Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of final assessment order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A)- 47, Mumbai dated 20/10/2023 for assessment year 2021-22 on following grounds of appeal:
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the "Ld.CIT(A)"] erred in passing the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-47, Mumbai/10019/2020-21 dismissing the appeal filed by Appellant and confirming the order dated 05.10.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the "AO"] under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"] in the case of M/s. Index Logistics Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant"] for Assessment Year [hereinafter referred to as the "A.Y."] 2021-22, assessing the income of the Appellant at ? 12,76,14,960 as against the total income of ?8,62,15,050 declared by the Appellant in its return of income, because the assessment proceedings resulting in the passing of the assessment order were initiated consequent upon a search u/s. 132 of the Act conducted at the premises of the Appellant, which itself was illegal, invalid and hence void ab initio, because the search was conducted without the conditions specified in section 132 of the Act being fulfilled and was mala fide as evident from the manner of conduct of search.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 dismissing the appeal filed by Appellant and confirming the order dated 05.10.2022 passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act, because the order has been passed without proper application of mind and without appreciating the facts of the case.
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and confirming the addition of ?1,99,80,518 made by the AO under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits from walk-in customers, because the addition has been confirmed without appreciating the facts and even when the sales pertaining to walk-in customers had duly been included in income and offered for taxation and even when the provisions of sections 68 and 115BBE are not applicable in the case.
4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and confirming the addition of ?2,14,19,394 made by the AO under section 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liability, because the addition has been made on mere surmises and conjectures and without providing any opportunity to the Appellant, which is against the settled principles of natural justice.
5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”
The brief facts of the case that the assessee is a domestic private company registered with the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai and is engaged in the business of providing AY 2021-22 M/s. Index Logistics Private Limited logistics/freight forwarding services. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration thereby declaring total income of Rs. 8,62,15,050/-.
Thereafter, a Search u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee at 105, Ascot Centre, Near Hyatt Hotel, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400099 and during the search proceedings, some books of accounts and documents were found and seized, which have been described in the Panchnama as 5. (a) (i) Books of accounts and documents as per Annexure A. Further, cash amounting to Rs. 55,770/- was also found, but the same was not seized. Apart from this nothing was found or seized. The search proceedings at this premises commenced on 24.03.2021 at 9.15 am and these were closed as temporarily concluded on 26.03.2021 at 5.00 pm and an order u/s.132(3) of the Act was passed on 26.03.2021 in respect of the following articles: (i) One Desktop Computer (ii) 2 CPUs (iii) Loose papers (iv) SIM Cards
The above articles were placed in one 'Prakash Nair Cabin' described in the Panchnama as ‘2ndCabin from Mr. Ismail M. Khan's cabin', which was sealed by the officials on 26.03.2021.
Thereafter, in continuation of the proceedings initiated on 24.03.2021, the officials from the Department again visited the business premises of the assessee company on 24.05.2021 at 1.15 pm and the proceedings were closed on 24.05.2021 itself at AY 2021-22 M/s. Index Logistics Private Limited 8.00 pm as finally concluded. During these proceedings, certain documents were seized, which have been described in the Panchnama as '5 (a) (1) Books of accounts and documents as per Annexure A.’
It is pertinent to mention that search proceedings u/s.132 of the Act were also conducted at other premises of the assessee as well
Thereafter, centralization order dated 17.06.2021 was issued by the CCIT (Central)-1. Mumbai and another order dated 02.07.2021 was issued u/s. 127(2) of the Act by the PCIT, Mumbai for centralization of the case of the assessee with DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 16.03.2022 and the assessment was completed by the AO on 06.09.2022 u/s.143(3) of the Act and the total income of the appellant was assessed at Rs. 12,76,14,960/-. Thereby making following additions:
Sr. Particulars (Amount in Rs.) No.
1. Addition u/s.41(1) on account of 2,14,19,394 cessation of liability.
2. Addition u/s. 68 on account of 1,99,80,518 unexplained cash credits Total amount of addition 4,13,99,912
Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal which was dismissed by CIT(A). Aggrieved by the said order, Ground No. 1 9. This ground raised
by the assessee relates to legality and validity which has already been decided by the Bench in other bunch cases relating to the same group wherein the order of AO was found to be out of limitation, thus the findings of the order of the Bench in 3347, 3360, 3361, 3362, 4267, 4272, 4273, 4286, 4288 and 4289/Mum/2023 for A.Ys: 2016-17 to 2020
21. (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in group case would apply mutatis mutandis for these appeal also. Accordingly, the ground of appeal of the present appeal also stands allowed.
