KAUSHALIYA SAMPATLAL DUDANI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(6), JAMNAGAR

On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue, relied on the findings of the assessing officer.

I, see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shah Parag Gulabchand (supra) vide order dated 31.07.2024. I note that the scrip namely, Tuni Textile Page 2 of 14 is squarely covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot. In this order, the Tribunal has inter alia observed as follows: “3. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee before us, is a hindu undivided family (HUF), and filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 on 12.10.2013 declaring income of Rs.6,48,650/-.In this case, information in respect of the penny stock transaction made by the assessee in F.Y.2012-13 was available as per the information module. At that time, as per the penny stock transaction data available with assessing officer, the assessee had sold 85,000 penny stock shares of Tuni Textile Ltd. (scrip code-531411). During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer asked the assessee to explain the transaction.

In response to the notice of the assessing officer, the assessee submitted its written submission before the assessing officer, which is reproducedbelow: “14. Your Goodself has primarily raised some objections in during the assessment proceedings against which the submission of assessee is as under: a) The entire transactions were not merely accommodation entries but in normal course through the registered brokers: It is submitted that, as explained before that the assessee has purchased the shares of Tuni Textiles Mills Limited and sold the shares through registered broker and the same fact is evidenced form the copy of contract note, bank statement placed on record before. The assessee has also submitted the copy of the bills/contract note and the copy of the bank statements during the course of assessment proceedings in previous submissions. However the bill/contract notes of sale and purchase of shares along with bank statement is further placed on record herewith this submission for your ready reference at page no. 8 to 10. Those evidences are enough to substantiate the fact that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares of Tuni Textiles Mills Limited are not mere accommodation entry rather than normal purchase and sale transactions by the assessee as an investor. b) Assessee has relied on Annual Report of the Company: The assessee had purchased shares on 04.08.2010. The assessee is an investor in stock market and the said purchase was made on the basis of his self-analysis of the scrip on the basis of Annual Report for F.Y.2009-10. c) Assessee having better prospects in the scrip invested in the same: As stated above, the company was operating in manufacturing of textiles the projected forecast of the company was strong. In fact, the assessee has invested in the share after doing research and based on the Annual report andNews Article which predicted strong potential for the company. Any investor world by the share available at low price more so when the company has stable outlook and exponential growth expected in future. d) The scrip is not listed under Penny stock with a very low market capitalization Your Good self-have relied upon the data available from investigation Report that the scrip in penny stock. Even that report is not shared with us and we request to Page 3 of Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani share that report if you are going to rely upon that report. However, no independent inquiry is done by the assessing officer on his own. From the public domain it is learnt that the said report classifies the share as penny stock if the market capitalization of the company is less than 10 Lakhs. It is not classified as penny stock in the scrip under question / review so even that allegation is not correct factually in the present case. It is further evident from the information in public domain that the market capitalization of Tuni Textiles Mills Limited was Rs.2.62 Crores (approx.) in August, 2010 when the assessee purchased the shares. There is no evidence that broker of assessee was involved in the price manipulation scam as alleged by assessing officer. Not only that there is no money trail found at the premises of the person searched with that of me or to my broker. If you have any such information kindly do let me have such material relied upon by you. I also request you to share the statement of person that are relied upon in my case and I also want to cross examine all those witness in this connection or the allegation that you are making. e) Investigation Report by DIT (Inv.), Kolkata about manipulation of market price of shares The reliance placed on the Investigation Report by DIT (Inv.), Kolkata is merely to explain the modus operandi of manipulation of prices of shares in stock market. There is no evidence brought on record that the scrip in which the assessee has traded was penny stock. Further, there is not even a whisper in the investigation report that the scrip "Tuni Textiles Mills Limited' was penny stock since the report is not shared with us and you have also not referred this aspect. Further, no statement or any material has been relied upon to even remotely suggest that the scrip 'Tuni Textiles Mills Limited' is penny stock. On perusal of the report, as reproduced in the draft assessment order, it is evident that there are certain peculiarities of penny stock companies such as syndicate members, fixed brokers, entry operators, purchase of share by beneficiary final sale by beneficiary, dummy directors etc who manipulate and control the price of the shares. In the present company none of the above attributes are proved by assessing officer since there is no mention of name of the broker of assessee through whom assessee purchase and sold shares of Tuni Textiles. There is no evidence/material/statement on record to suggest that the assessee or his broker was involved in the price manipulation or private placement of shares. Further, the syndicate of members of company and persons as alleged in statement reproduced in the draft assessment order was involved in preferential allotment of shares, where as the assessee had purchased the shares through the broker whose name was not involved in those manipulators. Further facts which establish that 'Tuni Textiles Mills Limited is not penny stock.

Page 4 of Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani  There is a strong reason for rise in value of share as evidenced from the Annual Reports of the company placed on record vide previous submission.  There is no evidence of cash taken or given in the present case which is generally the case in penny stock companies.  There is no evidence of any exit provider, accommoda�on entry provider in the present case which is generally the case in penny stock companies.  There is no evidence that the scrip or broker through whom assesse has made transac�on of purchase and sale was suspended.

It is submitted that in the present case, as stated above, none of attributes are present are normally there in penny stock companies.

My care is fully covered by the decision of Hon'ble "B" Bench of ITAT, Kolkata whereby the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the addition us. 68 of the Act due to LTCG In sop of Tuni Textiles deleted, is that case, the learned assessing officer had served the copy of statement recorded of promoter of Turi Textiles and also made addition of LTCG u/s 68 of the Act. The appellant had submitted the copy of the contract note and bank statements to prove the genuineness of the transactions of shares. The Revenue had no specific evidence against the assessee that the LTCG derived from transfer of shares in Tuni Textiles was bogus. Hence the addition was deleted by the ITAT. In the present case, the assessee has already placed on record the contract notes/bill for sale of shares and this substantiates the fact that assessee or his broker was not involved in price ragging or manipulation activities as alleged by assessing officer. Further, assessing officer does not have specific evidence in this regard. Hence, the assessee wants to refer the judicial precedent and allow the claim of exemption of LTCG.

Recently the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Smt. Krishna Devi in of 2020 dated 15.01.2021 held that long term capital gain earned by the assessee cannot be considered as bogus once the shares have been purchased through stock exchange, payments have been made through banking channel, and the sales have been routed from demat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are as under: 11. On a perusal of the record, it is easily dissemble that in the instant case, the AD had proceeded predominantly on the basis of the analysis of the financials of Mis Gold Line International Finvest Limited. His conclusion and findings against the Respondent are chiefly on the strength of the astounding 4849.2% jump in share prices of the aforesaid company within a span of two years, which is not supported by the financials. On an analysis of the data obtained from the websites, the AD observes that the quantum leap in the share price is not justified; the trade pattern of the aforesaid company did not move along with the sensex; and the financials of the company did not show any reason for the extraordinary performance of its stock.”

However, the assessing officer, rejected the above submissions of the assessee and noticed that assessee had purchased shares of Tuni Textile Mills Limited and Page 5 of Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani KGN Limited for sum of Rs.1,62,250/- and subsequently these shares were sold for sum of Rs.82,02,300/-. The resultant capital gains of Rs.80,06,545/-was claimed exempted u/s 10(38). The assessing officer alleged it to be penny stock and he claimed that the trading in such stock was controlled by few operators and rise in prices of this stock was artificially created. He also gave finding that he re-opened the case based on information received from Director of Income Tax (Inv). He suspected about the same and presumed that the trading was pre-arranged. The assessing officer, finally treated entire sale consideration as bogus and added Rs.80,06,545/- to total income of assessee, as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act.

Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who hasallowed the appeal of the assessee, observing as follows: “6.4 The assessee claimed the transaction to be genuine and filed following documents before learned assessing officer at the time of assessment: Broker note for sale and purchase of shares Bank statement depicting payments made for purchase of shares Statement of holding shares Statement issued by CDSL confirming shares sold Bank statement depicting receipt of money after sale of shares Further, the assessee also asked for cross examination of the material being used against her to claim such sale consideration as bogus. 6.5 The learned assessing officer has made the adjustment by forming opinion on search conducted by some other assessee. He has not performed due diligence in specific to the assessee's case. 6.6 The learned assessing officer has not mentioned any shortcoming in broker notes, bank payments and other supporting documents filed by the assessee. He has also not proved that cash was involved in the assessee's transaction. He passed the order merely under suspicion. Moreover, the learned assessing officer has also not provided opportunity of cross examination. 6.7 The learned assessing officer alleged that the assessee could not prove why there was surge in volume of stock. Whereas the trading was done through softwarebased platform wherein the trader does not have visibility on counter party buying/ selling. 6.8 The above issue has been dealt and adjudicated by many courts as under: Sri Chand Chatrumal HUF vs ACIT (ITA. No.6537/Mum/2015] “the assessee have fled the best evidence to prove the transaction in question viz: bills, contract notes, demat Statement and the bank account statements to prove the genuineness of the transaction relating in the purchase of Mis Panchshul Marketing Lid and thereafter sale of shares (after amalgamation of Mis KAFL which resulted in LTCG claim of Rs.19,51,000. Therefore, by Page 6 of Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani applying the test of preponderance of probability, the LTCG cannot be disallowed without AO pointing out any infirmities in the evidences produced by assessee, which it assessing officer could not point out. So the assessee's claim of LTCG need to be allowed." Manish Kumar Baid Vs ACIT [ITA 1237/Kol/2017] "The enquiry by the Investigation Wing and/or the statements of several persons recorded by the Investigation Wing in connection with the alleged bogus transactions in the shares of KAFL also did not implicate the assessee and/or his broker. It is also a matter of record that the assessee furnished all evidences in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statements and the bank accounts to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to purchase and sale of shares resulting in LTCG. These evidences were neither found by the Ld AO to be false or fabricated. The facts of the case and the evidences in support of the assessee's case clearly support the claim of the assessee that the transactions of the assessee were bonafide and genuine and therefore the Id AO was not justified in disallowing the assessee's claim of exemption under section 10(38) of The Act. Kiran Kothari Vs ITO [ITA 443/Kol/2017] "we note that the assessee had furnished all relevant evidence in the form PARTMENT of bills. contract notes, demat statement and bank account to prove the genuineness of the transactions relevant to the purchase and sale of shares resulting in long term capital gain. Neither these evidences were found by the assessing officer nor by the Id. CIT(A) to be false or fictitious or bogus. The facts of the case and the evidence in support of the evidence clearly support the claim of the assessee that the transactions of the assessee were genuine and the authorities below was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures. It is to be kept in mind that suspicion how so ever strong, cannot partake the character of legal evidence" M/S ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES V/s CCE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4228 OF 2006 Not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected CIT vs. Mukesh RatilatMarolia (Bombay High Court) INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 456 OF 200 7 7th September 2011 Long-term capital gains on sale of "penny" stocks cannot be treated as bogus & unexplained cash credit if the documentation is in order & there is no allegation of manipulation by SEBI or the BSE. Denial of right of cross- examination is a fatal flaw which renders the assessment order a nullity

Kamla Devi S. Doshi Vis. The Income Tax Officer Ward 16(3)(1), Assessment Year: 2006-07 Page 7 of Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani Bogus penny stocks capital gain: The s. 131 statement implicating the assessee is not sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the assessee when the documentary evidence in the form of contract notes, bank statements, STT payments etc prove genuine purchase and sale of the penny stock. Failure to provide cross-examination is a fatal error

Shri Sunil Prakash V/s. ACIT -15(2) Ι.Τ.Α./6494/Mum/2014, Assessment Year: 2005-06 If the assessing officer relies upon the statement of a third party to make the addition, he is duty bound to provide a copy of the statement to the assessee and afford the opportunity of cross-examination. Failure to do so vitiates the assessment proceedings. A transaction evidenced by payment/receipt of share transaction value through banking channels, transfer of shares in and from the Dmat account, etc cannot be treated as a bogus transaction so as to attract s. 68 There are other plethora of decisions as under on this very issue which are in favour of the assessee:  Prem Pal Gandhi - Punjab & Haryana High Court-ITA-95-2017  Hitesh Gandhi - Punjab & Haryana High Court-ITA-18-2017  Pooja Agarwal - Rajasthan High Court - Income Tax Appeal No 385/2011  Meghraj Singh Shekhawat - and 444/JP/2017  Pramod Jain and others -  Meenu Goel-ITA No 6235/DEL/2017  Mohit Hora (HUF) ITA No 410/DEL/2018 6.9 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to varied judicial pronouncements including jurisdictional ITAT, I am of the considerate view that the learned assessing officer has not carried out investigation of the fact of the case which are specific to the assessee and has also not provided opportunity for cross examination which is against principle of natural justice. Therefore, the additions made by the learned assessing officer for sum of Rs.80,06,545/- on account of capital gain is deleted. 6.10 Accordingly, the appeal made by the assessee is allowed.”

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us.

The Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submitted that impugned scrip ‘Tuni Textile’ is a penny scrip and during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has generated the capital gain to defraud the Revenue. The Ld. Sr. DR also pointed out that the holding period of scrip is only 22 months. The Ld. Sr. DR, therefore relied on the findings of the assessing officer and further relied on the following judgments: (i) Shri Mukesh M. Trivedi vs DCIT, dated 07.02.2023 Page 8 of Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani (ii) Suman Poddar vs ITO, 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) (iii) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. PCIT, 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bom) (iv) PCIT vs Swati Bajaj, 139 taxmann.com 352 (Cal) (v) ITO vs Shamim M. Bharwani, 69 taxmann.com 65 (Mum – Trib) 9. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that just because assessee paid to Security Transaction Tax (STT), does not mean the transaction becomes genuine. Therefore, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue relied on the findings of the assessing officer and contended that the order passed by the assessing officer may be upheld.

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the assessee, defendant, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and stated that ld CIT(A) has passed a reasoned and speaking order covering all the aspects. The ld. Counsel reiterated the findings of the ld CIT(A) and stated that order of the ld. CIT(A) may be upheld.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contention. We have perused case file as well as paper books furnished by assessee. We note that assessee purchased 8,500 shares of ‘Tuni Textile’ on 04.08.2010 from the M/s Sharukh N Tara for the sum of Rs. 1,65,048.36/-, the details are given below: Particulars Amount Share Purchase Amount 1,57,250/- Security Transaction Tax 20.56/- Shares Transaction Expense 7777.80 Total 1,65,048.36/- The assessee submitted copy of contract note received from M/s Sharukh N. Tara, vide paper book page no.14 to 15.Immediately after purchasing the shares a request letter regarding demat account details was duly sent to assessee by the Broker M/s. Sharukh N. Tara which is placed at paper book page no.

The assessee, also submitted Balance Sheet along with the Schedule of Investments for the financial year 2009-2010 wherein the Investment in shares of KGN is evident. The assessee has also explained, the source of purchase stating that it is from, income generated from sale proceed of various shares sold on 14.07.2010, 20.07.2010, 26.07.2010, 30.07.2010 (Evident from the sale contact notes and ledger account of M/s. Sharukh N. Tara enclosed at paper page no.19 to 27, and such sale of sharesare already taxed in the relevant Assessment Year i.e. 2011-12, vide ITR and Computation of Income at paper book page no.28 to 30. Out of the sale proceeds, the shares of Tuni Textiles were purchased which is also evident from the contra ledger account of the Broker attached. Therefore, we note that assessee has explained the source of purchase of shares in a satisfactory manner.

The assessee held the shares for more than 12 months of the period which is evident through the below mentioned table.

KGN 15.04.08 04.02.13 58 Tuni textile 04.08.10 15.05.12 21 Tuni textile 04.08.10 16.05.12 21 Tuni textile 04.08.10 28.05.12 22 Tuni textile 04.08.10 04.06.12 22 Tuni textile 04.08.10 05.06.12 22

Thus, the above-mentioned facts have been duly complied with in case of the assessee and thus, the assessee can duly claim exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act.The Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT v. Champalal Gopiram Agarwal, R/TAXAPPEAL NO, 366 OF 2023 JULY 25, 2023, held that the Tribunal found that assessee had discharged the initial burden cast upon it under provisions of section 68. Shares of companies were purchased online, payments were made through banking channels, and shares were dematerialized. Additionally, the shares were transferred from the dematerialized account and received consideration through legitimate banking channels. The assessing officer did not have any independent source or evidence to show an agreement between the assessee and any other party to convert unaccounted money by taking the fictitious loss. The decision of assessing officer was unsupported by any material on record, and the finding was purely on an assumption basis. Thus, no substantial question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal, and the same was to be upheld. We note that the assessee submitted the following documents and evidences, before the assessing officer viz: (i) copy of contract note received from M/s Sharukh N. Tara (vide Pb. 14 to 15), (ii) Request letter regarding demat account details (vide Pb. 16), (iii) balance sheet along with the Schedule of Investments for the financial year 2009 to 2010 (vide Pb. 17 to 18), (iv) Sale contract notes and ledger account of M/s Sharukh N. Tara of Shares – Source of purchase (vide Pb. 19 to 27), (v) ITR and computation of income of AY.2011-12 (vide PB. 28 to 30), (vi) Notice dated 07.04.2011 issued by BSE about subdivision of the shares from one share into 10 shares (vide Pb. 32 to 37), (vii) Contract note & ledger reflecting sale of shares (vide Pb. 32 to 37), (viii) Bank statements reflecting sale of shares (vide Pb. 38 to 40) and (ix) transaction statement from period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 (vide Pb. 83 to 99).We note that by submitting the above documents and evidences, the assessee has proved that the transaction was done through the banking channel and that satisfied the condition mentioned in section 10(38) of the Act, moreover the period of holding is also 22 months. The Learned Counsel also submitted that in assessee’s case no action has been taken by the Stock Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and there is no investigation report of the SEBI.

We note that Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Jagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai, [2022] 142 taxmann.com 247, held that where Assessing Officer Page 11 of Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani noted that assessee had indulged in scrip of shell company and had claimed long term capital gain on sale of shares and made addition under section 68 holding that entire transaction was bogus and in the nature of penny stock, however, since genuineness of investment in shares by assessee was substantiated by him by producing copy of transaction statement for period from 1-6- 2001 to 1-10-2010 and shares were retained for more than ten years and were sold after such long time, hence investment was not bogus therefore it cannot be treated that investment was made in penny stock. The findings of the Hon`ble Court is reproduced below: “2. As submitted by learned senior advocate Mr. M.R. Bhatt for M.R.Bhatt and Co., the appellant revenue proposes the following substantial questions of law, which according to the submission requires examination. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of Appellate Tribunal is ex facie perverse because the Appellate tribunal deleted the addition of Rs.2,10,474/- made on account of bogus long term capital gain, without appreciating the entire gamut of fact that the assessee transacted in penny stock namely M/s. Devika Proteins Ltd. thus earning bogus Long term Capital Gain and claiming it to be exempt under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act?"

The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 29- 3-2012 declaring his total income Rs. 3,11,490/-. Subsequently the assessment was reopened as information was received that assessee has indulged into script of shell company and had claimed long term capital gain on sale of shares of Devika Proteins Limited to the tune of Rs.2,10,474/- and that the amount was claimed as exemption under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') 3.1 The Assessing Officer made addition of the said amount. The entire transaction was treated as bogus and in the nature of penny stock. By adding Rs.2,10,474/- under section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed at Rs.5,21,964/-. 3.2 In appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the issue was re-examined. According to the appellate authority the appellant assessee had furnished evidence to show that the shares were brought as genuine investment which was long back in the year 2000-01. As the shares were in the nature of old investment, they could not be treated as penny stock by any stretch of imagination.

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal further examined the question in appeal preferred by the revenue and confirmed the view of the appellate authority noticing that the shares were purchased in the year 2001 and they were sold after long time in the year 2010-11.

The genuineness of investment in the shares by the assessee was substantiated by him by producing copy of transaction statement for the period from 1-6-2001 to 1-10-2010. The investment was made in the year 2000-01. The shares were retained for more than ten years and were sold after such long time. These circumstances suggested that the investment was not bogus or investment made in Page 12 of Kaushaliya Sampatlal Dudani penny stock. The shares were purchased in order to invest and not for the purpose of earning exempted income by frequent trading in short span.

The finding recorded by the appellate authority and confirmed by the appellate tribunal is based on material before them. They are in the realm of findings of fact. No error could be noticed in the findings and conclusion that the investment was longstanding and genuine and was not penny stock on the basis of which the capital gain was wrongly claimed. 6.1 On the facts of case, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises.

Resultantly, appeal is dismissed”.

We note that Judgment of Hon`ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj and others (supra), referred by learned DR for the revenue, should not be applicable to the assessee, as it is outside the territorial jurisdiction of Gujarat. However, the Judgments of Hon`ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat are applicable to the assessee under consideration.The Judicial discipline demands that once an order has been passed by the jurisdictional High Court, on a particular issue, lower authorities are duty bound to act in accordance with the same.

The Hon`ble, jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Mamta Rajivkumar Agarwal, Tax Appeal No.408 of 2023, dated 11.09.2023 held that there was no evidence available on record suggesting that the assessee or his broker was involved in rigging up of the price of the script of M/s Shree Nath Commercial & Finance Ltd. The assessee had acted in good faith. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly held that the Assessing Officer had acted only on assumption which was misconceived. The Hon`ble, jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the recent case of Shri Ambalal Chimanlal Patel, vide Tax Appeal No.260 of 2024, dated 15.04.2024 held that both the appellate authorities, that is, “CIT(A) and ITAT” have taken into consideration the notice of contract memo placed on record by the respondent assessee with regard to the purchase and sale of shares and it is also found by the appellant that the respondent was holding shares of other fifteen companies and it has continued to hold the shares over three years and therefore, sale of the shares cannot be said to be bogus merely on the basis of suspicion on account of the fact that the substantial quantum of capital gain and has been earned by the assessee on account of trading in respect of the said shares. Merely because trading in the shares of the said company was suspended on the Stock Exchange, in absence of any material brought on record to suggest that purchase and sales of said shares was bogus, the Assessing Officer was not justified in absence of any material to support his finding that there has been collusion or connivance between the broker and the assessee for the introduction of his own unaccounted money, resulting into a bogus transaction. We note that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.”

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.