Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member:
For the sake of brevity aforesaid appeal and cross objections emanated from common impugned order dated 15.03.2017 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] are being taken up for disposal by way of composite order.
2. Appellant Income Tax Officer– 8(2)(4), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue’) and the cross objector M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) by filing the present appeals and cross objections sought to set aside the impugned order even dated 15.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] on identically worded grounds (grounds are taken from A.Y. 2009-10) inter-alia that : Revenue’s grounds of appeal: “(i) The Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that assessee has not done any other transaction or business from its inception and also during all these assessment years.
(ii) The Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that all the three directors are similar in the holder company and assessee company and after entering into MOU by the assessee with M/s Capital India Ltd, the amounts were transferred immediately within a day from Holder company to assessee company and further from assessee company to M/s Capital India Ltd., wherein a direct collusion is established between the Holder company and M/s Capital India Ltd.
(iii) The Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee has utilized the money received and about 6 months after the & 4005/M/2017 & 3 CO Nos.289 & 290/M/2018 M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. remittances were received, they were given the colour of fully convertible debenture by the Board of Directors of the assessee company.
(iv) The Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that as and when the money is needed by the assessee the Holder company has given the money and the same is immediately passed on to the said firm.
(v) The Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee has not initiated any legal remedies on the said firm for getting back the amount from it.
(vi) The Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the said firm to which the assessee company has passed on the money is without any credentials and is having a capital net worth only in lakhs and is not even filing its returns of income.
(vi) The Ld. CIT(A)'s order is contrary to law and on facts and deserves to be set aside. .
(vii) The appellant craves leave to amend or after any ground or add a new ground that may be necessary.
(b) The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds to be set aside and that of the AO restored”
Grounds of Cross Objector (Assessee) (grounds are taken from A.Y. 2008-09
“1. The Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai has erred in upholding the assessment order dated 25/03/2014 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and hence the assessment order, it is prayed, be declared as bad in law on the facts of the case.
That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai has erred in not declaring the AO's assuming of Jurisdiction as invalid and illegal being formed on the basis of assumptions and incorrect facts and observations of "write off as bad debt” in the AY 2010-11 of an "Advance made for the purchase of Land" made during this year, out of the funds received from the 100% holding company in the AY's 2008- 09 and 2009-10. The notice u/s 148 issued thus needs to be quashed.
3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 14, Mumbai has erred in not quashing the assessment order on the facts having been established forming the very essence of reasons to believe was & 4005/M/2017 & 4 CO Nos.289 & 290/M/2018 M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. non-existent, as there is no "write off as bad debt” of the 'advance against land’, as assumed by the AO in the reasons to believe and hence the assessment so framed needs to be quashed.
4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -14, Mumbai has erred in not declaring the reopening u/s 147 made without any fresh tangible material having a live link to reasons to believe as bad in law and it is prayed that the notice u/s 148 be quashed and the consequent assessment framed on such invalid reasons be annulled.
5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Mumbai has erred in upholding as valid the initiation of the reopening proceedings, based on the belief of the induction of funds by the 100% foreign holding company towards Equity Shares and Fully Convertible Debentures under the FDI scheme, which is apparently not income, and has to be determined by investigation, as bad in law and hence the notice u/s 148 needs to be quashed.
6. That the AO has not made appeal before the H'ble ITAT for the Assessment Years 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 in which the addition u/s 68 has been made on identical grounds and allowed by the CIT(A) on same reasoning as the tax effect was less than Rs.4,00,000/- overlooking the 2nd part of para 5 of CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 [F. NO. 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ (PT), DATED 10-12-2015 [AS AMENDED BY LETTER (F.NO.279/MISC-142/2007-ITJ-(PT), DATED 14-7-2017, and hence the present appeal may also be dismissed.
7. That the assessee craves indulgence to amend, alter, add or modify any or all the grounds of appeal and/or take additional grounds of appeal.”
Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the controversy at hand are : the assessee company is into the business of real estate, a wholly subsidiary of Mondon Investment Ltd. (MIL). During the years under consideration the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs.Nil which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’). Subsequently, after initiating the reopening proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act and after recording the reasons, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were & 4005/M/2017 & 5 CO Nos.289 & 290/M/2018 M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee duly represented through its authorized representative filed details from time to time. Assessee’s objections to the reopening of the case were duly decided. Reopening of assessment was on the basis of certain details furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings in A.Y. 2010-11 that the assessee has received USD 79.03 lakhs equivalent to Rs.31.50 crore during Jan 2008 to April 2009 by way of Fully Convertible Debentures (FCD) from company name M/s. Mondon Investment Ltd. (MIL) which was advanced to a party namely M/s. Capital Landmark India (CLI). During the relevant year in A.Y. 2010-11 M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (assessee) has written off the above advance in P&L account. Since the assessee is holding company of M/s. Energy Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. the information needs to be examined.
The assessee company has received money by way of issue of FCD from MIL detailed as under:
Date of remittance as Date of FIRC Amount (in Rs.) A.Y. per Bank Statement 10.01.2008 11.01.2008 16,74,83,052.50 2008-09 TOTAL (A) 16,74,83,052.50 25.06.2008 26.06.2008 . 14,85,73,323.22 29.09.2008 30.09.2008 9,23,857.23 2009-10 22.01.2009 23.01.2009 22,92,257.00 TOTAL "B" 15,17,89,437.45
5. The AO also noticed that the assessee company entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with M/s. Capital Landmark India, a partnership firm having PAN-AFFC6567M assessed with ITO-24(1), New Delhi. As per MOU the assessee & 4005/M/2017 & 6 CO Nos.289 & 290/M/2018 M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. company was interested in developing township in Ludhiana and for this purpose required CLI to acquire pieces and parcels of land to an extent of around 300 acres (Rs.1,00,00,000/- per acre) situated at village Bilage, Tehsil Sanewal, Dist. Ludhiana, Punjab. Subsequent to the MOU, the assessee paid an amount of Rs.31.50 crore (16.50 crore in A.Y. 2008-09 and Rs.15 crore in A.Y. 2009-10). The assessee has created provision for bad and doubtful debts in the balance sheet and in A.Y. 2010-11. The entire amount of Rs.31.50 crore given by the assessee as advance to CLI has been debited in the P&L account and thereafter has been disallowed and added in the computation of income. In the balance sheet of A.Y. 2010-11 the assessee has made following entry:
Date Mode Amount A.Y. 11/01/2008 Cheque 16.50 crores 2008-09 26/06/2008 Chegue 15.00 crores 2009-10 31.50 crores TOTAL
The assessee has also debited interest payment of Rs.21,96,418/- in the P&L account for A.Y. 2008-09 (TDS Rs.2,19,650/-) and Rs.18876158/- for A.Y. 2000-10 (TDS of Rs.18,87,616/-). The AO also noticed that out of the total interest of Rs.2,10,72,736/- to be paid to MIL only an amount of Rs.21,07,346/- was paid as per material available on record and an amount of Rs.1,89,65,390/- was outstanding in the account of M/s. MIL. From the aforesaid facts, the AO came to conclusion that out of amount of Rs.32,12,34,732/- assessee transferred an amount of Rs.31,50,00,000/- + TDS on interest of Rs.21,07,347/- (total amounting to Rs.31,71,07,346/-). So the assessee has retained only Rs.4127386/- with it (Rs.32,12,34,732/- – & 4005/M/2017 & 7 CO Nos.289 & 290/M/2018 M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Rs.31,71,07,346/-) (upto A.Y. 2010-11 whereas an amount of Rs.31.50 crore is written off in its computation). So the assessee company received an amount of Rs.32.12 crore from its holding company M/s. MIL out of which an amount of Rs.31.50 crore was passed on to CLI by the assessee by virtue of an MOU but subsequently the assessee has written off the amount of Rs.31.50 crore in its books of account which is nothing but an artificial arrangement between the parties and lacks commercial substance.
It is also brought on record by the AO that MOU between the assessee and CLI dated 01.01.2008 which is not a registered document and CLI does not own any land nor intended to be purchased by the assessee. The assessee company has received by way of issue of FCD from MIL to the extent of Rs.15,17,89,437/- each for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10 and called upon the assessee to explain as to why the said amount should not be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act.
Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the AO proceeded to conclude that FCD received by the assessee from MIL and further diversion of amount by dubious method entered into with CLI by virtue of MOU is for a colourable transaction which lacks rationality and commercial purpose and the assessee has failed to provide any supporting evidence to prove that the transactions entered into are genuine and thereby made addition of Rs.15,17,89,437/- each for A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 under section 68 of the Act by framing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. & 4005/M/2017 & 8 CO Nos.289 & 290/M/2018 M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has partly allowed the same. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) both the Revenue as well as the assessee have come up before the Tribunal by way of filing appeals as well as cross objections respectively.
Aforesaid appeals were filed on 01.06.2017 thereafter the assessee put in appearance and continued to take adjournment on the one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the case remained unattended due to pandemic. Then case was again put up for regular hearing on 14.12.2021 and assessee through its authorized representative Shri Rakesh Kumar Khiwani took three adjournments and appeared on behalf of the assessee on 23.04.2022. Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on 29.09.2022 and 21.09.2022. Since the assessee appears to be not interested in defending the present appeals filed by the Revenue and to prosecute his cross objections the Bench has decided to dispose of the aforesaid appeals and cross objections on the basis of material available on record with the assistance of the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue.
We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and case law relied upon.
Before proceeding further “reasons recorded” by the AO for initiating the reopening under section 147/148 of the Act are extracted for ready perusal as under: & 4005/M/2017 & 9 CO Nos.289 & 290/M/2018 M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & 4005/M/2017 & 10 CO Nos.289 & 290/M/2018 M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
Undisputedly the assessee has received USD 79.03 lakhs equivalent to 31.50 crore between January 2008 to April 2009 (i.e. relevant for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10) by way of FCD from MIL, which amount was advanced to CLI. It is also not in dispute that during the year relevant to A.Y. 2010-11 the assessee company has written off the aforesaid advance of Rs.31.50 crore in P&L Account. It is also not in dispute that Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on merits for the year under consideration by following the order passed by CIT(A)-14/IT/176/2013-14 dated 15.03.2017 for A.Y. 2010-11, in which year the amount in question was written off. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has received the amount in question from 100% holding company in the year 2008- 09 and 2009-10.
It is also not in dispute that the Revenue has not challenged deletion of similar addition under section 68 of the Act made by the AO in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 by the Ld. CIT(A) simply on the ground that the tax was less than Rs.4,00,000/- whereas circular No.21/2015 of 10.12.2015 amended by F.No.279/MISC/142/2007 dated 14.07.2017 give liberty to the Revenue to challenge such deletion further before the Tribunal.
First of all we would decide the cross objections filed by the assessee challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO as invalid and illegal being formed on the basis of assumptions and incorrect facts and observations and sought to quash the notice under section 148 of the Act. & 4005/M/2017 & 11 CO Nos.289 & 290/M/2018 M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
The Ld. CIT(A) after examining the facts rejected the plea taken by the assessee company that reopening is not valid by returning following findings:
“As regards ground Nos 1 to 4 are concerned, the appellant has disputed the reopening of the case. It is noted that this case was earlier completed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO reopened the proceedings on the basis of his finding in A.Y 2010-11. In the case of M/s Anusandhan Investments Ltd 287 ITR 482 (Bom) it is held that assessment of subsequent year can be a basis for reopening the proceedings. Further here cannot be change of opinion in this case as and there was no earlier scrutiny in this case. Looking into the entirety of the facts of the case, these grounds are dismissed.”
Bare perusal of the reasons recorded as extracted in the preceding para shows that prima-facie there was sufficient material with the AO to reopen the assessment, that too on the basis of facts come on record in A.Y. 2010-11 that assessee has written off an amount of Rs.31.50 crore in P&L Account. The assessee has not come up before the Tribunal to argue as to how the reopening is not valid. So we hereby uphold the findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A) that reopening made by the AO in view of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Anusandharn Investments Ltd. (supra). So the cross objections raised by the assessee are not sustainable, hence dismissed.
The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs.15,17,89,437/- each for A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 merely by following A.Y. 2010-11 by returning following findings: “5. As regards ground Nos.5 to 8, the issue has been discussed in detail in AY 2010-11. The facts are elaborately discussed in AY 2010-11 in appeal number CITA-14/IT 176/13-14 Dated 15/3/2017. Extract of the decision is reproduced hereunder: & 4005/M/2017 & 12 CO Nos.289 & 290/M/2018 M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. “As regards ground number 1 to 3,the facts of the case a that the assessee company came into existence in FY 2007-08. In the assessment order passed for AY 2010-11, the AQ notes that the appellant has received Rs 32,12,34,732.16 in various tranches during A.Y 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 in the form of fully convertible debentures of M/s Mondon Investment Ltd (MIL) which is holding company having 99.99% share of the assessee company. The address of M/s MIL is also mentioned in the assessment order. The AO further notes that the assessee company entered into MOU with M/s Capital Landmark India, a partnership firm assessed with ITO 24(1), Mumbol doted 11/1/2008 and accordingly the assessee company required M/s Capital Landmark India to acquire pieces and parcel of land at Ludhiana for developing a township. The assessee company paid Rs.31.5 crores vide cheque to M/s Capital Landmark India during AY 2008-09 & 2009-10. This entire amount of Rs 35.5 crores was however debited as provisions for doubtful debts by the assessee company in AY 2010-11 was however disallowed and added bock in the computation by the assessee. The total interest to the holding company M/s MIL was Rs 21,96,499/- pertaining to AY 2008-09, Rs.1,88,75,158/- pertaining to AY 2009-10 totalling to Rs 2,10,72,736/- out of which the assessee company has only paid TDS of Rs.21,07,346/- and the balonce was outstanding. The AD therefore noted that the assessee company has passed on Rs.31.5 crores plus interest of Rs.21.07 locs and retained only Rs.41,27,386/- with it out of receipt of Rs 32,12,34,732/- and out of this, Rs.31.5 crores is warren off. The AO further notes that no person will ordinarily advance Rs 31.5 crores to any person who does not own land without any security and the assessee company has also not taken any legal action against M/s Capital Landmark India for not paying back this advance. Therefore there Collusion between the holding company and M/s Capital Landmark India and there is diversion of amount by dubious method of M/s Capital Landmark India. The AO thereafter added Rs 19,62.242/ received in AY 2010-11 u/s 68 of the I.T. Act and relied on various case laws.
4.1 The AO further notes that during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant filed confirmation from the holding company, RBI approval under FDI policy and that the amount has been received through banking channel. In fact the details of receipts alongwith date of FIRC are mentioned by the AO in the assessment order itself for the entire receipts from M/s MIL However for the reasons that the MOU between the assessee and M/s Capital Landmark India is unregistered, that no security is obtained from M/s Capital Landmark India for advancement of Rs 31.5 crores and subsequent provision made in the books of the assessee, the AO held that there is a colourable device which lacks rationality and commercial purpose.
& 4005/M/2017 & 13 CO Nos.289 & 290/M/2018 M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
4.2 The submissions of the appellant during the appellate proceedings is forwarded to the A.O for his comments. The A.O in his counter comments dated 5/10/2016 reiterated the facts from the assessment order and submitted that the transaction is collusive in nature. Immediately on receipt of the money the assesse has advanced the amount to M/s Capital Landmark. No action has been taken for recovery of the amount and that the provision for bad debt has been made and there was premature treatment of advances as provision for doubtful debts which was however added back in computation.
I have considered the submissions made. Ground No. 4 is consequential in nature and the AO is directed to give effect as per law. Ground No. 5 is premature and ground No. 6 is general in nature and hence no comments are made. As regards ground Nos 1 to 4, I have considered the submissions made. The appellant in the detailed submissions as well as statement of facts has submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant has submitted the details of remittance received from M/s MIL alongwith copies of f IRC and bank statement and copies of debenture certificate issued. The details of tax deducted has also been submitted. Further, vide subsequent submissions, copy of audited financial statements of M/s MIL and the Income Tax Returns filed in-financial year ended on 31/3/2008, 31/3/2009 and 31/3/2010 were duly filed. It is noted that the AO has himself mentioned ^ the details of receipts of the amounts in question alongwith date of FWC and also the details of TDS deducted also. The AO himself noted that M/s MIL is holding company of the. assessee company-having its 99.99% share . In this case, the identity of the investor is therefore proved being a holding company., Income Tax returns and bank statement etc. The genuineness of the transactions is proved: by way of bank statement and. EIRC details. The appellant also filed the audited Balance Sheet and P&L A/c which are not rebutted by the AO in its submissions. No adverse inference is drawn regarding the capacity of M/s MIL in investing in the FCDs. Therefore looking into the facts of the case, the three limbs-i.e. identity of' the. person, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the investor u/s 68 are duly proved in this case. The only contention of the AO is that the assessee company has further advanced that money to some other entity wnlch is collusive in nature.. The assessment details of this entity was available with the AO. Is not disputed that the money is not advanced to M/s Capital Landmark 'India. In fact, the appellant mentions that the AO has recorded the statement of one of the partner of M/s.Capital Landmark India wherein it is accepted that the amount has been received by them. It was also verified from the & 4005/M/2017 & 14 CO Nos.289 & 290/M/2018 M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. assessment record on 10/2/2016 in presence of A.O that the statement of the partner sri Gautam Makhija of M/S Capital Landmark was recorded by the A.O. There is no doubt that the money was subsequently advanced to M/s capital Landmark, it is therefore not a case that the money is not, been advanced to M/s Capital Landmark India. However, the AO contends that there is diversion of money as agreement with M/s Capital Landmark India is not registered or no security was taken before advancing such amount. It is further, submitted by the appellant that since the money was difficult to recover, therefore the provision was rr.sde in the account and it was only the provision which was not actually claimed in the computation. The amount is not written off. Looking into the entirety of the facts of the case, in my considered opinion the source of the fund is never doubted by the A.O and addition is made on the basis of subsequent utilization of fund. Under such circumstances, the addition made u/s 68 cannot be sustained as there exist no doubt regarding the source of money having been received from M/s MIL. The case laws relied upon by the are AO are duly distinguishable. Looking into the entirety of the facts of the case, in my considered opinion, no addition can be made u/s 68 of the Act under the facts and circumstances of this case only on the basis of subsequent utilization of the amount or failure to recover the amount from the third company to whom part of such money is advanced. These grounds are allowed.”
As the facts are exactly same, therefore following my decision in A.Y 2010-11, the addition made by the A.O u/s 68 of the Act is hereby deleted. These grounds are allowed”
It is undisputed fact on record that similar addition on identical grounds was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in A.Y. 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, which was accepted by the Revenue Department on the pretext that the tax effect in the same was less than Rs.10,00,000/- as intimated to the Bench vide letter dated 04.08.2012 written by ITO to Ld. D.R which is extracted as under: & 4005/M/2017 & 15 CO Nos.289 & 290/M/2018 M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
It appears that the Revenue Department has overlooked the clause in the circular No.21/2015 amended vide F.No.279/MISC/142/2007 dated 14.07.2017 which says that in such like cases appeal can be filed under the exception clause.
We have perused the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) following the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) by following the & 4005/M/2017 & 16 CO Nos.289 & 290/M/2018 M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. order passed by his predecessor in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 wherein the facts have been thrashed at length. It is a fact brought on record by the Ld. CIT(A) that during the assessment proceedings that the assessee has submitted the details of remittance received from MIL along with copy of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC), bank statement and copies of debenture certificates issued along with the details of tax deducted.
Moreover, audited financials of MIL and income tax return filed for the year under consideration were also examined. It is also an admitted fact on record that MIL is holding company of the assessee company having 99.99% shares. Audited financials brought on record by the assessee have not been disputed by the AO nor any adverse inference is drawn regarding the capacity of MIL in investing in the FCD. From all the documents brought on record and examined by the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) it is proved that identity of the person namely MIL, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the investor has been duly proved under section 68 of the Act.
So far as question of further investing the money in question by the assessee with CLI is concerned, its identity is also not in dispute as the AO has recorded statement of the partner of CLI whereby he has accepted to have received the said amount.
In these circumstances the AO has merely proceeded on the basis of conjuncture and surmises that the alleged FCD received by the assessee from MIL, sapphires and further diversion of the amount by dubious method entered with CLI is only a colourable transaction of colourable transaction which lacks rationality and & 4005/M/2017 & 17 CO Nos.289 & 290/M/2018 M/s. Symmetree Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. commercial purpose. When we examine the facts as a whole the source of fund is proved, creditworthiness has not been disputed as the money was received from MIL along with copy of FIRC, bank statement and copies of debenture certificate along with tax deducted and there is not an iota of material on record to dispute the genuineness of the transaction. Only utilization of the funds, which is otherwise prerogative of the businessman has been disputed by the AO. Moreover, the assessee has come up with categoric contention that since it was difficult to recover the advance given they have written off the same, this contention cannot be disputed by the AO in the face of audit financials brought on record.
In view of what has been discussed above, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20.12.2022.