M/S AARYAN RICE INDUSTRIES LLP, RAIPUR,RAIPUR V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

ITA 5/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP, which appealed against the order of the Pr. CIT, Raipur-1, under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Pr. CIT had set aside the assessment order passed by the A.O under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, claiming it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to non-deduction of tax at source on certain payments. The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT had not adequately substantiated his claims that the original assessment was erroneous, leading to the restoration of the A.O's assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469797 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Pr. CIT Vs. Modicare Ltd., Pr. CIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., Director of Income Tax Vs. Jyoti Foundation
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Transfer pricing; Period of limitation; TDS; Search and seizure; Assessment record; Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 263; 92CA; 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.05/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2021-22 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP A-8, 602, Offizo, 6th Floor, Mahavir Goshala Complex, K.K Road, Moudhapara, Raipur-492 010 (C.G.) PAN : ABMFA9491N .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ravi Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 21.02.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 05.02.2025 2 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 05/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee, a limited liability partnership, is directed against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (for short “Pr. CIT”) under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 12.12.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 27.12.2022 for the assessment year 2021-22. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Raipur-1, u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, setting aside the assessment framed u/s.143(3) of the Act dt. 27/12/2022 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, is without jurisdiction and bad in law, and therefore, liable to be quashed. 2. That, without prejudice to above, on the facts and circumstances of the case, no proper opportunity was given to the appellant while passing the impugned revision order and therefore, it is not sustainable in law. 3. That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter or modify any ground of appeal.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee which is engaged in the business of running a rice mill industry and trading/export of Iron ore fines, had filed its return of income for A.Y.2021-22 on 22.11.2022, declaring an income of 3 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 05/RPR/2025 Rs.5,10,69,450/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “complete scrutiny” u/s. 143(2) of the Act. 3. Thereafter, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 27.12.2022, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.5,23,00,088/-. 4. The Pr. CIT after the culmination of the assessment proceedings called for the assessment records. It was observed by him that while for the assessee was required to deduct/collect Tax at Source of Rs.1,50,47,809/- on payments of Rs.67,13,17,723/-, but it had deducted/collected an amount of Rs.1,00,45,864/- and deposited the same in the government treasury, as under: 4 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 05/RPR/2025 Accordingly, the Pr. CIT held a firm conviction that as the assessee had failed to deduct/deposit tax at source as per the mandate of law, therefore, for the failure on its part to comply with the statutory requirement of deducting/collecting tax at source an amount of Rs.20,13,95,316/- (being 30% of Rs.67,13,17,723/- was liable to be disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. The Pr. CIT based on his aforesaid observation, was of the view, that as the A.O while the framing assessment had failed to consider the disallowance Rs.20,13,95,316/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, therefore, the same had rendered his order as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, thus, issued a “Show Cause Notice” (SCN), dated 04.10.2024 to the assessee calling upon it to put forth an explanation as to why the assessment order may not be revised u/s. 263 of the Act. 6. In reply, the assessee filed before the Pr. CIT a copy of the detailed list of section vise payments of deduction/collection of tax at source alongwith the complete details, viz. names of the deductees with PAN Nos., amounts on which tax at source was deducted/collected at source, dates of deduction/collection of tax at source, and CIN details for the subject year. Apart from that, the assessee filed a copy of the screen shot of the status of demand as per “Traces site”, which disclosed the amount at Rs. Nil. The assessee based on the aforesaid details claimed that there was no instance 5 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 05/RPR/2025 of short deduction/short collection of tax at source during the subject year. Accordingly, the assessee drawing support from the aforesaid material requested the Pr. CIT that the proceedings initiated by him under Section 263 of the Act be dropped. 7. Ostensibly, the Pr. CIT observed that a perusal of the reply a/w. supporting documentary evidence/material that was filed by the assessee before him could only be verified at the AO’s level and the matter required detailed verification and inquiry. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT by referring to “Explanation-2” of Section 263 of the Act, observed that as the A.O while framing the assessment had failed to conduct proper and correct inquiries, therefore, the same had rendered his order as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT set-aside the order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 27.12.22 to his file for detailed verification and afresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard and considering the submissions of the assessee. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Pr. CIT are culled out as under: “5. In view of the above facts, a show cause e-notice u/s 263 dated 04.10.2024 was issued to the assessee to be complied by 21.10.2024, incorporating the above facts, asking to furnish his reply in support of his claim. The assessee filed its submission on 14.11 2024. The gist of submission of the assessee is as under:- \"We enclose copy of detailed list of section wise TDS payments with complete details viz. Name of Deductee with PAN, amount 6 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 05/RPR/2025 on which TDS/TCS deducted/collected, TDS/TCS amount, and Tax Deducted Date and CIN details for the relevant financial year in support of our submission. The extract submitted above along-with copy of screen shot of Status of Demand as per Traces site which is NIL is self-evident that there is no instances of short deduction or short collection by the assessee in the relevant financial year. We believe that the same shall serve as complete compliance to your notice. We therefore sincerely request you to kindly consider our submission and drop the proceedings and oblige.\" 6. The reply of the assessee was perused carefully and it was observed that the detailed issues raised in the case of the assessee and reply submitted by the assessee including the evidences and documents can only be verified at Assessing Officer level and the matter needs detailed verification and enquiry. As such, the matter is being set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for detailed verification and fresh adjudication. 7. Thus, it can be stated that this is a case of AO not conducting proper and correct enquiries. It is not out of place to mention that the Explanation-2 introduced in section 263 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 provides that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner: (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board u/s.119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. **** **** **** **** **** **** 9. Considering the above legal provisions of the Act and the factual position of this case as emanating from the assessment order and case records as well as the judicial precedents as discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the assessment order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue in view of Section 263 of the Income tax Act. Thus, the assessment order is held to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The said 7 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 05/RPR/2025 assessment order is hereby set-aside to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order in a speaking manner after making all necessary enquiries required and after providing due and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering all the submissions, etc. made and counter-reply submitted by the assessee in a fair and judicious manner.” 8. The assessee aggrieved with the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Section 263 of the Act, dated 12.12.2024 has carried the matter in appeal before us. 9. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 10. As observed by us herein above, the Pr. CIT held a firm conviction that as the assessee per the mandate of law had not deducted/collected tax at source on payments aggregating to Rs.67.13 crore (approx.), therefore, 30% of the said amount i.e. 20.13 crore (approx.) [30% of Rs.67.13 crore (supra)] was liable to be disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 11. As is discernible from the record, the assessee on being confronted with the aforesaid purported action, had vide its reply dated 14.11.2024 in rebuttal of the observations of the Pr. CIT filed before him, viz. (i) copy of the detailed list of section vise TDS payments with complete details; (ii) names of the deductees with their PAN Nos; (iii) amounts on which tax was 8 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 05/RPR/2025 deducted/collected at source; (iv) the amount of deduction/collection of tax at source; (v) dates of deduction/collection of tax at source; (vi) CIN details for the subject year; and (vi) copy of screen shot of the status of demand as per “Traces site” which disclosed the amount at Rs. Nil and, thus, evidenced that there was no instance of short deduction/short collection of tax at source by the assessee in the relevant financial year. However, we find that the Pr. CIT instead of dislodging the aforesaid claim of the assessee that there was no instance of short deduction/short collection of tax at source during the subject year in the backdrop of the documentary evidence which was filed by the assessee before him, had dispensed with the statutory obligation that was cast upon him. The Pr. CIT had summarily held the order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 27.12.2022 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s 263 of the Act and set-aside the matter to his file for carrying out detailed verification and adjudicating the matter afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. We have thoughtfully considered the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act. We would mince no words in observing that the Pr. CIT had without recording a finding that as to on what basis the order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 27.12.2022 was being held by him as erroneous, which was, inter alia, a sine-qua-non for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by him u/s. 263 of the Act, set-aside the same to the file of the 9 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 05/RPR/2025 A.O. for carrying out necessary verification. In other words, the Pr. CIT by aborting the very process of reasoning, based on which, the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 27.12.2022 on the aforesaid issue i.e. short deduction/short collection of tax at source was being held by him as erroneous, had, hushed through the matter and set- aside the same to the latter’s file for carrying out detailed verification. Ostensibly, the Pr. CIT by not recording any observation that there was any short deduction/short collection of tax at source by the assessee which, thus, triggered the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, i.e a material fact that was lost sight of by the A.O while framing the assessment vide his order u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 27.12.2022, had, thus without carrying out the minimal inquiry and giving any specific reason for concluding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, traversed beyond the jurisdiction that was vested with him u/s. 263 of the Act. 13. Before proceeding any further, we deem it fit to cull out the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which reads as under: “263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an 10 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 05/RPR/2025 opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including- (i) an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment; or (ii) an order modifying the order under section 92CA; or (iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,— (a) an order passed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120;[(iii) an order under section 92CA by the Transfer Pricing Officer;] (b) \"record\" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer 92[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the* Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have 11 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 05/RPR/2025 extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. Explanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded.” (emphasis supplied by us) 14. Although sub-section (1) of Section 263 contemplates that the revisional authority may, inter alia, after making or causing to be made such 12 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 05/RPR/2025 inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order directing a fresh assessment, but the same pre-supposes, viz. (i). after making of inquiry; or (ii). causing to be made such inquiry the revisional authority in the course of the revisional proceedings itself, forms a view that the order passed by the A.O. is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue under Section 263 of the Act. However, the revisional authority is not vested with the jurisdiction, wherein without arriving