Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi, [in short CIT(A)] in appeal No. 276/11-12 dated 31-05-2013. The Assessment was framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle,8(1), New Delhi (in short DCIT) for the assessment year 2009-10 order dated 29-12-2011 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter ‘the Act’).
At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the grounds no. 1 and 3 raised by assessee are not pressed. The learned CIT Departmental Representative, Shri CS Gulathi agreed that he has no objection in case the assessee has not pressed these grounds as both the parties agreed that ground No. 1 and ground No.3 under no adjudication and hence, the same are dismissed as not pressed.
The first two common connected issues raised by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A) enhancing the income of the assessee for making the following additions:
a) Addition of Rs.4,82,79,850/- on account of difference in exchange rate qua US$ 24.00.000 credited by the Assessee as its income b) Addition of Rs.4,07,60000/- on account of outstanding credit balance of USS 800,000.
For this assessee has raised the following ground No. 2,4 and 5 as under: - ““2. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in assuming jurisdiction to enhance the total income of the appellant.
4. That on the facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the total income of the appellant by ₹ 4,82,79,850/- (i.e. ₹ 12,22,80,000/- minus ₹ 7,40,00,150/-) on account of alleged difference in foreign exchange rate.
That on the facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in charging to tax an amount of US$ 8,00,000/- received by the appellant as an advance from M/s B.K. Media.”
At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated the facts of the case that the Assessee is engaged in the business of content production and broadcasting of television news contents. The Assessee entered into an agreement with B.K. Media Mauritius Pvt. Ltd. [B.K. Media] vide dated 01.01.2007 & as per which the Assessee agreed to produce and provide original news and current affairs program capsules to B.K. Media on mutually agreed subject and format. The Assessee received advance of US $ 5000000 from B.K. Media for supply of news contents/capsule under the agreement in the preceding year 2007-08 relevant to AY 2008-09. The Assessee billed B.K. Media for US $ 18,00,000 i.e.US $ 150,000 per month during FY 2007-08 and the same is offered as income in AY 2008-09. Balance US $ 32,00,000 were restated in the accounts of the assessee by adopting the rate @ 39.97 being prevailing rate as on 31.03.2008 and disclosed the same in Balance sheet. The foreign exchange loss on restatement was recognized in Profit & Loss A/c and allowed by the AO while framing assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y.2008-09. Further, during the Assessment Year under consideration, the Assessee developed products as per the specifications of B.K. Media and incurred expenditure thereon. However, B.K. Media has not availed the product. Since, the Assessee has developed the products for B.K. Media, the Assessee forfeited US $ 24,00,000 i.e. US $ 2,00,000 per month. The Assessee accordingly offered, by way of write back of an amount of ₹ 9,59,28,000/- i.e. US $ 24,00,000 @ 39.97 being rate as on 31.03.2008 to its Profit & Loss A/c. The assessee carried the balance amount of US $ 800000/- being outstanding credit at the yearend by restating the same at Rs.4,07,60,000/- i.e equivalent to US $ 800,000 @ ₹ 50.95/- in its Balance Sheet being rate of exchange 50.95 per dollar as on 31.03.2009. The exchange difference loss of Rs. 87,84,000/- on restatement i.e. difference in rate as on 31.03.2009 being exchange rate of dollar @ 50.95 and as on 31.03.2008 being exchange rate per dollar @.39.97 is debited to Profit & Loss A/c and claimed as deductible in the return of income. The assessee explained this position by filing this chart and the position has been summarized in the following table.
5. On the above given facts, the AO only disallowed foreign exchange loss of Rs. 87.84 lakhs treating the same as speculation loss and / or Forex derivative loss. The CIT(A) after considering the above facts issued show case notice for enhancing the income of the assessee by making additions of difference in exchange rate qua US Dollar 24 lakhs credited by the assessee as its income and also addition on account of outstanding credit balance of 8 lakhs US dollar. The relevant show cause notice dated 23.05.2013 vide No. CIT(A)-XI/Del/276/11-12/64 reads as under: - “Assessment in this case was completed on 29/12/11 making an addition of 87,84,000/- on a/c of foreign exchange fluctuation loss and ₹19515/- and 25,000/- on a/c of expenses not allowed.
During the course of proceedings, it was sew that the you have shown an operative income of ₹11,55,000/- whereas the expenditure claimed is of 8,07,81,017/-. It is not clear how for on income of ₹ 11,55,000/- expenditure of over ₹ 11,55,000/- has been incurred. The assessing officer DCIT, Circle 8(l) has stated that in spite of providing you sufficient opportunities you did not submit any evidence of the expenditure incurred. You are therefore, given an opportunity to explain why this expenditure of 8,07,81,017/- may not be disallowed in the absence of documentary evidence of having incurred the expenditure and your income be enhanced by an amount of ₹ 807,81,017/-.
You have also shown an amount of liability written off to the extent of ₹ 7,40,00,150/-. No details have been given in respect of this amount. You are therefore, given on opportunity why this amount may not be added to your income and your income is enhanced by this amount. You are therefore, given an opportunity why this amount may not be added to your income and your income is enhanced by this amount.
You have offered for tax US $ 24 lakh in this year. No reasons have been given as to why the balance 58 lakhs was not offered for tax this year. You are given an opportunity to explain why this amount of US $ 8 Iakh should not be added to your income this year and why your income should not be enhanced by this amount.”
The assessee replied to the show cause notice but the CIT(A) however enhanced the assessment by giving following findings: - The appellant during the year 07-08, received a payment of US $ 50,00,000 for supplying news content to M/s B. K. Media Mauritius Pvt. Ltd. The appellant billed M/s B. K. Media Mauritius Pvt. Ltd. for US $ 1800000 and stated that thereafter did not do any work for M/s B K. Media. The balance amount of US $ 32,00,000 was not returned bock to M/s B.K. Media Mauritius Pvt, Ltd. It is indeed surprising that no action was taken by M/s B K Media against the appellant for not doing work and keeping the balance amount of US $ 32,00,000. On perusal of all documents, it was seen that the appellant and MIs B K Media are related concerns 94% equity shares of the appellant were held by RB Holdings Pvt. Ltd in RRB Holdings, Shri Raghav Bahl & Pitu Kapur are major shareholders. And, in M/s B. K. Media Shri Roghav Bagha & M/s. Ritu Kapur are major shareholders.
The appellant submitted that in FY 2007-08, The appellant received an advance of US $5000000 from M/s B.K. Media, Mauritius Pvt. Ltd for supply of news capsule. In FY 2007-08, the appellant billed M/s BK. Media for US $ 18,00,000 and the balance US $ 32,00,000 were not returned back but were reinstated at foreign exchange rate and the difference was recognized in the P&L account as foreign exchange loss. In this regard, the AO is directed to verify for assessment year 2008-09, whether the appellant has shown US $ 18,00,000 as his income. It may also be verified whether the income has been shown at the exchange rate of Dollar as on 31st March, 2008. The foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss may also be inquired into.
During AY 2009-10, which is the year before me in appeal, the appellant Its stated that out of US$ 3200,000 remaining, US $ 24,00,000 was offered for tax and shown as income in the sundry balance written off/ liabilities written back In this connection, the appellant has shown income of ₹ 7,4000150/- against US $ 24,00,000, which comes at an exchange rate of 30.8 per dollar. However, in a sheet attached by 4 the appellant in its submissions dated 26.07.2012 on Page No 6 attached at Annexure A, the exchange rate of Dollar on 31.03.2009 has been shown by the appellant at ₹ 50.95. The income therefore shown by the appellant in respect of US $ 24,00,000 should be ₹ 12,22,80,000/- (US $ 24,00,000 x 50.95) and not 7,40,00,150/-. The difference of income would be ₹ 4,82,79,850/- (₹ 12,22,80000 – ₹ 7,40,00,150), which is added to the income of the appellant. An enhancement letter was issued to the appellant as to why its income may not be enhanced by ₹ 7,40,00,150/-. The enhancement however, has been determined at ₹ 4,82,79,850/-. The appellant was given an opportunity to reply to the enhancement notice issued by the undersigned, but the appellant did not appear or filed any reply but sought an adjournment which was rejected by the undersigned. It is to be noted that even when the remand report was sent to the appellant for comments, the appellant filed an adjournment letter. It was clearly specified by the undersigned in the adjournment letter that no further adjournment will be granted beyond 28.03.2013. However, there was no compliance by the appellant on 28.032013 and the appellant did not attend proceedings. Even in the remand proceedings, the appellant has not complied by not providing details asked for by the AO. In view thereof, I do not propose to give cry further opportunity to the appellant. The income of the appellant therefore, is enhanced by 4,82,79,850/-.
