Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘E‘ BENCH
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI M.BALAGANESHDr. Annie Besant Road
PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):
This appeal in ITA No.4355/Mum/2010 for A.Y.2004-05 preferred by the assessee against the revision order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-7 (Ld.CIT in short), Mumbai u/s.263 of the Act dated 24/03/2010 seeking to revise the order passed by the Ld.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-7(2), Mumbai (Ld.AO in short) vide order passed under section (u/s) 143(3) r.w.s. 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 25/02/2008.
2 ITA No. 4355/Mum/2010 and other appeals M/s. Siemens Ltd.,
Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal before us, the Ld.AR stated before us that he would like to press only grounds 3, 5 & 6 raised in the concise grounds of appeal, in view of the fact that relief has been granted by the Ld.AO in respect of other grounds raised thereon. Hence, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld.CIT was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in respect of issues mentioned in grounds 3, 5 & 6 of the concise grounds of appeal, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of electrical products, systems and solutions, electronic goods, healthcare systems like X-ray machines, power generation and transmission equipments, transport equipment like signalling equipment for railways and related industrial and commercial activities. The assessee also undertakes turnkey projects in industrial and infrastructure sectors including the concept, engineering, supplies, execution, commissioning and after sale services. The ld. AR placed on record the list of dates and events for better adjudication of the appeal which also contained his arguments:-
1 30.10.2001 The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2001 -02 declaring a total income of Rs.36,48,02,020. The said return of income was selected for scrutiny. 2 25.02.2004 The assessee, during the pendency of the assessment proceedings, filed an application before the Settlement Commission under section 245C of the Act for settlement of its cases relating to the assessment years 1997- 98 to 2003-04. 3 01.03.2005 The settlement application filed by the assessee was admitted by the Settlement Commission by an order passed under section 245D(1) of the Act.
3 ITA No. 4355/Mum/2010 and other appeals M/s. Siemens Ltd.,
4 14.06.2007 Pursuant to directions given by the Settlement Commission, the then CIT filed reports under section 245D(3) of the Act. 5 10.09.2007 The then CIT thereafter filed reports before the & Settlement Commission under rule 9 of the 21.09.2007 Income-tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997(the Settlement Commission Rules). In the said reports, a request was made to the Settlement Commission to consider various other issues relating to the assessment 6 07.01.2008 The Settlement Commission disposed of the assessee's application determining an additional income of Rs.9,78,68,175 as assessable for the assessment year 2001-02. Referring to the reports filed by the CIT under section 245D(3) of the Act and under Rule 9 of the Settlement Commission Rules, they identified a list of 35 items which required further consideration. They did not adjudicate any of the aforesaid 35 items but directed the Assessing Officer to consider the said issues and disposed of the application only with respect to the additional disclosure as made by the assessee in the settlement application. 7 22.02.2008 The assessee filed detailed submissions before the A.O. in response to notice dated 19.02.2008 issued under section 143(2) of the Act while giving effect to the order dated 07.01.2008 passed by the Settlement Commission. In the said letter the assessee has also made its submissions as to why no addition/ disallowance should be made in respect of the 35 issues as raised by the Revenue before the Settlement Commission. 8 25.02.2008 The A.O. passed an order under section 143(3) read with section 245D(4) of the Act determining the assessee's total income for assessment year 2001-02 at Rs. 118,04,09,077. Out of the 35 issues as identified before the Settlement Commission, additions/ disallowances were made in respect of certain items by rejecting the submission made vide letter dated 19.02.2008. This discloses that there was thorough application of mind by the AO while passing the assessment order giving effect to the Order dated 07.01.2008 of the Settlement Commission. 9 12.06.2009 The Settlement Commission disposed of
4 ITA No. 4355/Mum/2010 and other appeals M/s. Siemens Ltd.,
rectification applications filed by the Assessee as well as the Revenue. It was urged by both the parties that the 35 issues as identified by the Revenue ought to have been decided by the Settlement Commission rather than restoring the same to the AO. The said application was dismissed as infructuous as the AO had already passed the order dated 25.02.2008 giving effect to the Order of the Settlement Commission. Thus, neither in the course of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission nor in the rectification application, the Revenue which was represented through the CIT, ever referred to any issues other than the 35 as identified by them. Based thereon, the assessee submits that it is not now open to the CIT in the revision proceedings to expand the controversy beyond such issues. 10 06.11.2008 The CIT issued notice under section 263 of the Act inter-alia alleging that in the order dated 25.02.2008 passed by the AO giving effect to the Settlement Commission's order dated 07.01.2008 he could go beyond the 35 issues as identified in the settlement proceedings. In so far as is relevant, the notice also refers to claim for deduction in respect of loss by way of liquidated damages on account of delay in execution of contracts, provision towards warranty obligation, change in the method of recognizing revenue and disclosure in respect of quantitative details relating to raw materials and finished goods etc. There is no discussion therein with respect to adjustment under section 145A of the Act. The said issue was also not discussed at any stage of the 263 proceedings. 11 10.02.2010 23.02.2010 The assessee filed detailed submissions before the & CIT inter-alia urging that it was not open to the 09.03.2010 AO to go beyond the 35 issues as identified in the settlement proceedings. Further, effectively the present CIT was seeking to revise the view taken by the then CIT in the course of proceedings before the Settlement Commission which was not permissible in law. Detailed submissions have also been made in respect of each of the issues as raised in the show cause notice dated 06.11.2008 issued by the CIT under section 263 of the Act explaining as to why no addition / disallowance should be made in respect thereof.
5 ITA No. 4355/Mum/2010 and other appeals M/s. Siemens Ltd.,
12 24.03.2010 The CIT passed the impugned order under section 263 of the Act inter-alia revising the assessment order 25.02.2008 passed by the A.O. with respect to the adjustment to be made under section 145A of the Act, modification of the method to recognize revenue, quantitative details in respect of raw materials and finished goods and deduction in respect of provision for loss by way of liquidated damages and warranty obligation. The present appeal has been filed against this order. 13 31.12.2010 The A.O. passed an order giving effect to the impugned Order dated 24.03.2010 passed by the CIT under section 263 of the Act inter-alia determining the assessee's total income for the assessment year 2001-02 at Rs. 105,86,64,353. The additions as made by the A.O. in the said order and as relating to the 263 proceedings are in respect of valuation of stock in terms of section 145A of the Act and disallowance of deduction of provision towards liquidated damages and warranty obligation. Therefore, the grievance in the present appeal is now only restricted to these issues.
3.1. It was vehemently argued that the primary assumption of jurisdiction by the ld. CIT u/s.263 of the Act is patently illegal and bad in law as the order of the ld. AO in the instant case could not be termed as erroneous at all as he had originally passed the order in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) which directed the ld. AO to examine 35 items. We find from the aforesaid list of dates and events and also from the paper book submitted by the assessee, the ld. AO had indeed examined all the 35 items that were mandated by the ITSC to examine and the assessee also had furnished all the details pertaining to those 35 items before the ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The ld.AO on examination and verification of the details furnished by the assessee in respect of 35 items had accepted the same for majority of the issues and had made certain disallowances in respect of some issues. These facts are not in
6 ITA No. 4355/Mum/2010 and other appeals M/s. Siemens Ltd.,
dispute before us. We find that the ld.CIT is seeking to invoke revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act in respect of the following items:-
a) Claim of deduction in respect of loss by way of liquidated damages on account of delay in execution of contracts b) Claim of deduction towards provision for warranty c) Adjustment u/s.145A of the Act in respect of MODVAT.
3.2. We find that the list of 35 items which the Revenue wanted the Hon’ble Settlement commission to consider while passing their final order are listed in pages 27 & 28 of the paper book which is nothing but the order passed by the Settlement Commission u/s.254D(4) of the Act dated 07/01/2008. 4. Admittedly, the issue raised by the Ld.CIT that with regard to the consideration of provision for warranty was not part of 35 items directed by the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) to the Ld. Assessing Officer (Ld.AO) to make verification. Hence, we hold that the Ld.AO could not have looked into this issue of ‘provision for warranty’ for A.Y. 2004-05, i.e. the year under consideration. Accordingly, his order cannot be termed as erroneous even though it may be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hence, the pre-requisite of twin conditions of section 263 are not satisfied cumulatively in the instant case. Accordingly, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act would not lie in respect of issue of ‘provision for warranty’. 5. We find that the Ld.CIT had sought to revise the order passed by the Ld.AO treating it as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in respect of another two items as under: a. Impact of provisions of section 145A of the Act; b. Non consideration of provision for liquidated damages.
7 ITA No. 4355/Mum/2010 and other appeals M/s. Siemens Ltd.,
Let us first address the effect of provisions of section 145A of the Act on the taxable income of the assessee. We find that assessee had duly disclosed the effect of provisions of section 145A of the Act by way of detailed workings in the tax audit report filed alongwith the return. The same is enclosed at pages 112 and 113 of the factual paper book I filed before us for the years ended 31/03/2004 and 31/03/2003, respectively. The same is hereby reproduced as under:- SIEMENS LTD. TAX AUDIT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2004 Clause 12(b) of Form 3CD Details of Deviation from method of valuation of closing stock as prescribed in Section 145A and the effect on the Profit & Loss Account. Debits Credits (Rs.) Adjustments required Adjustments required nder section 145A under section 145A 1 Opening stock: 29,674,715 Profit as per P&L A/c 1,909,945,000 a Add; Increase due to 1 Sales inclusion of excise duty a Add:Increase due to on which modvat credit inclusion of Excuse Duty 920,347,138 is available b Add : Increase due to inclusion of Sales Tax collected 660,615,033 2 Purchase Cost of Raw 2 Closing Stock of Raw Material:- Materials a. Add: Increase due to Add: Increase due to 24,785,086 inclusion of excise duty inclusion of Excise Duty on which Modvat credit unavailed. is availed. 526,461,470 b Sales Tax Set off claimed and allowed 119,567,313 c Others 4,236,060 3 Cost of Sales: Add : Increase due to inclusion of Excise Duty paid on manufacture 388,996,039
4 Sales Tax paid / 536,811,660 payable
Profit as per Profit & Loss Account 1,909,945,000 Total 3,515,692,257 Total 3,515,692,257
SIEMENS LTD.
8 ITA No. 4355/Mum/2010 and other appeals M/s. Siemens Ltd.,
TAX AUDIT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2003 Clause 12(b) of Form 3CD Details of Deviation from method of valuation of closing stock as prescribed in Section 145A and the effect on the Profit & Loss Account. Debits Credits (Rs.) Adjustments required Adjustments required nder section 145A under section 145A 1 Opening stock: 20,652,818 Profit as per P&L A/c 1,680,029,710 a Add; Increase due to 1 Sales inclusion of excise duty a Add:Increase due to 732,281,659 on which modvat credit inclusion of Excuse Duty is available b Add : Increase due to 509,786,538 inclusion of Sales Tax collected 2 Purchase Cost of Raw 2 Closing Stock of Raw Material:- Materials a. Add: Increase due to Add: Increase due to 29,674,715 inclusion of excise duty inclusion of Excise Duty on which Modvat credit 419,620,454 unavailed. is availed. 95,248,145 b Sales Tax Set off 10,246,977 claimed and allowed c Others 3 Cost of Sales: Add : Increase due to inclusion of Excise Duty paid on manufacture 321,683,102
4 Sales Tax paid / payable 404,291,416
Profit as per Profit & Loss Account 1,680,029,710 Total 2,951,772,622 Total 2,951,772,622
From the aforesaid table, it becomes amply clear that Modvat, tax due, cess, etc. have to be included by the assessee in respect of all the items, i.e. opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stock and pursuant to such inclusion, there will be no deviation in the profits of the assessee company. It is effectively revenue neutral as is evident from the aforesaid workings. It is pertinent to note that in Rule 9 report filed by the Ld.CIT before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), the Ld.CIT had submitted that assessee has made adjustments of Modvat to the opening stock which is not permissible as per section 145A of the act.
9 ITA No. 4355/Mum/2010 and other appeals M/s. Siemens Ltd.,
The claim of the assessee is the effect of section 145A of the Act has to be given even for opening stock. We are in agreement with this contention of the assessee that the effect of Modvat, duty, tax, cess, etc by way of its inclusion should be done in the opening stock also. Our view is further verified by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Mahavir Aluminimum Ltd reported in 297 ITR 77 (Del) wherein it was categorically held that while giving effect to section 145A of the Act, if there is a change in closing stock, corresponding adjustement must be made in the opening stock also. The same view was taken by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt Ltd reported in 318 ITR 116 (Bom). We find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid case had indeed placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court referred to supra. Admittedly, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court was rendered prior to framing of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 245D(4) of the Act by the Ld.AO, i.e. the impugned assessment order on 25/02/2008. Hence, the Ld.AO did have the benefit of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court while framing the assessment pursuant to the directions of Hon’ble Settlement Commission. On this count, itself, the order of the Ld.AO cannot be termed as erroneous warranting revision under section 263 of the Act. 8. Further, we find that the Ld.AO had duly made adequate enquiries with regard to this impugned issue during the course of assessment proceedings and assessee had given detailed reply in this regard before the Ld.AO vide its letter dated 22/02/2008 giving a detailed write up on the impact of section 145A of the Act and also placing reliance on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in support of its contentions. We find that the Ld.AO on due appreciation of these submissions made by the assessee had accepted to the stand with the assessee after due
10 ITA No. 4355/Mum/2010 and other appeals M/s. Siemens Ltd.,
application of his mind. Hence, this cannot fall under the category of lack of enquiry by the Ld.AO. It could be safely construed that the Ld.AO had indeed taken the only possible view on the matter and Ld.CIT in the instant case is only trying to substitute his view in place of a view already taken by the Ld.AO, which in our considered opinion, is not permissible under section 263 of the Act. Moreover, we further find that assessee, in response to show cause notice issued by the Ld.CIT, had vide letter dated 31/03/2009 had brought to the attention of Ld.CIT of these submissions including the workings given by the tax auditor in form 3CD on the impact of provisions of section 145A of the Act. We find that the Ld.CIT had not pointed out any error in the said workings. Further, in the showcause notice issued under section 263 of the Act, the Ld.CIT merely shows that assessee had made adjustments under section 145A of the Act of the opening stock which was not permissible, according to him. But in the final order passed under section 263 of the Act, we find that the Ld.CIT does not even say or conclude that Modvat is to be included in the opening stock. His entire discussion only talks about inclusion of Modvat in the closing stock of raw materials, work-in-progress and finished goods. This itself goes to prove the complete non application of mind on the part of Ld.CIT and incorrect understanding of provisions of section 145A of the Act. The Ld.CIT nowhere points out any error in the workings given by the tax auditor in form 3CD in his order. Hence, we hold that the order passed by the Ld.AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in respect of this issue of impact of provisions of section 145A of the Act. Accordingly, revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act by the Ld.CIT would not lie on this issue.
11 ITA No. 4355/Mum/2010 and other appeals M/s. Siemens Ltd.,
With regard to yet another issue, on which Ld.CIT had sought to invoke his revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act is in respect of provision for liquidated damages. 10. Admittedly, this was part of 35 items which were directed to be verified by the Hon’ble ITSC to the Ld.AO. In any case, we find that adequate enquiries were indeed made by the Ld.AO in respect of this issue which is evident from the reply filed by the assessee before the Ld.AO vide letter dated 22/02/2008 wherein assessee had clearly established the basis of making the said provision for liquidated damages by way of loss on account of delay in execution of projects by also stating that the said provision for damages had been made part and parcel of contractual obligation of the assessee company. It is very pertinent to note that in respect of this issue, the Ld.CIT in Rule 9 report filed before the ITSC had categorically stated that the said provision for liquidated damages is contractual in nature and not penal in nature. But, strangely, the very same Ld.CIT in show cause notice issued under section 263 had stated that the provision is penal in nature. And moreover, the Ld.CIT while passing the order under section 263 had further extended the scope by saying that the said provision is penal in nature and that the assessee has not provided the details of what was the actual liability that had fastened on the assessee in future years in respect of this provision and whether these provisions have been reversed in the subsequent year or not. In this regard, we find show cause notice or an opportunity of being heard was issued / offered by the Ld.CIT to the assessee only to address the argument as to whether the said provision is penal in nature or not? No other opportunity whatsoever was ever granted to the assessee by the Ld.CIT to address the issue of comparison between provisions made for liquidated damages and the actual liability that had fastened on the assessee in future. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the
12 ITA No. 4355/Mum/2010 and other appeals M/s. Siemens Ltd.,
Ld.CIT’s finding on the second limb of this transaction is patently illegal as it is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. This view of ours is further fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Amitabh Bacchchan reported in 240 Taxman 221 (SC) wherein it categorically held, an opportunity of hearing is required to be mandatorily given to the assessee by the Ld.CIT either in the show cause notice or atleast during the course of hearing of revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. 11. Now what is left is only to address the first limb of the present transaction, i.e. whether the provision for liquidated damages is penal in nature or not. We find that assessee had given complete details regarding the same both before the Ld.AO as well as before the Ld.CIT and this provision is being made on a consistent basis by the assessee year on year. It is also pertinent to note, as stated supra, the very same Ld.CIT had in Rule 9 report filed before the Hon’ble ITSC had concluded that the very same provision for liquidated damages is not penal in nature and contractual in nature. This clearly shows the divergent view taken by the Ld.CIT in the present 263 proceedings. In any case, as stated earlier, the Ld.AO though duly applied his mind on the said issue and after making adequate enquiries as directed by the ITSC, had allowed this provision for liquidated damage as a deduction. Hence, it does not fall under the ambit of “lack of enquiry” warranting revision under section 263 of the Act. 12. Further, in respect of the aforesaid 3 issues, the following observations should also be relevant:
13 ITA No. 4355/Mum/2010 and other appeals M/s. Siemens Ltd.,
We find that pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Settlement Commission, the ld. AO had indeed examined the 35 issues listed in the said order while framing the assessment giving effect to Settlement Commission’s order. In fact in the said order, the ld. AO after due examination had accepted to the stand of the assessee for certain items and wherever he is not in agreement with the contentions of the assessee, the ld. AO had resorted to make suitable disallowances / additions. Hence, this goes to prove that the ld. AO had indeed made thorough examination and enquiries with regard to 35 items listed in the Settlement Commission’s order. This also would be in due consonance with the directions of the Settlement Commission. Hence, it could be safely concluded that the order giving effect to Settlement Commission’s order was passed by the ld. AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 245D(4) of the Act on 25/02/2008 as per the directions of the Hon’ble Settlement Commission. When an assessment order has been framed by the ld. AO pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Settlement Commission by giving effect to the said order, the said assessment order loses its independent status of getting construed as an assessment order passed by the ld. AO on his own volition and in his independent capacity without getting influenced by the order of any higher authority. It is not in dispute that the Administrative Commissioner (Ld. CIT) had been given due opportunities for making necessary enquiries in terms of Section 245D (3) of the Act and furnish Rule 9 report before the Settlement Commission as per Settlement Commission Rules. It is also not in dispute that the Settlement Commission had passed an order dated 07/01/2008 u/s.245D(4) of the Act after considering the various contentions raised by the Administrative CIT in Rule 9 report. The Settlement Commission order is being passed by the Officers of the Income Tax department who are in the rank of the Chief Commissioners of Income Tax (CCIT). When an Assessing officer
