appeal for AY 2018-19 are partly allowed. Similarly, for AY 2019-20, out of the disallowance made of Rs.20,94,367/-, the addition is restricted to the extent of Rs.10,47,319/- and the appellant gets relief to the extent of Rs.10,47,318/-. Accordingly, ground nos.2 and 3 of the appeal for AY 2019- 20 are partly allowed.” 7.1. Further, ld. DR has drawn our attention to the remand report filed by the Assessing Officer for both the assessment years in Para 5 and 5.2 at pages 58 and 59 of the paper book (Volume 7), wherein the Assessing Officer has mentioned as under : “5.0 Disallowance of Expenditure : 5.1 During the year under consideration, assessee has made following payments u/s 194C to persons who have not filed their return of income for the relevant year. Name of Person Amount of payment made (in Rs.) Dhana Sekhar Velumalai 1,18,71,576 Gunadhar Kabiraj 27,32,414 Dandapani 1,28,32,482 Assessee was asked to submit evidences to prove the identity and genuineness of the persons to whom these payments are made. A show- cause notice was also sent to the assessee regarding the same. Assessee in his reply submitted on 23.09.2021 stated the following: "As soon as the mother block is removed from earth by using the heavy plant &equipment, we use hired labour for cutting/trimming/dressing of the granite blocks so as to make it ready for clearance/dispatch. The cutting/trimming is one of the major activities of quarrying and for which I have approached Mr. F Dandapani and Y Dhana Sekhar called labour mestty's having a group of people working along with them to do the cutting/trimming of granite blocks at our mining site located at 7 Satvareddypally Karimnagar. The rate agreed for the cutting/trimming work is Rs. 1500/CBM of the saleable quantity. The labour will be attending the quarrying operations on daily basis and the payment will be paid once a month based on the work performed by them. The payment will be credited to the mestry's bank account only after deducting the appropriate TDS as per Sec 194C of The Income Tax Act 1961. The copies of agreement, ledger bank statements of the mestry's and copies of Form16A is attached for your reference. We also herewith provide you with the copies of PAN Card & Adhaar Cards of the respective mestry's. Where in case of Mr. Dandapani and Y dhanasekhar the name and Date of Birth as per Adhaar is not matching with the details as Per PAN Card. When we enquired with them on the same, we have got to know that they had applied for PAN Card way back based on the Voter card issued by state Election commission where his name was wrong. Hence, we herewith provide you the required supporting documents from Karur Vysya Bank to prove the identity of these persons. We also herewith give you the confirmation letters received from Mr.Dandapani and DhanaSekhar for receipt of the consideration for the services rendered by them for FY 201819 we request you to consider the same. With respect to Mr. Gunadhar Kabiraj labour mestty looking after the wire saw contract works at our mining site, we herewith attached the ledger statement, Adhaar and PAN card. We could not provide you with the bank statement of Mr G Kabiraj as he was passed away in 2018. The death certificate of Mr G Kabiraj is attached for your consideration. 5.2 Further assessee in his reply submitted on 23.09.2021, submitted copies of Aadhar, PAN card, and bank statement of Y Dhanasekar, Kabiraj and Dandapani. On verification of the Aadhar and PAN cards for the 3 parties, it is seen that the name and date of birth for Y Dhanasekhar, Kabiraj and Dandapani are different in each of their Aadhar and PAN cards. Thus, it is hard to establish the identity of these persons with the documents submitted by the assessee as they are contradicting in nature. Further, from the bank account statement it is seen that as and when the assessee transfers payments through bank, on the same day, the same amount is being withdraw through self cheques. This pattern is usually observed in the case of bogus sub-contractors where the cash withdrawn is routed back to the main contract giving party. Further, assessee also submitted that one Mr G Kabiraj passed away in the previous year, despite making a huge payment to him. From the above discussion, it is hard to ascertain the genuineness of these persons and the work they have done for the assessee. Moreover, the said persons are non-filers and have not filed their returns of income for any year. Thus, it is clear that the said amount has escaped taxation. Further, from the above discussion, the genuineness of the payments made by the assessee is in doubt. Hence, the following amounts claimed as expenses by the assessee : Dhana Sekhar Yelumalai – Rs.1,18,71,576/-, Gunadhar Kabiraj- Rs.27,32,414/-, Dandapani - Rs.1,28,32,482/- amounting to Rs.2,74,36,472/- will be disallowed and added back to the returned income of the assessee.” 8 7.2. It was submitted by the ld. DR that the ld.CIT(A) had deleted the addition on the basis of the assessment order passed in the case of Dhana Sekhar Yelumalai and our attention was drawn to page 36 of the order of ld.CIT(A), which is to the following effect : “6...............However it is seen that the appellant has submitted that for A.Y. 2018- 19 both the recipients Y. Dhana Sekhar, E. Dandapani and Gundhar Kabiraj (through the legal heir) have filed the returns in response to notice u/s. 148 on 14.04.2022 at an income of Rs. 12,17,800/-, on 14.04.2022 at an income of Rs. 12,44,070/- and on 19.04.2022 at an income of Rs. 10,61,970/- respectively. It is important to note that the appellant has stated that for A.Y. 2019- 20 the window for filing their returns is closed and therefore these people on enquiry expressed their inability to file their returns unless notice u/s. 148 is served on them. It is seen from the filing of returns, the identity and the quantification of the transaction is confirmed and therefore the same cannot be doubted. It is further brought out that in the case of Y. Dhana Sekhar, notice u/s. 148 was served and the said recipient had offered the income of Rs.13,14,941/- on account of receipts from the appellant of Rs.83,43,328/-and from M/s. PSR Granites Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.80,95,436/-. The addition of Rs. 2,859/- was only made with regard to the above person on account of certain miscellaneous income and the assessment order was passed on 13.03.2023. In the assessment order no adverse inference regarding the financials and the activity has been drawn by that AO.” 7.3. The ld.DR has also drawn our attention to the order of the AO passed in the case of Dhana Sekhar Yelumalai at pages 25 to 30 of the paper book and our attention was a drawn to para 3.6.1 of the assessment order which is to the following effect : “3.6.1. The assessee has not filed his original return of income for A.Y. 2018-19. In response to notice issue u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee has filed his return for A.Y. 2018-19 on 14.04.2022 declaring total income of Rs.13,17,800/-. However, the assessee has not e-verified the same. Hence, this return has become INVALID. In absence of any VALID return for A.Y. 2018-19, the assessment proceedings are being completed as per provisions of section 144 of the Act. 9 The assessee has submitted his reply along with copy of bank statement, computation sheet, Form 16A and copy of receipts as proof for deduction u/s 80C of the Act. It is noticed that the assessee has received contract income of Rs.1,64,36,764/- u/s 194C of the Act during the period under consideration from Labour Contract services rendered in Granite Mining Activity called Block Cutting / Trimming. Under the circumstances, business income of the assessee as per provisions of section 44AD (@ 8% of turnover) arrives at Rs.13,14,941/- and the same is being brought to taxation under head Business income. Further, it is noticed that while computing the business income, the assessee has offered Rs.2,859/- as miscellaneous income. Hence, the same is also added to his business income.” 8. Ld. DR further submitted that the deletion made by the ld.CIT(A) on the basis of the assessment order in case of Dhana Sekhar Yelumalai is without any basis as there is no verification of the activities carried out by the said Dhana Sekhar, and even the said Dhana Sekhar has not participated in the proceedings. The AO has wrongly quantified the income of the said assessee by applying the provisions of section 44AD of the Act. It was submitted that the genuineness of the amount paid by the assessee to Dhana Sekhar Yelumalai is not verified, there was no reason for the Assessing Officer to come to that conclusion that the money received was for the services rendered. Further, he submitted that in the assessment order, it was categorically pointed by the Assessing Officer of the assessee that on the dates of deposit itself, the cash was withdrawn through self cheques, and no activities were shown to have been carried out by the sub- contractors and therefore, deletion of disallowance of expenses made by the ld.CIT(A) was without any basis. 9. Per contra, ld. AR submitted that the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) and also the order passed by the AO in the case of Dhana Sekhar Yelumalai are in accordance with law. 10 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the present case, the Assessing Officer had disallowed the expenditure in the hands of the assessee due to following observations : “Further assessee in his reply submitted on 09.03.2021, submitted copies of Aadhar, PAN card, and bank statement of Y Dhanasekar, Kabiraj and Dandapani. No. proofs w.r.t. FSS Global Logistics have been submitted by the assessee. On verification of the Aadhar and PAN cards for the 3 parties, it is seen that the name and date of birth for Y Dhanasekhar, Kabiraj and Dandapani are different in each of their Aadhar and PAN cards. Thus, it is hard to establish the identity of these persons with the documents submitted by the assessee as they are contradicting in nature. Further, from the bank account statement it is seen that as and when the assessee transfers payments through bank, on the same day, the same amount is being withdrawn through self cheques. This pattern is usually observed in the case of bogus sub- contractors where the cash withdrawn is routed back to the main contract giving party. Further, assessee in his submission stated that an agreement was also submitted by the assessee during the course of scrutiny proceedings. Further, assessee also submitted that he was unable to trace one Mr. F. Dandapani, despite making a huge payment to him. From the above discussion, it is hard to ascertain the genuineness of these persons and the work they have done for the assessee. Moreover, the said persons are non-filers and have not filed their returns of income for any year. Thus, it is clear that the said amount has escaped taxation. Further, from the above discussion, the genuineness of the payments made by the assessee is in doubt. Hence, the following amounts claimed as expenses by the assessee : Dhana Sekhar Yelumalai-Rs.83,41,328/-, Gunadhar Kabiraj- Rs.77,69,508/-, FSS Global Logisticks – Rs.4,93,921 amounting to Rs.2,53,23,830/- will be disallowed and added back to the returned income of the assessee.” 11. It was noticed by the AO that the Aadhar and PAN numbers of all the parties were not matching with each other. Further, it was also noticed by the AO that as and whenever the assessee transferred payments to the bank, the amounts were withdrawn through self-cheques on the same day. Further, it was submitted that in case of Dhana Sekhar Yelumalai, no verification of the activities was carried out by Assessing Officer and the 11 Assessing Officer merely quantified the income of the said assessee on the basis of section 44AD of the Act. It was submitted that all three assessees were non-filers. Hence, a notice u/s 148 of the Act were issued. It was submitted that assessee was duly bound to substantiate the expenditure incurred by him with the cogent evidence. 12. In our view, in the present case, the ld.CIT(A) had merely restricted the disallowance to 10% of the expenditure for both the assessment years. In our view, once the contractor / sub-contractor was unable to demonstrate the rendition of services by cogent evidence, either in the form of engaging labourers etc. or evidence to show any of the activities which were essential for the business of the assessee, it is not permissible to claim the amounts as allowable expenditure for the activities carried out by sub-contractors. Moreover, whenever there are various employees engaged by the sub-contractors then employer is duty bound to maintain their service record. Based on such record, the employees are eligible for various labour welfare schemes. 13. In the present case, the ld.CIT(A) without examining any rendition of services by sub-contractors, had only restricted the disallowance to the extent of 10%, which cannot be approved. If we look into the assessment order passed in the case of Dhana Sekhar Yelumalai, which was passed by the AO after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, then we fail to agree with the Assessing Officer that section 44AD is applicable to quantify the income of assessee @ 8%. In our view, for invoking the provisions under section 194C of the Act, firstly, it is essential that the assessee (Dhan Sekhar Yelumalai) was engaged in providing labourers on contract basis and for that purposes 12 secondly, it was necessary for the said Dhana Sekhar Yelumalai to prove that activities carried out by him were pursuant to contracts. However, no contract has been provided by the assessee which forces Dhana Sekhar Yelumalai to provide the labourers to the assessee. 13.1. Further, we fail to appreciate that the ld.CIT(A) did not examine the fact that on the date of depositing the money into the bank, on the same day, the amount was withdrawn through self cheques. 13.2. Considering the totality of the facts, we are of the opinion that the ld.CIT(A) has passed the order without application of mind and without considering the assessment order / remand report and the findings brought on record by the Assessing Officer. We further find that the order of ld.CIT(A) is cryptic, non-speaking and perfunctory order. In the light of the above, we deem it appropriate to remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to examine afresh and pass a detailed speaking order. 14. Needless to say that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 148 in the case of Dhana Sekhar Yelumalai was passed on 13.03.2023 and hence, the said order cannot be said to be final more particularly when the time for initiating the proceedings under section 263 of the Act has not yet lapsed. In view of the above, the matter is remanded back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for passing a fresh order, in accordance with law and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Further the assessee is directed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) on the date of hearing fixed by him and shall file all the documents / evidence in support of his case. In case, the assessee fails to file 13 any documents in support of his case, ld.CIT(A) shall decide the matter in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 15. In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No.393/Hyd/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes. 16. As far as the other appeal of Revenue i.e., ITA No.294/Hyd/2023 for A.Y. 2019-20 is concerned, in view of the submission of both the parties that the issues raised in A.Y. 2018- 19 are identical to the other assessment year, except the amounts involved, we for the reasons stated hereinabove while deciding the appeal in ITA No.393/Hyd/2023 and for similar reasons, allow this appeal with similar directions for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No.394/Hyd/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes. 18. To sum up, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of the same may be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 9 th October, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. PANDA) VICE PRESIDENT (LALIET KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 9 th October, 2023. TYNM/sps 14 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Sridhar Palakurthi, 6-3-860/8/3, Lakshmi Vishnu Sadan, Thakur Mansion Lane, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500082. 2 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. 3 Pr.CIT (Central), Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order