DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. RAGHAV BAHL, NOIDA
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The captioned appeals are filed by the Revenue against the separate orders, both dated 06.03.2023 by Ld. Commissioner of Income
Tax
(A),
Kanpur-4
[“Ld.CIT(A)”]
in Appeal
No.
CIT(A)-IV/KNP/10147/2015-16
and in Appeal
No.
CIT(A)-IV/KNP/11159/2019-20 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment orders dated
05.03.2015 and 30.09.2022 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2020-21 respectively.
As both the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue have similar issues which are inter-linked, inter-connected and this fact has been admitted by both the parties during the course of hearing before us,
ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
therefore, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are decided by a common order.
First, we take the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1639/Del/2023 for AY 2012-13. ITA No.1639/Del/2023 [Assessment Year : 2012-13]
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and e-filed his return of income on 14.07.2012 u/s 139(1) of the Act which was revised on 18.09.2012 on a total income of INR 1,00,78,090/-. This return of income was further revised at an income of INR 58,09,730/-. The reason for revision is that income from salary was reduced from 11,00,80,000/- to INR 60,48,000/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and after considering the submissions made from time to time, the order was passed u/s 143(3) dated 05.03.2015 wherein total income of the assessee was assessed at INR 6,48,62,564/-.
Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) wherein assessee has filed certain additional evidences with respect to the cost acquisition of the shares sold during the year under appeal in support of the claim of Long Term Capital Loss (“LTCL”) and Short Term Capital Loss (“STCL”). After considering eh additional evidences and obtaining the Remand Report from the AO, Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 06.03.2023, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the additions made on account of capital gain and salary.
ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:-
“On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,28,44,565/- out of total addition of Rs. 5,36,41,265/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain and allowing the Long Term Capital Loss amounting to Rs. 9,06,72,358/-, without appreciating the fact that in claiming the Long Term Capital Loss, the assessee failed to furnish necessary documentary evidence before the AD like proof of cost of acquisition, date of acquisition, sale consideration, date of sale and evidence of actual transfer of shares. All these are basic and necessary documentary evidence to justify the claim of LTCL. However, despite providing sufficient opportunities the assessee failed to furnish the same. Hence, the addition was liable to be sustained. Moreover, the additional evidences should not be allowed to be admitted at appeal stage without any satisfactory cause and explanation by the assessee. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,32,000/- on account of reduction of salary income by the assessee without appreciating the facts that no documentary evidences was produced by assessee justifying the reason for reduction. The ITR cannot be revised without any reasonable explanation by the assessee backed by evidence. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the Revenue is with respect to the deletion of addition of INR 5,28,44,565/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain (“STCG”) and further allowing LTCL of INR 9,06,72,358/-.
Before us, Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO and submits that assessee has failed to file any details with respect to the acquisition of the shares sold during the year and in absence of such evidences with respect to the cost of acquisition and date of ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023 acquisition and other relevant particulars, AO treated the cost of acquisition as NIL and hold the entire sale consideration as STCG and disallowed the LTCG declared by the assessee. Ld.CIT DR further submits that for the first time, had submitted all the relevant details with respect to the purchase of shares which were considered by Ld.CIT(A) in para 6.21 to 6.23 of the appellate order and accepted the claim of the assessee. Ld.CIT DR submits that in the Remand Report, Ao has very clearly stated that such additional evidences with respect to the acquisition of the shares sold in the year should not be accepted as the assessee has failed to file any such details before the AO despite of giving various repeated opportunities. It is thus, submitted by Ld.CIT DR that the order of the AO be confirmed.
