Bandalapati Pradad Babu, Visakhapatnam V. ITO, Ward-2(2), Visakhapatnam

ITA 400/VIZ/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4135 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEBAKUMAR SONOWAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Revision of order; Cost of acquisition; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 148; 263

Judgement Text

, , 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. 4 00 /VIZ/ 201 7 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 7 - 0 8 ) BONDALAPATI PRASAD BABU D.NO.15 - 10 - 19/1 MAHARANIPETA VISAKHAPATNAM [PAN : A FDPB2358E ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2) VISAKHAPATNAM ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.V.N.HARI , A R / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEBA KUMAR SONOWAL , D R / DATE OF HEARING : 07 . 0 8 . 2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 .0 8 .2018 / O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (PR.CIT ) - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM VIDE F . NO. PR.CIT - 1/VSP/263/2016 - 17 DATED 30 .0 3 .201 7 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 7 - 0 8 . 2 I. T . A . NO .400 / V IZ/201 7 BONDALAPATI PRASAD BABU, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS ACT) BY AN ORDER DATED 27.03.2015. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD PROPERTY BEARING NO.15 - 10 - 19/2B LOCATED IN TS NO.143/26, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.7 ,25,000/ - TO SMT.RAA VI NEELIMA AND THE SUB - REGISTRAR OFFICE(SRO) VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS.10,25,000/ - . THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE COMPRISES OF SUPERSTRUCTURE WITH RCC ROOF IN SECOND FLOOR WITH A PLINTH AREA OF 876 SFT AND ALSO SUPER STRUCTURE IN THIRD FLOOR WI TH 300 SFT. THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM HIS FATHER AFTER HIS DEMISE AND S UBSEQUENTLY, CONSTRUCTED THE BUILDING IN THE SAID PLOT OF LAND. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OU T OF TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. S INCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE AO HAVING REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR ASSESSMENT. DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,30,350/ - AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO EXAMINED THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ACCEPTING THE INCOME RETURNED. 3 I. T . A . NO .400 / V IZ/201 7 BONDALAPATI PRASAD BABU, VISAKHAPATNAM SUBS EQUENTLY, THE LD.PR.CIT HAS TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR REVISION U/S 263 AND FOUND THAT THE ASESSEE ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF INHERITANCE FROM HIS FATHER AND SHOULD HAVE ADMITTED THE SALE OF LAND UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, SINCE HE WAS HOLDI NG THE LAND FOR MORE THAN 3 YEARS. THE LD.PR.CIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS WORKS OUT AS UNDER : A) LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF PLOT: SALE CONSIDERATION FOR 48.67 SQ.YARDS OF SITE : RS.5,35,370/ - (48.67 SQ.YARDS X RS.11,000/ - ) COST OF ACQUISITION OF 48.67 SQ.YARDS : RS.2,920/ - (48.67 SQ.YARDS X RS.60/ - ) [COST OF THE SITE IS TAKEN @ RS.60/ - PER SQ.YARD AS PER ITAT ORDER IN ITA NO.424/VIZAG/2009 DATED 27.09.2010, IN THE CASE OF SMT. C.GIRIJA, VISAKHAPATNAM V S. ADDL.CIT, RANGE - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM] LESS : INDEXED COST OF 48.67 SQ.YD SITE (RS.2,920 X 519/100) RS.15,156/ - _________________ LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS : RS.5,20,214/ - B) SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF CONSTRUCTION PORTION SALE CONSIDERATION OF SUPERSTRUCTURE : RS.4,89,509/ - LESS : COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF SUPERSTRUCTURE [876.06 SFT (RCC) X RS.370 + 300 SFT(ACC) X RS.230] RS.3,93,120/ - [SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY 4 I. T . A . NO .400 / V IZ/201 7 BONDALAPATI PRASAD BABU, VISAKHAPATNAM EVIDENCES FOR THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING, THE STRUCTURE RATES PRESCRIBED BY THE MANUAL OF STAMP DUTY & REGISTRATION IN A.P. VIDE C&IG PROCEEDINGS NO.MV1/10370/03, DATED 14.08.2004 ARE ADOPTED.] _______________ SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS RS.96,389/ - AGAINST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.5,20,214/ - AND THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.96,389/ - , THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.22,350/ - . THEREFORE, THE LD.PR.CIT WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE ASSESSMENT MA DE BY THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, HENCE, ISSUED THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE REVISED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. . IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LD.PR.CIT, THE ASSESSEE THOUGH APPEA RED, EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE S FOR COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, THE LD.PR.CIT HAS HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) WA S ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF LAND ADOPTING THE RATE AT RS.60/ - PER SQ.YARD AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.370/ - IN RESPECT OF 876.0 6 SFT AND RS.230 IN RESPECT OF 3 00 SFT. 5 I. T . A . NO .400 / V IZ/201 7 BONDALAPATI PRASAD BABU, VISAKHAPATNAM 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263, T HE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D FURNISHED THE COMPLETE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO WHICH WAS EXAMINED BY THE