Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
आदेश/O R D E R PER : RAJPAL YADAV, V.P. :
The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Vadodara, dated 22.04.2020 passed for A.Y. 2014-15 under s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
[ITT Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.C IT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 2 -
2. Though the assessee has taken one ground of appeal but it contains various sub-grounds. In brief, its grievance revolves around a single issue, namely, ld.CIT has erred in taking cognizance under s.263 of the Income Tax Act and thereby setting aside the assessment order for framing it afresh.
3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee company at the relevant time was engaged in manufacturing and trading of water pump, industrial and chemical pumps and its accessories. It has filed its return of income on 30.11.2014 declaring loss of Rs.16,95,929/-. The book profit was declared at Rs.3,84,00,911/-. The case of the assesse was selected for scrutiny assessment and the notice under s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 31.08.2015, which was duly served upon the assessee. Though ld.AO has made two additions amounting to Rs.15.15 Crore but ultimately income was determined at nil after setting off brought forward loss.
4. Dissatisfying with the additions, assessee went in appeal before the first appellate authority. During the pendency of appeal, learned Administrative Commissioner took cognizance under s.263 of the Income Tax Act and issued a show cause notice inviting the explanation of assessee as to why the assessment order should not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Copy of this notice has been placed on page no.1 of the paper book which reads as under:
“NOTICE U/S 263(1) OF THE IT ACT
Sub: Proceedings u/s 263 of the I-T Act in the case of M/s. ITT Corporation Pvt. Ltd., PAN: AABCI7013D for A.Y.2014- 15 -Reg. Sir, [ITT Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.C IT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 3 -
With reference to the assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 92CA of the I,T. Act dated 30,12.2017 for A.Y. 2014-15, it is to be noted that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of the following:- On verification of records, it is seen that for the A. Y. 2014-15, books of accounts were audited by M/s. Mukund & Rohit Chartered Accountants and audit report in Form 3CB/3CD was finalized on 30/11/2014 whereas for A.Y. 2013-14, case was referred u/s. 142(2A) of the Act and for this purpose, M/s. Prakash Chandra Jain & Co. were appointed as auditor and special audit u/s. 142(2A) of the Act and audit report u/s.!43(2A) was finalized on 15/09/2016. However, books of accounts for A.Y. 2014-15 were already finalized at closing balance as per audit report in Form 3CB/3CD, dated 12/12/2013 for A.Y. 2013- 14, therefore, opening values of the year under consideration, i.e.. A.Y. 2014-15 was entirely different from the values certified by the auditor under special audit u/s. 142(2A) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14. For instance, in the audited balance sheet u/s.142(2A) of the Act the share capital as on 31/03/2013 was certified at Rs. 1,81,58,80,000/- and the same had been declared at Rs. 1,59,66,40,000/- in the balance sheet audited u/s. 44AB of the Act. Likewise, each ingredient of balance sheet differs. Even total of balance sheet (as on 31/03/2013) is Rs.1,59,66,40,000/- as per the balance sheet, audited u/s. 44AB of the Act whereas the total of balance sheet is Rs, 1,81,58,80, OOO/- in the balance sheet audited u/s. 142(2A) of the Act. It can, therefore, be seen that books of account of the assessee do not reflect true and fair state of affairs of its business and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 92CA of the I-T Act considering those books of accounts of the assessee is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In view of above, you are being granted an opportunity of being heard and to show cause as to why the aforesaid assessment made by the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2014-15 should not be set aside with a direction to make fresh assessment in accordance with the provisions of law in this regard. For this purpose, you may appear before the undersigned, in person or through your authorized representative or file written submission or. 27.02.2020 at 11:3O A.M./P.M. In case of non compliance, the matter will be decided on merits as per material available on records.”
4.1 In response to the show cause notice, assessee has filed detailed submission which has been reproduced by the learned Commissioner and thereafter he arrived at conclusion that assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, therefore it requires to be set aside. Accordingly, learned Commissioner has set aside the assessment [ITT Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.C IT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 4 - order directing the AO to pass a fresh assessment order after conducting proper inquiries/verifications of the issues taken up in Section 263 proceedings.