It is clear from the above that though the appellant was aware that the exchange rate of Dollar as on March 2009 was ₹50.95, he had shown his income as 7,40,00,150/- from U5$ 24,00,000/-, taking exchange rate at 30.8. The appellant has clearly furnished inaccurate particulars of income with a view to concealment of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated in this regard in respect of concealed income of ₹ 4,8279,850/- (₹l2,22,80,000 – ₹7,40,00,150).
Regarding the remaining US $ 8,00,000 the appellant did not show this as an income during the year. But instead reinstated the amount as on 31st March 2009 and claimed a foreign exchange loss of 1,87,84000/- In this regard, it is not clear as to why out of US $ 32,00,000, the appellant offered only US $ 24,00,000 as income during the year and not US $ 32,00,000. It is clear that the appellant has no intention of returning back this US $ 8,00,000 to M/s B. K Media. The appellant had also stated this fact. There is no reason for the appellant not to have shown this US $ 8,00,000 as income during AY 2009-10, When US $ 2,00,000 were shown as income during the year. The appellant too has not given any reason for not showing the remaining US$ 8,00,000 as income during the year.
An enhancement notice was issued to the appellant as under, as to why the amount of US$ 8,00,000 may not be taken as its income for AY 09-10:
You have offered for tax US $ 24 lath in this year. Na reasons have been given as to why the balance US $ 8 lakhs was not offered for tax this year. You are given an opportunity to explain why this amount of US $ 8 lakh should not be added to your income this year and why your income should not be enhanced by this amount,"
The appellant was given an opportunity to reply to the enhancement notice issued by the undersigned, but the appellant did not appear or file any reply but sought an adjournment which was rejected by the undersigned. It is to be noted that even when the remand report was sent to the appellant for comments, the appellant filed an adjournment letter. It was clearly specified by the undersigned in the adjournment letter that no further adjournment will be ranted beyond 2803 2013. However, there was no compliance by the appellant on 28.03.2013 and the appellant did not attend the proceedings. Even in the remand proceedings, the appellant has not complied by not providing details asked for by the AG. In view thereof, I do not propose to give any further opportunity to the appellant.
In view thereof, US $ 8,00,000 is considered as the income of the appellant for AY 09-10 The income of the appellant is accordingly enhanced by US $ 8,00,000 for the AY 2009-10. As evident from the appellant’s submissions doted 27.06.2012, Page No. 6 attached at Annexure-A, the rote of Dollar as on 31.03.2009 was ₹ 50,95/- per dollar. The income, therefore, as shown by the appellant in respect of US $ 800000 would be ₹ 4,07,60,000/- (US $ 8,00,000 x 50.95).
The appellant has deliberately not shown the amount of US $ 8,00,000 as his income during the year. The appellant has clearly furnished inaccurate particulars of income with a view to concealment of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) ore initiated in this regard in respect of ₹ 4,07,60,000/-.
Aggrieved against the enhancement by CIT(A), the assessee preferred the appeal before Tribunal.
7. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the CIT(A) has not understood the facts in proper perspective as the assessee had offered the income of US$ 24,00,000 during the year under consideration. The said amount has been offered by the assessee by multiplying the exchange rate prevailing as on 31.03.2008. The then prevailing exchange rate was of Rs.39.97. However, the CIT (A) was of the view that the assessee should have applied the rate prevailing as on 31.03.2009, i.e. the last day of the previous year, which was Rs.50.95. Based on the above conclusion, the CIT (A) worked out the income of the assessee at Rs. 12,22,80,000/- equivalent to US $ 24,00,000 by applying the exchange rate per dollar at the rate of ₹ 50.95. From this amount, the CIT(A) has reduced the amount already shown by the assessee in the Profit & Loss A/c which is Rs.7,40,00,150/- (however, the correct amount is Rs.9,59,28,000/-). We find from the facts of the case that apart from the fact that the calculation made by the CIT (A) is erroneous as stated hereinabove, the application of exchange rate as on 31.03.2008 (Rs.39.97) or as on 31.03.2009 (Rs.50.95) would not make any difference in the total income of the assessee. This is for the reason that the amount was already received in the preceding year and was duly shown in the Balance sheet as on 31.03.2008, and more importantly the said amount has been reflected in the Balance sheet at the prevailing exchange rate as on 31.03.2008, i.e. Rs.39.97. Therefore, it is obvious that when the amount is transferred from advance (balance sheet item) to the income (Profit & Loss A/c item), it would be transferred at the same rate of exchange. Even if it is to be assumed that the view of CIT (A) is correct, i.e. the amount is to be transferred by applying the exchange rate as on 31.03.2009 (Rs.50.95). Accordingly, there would be an exchange loss to the extent of difference between the rates prevailing on above two dates. Thus, the whole exercise would be revenue neutral. We here for the sake of clarity want to mention that the amount was received in earlier year and rupee equivalent was already credited in the bank account of assessee. No further amount has been received during the year and only a transfer entry was passed from advance account to sales account. Accordingly, this enhancement of income by CIT(A) has no legs to stand and hence deleted.
The next issue is as regards to the enhancement of income by charging to tax the outstanding credit balance of US $ 8,00,000 equivalent to ₹ 4,07,60,000/-. As slated hereinabove, out of US $ 32,00,000 payable to B.K. Media, during the year, the Assessee has written back an amount of US $ 24,00,000 being US $ 2,00,000 per month to its Profit and Loss A/c. Balance amount of US $ 800,000 was disclosed in the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2009 as outstanding credit. We find that the CIT(A) was of the view that the balance US $ 800,000 should also have been written back to P&L A/c of the assessee. Thus, the CIT(A) enhanced this income of ₹ 4,07,60,000/- to the total income of the Assessee.
We find from the facts of the case that the assessee received Advance of US $ 50,00,000 from B.K. Media in earlier years as per terms of News Content Agreement & out of this, US $ 18,00,000/- was billed to B.K. Media in earlier year and balance US $ 24,00,000 was written back to P&L A/c of this year based on the news capsules produced by the Assessee for the year as per agreement. But, the news contents were not availed by BK Media. Accordingly, balance US$ 8,00,000/- was shown in Balance sheet as outstanding creditors towards advance from B.K. Media. It is a fact that an amount received from B.K. Media is only an advance and is not an income of the Assessee for the year under consideration. The amount is accordingly shown as outstanding in the Balance Sheet. Further, we find that the CIT(A) did not bring on record to show that the advance of US $ 800000 is an income of the Assessee for the year under consideration. According to us, the onus is on the department to prove the advance has became the income of the Assessee for the year under consideration. Only because some advances were shown as outstanding in the Balance Sheet per se cannot make such outstanding advance as income of the Assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has wrongly assumed the same as income and accordingly we delete the addition and allow this isuse of assessee’s appeal.
The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of foreign exchange loss of Rs. 87.84 lakhs. For this assessee has raised the following ground No. 6 as under: -
6. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of foreign exchange loss of Rs. 87,84,000/-.
The assessee before the AO claimed that foreign exchange fluctuation loss has arisen on account of restatement of currency valuation and he filed the following details before the AO: - AY US $ Remarks 2008-09 50,00,000/- Advance received in AY 08-09 18,00,000/ Offered as income in AY 08-09 (US$ 1,50,000 per month* 32,00,000/- 12) Closing balance of AY 08-09 valued in balance sheet @ 39.97 being rate prevailing on 31.03.2008 2009-10 24,00,000 Written back in P/L A/c @39.97 (31.03.08 rate) 8,00,000 ₹ 9,59,28,000/- (24,00,000 *39.97) during AY 2009-10 Balance as on 31.03.2009 valued @ 50.95 being rate prevailing on 31.03.2009 8,00,000**50.95=4,07,60,000 Exchange difference during the year 10.98 (50,95-39.97) Exchange difference 8,00,000*10.98=87,84,0000 12. According to AO, the forward contract of foreign currency is nothing but agreement between an enterprise and the manner to purchase or sale of a particular quantity for mutual agreed price at a future date. It is used as Forex derivatives. As the assessee has not filed details of such loss before the AO, as claimed by the AO in the assessment order, the AO disallowed the foreign exchange fluctuation loss of Rs. 87.84 lakhs. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). Before CIT(A) assessee contended that the outstanding advance of 8 lakhs US dollar from BK Media was restated as on 31.03.2009 at prevailing rate at the rate of 50.95 per US dollar, as on that date and the resultant exchange difference of Rs. 87.84 lakhs being 8 lakhs US dollar into 50.95 / 39.97 were credited to P & L account and claimed the same as revenue expenses. The above given details is supported of documentary evidences which were filed before the AO and before CIT(A).
The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO only on the basis that the assessee has not given the details of foreign exchange loss claim and moreover liability has to be reckoned in the accounts on the assessee on the basis of fluctuation in the rate of exchange of that year and he disallowed the claim by observing as under:-
Therefore, it is clear that the appellant would not be entitled for deduction of loss for liabilities pertaining to earlier periods. The liability has to be reckoned in the accounts on the basis of fluctuation in the rate of exchange during the year. The appellant has stated that in AY 08-09 US $ 32,00,000 had been reinstated and the difference taken in the P&L a/c. The appellant should determine the loss/gain in every year, only in respect of transaction pertaining to that particular year. The loss is therefore, not being allowed to the appellant. The disallowance of ₹ 87,84,000/- is therefore, confirmed. The ground of appeal is ruled against the appellant.
Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before Tribunal.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the outstanding advance of US $ 8,00,000 was restated as on 31.03.2009 at the prevailing rate @ 50.95 as on that date. The exchange difference during the year i.e. at the rate 39.97 as on 31.03.2008 and @ 50.95 as on 31.03.2009 is Rs. 10.98 (i.e.50.95-39.97). Accordingly, exchange difference of Rs.87,84,000 (US $ 8.00,000 X 10.98) was charged to P&L A/c and claimed as deductible revenue expense. According to us, the AO erroneously considered the exchange loss of ₹ 87,84,000/- as speculation loss and/or forex derivative loss. We find from the facts of the case, that the foreign exchange loss of ₹ 87,84,000/- is a loss on restatement of creditors and by no stretch of imagination same can be considered as speculation loss and/or forex derivative loss. Furthermore, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd (312 ITR 254) wherein the Hon'ble supreme court has held that loss suffered by the assessee on account of exchange difference on account as on balance sheet is an allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. Accordingly, the expense is allowable and we allow the same.
The next issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) enhancing the income by disallowing the expenses of ₹ 7,10,73,017/-. For this assessee has raised the following ground No. 7:-
That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in making a disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 7,10,73,017/- incurred by the appellant.”
It seems that the CIT(A) has enhanced this addition while examining the disallowance of foreign exchange loss of Rs. 87.84 lakhs as discussed in above ground. The CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs. 8 crores as against the part of income of Rs. 11.55 lakhs. The CIT(A) noticed during the course of appellate proceedings from the assessment record that no verification has been done by the AO in respect of expenditure of Rs. 8,07,81,017/- incurred by assessee and claimed the same as deduction. The CIT(A) asked for the details from the AO and AO vide his reply filed stated that the assessee has not filed details and hence, this addition should be made. The AO’s remand report was given to the assessee for his comments but the assessee on the notice issued for enhancement dated 23.05.2013 no reply was filed. The enhancement noticed dated 23.05.2013 reads as under:-
'Assessment in this cost was completed on 29/12/11 making on addition of US $ 7,84,000/- on a/c of foreign "change fluctuation loss and ₹ 19,515/- and 25,000/- on a/c of expenses not allowed During the course of proceedings, it was seen that the you have shown an operative income of ₹11,55,000/- whereas the expenditure claimed is of ₹8,07,81,017/. It is not elect how for on income of ₹ 11,55,000/- expenditure of over 11,55,00O/- has been incurred. The assessing officer DCIT, Circle 8(l) has stated that in spite of providing you sufficient opportunities you did not submit any evidence of the expenditure incurred. You ore therefore, given on opportunity to explain why this expenditure of 807,81,017/- may not be disallowed in the absence of documentary evidence of having incurred the expenditure and your income be enhanced by on amount of ₹ 807,81,017/-.
Accordingly, the CIT(A) enhanced the addition by disallowing the expenses of Rs. 7,10,73,017/- by observing as under:-
Since the appellant has not given any details of expenditure incurred of ₹ 8,07,61,017/-. the expenditure amounting to 80% (₹ 9,24,000) of income of ₹11,55,000/- is being allowed on estimate as related to earning of income. The amount of 8784000/- was added by the AO and that amount stands confirmed. The disallowance on account of expenditure would be ₹ 7,98,57,017 (₹8,07,8017/- - ₹ 9,24,00) – 87,84,000: 7,10,73,017/- The income of the appellant is enhanced by this amount of ₹7,10,73,017/-. The appellant has clearly furnished inaccurate particulars of income with a view of concealment of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated in this regard in respect of ₹ 7,10,73,017/-. The ground of appeal is ruled against the appellant.
Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before Tribunal.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, we noted that the CIT(A) has observed that the Assessee has claimed an expenditure of ₹ 8,07,81,017/- whereas it has shown operative income of Rs. 11,55,000/-. It was further observed by CIT(A) that no verification has been done by the AO in respect of the expenditure incurred by the Assessee. Accordingly, the CIT(A) estimated the expense at 80% (₹ 9,24,000) of income of ₹ 11,55,000/- and after reducing the same and disallowance of expenses of ₹ 87,84,000/- already confirmed and further made disallowance of expense of ₹ 7,10,73,017/- (i.e. ₹ 8,07,81,017– ₹9,24,000 - ₹ 87,84,000).
We find from the facts of the case that the expense of ₹ 8,07,81,017/- was incurred by the Assessee for earning an income which also includes income of ₹ 9,59,28,000/- credited to schedule 'Other Income' in its P&L A/c. The CIT(A) observe that the Assessee has claimed an expenditure of ₹ 8,07,81,017/- whereas it has shown operative income of ₹ 11,55,000/-. In this regard, we noted from the facts that the Sundry Balance Written off/liabilities written back(net) of ₹ 7,40,00,150/- interalia includes advance written back of ₹9,59,28,000/- payable to B.K. Media (Refer Page 14& 42 of APB). The Assessee has produced news contents for B.K. Media and incurred various expenses P&L A/c. The amount of ₹ 9,59,28,000/- was credited to the schedule of other Income' in its P&L A/c only for the reason that B.K. Media has not availed the contents produced by the Assessee. However, in fact, it represents the revenue of the Assessee on account of contents produced by the Assessee throughout the year for which it has incurred various expenses which are debited to P&L Alc. Thus, the observation of CIT(A) is erroneous and it is not correct to say that the Assessee has incurred expenses of Rs.8,07,81,017/- as against operating income of Rs.1 1,55,000/- only. We further noted that the assessee has filed complete details and there is no reason for disallowing these expenses. Accordingly, we allow the claim of the assessee and this issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08-06-2018. AadoSa kI GaaoYaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk 08.06.2018 kao kI ga[- .