at a view that the subject order of assessment is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may pass an order under Section 263 of the Act setting aside the assessment order to the file of the A.O. for verifying as to whether or not the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. If that is permitted, then such an order of revision would be premature and nothing short of “putting the cart before the horse”, i.e. revising the assessment order without forming a view that the same is found to be erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 15. Apropos the support drawn by the Pr. CIT from “Explanation-2” to Section 263 of the Act, we are afraid that the same would not carry his case any further. The “Explanation 2” of Section 263 of the Act, inter alia, contemplates that it is only where in the opinion of the Pr. Chief Commissioner or Chief Commission or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, the order is passed without making inquiry or verification 13 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 05/RPR/2025 which should have been made; or the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; the same shall be deemed to be erroneous so far it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. We are of a firm conviction that the “term” “in the opinion of Pr. CIT” as provided in “Explanation 2” to Section 263 of the Act pre-supposes the recording of an observation on his part after considering the documents/material /submission filed by the assessee in the course of the proceedings before him, based on which, he had formed an opinion that the order passed by the A.O is found to be erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Pr. CIT, in our view, cannot without recording an observation after considering the documents/material/submissions filed by the assessee in the course of the proceedings before him and arbitrarily dispensing with the very process of arriving at an opinion that the order passed by the A.O was erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, summarily set-aside the same to the A.O for carrying out the necessary verification. If that is so permitted, then we are afraid that it will lead to a situation where the Pr. CIT without himself arriving at a finding will summarily set aside the matter to the file of the A.O, i.e. without recording a finding that the assessment order passed by the A.O is found to be erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue under Section 263 of the Act, which, we are afraid is not permissible as per the mandate of law. In short, the outsourcing of the jurisdiction under Section 14 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 05/RPR/2025 263 by the Pr. CIT to the A.O. is not permissible as per the settled position of law. Rather, we will mince no words in observing, that the setting aside of the matter to the file of the A.O for carrying out necessary verification and arriving at a conclusion as to whether or not the order so passed by him is erroneous, thus, would lead to a situation wherein the jurisdiction to revise the order u/s. 263 of the Act would impliedly get vested with the A.O. 16. At this stage, we may herein observe, that the Pr. CIT while exercising the revisional jurisdiction vested with him as per sub-section (1) of Section 263 of the Act, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, is obligated to pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including, viz. (i). an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or canceling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment; or (ii) an order modifying the order under section 92CA; or (iii) an order canceling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section. Although, Clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 263 of the Act vests jurisdiction with the Pr. CIT to enhance or modify the assessment or cancel the assessment and direct a fresh assessment, but we are afraid that the same nowhere provides that he while exercising his said jurisdiction can set- aside the matter to the file of the A.O for carrying out necessary verification after considering the documents/material/submissions that were filed by the assessee in the course of the revisional proceedings before him, and, 15 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 05/RPR/2025 thus, arrive at a finding that as to whether or not the assessment order that was passed by him is found to be erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 17. We, thus, based on our aforesaid observations, are of a firm conviction, that as the Pr. CIT had failed to bring the proceedings initiated by him under Section 263 of the Act to a logical end, i.e. the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 27.12.2022 as per him was found to be erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and rather, had aborted in the mid-way the very process for arriving at the aforesaid view, thus, the same had resulted to setting-aside of the assessment order to the file of the A.O – for verifying as to whether or not the assessment order is found to be erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, which is not found as per the mandate of Section 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Modicare Ltd., ITA No.759/2016, dated 14.09.2017, wherein the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the revenue had been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its order passed in SLP(C) No.13055/2018, dated 30.01.2024. The Hon’ble High Court in its aforesaid order, had observed, that the exercise u/s. 263 of the Act could not have been “Outsourced” by the CIT to the A.O. It was further held by the Hon’ble High Court that the CIT is himself required to undertake minimal inquiry and give reasons for concluding that the 16 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 05/RPR/2025 assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 18. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.705/2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court, had observed, that for exercising jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue has to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. Further, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del), had held, that an order is not erroneous unless the CIT records reasons why it is erroneous. It was also held by the Hon’ble High Court that an order will not become erroneous because on remitting the same the A.O. may decide that the order is erroneous. 19. We, thus, in the absence of any observation of the Pr. CIT that the order passed by the A.O. is found to be erroneous, therefore, are constrained to set-aside the order passed by him under Section 263 of the Act, dated 12.12.2024 and restore the order passed by the A.O. u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 27.12.2022. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 20. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 2 & 3 being general in nature are dismissed as not pressed. 17 M/s. Aaryan Rice Industries LLP Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 05/RPR/2025 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 05th day of February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 05th February, 2025. **#SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "