MANISH KUMAR,FAZILKA V. ITO WARD 2(4), ABOHAR, ABOHAR

ITA 291/ASR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sh. Manish Kumar, an agriculturist, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 10,45,000 as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the invocation of Section 115BBE for the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) had treated the cash deposits made during the demonetization period as unexplained, despite the appellant's claims that they were from agricultural income and earlier cash withdrawals. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the current appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT found that the matter required further examination of the source of the cash deposits and remanded it back to the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31096 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Sandeep Kaur Vs. ITO, Gurmeet Singh Vs. ITO, Shri Hukum Singh Shekhawat
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Charitable institution
• Section: 144; 143(3); 142(1); 139(1); 68; 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 291/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Manish Kumar, Mehrian Bazar, Fazilka, 152 123, Punjab [PAN: AQUPK 9194M] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Abohar (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : Sh. Rohan Sogani, CA Sh. Gulzar Ahmad Wani, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 19.09.2024 16.10.2024 ORDER Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, AM: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)[hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”], Delhi dated 22.03.2024 which is arising out of the Assessment Order u/s 144 dated 05.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax 2 ITA No. 291/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO Officer, Ward 2(4), Abohar (In short “the AO”) in respect of Assessment Year: 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts and circumstances the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC) has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in making additions of Rs. 10,45,000 as unexplained money, under Section 69A. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the additions of Rs.10,45,000 made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the invocation of Section 115BBE, as being not in accordance with the relevant law. 3. The assessee craves his rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” 3. Briefly the facts are that that the appellant assessee is an agriculturist having about 32 Acres of agricultural land in joint ownership with the family including an agricultural land measuring around 17 acres land in the name of the assessee himself. The AO has discussed that the assessee has explained before him, that the sources of cash deposits made in his bank account during the demonetization period, was out of his agricultural income and earlier cash withdrawals made from bank and cash in hand as on 3 ITA No. 291/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO 01.04.2016. The assessee has furnished a cash flow statement to justify the said cash in hand at the time of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The assessee has also submitted copy of Girdawari as a proof of land holding, copies of J forms as a proof of sale of agriculture produce, copies of his account as well as his brother’s account in the books of his commission agent and his bank account statements. However, the AO was not satisfied with the appellants explanation and decided that assessee has failed to furnish any plausible explanation regarding the sources of cash deposits of Rs. 10,45,000/- made during the demonetization period i.e. 08.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 10,45,000/- is being treated as unexplained money of the assessee for the financial year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year 2017-18 and is added to the income of assessee u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition of Rs. 10,45,000/- made u/s 69A is required to be charged to tax u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Being agreed with the assessment order, the appellant has filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who has confirmed the addition vide paras 6.2 to 6.4 by observing as under: 6.2 At the appellate stage also, the Appellant has not furnished any written submission in support of the grounds of appeal or the statement of facts. The AO 4 ITA No. 291/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO has doubted the veracity of the cash flow statement submitted by him during the assessment proceedings. In response to the same, the appellant in his statement of income, having accepted the authenticity of the cash flow submitted in the assessment proceedings to be doubtful, explained that the professional engaged by him for filing the cash flow was not knowledgeable about how to maintain the records and was not aware of the entire facts of the case. 6.3 Based on the material available on record, the Appellant’s contentions are not acceptable because of specific findings in the assessment order about no evidence being adduced by the appellant to corroborate the claim made. The documents furnished by the Appellant during assessment proceedings have not been found to reflect the true and correct accounts to arrive at the total income of the appellant for the year by the AO. The explanation furnished by the Appellant during assessment proceedings has been meticulously analyzed by the Assessing Officer and found not to