On the other hand, Ld.AR for the assessee submits that before the AO, the assessee has expressed its inability to produce documentary evidence with regard to the cost of acquisition of shares and had been in constant touch with the management of the company for getting relevant details. Ld.AR for the assessee submits that all these facts were duly informed to the AO and as soon such details were received by the assessee, the same were produced before Ld.CIT(A) as additional evidences. Ld.AR submits that the evidences being crucial in the nature therefore, Ld.CIT(A) has obtained Remand Report from the AO where AO had not doubted the evidences on the merits and simply stated that they were not submitted before the AO therefore, the same should not be considered for adjudication. Ld.AR submits that once the AO has not made any adverse remark with regard to the credibility of such evidences and the claim of the ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023 assessee with respect to date of acquisition and cost of acquisition therefore, Ld.CIT(A) has rightly allowed LTCL as well as STCG on the sale of shares which order deserves to be accepted. Ld.AR further filed a detailed written submissions which reads as under:-
Re Ground of Appeal no 1 1.1 “The ground raised by the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 5,28,44,565 and accepting the long-term loss of Rs 9,06,72,358 (out of claim of loss of Rs 9,48,41,241) arising on sale of 17,30,375 equity shares of TV18 Broadcast Ltd on account of lack of documentary evidences filed to prove the purchase date and rate of the said shares, inspite of giving opportunities to the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. 1.2 The long-term loss under the head 'capital gains' Rs 9,48,41,241 is claimed by the appellant-refer page no 68 of the paper book 1.3 The date of purchase is given on page no 68 of the paper book which fall in the years namely, 2003, 2005 and 2009 1.4 The appellant during the course of assessment proceedings could not furnish the necessary evidence in respect of date of acquisition of the said shares and the rate at which acquired, and hence, the AO in the absence of primary details, considered the cost of acquisition as Nil and the duration of holding as short-term, and computed short-term capital gains of Rs 5,36,41,625 and disallowed the claim of the appellant of long-term loss under the head 'capital gains". 1.5 The appellant furnished additional evidence to the CIT(A) to establish the date of purchase/ cost of acquisition to support the computation of loss under the 'capital gains', claimed in the return of income, and made an application to the CIT(A) under rule 46A for admission of the additional evidence-refer page nos 48 to 310 of the paper book. 1.6 The said additional evidence have been forwarded to the AO by the CIT(A) - refer his order dated 06.03.2023, page no 41 at para no 6.20 1.7 The details of demat account from where the 17,30,375 equity shares have been transferred on sale is given at page no 63 of the paper book 1.8 The sale of the said shares corresponds to purchase on 3 different dates, and since there has been scheme of arrangement between TV18 Broadcast Ltd and TV18 India Ltd-refer page nos 81 to 114 and 115-116 of the paper book, the cost of acquisition would change per the provisions of the Act. There have also been other corporate actions as well, details of which are given in the various statement giving the calculation of cost of acquisition of each sale given on page no 68
ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
1.9 (a) The cost of acquisition of Tranche 1 that corresponds to the sale of 2,04,000 shares is given on page no 69 of the paper book and reference to the documents referred to therein are also given.
(b) Similarly, the cost of acquisition of Tranche 2 that corresponds to the sale of 9,09,160 shares is given on page no 70 of the paper book and reference to the documents referred to therein are also given.
(c) the cost of acquisition of Tranche 3 that corresponds to the sale of 4,86,178 shares is given on page no 71 of the paper book and reference to the documents referred to therein are also given.
(d) the cost of acquisition of Tranche 4 that corresponds to the sale of 1,05,337 shares is given on page no 72 of the paper book and reference to the documents referred to therein are also given.
1.10 On the strength of the above, the CIT(A) in para 6.21 on page nos 41-
42 of his order has accepted the cost of acquisition in respect of tranche 1 to 4, and in respect of tranche 5 he in para no 6.20 upholds the calculation of short-term capital gains per AO to the tune of Rs 7,96,700. He further, holds in para 6.19 on page no 41 that the sale price ought to be taken at Rs 31.60
in lieu of Rs 31 per the appellant for the reasons mentioned therein.
1.11 After giving effect to the above, the CIT(A) in para 6.22 on page no 42-
43 has calculated the long-term loss under the head 'capital gains' at Rs
9,06,72,358 and short-term capital gains at Rs 7,96,700; conclusion in para
6.23 on page no 43. In view of the above, the appellant submits that the ground of appeal of the Revenue be dismissed.
2. Re Ground of Appeal no 2
2.1 The ground raised by the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of s sum of Rs 40,32,000 on account of reduction of salary by Network 18 Media and Investments Ltd
2.2 The appellant revised his return of income revising downwards the salary shown in the original return of income. The downward revision is due to the fact that the appellant received a letter from his employer, Network 18
Media and Investments Ltd stating the reduction of salary from Rs
1,00,80,000 to Rs 60,48,000
2.3 The AO did not accept the revision of salary stating that this is not supported by any provision of the Income-tax Act and concluded that this is a capital loss of the appellant, not allowable under the Act.
2.4 The revision of salary was by virtue of an order of central government in view of loss incurred by the employer-company. The company made an application to the central government requesting waiver of excess salary paid to the appellant-managing director of the company, which was rejected; hence, the appellant refunded the excess salary received by him.
ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
2.5 Under absolute similar circumstances, the Delhi High Court in the case of Raghunath Murti (178 Taxman 144) has allowed reduction of salary holding that the reduction is in view of the provisions of Companies Act.
In view of the above, the appellant submits that the ground of appeal of the Revenue be dismissed.”
10. Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, the sole issue is with regard to the cost of acquisition of shares sold during the year by the assessee and the year of acquisition to ascertain whether these shares were hold by the assessee for a period of more than one year and the gains as LTCG and further by considering the cost of acquisition to compute the index cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing the gains/loss on such transactions.
From the perusal of the orders of both authorities, we find that assessee has time and against submitted before the AO that relevant particulars are not available with him and he is trying his best to get details from the respective companies which is taking time. All these facts lead to filing of additional evidences before Ld.CIT(A) when same were collected by the assessee and produced in support of the LTCG/LTCL declared in the return of income filed. We further find that Ld.CIT(A) has discussed in para 6.13 of the order of all the 04 transactions through which the assessee has acquired the shares which were sold during the year. We further seen that Ld.CIT(A) in subsequent paras has discussed mode and manner of acquisition of the shares and thereafter, concluded that LTCL declared by the assessee is correct and further upheld the addition of STCG of INR 7,96,700/-. The relevant observations as in para 6.14 to 6.23 of the order of Ld.CIT(A) are reproduced as under:-
ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
6.14 “From the details given in Tranche no 1 it can be seen that 3,00,000
shares of M/s TV18 India Lid were originally allotted to Shri Ritu Kapur on 25.10 2005 at a consideration of Rs 7:06,20,000/ and the evidence of payment by Smt. Ritu Kapur is also furnished. These shares were gifted to the appellant by his wife Smt Ritu Kapur on 19.10.2006, as an evidence, extract of D-mat statement was enclosed. The appellant has submitted that in accordance to provisions of section 55 of IT Act rws 49 of IT Act, the period of holding in the hands of wife should also be added for the purpose of indexation. Ld AR submits that as on 01.04 2010 these shares of IV18 India
Ltd converted in the shares of M/s TV18 Broadcast Ltd and as an evidence to the same copy of scheme of arrangement was enclosed and para 8 of this scheme has been resorted for the swap ratio of 25 17 between demerged company and the resulting company. Thus the appellant claims that the cost of acquisition of 2,04 000 shares of M/s, TV18 Broadcast Ltd should be taken as Rs 3,53,31,186/ in this regard Ld. AR submits that in accordance to provisions of section 49(20), 49(2D), the cost of acquisition of these shares should be Rs 3.53.31 186/- as against the original cost of acquisition of Rs
7,06,20,000/- as on 25 10 2005. Further for the computation of period, Ld.
AR draws attention towards definition of short term capital asset given in section 2(42A), in which in Explanation-1(g), it is stated that in case of a capital asset, being a share in an Indian company, which becomes the property of the assessee in consideration of a demerger, there shall be included the period for which the share was held in the demerged company.
Thus it is stated that for indexation purpose the date of acquisition should be taken as 25.10.2005. 6.15 From the details given in Tranche no 2 it can be seen that 5,00,000
shares of M/s. TV18 India Ltd. were originally allotted to the appellant in FY 2003-04 at a consideration of Rs. 7,60,00,000/- and the evidence of payment by the appellant is also furnished Further in FY 2004-05, through the scheme of preferential allotment another 5,00,000 shares were allotted to the appellant, for which evidence of payment is enclosed In FY 2006-07,
45,000 shares were transferred In FY 2006-07, 14 equity shares of FV5
were received as against 10 equity shares of FV10 of M/s. TV 18 India Ltd.
Ld. AR submits that as on 01 04.2010 these shares of TV18 India Ltd converted in the shares of Mis. TV18 Broadcast Ltd., as an evidence to the same copy of Scheme of Arrangement is enclosed and para 8 of this Scheme has been resorted for the swap ratio of 25:17 between demerged company and the resulting company. Thus the appellant claims that the cost of acquisition of 9,09: 160 shares of M/s TVTB Broadcast Ltd should be taken as Rs 1,89,54,746/- In this regard Ld AR submits that is accordance to provisions of section 49(2C), 49(2D), the cost of acquisition of these shares should be Rs 1,89,54,746/- as against the original cost of acquisition of Rs
14,51,60,000/- as on FY 2003-04/2004-05. Further for the computation of ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
period. Ld AR draws attention towards definition of short term capital asset given in section 2(42A), in which in Explanation-1(g) it is stated that in case of a capital asset, being a share in an Indian company which becomes the property of the assessee in consideration of a demerger, there shall be included the period for which the share was held in the demerged company
Thus it is stated that for indexation purpose the date of acquisition should be taken as original allotment date.
6.16 From the details given in Tranche no 3 it can be seen that 9,14,851
shares of M/s. TV18 India Ltd, were allotted to the appellant on 14.10.2009
at a total consideration of Rs. 7,68,47,484/- and as an evidence to the same copy of bank statement indicating the payment has been enclosed Ld AR submits that as on 01.04.2010 these shares of TV18 India Ltd, converted in the shares of M/s TV18 Broadcast Ltd as an evidence to the same copy of scheme of arrangement is enclosed and para 8 of this scheme has been resorted for the swap ratio of 25:17 between demerged company and a resulting company. Thus the appellant claims that the cost of acquisition of 6,22,099 shares of M/s TV18 Broadcast Ltd. should be taken as Rs
3,84,45,796/- In this regard Ld. AR submits that in accordance to provisions of section 49(2C), 49(2D), the cost of acquisition of these shares should be Rs. 3,84,46 796/-as against the original cost of acquisition of Rs.
7,68,47,484 as on 14.10.2009. Out of this Tranche of 6,22,099 shares,
4,86,178 shares have been sold and cost of acquisition has been computed proportionately. Further for the computation of period, Ld AR draws attention towards definition of short term capital asset given in section 2(42A), in which in Explanation-1(g), it is stated that in case of a capital asset, being a share in an Indian company, which becomes the property of the assessee in consideration of a demerger, there shall be included the period for which the share was held in the demerged company. Thus it is stated that for indexation purpose the date of acquisition should be taken as 14 10.2009. 6.17 From the details given in Tranche no 4 it can be seen that 4,09,692
shares of M/s TV18 India Ltd were originally allotted as right issue to the appellant and as an evidence to the same the appellant has furnished the details of funding received by it and relevant bank statement indicating repayment of the same. Ld. AR submits that as on 01.04.2010 these shares of TV18 India Ltd converted in the shares of M/s TV18 Broadcast Ltd as an evidence to the same copy of scheme of arrangement is enclosed and para
8 of this scheme has been resorted for the swap ratio of 25:17 between demerged company and a resulting company. Thus the appellant claims that the cost of acquisition of 2,78,591 shares of M/s TV18 Broadcast Ltd.
should be taken as Rs. 3,27,95,025/-. In this regard, Ld. AR submits that in accordance to provisions of section 49(2C) 49(2D), the cost of acquisition of these shares should be Rs. 3,27,95,025/- as against the original cost of acquisition of Rs. 6,55,50,720/- as on date of purchase. Out of this Tranche of 2,78,591 shares, 1,05,337 shares have been sold and cost of acquisition has been computed proportionately. Further for the computation of period,
Ld AR draws attention towards definition of short term capital asset given in section 2(42A), in which in Explanation-1(g), it is stated that in case of a ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
capital asset, being a share in an Indian company, which becomes the property of the assessee in consideration of a demerger, there shall be included the period for which the share was held in the demerged company.
Thus it is stated that for indexation purpose the date of acquisition should be taken as 25.10 2005. 6.18. In the matter of balance 25,700 shares of M/s TV18 Broadcast Ltd sold on 15.02.2012, as an evidence of cost of purchase the appellant could not furnish any solid evidence except other than an affidavit.
6.19 From the facts of the case it has been found that on the date of sale of these 17,30,375 equity shares of TV 18 Broadcast Ltd., i.e on 15.02 2012, the highest price on NSE was Rs. 31.60 per share, however the appellant has sold this share to M/s Network 18 Media and Investment Ltd Rs 31 per share. This is in violation of arm length principle. No prudent business decision can be made in such a manner that deliberately incurs loss. The sale of these shares was executed on 15.02.2012 but time of transaction could not be proved by the appellant by furnishing documentary evidences, based on which the appellant can claim that the sale price at the time of incurring off line deal of sale of those shares was Rs. 31 per share. There is force in the observation of Ld AO that the assessee has without any reason shown the sale price of Rs. 31 even less than the average sale rate of Rs.
31.17 on the NSE on 15.02 2012. Therefore looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale price of this transaction is a taken at the highest rate i.e Rs. 31.60 per share.
6.20 Further in the matter of cost of acquisition the evidences furnished by the appellant, which were also sent to the AO for remand report are worth consideration As discussed in detail there were 5 tranches of shares of TV18
Broadcast Ltd. and the details furnished in the matter of Tranche 1 to Tranche 4 conclusively prove that the purchases are made at the claimed cost of consideration. However, in the matter of Tranche 5, the appellant failed to furnish any evidence based on which cost of purchase may be correctly determined. Therefore sale consideration of Rs 7,96,700/-is considered as STCG and in the matter of this amount the observations of Ld. AO are confirmed.
6.21 in Tranche 1 to Tranche 4, the appellant has conclusively proved cost of purchases in the claimed period From the facts it has been found that originally shares of TV18 India Ltd have been allotted to the appellant his wife and further as on 01.04.2010, the same are converted into shares of M/s TV 18 Broadcast Ltd. (this name was with effect from 17.05.2011 and before that is name was IBN18 Broadcast Ltd.) through scheme of arrangement which involved demerger of M/s TV 18 India Ltd. in accordance to provisions of section 49(2C) and 49(2D) of IT Act cost of acquisition has been determined by appellant and the same has been accordingly reduced. However in accordance to definition of short term capital asset given in section 2(42A), in which in Explanation-1(g), it is stated that in case of a capital asset, being a share in an Indian company, which becomes the property of the assessee in consideration of a demerger, there shall be included the period for which the share was held in the demerged
ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
company, the benefit of period has been claimed by the appellant and the same needs to be allowed.
6.22 Pursuant to above observations, the claim of loss of Rs 9,48,41,241/- is changed as under In the light of above computation, Long Term Capital Loss of Rs 9,06,72,358
determined. However in the matter of transaction of 25,700 shares, since the appellant failed to furnish the requisite evidence of purchases of the same alongwith cost of acquisition and date of purchase, STCG of Rs.
7,96,700/- is confirmed.
