Kavuluru Lakshmi Narayana, Vijayawada v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), , Vijayawada

ITA 464/VIZ/2019 | 2014-2015
Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 46425314 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AAJHK5298R
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 464/VIZ/2019
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant Kavuluru Lakshmi Narayana, Vijayawada
Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), , Vijayawada
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 26-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 21-10-2019
First Hearing Date 21-10-2019
Assessment Year 2014-2015
Appeal Filed On 02-07-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM . . BEFORE SHRI N.K.CHOUDHRY HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T. A.NO. 464 /VIZ/20 19 ( / A SSESSMENT Y EAR : 20 1 4 - 1 5 ) SRI K.LAKSHMI NARAYANA D.NO.40 - 7 - 10A DONKA ROAD MOGALRAJPURAM VIJAYAWADA [PAN : A A JHK5298R ] VS . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2) VIJAYAWADA ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.SUBRAHMANYAM AR / RESPONDENT BY : S MT.SUMAN MALIK D R / DATE OF HEARING : 1 0 . 0 3 .202 1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 .03 . 202 1 / O R D E R P ER D.S.SUNDER SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : CONDONATION OF DELAY : TH IS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] - 2 GUNTUR IN ITA NO.372/GNT/CIT(A) - 2/2016 - 17 DATED19.03.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.)2014 - 15 WITH THE DELAY OF 36 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY STATING T HAT THE DELAY WAS DUE TO THE SICKNESS OF 2 I.T.A. NO . 464 /VIZ/20 19 A.Y. 20 1 4 - 1 5 KAVULURI LAKSHMI NARAYANA . VIJAYAWADA AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND SINCE THE DELAY WAS DUE TO ILLNESS OF THE LD.A.R AND HAVING NO MALAFIDE INTENTION WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL : 1 . IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.5 00 000/ - THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN FACTS AND LAW IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE FAMILY MEMBER'S AGRICULTURAL INCOMES WERE DEPOSITED IN TO THE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AS HE IS LOOKING AFTER THOSE AFFAIRS. 2 . IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.30 75 000/ - THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS).HAS ERRED BOTH IN FACTS AND LAW IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND THE PAYEE OF THE AMOUNTS THOUGH THE PAYER OF AMOUNT HAS CONFIRMED THE PAYMENT MADE TO ASSESSEE ON 28.12.2013. 3 . IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.6 75 000/ - THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN S USTAINING THE ADDITION BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND THE PAYEE OF THE AMOUNTS THOUGH THE PAYER OF AMOUNT HAS CONFIRMED THE PAYMENT MADE TO ASSESSEE ON 13.01.2014. 4 . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.30 75 000/ - (AS SPECIFIED IN GROUND NO.2) & RS. 6 75 000/ - (AS SPECIFIED IN GROUND NO.4) BY HOLDING THAT THE CORRECTION TO THE ORIGINAL SALE DEED IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CLAIMING AN ERROR IN THE ORIGINAL SALE DEED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND APPEAL PROCEEDINGS 5 . ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3 I.T.A. NO . 464 /VIZ/20 19 A.Y. 20 1 4 - 1 5 KAVULURI LAKSHMI NARAYANA . VIJAYAWADA 6 . IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONS MAY BE DELETED AND RELIEF BE GRANTED. 2.1. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING THE LD.AR HAS RAISED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AS FOLLOWS AND FILED PETITION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMMITTED ERROR IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION PERTAINING TO ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT IN AS MUCH AS SEC.68 HAS LIMITED SCOPE AND APPLIES TO CASES RELATING TO UNEXPLAINED CASH - CREDITS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 3. GROUND NO.5 AND 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 4. GROUN D NO.1 IS RELATED TO THE ADDITION OF RS.5 00 000/ - SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A). BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) FOUND THAT THERE WAS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.5 00 000/ - ON 13.07.2013 IN THE ASSESSEE S BANK ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA. THE AO REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS AND THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF MANGO GARDEN OF 16 ACRES BELONGING TO THE A SSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED PATTADAR PASSBOOKS AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH FAMILY MEMBERS OWNED 4 I.T.A. NO . 464 /VIZ/20 19 A.Y. 20 1 4 - 1 5 KAVULURI LAKSHMI NARAYANA . VIJAYAWADA MORE THAN 16 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND . THE A SSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED TO AO THAT THE ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE LOOKED AFTER BY HIM AND FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF LAND AS UNDER : VILLAGE PATTADAR PASS BOOK NO. NAME OF THE LAND HOLDER SRI / MS. EXTENT ACRES BORAVANCHA NUZVIDU 359040 K.VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY 3.32 BORAVANCHA NUZVIDU 359041 K.LAKSHMINARAYANA 3.52 BORAVANCHA NUZVIDU 359042 T.JANAKI 2.06 BORAVANCHA NUZVIDU 359043 K.RAHDA KRISHNA MURTHY 2.81 BORAVANCHA NUZVIDU 359070 K.SUBBA LAKSHMI 3.45 15.16 ELAPROLU IBRAHIMPATNAM 500631 K.LAKSHMI NARAYANA 1.53 ELAPROLU IBRAHIMPATNAM 500632 K.VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY 1.75 3.28 4.1. THE AO DID NOT BELIEVE THE SOURCES OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AND VIEWED THAT THOUGH THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED ON 13.07.2013 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TRANSFERRED BACK THE AMOUNTS TO THE RESPECTIVE FAMILY MEMBERS. THEREFORE THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE ENTIRE CASH 5 I.T.A. NO . 464 /VIZ/20 19 A.Y. 20 1 4 - 1 5 KAVULURI LAKSHMI NARAYANA . VIJAYAWADA DEPOSIT AS UNEXPLAI NED CREDIT AND ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT TO TAX U/S 68 R.W.S. 115BBE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT ACT). 5. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 6. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH FAMILY MEMBERS OWNED 16 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHERE IN THE MANGO GARDEN WAS GROWN. THE SALE PROCEED S OF MANGO CROP WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS ARE JOINT FAMILY AND THE ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE LOOKED AFTER BY HIM. A S AND WHEN THE SALE PROCEEDS ARE RECEIVED THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITS THE SALE PROCEE DS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND MEET THE EXPENDITURE. THE AO ALSO DID NOT SUSPECT THE AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS FROM MANGO GARDEN BUT MERELY WITH A SUSPICION THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT DEPOSIT THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS IN HIS ACCOUNT AND BECAUSE OF REASON THAT THE AS SESSEE DID NOT TRANSFER THE SALE PROCEEDS TO THE RESPECTIVE FAMILY MEMBERS ACCOUNTS MADE THE ADDITION WHICH IS ON ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION OF THE AO. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE TAKES CARE OF THE ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS OF THE FA MILY MEMBERS IN JOINT FAMILY THERE IS NO REASON TO 6 I.T.A. NO . 464 /VIZ/20 19 A.Y. 20 1 4 - 1 5 KAVULURI LAKSHMI NARAYANA . VIJAYAWADA SUSPECT THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT. THE LD.AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE FAMILY MEMBERS IN SPITE OF FURNISHING THE DETAILS. THEREFORE WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FAMILY MEMBERS SUSP ECTING THE DEPOSIT OF SALE PROCEEDS IN HIS ACCOUNT AND TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IS UNJUSTIFIED HENCE REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE ADDITION. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD.DR RELIED ON THE OR DERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LOOKING AFTER THE ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND MANAGING THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WHICH WAS NOT DI SPUTED BY THE AO. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS FAMILY MEMBERS OWN MORE THAN 16 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHERE THE MANGO CROP WAS GROWN . THE AO ALSO DID NOT DISPUTE THAT 16 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND YIELD THE CROP WORTH RS.5 0 0 000/ - . THE AO DID NOT EXAMINE THE FAMILY MEMBERS WITH REGARD TO DEPOSIT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF MANGO GARDEN IN HIS ACCOUNT THOUGH ASSESSEE HA D FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF LAND OWNED ALONG WITH PATTADAR PASSBOOKS COPIES OF WHICH ARE FURNISHED IN PAGE NO.3 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE 7 I.T.A. NO . 464 /VIZ/20 19 A.Y. 20 1 4 - 1 5 KAVULURI LAKSHMI NARAYANA . VIJAYAWADA HA D EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS OF CASH AND THE AO DID NOT DISCHARGE THE BURDEN BY EXAMINING THE FAMILY MEMBERS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE LOOKS AFTER THE ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WHICH IS COMMON IN JOINT F AMILIES WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO SUSPECT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SAME STANDS EXPLAINED HENCE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THIS GROUN D IS ALLOWED. 9. GROUND NO.2 AND 3 ARE RELATED TO THE ADDITION OF RS.30 75 000/ - AND RS.6 75 000/ - AGGREGATING TO RS.37 50 000/ - DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE SUM OF RS.30 75 000/ - IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 28.12.2013 AND RS. 6 75 000/ - ON 13.01.2014. WHEN THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE LAND ADMEASURING 235.55 SQ.YDS WHICH WAS ALSO OFFERED FOR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS . THE AO EXAMINED THE SALE DEED AND FOUND THAT THERE WAS A MISMATCH OF DATES OF PAYMENT AND DATES OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS PER THE SALE DEED . THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE SUM OF RS.30 75 000/ - ON 26.12.2013 WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ON 28.12.2013. THE AO EXAMINED THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE VENDOR AND FOUND THAT THERE WERE WITHDRAWALS IN THE 8 I.T.A. NO . 464 /VIZ/20 19 A.Y. 20 1 4 - 1 5 KAVULURI LAKSHMI NARAYANA . VIJAYAWADA BANK ACCOUNT FROM 26.06.2013 RANGING FROM RS.1 00 000/ - TO RS. 1 5 00 000/ - AS UNDER : DATE SELF CASH WITHDRAWAL RS. 26.6.2013 9 00 000 4.7.2013 3 28 000 18.7.2013 1 20 000 22.7.2013 4 00 000 23.7.2013 9 60 000 14.9.2013 1 00 000 26.11.2013 1 00 000 27.11.2013 5 00 000 26.12.2013 15 00 000 SINCE THE VENDOR HAD WITHDRAWN THE SUMS IN SMALL AMOUNTS AND NO SOURCE TO MAKE PAYMENT OF RS.30 75 000/ - ON 26.12.2013 THE AO DISBELIEVED THE RECEIPT OF ADVANCE ON 26.12.2013 AND HENCE MADE THE ADDITION. 9.1. SIMILARLY THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.6 75 000/ - DEPOSITED ON 13/01/2014 WHICH WAS ALSO MISMATCHED WITH THE SALE DEED. ACCORDING TO THE AO SINCE THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED ON 01/02/2014 AND THERE WAS A MENTION IN THE SALE DEED REGARDING THE PAYMENT AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE 9 I.T.A. NO . 464 /VIZ/20 19 A.Y. 20 1 4 - 1 5 KAVULURI LAKSHMI NARAYANA . VIJAYAWADA D ATE OF REGISTRATION WAS FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES AND HENCE BROUGHT TO TAX U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 10. THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND FILED CONFIRMATION FROM THE VENDOR AS WELL AS RECTIFI CATION DEED WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THE AO BY THE LD .CIT(A) FOR HIS COMMENTS. THE AO SUBMITTED REMAND REPORT STATING THAT IT WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. THE LD.CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE AO AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 11. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SOLD THE LAND SITUATED AT SURVEY NO.172/2B PLOT NO.37 PART PATAMATA VIJAYAWADA TO SHRI CH.RAMANA BABU WHO IS RESIDING IN USA FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.49 47 000/ - AND RECEIVED THE ADVANCE OF RS.30 75 000/ - ON 26.12.2013 AND RS.6 75 000/ - ON 01.01.2014 AND THE SAID LAND WAS REGISTERED ON 01.02.2014. THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED WITH REGARD TO MENTION OF DATES WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECTIFIED BY CORRIGENDUM ON 23.02.2018 WITH CORRECT DATES OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION LETTER SALE DEED AND CORRECTION DEED FROM THE VENDOR AND ALSO ADMITTED CAPITAL GAINS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME MISTAKE IN THE SALE DEED WHICH WAS LATER RECTIFIED THE SAME CANNOT BE 10 I.T.A. NO . 464 /VIZ/20 19 A.Y. 20 1 4 - 1 5 KAVULURI LAKSHMI NARAYANA . VIJAYAWADA TREATED AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND PUT THE ASSESSEE IN DISADVANTAGE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE EVIDENCES WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPOSITS AND THE SOURCES THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED SOURCES HENCE REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.30 75 000/ - AND RS.6 75 000/ - AGGREGATING TO RS.37 50 000/ - WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT A S ADDITION U/S 68 R.W.S.115BBE OF THE ACT. THE AO FOUND MISMATCH OF DATES MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED AND WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE VENDOR FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND DISBELIEVED THE PAYMENT TO THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION. IN THE INSTANT CAS E THE VENDOR HAS CONFIRMED THE PAYMENT OF RS.37 50 000/ - ON VARIOUS DATES AND ALSO FILED RECTIFICATION DEED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE AO AND THE LD.CIT(A) WERE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. HOWEVER THE RECTIFICATION DEED WAS REGISTERED BEFO RE THE SRO WHICH IS A VALID PIECE OF EVIDENCE. THE AO LANDED IN A WRONG CONFUSION 11 I.T.A. NO . 464 /VIZ/20 19 A.Y. 20 1 4 - 1 5 KAVULURI LAKSHMI NARAYANA . VIJAYAWADA WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE RECTIFICATION DEED. IN THE RECTIFIED DEED THE VENDOR HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT A SUM OF RS.30 75 000/ - WAS PAID ON 26.12.2013 AND RS.6 75 000/ - WAS PAID ON 13.1.2014 AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS PAID ON DATE OF REGISTRATION. THE TOTAL SUM PAID BY THE VENDOR TO THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.49 47 000/ - FOR SALE OF LAND . THE AO DID NOT EXAMINE THE VENDOR AND MADE THE ADDITION BRUSHING ASIDE THE EXPLANATION OFFER ED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION FOR CAPITAL GAINS AND PAID THE TAXES AND FURNISHED THE EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT BY CONFIRMATION AS WELL AS RECTIFICATION DEED WE FIND NO REASON TO DISBE LIEVE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A SUM OF RS.30 75 000/ - WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE ON 26.12.2013 AND RS.6 75 000/ - WAS PAID ON 01.01.2014. IN THE INSTANT CASE THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS BURDEN THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ENQUIRY AND BRING EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED LEGAL GROUND WITH REGARD TO MAKING THE ADDITION U/S 68 AS INVALID. SINCE WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE 12 I.T.A. NO . 464 /VIZ/20 19 A.Y. 20 1 4 - 1 5 KAVULURI LAKSHMI NARAYANA . VIJAYAWADA AO AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS WE CONSIDER IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE THIS GROUND. 15 . IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDE R PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH MARCH 2021. SD/ - SD/ - ( ) ( . . ) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) (D.S.SUNDER SINGH) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 26 .03. 2021 L.RAMA SPS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1 . / THE ASSESSEE SRI K.LAKSHMI NARAYANA D.NO.40 - 7 - 10A DONKA ROAD MOGALRAJPURAM VIJAYAWADA 2 . / THE REVENUE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2) VIJAYAWADA 3. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWADA 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2 GUNTUR 5 . / DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM