Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, a charitable company, claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied this exemption and made substantial additions, which were upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte and non-speaking order.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an effective opportunity of hearing and did not pass a speaking order, thus violating principles of natural justice and the procedural requirements of Section 250. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by passing an ex-parte and unreasoned order and denying the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 250, 11, 12, 12A, 12AA, 12AB, 80G, 11(2), 270A, 271AAD, 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHIBENCH `E, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Smt. Renu Jauhri
ORDER
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
These appeals are directed against the even order dated 09.09.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] wherein the addition made by the AO while rejecting exemption u/s 11 of the Act were confirmed.
By this common order, we disposed off to 7439/Del/2025 because the order is of the same date, on similar lines and same facts. Parties are also same and in order to avoid multiplicity of decisions, the three appeals are being disposed off simultaneously by this common order. The A.Y. 2016-17 is taken as lead case.
The facts in brief as culled out from the proceedings are that the appellant is a non-profit charitable company incorporated u/s 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as “the Companies Act”], inter alia established for building capacity of communities to ensure empowerment for miseralized women and girls towards elevating poverty and social injustice. The appellant was registered u/s 12AA of the Act w.e.f. A.Y. 2009-10 onwards and thereafter was renewed on 31.08.2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 for A.Ys. 2022-23 to 2026-27. The appellant has filed return of income electronically for A.Y. 2016-17 on 15.10.2016 declaring income Nil by inter alia claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The said return was selected for re-assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act. The ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14, Delhi (ld. AO passed an assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 11.03.2025) wherein the total income of the appellant was assessed at Rs.257,98,99,393 as against the return income of Rs. Nil. For the purpose of assessing the income in the above manner, the ld. AO has denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act and inter alia have considered the entire receipts and the unutilized grants as the income of the appellant.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who allegedly by passing the impugned ex-parte order without reasons has dismissed the appeal and upheld the addition so made by the AO.
1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (‘Ld. CIT(A)’) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the invalid and bad in law re-assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (the Ld. AO) and confirming the addition of INR 2,57,98,99,393 comprising INR 223,66,61,971 alleged as grants and donations not applied for charitable purposes, and INR 34,32,37,422 treated as unutilized grants.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts by disregarding the adjournment request filed by the Appellant seeking additional time for submission and thereby passing the order in haste, thus violating the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not passing a speaking order, thus violating principles of natural justice in the impugned order under Section 250 of the Act dated September 9, 2025.
4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO were without valid jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act and that the Ld. AO failed to comply with the procedure laid down under section 148A and section 151 of the Act. 5.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby denying the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of the Ld. AO treating the expenditure incurred by the Appellant as non-genuine, being applied for purposes other than the objects of the Appellant.
5.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in upholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby confirming the findings that the transactions with Ivangel Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd., Sambodhi Retreat, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Jha, Mr. Muhammad Musa and Mr. Sunil K Babu, as being non-genuine/bogus (based on various extraneous and irrelevant considerations), notwithstanding the fact that the Appellant had placed on record plethora of evidences (such as agreements, employment/secondment contract, Form 16A, copy of email exchange, scope of work, attendance register of employees etc.) to demonstrate the genuineness of the aforesaid transactions. 5.3 That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and facts of the case in upholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby confirming the findings that the transactions with Sambodhi Retreat, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Jha, Mr. Muhammad Musa and Mr. Sunil K Babu, as being non-genuine / bogus, solely because the said parties have not filed their ITRs. 5.4 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in upholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby confirming the finding of that the “Fund Raising Expense”; “Project expenses” and “Other Administrative Expenses” are not falling under the meaning of Section 11 of the Act being not applied towards the objects of the Appellant and that the genuineness of the said expenses was not proven by the Appellant.
6. That the Ld. CIT(A) while disallowing "Project Expenses", "Other Administrative Expenses" and "Fund Raising Expense" has concluded vaguely while not giving and specific and cogent reasons for such disallowance.
7. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on the facts and circumstances of the case by upholding the addition of INR 34,32,37,422 as “unutilized grant”, treating the same as income of the Appellant thus taxing the income twice.
8. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts in upholding the addition of entire receipts amounting to INR 223,66,61,971 without appreciating that only the ‘net-income’ of the Appellant, if any, can be assessed to tax under the provisions of the Act.
9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO, particularly in denying the exemption benefit under Section 11/12 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the cancellation of registration u/s 12A/12AA/12AB dated 29th September 2023 by the Principle Commissioner of Income-tax - 2, New Delhi has been stayed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its interim order and therefore, the Appellant continues to be a registered charitable institution entitled to the benefits of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.
Without prejudice to the abovementioned grounds of appeal
, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not providing the benefit of the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act while computing the total income of the Appellant. General
11. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) and section 271 AAD of the Act by the Ld. AO.
12. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the levying of interest under section 234B of the Act by the Ld. AO.
13. That the Appellant prays for the liberty to raise such further grounds of appeal arising from the facts of the case, as may enable the Appellant to seek justice and to assist your honor’s in upholding the majesty of law.”
: A.Y. 2022-23 “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ('CIT(A)’) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming invalid and bad in law assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (the Ld. AO) and confirming the addition of INR 525,48,63,195 comprising INR 483,14,06,739 alleged as grants and donations not applied for charitable purposes, and INR 42,34,56,456 treated as unutilized grants.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts by disregarding the adjournment request filed by the Appellant seeking additional time for submission and thereby passing the order in haste, thus violating the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in not passing a speaking order, thus violating principles of natural justice in the impugned order under Section 250 of the Act dated 09th September 2025. 4.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in upholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby, in confirming the denial of the benefit of section 11 of the Act, to the Appellant and in treating the expenditure incurred by the Appellant as non-genuine, being applied for purposes other than the objects of the Appellant. 4.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in upholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby confirming the findings that the transactions with Samarth Enterprises, Natural Agro Solutions, Vikram Stoves & Fabricators, Sh. Chandra Kant Mishra, Mohit Travels, as being non-genuine/bogus (based on various extraneous and irrelevant considerations), notwithstanding the fact that the Appellant had placed on record plethora of evidences (such as agreements, invoices, ledgers, duty slips, GRN, Purchase orders, Bank statements etc.) to demonstrate the genuineness of the aforesaid transactions. 4.3 That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and facts of the case in upholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby confirming the findings that the transactions with Samarth Enterprises, Natural Agro Solutions, Vikram Stoves & Fabricators, as being non-genuine / bogus, solely based on irregularities observed in the business operations of such third parties without providing his conclusions, thus passing a non-speaking order. 4.4 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in upholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby confirming the finding of that the “Fund Raising Expense” of INR 4,80,70,000/-; “Project expenses” of INR 4,03,55,19,115/- and “Other Administrative Expenses" of INR 27,74,88,028/- are not falling under the meaning of Section 11 of the Act being not applied towards the objects of the Appellant and that the genuineness of the said expenses was not proven by the Appellant.
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) while disallowing “Project Expenses”, “Other Administrative Expenses” and “Fund Raising Expense” has concluded vaguely while not giving and specific and cogent reasons for such disallowance.
6. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on the facts and circumstances of the case by upholding the addition of INR 42,34,56,456 as “unutilized grant”, treating the same as income of the Appellant thus taxing the income twice.
7. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts in upholding the addition of entire receipts amounting to INR 483,14,06,739 without appreciating that only the ‘net-income’ of the Appellant, if any, can be assessed to tax under the provisions of the Act.
8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO, particularly in denying the exemption benefit under Section 11/12 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the cancellation of registration u/s 12A/12AA/12AB dated 29th September 2023 by the Principle Commissioner of Income-tax - 2, New Delhi has been stayed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its interim order and therefore, the Appellant continues to be a registered charitable institution entitled to the benefits of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.
9. Without prejudice to the abovementioned grounds of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not providing the benefit of the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act while computing the total income of the Appellant.
General Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the initiation of the penalty proceedings by the Ld. AO under Section 270A and section 271AAD of the Act.
That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the levy of interest under Section234A and Section 234B of the Act.
12. That the Appellant prays for the liberty to raise such further grounds of appeal arising from the facts of the case, as may enable the Appellant to seek justice and to assist your honor’s in upholding the majesty of law.” A.Y. 2023-24
1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming invalid and bad in law assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (the Ld. AO) and confirming the addition of INR 2,48,77,26,616 comprising INR 225,92,86,616 alleged as grants and donations not applied for charitable purposes, and INR 22,84,40,000 treated as unutilized grants.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts by disregarding the adjournment request filed by the Appellant seeking additional time for submission and thereby passing the order in haste, thus violating the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in not passing a speaking order, thus violating principles of natural justice in the impugned order under Section 250 of the Act dated 09th September 2025. 4.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in upholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby, in confirming the denial of the benefit of section 11 of the Act, to the Appellant and in treating the expenditure incurred by the Appellant as non-genuine, being applied for purposes other than the objects of the Appellant. 4.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in upholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby confirming the findings that the transactions with Samarth Enterprises, Vikram Stoves & Fabricators, Sh. Chandra Kant Mishra, Mohit Travels, as being non-genuine/ bogus (based on various extraneous and irrelevant considerations), notwithstanding the fact that the Appellant had placed on record plethora of evidences (such as agreements, invoices, ledgers, duty slips, GRN, Purchase orders, Bank statements etc.) to demonstrate the genuineness of the aforesaid transactions.
4.3 That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and facts of the case in upholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby confirming the findings that the transactions with Samarth Enterprises, Vikram Stoves & Fabricators, as being non-genuine/ bogus, solely based on irregularities observed in the business operations of such third parties without providing his conclusions, thus passing a non-speaking order. 4.4 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in upholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby confirming the finding of that “Fund Raising Expense” of INR 5,72,12,000, “Project expenses” of INR2,02,21,13,000 and “Other Administrative Expenses” of INR23,37,16,000 are not falling under the meaning of Section 11 of the Act being not applied towards the objects of the Appellant and that the genuineness of the said expenses was not proven by the Appellant.
That the Ld. CIT(A) while disallowing “Project Expenses”, “Other Administrative Expenses” and “Fund- Raising Expenses” has concluded vaguely while not giving any specific and cogent reasons for such disallowance.
6. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on the facts and circumstances of the case by upholding the addition of INR 22,84,40,000 as “unutilized grant”, treating the same as income of the Appellant thus, taxing the income twice.
7. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and in facts in upholding the addition of entire receipts amounting to INR 225,92,86,616 without appreciating that only the ‘net-income’ of the Appellant, if any, can be assessed to tax under the provisions of the Act.
8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO, particularly in denying the exemption benefit under Section 11/12 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the cancellation of registration u/s 12A/12AA/12AB dated 29th September 2023 by the Principle Commissioner of Income-tax - 2, New Delhi has been stayed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its interim order and therefore, the Appellant continues to be a registered charitable institution entitled to the benefits of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.
9. Without prejudice to the abovementioned grounds of appeal
, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not providing the benefit of the provisions of Section 11 (2) of the Act while computing the total income of the Appellant. General
10. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the initiation of the penalty proceedings by the Ld. AO under Section 270A and section 271AAD of the Act.
11. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the levy of interest and Section 234B of the Act.
That the Appellant prays for the liberty to raise such further grounds of appeal arising from the facts of the case, as may enable the Appellant to seek justice and to assist your Honour’s in upholding the majesty of law.”
We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR who at the outset submitted that the impugned order is not legally sustainable as the same has been passed without affording opportunity of effective hearing and is an ex-parte order and further the impugned order has also been passed without passing a speaking order as the procedure laid down u/s 250(6) has not been followed. It is further argued that the ground Nos. 2 & 3 are legal grounds and the same may be considered and the impugned order be set aside and the matter may be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh by giving an effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee.
7. The ld. DR on the other hand supported the judgment of the learned CIT(A) stating that the appellant/assessee has failed to avail the opportunity granted by the ld. CIT(A) and as such the appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
We have considered the rival submissions and examined the record. The ground Nos. 2 & 3 in all the appeals are similar and are legal grounds. Hence, we proceed to decide legal ground No. 2 & 3 in all the appeals and if need arises will proceed to decide the matter on merit.
We have noticed that both these grounds pertains to the provision of Section 250(2)(a) and 250(6), respectively which are extracted below as under: “250. .......... (2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal— (a) the appellant, either in person or by an authorised representative; ...................... ...................... (6) The order of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”
10. Thus as per provision of section 250(2)(a), the appellant either in person or by an authorized person have right to be heard at the time of hearing of the appeal. Further as per sub- rule (6) of section 250, the ld. CIT(A) while disposing the appeal is required to pass an order in writing by stating the points of determination and the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. In order to find out whether the above provisions of section 250 has been followed in the impugned order by the ld. CIT(A), we deem it expedient to extract the relevant portion from para 4 onwards:
During the course of appellate proceedings various dates of hearing have been fixed details of which are as under: S. Date of Date of Remarks No. Notice Hearing 1. 20.05.2025 27.05.2025 Adjournment for four weeks was solicited. However, no submission was furnished. 2. 01.07.2025 07.07.2025 None attended nor any submission was furnished. 3. 27.08.2025 03.09.2025 None attended nor any submission was furnished.
From the above details, it is apparent that the appellant has failed to avail any of the opportunities allowed to it to represent the case or file any reply. The appellant has failed to file any convincing reply to explain its position to counter the action taken by the AO and has not bothered to file further written submissions or explanation in respect of grounds of appeal taken. Thus, it has been concluded that the appellant has nothing more file in support of the claims made in the grounds taken by it. The maxim ‘vigilantibus non-dormientibus jura subveniunt’ i.e. the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights’ is applicable in this case. A reference is made to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharya and another, 118 ITR 461 wherein their lordships held that ‘the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.’ During the appeal proceedings no reply/submission was filed by the appellant, therefore the appeal is being decided on merit based on the facts available on record. Findings:
5. Ground no. 1to 2: These grounds of appeal have been raised on the legality of the assessment framed by the AO. On perusal of the assessment order, it has been observed that the AO has followed due procedure before finalizing the assessment proceedings. I find no legal irregularities in the assessment order framed by the AO. Hence, the grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed.
6. Ground no. 3 to 10: These grounds of appeal have been raised against the addition of Rs. 2,57,98,99,393/- made by the AO on account that vide order dated
29.09.2023 the registration u/s 12A/12AA/12AB of the Act has been cancelled. 6.1 The appellant company CARE India Solutions for Sustainable Development’ (CISSD) got registered u/s 12A(a) r.w.s. 12AA(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 16/02/2009 vide Registration No.DIT(E)/12A/2008-09/C-1091/1547 from A.Y. 2009-10 onwards issued by the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi and Certificate in respect of approval received under sec. 80G of the Act. As per the ‘Memorandum of Association’, the main objects to be pursued after its incorporation are: “To promote sustainable socio-economic development through public health programs, education & disaster management, poverty alleviation, livelihood creations & development, food security, environment protection, natural resources management & conservation not with the motive of profit.” -No objects of the Company will be carried out without obtaining prior approval/ No-objection certificate from the concerned authorities, wherever required. -None of the objects of the Company will be carried out on commercial basis. 6.2 During the assessment proceedings, the AO has held that the activities of the assessee are not genuine and further certain expenditure are not being made as per the objects of the assessee. Bogus expenses claimed by CISSD which does not appear to be related to the objects of the assessee in the nature of travel bills, consultancy expense etc. Purchases from suspicious entities who file their ITR or GST return irregularly. Large amount of expenses on fund raising activity, which cannot be accepted to be as per objects of the company. In respect of Salary, wages and bonus expenses, Legal and Professional Expenses, Training and Material Expenses under Project Head, Other Administrative Expenses Head, the assessee failed to establish the genuineness and as to how they are related to the objects of the assessee company.