be satisfactory in the absence of any cogent justification supported by any reliable evidence. The same was confronted to the appellant by the AO who asked the appellant to explain the nature and source of this money deposited in the form of cash in the bank account. The appellant failed to explain the nature and source of it during the assessment proceedings and even in the appellate proceedings. It is a trite law that once the appellant fails to discharge the onus cast on him to explain the nature and source of any sum of money and does not prove the identity and creditworthiness of the person along with the genuineness of the transactions, the amount is deemed to be the income of the appellant as per the deeming provisions of sections 69A of the I T Act. The genuineness of transactions could not be proved to the satisfaction of the AO during the assessment proceedings. 6.4 Because of the facts mentioned above, I do not find any infirmity in the decision of the AO and I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the AO. 5. The Ld. Counsel Shri Roshan Sogani for the appellant submitted that the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in making additions of Rs. 10,45,000 as unexplained money, under Section 69A. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. He further contended that the Id. CIT(A) has erred in 5 ITA No. 291/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO confirming the action of the Id. AO, in invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. He pleaded that relief may please be granted by deleting the additions of Rs.10,45,000 made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and quashing the invocation of Section 115BBE, as being not in accordance with the relevant law. He has explained the source of cash deposits made in his bank account during the demonetization period, was out of his agricultural income and earlier cash withdrawals made from bank and cash in hand as on 01.04.2016. The assessee has furnished a cash flow statement to justify the said cash in hand at the time of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The assessee has also submitted copy of Girdawari as a proof of land holding, copies of J forms as a proof of sale of agriculture produce, copies of his account as well as his brother’s account in the books of his commission agent and his bank account statements as also being produced before the authorities below. In support, he has filed a written synopsis which reads as under: “i. Assessee, an individual, is an agriculturist. The return of income u/s 139(1) was not filed by the assessee. However, the return of income was filed on 25.10.2019 in response to the notice u/s 142(1) declaring total income of Rs 2,40,000 and agricultural income of Rs 9,00,000. Copy of ITR-V and Computation of Income is placed at PB 1-2. ii. Assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) were completed in the case of the assessee on 05.12.2019 by making additions amounting to Rs. 10,45,000 u/s 6 ITA No. 291/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO 69A and taxed such income by invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE. iii. Against the order passed by Id. AO, assessee preferred appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC7 \"Id. CIT(A)”). NFAC, vide order dated 05.12.2019, in Appeal No. CIT (A), Bhatinda/10440/2019-20, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against the order passed by NFAC, the present appeal has been preferred by the assessee firm before Hon’ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench. GROUNDS NO 1: ADDITION OF Rs. 10,45,000 U/S 69A 1. ASSESSING OFFICER AND NFAC 1.1. Ld. AO made additions amounting to Rs 10,45,000 u/s 69A for the cash deposited in the bank, treating the same to be unexplained. Additions made by the Id. AO were upheld by the NFAC. 2. SUBMISSIONS Assessee, aged approx. 45 years, hails from a rural background and is primarily engaged in agricultural activities. Following the untimely death of his father at an early age, he and his brother had assumed the responsibility of being the breadwinners for their family. The family owns a total of 32 acres of agricultural land, with the assessee owning 17 acres. 2.2 Assessee was not required to file return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as he derives income only from agricultural activities and the same is exempt from tax. However, the assessee has now been regular in filing of income tax returns and declaring agricultural income in the same. 2.3 The assessee, during demonetization period, from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, deposited a sum of Rs. 10,45,000 in his bank account. The said cash deposits are out of the agricultural income earned by the assessee. 2.4 Assessee has been depositing cash in his bank account from previous years maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce (Account Number 02755115001622). Details are as under: 7 ITA No. 291/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO Year of Deposit Amount in Rs 2014 10,48,500 2015 10,43,000 2016 10,45,000 Demonetization period 2.5 It is evident that the deposition of cash in the bank statement is a regular feature of the assessee. However, for the relevant year, the cash deposit caused an unusual spike because of sudden announcement of demonetization in the said period. 2.6 It is submitted that the assessee has availed KCC loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce. The said loan is availed at an interest rate of 7% per annum by the assessee. 2.7 It is submitted that the aforementioned loan of the assessee is covered under Interest Subvention Scheme initiated by Reserve Bank of India for farmers. In the said scheme, a subvention of 2% per annum is available to public sector bank for short term crop loan. If the farmer is a prompt payee, then such benefit is granted to such farmer. 2.8 In the present case, the assessee, in order to avail the benefit of a 2% interest credit, deposited cash in his bank account to ensure prompt loan repayments. He specifically made these cash deposits in the months of April and November, which was after the crop seasons. The fact of cash deposits in the month of April and November is evident from the above table. Certificate in this regard was also obtained from bank was placed before Id. CIT-(A). 2.9 The assessee has, for many years, followed a practice of withdrawing cash deposits for preparation for the next crop season. This approach involves utilizing the funds from regular cash deposits to finance essential agricultural operations. By adopting this method, the assessee effectively rotates the available credit, ensuring that sufficient liquidity is maintained to meet the demands of each crop cycle. This also helps the assessee to take benefit of interest of 2% under the Interest Sub invention Scheme. 2.11 Ld. CIT-(A) has failed to appreciate the following submissions made by the assessee which should be considered in correct perspective: 8 ITA No. 291/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO • The assessee has a consistent history of making cash deposits over the years, which is reflected from the bank statements of the assessee. Details of deposits made by the assessee in previous years are placed at PB 26. • The assessee owns 17 acres of land, and even if the valuation is conservatively estimated at a rate of Rs. 78,000 per acre, the total value of the land would still generate substantial income. This clearly demonstrates that the assessee has sufficient income to justify and substantiate the source of his income [PB 26] • Documentary evidences were placed before Id. AO in order to prove that the assessee has earned agricultural income [PB 27] • Every deposit during the period of demonetization would not fall under the category of unaccounted cash. The source has been duly explained by the assessee and relevant evidences were also filed before Id. AO [PB 27] • The cash flow statement prepared by the tax professional who was engaged by the assessee was not aware of the entire facts of the case [PB 28] 2.12 Ld. AO made addition solely on the basis of old cash statement furnished by the assessee. The assessee had engaged a professional to represent him during the course of assessment proceedings. The cash flow submitted in response to notice u/s 142(1) was prepared by the professional and the same cannot be relied upon as he was unaware of the entire facts of the case. The said fact is undisputed. The same can be verified from Page-10 of the order of Id. CIT-(A). Screenshot of the same is as under: Assessment proceedings. In response to the same, the appellant in his statement of income, having accepted the authenticity of the cash flow submitted in the assessment proceedings to be doubtful, explained that the professional engaged by him for filing the cash flow was not knowledgeable about how to maintain the records and was not aware of the entire facts of the case. 9 ITA No. 291/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO 2.13. In order to rectify the mistake, the assessee submitted correct cash flow statement in response to the show cause notice wherein he mentioned that he stated that he derived income from other sources of Rs 2,40,000 and Rs 9,00,000 as his agricultural income. The said fact was before Id. AO. However, he did not consider the same and made additions to the total income of the assessee. 2.14 It is important to note that the assessee since inception, made it clear that he is not liable to income tax and has therefore not maintained books of accounts. 2.15 The assessee submitted copies of agricultural produce from Arhtiya as an evidence in support of his agricultural income. The said fact is not in dispute [PB 15-20] 2.16 The evidences submitted by the assessee in order to substantiate the claim of agricultural income were submitted before Id. AO. Ld. AO did not bring any iota of evidence to disprove the evidences or contention of the assessee. 2.17 The assessee had submitted Fard Girdhawri to support cultivation of agricultural produce. The said fact is undisputed. 2.18 Entire addition is based on the cash flow statement, which was incorrect, already mentioned by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by Id. AO deserves to be deleted. 2.19 Attention is drawn towards similar judgment of co-ordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Sandeep Kaur Vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), I.T.A. No. 157/Asr/2022 [CLCJ wherein it was held that the assessee was an agriculturist and explanations submitted by him were held plausible and backed by evidence. Relevant portion is as under: Related to deposit of agricultural income, the assessee in both the stages submitted the Khasra Girdawari and copy of Jamabandi of aghcultural land which are annexed in the APB in page No. 9 to 16 and 17 to 19. Related Rs. 4,91,000/- was withdrawn on 17.07.2015 and Rs. 2,25,000/- was withdrawn on 28.04.2016 from Bank of India. The copy of the bank statement also attached in page No. 2 to 6 of APB. The assessee had also taken the gold loan and reflected in the bank account, also annexed in page No. 7 to 8 of APB. So, the 10 ITA No. 291/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO entire amount was duly explained at source for depositing the cash in the bank account. 2.20. Attention is drawn towards similar judgment of co-ordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Gurmeet Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) I.T.A. Nos. 147 and 148/Asr/2023 wherein it was held that the assessee was an agriculturist and from rural background. He submitted relevant evidences which were not appreciated by the lower authorities. Relevant portion is as under: “CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case and written submission filed on record to establish that the learned AO has erred in law and on facts by making an addition of Rs. 16,83,000/ as unexplained income of the assessee and that as per explanation and material placed on record, the assessee appellant has duly explained the source as agricultural income of the family and the assessee and that except the agricultural income they had no other source of income. 2.21 Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in the case of Shri Hukum Singh Shekhawat, in ITA no. 264/JP/2024, vide order dated 15,05.2024 held that, if in case assessee owns huge agricultural land, then it would be reasonable to presume that the assessee is having agriculture income. 2.22. In the present case, also cash deposits are out of the agricultural income which is declared in the return of income filed by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made to the income of the assessee is illegal and unjustified. In view of the above, application of Section 69A by the Id. AO for addition Rs. 10,45,000 by the assessee, is illegal and deserves to be quashed. GROUND NO 2: PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE INVOKED ON ADDITION OF RS 10,45,000 1. ASSESSING OFFICER AND Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of section 115BBE on cash deposit of Rs 10,45,000 of the assessee. The same has been upheld by Id. CIT(A)/NFAC. 11 ITA No. 291/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO 2. SUBMISSIONS 2.1. The provisions of section 115BBE cannot be invoked for any and every addition made to the returned income. 2.2. In the instant case, cash deposits to the tune of Rs 10,45,000 are added to the total income of the assessee. The same are duly explained. 2.3. Sections 68 and 69A create certain deeming fictions, whereby certain amounts which are not considered as income by the assessee, are deemed to be income of the assessee. A deeming fiction of income cannot apply to an item which is already treated as income by the assessee himself. The question of deeming an item to be income can only arise if the item is not otherwise disclosed as income. 2.4. Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Keshav Social and Charitable Foundation (2005) 278 ITR 152, considered a situation where the assessee, a charitable trust, had disclosed donations received by it as its income, and claimed exemption u/s. 11. The Assessing Officer, on finding that the assessee was unable to satisfactorily explain the donations and the donors were fictitious persons, held that the assessee had tried to introduce unaccounted money in its books by way of donations and, therefore, the amount was to be treated as cash credit u/s. 68. The Delhi High Court held that section 68 did not apply, as the assessee had disclosed such donations as its income. In view of the above, application of section 115BBE by the ld. AO, to the amount of Rs.10,45,000/- is illegal and deserves to be quashed. Hence, on such amount, there cannot be any applicability of section 115BBE.” 6. Per contra, the Ld. Addl. CIT(DR) relied on the impugned order. However, he failed to rebut the contentions of the Ld. AR regarding agricultural income and documentary evidence filed before the authorities below in explaining the source of cash deposit during the demonetization period. 12 ITA No. 291/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO 7. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record, written submissions, and the impugned order. Admittedly, the appellant assessee was not required to file return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as he has been deriving income from agricultural activities only and the same is exempt from tax. During demonetization period, from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 10,45,000 in his bank account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Account Number 02755115001622. The said cash deposits are out of the agricultural income earned by the assessee. A chart of cash deposit made by the appellant for the three financial years including Demonetization Period reproduced as under: Year of Deposit Amount in Rs 2014 10,48,500 2015 10,43,000 2016 10,45,000 8. From the above, it is evident that the deposit of cash in the bank statement was s a regular feature of the assessee. However, for the relevant year, the cash deposit was questioned due to the sudden announcement of demonetization scheme and the said cash exceeded the limit of 10 Lacs. The Ld. AR argued that the assessee has availed KCC loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce. The said loan was availed at an interest rate of 7% per 13 ITA No. 291/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO annum by the assessee. The AR further contended that the aforementioned loan of the assessee was covered under Interest Subvention Scheme initiated by Reserve Bank of India for farmers. In the said scheme, a subvention of 2% per annum is available to public sector bank for short term crop loan. If the farmer is a prompt payee, then such benefit is granted to such farmer. 9. In the present case, it is found that the assessee, in order to avail the benefit of a 2% interest credit, deposited cash in his bank account to ensure prompt loan repayments. It is noted that the appellant has specifically made the aforesaid cash deposits in the months of April and November, which would come after the crop seasons of Rabi and Kharif respectively as evident from the above table. The necessary documentary evidence in the form of Certificate in this regard was also obtained by the appellant from bank and the same was placed before Id. CIT-(A). 10. Thus, the assessee has, followed a practice of withdrawing cash and deposits for preparation for the next crop season. This approach involves utilizing the funds from regular cash deposits to finance essential agricultural operations. By adopting this method, the assessee effectively rotates the available credit, ensuring that sufficient liquidity is maintained to meet the demands of each crop cycle. This also helps the assessee to take benefit of 14 ITA No. 291/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO interest of 2% under the Interest Sub invention Scheme. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the submissions made by the assessee in a correct perspective that the assessee has a consistent history of making cash deposits over the years, which is reflected from the bank statements of the assessee. Details of deposits made by the assessee in previous years are placed at APB, Pg. 26; that the assessee owns 17 acres of land, and even if the valuation is conservatively estimated at a rate of Rs. 78,000 per acre, the total value of the land would still generate substantial income; that the documentary evidences were placed before Id. AO in order to prove that the assessee has earned agricultural income [APB, Pg. 27]; that every deposit during the period of demonetization would not fall under the category of unaccounted cash. The source has been duly explained by the assessee and relevant evidences were also filed before Id. AO and that the cash flow statement prepared by the tax professional who was engaged by the assessee was not aware of the entire facts of the case [PB 28]. 11. Ld. AO made addition solely based on old cash statement furnished by the assessee. The assessee had engaged a professional to represent him during the course of assessment proceedings. The cash flow submitted in response to notice u/s 142(1) was prepared by the professional and the same cannot be relied upon as he was unaware of the entire facts of the case. The 15 ITA No. 291/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO said fact is undisputed. The same can be verified from Page-10 of the order of Id. CIT-(A). It is important to note that the assessee since inception of assessment proceeding, made it clear that he is not liable to income tax and has therefore not maintained books of accounts. The assessee submitted copies of agricultural produce from Arhtiya as evidence in support of his agricultural income. The said fact is not in dispute [APB, Pgs. 15-20]. 12. From the record, it is established that the evidences submitted by the assessee in order to substantiate the claim of agricultural income were submitted before Id. AO. The AO failed to controvert the appellant’s claim of Agricultural income by way of bringing any iota of evidence to disprove the evidence or contention of the assessee regarding Farm Girdhawri and Farm ‘J’ filed to support cultivation of agricultural produce. In view of that matter, in our view the entire addition was being based on the incorrect cash flow statement filed by previous counsel, ignoring the corroborative documentary evidence filed before the AO in respect of the source of cash deposit during demonetization period, such as Farm girdawary, Form-J, Bank statement, revised cash flow statement, bill/vouchers of Agricuture sale produce etc already mentioned as above cannot be justified, as the entire amount stands duly explained as the agricultural income being source for the deposit of the cash in the bank account during 16 ITA No. 291/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO the demonetization period. This view gets support from the judgment delivered by the Coordinate Bench in the cases of Sandeep Kaur Vs. ITO (Supra), and Gurmeet Singh Vs. ITO (Supra). The ITAT Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in the case of Shri Hukum Singh Shekhawat, (Supra) held that, if in case assessee owns huge agricultural land, then it would be reasonable to presume that the assessee is having agriculture income. 13. In the present case, the appellant assessee has apparently made cash deposits in the Bank A/c during the demonetization period out of the agricultural income being duly supported with corroborative documentary evidence on record before the department. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of the ld. AO for the limited purpose to verify the source of cash deposits during the demonetization period with reference to the cash flow statement and corroborative documentary evidences filed on record such as Farm Girdhawari and Farm-J, agriculture produce receipts from Arhtiya etc. 14. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the ld. AO to examine and verify the issue with reference to the cash flow statement as discussed above after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 17 ITA No. 291/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open as on 16/10/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Udayan Dasgupta) (Dr. Mitha Lal Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order "