NARESH BANSILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 20(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2021-22, confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The grounds raised in appeal are reproduced as under:

Mr. NareshBansilal Jain 2 ITA No. 643/MUM/2025

2.1 Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee, an individual, is riefly stated, the facts are that the assessee, an individual, is riefly stated, the facts are that the assessee, an individual, is engaged in the business of retail trading of gold ornaments under engaged in the business of retail trading of gold ornaments under engaged in the business of retail trading of gold ornaments under the proprietary concern the proprietary concern M/s Shah Tarachand Chamnaji Chamnaji Porwal Jewellers. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his . For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his . For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income on 01.09.2021 declaring total income of return of income on 01.09.2021 declaring total income of return of income on 01.09.2021 declaring total income of ₹5,08,040/-.The return was selected for scrutiny, and necessary .The return was selected for scrutiny, and necessary .The return was selected for scrutiny, and necessary statutory notices under the Act were duly issued and complied with. statutory notices under the Act were duly issued and complied with. statutory notices under the Act were duly issued and complied with. During the course of assessment, the AO noted that the assessee During the course of assessment, the AO noted that the assessee During the course of assessment, the AO noted that the assessee had purchased a flat in a project developed by purchased a flat in a project developed by M/s Ruparel Realty M/s Ruparel Realty Group, which was subjected to a search and seizure action under , which was subjected to a search and seizure action under , which was subjected to a search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act on 25.11.2021. The Investigation Wing, in Section 132 of the Act on 25.11.2021. The Investigation Wing, in Section 132 of the Act on 25.11.2021. The Investigation Wing, in that search, allegedly unearthed that certain flats were sold or that search, allegedly unearthed that certain flats were sold or that search, allegedly unearthed that certain flats were sold or Mr. NareshBansilal Jain 3 registered below the market value, thus indicating possible registered below the market value, thus indicating possible registered below the market value, thus indicating possible contravention of Sections 43CA and 56(2)(x) of the Act. The AO contravention of Sections 43CA and 56(2)(x) of the Act. The AO contravention of Sections 43CA and 56(2)(x) of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee, along with his spouse, Smt. observed that the assessee, along with his spouse, Smt. observed that the assessee, along with his spouse, Smt. KantaNaresh Jain, as co KantaNaresh Jain, as co-applicant, had purchased Flat No. 4502 Flat No. 4502 in for a consideration of ₹1 crore from the project “Ruparel Ariana” “Ruparel Ariana” for a consideration of M/s Shree Sukhkarta Developers Pvt. Ltd. M/s Shree Sukhkarta Developers Pvt. Ltd., an entity belonging to the , an entity belonging to the Ruparel Group. The stamp duty valuation authority, however, Ruparel Group. The stamp duty valuation authority, however, Ruparel Group. The stamp duty valuation authority, however, determined the value of the said flat at ₹2,28,98,427/ determined the value of the said flat at 2,28,98,427/-. The assessee, in response, submitted that he was previously a tenant or in response, submitted that he was previously a tenant or in response, submitted that he was previously a tenant or occupant in the old structure which was demolished for occupant in the old structure which was demolished for occupant in the old structure which was demolished for redevelopment by the same builder. It was stated that though the redevelopment by the same builder. It was stated that though the redevelopment by the same builder. It was stated that though the builder did not recognize him as a lawful tenant entitled to alternate builder did not recognize him as a lawful tenant entitled to alternate builder did not recognize him as a lawful tenant entitled to alternate accommodation, there was prolonged dispute and negotiation, and dation, there was prolonged dispute and negotiation, and dation, there was prolonged dispute and negotiation, and the matter was amicably settled by allotting the subject flat as a the matter was amicably settled by allotting the subject flat as a the matter was amicably settled by allotting the subject flat as a compensatory arrangement for the surrender of his possession and compensatory arrangement for the surrender of his possession and compensatory arrangement for the surrender of his possession and in the old premises, for a nominal consideration of ₹1 all rights in the old premises, for a nominal consideration of in the old premises, for a nominal consideration of crore.It was further submitted that the transaction, being in the rore.It was further submitted that the transaction, being in the rore.It was further submitted that the transaction, being in the nature of compensation compensation-cum-settlement for the loss of tenancy for the loss of tenancy rights, could not be treated as a case of receipt of immovable rights, could not be treated as a case of receipt of immovable rights, could not be treated as a case of receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration within the meaning of Section property for inadequate consideration within the meaning of Sectio property for inadequate consideration within the meaning of Sectio 56(2)(x). However, the AO rejected this contention on the ground 56(2)(x). However, the AO rejected this contention on the ground 56(2)(x). However, the AO rejected this contention on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence to that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence to that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of prior occupation or tenancy rights. The substantiate the claim of prior occupation or tenancy rights. The substantiate the claim of prior occupation or tenancy rights. The AO also relied on the statement of Shri Amit Mahendra Ruparel, AO also relied on the statement of Shri Amit Mahendra AO also relied on the statement of Shri Amit Mahendra Director of the developer company, recorded during search irector of the developer company, recorded during search irector of the developer company, recorded during search

Mr. NareshBansilal Jain 4 proceedings, wherein he admitted that certain flats were sold below proceedings, wherein he admitted that certain flats were sold below proceedings, wherein he admitted that certain flats were sold below market value.

2.2 Proceeding on this basis, the AO held that the assessee had Proceeding on this basis, the AO held that the assessee had Proceeding on this basis, the AO held that the assessee had acquired the immovable property for inadequate consideration and, acquired the immovable property for inadequate consid acquired the immovable property for inadequate consid therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) were attracted. therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) were attracted. therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) were attracted. Considering the assessee’s 50% share in the property, the AO Considering the assessee’s 50% share in the property, the AO Considering the assessee’s 50% share in the property, the AO computed the difference of ₹1,28,98,427/- and made an addition of computed the difference of and made an addition of ₹64,49,214/- in the hands of the assessee in assessmen in the hands of the assessee in assessment order in the hands of the assessee in assessmen passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 06/12/2022. 143(3) of the Act on 06/12/2022.

2.3. On further appeal, On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), concurred with the findings he Ld. CIT(A), concurred with the findings of the AO. After analyzing the submissions and the materials on of the AO. After analyzing the submissions and the materials on of the AO. After analyzing the submissions and the materials on record, the appellate authority observed that the assessee had not record, the appellate authority observed that the assessee had not record, the appellate authority observed that the assessee had not produced any credible or contemporaneous evidence, such as rent produced any credible or contemporaneous evidence, such as rent produced any credible or contemporaneous evidence, such as rent receipts, utility bills, municipal records, or legal documents, to receipts, utility bills, municipal records, or legal documents, to receipts, utility bills, municipal records, or legal documents, to establish his claim of occupation in the old premises.The Ld. CIT(A) establish his claim of occupation in the old premises.The Ld. CIT(A) establish his claim of occupation in the old premises.The Ld. CIT(A) held that mere reference to held that mere reference to Point No. FF in the Agreemen in the Agreement for Sale, describing the assessee as an “illegal occupant” of the erstwhile describing the assessee as an “illegal occupant” of the erstwhile describing the assessee as an “illegal occupant” of the erstwhile property, could not suffice to substantiate the claim of tenancy or property, could not suffice to substantiate the claim of tenancy or property, could not suffice to substantiate the claim of tenancy or possession. The authority further noted that in view of the search possession. The authority further noted that in view of the search possession. The authority further noted that in view of the search findings and the director’s statement admit findings and the director’s statement admitting under ting under-valuation of flats, the transaction had the characteristics of an on-money flats, the transaction had the characteristics of an on flats, the transaction had the characteristics of an on component. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO under component. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO under component. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(x) was upheld. Section 56(2)(x) was upheld.The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced as under: under:

Mr. NareshBansilal Jain 5 ITA No. 643/MUM/2025

“6.1 On perusal of the sub 6.1 On perusal of the submissions and the documents filed missions and the documents filed during appellate proceedings, it is observed that the appellant is during appellate proceedings, it is observed that the appellant is during appellate proceedings, it is observed that the appellant is a proprietor and engaged in the business of trading of Gold a proprietor and engaged in the business of trading of Gold a proprietor and engaged in the business of trading of Gold Ornaments on retail basis & runs his firm under the name & Ornaments on retail basis & runs his firm under the name & Ornaments on retail basis & runs his firm under the name & style of M/s Shah TarachandChamnajiPo style of M/s Shah TarachandChamnajiPorwal Jewellers. The rwal Jewellers. The appellant had purchased flat No.4502 in "Ruparel Ariana on appellant had purchased flat No.4502 in "Ruparel Ariana on appellant had purchased flat No.4502 in "Ruparel Ariana on 23.03.2021 with Mrs. KantaNaresh Jain, wife as co 23.03.2021 with Mrs. KantaNaresh Jain, wife as co 23.03.2021 with Mrs. KantaNaresh Jain, wife as co-applicant at the sale consideration value of Rs.1,00,00,000/ at the sale consideration value of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from Shree from Shree Sukhkarta Developers Private Limited (an entity of RR Sukhkarta Developers Private Limited (an entity of RR Sukhkarta Developers Private Limited (an entity of RR Group) against against against the the the Stamping Stamping Stamping Valuation Valuation Valuation Authority Authority Authority (SVA) (SVA) (SVA) value value value determined at Rs.2,28,98,427/ determined at Rs.2,28,98,427/-. The AO has made additions of . The AO has made additions of Rs. 64,49,214/ Rs. 64,49,214/- under head income from other source u/s under head income from other source u/s 56(2)(x) of the IT Act during the year. The contention of the 56(2)(x) of the IT Act during the year. The contention of the 56(2)(x) of the IT Act during the year. The contention of the appellant is that appellant is that he was earlier a tenant in old premises i.e., he was earlier a tenant in old premises i.e., before demoliation of old building and the builder which alleged before demoliation of old building and the builder which alleged before demoliation of old building and the builder which alleged to be an illegal tenant cum occupant in Point No. FF on page 6 of to be an illegal tenant cum occupant in Point No. FF on page 6 of to be an illegal tenant cum occupant in Point No. FF on page 6 of the Agreement to sale. the Agreement to sale. 6.2 During the appellate proceedings also, the appellan 6.2 During the appellate proceedings also, the appellan 6.2 During the appellate proceedings also, the appellant has given the same submissions in support of its claim. It is required given the same submissions in support of its claim. It is required given the same submissions in support of its claim. It is required to substantiate his submissions with evidences, which it has to substantiate his submissions with evidences, which it has to substantiate his submissions with evidences, which it has failed miserably. On perusal of records, it is seen that the failed miserably. On perusal of records, it is seen that the failed miserably. On perusal of records, it is seen that the appellant failed to furnish any documentary evidence except t appellant failed to furnish any documentary evidence except t appellant failed to furnish any documentary evidence except the point No. FF of agreement for sale. The AO has rightly held that point No. FF of agreement for sale. The AO has rightly held that point No. FF of agreement for sale. The AO has rightly held that the appellant has failed to furnish any documents regarding the appellant has failed to furnish any documents regarding the appellant has failed to furnish any documents regarding any settlement or in support of his submission regarding any settlement or in support of his submission regarding any settlement or in support of his submission regarding "assessee fought for his rights with the builder and was finally "assessee fought for his rights with the builder and was finally "assessee fought for his rights with the builder and was finally rewarded for the efforts made. This is a case where, there is on ed for the efforts made. This is a case where, there is on- ed for the efforts made. This is a case where, there is on money component involved in the transaction as accepted by money component involved in the transaction as accepted by money component involved in the transaction as accepted by Shri Amit MahendraRuparel, Director of Shree Sukhkarta Shri Amit MahendraRuparel, Director of Shree Sukhkarta Shri Amit MahendraRuparel, Director of Shree Sukhkarta Developers Private Limited in his statement on oath u/s 132(4) Developers Private Limited in his statement on oath u/s 132(4) Developers Private Limited in his statement on oath u/s 132(4) of the I. T. Act, 19 of the I. T. Act, 1961 on 28.11.2021. In view thereof, I do not 61 on 28.11.2021. In view thereof, I do not find any reason to differ with the order of the AO and the find any reason to differ with the order of the AO and the find any reason to differ with the order of the AO and the addition addition addition made made made by by by the the the assessing assessing assessing officer officer officer amounting amounting amounting to to to 64,49,214/- under head income from other source u/s 56(2)(x) under head income from other source u/s 56(2)(x) under head income from other source u/s 56(2)(x) of the IT Act is upheld and the grounds of the IT Act is upheld and the grounds of appeal no. 1 is of appeal no. 1 is dismissed.”

3. We have carefully heard the rival submissions, perused the We have carefully heard the rival submissions, perused the We have carefully heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record including registered document of property including registered document of property including registered document of property, and duly considered the relevant statutory provisions as well as judicial duly considered the relevant statutory provisions as well as judicial duly considered the relevant statutory provisions as well as judicial precedents cited before us. precedents cited before us.

Mr. NareshBansilal Jain 6 3.1 The issue for determination is whether the allotment of Flat No. The issue for determination is whether the allotment of Flat No. The issue for determination is whether the allotment of Flat No. 4502 in “Ruparel Ariana” to the assessee, jointly with his wife, for 4502 in “Ruparel Ariana” to the assessee, jointly with his wife, for 4502 in “Ruparel Ariana” to the assessee, jointly with his wife, for consideration of ₹1 crore, attracts the deeming provisions of Section 1 crore, attracts the deeming provisions of Section 1 crore, attracts the deeming provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, having regard to the difference between the 56(2)(x) of the Act, having regard to the difference between the 56(2)(x) of the Act, having regard to the difference between the stated stated stated consideration consideration consideration and and and the the the stamp stamp stamp duty duty duty valuation valuation valuation of of of ₹2,28,98,427/-. The The Section 56(2)(x) of the Act provides that where Section 56(2)(x) of the Act provides that where a person receives any immovable property for a consideration less any immovable property for a consideration less any immovable property for a consideration less than the stamp duty value by an amount exceeding the prescribed than the stamp duty value by an amount exceeding the prescribed than the stamp duty value by an amount exceeding the prescribed threshold, the differential amount shall be chargeable to tax as threshold, the differential amount shall be chargeable to tax as threshold, the differential amount shall be chargeable to tax as “income from other sources.”However, the provision presupposes “income from other sources.”However, the provision presupposes “income from other sources.”However, the provision presupposes that the transaction represents an tion represents an outright transfer for inadequate outright transfer for inadequate consideration and not a and not a settlement or exchange of rights settlement or exchange of rights arising from redevelopment, tenancy, or compensatory arrangements. The from redevelopment, tenancy, or compensatory arrangements. The from redevelopment, tenancy, or compensatory arrangements. The fundamental principle underlying Section 56(2)(x) is to curb tax fundamental principle underlying Section 56(2)(x) is to curb tax fundamental principle underlying Section 56(2)(x) is to curb tax avoidance through transactions structured below fair value, not to hrough transactions structured below fair value, not to hrough transactions structured below fair value, not to penalize genuine settlement arrangements involving pre-existing penalize genuine settlement arrangements involving pre penalize genuine settlement arrangements involving pre rights.In this context, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Anil rights.In this context, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in rights.In this context, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in DattaramPitale v. ITO DattaramPitale v. ITO (ITA No. 465/Mum/2025, A.Y. 2018 (ITA No. 465/Mum/2025, A.Y. 2018–19) held that where a new flat is allotted in exchange for surrender of an old t where a new flat is allotted in exchange for surrender of an old t where a new flat is allotted in exchange for surrender of an old flat or tenancy rights under a redevelopment agreement, such flat or tenancy rights under a redevelopment agreement, such flat or tenancy rights under a redevelopment agreement, such transaction constitutes an transaction constitutes an exchange of capital assets exchange of capital assets rather than a purchase of property for inadequate consideration purchase of property for inadequate consideration. According . Accordingly, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) were held to be inapplicable.The provisions of Section 56(2)(x) were held to be inapplicable. provisions of Section 56(2)(x) were held to be inapplicable. relevant finding of the Tribunal (supra) is reproduced as under: relevant finding of the Tribunal (supra) is reproduced as under: relevant finding of the Tribunal (supra) is reproduced as under:

Mr. NareshBansilal Jain 7 ITA No. 643/MUM/2025

“3. The facts relating to the above said issue are discussed in 3. The facts relating to the above said issue are discussed in 3. The facts relating to the above said issue are discussed in brief. The assessee had purchased a flat in the financi brief. The assessee had purchased a flat in the financi brief. The assessee had purchased a flat in the financial year 1997-98 in Mahavir Nagar Tristar Co 98 in Mahavir Nagar Tristar Co-op Hsg Society bearing op Hsg Society bearing no.C-5/28. society underwent redevelopment as per the 5/28. society underwent redevelopment as per the 5/28. society underwent redevelopment as per the agreement entered with the developer. As per the terms and agreement entered with the developer. As per the terms and agreement entered with the developer. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the assesse ns of the agreement, the assessee got a new flat no.B e got a new flat no.B- 1102, vide reg 1102, vide registered agreement dated 26th December, 2017 in dated 26th December, 2017 in lieu of the old flat surrendered by him. The stamp duty value of u of the old flat surrendered by him. The stamp duty value of u of the old flat surrendered by him. The stamp duty value of new flat was Rs.25,17,700/ new flat was Rs.25,17,700/-. The indexed cost of the old flat . The indexed cost of the old flat was Rs.5,43,040/ was Rs.5,43,040/-. Accordingly, the AO assessed the difference . Accordingly, the AO assessed the difference between the above s between the above said values amounting to Rs.19,74,660/ 4,660/- as income of the assessee income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. The LdCIT(A) u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. The LdCIT(A) confirmed the sam confirmed the same.

Mr. NareshBansilal Jain 8 ITA No. 643/MUM/2025

“The premises/flat purchaser/s herein was one of the illegal The premises/flat purchaser/s herein was one of the illegal The premises/flat purchaser/s herein was one of the illegal occupant on the said property whereas in possession of the occupant on the said property whereas in possession of the occupant on the said property whereas in possession of the residential premises admeasuring 804 sq. ft. carpet area residential premises admeasuring 804 sq. ft. carpet area residential premises admeasuring 804 sq. ft. carpet area however there has been sett however there has been settlement arrived between the lement arrived between the promoters and the purchaser herein and accordingly the promoters and the purchaser herein and accordingly the promoters and the purchaser herein and accordingly the promoters has agreed to give him one premises admeasuring promoters has agreed to give him one premises admeasuring promoters has agreed to give him one premises admeasuring 804 sq. ft. carpet area for an additional compensation of 804 sq. ft. carpet area for an additional compensation of 804 sq. ft. carpet area for an additional compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/ Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore only) and the purchaser (Rupees One crore only) and the purchaser has agreed for the down payment of Rs.1,00,00,000/ has agreed for the down payment of Rs.1,00,00,000/ has agreed for the down payment of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore only) (“Total Consideration”) One crore only) (“Total Consideration”)” 3.3In our opinion, however, t 3.3In our opinion, however, this recital, though indicative, by itself his recital, though indicative, by itself does not conclusively establish the factum of prior occupation. The does not conclusively establish the factum of prior occupation. The does not conclusively establish the factum of prior occupation. The burden of proof rests on the assessee to substantiate such claim rests on the assessee to substantiate such claim rests on the assessee to substantiate such claim with supporting evidence with supporting evidence—such as electricity or water bills, such as electricity or water bills, property tax records, or any other correspondence with municipal property tax records, or any other correspondence with municipal property tax records, or any other correspondence with municipal or redevelopment authorities or redevelopment authorities—showing that he was indeed in showing that he was indeed in possession of the old premises.

3.4 The lower authorities have rightly observed that no such The lower authorities have rightly observed that no such The lower authorities have rightly observed that no such evidence was furnished. However, having regard to the peculiar evidence was furnished. However, having regard to the peculiar evidence was furnished. However, having regard to the peculiar nature of the claim and the equitable aspect that the assessee’s nature of the claim and the equitable aspect that the assessee’s nature of the claim and the equitable aspect that the assessee’s assertion, if substantiated, would take the transaction outside the assertion, if substantiated, would take the transaction assertion, if substantiated, would take the transaction ambit of Section 56(2)(x), we consider it in the interest of ambit of Section 56(2)(x), we consider it in the ambit of Section 56(2)(x), we consider it in the substantial justice to afford one final opportunity to the assessee to to afford one final opportunity to the assessee to to afford one final opportunity to the assessee to establish his claim.

3.5. In case, the assessee fails in establishing the , the assessee fails in establishing the , the assessee fails in establishing the claim of possession of illegal occupan possession of illegal occupancy in old building, then one more issu , then one more issue may arise in the case of the assessee. The AO may arise in the case of the assessee. The AO has has mentioned of allegations on the seller or admission by the seller that properties allegations on the seller or admission by the seller that properties allegations on the seller or admission by the seller that properties

Mr. NareshBansilal Jain 9 were sold below the market value against cash consideration were sold below the market value against cash consideration were sold below the market value against cash consideration received. If the claim o If the claim of old residence fails, then the issue of cash f old residence fails, then the issue of cash payment on and above stamp duty value may also need to be payment on and above stamp duty value may also need to be payment on and above stamp duty value may also need to be examined in the case, which may be in the nature of unexplained examined in the case, which may be in the nature of unexplained examined in the case, which may be in the nature of unexplained expenditure 69A of the Act inviting higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE 69A of the Act inviting higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE 69A of the Act inviting higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE of the Act.

3.6 Accordingly, we deem it just and proper to rdingly, we deem it just and proper to set aside the order set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and and restore the matter to the file of the AO restore the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the matter afresh deciding the matter afresh. The AO shall examine whether the . The AO shall examine whether the assessee had any demonstrable occupancy, possession, or tenancy assessee had any demonstrable occupancy, possession, or tenancy assessee had any demonstrable occupancy, possession, or tenancy in the old property prior to redevelopment, and whether the e old property prior to redevelopment, and whether the e old property prior to redevelopment, and whether the impugned flat was allotted in consideration thereof. The AO shall impugned flat was allotted in consideration thereof. The AO shall impugned flat was allotted in consideration thereof. The AO shall also verify the authenticity of any supporting evidence the assessee also verify the authenticity of any supporting evidence the assessee also verify the authenticity of any supporting evidence the assessee may produce and adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with may produce and adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with may produce and adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. and principles of natural justice.

3.7 In light of the foregoing discussion, the addition sustained In light of the foregoing discussion, the addition sustained In light of the foregoing discussion, the addition sustained under Section 56(2)(x) amounting to under Section 56(2)(x) amounting to ₹64,49,214/- cannot be upheld cannot be upheld without proper verification of the assessee’s claim of compensatory without proper verification of the assessee’s claim of compensatory without proper verification of the assessee’s claim of compensatory allotment. The matte allotment. The matter is therefore restored to the Assessing Officer restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication for de novo adjudication, with a direction to grant reasonable with a direction to grant reasonable opportunity of hearing and to pass a speaking order in accordance opportunity of hearing and to pass a speaking order in accordance opportunity of hearing and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

Mr. NareshBansilal Jain 10 3.8 Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee is Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee is Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is statistical purposes. statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 16 ronounced in the open Court on 16/10/2025. /10/2025.