Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's income tax return for AY 2017-18 was reopened under Section 147 based on information from a third-party survey, alleging receipt of Rs. 6,00,000/- cash for machinery sales, which was treated as undisclosed business income. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the assessee's appeal, prompting the current second appeal to the tribunal. A 144-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the Authorized Representative's surgery.
Held
The tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 on 26.08.2022 was time-barred. Referring to Supreme Court judgments in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal, it was determined that the Assessing Officer had only seven days from the assessee's reply on 30.07.2022 (i.e., until 06.08.2022) to issue the notice, thereby overriding the one-month period specified under Section 148A(d). Consequently, the notice was deemed invalid and the appeal was allowed on this legal ground.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred as per the interpretation of the Income Tax Act, TOLA, and Supreme Court pronouncements (Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal) regarding the 'surviving time limit' for notices issued between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 133A, 270A, 148A(b), 148A(d), 148, 149, 149(1), 151, Article 142
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “the CIT(A)”) dated 16.11.2024 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 in the proceeding under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
There was a delay of 144 days in filing of the appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason for delay. It is explained that the Authorised Representative of the assessee who was handling the (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Na Roto Machine & Moulds India vs. ACIT Page 2 of 15 matter had undergone a severe surgery (myomectomy in the uterus due to fibroids) on 23.08.2024 and was on complete bed rest for 3 months thereafter. As a result, no compliance could be made by her before the Ld. CIT(A) and the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was also not communicated to the assessee in time. The assessee came to know about the order of the Ld. CIT(A) only when the penalty notice under Section 270A of the Act was received and thereafter the present appeal was filed. Considering the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 03.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.1,33,51,870/-. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received from the Assessing Officer, Circle – 2(1), Ahmedabad. It was informed that in the course of survey action u/s 133A of the Act carried out on 24.10.2018 in the case of one Pinaxis Polyplast LLP, certain documents were impounded as per which the assessee had received cash of Rs.6,00,000/- for sale of certain machinery to M/s. Pinaxis Polyplast LLP, M/s. Pacific Polymers & M/s. Pacific Polyplast. On the basis of this information, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after recording the reason. In the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and the cash payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- received by the assessee towards sale of machinery was treated as undisclosed business income. The assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of the Act on 15.05.2023 at total income of Rs.1,39,51,870/-.
(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Na Roto Machine & Moulds India vs. ACIT Page 3 of 15 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was adjudicated vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The assessee is now in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: -
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the addition of Rs.6,00,000/- as business income and assessed the total income at Rs.1,39,51,870/-. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the Order of the Ld. AO ignoring the fact that incriminating documents received during the course of survey operation at the premises of third party was merely a dump document and neither in the handwriting of the appellant nor have signature of the appellant.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the Order of the Ld. AO ignoring the fact that even the recorded statement of one of the partners of Pinaxix Polyplast LLP did not accept this transaction of Rs.6,00,000/- and stated that he will reply later to the question.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the Order of the Ld. AO ignoring the Replies dated 13.03.2023 and 17.04.2023 submitted by the appellant and passed an Order without giving any Speaking Order on the matter.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not considering the appellant's point of view that without prejudice and as an alternative, maximum addition can be to the extent of GP i.e. Rs.60,000/- and not beyond, without giving any reason for the same.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by not considering that the Order u/s 148A(d) is passed beyond the mandatory timeline stipulated under the Act.
7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by passing the impugned Order dated 16.11.2024 without giving any findings on the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal
filed by the Appellant
8. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by passing the impugned Order ex-parte without granting an effective opportunity of hearing to the Appellant in violation of principles of natural justice
9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by passing the impugned Order without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) dated 03.10.2024 which hold that in cases of deemed show cause notices pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble SC in the case of Ashish Agarwal, the notice u/s.148 under the new regime had to be issued within the surviving limit as prescribed under income tax Act read with TOLA, which was not done in the present case. Your Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify, withdraw, change or substitute all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of this appeal.”
6. Ms. Shrunjal Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee requested to adjudicate the legal ground taken by the assessee first. She contended that the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued in this case was barred by limitation. It was explained that the initial notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.06.2021, which was within the extended time limit as per Taxation and Other Laws Ordnance, 2020 (TOLA). As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (2023) (1 SSC 617), all the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act during the period from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021, were deemed to be notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act 2021. Further, directions were issued to supply the materials within 30 days and grant further 15 days’ time to the assessee to reply to such notice before passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that in the present case, the assessee was supplied materials on 23.05.2022 in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act, to which the assessee had submitted reply on 13.06.2022. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer had again made available certain documents on 27.07.2022, to which the assessee had filed the response on 30.07.2022. Thereafter, the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer on 26.08.2022. According to the (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Na Roto Machine & Moulds India vs. ACIT Page 5 of 15 assessee, this order u/s 148A(d) of the Act and the fresh notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 26.08.2022, were barred by limitation.
6.1 The Ld. AR explained that as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was required to be passed and notice u/s 148 of the Act under the new regime was required to be issued within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA. She explained that since the original notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.06.2021, the Assessing Officer had only one- day surviving time-limit under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA. Therefore, new notice u/s 148 of the Act was required to be issued within one day, which was extended to 7 days, from the date of response of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that as the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued in this case beyond the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA, the same was barred by limitation.
Per contra, Smt. Mamta Singh, Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities. She submitted that as per provision of section 148A(d) of the Act, the AO was required to pass the order under that section within a period of one month from the end of the month in which the reply of the assessee to the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act, was received. The Ld. Sr. DR explained that the order u/s 148A(d) passed in this case was within the time limit as prescribed under the Act and the notice u/s 148 of the Act was also issued within the time period. Therefore, there was no infirmity with the notice of the AO.
(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Na Roto Machine & Moulds India vs. ACIT Page 6 of 15 8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the assessee. Before we decide the issue of limitation, it will be relevant to tabulate the actions taken by the Assessing Officer in the present case: -
Date Action Taken 30.06.2021 Original Notice u/s 148 of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer 23.05.2022 Notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer, pursuant to the decision in the case of Ashish Agarwal. 13.06.2022 Reply filed by the assessee to the notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. 27.07.2022 Another notice u/s 148A(b) issued by the Assessing Officer 30.07.2022 Reply filed by the assessee to the AO’s notice dated 27.07.2022 26.08.2022 Order u/s 148A(d) of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer 26.08.2022 Notice u/s 148 of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer 8.1 The crux of the issue to be decided in this case is whether the order u/s 148A(d) and the notice u/s 148 of the Act, both dated 26.08.2022, were within time. The contention of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer was required to pass order u/s 148A(d) of the Act and also to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act within the surviving period of one day (which was extendable to 7 days) of filing its reply on 30.07.2022, which was till 06.08.2022 only. Since the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act and notice u/s 148 was issued beyond the period of seven days from its reply on 30.07.2022, the same was barred by limitation. On the other hand, the Revenue’s stand is that the provision of Section 148A(d) of the Act stipulates that the Assessing Officer can pass the order within one month from the end of the month in which the reply of the assessee was received (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Na Roto Machine & Moulds India vs. ACIT Page 7 of 15 by the Assessing Officer. According to the Ld. Sr. DR, since the reply of the assessee was received on 30.07.2022, the Assessing Officer had time available till 31.08.2022 to pass the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, along with issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Thus, the notice issued in the present case on 26.08.2022 was within the limitation period.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The new section 148A of the Act was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2021 which required that before issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act (in other than search cases), the Assessing Officer shall conduct enquiries with reference to the information of escapement of income, if required, and provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. After considering the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall decide, by passing an order, whether it is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 and serve a copy of such order along with the notice on the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall, before conducting any such enquiries or providing opportunity to the assessee or passing such order, obtain the approval of specified authority. The provision of section 148A of the Act was thus applicable to the cases where the reason for escapement of income was recorded as per the new provisions effective from 01.04.2021. Therefore, the time limit of one month from the end of the month in which the reply of the assessee was received, was available to the AO u/s 148A(d) of the Act, in respect of a regular notice initiated under this new provision w.e.f. 01.04.2021.
9.1 In the present case, the original notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.06.2021 was issued not under the new provisions, but as per the old (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Na Roto Machine & Moulds India vs. ACIT Page 8 of 15 provisions of the Act, wherein there was no requirement of any proceeding u/s 148A of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra), had directed that all the notices u/s 148 of the Act issued under the old provision between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 shall be treated as show cause notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act of the new provision. Thus, this was a case of deemed notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 30.06.2021 under the old provision was deemed as notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act under the new provision. The Apex Court had thus created a legal fiction by deeming the Section 148 notices issued under the old regime as show cause notices under Section 148A(b) of the new regime. The AO, under Section 148A(b) of the Act, had to comply with two requirements: (i) issuance of a show cause notice; and (ii) supply of all the relevant information which formed the basis of the show cause notice. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agrawal (supra) had directed the assessing officers to supply the assesses with the relevant material and information relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days from the date of the judgment. The effect of this direction on the time-limit for completing the proceedings, was summarized by the Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) as under: 106. …..To summarize, the combined effect of the legal fiction and the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the show cause notices that were deemed to have been issued during the period between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 were stayed till the date of supply of the relevant information and material by the assessing officer to the assessee. After the supply of the relevant material and information to the assessee, time begins to run for the assesses to respond to the show cause notices. [Emphasis supplied.] (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Na Roto Machine & Moulds India vs. ACIT Page 9 of 15 9.2 The Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) had further held that the entire time allowed to the assessee to respond to the show cause notice had to be excluded for computing the period of limitation. As per the Hon’ble Court, the total time that was excluded for computation of limitation for the deemed notices was: (i) the time during which the show cause notices were effectively stayed, i.e., from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 till the supply of relevant information or material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra); and (ii) two weeks allowed to the assesses to respond to the show cause notices.
9.3 The interplay of the directions in the case of Ashish Agrawal with TOLA was examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Hon’ble Court had held that only the time surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA will be available to the Revenue to complete the remaining proceedings in furtherance of such deemed notice, including issuance of notice u/s 148 of the new regime. The surviving or balance time limit was required to be calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of deemed notice and 30th June, 2021. The reasoning and the relevant part of the judgement of the Hon’ble Court is reproduced below for a clear understanding: 110. The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of Section 148 notices under the old regime [which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notices]. As discussed in the preceding segments of this judgment, the period from the date of the issuance of the deemed notices till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions issued by this Court (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Na Roto Machine & Moulds India vs. ACIT Page 10 of 15 in Ashish Agarwal (supra) has to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Moreover, the period of two weeks granted to the assesses to reply to the show cause notices must also be excluded in terms of the third proviso to Section 149.
The clock started ticking for the Revenue only after it received the response of the assesses to the show causes notices. After the receipt of the reply, the assessing officer had to perform the following responsibilities: (i) consider the reply of the assessee under Section 149A(c); (ii) take a decision under Section 149A(d) based on the available material and the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under Section 148 if it was a fit case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking, the assessing officer was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit. The surviving time limit, as prescribed under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA, was available to the assessing officers to issue the reassessment notices under Section 148 of the new regime.
Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notices will also come into effect from 1 May 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days [days between 1 May 2021 and 30 June 2021] to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime. This time starts ticking for the assessing officer after receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits the response on 18 June 2022, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days from 18 June 2022 to issue a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the new regime will end on 18 August 2022.
In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court allowed the assesses to avail all the defences, including the defence of expiry of the time limit specified under Section 149(1). In the instant appeals, the reassessment notices pertain to the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018. To assume jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 with respect to the relevant assessment years, an assessing officer has to: (i) issue the notices within the period prescribed under Section 149(1) of the new regime read with TOLA; and (ii) obtain the previous approval of the authority specified under Section 151. A notice issued without complying with the preconditions is invalid as it affects the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Therefore, the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the new regime, which are in pursuance of the deemed notices, ought to be issued within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA. A reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving time limit will be time-barred. [Emphasis supplied.] (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Na Roto Machine & Moulds India vs. ACIT Page 11 of 15 9.4 The Hon’ble Supreme Court had thus categorically held that the assessing officers were required to issue the reassessment notice u/s 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA and that all notices issued beyond the surviving period were time barred and liable to be set aside. This time-line was also demonstrated in para 112 of the order with an illustration. In the present case, the original notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.06.2021 which was treated as deemed notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. Since this notice was issued on 30.06.2021, the surviving time period available to the Assessing Officer to complete the further proceedings, including the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, was one day only, which was extended to seven days. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was required to pass the order a u/s 148A(d) of the Act and also to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act in this case within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of reply of the assessee. As the assessee had filed its reply on 30.07.2022, the time limit available to the Assessing Officer to issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act was till 06.08.2022 only. As the notice in the present case was issued on 26.08.2022, the same is found to be beyond the limitation period. In view of the explicit direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to complete the remaining proceedings within the surviving or balance time period, the provision of section 148A(d) of the Act was overridden to that effect.
