TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1019
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2017-18; ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1053147015(1), dated 24/05/2023 for the AY 2018-19; ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1053147822(1), dated 24/5/2023 for the AY 2019-20 arising out of the orders passed u/s. 153A r.w.s 143(3) and ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1053278674(1), dated 29/05/2023 for the AY 2020-21 arising out of the order passed u/s. 143(3)) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. Since the core issues as well as most of the grounds raised by the assessee in all these appeals are identical, therefore for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed off in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs of this order. 2. Firstly, we shall take up the ITA No. 172/Viz/2023 (AY 2012-13) as lead appeal as the outcome of this appeal will have the same bearing on the other appeals of the assessee as the core issues involved in the other appeals are identical to that of the issues raised by the assessee in its appeal for the AY 2012-13. ITA No. 172/Viz/2023 (AY: 2012-13) 3. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Visakhapatnam dated 23/05/2023 arising out of the order pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bad in law. The assessee's Representative made various submissions before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT (A) considering the submissions made by the assessee, confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO. Further, with respect to the time limit prescribed u/s. 153B of the Act, the assessee made various submissions before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Assessee's Representative in his written submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) stated that the search was commenced on 28/1/2020 and closed on 31/1/2020 as temporarily concluded. The Ld. AR also submitted that the Prohibitory Order (PO) was placed on certain loose sheets placed in the wooden almirah by passing the order u/s. 132(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the Prohibitory Order was lifted on 6/8/2020 by drawing another Panchnama on 6/8/2020 which revealed that the proceedings were closed without seizure of any documents, including the loose sheets placed in wooden almirah. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that since no seizure was made on 6/8/2020, it is not a valid Panchnama and accordingly the limitation period for passing of the assessment order commences from the date of the original Panchnama dated 31/1/2020. In support of his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prohibitory order passed u/s. 132(3) on 31/1/2020 without recording proper reasons / satisfaction with regard to the existence of the circumstances prescribed in section is invalid in law. (b) The prohibitory order u/s. 132(3) was lifted beyond 60 days which is against the provisions of section 132(8A) and consequently, the Panchnama drawn on 6/8/2020 for lifting the same has no recognition in law. (c) The prohibitory order u/s. 132(3) was not lifted within 30 days as mandated in the beneficial CBDT Circular which is binding on the field authorities as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequently, the Panchnama drawn on 6/8/2020 for lifting the said order has no recognition in law. (d) There was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020 and such a Panchnama drawn without any seizure does not represent a cvalidPanchnama for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. (e) The prohibitory order passed u/s. 132(3) on 31/1/2020 is invalid in law as the documents placed under restraint by the said prohibitory order have not culminated into any undisclosed income in the assessment order. 5. On the facts and circumstan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Book-4, wherein an order u/s. 132(3) was placed and stated that only certain loose sheets and documents are kept in the Wooden Almirah on which Prohibitory Order is placed, located at the business premises of the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that as per section 132(3) of the Act, wherein it is not practicable to seize the materials can only be placed under Prohibitory Order. The Ld. AR further submitted that the search team identified only certain loose sheets which are not impracticable to seize on the date of search. Further, the Ld. AR also while referring to the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020 placed in Page-20 of Paper Book-4, referred to Sl.No.5 of the Panchnama wherein it was stated that no document was found and seized. The Ld. AR therefore vehemently argued that since there are no seizures on the date of Panchnama, ie., on 6/8/2020, it cannot be considered as a valid Panchnama for the purpose of limitation prescribed u/s. 153B of the Act. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the original Panchnama should only be considered for the purpose of limitation and accordingly the assessment order should have been passed on or before 30/09/2021, being the extended period, wherea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the period of one month. The Ld. AR in support of his argument heavily relied on the following case laws: (i) CIT vs. Punalur Paper Mills Ltd [1987] 34 Taxman 268 (Kerala HC) (ii) Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP). 10. Countering the arguments of the Ld. AR, the Ld. DR submitted that the Board Circular referred to by the Ld. AR is not a Circular but it is only a Board Instruction issued for administrative convenience. The Ld. DR further submitted that the case laws relied on by the Ld. AR refers only about the Circular and not about the Instruction. 11. With respect to Ground No.4(c) of the Grounds of Appeal, wherein it was contended by Ld AR that the Prohibitory Order u/s. 132(3) was not lifted within 30 days as mandated in the CBDT Circular and therefore as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. White & White Mineral (P.) Ltd, the Panchnama drawn on 6/8/2020 for lifting the said PO has no recognition in the eyes of law.The Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: (i) The ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oden Almirah at D.No. 8-24-31, Mangalagiri Road, Guntur, the premises of the assessee. The order u/s. 132(3) was passed stating that certain loose sheets were placed in the Wooden Almirah. A copy of the order u/s. 132(3) of the Act is placed before us in Page-10 of Paper Book-4. Subsequently, the Prohibitory Order was released on 6/8/2020 by drawing another Panchnama. The copy of the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020 is placed in the Paper Book, Page-20. On perusal of the Panchnama, we find that no books of account and documents were seized on 6/8/2020. It is also stated that the search commenced on 6/8/2020 on 11.00 AM and closed on 6/8/2020 at 02.00 PM. Further, we also find from the Panchnama where the parties offered for their personal search before the commencement of the search, was declined by the search party. Therefore, effectively no search was conducted on 6/8/2020 as per the Panchnama, dated 6/8/2020. In the absence of any seizure on 6/8/2020 by the search party it can only be considered for the purpose of removal of the restraint order and not as continuation of the search proceedings under the same authorization. For the sake of brevity we extract below section 132(3) of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd, in fact, no further search was conducted after 17-11-2000. Obviously, nothing else could be found. All that was done on 3-1-2001, in the presence of the witnesses (Panchs), was that the seals were removed from the cash box and the almirah and the keys were handed back to the assessee. Essentially, the revocation of the restraint order was given effect to. This is exactly what the Tribunal found as a fact and meant when it concluded that the Panchnama dated 3-1-2001 was merely a release order and could not extend the period of limitation." 18. Further, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Dr. C. Balarishnan Nair vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [1999] 103 Taxmann 242 (Ker.) held as follows: "As per Panchnama, seven items, books of account and other valuable articles were seized. These articles which were available on 27-10-1995 were put in an almirah and sealed since scrutiny could not be completed during the search and investigation and a prohibitory order under section 132 was served on the petitioners. Section 132(3) empowers the authorised officer to pass an order on the owner that he shall not remove, part with or otherwise deal with the articl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). The position has become much more clear after the insertion of the Explanation to section 132(3) effective from 1-7-1995, that a restraint order does not amount to seizure. Therefore, by passing a restraint order, the time-limit available for framing of the order cannot be extended. As regards the order passed on 13-12- 1996, the officer concerned, on his own admission, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid." 21. Respectfully following the above judicial pronouncements, we are of the considered view that the Prohibitory Order passed by the search party u/s. 132(3) by placing certain loose sheets cannot be considered as impracticable for seizure which requires a restraint order u/s. 132(3) of the Act. Hence, the period of limitation for the purpose of passing the assessment order commences from 31/1/2020 and should have been completed on or before 31/3/2021 whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Board are in the nature of administrative relief. They really 'supplant' the law. The circular can afford administrative relief, even beyond the relevant terms of the statute. It can deviate from the provisions of the Act. The Courts have held that such circulars are binding on the officers of the department. It is not open to the department to contend, even in cases where the circular goes beyond the terms of the section, that the circular has no legal effect or should not be given effect to. The circulars would go to the assistance of the assessees. It is settled law that the circulars cannot impose any burden on the taxpayer. But, by the issue of a circular, the rigour of the law can be relaxed by giving administrative relief. Apart from the fact that such circulars are binding on the officers of the department, even if the circulars are relied on for the first time in the High Court during the course of hearing, the assessee will be entitled to the benefit afforded by the circulars. The Court is bound to take note of the circular. These propositions are well settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts............" 24. Further, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er it considers just by relaxing the rigour of the law by issuing instructions in terms of section 119 of the Act. This judgment leaves no room to doubt that the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax authorities could have not selected the case for detailed scrutiny in view of the circular issued by the Board........." 26 In the instant case, the PO was released on 06/8/2020, which is beyond period of 30 days. The search party has therefore not followed the CBDT instruction dated 3/7/2002 even though it is binding on the department. We, therefore, respectfully following the judicial pronouncements, find force in the argument of the Ld. AR that even though section 132(8A) grants a time limit of 60 days for removing the restraint order, the limit specified by the CBDT, Instruction dated 3/7/2002 for a period of one month is binding on the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Accordingly, in the instant case, the period of limitation for removal of Prohibitory Order expires on 1/3/2020. The argument of the Ld. DR that it is only an Instruction and not a Circular could not be accepted due to the fact that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court have categorically held that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the search but not actually finding anything new for being seized cannot give rise to a second Panchnama. In such event, there would be no occasion to draw up a Panchnama at all. In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the second visit by the search party to the Ashok Vihar premises on 15th May, 2007 did not result in anything new being found that belonged to any of the searched parties. The second visit and the Panchnama drawn up on that date cannot lead to postponement of the period for completion of assessment with reference to Section 153B (2) (a) of the Act." 30. Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P.) Ltd reported in [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi) in para 6 of its order by relying on the decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Katyal [2009] 308 ITR 168 which is as follows: "5. In CIT v. S.K. Katyal[2009] 308 ITR 168 a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- "17. This discussion leads us to the question - Was the Panchnama of 3-1-2001, of the type mentioned in the said Explanation 2(a)? From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the Pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h on 31-10-2000 and the purported last search on 23-12-2000 is approximately 53 days. There is no explanation whatsoever with regard to this period between the two intervening dates. In fact, the revocation order does give an indication that the prohibitory order was passed merely for continuing the search possibly for the purposes of extending the limitation. The Tribunal has come to a conclusion of fact that the second purported search on 23-12-2000 was not a search at all and all that was required to be searched and seized had been concluded on 31-10-2000 itself. In fact, there is no explanation forthcoming from the revenue as to what transpired from 31-10-2000 to 23-12-2000 so as to enable us to take a different view than what the Tribunal has taken. In these circumstances we feel that the ratio of this Court in Sarb Consulate Marine Products (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) squarely applies to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case. The Tribunal has followed the said decision and we find that there is no error in the Tribunal's order. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. These appeals are dismissed." 32. Further, the Hon'ble Bombay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- Thereupon, another Panchnama dated 3-1-2003 was prepared; however, there was nothing on record showing that said Panchnama was prepared with intention to extend timelimit - Whether, in view of above, it was to be concluded that Panchnama dated 3-1-2003 did not extend timelimit for revenue authorities to pass an order of block assessment - Held, yes" 34. Against the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. White & White Mineral (P.) Ltd., (supra), the Revenue preferred an appeal vide SLP(C) No. 4356 of 2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP preferred by the Revenue by observing as under: "Mere revocation of prohibitory order whether relevant for reckoning limitation 1-2-2010 : Their Lordships S. H. KAPADIA and SWATANTER KUMAR JJ. dismissed the Department's special leave petition against the judgment dated May 15, 2009 of the Rajasthan High Court in ITA No. 25 of 2009, whereby it held that after revoking the prohibitory order dated December 21, 2002, there was nothing to show that any fresh prohibitory order was passed and the Panchnama dated December 21, 2002 did not show that the search r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e block assessment proceedings. It is evident from the said reasoning given by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court that they have given due consideration to the crucial aspect of completion of collection of all the relevant material during the course of search (by way of seizure) as the decisive factor for considering the date of last Panchnama drawn (irrespective of whether it relates to the last authorisation or otherwise) as the relevant date for reckoning the starting point of limitation for completion of search assessments. This reasoning followed by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court in rendering their decisions in the case of Anil Minda implicitly affirms the reasoning followed by various High Courts in rendering the decision that the last Panchnama which does not involve seizure does not qualify to be considered as the last Panchnama for the purpose of determining the limitation of time for completion of search assessments. It is therefore submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Anil Minda does not overrule the said decisions of various High Courts relied upon by the appellant in this written submission but actually renders support....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t order passed u/s. 132(3) of the Act and it could not be regarded as a Panchnama for the purpose of computation of limitation u/s. 153B of the Act. In the present case on hand, admittedly there is no search or seizure on 6/8/2020. The Panchnama was drawn only for the purpose of cancellation of restraint order passed u/s. 132(3). Therefore, it cannot be considered as a last Panchnama drawn for conclusion of search in the absence of any material on the said date and the Panchnama which was drawn on 31/1/2020 itself is required to be considered as a last Panchnama as per the ratio laid down by various High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. White and White Mineral (P.) Ltd [SLP(C) No. 4356 of 2010] (supra).Therefore, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Assessment Order passed on 31/3/2022 by the Ld. Assessing Officer is a time barred assessment. The Assessing Officer ought to have been passed the assessment order or before 30/09/2021 whereas it was passed on 31/3/2022. Thus, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the Grounds No. 4(a) to 4(e) of the assessee's appeal for the AY 2012-13. 37. With respect ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o evidence in support of the claim of the Ld. CIT-DR that the same system was used by the assessee's Cashier. 39. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities on this issue as well as the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the Ld. CIT-DR. The CBDT has issued an Investigation Manual for the purpose of collecting Digital Evidence in the cases of search and seizure. In para 2.6.3 of the said Manual, the CBDT has advised that the procedure has to be in consonance with the provisions of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. For reference sake, we extract below the relevant para 2.6.3 of the Manual: "2.6.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence. By way of the THE SECOND SCHEDULE to the Information Technology Act Amendments to the Indian Evidence Act have been brought in so as to, incorporate reference to Electronic Records along with the document giving recognition to the electronic records as evidence. Further, special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or (d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly. (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, - (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer; (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer; (ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity; (iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and (iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity. 15. Under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied: (a) There must be a certificate which identifies the ele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others again for reference. 44. Now coming to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushan Rao Gorantyal And Ors reported in [2020] 7 SCC 1 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "30. Coming back to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, sub-section (1) needs to be analysed. The sub-section begins with a non-obstante clause, and then goes on to mention information contained in an electronic record produced by a computer, which is, by a deeming fiction, then made a "document". This deeming fiction only takes effect if the further conditions mentioned in the Section are satisfied in relation to both the information and the computer in question; and if such conditions are met, the "document" shall then be admissible in any proceedings. The words "...without further proof or production of the original..." make it clear that once the deeming fiction is given effect by the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in the Section, the "deemed document" now becomes admissible in evidence without further proof or production of the original as evidenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and scrupulously follow the conditions laid down under section 65B(2) and (4) of the Indian Evidence Act to render any documents to be valid in the eyes of law. In the instant case, the investigation agency obtained a Certificate about the details of the pen drive and the person in whose custody it was seized. Except these details nothing was there in the Certificate and also the said Certificate was not completely filled up by the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Further, from the Certificate obtained under Indian Evidence Act which is placed in Page-11 of Paper Book-2, we find force in the arguments of the Ld. AR that it is not as per the conditions laid down u/s. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. For the sake of reference, the Certificate is reproduced here in below: 46. After considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V vs. P.K. Basheer and Others (supra); Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushan Rao Gorantyal and Ors (supra) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Vetrivel Mineral vs. ACIT (supra) as well as on perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered we that the four conditions stipula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee vide Grounds No.2 & 3, based on our decision with respect to Grounds No. 4 & 5 of the assessee's appeal for the AY 2012-13, we have allowed the grounds in favour of the assessee and set-aside the assessment order and therefore, this ground raised by the assessee needs no separate adjudication. 52. Ground Nos. 5 and 6 raised by the assessee on merits and they are extracted herein below: "5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing deduction of expenditure towards purchases of tobacco as reflected in the seized material to the extent of 80% of such expenditure only instead of allowing the entire expenditure though the sales admitted in the books could not have been made without effecting such purchases and though the said sales have not been disputed by the Revenue. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing deduction towards the expenditure represented by the debit entries without narration in the seized material to the extent of 40% of such expenditure only without providing any justified for limiting the deduction to the said extent instead of allowing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has raised seven grounds of appeal. Grounds No. 1, 6 and 7 are general in nature and therefore, they need no separate adjudication. 57. Grounds No.2 and 3 raised by the assessee for the AY 2014-15 are legal grounds which are identical to the Grounds No.4 & 5 of the assessee's appeal for the AY 2012-13. Since the grounds and the issues raised by the assessee in its appeal for the AY 2014-15 vide Grounds No. 2 & 3 are identical to that of the Grounds No.4 & 5 of the assessee's appeal for the AY 2012-13, our decision given therein while adjudicating the Grounds No. 4 & 5 for the AY 2012-13 mutatis mutandis applies to the Grounds No. 2 & 3 for the AY 2014-15 also. Accordingly, these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 58. Grounds No. 4 & 5 raised by the assessee are identical to that of the Ground Nos. 5 and 6 of the assessee's appeal for the AY 2013-14. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are identical, our decision given therein applies mutatis mutandis to the Grounds No. 5 & 6 of the assessee's appeal also. Accordingly, these grounds need no separate adjudication as the legal grounds are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. 59. In the result, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee's appeal for the AY 2012-13, our decision given therein while adjudicating the Grounds No. 4 & 5 for the AY 2012-13 mutatis mutandis applies to the Grounds No. 2 & 3 for the AY 2016-17 also. Accordingly, these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 67. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee reads as under: "4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing deduction of expenditure towards purchases of tobacco as reflected in the seized material to the extent of 80% of such expenditure only instead of allowing the entire expenditure though the sales admitted in the books could not have been made without effecting such purchases and though the said sales have not been disputed by the Revenue." 68. This ground raised by the assessee is identical to that of the Ground No. 5 of the assessee's appeal for the AY 2013-14. Since the issue involved in both these appeals is identical, our decision given therein (AY 2013-14) applies mutatis mutandis to the Ground No. 4 of the this appeal (AY 2016-17) also. Accordingly, this ground needs no separate adjudication as the legal grounds are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. 69.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lved in both these appeals is identical, our decision given therein (AY 2013-14) applies mutatis mutandis to the Ground No. 4 of the this appeal (AY 2017-18) also. Accordingly, this ground needs no separate adjudication as the legal grounds are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. 76. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2017-18 is allowed. ITA No.178/Viz/2023 (AY: 2018-19) 77. In this appeal, the assessee has raised six grounds of appeal. Grounds No. 1, 5 & 6 are general in nature and therefore they need no separate adjudication. 78. Grounds No.2 and 3 raised by the assessee for the AY 2018-19 are legal grounds which are identical to the Grounds No.4 & 5 of the assessee's appeal for the AY 2012-13. Since the grounds and the issues raised by the assessee in its appeal for the AY 2018-19 vide Grounds No. 2 & 3 are identical to that of the Grounds No.4 & 5 of the assessee's appeal for the AY 2012-13, our decision given therein while adjudicating the Grounds No. 4 & 5 for the AY 2012-13 mutatis mutandis applies to the Grounds No. 2 & 3 for the AY 2018-19 also. Accordingly, these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 79. Ground No.4 raised by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al for the AY 2013-14. Since the issue involved in both these appeals is identical, our decision given therein (AY 2013-14) applies mutatis mutandis to the Ground No. 4 of the this appeal (AY 2019-20) also. Accordingly, this ground needs no separate adjudication as the legal grounds are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. 86. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2019-20 is allowed. ITA No. 180/Viz/2023 (AY: 2020-21) 87. In this appeal, the assessee has raised seven grounds of appeal. Grounds No. 1, 6 & 7 are general in nature and therefore they need no separate adjudication. 88. Grounds No.2 and 3 raised by the assessee for the AY 2020-21 are legal grounds which are identical to the Grounds No.4 & 5 of the assessee's appeal for the AY 2012-13. Since the grounds and the issues raised by the assessee in its appeal for the AY 2020-21 vide Grounds No. 2 & 3 are identical to that of the Grounds No.4 & 5 of the assessee's appeal for the AY 2012-13, our decision given therein while adjudicating the Grounds No. 4 & 5 for the AY 2012-13 mutatis mutandis applies to the Grounds No. 2 & 3 for the AY 2020-21 also. Accordingly, these grounds raised by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led by the assessee are allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 18th August, 2023. ============= Document 1 CERTIFICATE U/S 658 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT. 1872 ASR Name PAN NO.: Ots (Name)(PAN NO.: A IMPR6853N ) state the following that I am an employee/partner/director/proprietor of Messers, Polisetty Somasundaram after referred to as firm/company/LLP/AOP/Proprietary Firm) Located at Messers. Polisetty Somasundaram „no 8-24-31, Mangalagiri Road, Guntur 522001 (here after referred to as Premises). to 1 A GRIND (Name) state that by virtue of being employee/partner/director/ proprietor in firm/company/ LLP/AOP/Proprietary Firm, I and my employees uses the server/system/File-Folder/hard disk/pen drive/mobile/email Cashier HP Pendrive, s.no: FS 16G-K (here after referred to as System) located in the premises of Office at Located at Messers Polisetty Somasundaram no 8-24-31, Mangalagiri Road, Guntur 522001 firm/company/LLP /AOP /Proprietary Firm. Further, the server/system/File-Folder/hard disk/pen drive/mobile/email used by us in this premises was functioning normally all times and this server/system/hard disk/pan dr....