A.Ammaji , Visakhapatnam V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, , Visakhapatnam

ITA 98/VIZ/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4636 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Accommodation entries; TDS; Capital Gains
• Section: 68; 132; 69C; 80C; 139; 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 143(2); 192; 153; 119

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣयअͬधकरण, ͪवशाखापटणम पीठ, ͪवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM Įी दुåवूǽ आर एल रेɬडी, ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी एस बालाकृçणन, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2020 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2014-15) A. Harshitha, D.No. 11-8-34, Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. PAN: ACAPH 3599 M Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथȸ/ Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2020 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year :2014-15) A. Ammaji, D.No. 11-8-34, Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. PAN: ABHPA 0658 E Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथȸ/ Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/ Respondent) अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/ Assessees by : Sri GVN Hari, AR Ĥ×याथȸ कȧ ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 22/11/2023 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 15/12/2023 2 O R D E R PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member : The captioned two appeals are filed by the assessees (Smt. A. Harshitha and A. Ammaji) against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam [Ld. CIT (A)] in Appeal No. 152/2017-18/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2019-20 [ITA No. 97/Viz/2020] and Appeal No. 160/2017-18/CIT(A)- 3/VSP/2019-20 [ITA No. 98/Viz/2020] dated 31/10/2019 arising out of the orders passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1962 [the Act] for the AY 2014-15. 2. Since the grounds raised by both the assessees in their respective appeals are identical, for the sake of convenience, both these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed off in this consolidated order. Considering the identical issues involved in the appeals, we shall first take up ITA No. 97/Viz/2020 in the case of Smt. A. Harshitha as a lead appeal. ITA No.97/Viz/2020 (AY: 2014-15) (In the case of A. Harshitha) 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee Smt. A. Harshitha, an individual, filed her return of income for the AY 3 2014-15 on 28/07/2014 admitting a total income of Rs. 8,08,510/-. While filing the return of income, the assessee claimed exemption U/s. 10(38) of the Act with respect to Long Term Capital Gains [LTCG] derived of Rs. 4,75,65,374/- from the sale of listed equity shares. The case was subsequently selected for scrutiny under CASS and a notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 18/09/2015. Consequent to search and seizure operation U/s. 132 of the Act conducted on 14/10/2015 in the case of the assessee, the assessment proceedings got abated. Simultaneously, search and seizure operation was conducted in the cases of Sri A.T. Rayudu, Sri A. Avnash, Smt. A. Ammaji and M/s. ATR Ware Housing Pvt Ltd., Visakhapatnam on the same day. During the course of the said proceedings, certain documents and loose sheets, books of account of the assessee were found and seized. Accordingly, notice U/s. 153A of the Act was issued on the assessee on 18/7/2016 which was served on the assessee on 20/07/2016 calling for the return of income for the AY 2014-15. In response, the assessee submitted that the return of income filed U/s. 139 on 28/07/2014 may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice U/s. 153A of the Act. Electronically the assessee submitted a copy of the acknowledgement in token of the return of income filed U/s. 4 153A electronically on 23/11/2016. The assessee has admitted the same income as filed U/s. 139 of the Act. Subsequently, a notice U/s. 143(2), dated 19/06/2017 was issued and served on the assessee on 20/06/2017. In response, the assessee’s Representative appeared and furnished the computation of income. The Ld. AO subsequently issued a notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act and served on the assessee on 11/8/2017 along with the detailed questionnaire. The Ld. Assessee’s Representative submitted the financial statements, evidences in support of deduction claimed U/s. 80C and details of shares held and copies of demat accounts etc., before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO on 30/10/2017 issued a show cause notice seeking explanation from the assessee as to why the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act, on the LTCG from the sale of equity shares should not be denied. The Ld. AO on perusal of the return of income noticed that the assessee was in receipt of LTCG of Rs. 4,75,65,374/- from the sale of equity shares of M/s. Global Infratech & Finance Limited (formerly known as M/s. Asianiak Capital and Finance Limited) and claimed exemption U/s. 10(38) of the Act. It was explained by the Ld. AR that M/s. Global Infratech & Finance Limited is a listed company and the assessee was allotted 1,00,000 equity shares on preferential basis on 13/06/2012 for a 5 consideration of Rs. 15 lakhs (Face value of Rs. 10 with a premium of Rs. 5). The assessee was allotted the shares with a lock-in period of one year as per the letter of offer. The assessee has made the payment of Rs. 15 lakhs from the Axis Bank account on 8/6/2012 held by M/s. ATR Warehousing Pvt Ltd., Visakhapatnam which was subsequently debited to her current account. The shares were dematerialized in the account maintained with M/s. Ashika Stock Broking Ltd., Mumbai at its Branch Office at Visakhapatnam. Subsequently, the face value of the shares were reduced to Rs. 1/- thereby increasing the number of shares to 10,00,000 to the assessee. The assessee during the period October, 2013 to March, 2014 sold 7,08,358 shares at the Kolkata Stock Exchange for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,87,61,418/-. It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that the shares were held for more than 12 months and transacted on the recognised stock exchange, the assessee has claimed exemption of the long term capital gains U/s. 10(38) of the Act which was duly reflected in the return of income filed for the AY 2014-15. The Ld. AO considered these transactions as abnormal and caused certain enquiries. During the course of enquiry, the Ld. AO found that M/s. Global Infratech & Finance Limited has manipulated the share prices and has indulged in providing 6 accommodation entries to various investors. The Ld. AO, after detailed enquiries of the exit operators, has recorded the statements from various entry operators as detailed in the assessment order. Further, it was also observed by the Ld. AO from the seized material that the assessee has paid a commission of 5.75% on the sale price. The Ld. AO therefore once again issued a show cause notice on 30/10/2017 asking the assessee to submit her reply along with necessary evidences. The assessee in her reply on 12/12/2017 submitted that the Accountant has wrongly calculated the commission @ 5.75% as against 0.575% . Further, it was also explained that the assessee has retained a part of the share holding and hence not involved in the manipulation of the stock prices. Considering these submissions of the Assessee’s Representative, the Ld. AO considered that the LTCG declared by the assessee are not genuine. The Ld. AO further observed that the assessee has involved in dealing with penny stocks and thereby treated the LTCG as unexplained cash credit U/s. 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Consequently, since the exemption relating to LTCG was considered as non-genuine by the Ld. AO, the Ld. AO also treated the commission of Rs. 28,03,781/- as unexplained expenditure U/s. 69C r.w.s 115BBE 7 of the Act. Aggrieved by the additions made by the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. During the First Appellate proceedings, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared and furnished the relevant information before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on various judicial pronouncements, upheld the order of the Ld. AO thereby dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal by raising by raising following Grounds of Appeal: “The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad and unsustainable in the eyes of law as the same is passed without proper application of mind, as it was contrary to the spirit and provisions of the Inco me Tax Act, 1961. Grounds of Objection for notice issued U/s. 153A  That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the present assessment pursuant to section 153A is not justified as the search conducted on the appellant was based on illegal search warrant.  That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the present assessme nt is no t justified as no incriminating material was found in the course of search.  That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in passing the impugned assessment order which was passed 8 pursuant to a notice U/s. 153A which itself was perverse in law. Treatment of long term capital gains as unexplained cash credit U/s. 68 of the Act.  The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by holding the sum of Rs. 4,86,27,910/- earned by the assessee as unexplained cash credit U/s. 68 of the Act.  The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the transactions in shares are bogus in nature and are a sham.  The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the appellan t has entered into these transactio ns in a bonafide and genuine manner. Treatment of commission expenditure as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act.  The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by holding that the sum of Rs. 28,03,781/- as unaccounted expenditure U/s. 69C of the Act.  The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on fac ts in holding that the said expenditure is unexplained by incorrectly holding that the transactions due to which such expenditure has arisen, are bogus in nature.  The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the appellan t has entered into these transactio ns in a bonafide and genuine manner.” 5. The first ground of objection for notice issued U/s. 153A was not pressed by the Ld. AR and hence this ground is dismissed as not pressed. 9 6. The second ground with respect to treatment of LTCG as unexplained cash credit U/s. 68 of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has not indulged in manipulation of the stock prices and has invested the funds in M/s. Global Infratech & Finance Limited in the normal course of investment. The Ld. AR reiterated that the transactions were made through the recognized Stock Exchange and the sale consideration was received through banking channels. The Ld. AR further submitted that the shares were dematerialized through the registered Stock Broker M/s. Ashika Stock Broking Ltd., Visakhapatnam and the assessee has also paid Securities Transaction Tax (STT) on the sale of shares. It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that during the proceedings no material was seized with respect to back to back cash transaction for the sale consideration received by the assessee. It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that the Ld. AO has not brought in any corroborative evidence to implicate the assessee being in collusion with the commission entry providers. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai has found that the assessees were not involved into the alleged scheme of manipulating the price of M/s. Global Infratech & Finance Limited. The Ld. AR submitted the order of the 10 Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal before the Bench for its perusal wherein the assessees were exonerated. Further, the Ld. AR also submitted that the Ld. AO has not brought in any evidence to prove that the assessee has no business dealings and has only made the payment of Rs. 15 lakhs for preferential allotment of shares. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has advanced Rs. 15 lakhs in the normal course of business which was duly repaid with interest by M/s. Global Infratech & Finance Limited. He therefore heavily relied on the findings of the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai wherein it was held that the assessee was not involved in the manipulation of stock prices and hence the assumption of the Ld. AO that the assessee was involved in manipulation of the penny stocks is without any valid evidence and is based on presumptions and assumptions of the Ld. AO. He therefore pleaded that the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities be quashed. In support of his argument, the Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: 1. Decision of the Hon’ble Bo mbay High Cour t in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Indravardan Jain (HUF) in ITA No. 454 of 2018. 2. Decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ITO vs. Indravardhan Jain (HUF) in ITA No. 4864/Mum/2014, dated 27/05/2016. 11 3. Decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of DCIT vs. Shri Rajnikant Prabhudas in ITA Nos. 401 & 402/Ahd/2019, dated 25/09/2023. 4. Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Pr. CIT vs. S mt. Renu Agarwal reported in [2023] 153 tax mann.co m 578 (Allahabad). 5. Judgment of the Hon’ble High court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT vs. S mt. Krishna Devi repor ted in [2021] 431 ITR 361 (Delhi). 6. Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Sandipkumar Parso ttambhai Patel reported in [2023] 150 tax mann.com 192 (Gujarat). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR heavily supported the order of the Ld. AO and argued that the Ld. AO has made proper enquiries before concluding the transaction as a sham. The Ld. DR referred to the order of the Ld. AO wherein the same buyers have purchased shares from the assessee, which clearly indicates that the prices are being manipulated. The Ld. DR also referred to the loose sheets found and seized at the residence of the assessee wherein the sale of shares, quantity sold, date, sale price and the computation of the LTCG were found and seized. Further, the Ld. DR also referred to the statement as extracted at Page No. 26 of the AO’s order wherein the commission was stated as 5.75% . The Ld. DR heavily relied on the following cases. 12 1. Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Mehndipur Balaji reported in [2022] 447 ITR 517 (Allahabad. 2. Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bo mbay in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT repor ted in [2018] 89 tax mann.co m 196 (Bo mbay) 3. Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Smt,. Usha Devi Modi repor ted in [2023] 151 tax mann.co m 119 (Calcutta) The Ld. DR specifically drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad Bench in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Mehndipur Balaji reported in [2023] 447 ITR 517 (Allahabad) (supra) wherein the name of the share broker Sri Soumen Sen was implicated to manipulate the share prices by providing accommodation entries. He then referred to the order of the Ld. AO in Page No.22 of the order of the Ld. AO wherein the statement from Sri Soumen Sen U/s. 131 of the IT Act, 1961 was recorded under the survey operations. The Ld. DR therefore submitted that the exit promoters have orchestrated with the connivance of the stock brokers to book fictitious long term capital gains for the intended beneficiaries. Therefore, he pleaded that the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities be upheld. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue 13 Authorities. It is the case of the Ld. AO that the assessee has involved in manipulating the stock prices in penny stocks and has derived LTCG and has claimed exemption U/s. 10(38) of the Act by manipulating the share prices. However, we find that the Ld. AO has not brought in any substantial corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee is involved in the manipulation of stock prices of M/s. Global Infratech & Finance Limited. Further, the Ld. AO has also not brought on record that the assessee has received back to back cash for the accommodation entries provided by M/s. Global Infratech & Finance Limited. It is also seen from the documents provided before us that these shares were quoted on the recognized stock exchange that the payment for purchase of shares and the realization of sale consideration was through banking channels. It is also noted that the assessee has paid securities transaction tax on the sale transaction. It is also the fact that these shares are sold on the floor of the recognized stock exchange ie., Kolkata Stock Exchange. Further, we find from the case DCIT vs. Shri Rajnikant Prabhudas Mandavia (supra) relied on by the Ld. AR, the Coordinate Bench of Ahmedabad has found that the assessee in that case has invested in M/s. Global Infratech & Finance Limited which was quoted in the Bombay Stock Exchange and therefore the 14 transactions cannot be considered as manipulated by the assessee. It is also found that in the instant case the investment was made through banking channels and merely because the shares were allotted on preferential basis, it cannot be viewed that the assessee was engaged in manipulation of the share prices for earning bogus LTCG. Further, on perusal of the order of the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai we find that the assessee has been exonerated with reference to the manipulation of the stock prices. For the sake of brevity, we extract below the relevant portion from the order of the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai: “10. With regard to Noticee nos. 45 and 46 the WTM found that they were connected to each other and that Noticee no. 45 is the director in M/s. ATR Ware Housing Pvt. Ltd. which had fund transaction with the Company Noticee no. 8 and therefore Noticee nos. 45 and 46 are connected to the Company and thereby connected to the entities involved in price manipulation i.e. Noticee nos. 1 to 7. Based on the aforesaid connection the WTM has come to the conclusion that the appellants were involved in the price manipulation in the scrip of the Company and sold the shares at inflated price. 11. In our opinion this finding is patently perverse. Ample evidence has been filed by the appellants to show that the fund transaction with Global was a business transaction in the usual course of business and had nothing to do with the purchase of the preferential allotment of shares or with the price manipulation. The WTM has acknowledged that there is no allegation in the show cause notice against the appellants alleging that the funds received from the Company was utilized for allotment of preferential shares. 12. We find that there is evidence to the effect that the loan was taken in the normal course of business and the same has been duly repaid with interest. In this regard documents in the nature of TDS 15 certificates, ledger entries were produced which has not been considered. We have perused these documents and we are satisfied that the fund transfers from Global to the companies in which the appellants were directors were loans taken in the normal course of business and the same was duly repaid along with interest. We are further of the opinion that the fund transfers by Global to the appellants companies were not used for the purpose of allotment of shares. 13. We also find that the business transaction of Noticee nos. 45 and 46 with Global was much after the allotment of shares and therefore this aspect has not been considered by the WTM. 14. The finding that since the appellants had business connection with the Company and therefore the appellants were connected to Noticee nos. 1 to 7 who were involved in price manipulation is patently erroneous and based on surmises and conjectures. There is no finding that there was a meeting of minds between the appellants with Noticee nos. 1 to 7. There is no finding nor there is any allegation that there was any collusion of the appellants with Noticee nos. 1 to 7 with regard to the alleged scheme and in manipulating the price. 15. We also find it strange that the Company had issued preferential allotment to 93 allottees and notice has only been issued to only to some of the allottees. No proceedings whatsoever was initiated against the remaining preferential allottees. These preferential allottees were also connected to theCompany but for reason best known, proceedings were not initiated against the remaining preferential allottees. 16. In Umang Dhanuka & Ors vs SEBI in Appeal no. 102 of 2020 and other connected appeals decided on June 08, 2021 this Tribunal held:- “Further, having a business connection with the Company does not mean that there were part of the scheme of manipulating the price or they were part of some collusion which in any case is not the finding given by the WTM. The only charge is that being connected through this loan transaction the Dhanuka family is guilty of violation of regulations 3 & 4 of the PFUTP Regulations which is perverse.” 17. In our opinion the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable in the instant case. 18. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the WTM cannot be sustained and is quashed. For the same reason the order 16 of the AO also cannot be sustained and is quashed. All the appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.” Further, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Usha Devi Modi reported in [2023] 151 taxmann.com 119 (Calcutta) (supra) relied on by the Ld. DR, it is distinguishable on the facts that the assessee has not proved the genuineness of the claim and creditworthiness of the companies in which investments were made. In the instant case, since the transactions were through proper banking channels, this case is of no help to the Revenue. Similarly, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT-1, Nagpur reported in [2018] 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) (supra) it is distinguishable on the fact that the details of persons who purchased the shares were not provided. In the instant case, the details of buyers are very much available in the order of the Ld. AO and hence this decision cannot be applied. Further, in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Mehndipur Balaji [2022] 447 ITR 517 (Allahabad) (supra), relied on by the Ld. DR, the addition for the bogus LTCG received by the assessee were made on the basis of the incriminating material available on record. However, in the instant case, no such incriminating material along with corroborative evidence has brought on record 17 to say that the assessee has involved in manipulation of the stock prices to earn bogus LTCG. It is also noted that the assessee has sold the shares through recognized Stock Exchange and hence he is not aware of the company of the buyers and therefore the arguments of the Ld. DR are not accepted. Based on the above discussions, from the facts and circumstances of the case and by virtue of the order of the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai exonerating the assessee, we find that the assessee has not involved in manipulation of stock prices for the purpose of earning bogus LTCG and hence we are inclined to allow the ground raised by the assessee. 9. With respect to the third ground on treatment of commission expenditure as unexplained expenditure U/s 69C of the Act, since the LTCG earned by the assessee are bonafide in nature, the commission expenditure shall be allowed as a deduction from the LTCG and hence this ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 18 ITA No. 98/Viz/2020 (AY: 2014-15) (In the case of Smt. A. Ammaji) 11. This appeal is filed by the assessee and the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad and unsustainable in the eyes of law as the same is passed without proper application of mind, as it was contrary to the spirit and provisions of the Inco me Tax Act, 1961. Grounds of Objection for notice issued U/s. 153A  That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the present assessment pursuant to section 153A is not justified as the search conducted on the appellant was based on illegal search warrant.  That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the present assessme nt is no t justified as no incriminating material was found in the course of search.  That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in passing the impugned assessment order which was passed pursuant to a notice U/s. 153A which itself was perverse in law. Treatment of long term capital gains as unexplained cash credit U/s. 68 of the Act.  The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by holding the sum of Rs. 7,80,46,200/- earned by the assessee as unexplained cash credit U/s. 68 of the Act.  The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the transactions in shares are bogus in nature and are a sham.  The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the appellan t 19 has entered into these transactio ns in a bonafide and genuine manner. Treatment of commission expenditure as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act.  The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by holding that the sum of Rs. 44,87,686/- as unaccounted expenditure U/s. 69C of the Act.  The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on fac ts in holding that the said expenditure is unexplained by incorrectly holding that the transactions due to which such expenditure has arisen, are bogus in nature.  The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the appellan t has entered into these transactio ns in a bonafide and genuine manner.” 12. The assessee has raised the above grounds which are identical to that of the grounds raised by the assessee in the case of Smt. A. Harshitha vs. DCIT, CC-2, Visakhapatnam, in ITA No 97/Viz/2020, which is adjudicated by us in the above paragraphs of this order, our decision given therein mutatis mutandis applies to this appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 20 Pronounced in the open Court on 15 th December, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (दुåवूǽ आर.एल रेɬडी) (एस बालाकृçणन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) ÛयाǓयकसदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated :15.12.2023 OKK - SPS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. Ǔनधा[ǐरती/ The Assessee – (i) A. Harshitha, D.No. 11-8-34, Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530003. (ii) A. Ammaji, D.No. 11-8-34, Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530003. 2. राजèव/The Revenue – DCIT, Central Circle-2, MVP Colony, Sector-8, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Beside Post Office, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530017. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 4. आयकर आयुÈत (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ͪवशाखापटणम/ DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6. गाड[ फ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam