Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a partnership firm, filed a return declaring Nil income. The AO re-opened the case based on information that the assessee availed accommodation entries for unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 5,50,00,000/-. The AO added this amount as unexplained cash credit.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by furnishing relevant details and evidence regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The AO failed to point out any lacuna or conduct independent inquiries. The repayment of loans also supported the genuineness of the transactions.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 5,50,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is justified when the assessee has provided evidence of identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders, and has also repaid the loans.
Sections Cited
68, 148, 143(3), 133(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal is filed by the revenue against order dated 29.06.2024 passed by NFAC Delhi, for assessment year 2012-13 on following grounds of appeal:
1 Ground Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5,50,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that A.Y. 2012-13 Pyramid Infratech Co. the assessee failed to discharge onus cast on it to prove genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan transactions which were nothing but accommodation entries. 2 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5,50,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained loan creditors, without appreciating the fact that the AO had conducted independent inquiries from the loan creditors and it was established on verification of their return record that the said loan creditors had no worth and were only engaged in providing accommodation entries. 3 The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary Brief facts of the case are as under:
The assessee is a partnership firm and filed its return of income on 06.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. Subsequent to an information received from investigation wings during a search and action conducted in case of Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain from the statement recorded, following entities were set to be controlled/operated by him and was involved in providing bogus accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loan, bogus LTCG etc. 2.1 The Ld. AO noted that assessee obtained unsecured loans from following entities which were mentioned by Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain in his statement to be his group concerns.
Sr. No. Name of the Party Amount (inRs.) 1. Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd 70,00,000/- 2. Duke Business Pvt. Ltd 1,00,00,000/- 3. Josh Trading Private Ltd 3,10,00,000/- 4. Nakshatra Business Pvt. Ltd 70,00,000/- TOTAL 5,50,00,000/- 2.2 Accordingly the Ld. AO issued notice u/s 148 on 14.03.2016 after recording reasons. The assessee was upon to A.Y. 2012-13 Pyramid Infratech Co. furnish return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee vide order dated 16.09.2016 states that original return filed by the assessee made by treaties as return in lieu of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon assessee in response to which assessee furnish details as following: “(c) During the course of Assessment Proceedings, the appellant was required to explain Nature and source of unsecured loans and prove genuineness of transactions, identity and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, records and supporting documentary evidences. In response to prove the same, the appellant filed its response, wherein it submitted the following: i) The assessee furnished the following documentary evidences:- � Copy of Loan Confirmation from the Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, Duke Business Pvt. Ltd, Josh trading Pvt. Ltd, Nakshtra Business Pvt. Ltd duly signed by parties: � Copy of ledger a/c of Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, Duke Business Pvt. Ltd, Josh trading Pvt. Ltd, Nakshtra Business Pvt. Ltd for the period of 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2016, � Copy of ledger a/c of interest payment to Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, Duke Business Pvt. Ltd, Josh trading Pvt. Ltd, Nakshtra Business Pvt. Ltd for the period of 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2016, � Copy of relevant bank statement in respect of squared off loans. � Copy of acknowledgement of income tax return along with all the annexures filed for A.Y.2012-13 of Atharv A.Y. 2012-13 Pyramid Infratech Co. Business Pvt. Ltd, Duke Business Pvt. Ltd, Josh trading Pvt. Ltd, Nakshtra Business Pvt. Ltd. � Copy of bank statement of creditors reflecting all the transactions entered between the assessee and Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, Duke Business Pvt. Ltd, Josh trading Pvt. Ltd, Nakshtra Business Pvt. Ltd. � Copy of Affidavit where Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, Duke Business Pvt. Ltd, Josh trading Pvt. Ltd, Nakshtra Business Pvt. Ltd affirm that they have advanced loan to appellant for the period 2012-13 and 2013-14. � Copy of repayment schedule of loans. � Copy of Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss A/c of Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, Duke Business Pvt. Ltd, Josh trading Pvt. Ltd, Nakshtra Business Pvt. Ltd.” 2.3 The Ld. AO during the assessment proceeding issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the parties from whom assessee had taken unsecured load. It was observed that except for m/s. George Trading Pvt. Ltd. The other 3 parties had furnished copy of the return, financial statement along with the bank statements of the Ld. AO.