AO AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE DE TAILS BEFORE THE LD.PR.CIT DUE TO LAPSE OF TIME . SINCE THE AO HAS ALREADY EXAMINED THE DETAILS AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT, THE LD. P R .CIT IS NOT PERMITTED TO REVISIT THE SAME ISSUE AGAIN AND SUBSTITUTE HIS OPINION REGARDING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND T HE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVISION U/S 263. APAR T FROM THE ABOVE, THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE CAPITAL GAINS UNDER SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND THE TAX RATE FOR SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS IS 30% AND NO I NDEXATION BENEFIT IS AVAILABLE. WHEREAS, IN THE CASE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, THE TAX RATE IS 20% AND INDEXATION BENEFIT IS AVAILABLE. THEREFORE, ADMISSION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS INSTEAD OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS THOUG H ERRONEOUS, IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. FURTHER, THE LD. AR ALSO ARGUED THAT THE LD.PR.CIT HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF 48.67 SQ.YARDS AT RS.60/ - PER SQ. YARD BY RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT.C.GIRIJA VS. ACIT - 1 VIDE ITA NO.424/VIZAG/2009 . THE SAID LAND WAS 6 I. T . A . NO .400 / V IZ/201 7 BONDALAPATI PRASAD BABU, VISAKHAPATNAM LOCATED WARD - 2, WALTAIR, BLOCK 1 TO 8, WHEREAS IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE PROPERTY WAS LOCATED AT TS NO.143/26 AT MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM. BOTH THE LAND RATES ARE QUITE DIFFERENT AND THE LAND RATES AT WALTAIR CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE LAND LOCATED AT MAHARANIPETA. THE COMPUTATION MADE BY THE LD.PR.CIT IS AGAINST THE FACTUAL POSITION O F THE LAND RATES AT MAHARANIPET AN D THE RATES APPLIED BY THE PR.CIT ARE INCORRECT, ACCORDINGLY OBJECTED FOR ADOPTION OF RS.60/ - PER SQ. YARD . WITH REGARD TO THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, THE LD.PR.CIT HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT THE SUPER STRUCTURE RATE AT RS.370/ - FOR 876.06 SFT (RCC) AND RS. 230/ - PER SQ.FT FOR 300 SFT (ACC), RELYING ON THE S TAMP DUTY AND R EGISTRATION STRUCTURE RATES, WHICH IS ALSO INCORRECT. THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUC TION DURING THE ABOVE PERIOD WAS MORE THAN RS.700/ - TO RS.800/ - PER SQ.FT. AND SUBMITTED THAT THE RATES APPLIED BY THE LD.PR.CIT TO COM PUTE CAPITAL GAINS IS ALSO IS IN CORRECT AND AGAINST THE FACTS . THE LD.PR.CIT DID NOT BRING ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF T HE REVENUE ON FACTS AND ON LAW. IT WAS ONLY ON GUESS WORK AND ON PRESUMPTIONS THE LD.PR.CIT HELD THAT THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 7 I. T . A . NO .400 / V IZ/201 7 BONDALAPATI PRASAD BABU, VISAKHAPATNAM 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.PR.CIT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE IS HEAD CONSTABLE WORKING IN II TO W N POLIC E STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM. HE HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT D.NO.15 - 10 - 19/2B LOCAT ED AT TS NO.143/26, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.7,25,000/ - . HOWEVER, 50C VALUE OF THE PR OPERTY WAS OF RS.10,25,000/ - . SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 TO VERIFY THE TAXABILITY OF CAPITAL GAINS ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY. THE AO ISSUED THE NOTICES AND THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND FURNISHED THE DE TAILS ADMITTING CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.22,350/ - UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL G AINS AND ADMITTED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,30,350/ - . AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, T HE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ACCEPTING THE INCOME RETURNED AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE DETAILS . FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT PARA NO.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN A LL THE FACTS ARE DISCUSSED BY THE AO WHICH READS AS UNDER : 8 I. T . A . NO .400 / V IZ/201 7 BONDALAPATI PRASAD BABU, VISAKHAPATNAM 3. ASSESSEE FINALLY FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26 - 03 - 2015 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME AT RS.1,30,350/ - WHICH COMPRISES OF - INCOME UNDER THE HEADS - SALARY & CAPITAL GAINS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME A NOTICE UNDER SEC.143(2) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED POSTING THE CASE FOR HEARING. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR IN THE EARLIER HEARINGS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.50C OF THE I T ACT, 1961 HAVE ALREADY BEEN INVOKED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS AND STATED THAT THE DUE TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID ON THE SHORT - TERM CAPITAL GAIN DERIVED BY HIM. AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE DET AILS AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSMENT IS FINALIZED ACCEPTING THE INCOME DECLARED, BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,30,350/ - . 5.1. FROM THE READING OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED CAPITAL GAINS UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR ADMIS SION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SHOT TERM CAPITAL GAINS INSTEAD OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, THOUGH ERRONEOUS BUT NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REV ENUE SINCE THE TAX RATES UNDER THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARE HIGHER THAN THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND NO INDEXATION BENEFIT IS AVAILABLE FOR THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS . THEREFORE, ON THIS REASON, THE LD.PR.CIT IS NOT PERMITTED TO INVOKE THE JURISD ICTION U/S 263. 5.2. I T IS FOUND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE DETAILS AND MADE THE SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. T HE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY, COST OF CONSTRUCTION, SALE 9 I. T . A . NO .400 / V IZ/201 7 BONDALAPATI PRASAD BABU, VISAKHAPATNAM CONSIDERATION AND APPLICABILITY OF 50C WERE DULY VERIFIED BY THE AO BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. SINCE THE ISSUE H AS ALREADY BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AO, THE LD.PR.CIT IS NOT PERMITTED TO REVISIT THE SAME ISSUE AND SUBSTITUTE HIS OPINION IN THE NAME OF REVISION . REVIEW OF THE SAME ISSUE WHICH WAS ALREADY CONSIDERED AND EXAMINED BY THE AO WOULD AMOUNT TO DIFFERENCE OF OPI NION NOT A CASE FOR REVISION U/S 263 . FURTHER, HAVING EXAMINED THE ISSUE BY THE AO AND TAKEN A CONSCIOUS DECISION , ACCEPTING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, AFTER DUE VERIFI CATION, NOT APPLYING THE RATES AS OBSERVED BY THE LD.PR.CIT WOULD AMOUNT TO INADEQUATE ENQUIRY, BUT NOT LACK OF ENQUIRY AND AGAIN ON INADEQUATE ENQUIRY, THE LD.PR.CIT IS NOT ALLOWED TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION U/S 263. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, BANGALORE. V. KURLONLTD, [2014] 52 TAXMANN.COM 92 (KARNATAKA) HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD ALREADY CONSIDERED ALL DETAILS MENTIONED IN COMPUTATION STATEMENT WHICH WAS TAKEN FROM BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE, REVISION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED . SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN G.V.R ASSOCIATES VS ITO REPORTED IN (2017) 49 CCH 0223, VISAKAPATANAM. 10 I. T . A . NO .400 / V IZ/201 7 BONDALAPATI PRASAD BABU, VISAKHAPATNAM 5.3. APART FROM THE ABOVE, THE LD.PR.CIT DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT THE LAND COST AT RS.60/ - PER SQ.YD. TAKING THE BASIS FROM THE ITAT ORDER IN RESPECT OF SMT. C.GIRIJA VS. ACIT (SUPRA) . THE PROPERTY UNDER THE SAID CASE WAS LOCATED AT WARD - 2, WALTAIR IN BLOCK NO. 1 TO 8, VISAKHAPATNAM, WHEREAS, THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LOCATED AT D. N O.15 - 10 - 19/2B IN TS NO.143/26, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM. BOTH ARE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AND THE RATE A PPLIED BY THE HONBLE ITAT FOR THE PROPERTY AT WALTAIR CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT MAHARANIPETA WHICH ARE TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AND THE RATES ARE VARIED IN BOTH THE LOCATIONS. THEREFORE, ON THIS ISSUE ALSO, THE LD.PR.CIT HAS NOT MADE OU T ANY SPECIFIC CASE WITH TANGIBLE INFORMATION TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF THE SUPERSTRUCTURE, THE LD.PR.CIT DIRECT ED THE AO TO APPLY THE RATES AS PRESCRIBED BY THE STAMPS AND REGISTRATIONS DEPARTMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VIDE C&IG PROCEEDINGS NO.MV1/10370/03 DATED 14.08.2004 , INSTEAD OF APPLYING THE RATES AS APPLICABLE TO CPWD RATES . THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT REFERS THE VALUATION FOR COST OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION CELL, WHO IN TURN VALUES THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION APPLYING PLINTH AREA RATES OF CPWD. APART 11 I. T . A . NO .400 / V IZ/201 7 BONDALAPATI PRASAD BABU, VISAKHAPATNAM FROM THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF SUPERSTRUCTURE, THE OTHER ADDITIONS OF INTERIOR WORKS, EXTERIOR WORKS ETC .. AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN WHILE ESTIMATING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SUPER STRUCTURE. THE LD.PR.CIT MERELY ARRIVED AT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS BY ADOPTING THE S TAMP DUTY AND R EGISTRATION RA TES OF GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND DID NOT GIVE ANY CREDIT FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS AC CEPTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.10,02,650/ - WHICH WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E LD.PR.CIT DID NOT BRING ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION ACCEPTED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE HOLD THAT THE LD.PR.CIT HAS INVOKED THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 WITHOUT ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL AND ON DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.PR.CIT U/S 263 IS UNSUSTAINABLE, A CCORDINGLY, WE CANCEL THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.PR.CIT U/S 263 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 12 I. T . A . NO .400 / V IZ/201 7 BONDALAPATI PRASAD BABU, VISAKHAPATNAM THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH AUG , 201 8 . S D/ - S D/ - ( . ) ( . . ) (V. DURGA RAO) ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM /DATED : 17 . 0 8 .2018 L.RAMA, SPS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1 . / THE ASSESSEE - BONDALAPATI PRASAD BABU , D.NO.15 - 10 - 19/1 , MAHARANIPETA , VISAKHAPATNAM 2 . / THE REVENUE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), VISAKHAPATNAM 3 . THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM 4 . , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 5 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM