ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — July 2022

MALAXMI AGRI VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1214/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Jul 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic as it did not address the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication with a speaking order.

PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN,NARSAPUR vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 556/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs PUSA NANDA KUMAR, HYDERABAD

ITA 2267/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Jul 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without proper factual discussion and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment to consider the explanation of cash deposits and transfers.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs LAKSHMI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, HYDERABAD

ITA 2263/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed21 Jul 2022AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without proper factual discussion and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment to consider the explanation of cash deposits and transfers.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs LAKSHMI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, HYDERABAD

ITA 2262/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: Disposed21 Jul 2022AY 2007-08Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without proper factual discussion and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment to consider the explanation of cash deposits and transfers.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs LAKSHMI BUILDERS & COMPANY, HYDERABAD

ITA 2265/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Jul 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without proper factual discussion and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment to consider the explanation of cash deposits and transfers.

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 510/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed20 Jul 2022AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate specific grounds raised by the assessee concerning the validity of proceedings under Section 153C and the recording of satisfaction. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 511/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate specific grounds raised by the assessee concerning the validity of proceedings under Section 153C and the recording of satisfaction. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD vs SRINIVASA KUMAR SANKRANTHI, HYDERABAD

ITA 1800/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) decided the issue without proper verification and without calling for a remand report from the AO. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after affording opportunities to both parties and requiring the assessee to submit relevant documents.

PALADUGU PRABHAKAR, HYDERABAD,VIJAYAWADA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 509/HYD/2017[2004-05]Status: Disposed20 Jul 2022AY 2004-05Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate specific grounds raised by the assessee concerning the validity of proceedings under Section 153C and the recording of satisfaction. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

KISHORE KUMAR,NARSAPUR vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 553/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed20 Jul 2022AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest income from the firm was already offered in the return of income, making the addition a double taxation. Similarly, the share of profit from the firm was exempt under Section 10(2A). Therefore, the addition of both amounts was deleted.

KISHORE KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 554/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Jul 2022AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest income from the firm was already offered in the return of income, making the addition a double taxation. Similarly, the share of profit from the firm was exempt under Section 10(2A). Therefore, the addition of both amounts was deleted.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs MANDAVA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 2089/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For Section 14A, the AO is to consider amendments by the Finance Act, 2022. For Section 2(22)(e), the AO is to consider CBDT Circular No. 19/2017 and the facts on the date of advance.

SHIVAKUMAR BHUMAYYA,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 253/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that co-ordinate benches consistently view that no disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) can be made if payments are made before the due date of filing the return. Amendments by the Finance Act, 2021 were considered prospective.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs ASHOKA DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 207/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merit and did not comment on the incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 2(1), HYDERABAD vs GREENKO RAYALA WIND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 776/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding the CIT(A)'s approach pragmatic in benchmarking the transaction considering market lending rates and the assessee's credit rating. The Tribunal found the difference to be negligible, keeping the assessee out of the purview of adjustment.

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (4), HYDERABAD

ITA 146/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Pending19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 69 (unexplained investments) are considered deemed income and are eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act for charitable institutions. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs KAPIL CHITS (KOSTA) PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

ITA 726/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely based on cash book entries that were reversed on the same day and no cash was actually received. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition.

KATEPALLY VENKATA SUBRAMANYAM,KURNOOL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),WARD-1, KURNOOL

ITA 502/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable as there was no enabling provision at that time. Following various High Court and ITAT decisions, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A).

SHALIVAHANA GREEN ENERGY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 65/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal noted that Section 14A was drastically amended by the Finance Act, 2022, and a Coordinate Bench held this amendment to be retrospective. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs GREENKO RAYALA WIND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 51/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding the CIT(A)'s approach pragmatic in benchmarking the transaction considering market lending rates and the assessee's credit rating. The Tribunal found the difference to be negligible, keeping the assessee out of the purview of adjustment.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, ANANTAPUR

ITA 295/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of share applicants and the genuineness of transactions, and also failed to prove the genuineness of short-term borrowings and trade payables. The findings of the Assessing Officer were upheld.

DAMODAR REDDY KAITI,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1630/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the revenue could not take a contradictory stand if similar transactions were accepted in the case of M/s. Squaremile Projects. Additions should not be made solely based on a statement without granting an opportunity to explain.

SATYAM VENTURE ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 721/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no merit in the assessee's contention that it was a mere change in liability classification. It also found no merit in the Revenue's plea to disallow the entire amount, as it contradicted the CIT(A)'s findings on amounts already taxed.

SHIVAKUMAR BHUMAYYA,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 254/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2022AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that co-ordinate benches consistently view that no disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) can be made if PF and ESIC payments are made before the due date of filing the return. Amendments by Finance Act, 2021 were considered prospective.

DAMODAR REDDY KAITI,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1631/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the revenue could not take a contradictory stand if similar transactions were accepted in the case of M/s. Squaremile Projects. Additions should not be made solely based on a statement without granting an opportunity to explain.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, ANANTAPUR

ITA 296/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of share applicants and the genuineness of transactions. The findings of the Assessing Officer were upheld, and the deletions made by the CIT(A) were set aside.

VE VEE'S MANAGERIAL SERVICES,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 167/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to PF and ESIC are paid before the due date of filing the return, no disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) can be made. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs SATYAM VENTURE ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

ITA 866/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no merit in the assessee's contention that it was a mere change in liability classification. It also found no merit in the Revenue's plea to disallow the entire amount, as it contradicted the CIT(A)'s findings on amounts already taxed.

ACHYUTHA ELECTRICALS AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD

ITA 1189/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed15 Jul 2022AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the CIT(A) had elaborately discussed the issues and passed a reasonable order. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the assessee's grounds of appeal.

JMJ MAHILA MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP THIRFT DEVELOPMENT CREDIT & MARKETING,MAHABUBNAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICERS,WARD -2, MAHABUBNAGAR

ITA 248/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Jul 2022AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case and decide the matter based on facts and law.

ACHYUTHA ELECTRICALS AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)., HYDERABAD

ITA 1190/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the CIT(A) had elaborately discussed the issues and passed a reasonable order. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the assessee's grounds of appeal.

JMJ MAHILA MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP THIRFT DEVELOPMENT CREDIT & MARKETING,MAHABUBNAGAR vs ITO, WARD-2, MAHABUBNAGAR, MAHABUBNAGAR

ITA 251/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Jul 2022AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case and decide the matter based on facts and law.

NACL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 202/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed15 Jul 2022AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the grounds of appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 84,28,163/-. This addition was made under Section 37(1) of the Act.

N. NEMICHAND JEWELLERS,SECUNDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

ITA 133/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed15 Jul 2022AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity to explain why Section 68 of the IT Act should not be applied, as the CIT(A) had changed the head of addition from Section 69A without providing such an opportunity.

SAI KUMAR TATIPALLI,MANCHERIAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MANCHERIAL

ITA 72/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the agreement dated 06/11/2015 was not helpful in proving the assessee's case as there was no evidence of receiving the entire sale consideration of Rs. 43 lakhs in the relevant financial year. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings.

VIJAYA LAKSHMI KAMMELA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-13(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 183/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that old ladies often keep cash for emergencies. It held that a portion of the past withdrawals should be considered available for the deposit, and the addition of Rs. 4,72,523/- was not justified.

RAJESHWAR POIENTI,TANDUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICERS,WARD-1, VIKARABAD

ITA 19/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the GP rate of 4.59% but allowed further deduction for market fee and probable freight charges, modifying the income determined by the lower authorities.

DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs KSK ENERGY VENTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 110/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the entire IPO issue expenses as a revenue deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. The expenditure was found to have a nexus with the business purpose.

SREE KRISHNA AUTOMOTIVES HYDERABAD PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

ITA 139/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) can be made if the employees' contribution to PF and ESIC is paid before the due date of filing the return. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021 were considered prospective.

CROWN BEERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 103/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2022AY 2016-17Remanded

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits but summarily dismissed it for non-appearance. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to give one last opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

VICTORY ELECTRICALS LIMITED, MEDCHAL,R.R.DIST vs DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 738/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the issue of bad debts needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer due to the assessee's inability to provide complete details earlier. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision that the amendment is retrospective, requiring re-adjudication.

KASUGANTI SUBHASHINI,SECUNDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 649/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly appreciated the facts by considering the quantity of jewellery in weight and its market value. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for re-quantification based on weight and market value, considering available cash withdrawals.

SURENDRANATH MAJETY, VIJAYAWADA,VIJAYAWADA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 896/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed13 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

ACIT CIRCLE- 8(1), HYDERABAD vs VNR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 464/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not consider the company's liquidation and made an independent application of mind. The Tribunal held that shifting liability between the individual and the company was a tax evasion device and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

PAWAN KUMAR MAKALA,SHAMSHABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1692/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: Disposed13 Jul 2022AY 2007-08Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not make a factual finding on whether the return was filed. The Tribunal considered the return filed on 13.12.2011 as potentially relevant evidence.

MOHAMMAD SHAKEEL QUADRI,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 321/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed13 Jul 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the lower authorities had not properly verified the documents, particularly the returns of income for AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 which disclosed rental income from the property. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have entered into an agreement for sale in 2000, paid full consideration, and was in possession, which would make the gain LTCG and eligible for deduction under Section 54. Conversely, the AO and CIT(A) considered the property purchased on 30.06.2006, leading to STCG. Given that crucial documents like earlier year returns disclosing rental income were not verified by the lower authorities, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case and decide the issue afresh based on facts and law. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO without seeking adjournments. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs VNR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 461/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed13 Jul 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not consider the company's liquidation and made an independent application of mind. The Tribunal held that shifting liability between the individual and the company was a tax evasion device and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

ACIT CIRCLE- 8(1), HYDERABAD vs VNR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 462/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed13 Jul 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not consider the company's liquidation and made an independent application of mind. The Tribunal held that shifting liability between the individual and the company was a tax evasion device and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

MOHAMMED LAYEEQ,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 322/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed13 Jul 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the lower authorities had not properly verified the documents, particularly the returns of income for AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 which disclosed rental income from the property. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have entered into an agreement for sale in 2000, paid full consideration, and was in possession, which would make the gain LTCG and eligible for deduction under Section 54. Conversely, the AO and CIT(A) considered the property purchased on 30.06.2006, leading to STCG. Given that crucial documents like earlier year returns disclosing rental income were not verified by the lower authorities, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case and decide the issue afresh based on facts and law. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO without seeking adjournments. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.