ST.JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

270A(9) is quashed. Ground of appeal #4: PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271AAB IS OPTIONAL AND NOT MANDATORY The Ld. AO erred in levying penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act vide order dated 30- 03-2022 without considering the appellants submission that the levy of penalty under Section 271AAB of the Act is discretionary and not mandatory in nature

M/S. AVM PRODUCTIONS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-20(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated vide notice u/s.270A of Act dated 25.10.2019 for mis-reporting of income and after hearing the assessee’s objection is noted to have imposed penalty of ₹6,82,606/- viz 200% of the amount of tax payable on misreporting income, vide penalty order M/s. AVM Productions :: 4 :: dated 25.02.2024. On appeal

MELAKANDY PUTHALATH FAROOK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1890/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Melekandy Puthalath Farook Acit बनाम/ Faraz No.9 Sbi Colony, Corporate Circle-2(1) Vs. Sastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapf-2644-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr

Capital Gains (LTCG) was not offered to tax. The Ld. AO computed LTCG of Rs.112.06 Lacs and framed the assessment. Consequently, in the assessment order, Ld. AO initiated penalty u/s 270A for misreporting of income. 4. During penalty proceedings, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A on 18-12-2019, a copy of which

PALLAVA TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED ,PALLIPALAYAM vs. ITO , NFAC , DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.862/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-2018 M/S. Pallava Textiles Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 27-C, Sankari Bye Pass Road, National Faceless Assessment Pallipalayam – 638 006, Centre [Nafac], Delhi. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aabcp9105F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 05.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-2018 In Confirming Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

gain nor do we have any intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delayed filing of the appeal.” By way of another affidavit, the assessee’s submissions are as under: “The appeal papers were sent by courier on 21/10/2022 – vide Receipt No. 25103409 for delivery to ITAT, Chennai From the track record of the courier service

COIMBATORE VAIYAPURI MAATHESH,COIMBATORE vs. THE PCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.373/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.Coimbatore Vaiyapuri Maathesh, V. The Income Tax Officer, 85, Rajavignesh Nagar, Corporate Ward-2, Vilankurichi Main Road, Coimbatore. Ganapathy, Coimbatore-641 006. [Pan: Adepm 5864 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 270A of the Act was not sustainable in law and ought to have appreciated that the decision referred to being the jurisdictional High Court decision was binding and erroneously not followed by dropping the proceedings of revision. 7. The PCIT failed to appreciate that there was no reasonable/proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

gains of business or profession" or under the head "Salaries";(v)where any sum of money exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees is received without consideration by an individual or a Hindu undivided family from any person on or after the 1st day of September, 2004 but before the 1st day of April, 2006, the whole of such sum :Provided that

S ASHOK,TIRUNELVEL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

270A cannot be levied for the addition made under deeming provisions of the Act. 6. The ITAT Delhi in the case ITO vs. Ajay Sharma (ITAT Delhi, 2017) canceled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for an addition made under Section 50C. The tribunal held that the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority does not conclusively prove that

S. POTHYRAJ,TIUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE01(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

270A cannot be levied for the addition made under deeming provisions of the Act. 6. The ITAT Delhi in the case ITO vs. Ajay Sharma (ITAT Delhi, 2017) canceled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for an addition made under Section 50C. The tribunal held that the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority does not conclusively prove that

S MAGESH,TIRUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

270A cannot be levied for the addition made under deeming provisions of the Act. 6. The ITAT Delhi in the case ITO vs. Ajay Sharma (ITAT Delhi, 2017) canceled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for an addition made under Section 50C. The tribunal held that the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority does not conclusively prove that

S MURUGESH,TIRUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

270A cannot be levied for the addition made under deeming provisions of the Act. 6. The ITAT Delhi in the case ITO vs. Ajay Sharma (ITAT Delhi, 2017) canceled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for an addition made under Section 50C. The tribunal held that the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority does not conclusively prove that

S RAMESH,TRUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

270A cannot be levied for the addition made under deeming provisions of the Act. 6. The ITAT Delhi in the case ITO vs. Ajay Sharma (ITAT Delhi, 2017) canceled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for an addition made under Section 50C. The tribunal held that the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority does not conclusively prove that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PRUDENTIAL SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED, CHITOOR

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2298/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Prudential Sugar Corporation Income Tax, Vs. Limited, Ltu, Circle -1, Prudential Nagar, Chennai. Koppedu Post, Nindra, Mandal – 517 587. [Pan:Aaacp-4338-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

9. Therefore, the AO came to a conclusion that the Long Term Capital Loss on sale of shares to the tune of Rs.24.00 crores have not been supported by any valid and reasonable explanations and documents and hence, brought to tax by holding as under: “4.4. The assessee has failed to submit any evidence before us to reasonably justify undertaking

SREENAVALADIAN FINANCE,SALEM vs. DCIT,CENTRALCIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital gain. However, neither in the body of the Assessment order or in the so called penalty show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer recorded whether the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for concealment or furnishing the inaccurate particulars. Hence, declared that before initiation of penalty proceeding, proper satisfaction was not recorded. In the present case, the facts

SREE NAVALADIAN FINANCE,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital gain. However, neither in the body of the Assessment order or in the so called penalty show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer recorded whether the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for concealment or furnishing the inaccurate particulars. Hence, declared that before initiation of penalty proceeding, proper satisfaction was not recorded. In the present case, the facts

SREE NAVALADIYAN FINANCE,NAMAKKAL vs. DCIT, CENT CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital gain. However, neither in the body of the Assessment order or in the so called penalty show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer recorded whether the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for concealment or furnishing the inaccurate particulars. Hence, declared that before initiation of penalty proceeding, proper satisfaction was not recorded. In the present case, the facts

SREE NAVALADIYAN FINANCE,SALEM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital gain. However, neither in the body of the Assessment order or in the so called penalty show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer recorded whether the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for concealment or furnishing the inaccurate particulars. Hence, declared that before initiation of penalty proceeding, proper satisfaction was not recorded. In the present case, the facts

JAMAL MOHIDEEN HAROON IMRAN KHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1962, 1963 & 1964/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15/7, Vijayaragava Road First Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(2) T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aaopi4540B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Raghav Menon, Advocate & : Shri Gautam Venkatanarayanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Different Orders Dated 06.03.2025, 27.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively.

capital gains and also being the difference between total sales consideration and the market price of the immovable property vide para 3 and 4 of the assessment order. Further, we note that the Assessing Officer made such additions in the absence of representation on behalf of the assessee, which is clear from the discussion made by the Assessing Officer

JAMAL MOHIDEEN HAROON IMRAN KHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1962, 1963 & 1964/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15/7, Vijayaragava Road First Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(2) T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aaopi4540B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Raghav Menon, Advocate & : Shri Gautam Venkatanarayanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Different Orders Dated 06.03.2025, 27.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively.

capital gains and also being the difference between total sales consideration and the market price of the immovable property vide para 3 and 4 of the assessment order. Further, we note that the Assessing Officer made such additions in the absence of representation on behalf of the assessee, which is clear from the discussion made by the Assessing Officer

JAMAL MOHIDEEN HAROON IMRAN KHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1962, 1963 & 1964/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15/7, Vijayaragava Road First Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(2) T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aaopi4540B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Raghav Menon, Advocate & : Shri Gautam Venkatanarayanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Different Orders Dated 06.03.2025, 27.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Respectively.

capital gains and also being the difference between total sales consideration and the market price of the immovable property vide para 3 and 4 of the assessment order. Further, we note that the Assessing Officer made such additions in the absence of representation on behalf of the assessee, which is clear from the discussion made by the Assessing Officer