14 ITA No. 4355/Mum/2010 and other appeals M/s. Siemens Ltd.,
passes an order giving effect to the said Settlement Commission order framed by the Officers in the rank of CCITs, then it loses the status of the order passed by the ld. AO simplicitor. Now, the legal question arises whether this order could be subject matter of revision u/s.263 by the ld. CIT. In our considered opinion, the answer would be an emphatic “No”. It is very clear from the provision of the Act that Section 263(1) of the Act clearly mandates the ld. CIT to invoke revision jurisdiction only in respect of orders passed by a subordinate authority. As stated supra, the order passed by the ld. AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 245D(4) of the Act dated 25/02/2008 could not be construed as an order passed by a subordinate authority in view of the fact that the Settlement Commission order has been passed by the Officers in the rank of the Chief Commissioner. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that revision jurisdiction invoked u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. CIT seeking to make adjustment in respect of (a) claim of deduction in respect of loss by way of liquidated damages on account of delay in execution of contracts (b) adjustment u/s.145A of the Act in respect of MODVAT as void ab initio as the same was already the subject matter of consideration by the ld. AO while passing an order giving effect to Settlement Commission proceedings. Hence, due enquiries had been carried out by the ld. AO on these two items. In respect of aforesaid two items, revision jurisdiction invoked by the ld. CIT u/s.263 of the Act is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Now what is left is exercise of revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. CIT in respect of claim of deduction towards provision for warranty. Admittedly this issue was not included in the list of 35 items which the ld. CIT wanted the Settlement Commission to consider in his Rule 9 report. In this regard, we have already held that the ld. AO could not travel beyond the list of 35 items that were listed in the order of the
15 ITA No. 4355/Mum/2010 and other appeals M/s. Siemens Ltd.,
Settlement Commission. Hence, not looking into the allowability for provision of warranty while giving effect to the directions of the Settlement Commission, would not make his order erroneous. Moreover, the ld. PCIT in page 5 of his order had narrated the basis on which the provision for warranty has been made in the books by debiting to profit and loss account which is carried regularly in the normal course of business of the assessee. His only grievance is that whether the said provision has been reversed in the subsequent year is required to be verified by the ld. AO, for which purpose, he is invoking revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. Nowhere in the order the ld. CIT even whispers that the provision for warranty has not been made on scientific basis by the assessee. Hence, we find that the ld. CIT had only resorted to invoke his revision jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act by directing the ld. AO to make fishing and roving enquiries in respect of claim of deduction for provision for warranty. In our considered opinion, revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act cannot be invoked by the ld. CIT for directing to make fishing and roving enquiries by the ld. AO. Moreover, the ld. CIT had not stated as to how the claim for provision of warranty made by the assessee is incorrect or erroneous, as admittedly reply was given before the ld. CIT by the assessee in response to show-cause notice. Hence, it is incumbent on the part of the ld. CIT to atleast make preliminary enquiry on the submissions made by the assessee before concluding that the order passed by the ld. AO is erroneous in respect of this issue. Hence, we hold that the revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act invoked by the ld. PCIT fails in respect of this issue also. 15. In view of the aforesaid observations, we hold that the revision order passed by the Ld.CIT under section 263 of the Act is hereby quashed by holding that there was invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld.CIT under section 263 of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of
16 ITA No. 4355/Mum/2010 and other appeals M/s. Siemens Ltd.,
the instant case. Accordingly, grounds 1,3,5 & 6 raised by the assessee are allowed. 16. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 30/11 /2022 in the open court.
Sd/- Sd/- (ABY T. VARKEY) (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated 30/11/2022 KARUNA, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : The Appellant 1. The Respondent. 2. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. 6. //True Copy//
BY ORDER,
(Sr. Private Secretary / Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai