Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,
These two appeals by the same assessee are directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, New Delhi, both dated 24.10.2019 pertaining to penalty orders u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) both dated 30.03.2017 for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively.
The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act were initiated by the Assessing Officer in the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2007 and 30.12.2008 for AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively.
2. Since, these appeals were heard together, they are being consolidated and disposed of together for the sake of convenience by this common order.
3. The grounds of appeal for both the Assessment Years are identical (except for the variation in the quantum of penalty levied) and for convenience, the grounds of appeal for AY 2005-06 are as under:-
“1. BECAUSE the "CIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on wrong assumption of facts and against the law and without considering overall facts and circumstances of the case. [Tax effect 1,24,89,274/-] 2. BECAUSE the "CIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the penalty, particularly when the notice issued under section 274 of the Act did not mention the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) for which penalty was to be imposed. [Tax effect 1,24,89,274/-] 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the imposition of penalty in respect of addition of Rs.3,67,43,966/- (Share application Rs.1,50,00,000/- and unsecured loan Rs.2,17,43,966/-) under section 68 particularly when onus which lied upon the assessee in penalty proceedings stood duly discharged accordingly, imposition of penalty is wholly erroneous, unjustified and bad in law. [Tax effect Rs.1,24,89,274/-] 4. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. [Tax effect 1,24,89,274/-]
Brief facts of the case:- The assessee company had filed its 4. return of income on 29.10.2005 declaring an income of Rs.9,05,490/- , which was picked up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2007 in which the following additions were made.
“With these remarks, the income of the assessee is computed as under:
Income as declared Rs.9,05,490/- Unexplained credits u/s 68 (as discussed) Para-7 Rs.3,67,43,966/- Commission paid (as discussed Rs.73,490/- ) Para in 8 Interest paid Disallowed (as discussed) Para in 9 Rs.14,65,490/- Total Taxable Income Rs.3,91,88,346/- 4.1. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act on 28.12.2007. The assessee challenged the assessment order in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the above additions. However, the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2008 thereby confirming the additions/disallowance made in the assessment order.
The assessee challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal, where the Tribunal vide order dated 28.05.2009 in appeal no. 1081/Del/2009, remanded the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
4.2. In the second round of appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A)-VII, New Delhi vide order in Appeal No. 170/2007-08 dated 04.11.2009 for AY 2005-06 allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the above additions made by the AO.
4.3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue went into appeal to the Tribunal against the said order of CIT(A)-VII, New Delhi. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue vide order dated 24.04.2016 in & 1277/Del/2010 for AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 after examining the issues and held that additions were rightly made by the AO.
4.4. On receipt of the above order, fresh opportunity was afforded by the AO to the assessee vide show cause notice dated 06.03.2017 for the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response thereto the assessee filed its reply vide letter dated 08.03 2017. The relevant extract of the reply of the assessee is quoted under: -
The assessee always cooperates with the Income Tax Authority since the beginning of the assessment and provide all the documents as required by the assessing officer. The CIT (Appeal) had allowed the case in favour of the assessee. The A.R of the assessee could not appear before the Tribunal due to some unavoidable circumstances the ITAT dismiss the Appeal. The assessee file documents revive the appeal copy of acknowledgment are enclosed. Therefore we are requesting your good self kindly stay the demand and do not impose any penalty till outcome of revival of appeal. At present the assessee stopped all its business activities and the assessee having no asset to disposes. So in present circumstance of the assessee, we request your good self kindly do not impose any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act 1961. Following case laws are referred by the assessee in its favour-
Delhi High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Mahavir Imgation Pvt. Ltd.
Supreme Court decision in case of CIT us Reliance Petroproducts Put. Ltd.
Shri Kadar Khan Vs. Assif. Commissioner of Income Tax 11(1), 4. Delhi High Court in case of CIT Societex {2012- ITRV-HC-DEL- 163; has held that there would be no s 271(1)c) penalty if wrong claim is caused by bona fide mistake " After discussing the submissions of the assessee and the 4.5. relevant case laws, the AO in para no. 7 of his order dated 30.03.2017 levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,24,89,274/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The para no.7 of the order is reproduced as below:-
“7. In view of the reasons mentioned in preceding paras and judicial pronouncements, the contention of assessee is not acceptable. I, am, therefore, satisfied that this act of assessee was a deliberate act to conceal the facts and furnish inaccurate particulars of its income which lead to evasion of income of Rs.3,67,43,966/-. Therefore, I find the case fit for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which is calculated as under:- Income sought to be evaded by the Rs.3,67,43,966/- assessee as discussed above Tax on above (including surcharge & Rs.1,24,89,274/- Edu. Cess) Minimum penalty imposable @ 100% Rs.1,24,89,274/- Maximum Penalty imposable @ 300% Rs.3,74,67,822/- The minimum penalty @ 100% is Rs.1,24,89,274/- imposed
I hereby imposed penalty of Rs.1,24,89,274 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being 100% and minimum of the tax sought to be evaded by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee is directed to pay this amount as per notice of demand enclosed herewith.”
4.6. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved against the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned penalty cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Authority dated 28.12.2007 and 30.12.2008 for AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 (placed at page no.15 and 16 of the written synopsis filed by the assessee) does not disclose the specific charge i.e. whether it has been initiated for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. The said notices are reproduced as under:-
6.1. The Ld. AR further submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs M/s Blackroak Securities Pvt. & CM Appl. No.60761/2023 vide its order dated 24.11.2023. When queried about the fact that the AO in para- 10 of the assessment order had indicated that he had initiated penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore the assessee was made aware about the limb under which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated, the Ld. AR submitted that while referring to para-10 of the assessment order that the AO in addition to the fact that he was satisfied that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income had further stated that the assessee had suppressed the taxable income as per the discussion made by the AO in para no.7, 8 & 9 of the assessment order. According to the Ld. AR, the use of the expression ‘suppressed the taxable income’ means that the AO had initiated the penalty proceedings for concealment of income also as the expression ‘suppressed’ means concealment. For this, he made the following submissions.
“The dictionary meaning of conceal is to keep secret, not allow to be seen or noticed. The meaning of the word concealment as found in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, third edition is in law, the intentional suppression of truth or fact known, to the injury or prejudice of another. Webster in his New International Dictionary equates its meaning to hid or withdraw from observations; to cover up or keep from sigh to prevent discovery of to withhold knowledge of.” Further, the ld. AR vide written submission dated nil 6.1.(a). submitted the brief facts of the case and the chronology of the events leading to the levy of penalty. The same is reproduced as under:-
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring a total income of Rs. 9,05,490/- The Ld. A.O. made addition of Rs. 3,82,82,946/-vide order dated 28.12.2007 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Against the said order of the AO, the Assessee filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned CIT(Appeals) vide order dated 26.11.2008 whereby contention of the Ld. AO was upheld. Thereafter the Assessee approached the Hon'ble ITAT, who vide order dated 28.05.2009 restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals). In compliance to the order of the Hon'ble ITAT, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted all additions made by Ld. AO vide its order dated 04.11.2009. Against CIT(Appeals) order, revenue department filed an appeal in ITAT, wherein in absence of respondent, it was decided in favour of the revenue. Thereafter, the assessee filed MA and writ against MA in Delhi High Court but assessee remained un-succeeded. The entire sequence of events for the quantum additions can be tabulated as under:
Date Authority Event 28-12-2017 AO Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) 26-11-2008 CIT-Appeals CIT(A)’s order passed dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non- appearance 28-05-2009 ITAT ITAT order set aside the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) 04-11-2009 CIT-Appeals CIT(A) order giving relief to the assessee 22-04-2016 ITAT ITAT order decided the appeal against the assessee 11-05-2018 ITAT MA Order wherein request of assessee was declined. 06-10-2018 Delhi High Court High Court order dismissing the writ of assessee
On disposal of appeals by the learned CIT(Appeals) and the Hon'ble Tribunal, the AO in due course of time-initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and consequently issued notice dated 28-12-2007 u/s 274 of the Act and ultimately vide penalty order dated 30.03.2017 imposed penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,24,89,274 @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on account of unexplained credit of Rs.3,67,43,966/- which is declared as undisclosed income. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that even it was accepted 6.2. that the assessment order clearly record satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other ground, or both grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act still the defect in the notice of not striking of irrelevant matter will vitiate the entire penalty proceedings. For this proposition, the ld. AR relied upon the order dated 22.11.2024 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-04 vs M/s Gragerious Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors in ITA No.90/2020.
6.3. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. DR submitted that assessee’s plea in taking the ground that the notice issued u/s 274 did not specify the limb of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be accepted by the Tribunal because the assessee neither raised any objection about the notice before the AO before passing the penalty order nor before Ld. CIT(A) and the same was an afterthought. He further submitted that even in ground no.2 before the Tribunal relating to this issue of specific limb, it was not emanating from the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and hence it was not maintainable at this stage. He further submitted that so far as the issue of not specifying the limb in the show cause notice concerned, it is not material because in the assessment order itself the AO had recorded his satisfaction and the penalty was also imposed on the same limb i.e. the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore there was no force in the argument of the assessee that assessee was not aware about the charge of penalty to be imposed. He submitted that the assessee was well aware about the charge and he participated in the proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be construed that the assessee was not aware of the specific charge.
The Ld. DR also filed a written submission relying upon various case laws to submit that if the satisfaction was properly recorded in the assessment order, then non-indication of the limb under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated will not be fatal. In this regard, inter alia he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantamani Venkata Narayana [1967] 63 ITR 638 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s K. P. Madhusudhan vs CIT (2001) 118 TAXMAN 324 (SC).
He further relied upon the about the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in para-26 in the case of New Holland Tractors [India] P.
Ltd. vs CIT [2014] 49 taxmann.com 573 (Del.), wherein, it observed that ‘at times and it is fairly common, the charge of concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars may overlap’.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The ld. Sr. DR had taken a preliminary objection that the plea taken in ground no.2 should not be permitted at our stage when the same plea was not taken before the AO/CIT(A) is not acceptable because the same is a legal ground for which no additional facts are required and the legal ground can be taken at any stage of the proceedings. Therefore, this argument of the ld. Sr. DR is rejected.
8.1. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the notices u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act dated 28.12.2007 and 30.12.2008 issued by the AO for AY 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively do not disclose the specific charge i.e. whether it was being initiated for ‘having concealed the particulars of the income’ or ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of such income’. The said notices are placed at page no.15 and 16 of the written synopsis filed in this case by the ld. AR which has not been disputed by the ld. Sr DR. 8.2. In this regard, on perusal of the assessment order dated 28.12.2007, the AO had initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in para no.10 as under:-
10. I am also satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and suppressed the taxable income as discussed Para No.7, 8 and 9 as discussed above, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been separately. 8.3. Thus, it is seen that the AO had indicated that he had initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for suppressing its taxable income but had not mentioned the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) in the respective penalty notices for which the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated.
In this regard, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-04 vs M/s Gragerious Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors(supra) has agreed with the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. 2021 Hon'ble Supreme Court OnLine Bom 345 which held that such an action of the AO was not sustainable.
The relevant discussion in the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above mentioned case is reproduced as under:-
An identical issue came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 345, wherein, the Court while dealing with the aspect of prejudice ruled as under:- "Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice—not striking off the irrelevant matter—vitiate the penalty proceedings?
It does. The primary burden lies on the Revenue. In the assessment proceedings, it forms an opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the assessee. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(l)(c), read with section 274 of Income-tax Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite proceedings to draw strength from each other. Nor can each cure the other's defect. A penalty proceeding is a corollary; nevertheless, it must stand on its own. These proceedings culminate under a different statutory scheme that remains distinct from the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness.
More particularly, a penal provision, even with civil consequences, must be construed strictly. And ambiguity, if any, must be resolved in the affected assessee's favour.
Therefore, we answer the first question to the effect that Goa Dourado Promotions and other cases have adopted an approach more in consonance with the statutory scheme. That means we must hold that Kaushalya does not lay down the correct proposition of law. Question No.2: Has Kaushalya failed to discuss the aspect of “prejudice”? 184. Indeed, Kaushalya did discuss the aspect of prejudice. As we have already noted, Kaushaiya noted that the assessment orders already contained the reasons why penalty should be initiated. So, the assessee, stresses Kaushalya, "fully knew in detail the exact charge of the Revenue against him". For Kaushalya, the statutory notice suffered from neither non-application of mind nor any prejudice. According to it, "the so-called ambiguous wording in the notice [has not] impaired or prejudiced the right of the assessee to a reasonable opportunity of being heard". It went onto observe that for sustaining the plea of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, "it has to be established that prejudice is caused to the concerned person by the procedure followed". Kaushalya closes the discussion by observing that the notice issuing "is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to levy penalty in order to enable him to explain as to why it should not be done.”
No doubt, there can exist a case where vagueness and ambiguity in the notice can demonstrate non- application of mind by the authority and/or ultimate prejudice to the right of opportunity of hearing contemplated under section 274. So asserts Kaushalya. In fact, for one assessment year, it set aside the penalty proceedings on the grounds of non- application of mind and prejudice.
That said, regarding the other assessment year, it reasons that the assessment order, containing the reasons or justification, avoids prejudice to the assessee. That is where, we reckon, the reasoning suffers. Kaushalya's insistence that the previous proceedings supply justification and cure the defect in penalty proceedings has not met our acceptance. Question No. 3: What is the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dilip N. Shroff on the issue of non- application of mind when the irrelevant portions of the printed notices are not struck off? 187. In Dilip N. Shroff, for the Supreme Court, it is of "some significance that in the standard Pro-forma used by the assessing officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done". Then, Dilip N. Shroff, on the facts, has felt that the assessing officer himself was not sure whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars.
We may, in this context, respectfully observe that a contravention of a mandatory condition or requirement for a communication to be valid communication is fatal, with no further proof. That said, even if the notice contains no caveat that the inapplicable portion be deleted, it is in the interest of fairness and justice that the notice must be precise. It should give no room for ambiguity. Therefore, Dilip N. Shroff disapproves of the routine, ritualistic practice of issuing omnibus show-cause notices. That practice certainly betrays non-application of mind. And, therefore, the infraction of a mandatory procedure leading to penal consequences assumes or implies prejudice.
In Sudhir Kumar Singh, the Supreme Court has encapsulated the principles of prejudice. One of the principles is that "where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, "except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in the public interest".
Here, section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further precedential prop, we may refer to Rajesh Kumar v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 91 (SC); (2007) 2 SCC 181, in which the Apex Court has quoted with approval its earlier judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269. According to it, when by reason of action on the part of a statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, the principles of natural justice must be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down on this behalf, compliance with principles of natural justice would be implicit. If a statue contravenes the principles of natural justice, it may also be held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
As a result, we hold that Dilip N. Shroff treats omnibus show cause notices as betraying non- application of mind and disapproves of the practice, to be particular, of issuing notices in printed form without deleting or striking off the inapplicable parts of that generic notice. Conclusion: We have, thus, answered the reference as required by us; so we direct the Registry to place these two tax appeals before the Division Bench concerned for further adjudication." 23. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) and the other decisions of different High Courts, the ITAT rightly held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee was not valid. 24. We are unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. 25. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the facts in the present case are identical to the above cited case in as much as that AO in the assessment order had indicated that he had initiated the penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for suppressing its taxable income but had not mentioned the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) in the penalty notice dated 28.12.2007 for AY 2005-06 for which the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated. On similar facts, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above cited case held that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee was not valid. Therefore, respectfully following the above order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above cited case, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee amounting to Rs.1,24,89,274/- is not sustainable and the same is deleted. Ground no.2 of the appeal is allowed.
9.1. In view of the fact that ground no.2 of the appeal has been allowed, the other grounds of appeal are kept open.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
(Assessment Year:2006-07) are similar to grounds quantum of penalty levied.
11.1. In ground no.2, it has been contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the penalty, particularly when the notice issued under section 274 of the Act did not mention the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) for which penalty was to be imposed. The Ld. AR made similar submissions in respect of this ground as for AY 2005-06 and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs M/s Blackroak Securities Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pr. CIT-04 vs M/s Gragerious Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors(supra) to submit that penalty proceeding was not valid because in the penalty notice the limb under which the penalty proceeding was initiated was not mentioned.
11.2. The Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and made the same legal submission that the above plea of the assessee cannot be admitted at this stage.
11.3. On perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs.8,60,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act in respect of share capital raised amounting to Rs.43 lakhs and share premium amounting to Rs.8,17,00,000/-. Further, the Assessing Officer had disallowed a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- on account of commission paid and the rate of 0.5% for such accommodation entries made out of its unaccounted income. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer in para no.15 initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act after considering the reply of the assessee levied penalty amounting to Rs.2,97,15,690/-. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer recorded his satisfaction as under:-
“15. Considering the additions made supra, I am satisfied that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is warranted in this case.” 11.4. Thus, it is seen that while recording the satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act for this year, the AO has not indicated the limb i.e. whether the penalty was being initiated for concealing the particulars of the income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income by the assessee. As referred above, even in the penalty notice dated 30.12.2008 for this year placed at page no.16 of the written submission filed by the AR, the limb under which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO has not been identified or indicated.
11.5. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs M/s Blackroak Securities Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pr. CIT-04 vs M/s Gragerious Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.(supra) as relied by the assessee, the levy of the penalty by the AO amounting to Rs.2,93,77,557/- u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act is not sustainable in this case and the same is deleted. Ground no.2 of the appeal is allowed.
11.6. In view of the fact that ground no.2 of the appeal has been allowed, the other grounds of appeal are kept open.
No.9695/Del/2019 of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07th August, 2025.