The assessee submitted that, Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain had retracted the statement by filing retraction affidavit before the Hon’ble High Court and thus the statement recorded by investment wings of the Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain cannot be relied upon. The Ld.AO rejected the submission of the assessee by holding that as per the investigation report Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain group was engaged in providing accommodation entries to various parties and had no genuine business to carried out based on the statement reported on Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain u/s 132(4)
A.Y. 2012-13 Pyramid Infratech Co. of the Act. The Ld.AO concluded that the assessee obtained through accommodated entries from four parties reproduce here in above which was paper companies and managed by concerns operated by P.K. Jain & group. He thus added the said amount as unsecured loans in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the addition made by Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).
Before the Ld.CIT(A) assessee furnished all the relevant details of the four parties and also submitted that the assessee has also repaid most of the loans received from the parties. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering all the submission of the assessee reproduce the entire assessment order and upheld the reopening of the assessment on merits the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under:
“8.2 The appellant also informed the AO ( vide letter dated 29.11.2016 that Sri Prawin Kr. Jain has retracted from his statement by filing an affidavit before the Hon’ble High Court and therefore his statement cannot be relied upon for the purpose of assessment . The appellant further submitted the loans were already repaid. During the course of appellant proceedings it is also submitted that the appellant was never provided with a copy of statement made by PKJ. They also contended that they were not allowed the opportunity to cross examined based on whose statement entire addition is made. From the assessment order it is seen that the AO has mainly relied on the statement given by PKJ and Others during the course of search. The AO is also noted the fact that Sri P.K.Jain has later retracted from his statement. But he AO found the retraction weak and unreliable as the it was made on 15.05.2014 several months after the date of search i.e. on 01.10.2013. 8.3 Accordingly, the AO proceeded to make assessment on the basis of the statement recorded by Investigation Wing from PKJ & Others. With regard to the AO’s claim that Other individuals- Dinesh Chowdhury, Manish Jain , Nilesh Parmar etc. making statement admitted that they were all controlled by Sri PKJ only the appellant has argued that after search all such statements, all the persons had signed confirmations and affidavit and given to the appellant. Which were duly filed with AO during the course of the assessment proceedings. 8.4 The appellant contends that the genuiness of the lenders were fully established during the course of assessment proceedings . The AO has also not found any cash deposit in any accounts either of the appellant or of the lenders. AO has also not been established any trail of fund initially deposited in cash and finally finding it’s way to the appellant’s. The appellant has also harped that they need not proved the source of the source. The AO on other side has contended that mere establishment of the identity is not sufficient to proof the genuiness of loan u/s.68 of the I.T.Act. The AO has relied upon the following case laws : 1. In Sumati Dayal V. CIT (1995) 214 itr 801 (SC) 2. Precision Finance P. Ltd.;s case [1994] 208 ITR 465(Cal) 3. M.A. Unneri Kutty Vs. CIT 198 itr 147 (Kerala) 4. R.B.Mittal V/s. CIT 131 taxman 155 (Raj) 5. Nizam Wool Agency V. CIT 193 ITR 318 (All) 6. Riddhi Promoter(P) Ltd. V CI 8.5 The appellant has filed elaborate rebuttal of the above are stating that onus cast upon the appellant was discharged during the course of assessment proceedings. The appellant submits that the AO has failed to establish that these unsecured loans were accommodation entries. The AO has also not spelt out how the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions how is not established. The AO has not brought out any new news of evidence which is contradict the claim of assessee.
8.6 The appellant has also placed reliance in the case of PCIT v. Hi-Tech Residency(P) Ltd.[2018] 96 taxmann.com 403/257 Taxman 335, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered identical issue and held that where an assessee company had discharged the onus of establishing identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of investors, no additions could be made u/s.68 of the Act. The appellant has also claimed that in many similar cases various courts have held decision in favour of the assessee and placed reliance on order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Income-tax Officer V. Kayathwal Estate(P) Ltd. 139 taxmann.com 317(SC)/[2022] wherein the SLP filed by the department was dismissed.
8.7 In entire statement PKJ has not elaborated upon the manner in which appellant approaching him or his agents seeking bogus loan entries for a commission. The AO has also not established the trail of the fund movement showing that the parties who transferred the money to the lenders were also controlled by PKJ group. The order or the statement relied upon by the AO is silent about the manner as to how the appellant approached PKJ and negotiated the terms for providing bogus entries of unsecured loans. The AO has discussed the modus operandi stating that the people actually involved in this transactions are rough diamond importers operating through benami concerns. But he has failed to link the transactions of the appellant to any of the alleged benami concerns of diamond importers. Clearly the theory of running a scheme for providing entries emanating from the benami concerns of diamond importer is within the realm of possibility but this has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a specific cases. The AO has also failed to relate the activities of PKJ to the Diamond importer and to the appellant by conducting enquiries. The appellant has relied upon the case of Ramesh Ram Swarup Das wherein the additions were made based on the statement of the same entry provider namely PKJ.
ACIT 24(3) , Mumbai Vs, Ramesh Ram Swaroop Das Jindal (ITAT , Mumbai). In case, the Ld.CIT(A) had deleted the addition made by the AO on the ground of so-called bogus loans from the very same two lenders, i.e. Mohit International and Natasha Enterprises. The reasoning of the Ld.CIT(A) was that all the three ingredients of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness were established. The Hon’ble ITAT completely agreed with the reasoning of the Ld. CIT(A) and held that the AO had gone only by the statement recorded of PKJ , the AO did not make any independent enquiries with the lender companies, the AO did not provide statement of PKJ to the appellant assessee for its rebuttal, AO did not bring anything on record even to indicate/suggest that the information furnished by the appellant in the form of copy of affidavit of PKJ fully establishing the identity of lender, copy of the ledger confirming the loans taken and also the repayment in subsequent years to establish the genuineness, other material fully establishing the creditworthiness of the lenders etc. was false or insufficient.
DCIT 12(1)(2), Mumbai Vs Bairanga Builders Private Limited (ITAT, Mumbai). In this case also the Ld. CIT (A) had deleted the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the appellant (Bairanga Builders Private Limited) had filed all relevant documents like IT returns, Bank Statements, details of Directors, Annual/Audit Report, loan confirmation etc. to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders. The Ld. CIT(A) also pointed out that the loans were returned through cheque and no cash deposit anywhere was found out, nor any circuitous transactions established. The Hon’ble ITAT fully agreed with the order of the Ld. CIT (A). Shree Laxmi Developers (ITAT, Mumbai). In this case the Hon’ble ITAT held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden/onus required u/s 68 by filing all necessary evidence establishing the identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the parties; once the assessee has discharged its burden the onus shifts to AO to prove otherwise. But AO, instead of rebutting the claims of the assessee (Shree Laxmi Developers) jumped to the conclusion only on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing. ITO- 13(3)(3), Mumbai Vs Vishwa Vyapar Trading Private Limited (ITAT, Mumbai). The Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition made u/s 68 of the Act, of subscription to the share capital of the assessee- company by various persons. The Hon’ble ITAT upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed Revenue’s appeal.
8.8 It may be seen that the Appellant furnished the details related to the identity and genuineness of the creditors during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO however, relied mainly on the statement of PKJ to make the assessment. The appellant was not allowed opportunity to cross examined PKJ neither the statement of PKJ made available to them. The AO has given the outline of the scheme of entry providing business starting from the importers of rough diamond and culminating into the books of the builders etc. seeking entries for unsecured loan against cash. As discussed above, this apparently plausible theory has not been brought to conclusion by the AO through discrete enquiries. The AO has not carried any enquiries to establish that the appellant is related to the scheme of entry run with assistance of benami diamond importers. No piece of evidence has been brought by the AO to invalidate the submission made by the appellant. The AO has relied solely on the statement recorded by the Investigation Wing from PKJ and Others during the course of search. No attempt to establish the trail of cash movement has been made by the AO.
In view of the above, especially the judgement in the case of ACIT 24(3), Mumbai Vs. Ramesh Ram Swaroop Das Jindal which is squarely applicable in this case the ground 2 is allowed”
The Ld.DR submitted that, identical issue arising out of search and survey action in the case of Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain was considered by Hon’ble Ahmadabad Tribunal in case of Shri. Pravinkumar M Sagvi Vs. ITO in for the assessment year 2007-08, vide order dated 17.05.2017. He submitted that, Hon’ble Ahmadabad Tribunal has tradable analysed genuineness and credit worthiness of the leander and came to the conclusion that leander were basically shell companies without any activities and that, the assessee had not discharged its onus to establish that loan transaction were genuine and bonafide, taken in the normal course of business. 5.1 The Ld.DR submitted that, the said decision of the Hon’ble Ahmadabad Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in vide order dated 12/02/2018. He thus heavily relied on the observation of the Hon’ble Ahmadabad Tribunal in similar circumstance and facts and filed a written submission in support, which is scanned and reproduced as under:
A.Y. 2012-13 Pyramid Infratech Co. 5.2 On the country, the Ld.AR vehemently opposed and submitted that, facts are distinguishable. He submitted that, in the present fact case of the case assessee repaid the loan back to the lenders which clearly establishes genuineness of the transaction. The Ld.AR further submitted that, during the assessment proceeding the Ld.AO issued notices u/s.133(6), to all lenders. He submitted that except for one, all other responded by filing confirmation and necessary documents as called for. The Ld. AR invited our attention to pg No.70-184 being the details of loan confirmation, audited financial statement, bank statement the loan given to the assessee and declaration from the directors of all four loan lenders. He submitted that, the assessee also placed the return filed by the lenders placed at pg. No.185-192 of the paper book. 5.2 He further submitted that, the lenders who has been analysis in the decision by the Hon’ble Ahmadabad Tribunal are not the same parties and, therefore, the same principal cannot be applied in the present facts of the case. The Ld.AR Vehemently submitted that, all the lenders were repaid the loan in the subsequent year by the assessee and in most of the cases in the same order. He also submitted that, repayment of the loan during the year has been done by the assessee prior to the date of search and, therefore, no malafide intention can be imputed on the assessee. He thus relied on the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition. We have perused the submission advance by both the sides in light of records placed before us.
A.Y. 2012-13 Pyramid Infratech Co.
Section 68 casts initial burden of proof on the assessee to show prima facie, and to explain the nature and source of credit found in its account. When the statute places the burden of proof on the tax payer, it is understood to be only the initial burden. When the tax payer explains the credit by providing evidence of identity, confirmation and credit worthiness, the burden shifts on the revenue to show that the explanation is not satisfactory or incorrect. 6.1. The Ld.DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Pavankumar M Sanghvi Vs ITO (supra) which is approved by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pavakumar M Sanghvi Vs ITO (supra). 6.2 Primarily in the present facts of the case we note that, the assessee furnished all relevant details as called for by the Ld. AO during assessment proceedings in respect of the lenders. Further it is admitted fact that the lenders responded to the notice issued by the Ld.AO u/s.133(6) of the Act. The Ld. AO did not point out any lacuna in the evidence submitted by the assessee as regard the source in the hands of the lenders. 6.3 In the present facts of the case, we note that the Ld.CIT(A) categorically observed that Ld.AO did not find any cash deposit in any of the accounts, either of the assessee or the lenders. 6.4 All these evidences were rejected by the Ld.AO without carrying out any enquiry and merely on conjectures and surmises. It is submitted that the additions were made out of unsecured Loan of the assessee because, the Creditors were of controlled and managed through concerns of Pravin Jain Group, who were mere name lenders and were involved in providing accommodation entries. In the present facts carefully considering the evidences relied by the assessee it is noted that there was no case deposits made in the accounts of the creditors before lending loan to the assessee. It is further noted that the assessee paid off the loan to the creditors during the year under consideration and in subsequent years. The Ld.AR relied on following table extracted in the assessment order: Sr Name of Borrowings Repayments No the lender . Amounts Date of Amounts(Rs.) Date of (Rs.) Borrowing repayment 1 Atharv 70,00,000/- 13.03.2012 70,00,000/- 26.11.2013 Business Pvt. Ltd 2 Duke 50,00,000/- 14.03.2012 50,00,000/- 25.02.2013 Business 50,00,000/- 17.03.2012 50,00,000/- 25.02.2013 Pvt. Ltd 3 Josh 1,30,00,000/ 13.03.2012 50,00,000/- 24.10.2013 Trading - 16.03.2012 70,00,000/- 25.10.2013 Pvt. Ltd 1,00,00,000/ 17.03.2012 50,00,000/- 28.10.2013 - 20.03.2012 50,28,000/- 29.10.2013 50,00,000/- 89,72,000/- 31.10.2013 30,00,000/- 4 Nakshatra 50,00,000/- 15.03.2012 30,00,000/- 25.11.2013 Business 20,00,000/- 21.03.2012 40,00,000/- 27.11.2013 Pvt. Ltd 6.5. We agree with the Ld.DR that the genuineness of the transaction does not get established even though the assessee file all relevant documents required to discharge its onus u/s. 68 of the Act. However the observations of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Ld. PCIT vs. Skylark Build in of 2016 vide order dated 24/10/2018, relied by the Ld.AR is as under: “6 It is in these circumstances, he concludes that the creditworthiness of the cash creditor is fully vouched and hence the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the explanation of the assessee was not tenable in the eyes of law. We do not think that in endorsing this finding of fact, the Tribunal has not performed its obligation and duty as a last fact-finding authority. When such detailed findings of the Commissioner were on record supported by case laws, then, every single line in this 31 page order of the Commissioner was not required to be reproduced by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's order cannot be faulted for he applied the correct legal principles that were applicable to the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case. In addition, there is a subsequent development and namely that each of these creditors from whom the assessee borrowed moneys or who advanced it the moneys, were repaid the sums borrowed. This would establish that there were indeed real creditors; that they had indeed the funds available with them and that the transactions were genuine. In the circumstances, the finding of fact by the Commissioner was endorsed by the Tribunal. Instead of endorsing it fully and dismissing the Revenue's appeal in its entirety, the Tribunal, in paragraph 7, deems it fit and proper to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer so as to verify and examine whether indeed there is any repayment. 7 We do not think that the Tribunal committed any error of law nor its finding, as above, is perverse. Once it was satisfied with regard to the essential ingredients of the section and the manner in which the whole case was approached by the Commissioner, then, with regard to the assertion of repayment and styling it as a subsequent development relevant and germane to the case in hand, the Tribunal deemed it fit and proper to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer. That is to make it doubly sure as to whether indeed there was a repayment of the amount borrowed and claimed as advances from these parties. 8 We do not think that we should entertain a further appeal to this Court for it is not possible to re-appreciate and reappraise such factual findings. They are not demonstrably perverse nor vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. 9 Mr. Mohanty's reliance on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. P. Mohanakala rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India and reported in (2007) 291 ITR 278 is apposite to the extent of the legal principle. The legal principle and heavily relied upon, according to Mr. Mohanty, is that the Court must examine every single aspect and by a proper process. The doubtful nature of the transaction and the manner in which the sums were found credited in the books of account maintained by the assessee may be taken into consideration, according to Mr. Mohanty, but that was not enough. Even the money being paid by cheques is of no consequence according to Mr. Mohanty. It may be so, but when these principles are invoked, their application would depend upon the facts and circumstances in each case. There, the Hon'ble Supreme Court endorsed A.Y. 2012-13 Pyramid Infratech Co. the findings and dismissed the Revenue's Appeal. While relying upon paragraph 26 of this judgment in P. Mohanakala (supra) what Mr. Mohanty submits is that in that paragraph the Hon'ble Supreme Court was referring to its prior decisions. The reliance thereon was to the extent of the Revenue's submissions and to give support to it. The argument was that the issue relating to the propriety of the legal conclusion that could be drawn on the basis of the proved facts gives rise to a question of law and, therefore, the High Court is justified in interfering in the manner since the authorities below failed to draw a proper and logical inference from the proven facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court expressly rejects this submission and says that findings of fact are arrived at on a proper appreciation of the material available on record and the surrounding circumstances. The doubtful nature of the transaction and the manner in which the sums were found credited in the books of account maintained by the assessee have been duly taken into consideration by the authorities even in the case before us. The transactions were found to be genuine. It is not only that the moneys came by way of cheques and through proper banking channels, but even the repayment has been verified and the Assessing Officer, while giving effect to the Tribunal's order records that this is not a transaction which can be said to be hit by the principles relied upon. 10 In the above circumstances, the question as proposed by the Revenue is really academic. Still, Mr. Mohanty says it is not so and that is why we examined the matter in its entirety and after having examined it in this manner, we do not see any reason to entertain this appeal. It is dismissed but without any order as to costs.” The above ratio is applicable to the present facts of the case, as the assessee repaid all the loans as submitted by the authorities before the authorities below. Further on perusal of lenders account placed at page 199-207, 209-216, 218-228 & 230-240 we do not find cash deposits before lending money to the assessee. The authorities below has also not disproved the affidavits submitted by the directors of the lending company to be false on unreliable. 6.6. We have perused the categorical facts in the decisions relied by the Ld.DR. It is noted that, they are distinguishable with that of the assessee. It is noted that, in the decision of Hon’ble A.Y. 2012-13 Pyramid Infratech Co. Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Pavankumar M Sanghvi Vs ITO (supra), Hon’ble Tribunal in para 9 dealt with the facts prevalent in case of assessee therein. It is noted that, there is no repayment of loan, and there were cash credit into the account based on which the Tribunal took the view. Thus the ratio of the decisions relied by Ld.DR is not applicable to the peculiar facts of therein present assessee. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed. In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/03/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai: Dated: 18/03/2025 Disha, Stenographer Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T.