4.2 Shri Dhinal Shah, learned counsel for the assessee while impugning the order of the CIT took us through this show cause notice issued under s.263 of the Act. Thereafter, he took us through the findings of the CIT. Appraising us the scope of the action under s.263 of the Act, he put reliance on the following judgments, their copies have been placed in paper book:
“1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83) (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Reliance Communication Limited (SC) 3. CIT v. Reliance Communication Limited (ITA No. 1816 of 201 3) (Bombay HC) 4. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502) (Gujarat HC) 5. CIT v. R.K. Construction (313 ITR 65) (Guj HC) 6. CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (55 taxmann.com 514) (Mum HC) 7. CIT v. Jain Construction Co. (34 taxmann.com 84) (Raj HC) 8. Merrut Roller Flour Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1 10 taxmann.com 170) (Allahabad HC) 9. Munjal Casting Limited (303 ITR 23) (P&H HC) 10. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. (171 ITR 141) (MP HC) 11. Ravi K Mody v. ITO (151 Taxmann 11) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 12. Cadila Healthcare Limited vs. CIT (51 Taxmann.com 255) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 13. Zaveri & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (48 taxmann.com 153) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 14. M/s. Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No. 2211/Mum/2019forA.Y.2014-15) (Mumbai ITAT) 15. Antala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai v. CIT (135 ITD 506) (Rajkot ITAT) 16. Indo Enterprise Limited vs. The PCIT (ITA No. 751 /PUN/201 9) (Pune ITAT)”
4.3 On the strength of these judgments, he contended that proceedings under s.263 of the Act can be initiated by the learned CIT if the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. According to him, if AO had made enquiry and took up a particular view based on the documents submitted and material available before him, then even if learned Commissioner [ITT Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.C IT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 5 - holds different view, action under s.263 of the Act cannot be taken. In other words, if learned AO has taken a view permissible in law which does not match with the view of the CIT, then also proceedings under s.263 of the Act cannot be taken. After appraising us with the scope of Section 263 of the Act, he drew our attention to page no.15 of the paper book wherein a show cause notice issued by the AO has been placed on record. This show cause notice dated 20th December, 2017 reads as under:
“Sub: Assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act- A.Y. 2014-15 audit u/s 142(2A) of the Act- show cause- regarding. Kindly refer to the above.
At the preable, it is to mention here that your case was referred u/s 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act for the A.Y. 2013-14. For the purpose of Audit u/s 142(2A) of the Act, M/s Prakash Chandra Jain & Co. were appointed as auditor. You have submitted the copy of audited balance sheet and profit & loss account to this office w.r.t A.Y. 2013-14.
In the course of the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2014-15, you have submitted copy of balance sheet and profit & loss account, duly audited by M/s. Mukund & Rohit Chartered Accountants. On verification, the balance sheet reflects different opening values vis-a-vis balance sheet audited u/s 142(2A) of the Act. For instance in the audited balance sheet u/s 142(2A) of the Act, the share capital as on 31.03.2013 has been certified at Rs.181,58,80,000/- and, the same has been declared at Rs.159,66,40,000/- in the balance sheet audited u/s 44AB of the Act. Likewise, each ingredient of balance sheet differs. Even total of balance sheet as at 31.03.2013 is Rs.159,66,40,000/- in the balance sheet provided by the assesses, i.e. audited u/s 44AB of the Act, whereas, the total of balance sheet is Rs. 181,58,80,000/- in the balance sheet audited u/s 142(2A) of the Act.
On the narrated backdrop, it can be said that the opening values of the year under consideration, i.e. A,Y. 2014-15 is entirely different then the values certified by the auditor under special audit u/s 142(2A) of the Act, Accordingly, this office is of considered opinion that the books of account do not reflect true and fair picture of state of affairs of business, and, in the interest of the revenue, your books of account is required to be audited by an accountant defined u/s 288(2) of the Act, duly nominated by the [ITT Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.C IT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 6 -
Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad. You are hereby given an opportunity of being heard as provided in section 142(2A) of the Act and you are also requested to show cause as to why you should not be .directed to get your accounts audited u/s 142(2A) of the Act. Considering the limitation for finalization of assessment, i.e. 31.12.2017, your compliance is solicited on 22.12.2017 at 11:00 AM, failing which it would be construed that you have nothing to say in the matter and appropriate inference would be drawn accordingly. Further, please note that this office would not be to grant any adjournment keeping in view the date of limitation.”
4.4 Learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that issues taken up in Section 263 proceedings, show cause notices are identical with that of one enquired by the AO by way of the above show cause notice. He further pointed out that special audit was undertaken in the case of the assessee for AYs. 2012-13 & 2013-14. There were differences between assets and liabilities in the balance sheet prepared by the special auditor vis-à-vis balance sheet of assessee. The additions have been made on the basis of such differences in both the years. The special audit can only be ordered where the conditions referred to in Section 142(2A) of the Act are fulfilled. In other words, where there is complexity in the accounts and the tree income cannot be deduced, only then special audit can be ordered. But, in the present case, there were no complexity in the accounts pointed out by the AO. Though, learned AO initiated the proceedings for special audit but after the reply of the assessee no such order was passed. The learned AO found difference in the two balance sheets i.e. 12 month balance sheet audited by Chartered Accountant M/s. Mukund & Rohit and 15 month balance sheet audited by Delloitte Haskins & Sells. The difference between two balance sheets has been added at Rs.6,06,25,125/- by the AO which is a subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A). [ITT Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.C IT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 7 - 4.5 The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that as far as observations of CIT that special audit was concluded in AY 2013-14 after the conclusion of audit from the present AY i.e. 2014- 15 is concerned, whatever may be the differences between the balance sheet filed by the assessee after auditors’ reports vis-à-vis the balance sheet prepared by the special auditor are concerned those additions have been made in AYs. 2012-13 & 2013-14 itself their impact will not percolate to the AY 2014-15. If one goes by the approach of the CIT then every year special audit of the accounts will be required. Once the effect of the special audit has been given in the year in which such audit was held, then in subsequent year the balance sheet is not required to be disturbed. He also explained that so far as the case laws relied upon by the learned Commissioner are concerned, they are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The learned counsel for the assessee has filed gist of his arguments and also annexed Annexure-1 exhibiting the details of additions made during the assessment proceedings for AYs. 2012013 & 2013-14. For example, in AY 2012-13, as per provisional accounts of the assessee, a sum of Rs.5,74,62,209/- have been shown as advance recoverable in cash or kind or for value. The special auditor in its report has quantified this amount at Rs.10.94 Crore. The difference of Rs.5.19 Crore was added. He made reference to other items also and submitted that once it is assessed on this basis, though the report submitted by the assessee as well as by the special auditor were provisional, then no effect would come in the next assessment year i.e. 2014-15. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the assessee, no action ought to have been taken under s.263 of the Act.
The learned CIT.DR, on the other hand, relied upon the findings of the Commissioner recorded in the order passed under [ITT Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.C IT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 8 - s.263 of the Act. He further submitted that assessee has never been maintaining its accounts according to the statutory requirements. Its accounts were always incomplete and provisional. Even in AY 2012-13 & 2013-14, it has filed provisional accounts. This fact is discernable from the details submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee in Annexure 1 also. The accounts were to be finalized as on 31st March, 2014. This was the date of balance sheet but there were two different values on the date of balance sheet i.e. 31st March, 2014. When learned CIT enquired about it, then explanation of the assessee was that both the auditors Mukund & Rohit and Delloitte Haskins & Sells had taken two different periods i.e. Mukund & Rohit audited 12 months’ accounts, whereas, Delloitte Haskins & Sells for 15 months. The learned CIT.DR pointed out that there should not be any difference on the balance sheet date i.e. 31st March, 2014. There can be certain differences in quantitative terms in some of the items but at the final day account should tally. In the case of the assessee, there are differences. The AO has just took cognizance of some of the items but thereafter left them there without conducting the enquiry. This action of non-investigating those issues is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It duly fall within the ambit of Explanation (2) appended to Section 263 which has been brought into statute book by Finance Act No. 2015.
In his next fold of submission, he submitted that though AO intend to recommend for a special audit under s.142(2A) of the Act in this year also, but after issuing a show cause notice of his intention, he abruptly left this issue without recording any findings as to whether he has satisfied with the explanation of assessee and dropping the special audit ? This abrupt divorce from the issue without recording any reason either in favour of the assessee on the [ITT Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.C IT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 9 - basis of its explanation or against it on its original view point amounts to an error in the assessment order which has rightly been rectified by the learned Commissioner by setting aside the assessment order.
With the assistance of ld.representative, we have gone thrugh the record. Section 263 has a direct bearing on the controversy, therefore, it is pertinent to take note of this section. It reads as under:-
“263(1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. [Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,- (a) an order passed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988 by the Assessing Officer shall include- (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Chief Commissioner or Director General or Commissioner authorized by the Board in this behalf under section 120; (b) “record shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding [ITT Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.C IT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 10 - under this Act available at the time of examination by the Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal.
(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Explanation.- In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded.”
On a bare perusal of the sub section-1 would reveal that powers of revision granted by section 263 to the learned Commissioner have four compartments. In the first place, the learned Commissioner may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this Act. For calling of the record and examination, the learned Commissioner was not required to show any reason. It is a part of his administrative control to call for the records and examine them. The second feature would come when he [ITT Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.C IT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 11 - will judge an order passed by an Assessing Officer on culmination of any proceedings or during the pendency of those proceedings. On an analysis of the record and of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, he formed an opinion that such an order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. By this stage the learned Commissioner was not required the assistance of the assessee. Thereafter the third stage would come. The learned Commissioner would issue a show cause notice pointing out the reasons for the formation of his belief that action u/s 263 is required on a particular order of the Assessing Officer. At this stage the opportunity to the assessee would be given. The learned Commissioner has to conduct an inquiry as he may deem fit. After hearing the assessee, he will pass the order. This is the 4th compartment of this section. The learned Commissioner may annul the order of the Assessing Officer. He may enhance the assessed income by modifying the order. He may set aside the order and direct the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order. At this stage, before considering the multi-fold contentions of the ld. Representatives, we deem it pertinent to take note of the fundamental tests propounded in various judgments relevant for judging the action of the CIT taken u/s 263. The ITAT in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO, Mumbai, 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83 and has propounded the following broader principle to judge the action of CIT taken under section 263.
(i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. (ii) Sec. 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the [ITT Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.C IT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 12 -
AO and it was only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. (iii) An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will suffice the requirement of order being erroneous. (iv) If the order is passed without application of mind, such order will fall under the category of erroneous order. (v) Every loss of revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and if the AO has adopted one of the courses permissible under law or where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree. If cannot be treated as an erroneous order, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable under law (vi) If while making the assessment, the AO examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determine the income, the CIT, while exercising his power under s 263 is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the AO. (vii) The AO exercises quasi-judicial power vested in his and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the CIT does not fee stratified with the conclusion. (viii) The CIT, before exercising his jurisdiction under s. 263 must have material on record to arrive at a satisfaction. (ix) If the AO has made enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings on the relevant issues and the assessee has given detailed explanation by a letter in writing and the AO allows the claim on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the decision of the AO cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.
[ITT Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.C IT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 13 -
Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (99 ITR 375). In the case of Gee Vee Enterprise (supra), the Hon’ble court has expounded the approach of ld. Assessing Officer while passing assessment order. The observation of the Hon’ble court on pages 386 of journal read as under:- “… it is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further inquiries before cancelling the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Officer should have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return.
The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very diffident from that of a civil court. The statement made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be adopted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the basis of the pleading and evidence which comes before it. The Income-tax Officer is not only on adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of the return which is apparently in order but called for further inquiry. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry… It is because it is incumbent on the Income-tax Officer to further investigate the facts stated in the return when circumstances would made such an inquiry prudent that the word ‘erroneous’ in section 263 includes the failure to make such an enquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.”
[ITT Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.C IT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 14 -
In the light of above, we have examined the record carefully. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition that if, on any issue AO has considered the details and formed an opinion, which is one of the possible views in law, then that view deserves not to be replaced by the higher authority i.e. learned Commissioner while exercising the powers under s.263 of the Act. A moot question before us is, whether the AO has taken one of the views possible in law ? No doubt he issued a show cause notice dated 20.12.2017 regarding the details considered by the ld.CIT in the proceedings under section 263 of the Act. But it is to be appreciated that this notice was issued by the AO on 20.12.2017, and he has passed the assessment order on 30.12.2017. According to the assessee, it has filed a reply whose copy is available on page no.19 of the paper book, but it does contain the date on which this reply was submitted. The AO did not apply his mind as well as investigated the issue in the notice issued on 20.12.2017. For the sake of argument one can assume that the ld.AO had taken cognizance of these details, and was duly aware about the discrepancy in the accounts, but he adopted all these things in a peripheral manner. He has no time because notice was issued on 20th December, 2017 and order was passed on 30th December, 2017. He nowhere assessed the impact of special auditor in earlier years coupled with the fact that the accounts of the assessee were never being completed; they are provisional even in earlier years. During the course of hearing, we have put to the ld.counsel for the assessee that any of the authority had an occasion to conclusively deal with the incompleteness of its accounts even in 2012-13 and 2013-14, because in those years, the assessee has already settled the issue under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. In the present year, impact percolating to this year has not been assessed by the AO. This act of non-adjudication of the issue at the end of the AO brand his order as erroneous which has caused [ITT Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.C IT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 15 - prejudice to the Revenue. It is also pertinent to note that the AO has expressed his desire to get the accounts audited by the special auditor in this year also. But, all of a sudden he dropped his idea without assigning any reason. This aspect has also been looked into by the ld.Commissioner while assessing the fact, whether the assessment order is erroneous or not. It is pertinent to observe that when a conclusion had been reached on an appreciation of number of facts established by evidence, whether that was sound or not must be determined not by considering the weight to be attached to each single fact in isolation but by assessing the cumulative effect of all the facts in their setting as a whole. We have to appreciate the impugned order of the ld.Commissioner by looking into the facts and circumstances and not in a mechanical way that these very details were considered by the AO, therefore, the ld.CIT is precluded to look into this aspect while exercising power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As observed earlier, the ld.AO has not conducted an inquiry which was required after taking into consideration the discrepancies in the accounts, and therefore the ld.Commissioner has rightly taken cognizance under section 263 and set aside the assessment for conducting fresh inquiry and for passing of fresh assessment order. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
This Order pronounced on 28/01/2021