Ground No. 2 10. This ground raised by the assessee is general in nature and therefore stands dismissed as the assessee could not prove this ground.
Ground No.3
This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the order of AO in making additions u/s 68 of the Act . In this regard we have heard the counsels of both the parties, perused material placed on record,
From the records we noticed that during the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s.142(1) on 17.03.2022 requiring the assessee to furnish the basic information and details In response, thereof the assessee filed reply thereby furnishing all the required documents / information. However, AO was of the view that the documents seized during the search contained details of cash received from walk-in customers. And Mr. Nandkumar Watkar, Accountant at Mumbai office, of the assessee had admitted receipt of cash from such customers and had stated that these cash receipts were not being entered into books of accounts. Therefore on this basis, the AO made additions to the tune of Rs. 1,99,80,518/- u/s 68 of the Act.
Whereas in order to counter the said allegation of the AO, assessee filed detailed reply thereby stating that the entire amount of “walk-in sales” of Rs. 1,99,80,518/- had duly been accounted for in the regular books of accounts maintained by the assessee. It was also explained that cash receipts from “walk-in sales” occasionally used to be verified by Mr. Ismail Khan. As for as the statement of Mr. Watkar is concern, in this regard it was submitted that his statement was neither correct nor was in accordance with the position in the books of accounts. It was also submitted that Mr. Nandkumar did not have knowledge about
It was also submitted that assessee had not suppressed any income and therefore no additions could have been made, as all the cash amounts received from walk-in customers were being duly recorded in the books of account. It was further reiterated that Mr. Watker had no knowledge about the receipts or the books of accounts and he was managing only the payments. In order to support its contention, assessee also filed copy of ledger account of walk-in sales, which reflects a receipt of Rs. 1,78,92,143/- from walk-in customers during the year under consideration.
However it is strange that Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had used sever intermediaries to rotate cash through various entities, whereas there is not even a whisper of any such allegation in the assessment order or in any show cause notice to the effect that the assessee used several intermediaries like Mr. Khan, Mr. Vinay Lal, Mr. Bashir Siddique and Mr.Rana, Mr. Iyer and Mr. Watker to rotate cash through various entities.
After having evaluating the entire factual position we noticed that the additions in the present case are based on figures, which are factually incorrect as at page 4 of the assessment order, the statement of Mr. Watkar has been "…the date wise tabulation of cash transactions (attached as Annexure- l to this statement) amourting to Rs 2.20,42,836 for the period 06.04.2017 to 31.08.2018 made in red color register labelled as Sun life Account Book (Page 1 to 94) and details of cash transactions amounting to Rs. 24,70,916 for the period 02.09.2020 to 20.03.2021 made in brown color diary labelled as Bank Pass Book No.7 (Page 1 to 12) found and seized as per Annexure Al and Annexure-A2 respectively." (Emphasis added)
From the above, it is evident that the total amount of receipts from walk-in customers for the period 02.09 2020 to 20.03.2021 is Rs. 24,70,916/- and this is the only amount which pertains to the year under consideration. Since all walk-in receipts have duly been recorded by the assessee in its regular books of accounts, therefore there is no rationale in making an addition of Rs. 1,99,80,518/- on the strength of documents showing receipts of Rs. 24,70,916/-.
We noticed that the genesis of this figure of Rs. 1,99,80,518/- is in reply to Q. 21 reproduced by the AO at page 6 of the assessment order, wherein Mr. Watkar has stated that the details of cash received against the walk-in customers was Rs. 1,99,80,518.28 for the year under consideration. However there is not an iota of evidence or seized document, which contains or adds up to this figure of Rs. 1,99,80,518/- In reply to Q. 21 itself, the figure of Rs. 1,99,80,518/- is attributed to Annexure-1 to the statement of Mr. Watkar, which is factually incorrect as Annexure-1 gives an amount of Rs. 24,70,916/-only.
AY 2021-22 M/s. Index Logistics Private Limited 19. In our view this figure is taken not on the basis of any document found or seized, but on the basis of "Walk-in All Sector Billing Report 2020-2021' attached as Annexure-2 to the statement of Mr. Watkar. Whereas no basis of this report has been given in the assessment order. Thus the addition are based primarily on the uncorroborated statement of an accountant (Mr. Nandkumar), who was not competent to comment on accounts as his statement contradicts the books of account.
Now as for as the role of Mr Watkar in the assessee company is concern was limited to handling payments only as he had nothing to do with the receipts or with the account books. As he was neither associated with the receipt part nor with the account books and hence, he was not competent to comment on these aspects.
Apart from above the statement of Mrs. Watkar is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated any incriminating evidence. As most of the scans pasted in the assessment order either do not pertain to the year under consideration or are dumb documents without any date or year mentioned on them. In this regard reliance is being placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Padamshree Dr. DY. Patil University vs DCIT [LT.As. No. 3264-68/Mum/2022 dated 04.01.20141, wherein the AO had similarly relied upon the statements of the employees. The trustee Smt. Shivani Patil had also retracted her statement. The Hon'ble ITAT held as below.
"49.4 We have heard the parties and perused the record. We have held that the information found in the pen drive/laptop of employees cannot be considered as credible evidences, unless they have been corroborated with any other evidence. Accordingly, no credence could be given to the abstract entries made in the pen drive/laptop. Accordingly, we are of the view that the AO could not have made additions on the basis of those information. Accordingly, we confirm the decision of Ld CIT(A) in deleting the additions in both the years for the reasons discussed above." (Emphasis added)
It is respectfully submitted that only statements of parties cannot be the basis of addition without any corroborative evidence. In CIT v Smt. S.Jayalakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189(Mad)(HC) it is held as under:
"19. While adverting to the above, we are of the considered view that, for deciding any issue, against the assessee, the Authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961 have to consider, as to whether there is any corroborative material evidence. If there is no corroborating documentary evidence, then statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, have to be conferred with the power, to be exercised, solely on the basis of a statement, then it may lead to an arbitrary exercise of such power. An order of assessment entails civil consequences. Therefore, under Judicial review, courts have to exercise due care and caution that no man is condemned, due to erroneous or arbitrary exercise of authority conferred."
Ajay Gupta v CIT [2020] 114 taxmann.com 577 (Allahabad)/[2020] 270 Taxman 71 (Allahabad)[13-11-2019] It is held that presumption u/s 132(4A) is not absolute and is subject to corroborative evidence.
"11. This Court, in the case of CIT v. Shadiram Ganga Prasad, 2010 UPTC 840 has held that the loose parchas found during search at the most could lead to a presumption, but the department cannot draw inference unless the entries made in the documents, so found are corroborated by evidence.
12 As, Section132(4A) of the Act provides that any books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things found in possession or in control of any person in course of search may be presumed to be belonging to such person, and further, contents of such books of account and documents are true. But this presumption is not provided in absolute terms and the word used is "may" and not "shall", as such the revenue has to corroborate the entries made in the seized documents before presuming that transactions so entered were
In the case of V C Shukla, the CBI conducted search in the premises of J K Jain, an employee of Jain Brothers, and found, inter alia, diaries & files containing details of payments to public servants and politicians, in connection with awarding of projects in the power sector to different bidders. The CBI registered a case against the Jains, some public servants & others under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 & FERA 1973. Charges were framed against VC Shukla & others by the special judge. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, inter alia, quashed the proceedings of the case & discharged V C Shukla, against which order the CBI appealed to the hon'ble Supreme Court, resting the entire edifice of the prosecution case on the diaries and files and for that matter, the entries made therein recovered from J. K. Jain.
The said V C Shukla judgment was followed by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the popularly known Sahara dairies and Aditya Birla diaries case, cited as Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI, [2017] 77 taxmann.com 245/245 Taxman 214 (SC), the pleading before the hon'ble Apex Court was to sanction a formation of Special Investigation Team (SIT), to investigate into the whole matter afresh, as it was alleged by them that the CBI had not done its job with objectivity and fairness. The Hon'ble Apex Court, with a recourse to Section 34, at paras 17 & 18 of the order, for the very reason that as "independent evidence" was not adduced for the purposes of incrimination, adjudicated that no reliance can be placed only on the loose papers & random sheets as "corroborative evidences" furnished and relied upon by the CBI, even for the purposes of formation of SIT
The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that: "The evidentiary value of entries relevant under Section 34 was also considered in Hiralal Mahabir Pershad v. Mutsaddilal Jugal Kishore [1967] 11. LR (Punj. & Har) 435. LD. Dua, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Court observed that such entries, though relevant, were only corroborative evidence and it is to be shown further by some independent evidence that the entries represent honest and real transactions and that monies were paid in accordance with those entries." (Emphasis added) and pointed that:
"In Beni v. Bisan Dayal (A.
R1925 Nagpur 445] it was observed that entries in hooks of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his own books behind the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate and in absence of such evidence no relief can be given to the party who relies upon such entries to support his claim against another." (Emphasis added)
In our view since the AO had all powers conferred under the Act for making inquiries and verifications and to compel compliance. However, in the present case no such effort has been made by the AO and he has made the additions only on the basis of dumb documents.
Even the entire cash receipts received from the customers are duly recorded in the Books of Accounts maintained by the Assessee were also produced during the course of assessment AY 2021-22 M/s. Index Logistics Private Limited proceedings wherein the Sales register reflecting date wise cash sales to walk in customers and duly offers to tax were also mentioned. In is important to mention that the books of accounts have not been rejected in the present case. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Rakesh Ramani [2018] 94 taxmann.com 461 (Bombay)/[2018] 256 Taxman 299 (Bombay) held
"There is no requirement in law that evidence in support of its case must be produced only at the time when the seizure has been made and not during the assessment proceedings."
Since the AO could not found any defects in the books of accounts and had not disputed the veracity and genuineness of the sales register. Hence, the addition made without rejecting the books of accounts and without finding the contention of the Assessee that entire cash sales to walk in customers as false, the addition are in our view bad in law.
We are further of the view that the provisions of section 68 of the Act are not applicable for making additions as it is essential that the sum proposed to be added must be found by the AO as having been credited in the account books of an assessee
However in the present case, as per AO, the sum of Rs. 1,99,80,518/- alleged to have been received by the assessee in cash from walk-in customers is not recorded in the account books. Out of it, an amount of Rs. 24,70,916/- is taken from AY 2021-22 M/s. Index Logistics Private Limited Annexure A-I found and seized during the search and the basis of the balance amount is nowhere disclosed in the assessment order or in the statement of Mr. Watkar. But still the fact remains that alleged amount is not recorded in the account books.
30 Therefore in our view the absence of any credit in the books of accounts, the addition u/s. 68 are not in sustainable, consequently, section 115BBE also is not applicable in the case of the assessee.
Even otherwise the provisions of section 115BBE are not applicable as the revenue itself has set up a case that the cash receipts are business income of the assessee from walk-in customers. Therefore after having gone through the entire facts and circumstances of the present case and also keeping in view the legal proposition we allow the grounds of appeal and direct the AO to delete the addition.
Ground No. 4 32. This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,14,19,394/- made by the AO under section 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liability.
In this regard we have heard the counsels of both the parties and perused the material placed on record. From the AY 2021-22 M/s. Index Logistics Private Limited records we noticed that the AO had made addition of Rs. 2,14,19,384/- under section 41(1) of the Act on the ground that there was an outstanding amount payable by the assessee to an entity named Fine Deal Sales Private Limited since F.Y. 2016-17. However as per the facts, during FY 2016-2017 the assessee had purchased packing materials of Rs 2,99,91,924/- from said company. Assessee had made a payment of Rs 10,00,000/-in FY 2016-17 and Rs 75,72.540/-in FY 2017-18 through banking channels. However, due to dispute with regard to quality of packing material, Assessee did not make any further payments. In AY 2017-18, ie the year in which said expenditure was claimed as expenses, the AO disallowed the same u/s 69C treating the said expense as bogus. In the present AY 21-22, AO has made addition of the said amount on protective basis u/s 41(1) on the ground that a genuine trading liability has ceased.
In this regard, at the outset we are of the view that since the assessment order for A.Y 2017-18 has already been quashed, therefore the additions itself have been quashed.
We noticed that AO had issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act thereby seeking certain details from the assesse and in reply thereof assessee had made submissions on 22.08.2022 but the AO was of the view that Mr. Vinay Lal in his statement recorded during the search had stated that he was not aware about the transactions with M/s. Fine Deals Sales Private Limited though
However on the contrary, it was submitted that the additions were made at the back of the assessee without providing any opportunity of hearing to the assessee as the facts narrated in the assessment order actually pertain to A.Y. 2017- 18, wherein an addition was made by the AO treating the amount of Rs. 2,99,91,924/- as being unexplained expenditure on account of purchases made from M/s. Fine Deal Sales P Ltd held as fictitious purchases.
In our view, the addition made in A.Y. 2017-18 does not absolve the AO from the requirement of confronting the assessee while making additions u/s. 41(1) of the Act in the impugned assessment year. The making of addition without giving the assessee any opportunity of being heard is a gross violation of the settled principles of natural justice.
Even otherwise the protective additions are nowhere contained in any of the provisions of the Act. However, the courts have understood the making of protective addition in such cases where either the ownership of income is in dispute between two or more persons or the assessment year to which the income pertains is in dispute. However, the AO is not permitted to make protective addition in a case where he is unsure about the particular provision of the Act which is to be applied to a set of facts. In such a scenario, the additions are not sustainable.
In our view the outstanding liability is appearing in the books of accounts of the Assessee company. Hence, there is no cessation/remission of liability. Merely because 3 years have expired from the date when liability became due will not ipso fact result in invocation of Section 41(1) if the liability continues in the books of accounts.
In the present case the creditor is identifiable being a company duly registered under the Companies Act Part payment was made by Assessee through banking channels. Notice u/s 133(6) issued by AO was duly served upon the creditor. Hence, provisions of Section 41(1) will not apply.
On this proposition we draw strength from the decision in the case CIT v. Enam Securities (P.) Ltd. reported in [2012] 21 taxmann.com 267/208 Taxman 54/345 ITR 64 (Bombay), wherein, it was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court that, "Whether since there was no remission or cessation of liability in question during current assessment year, addition made by Assessing Officer was to be deleted." Also, in the case of Sugauli Sugar Works Pvt Ltd reported in [[1999] 102 Taxman 713/236 ITR 518 (SC)), Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "Expiry of period of limitation cannot extinguish the debt Section 41(1) not applicable." Further in the case of Puridevi Mahendrakumar Chaudhary reported in [[2014] 41 taxmann.com 329/221 Taxman 375 (Guj)) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that, "Where assessee had outstanding creditors for goods and Assessing Officer made addition in income of assessee u/s. 41(1) on basis that with respect to 14 creditors liability was outstanding for more than three years, Assessing Officer was not justified in his view." Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Pukhraj S Jain (ITA No. 1288 of 2016), has held as under:-
"S. 41(1) (o/s & unpaid liability for sundry creditors): It is well settled through series of judgments that merely because a debt has not been repaid for over three years, would not automatically imply cessation of liability. Exhaustion of period of limitation may prevent filing of recovery proceedings in a Court of law, nevertheless it cannot be stated by itself that the liability to repay the amount had ceased. Such liability cannot be termed as bogus."
The Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. M/s Soorajmul Nagarmull [2023] 457 ITR 470 (Cal)(HC) [SLP dismissed in [2024] 164 taxmann.com 353 (SC)] held as under:-
"15. In the preceding paragraphs, we have noted the undisputed factual position which was rightly taken note of by the learned tribunal and in particular, noting that there is no dispute about the assessee to have been carrying forward the impugned liability in its books for a time span of almost three decades and the department did not raise any issue in al/ the intervening assessment years in question. The tribunal also noted that the assessing officer after the matter was remanded to him had issued summons to six directors of the concerned entities on test check basis, and four out of the six directors had appeared in response to the summons. The statements were recorded. The learned tribunal also notes that the creditors have given written reply in response to the summons reiterating their liability as a/so the fact that the assessee had settled some of the creditors even after 31.03.2001. Thus the assessee has fulfilled the duty cast upon them to provide AY 2021-22 M/s. Index Logistics Private Limited evidence that the liability exist at the end of the year. The duty on the assessing officer is to prove that the liability has ceased to exist which in our considered view has been miserably failed to be established.”
The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT v. Babul Products (P.) Lid reported in [2018] 96 taxmann.com 82/257 Taxman 100 (Gujarat) held that since assessee had not written off liability in his books of account with respect to debtors and had carried forward and continued same liability, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made by Assessing Officer under section 41(1), on account of cessation of said liability. In the case of Sh. Nitin S. Garg v. ACIT in dated 04/06/2010, Hon'ble Ahmadabad Tribunal held as under: -
"9.1 Considering the facts of the case as noted above it is clear that the assessee had continued to show the admitted amounts as liabilities in its balance sheet.The liabilities reflected in the balance sheet cannot be treated as cessation of liabilities. Merely because the liabilities are outstanding for last many years, it cannot be inferred that the said liabilities have ceased to exist. It is also a fact that the assessee has not written off the outstanding liabilities in the books of account and the outstanding liabilities are still in existence would prove that the assessee acknowledged his liabilities as per the books of account Section 41(1) of the IT Act is attracted when there is cessation or remission of a trading liability" (Emphasis added)
43. In the light of the above submissions, the Appellant submits that the addition made by the AO u/s. 41(1) of the Act is not justified and deserves to be deleted it is ordered accordingly. Consequently this ground raised by the assessee stands allowed.
Ground No. 5
This ground raised by the assessee is consequential and thus needs no specification adjudication.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09/07/2025