Agri Gold Foods and FARM Products Ltd., Vijayawada V. THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA., Vijayawada

ITA 451/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 45125314 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K V N CHARYA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 263; 12; 10; 11; 15

Judgement Text

ITA NO.451/VIZAG/2012 AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LTD., VIJAYAWADA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 451 /VIZAG/ 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 AGRI GOLD FOODS & FARM PRODUCTS LTD. VIJAYAWADA VS. CIT VIJAYAWADA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AABCA 8733E ASSESSEE BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY: SHRI K.V.N. CHARYA, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 11.07.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.07.2014 ORDER PER BENCH:- THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT VIJAYAWADA DATED 28.3.2012 U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE FACTS ARE BROUGHT OUT IN PARA 1 & 2 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT, WHICH ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF CATTLE FEED AND PRODUCTION OF SEEDS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION, IT HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.9.2008, DECLAR ING THE TAXABLE INCOME AT NIL (IN FACT, A LOSS OF RS.1,74,88,295/- WAS DISCLOS ED). THIS RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 19.3.2010 AND A REFUND OF R S.76,600/- WAS ISSUED. MEANWHILE, THIS CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BY I SSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 18.8.2009. SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED BY PASSING AN ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 7.12.2010, WHE REIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RESTRICTED THE CLAIMED LOSS OF RS.1,74, 88,295/- TO RS.1,50,20,045/- BY DISALLOWING BONUS CLAIMED AT RS.18,64,215/- AND GRATUITY CLAIMED AT RS.6,04,035/-. ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) APPEARED TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO ITA NO.451/VIZAG/2012 AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LTD., VIJAYAWADA 2 FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE RE VENUE. HENCE, REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS WERE INVOKED U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 19 61. THE ONLY GROUND FOR PROPOSING REVISION U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 TO THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 D ATED 7.12.2010 AS DISCUSSED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.3.2011 IS THAT AS PER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FURNISHED, THE ASSESSEE HAS DERIVE D A NET PROFIT OF RS.8,18,60,630/- AND HENCE LIABLE TO PAY TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.115JB, BUT THE SAME WAS NEITHER PAID NOR LEVIED . THE BOOK PROFIT, AFTER CONTEMPLATING NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS PROVIDED UNDER THE LAW WORKS OUT TO RS.8,88,21,759/- ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO PAY MAT. THIS ASPECT WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT. 2. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E, THE LD. CIT VIJAYAWADA AT PARA 5.6 & 6 HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THOUGH QUESTIONED ABOUT THE ALLOWABILITY OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR NOT INCLUSION OF INCOME FROM S ALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND; HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND IN DECIDING THE ISSUE AS PER T HE PROVISIONS OF ACT AND WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 7.12.2010 IS TO BE MODIFIED FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE, WITH A DIRECTION TO MAKE THE ASSES SMENT AFRESH AFTER EXAMINING ALL THE ABOVE ISSUES ACCORDING TO LAW, AF TER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL ON THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 1. THE REVISIONARY ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT MADE U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS BAD AND ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRON EOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LD . CIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING REVISION TO THE ASSESSMENT O RDER TO INCLUDE AGRICULTURAL CAPITAL GAIN IN THE COMPUTATION OF BOO K PROFITS U/S 115 JB. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN MISINTERPRETING THE PROVIS IONS OF THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987 AND EXPLANATI ON-(1) TO SEC.2(14). THE LD. CIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN BRINGIN G IN GAINS ON THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS TO TAX WHICH ARE NOT COVERED BY ITA NO.451/VIZAG/2012 AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LTD., VIJAYAWADA 3 THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(14)(III)(A) AND (B) OF THE INCOME TAX, 1961. THE LD. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT TH E AMOUNT OF INCOME TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.10 HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE NET PROFIT OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT AND HE OUGHT TO HAVE TRE ATED AGRICULTURAL CAPITAL GAIN AS EQUIVALENT TO AGRICULT URAL INCOME U/S 10(1). 4. SUCH OTHER GROUND/GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED WITH TH E LEAVE OF THE HONBLE ITAT DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD MR. G.V.N. HARI, THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI K.V.N. CHARYA, THE LD. CIT(DR) ON BEHALF OF TH E REVENUE. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PROFITS ON T RANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS AS PER PROFIT & LOSS AC COUNT WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB OF THE ACT AS PER THE PROVIS IONS OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. THE EXTRACT OF THE ASSES SEES SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD IS AS FOLLOWS: THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF AG RICULTURAL INCOME AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE PROFIT AS PER PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT AS P ER THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 1 TO S. 115JB OF THE ACT. AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS DEFINED IN S.2(1A) OF THE A CT INCLUDES ANY RENT OR REVENUE DERIVED FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND. FURTHER , AS PER EXPLANATION 1 TO S.2(1A), REVENUE DERIVED FROM LAND SHALL NOT INCLUD E ANY INCOME ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF ANY LAND REFERRED TO IN ITEM (A) OR ITEM (B) OF S. 2(14)(III). TO PUT IT IN OTHER TERMS, IF THE LAND IS NOT ONE THAT IS REFERRED TO IN ITEM (A) OR ITEM (B) OF S. 2(14(III) THEN THE REVENUE DERIVED F ROM LAND WILL ALSO INCLUDE INCOME ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF SUCH LAND. S.2(14) DEFINES CAPITAL ASSET AS INCLUDING PROPERT Y OF ANY KIND BUT EXCLUDES SOME OF THE ASSETS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THEREIN. SUB-CLAUSE (III) EXCLUDES AN AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM THE DEFINITION O F A CAPITAL ASSET. HOWEVER, ITEM (A) AND ITEM (B) DEAL WITH EXCLUSIONS TO SUB-C LAUSE (III). TO PUT IT IN SHORT, THE LANDS SPECIFIED IN ITEM (A) AND (B) OF S .2(14)(III) WILL CONTINUE TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSETS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THESE LANDS MAY BE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. ITEM (A) DEALS WITH LANDS SITUA TED WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY AND ITEM (B) DEALS WITH LANDS SITUATED WITHIN SPECI FIED DISTANCE FROM THE MUNICIPALITY THAT IS NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERN MENT FROM TIME TO TIME. AGRICULTURAL LANDS OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN IT EM (A) AND ITEM (B) ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET AND C ONSEQUENTLY EXPLANATION 1 TO S.2(1A) IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF THE SE LANDS.' ITA NO.451/VIZAG/2012 AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LTD., VIJAYAWADA 4 5. THE LD. D.R. OPPOSES THIS CONTENTION AND RELIES ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT VIJAYAWADA AND SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD TAKE UP THESE LEGAL ISSUES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DERIVED PROFIT FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IT IS ONLY AFTER INCLUSION OF THIS PROFIT UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE CO NSIDERED FOR DETERMINATION OF BOOK PROFITS UNDER THE MAT PROVISI ONS. 6. IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT S THAT SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE CIT VIJAYAWADA AN D UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COORDINATE BENCH ORDER IN THE CA SE OF HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD. VS. ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 497 (COCH) H AS TO BE FOLLOWED. 7. AFTER HEARING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE HOLD AS FOLL OWS: THE UNDISPUTED FACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT, THE LAND TRANSFERRED IS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THIS IS SO BECAU SE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ASSESSED THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF THOSE LANDS UNDER THE REGULAR PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT. IN FACT, THE LD. CIT VIJAYAWADA HAS ACCEPTED THE CORRECTNESS OF COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME UNDE R THE REGULAR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROFIT ON SALE OF AG RICULTURAL LAND WOULD BECOME AGRICULTURAL INCOME U/S 2(1A) OF THE ACT AND HENCE NOT PART OF TOTAL INCOME AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10 UNDER PROVIS IONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THIS PROFIT HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMP UTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. IN OUR VIEW, IT SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE NET PROFI TS AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS FOR THE PU RPOSES OF 115JB OF THE ACT. 8. THE COCHIN BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) CONSIDERED THE SIMILAR ISSUE AND HELD AS FOLLOWS: 13. THE GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATE TO THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF S. 115JB. WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF S. 115JB, THE A O HAS ADDED PROFIT ON SALE OF ONE OF ITS RUBBER ESTATE AS FORMING PART OF THE BOOK PROFIT, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE PROFIT ARIS ING ON THE SALE OF ITS RUBBER ESTATE WAS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THEREFORE IT WAS OUTSIDE TH E SCOPE AND PURVIEW OF THE BOOK PROFIT AS PROVIDED IN S. 115JB. BUT THIS CONTENTION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A). ITA NO.451/VIZAG/2012 AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LTD., VIJAYAWADA 5 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED A PROFIT OF RS. 32,65,9 4,751 ON SALE OF ONE OF ITS RUBBER ESTATES KNOWN AS 'BOYCE ESTATE'. THE 'BOYCE ESTATE' IS SITUATED AT KOKKAYAR, PEERMEDU TALUK, IDDUKKI DISTRICT, WHICH IS BEYOND 8 KRNS. FROM ANY MUNICIPALITY. IN THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND COMPRISED IN 'BOYCE ESTATE' WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND W ITHIN THE DEFINITION OF S. 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT. THE AO ALSO AGREED WITH THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID ESTATE LAND DID NOT FALL IN EITHER SUB-C!. (A) OR SUB-CL. (B) OF CL. (III) OF S. 2(14} AND ACCORDINGLY HE HAD ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROFIT ON SALE OF THE SAID ESTATE WAS NOT EXIGIBLE TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONCE THE INCOME IS HELD TO BE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE SAME WOULD NOT FORM PART OF THE BOOK PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSES OF S. 115JB. 15 THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANUBHAI A. SHETH VS. N.D. NIRGUDKAR, ITO (1981) 22 CTR (BOM) 41 : (1981) 128 ITR 87 (BOM) HAS HELD THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF LAND SITUATED IN INDIA, WHICH LAND IS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, WOULD BE REVENUE DERIVED FROM SUCH LAND AND, THEREFORE, AGRICULTURAL INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF S. 2(1) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 16. THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S. MUTYAM REDDY VS. ITO (1988) 68 CTR (AP) 99 : (1988) 169 ITR 174 (AP) HAS HELD THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM SALE OF LAND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES CONSTITUTED REVENUE DERIVED FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE AGRICULTURAL INCOME UNDER S. 2(1A) OF THE ACT AND T HEREFORE NOT CHARGEABLE TO CENTRAL INCOME- TAX. 17. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA HAS ALSO HELD THE SAME VIEW AS REFLECTED IN THE JUDGMENT OF THEIR LORDSHIPS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALANICKAL CO. LTD. (1986) 52 CTR (KER) 247 : (1986) 158 ITR 630 (KER). THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHE RE THE RUBBER ESTATE SOLD BY AN ASSESSEE WAS IN A RURAL AREA, TRANSACTION OF SALE OF A RUBBER ESTATE WITH RUBBER TREES STANDING ON IT DID NOT INVOLVE TRANSFER OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET AND AS SUCH THE SALE OF RUBBER ESTATE ALONG WITH RUBBER TREES AMOUNTS TO SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ALONE AND THE TRANSACTION CANNOT BE SPLIT UP AS SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SALE OF T REES AND ANY GAINS ARISING FROM THAT SALE OF TREES ARE NOT LIABLE TO TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS. 18. OBVIOUSLY, THE PROFIT ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL L AND IS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT STANDING TREES ALSO FORM PART OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE CONTRIBUTED TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME ALONE. 19. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . ALL INDIA TEA & TRADING CO. LTD. (1996) 132 CTR (SC) 225 : (1996) 219 ITR 544 (SC) HAS HELD THAT THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED ON REQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AMOUNTED TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE SUPREME COURT AGAIN IN THE CASE OF SINGHAI RAKESH KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ( 2000) 164 CTR (SC) 483 : (2001) 247 ITR 150 (SC) HAS HELD THAT THE INC OME ARISING OUT OF THE ITA NO.451/VIZAG/2012 AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LTD., VIJAYAWADA 6 TRANSFER OF SUCH AGRICULTURAL LANDS ARE NOT EXIGIBLE TO CAPITAL GAINS AS THEY ARE IN THE NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 20. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A RU BBER ESTATE WITH STANDING TREES AND ALL OTHER PARAPHERNALIA KNOWN AS 'BOYCE ESTATE'. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE SAID ESTATE WAS IN A R URAL AREA AND OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF ANY MUNICIPAL LIMIT. THEREFORE, IN THE L IGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT, IT IS TO BE HELD THAT THE PROFITS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF THE RUBBER ESTATE TO THE ASSESSEE ON TRANSFER OF THE SAID RUBBER ESTATE AMOU NTED TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS PROVIDED UNDER S. 2(1A) OF THE ACT. 21. SEC. 115JB, IN THE EXPLANATION GIVEN THERE UNDE R AS ITEM (II) PROVIDES THAT THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TO WHICH ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 10 [OTH ER THAN THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CL. (38) THEREOF] OR S. 11 OR S. 12 APPLY, IF ANY SUCH AMOUNT IS CREDITED TO THE P&L A/C, SHALL B E REDUCED FROM THE BOOK PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF S. 115JB. SEC. 10(1 ) PROVIDES THAT IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF A PREVIOUS YEAR OF ANY PERSON, AGRI CULTURAL INCOME SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED THEREIN. 22. IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS , IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE PROFITS ARISING ON TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PARTAKES THE CHARACTER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME AS PROVIDED IN S. 10(1 ) OF THE ACT. SEC. 115JB PROVIDES THAT ANY INCOME LISTED UNDER S. 10 OTHER T HAN LISTED IN CL. (38) SHALL BE REDUCED FROM THE BOOK PROFIT AND WHEREBY MEANING THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHALL NOT FORM PART OF BOOK PRO FIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF S. 115JB OF THE ACT. 23. THIS BEING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND GOVERNED B Y THE LEGAL POSITION ALREADY EXPLAINED, IT IS A CLEAR CASE THAT THE PROF IT ACCOUNTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF 'BOYCE ESTATE' SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT UNDER S. 115JB. A CCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THE PROFIT ON SALE OF 'BOYCE ES TATE' FROM COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF S. 115JB. THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE AND GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE BENCH ORD ER, WE QUASH THE ORDER OF THE CIT VIJAYAWADA PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JULY14 SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 30 TH JULY, 2014 ITA NO.451/VIZAG/2012 AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LTD., VIJAYAWADA 7 COPY TO 1 AGRI GOLD FOODS AND FARM PRODUCTS LTD., AGRI GOLD HOUSE, D.NO.40-6-3, NIMMAGADDA SOMASANKARA RAO STREET, OLD REVENUE COLO NY, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA - 520 010. 2 THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA 3 THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA 4 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM