Nandigama Sudhakar, Tanuku V. THE ITO, Tanuku

ITA 543/VIZ/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6487 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S ARAVINDAKSHAM
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Peak credit
• Section: 143(3); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM SMC BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 541 TO 543 / VIZ /201 4 (ASST. YEAR S : 20 00 - 0 1 , 2001 - 02 & 2004 - 05) SRI NANDIGAM SUDHAKAR , S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO, D.NO. 26 - 6 - 6, SAJJAPURAM, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. V . ITO , WARD - 1, TANUKU. PAN NO. AAQPN 6976 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI ADV OCATE . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI R.S. ARAVINDAKSHAM - JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 2 5 / 0 1 /201 7 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 / 02 /201 7 . O R D E R TH E S E ARE THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , VISAKHAPATNAM , DATED 2 4 /0 7 /201 4 & 28/07/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000 - 01, 2001 - 02 & 2004 - 05 . 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 26 DAYS IN FILING THE SE APPEALS . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CONDONATION APPLICATION ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT WHEREIN HE STATED THAT HE WAS DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS INTERNAL DERANGEMENT IN THE LEFT KNEE . THE DOCTOR ADVISED HIM NOT TO MOVE AND TAKE COMPLETE REST. TO THAT EFFECT, HE FILED A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED DOCTOR. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE 2 ITA NO S . 541 - 543 / VIZ /201 4 (NANDIGAM SUDHAKAR) ASSESSEE AND ALSO CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DOCTOR, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS A JUSTIFIED CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE , DELAY IN FILING OF THESE APPEALS BY 26 DAYS IS CONDONED AND ADMIT THE APPEALS FOR HEAR ING. ITA NO.541/VIZ/2014 3 . FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME BY DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 1,27,160/ - BESIDES , AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 20,000/ - . THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED INITIALLY , UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER , NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MA IN TAINED ACCOUNT (SB ACCOUNT NO.6) WITH BANK OF INDIA, TANUKU. ON GOING THROUGH THE TRANSACTIONS , IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE HUGE DEPOSITS DURING THE YEAR. THE BANK OPERATIONS WERE IN REGULAR WITH BULK AMOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN , HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS RELATE TO M/S.NADIGAM SUDHAKAR , AOP , AND DID NOT RELATE TO IN HIS IN DI VIDUAL CAPACITY. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS REPRESENTING THE AOP IN HIS HUF STATUS ALONG WITH OTHER PERSON , SHRI KORATA SRINIVASA RAO, HUF . THE SAID AOP CAME INTO EXISTENCE W.E.F. 18/02/1999 AND IT DID FINANCE BUSINESS , MAINLY TO THE BUSINESSMEN ENGAGED IN VEGETABLES, FRUITS AND 3 ITA NO S . 541 - 543 / VIZ /201 4 (NANDIGAM SUDHAKAR) OTHER AGRICULTURAL RELATED ACTIVITIES . A S THE SAID FIRM HAD NOT T AX LIABILITY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2000 - 01 TO 2002 - 03 , INCOME TAX RETURNS WERE NOT FILED . THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED SHRI KORATA SRINIVASA RAO , WHO SUBMITTED THAT INITIALLY HE WAS INVESTED 10 LAC. IN THE BUSINESS IN THE YEAR 1999 . WITHIN 15 DAYS OF ITS COMMENCEMENT, WITHDREW FROM THE BUSINESS , HOWEVER , THE AMOUNT OF 7 LAC. WAS WITH MR. SUDHAKAR . THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING SHRI KORATA SRINIVASA RAO, CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORRECT AND OBSERVED THAT AS THE AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS IN HIS INDIVIDUAL STATUS. THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THE NUMBER OF CREDITS APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THERE WERE ALSO HUGE WITHDRAWALS IN THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT , WHICH WERE INEXPLICABLE . KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE HUGE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IT WOULD REASONABLE TO ARRIVE AT THE PEAK CREDIT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND AND SUBJECTED THE SAME TO TAX. 4 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING AN AGRICULTURAL LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 10 ACRES . THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY FOR SAVING SOME ACCUMULATED AMOUNT OF 1 LAC, SO AS TO , ALLOW CREDIT AGAINST PEAK CREDIT OF 2,84, 517/ - . THE PEAK CREDIT AMOUNT OF 2,84,517/ - NEEDS TO BE SET OFF OF SUCH ACCUMULATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 1 LAC . AND ONLY BALANCE AMOUNT OF 1,84,517/ - 4 ITA NO S . 541 - 543 / VIZ /201 4 (NANDIGAM SUDHAKAR) NEEDS TO BE TREATED AS PEAK CREDIT INVESTMENT FROM THE EXPLAINED SOURCE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) FOR AN AMOUNT OF 1,84,517/ - , AS THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN CONCEALED AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE WHY PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A DETAILED EXPLANATION, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 'DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, PEAK CREDIT APPEARED IN THE BANK A/C. IS RS.2,84,517/ - AND ASSESSING OFFICER OPTED THE METHOD OF TAXING THE PEAK CREDIT. ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED THAT, HE HIMSELF IN HUF STATUS (NON ASSESSEE) IS A MEMBER IN THE SAID AOP AND HE IS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE LANDS IN AN EXTENT O F 14 . 16ACS AND FROM THE ACCUMULATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME SAVINGS HE INVESTED IN THE AOP WHICH IN TURN DEPOSITED THE SAID AMOUNTS IN THE BANK A/C OF THE ASSESSEE. HERE ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT IS THA T, AS THE ASSESSEE IS THE MAIN PERSON MOTIVATED THE BUSINESS OF AOP AND ANOTHER MEMBER MR. SRINIVASA RAO IS A SLEEPING PARTNER, HENCE ASSESSEE DID ALL THE TRANSACTIONS OF HIS AOP IN HIS SB A/C NO.6 AND THIS FACT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT HE BLUNTLY TREATED THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE SAID SB A/C AS RELATED TO ASSESSEE . THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN DOING THE TRANSACTIONS THROUGH THE SB A/C OF THE ASSESSEE, FURTHER IN THE INDIVIDUAL STATUS THERE IS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY EXCEPT PARTNERSHIP IN A FINANCE COMPANY, HENCE THE ONLY POSSIBILITY FOR THE TRANSACTION S IN THE SB A/C IS RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF THE 'AOP'. THIS FACT IS IDENTIFIABLE BY EVERY PERSON WITH COMMON PRUDENCE, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DELIBERATELY REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. MR. SRINIVASA RAO IS HAVING MORE THAN 10.00ACS OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND ALONGWITH NANDIGAM SUDHAKAR HE INVESTED RS.1.50 LAKHS AT THE STARTING OF THE A.O.P. I.E. DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. FURTHER CONCERNED MROS OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS OF THE ASSESSE E CERTIFIED THAT ASSESSEE IS GETTING AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,73,600/ - PER ANNUM AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE POSSESSED THOSE LANDS FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1996 - 97, HENCE PEAK CREDIT OF RS.2,84,517/ - CAN BE MET FROM THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. FURTHER DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS INDIVIDUAL STATUS WITH A VIEW THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BELONGS TO HIS HUF STATUS, AS THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS ARE INHERITED FROM HIS LATE FATHER. THAT' S WHY THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT APPEARED IN THE INDIVIDUAL RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE. IF FOR ARGUMENT SAKE, IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT, AS MR.SRINIVASA RAO SOLD AWAY HIS AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN SEP 1999, COULD NOT ABLE TO MAKE ANY INVESTMENT IN THE AOP, EVEN T HEN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF ENOUGH TO MEET THE PEAK CREDIT IN THE BANK A/C. 5 ITA NO S . 541 - 543 / VIZ /201 4 (NANDIGAM SUDHAKAR) AS AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE RESPECTED CIT(APPEALS), RAJAHMUNDRY, AND IN APPEAL GOT PART RELIEF TO THE TUNE RS.L,00, 000/ - TOWARDS AGRICULTURAL INCOME THAT IS ELIGIBLE FOR SET OFF AGAINST THE PEAK CREDIT. FURTHER ASSESSEE PREFERRED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM, AND CASE IS YET TO BE HEARD . IN THIS CONNECTION THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PERMITTED TO CITE T HE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION REGARDING A CASH CREDIT OR OTHER RECEIPT IS DISBELIEVED AND THE AMOUNT IS ASSESSED IN HIS HANDS, DOES NOT BY ITSELF JUSTIFY THE DEPARTMENT IN IMPOSING A PENALTY, THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MUST BE SUCH AS TO LEAD TO THE REASONABLE AND POSITIVE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT RE PRESENTS THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME. - VIDE CIT V.ANWAR AH (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC) AND ANANTHARAM VEERASINGAIAH & CO. V.CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) AND CIT V.RAMASWAMY NAIDU . V .(1994) 208 ITR 377 (MAD). 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SHRI KORATA SRINIVASA RAO WHO IS THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE NOT ADMITTED THAT HE WAS IN THE BUSINESS ALONG WITH THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE CONCEALED INCOME OF 1,83,213/ - AND IMPOSED PENALTY OF 61,071/ - . 6 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS WITH SHRI KORATA SRINIVASA RAO WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE . H OWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE PARTLY . THEREFORE, IT CAN BE GATHERED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COME IN PICTURE WITH TRUE INCOME AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7 . BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . 8 . LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A DETAILED EXPLANATION THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH ONE SHRI 6 ITA NO S . 541 - 543 / VIZ /201 4 (NANDIGAM SUDHAKAR) KORATA SRINIVASA RAO WERE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF FINANCE AND THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE NOT REL A TIN G TO IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER RECORDING THE STATEMENT OF SHRI KORATA SRINIVASA RAO, TH E ADDITION WAS MADE WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS - EXAMINING SHRI KORATA SRINIVASA RAO , WHICH IS CLEAR CUT VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES O F NATURAL JUSTICE AND BASED ON THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE PARTNER, THE PEAK ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS CONSIDERED THE AGRICU L TURAL INCOME OF 1 LAC. AND THE PEAK ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REDUCED FROM 2,84,517/ - TO 1,84,517/ - AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF MERE ASSUMPTION, NO PENALTY CAN BE LIVIED . HE ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V . G.R. RAJENDRAN (259 ITR 109) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO NOT FOUND THAT THE EXPLANATION IS FALSE, HENCE, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . 10 . I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . 11 . THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME , T HEREAFTER, RE - ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AFTER FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND HUGE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWAL IN THE BANK 7 ITA NO S . 541 - 543 / VIZ /201 4 (NANDIGAM SUDHAKAR) ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND CALLED EXPLANATION . THE ASSES SEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE ALONG WITH SHRI KORATA SRINIVASA RAO CARRYING ON THE FINANCE BUSINESS ON BEHALF OF HUF AND THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE NOT RELATED TO IN HIS IN D I VI DUAL CAPACITY, NO RETURNS WERE FILED BECAUSE TAX LIABILITY IS BELOW THE TAX LIMIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE ASSESSEES PARTNER, HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEPOSITS ARE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY , HE MADE ADDITION IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE WITHDRAWALS, HE MADE A PEAK CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 10 ACRES , HE ESTIMATED THE ACCUMULATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 1 LAC AND ACCORDINGLY HE REDUCED TO 1,84,517/ - PART RELIEF WAS GRANTED . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY CALL ING EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE BY FILING DETAILED NOTE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THA T HE NEI T H ER CONCEALED THE INCOME NOR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER MAINLY KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEES PARTNER , PENALTY IS LEVIED. ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE SAME. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH SHRI KORATA SRINIVASA RAO HAS CARRIED ON THE FINANCE BUSINESS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSITS FOUND IN THE 8 ITA NO S . 541 - 543 / VIZ /201 4 (NANDIGAM SUDHAKAR) ACCOUNT WERE NOT IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, IT IS IN THE CAPACITY OF ASSOCIATED PERSONS . W HEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE PARTNER - SHRI KORATA SRINIVASA RAO, HE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS WITH THE ASSESSEE IN THE FINANCE BUSINESS AND ALSO INVESTED 10 LAC. STILL , 7 LAC WITH THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE . KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEES PARTNER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A PEAK CREDIT AND ALSO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS LEVIED. THE FACT REMAINS IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN OP PORTUNITY OF CROSS - EXAMINING THE PARTNER SHRI KORATA SRINIVASA RAO , HOWEVER, BY RELYING ON THE STATEMENT , ADDITION IS MADE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A DETAILED EXPLANATION DURING THE COURSE OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY DISBELIEVED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE . IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER FALSE OR NOT BONAFIDE . THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF G.R. RAJENDRAN (SUPRA) , THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT SECTION 271(1)(C) REFERS TO THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE PERSON BEING FOUND TO BE FALSE OR NOT BEING ONE WHICH THE PERSON OFFERING THE EXPLANATION IS ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE. THE CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPLANATIO N OFFERED IS , THEREFORE, DUTY CAST UPON THE OFFICER IMPOSING PENALTY . IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH CONSIDERATION AND THE FIN D ING THAT THE EXPLANATION IS FALSE OR THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED, THE OFFICER CANNOT PROCEED TO 9 ITA NO S . 541 - 543 / VIZ /201 4 (NANDIGAM SUDHAKAR) HOLD THAT THERE HAS BEEN CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ATTRACTING LEVY OF PENALTY. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOS ING PENALTY UNDER SE CTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THUS, I REVERSE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. [[ ITA NOS. 542 & 543/VIZ/2014 12 THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ITA NO. 541/VIZ/2014 . HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN PRECEDING PARA IS APPLICABLE MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THESE APPEALS ALSO. 13 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TH IS 1 7 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY , 201 7 . S D / - ( V. DURGA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 7 T H FEBRUARY , 201 7 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE - SRI NANDIGAM SUDHAKAR, S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO, D.NO. 26 - 6 - 6, SAJJAPURAM, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 . THE REVENUE - ITO, WARD - 1, TANUKU. 3 . THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY. 4 . THE CIT(A) , VISAKHAPATNAM. 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., VISAKHAPATNAM