Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Vijayawada vs. Bommisetty Venkata Siva Kumar, Vijayawada
In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed
ITA 238/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.238/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Bomisetty Venkata Siva Ward-1(1), 2Nd Floor, Kumar, Prop. M/S. Bommisetty C.R. Buildings, Mg Road, Sambasiva Rao Trading Vijayawada – 522002. Company, 1-4-221-2, Rtc Workshop Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada-522012. Pan: Addpb 9483 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr
For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)
…we find that the assessee has produced Pattadar Pass Books of Five farmers before the Ld. AO. We also find from the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC relied on the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Cynamid India 9 Ltd (237 ITR 585)(SC) wherein it was held that “husk produced because of milling of paddy should be held as agricultural produce”. Following the ratio laid down in that case, the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC has considered the husk purchased by the assessee as agricultural product. It is also undisputed fact that the assessee is in this line of business for more than 15 y…