Other Expenses such as Rent, travelling expenses, Communication expenses, Insurance, Repair and Maintenance etc, in respect of which assessee failed to establish their genuineness and as to how they are related to the object of the assessee company Unutilized Grants to the extent of INR 34,32,37,422/- not offered for taxation. As per Sec. 11 of the Act read with Section 12 of the Act, Income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of income, if Income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India. Perusal of the financial statement of the appellant shows that it had declared aggregate income of Rs. 2,57,98,99,393/- {Rs. 223,66,61,971/- from grant & donations and Rs. 34,32,37,422/- unutilized grants} and claimed expenses under the different heads for which the appellant failed to establish their genuineness and as to how they are related to the object of the assessee company. The AO had held that the appellant has failed to fulfill the necessary condition for claiming benefit u/s 11/12 of Act since the activities not genuine and not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the Trust. In view of that appellant is not eligible for claim of benefit u/s 11/12 of the Act. Further, the registration u/s 12A/12AA/12AB has been cancelled vide order dated 29.09.2023. Therefore, the entire receipts amounting to INR 223,66,61,971/ and unutilized grant amounting to 34,32,37,422/- are treated as taxable income after treating the appellant as an AOP and added to the income of the appellant. 6.3 Now, during the appellate proceedings despite several opportunities being offered to the appellant, no response/submission has been filed till date. This shows that the appellant is either deliberately not filing any the explanation in this regard or it has nothing more to submit in support of its claim before the undersigned. US COPY In view of the above, and in absence of any explanation, I find no reason to interfere with the AO in adding the entire receipts amounting to INR 223,66,61,971/ and unutilized grant amounting to 34,32,37,422/- to the income of the appellant. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, the additions of Rs.223,66,61,971/- and Rs. 34,32,37,422/- made by the AO are upheld and the grounds taken by the appellant are dismissed.
Ground No. 11 and 12: These grounds of appeal are premature at this stage. Hence, dismissed.
8. In result the appeal is "dismissed".”
11. It is thus evident from the extract of the impugned order that no effective opportunities of hearing has been given to the appellant-assessee as the adjournment sought for four weeks was not considered. On the subsequent dates i.e. 01.07.2025 and 27.08.2025 on which the notice is purported to have been issued for the purpose of hearing, no material is brought to our notice that the said notice were duly served upon the assessee or not. Thus, the requirement of section 250(2)(a) is not fulfilled. We further notice that the finding on merit is not in consonance with Rule (6) of section 250 as the impugned order is passed without any point of determination and the reasons for decision are not elaborated. Practically for all purposes, the impugned order is ex-parte and unreasoned.
12. Admittedly the first appellate authority is a quashi judicial authority who is duty bound to follow the principle of natural justice. Admittedly in this case, the effective hearing has not been granted while passing the impugned order and principles of natural justice has not been followed. Further, the procedural requirement of passing a reasoned order has also not been followed and the sub-rule (6) of section 250 has also been apparently violated while passing the impugned order. For these reasons, the impugned order is accordingly set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after affoding opportunity of hearing and consideing the written arguments/ material submitted by the assessee/appellant. The appellant shall present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) within the period of 60 days from this order. The ld. CIT(A) shall decide the appeal as early as possible. The legal ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised in the appeal are allowed. The appeal of the assessee is disposed of and accordingly allowed.
& 7439/Del/2025 for Assessment Years 2022-23 & 2023-24, the grounds raised by the assessee/appellant are similar to the grounds raised in ITA No.7437/Del./2025 for Assessment Year 2016-17. The only difference is in the amount involved. Therefore, our findings given in the former part of this order in ITA No. 7437/Del./2025 for the assessment year 2016-17 shall apply mutatis mutandis in & 7439/Del./2025 for the assessment years 2022-23 & 2023-24.