9.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) had examined the scope of Article 142 and observed as under: 82. Article 142 empowers this Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The discretionary jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 142 is of the widest amplitude. The Constitution has left it to the judicial discretion of this Court to decide (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Na Roto Machine & Moulds India vs. ACIT Page 12 of 15 the scope and limits of its jurisdiction to render substantial justice in matters coming before it. The expression “any cause or matter” mentioned under Article 142 includes every kind of proceeding pending before this Court. Article 142 allows this Court to give precedence to equity over law, provided the exercise of the discretion is consistent with constitutional provisions and after due consideration of substantive provisions in statutory law.
The Hon’ble Court further held that the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 is meant to supplement the existing legal framework to do complete justice between the parties. Further that in a given circumstance, the Apex Court can supplement a legal framework to craft a just outcome when strict adherence to a source of law and exclusive rule-based theories creates inequitable results. Therefore, the law as declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) overrides the provisions of section 148A(d) of the Act and the Revenue had surviving time period only to complete the remaining proceedings u/s 148A(d) of the Act and to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act as per new provisions.
9.6 It is found that identical issue was decided by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhanraj Govindram Kella [2025] 177 taxmann.com 194 (Gujarat). The findings given by the Hon’ble Court on this issue are reproduced below: 65. The alternative contention of the petitioner as to whether notices would be valid notice or invalid notice considering 'surviving time' between the date of the issuance of notices under TOLA and 30th June, 2021 or not is required to be considered and for that each matter has to be considered separately on the basis of the facts of case considering the date of issuance of notices under section 148 under TOLA by the Revenue and thereafter date of supplying information to the assessee and date of passing of order under section 148A(d) and date of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act so as to consider whether issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act is within 'surviving time' as per the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) or not.
So far as Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are concerned, the period of three years from the end of the assessment year would be over prior to 20.03.2020 and the period of six years would be over between 20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021. Therefore, (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Na Roto Machine & Moulds India vs. ACIT Page 13 of 15 the notices issued under section 148 of the Act under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 as per TOLA, will be a valid notice if the notice under section 148 of the Act under new regime is issued within the period of 'surviving time' as per the directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). For the Assessment Years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 are concerned, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 under TOLA would be considered to be issued within three years from the end of the relevant assessment year as three years would complete within the period of 20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021.
Therefore, in facts of these petitions, following data is required to be considered to find out 'surviving time' to decide as to whether the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act issued under the new regime as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) would be valid notice or not in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra): SCA NO AY Date of notice under No of days of Date of providing section 148 under surviving time information under TOLA available till section 148A(b) 30.06.2021 6387/2023 2013-2014 17.06.2021 13 26.05.2022 5688/2023 2014-2015 09.06.2021 21 23.05.2022 22260/2022 2016-2017 30.06.2021 1 23.05.2022 996/2023 2017-2018 30.06.2021 1 24.05.2022 SCA NO Due date of Date of reply:- Date of order Last date for issuance of notice filing reply under section under section 148 as per 148A(d) and surviving time:- notice under section 148:- 6387/2023 09.06.2022 04.06.2022 29.07.2022 22.06.2022 5688/2023 06.06.2022 - 27.07.2022 27.06.2022 22260/2022 07.06.2022 06.07.2022 30.07.2022 14.06.2022 996/2023 11.06.2022 10.06.2022 19.07.2022 18.06.2022 68. It is apparent from the above details that impugned notice under section 148 of the Act is issued beyond the period of 'surviving time' as per the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra)and therefore, such notices would be invalid notices.
The impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act are accordingly quashed and set aside being invalid having been issued beyond the 'surviving time'. Accordingly, impugned orders passed under section 148A(d) of the Act would also not survive and are accordingly, quashed and set aside. Subsequent proceedings, if any, undertaken by the respondent would not survive and are also quashed and set aside.
(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Na Roto Machine & Moulds India vs. ACIT Page 14 of 15 The Hon’ble Court held that since the notices under section 148 were issued beyond period of 'surviving time' as per direction of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC), such notices were invalid.
9.7 In view of the facts as discussed earlier and the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court, the impugned notice dated 26.08.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, is held to be invalid notice as the same was issued beyond the surviving period, as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal (supra). Accordingly, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed.
Since the assessee succeeds on the legal ground, we do not deem it necessary to adjudicate the grounds taken on merits.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 8th October, 2025.