6.23 In the light of above observations, the Long Term Capital Loss of Rs
9,06,72,368 is allowed to the appellant. Further the addition of Rs
5,36,41,205/- reduced to Rs 7,96,700/- as Short Term Capital Gain and balance amount is deleted All the grounds of appeal relating to this addition are adjudicated accordingly.”
As observed above, Ld.CIT(A) has passed his findings on the basis of the details of acquisition made by the assessee of the shares sold during the year in 04 trenches and all the necessary details alongwith evidences are filed which are available at page 48 to 297. We find that Ld.CIT(A) has duly verified all these details from the documents filed by the assessee and thereafter, reached to the conclusion that the date of acquisition as well as cost of acquisition
ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
declared by the assessee are correct. Before us, Ld.CIT DR failed to controvert such findings of Ld.CIT(A) and simply argued that the assessee has not filed such details before the AO therefore, the same should not be considered for adjudication. It is seen that Ld.CIT(A) has sought the Remand Report from the AO which had not pointed out any error in the evidences so filed by the assessee regarding the acquisition of the shares and therefore, we find no error in the order of Ld.CIT(A) in allowing LTCL on the sale of shares and further confirmation of STCG to the tune of INR 7,96,700/-. Accordingly,
Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the Revenue is with respect to the deletion of addition of INR 40,30,000/- claimed by the assessee as reduction in the salary.
Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue vehemently supported the order of AO and submits that the assessee himself has declared that salary of INR 1,00,80,000/- in the original return of income filed which was reduced to INR 60,48,000/- in the revised return which is in accordance with the provision of law and therefore, it is requested that the addition made by the AO be uphold.
On the other hand, Ld.AR for the assessee submits that the assessee had received one letter from Network 18 Media and Investments Ltd. regarding recovery and reimbursement paid during the period October, 2009 to December, 2012. Ld.AR for the assessee
ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
submitted that assessee has not received the amount of INR
40,32,000/- as salary for the year under appeal. Therefore, the return of income was modified accordingly, actual income was offered for tax. For this, he placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in the case of Raghunath Murti [2009] 178
taxmann.com 144 (Del.).
Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant year, the assessee was paid salary in excess of permissible limit and the same was recovered in terms of the provision of Companies Act under the order of Central Government. Ld.CIT(A) duly considered these facts and deleted the additions. Under identical circumstances, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Raghunath Murti (supra) has held as under:- 6. “Being aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by virtue of the impugned order, has accepted the finding, returned by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and has rejected the plea raised by the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee being the Managing Director of the Company (M/s. Alcatel Modi Network Systems Ltd.) was entitled to managerial remuneration in accordance with the resolution passed in the AGMs of the shareholders of the company held on 30-9-1996 and 5-5-1997. It was in the AGM held on 30-9-1996 that the assessee had been appointed as a whole-time director for a period of five years with effect from 4-12-1995 on the remuneration stated therein. In the AGM held on 5-5-1997, the assessee was appointed as the Managing Director with effect from 10-4-1997. The resolution passed in that AGM specifically indicates that where in any financial year, during the tenure of the Director the company has no profits or its profits are inadequate, the remuneration payable to such Director, notwithstanding the resolution, would be governed by the limits laid down in section II of Part II of Schedule XIII to the Companies Act, 1956. It is also noted that the company suffered loss in the financial year ended on 31-12-1997 and consequently, the remuneration payable to the assessee came within the restrictions placed in the Companies Act, 1956 as indicated above. Consequently, the excess remuneration paid earlier to the assessee was required to be refunded to the company and it is in this background that the ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023 assessee refunded the amount of Rs. 10,17,112. The said refund is also supported by the certificate of the employer-company as also the bank statement of the company for the relevant year. The Tribunal concluded, after noting the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 as well as the resolutions passed in the AGMS indicated above, that the refund made by the assessee was on account of statutory provisions contained in the Companies Act, 1956. The further conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was that the amount originally paid to the assessee over and above the limits prescribed in the Companies Act, 1956 could not even be construed as salary so as to fell within the fold of taxation under section 15 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal confirmed the conclusion of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the amount of Rs. 10,17,112 was not assessable as an income. 7. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have examined the facts as well as the legal position in detail and we find that the Tribunal has rightly confirmed the finding returned by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the said authorities have returned a finding of fact that the refund of Rs. 10,17,112 was neither voluntary nor was it for any extraneous consideration and that the refund was made merely with a view to comply with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. In these circumstances, the view sought to be canvassed by the revenue cannot be accepted and was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed.”
By respectfully following the judgement in the case of Raghunath Murti (supra) and further looking to the fact that amount of INR 40,32,000/- was recovered from the assessee in compliance of the Central Government therefore, the same cannot be held as the income of the assessee and accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld.CIT(A) which is hereby, upheld. Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the Revenue is hence, dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Now we take Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1640/Del/2023 for AY 2020-21. ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023 ITA No.1640/Del/2023 [Assessment Year : 2020-21]
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and filed his return of income on 04.02.2021, declaring total income of INR 13,36,00,720/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 29.06.2021. Thereafter, statutory notices were issued which were complied with by the assessee. After considering the submissions made by the assessee, AO completed the assessment wherein addition of INR 26,45,38,040/- is made u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act for property purchased in U.S. for the said amount.
Against the said order, an appeal was filed before Ld.CIT(A) and after considering the fact that property was purchased by R.B. Properties Corporation, USA and the funds were explained to the satisfaction of the AO and accordingly, Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the additions made.
Against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,45,38,040/- u/s 69A on account of investment in purchase of property in US without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to explain the source of investment in property of which he was the beneficial owner. The assessee has clearly created layers to distance his ownership with property. However, the link has been clearly established in the assessment order. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has shown the source of investment through his family members who applied
ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
for preference shares in the companies formed by the assessee. However, the source in their hands has not been explained.
3. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
Before us, Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue supported the orders of the AO and submits that during the year under appeal, assessee acquired a property in US for 26 S and the corresponding INR comes to 26,45,38,040/-. Ld.CIT DR submits that the assessee shown himself as the beneficial owner of this property and further shown beneficial interest in the form of investment of INR 26,83,83,365/- by R B R K Investment Ltd. into shares of R B Corporation. Ld.CIT DR submits that it was the claim that he was the beneficiary cum protector of a trust namely R B Trust had credited in Isle of Man in the year 2016 who has made investment in R B Property Corporation who acquired the said property in US. Ld.CIT DR submits that AO has asked to assessee to file the source of such investments. Ld.CIT DR submits that the assessee has himself accepted that he is beneficial owner and protector of the R B Trust who has made investment R B R K Investment P.Ltd. who further made investment in R B Proprietor Corporation and in terms of R B Proprietor Corporation purchased the property at US therefore, the immediate source of the payment of sale consideration of the said property has paid needs to be examined and however, the assessee has not filed any proper details of the source of such investment therefore, AO has rightly made the addition of this amount in the hands of the assessee which order deserves to be upheld.
ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
24. On the other hand, Ld.AR for the assessee vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and drew our attention to para
6.8 of Ld.CIT(A)’s order wherein a table produced by Ld.CIT(A) of the total investments made in Trust, R.B. Trust at Isle of Man wherein total nos. of CRPSs was of INR 48,26,952/- and the corresponding amount of INR 42,43,71,256/- which is contributed by various family members of the assessee. Ld.AR submits that as per the said table, the assessee investment was of INR 4,03,57,824/- and out of the these funds, R B Trust has incorporated a company i.e. R B K
Investment Ltd. in Isle of Man in 2016 and that company had incorporated one company R B Property Corporation in US. Ld.AR submits that all the documents pertaining to the incorporation of both the companies were produced before Ld.CIT(A) as well as before the AO and were filed in the Paper Book available before us. He further submits that out of the funds invested by R B K Investment
Ltd. in M/s. R B Property Corporation, the property at PH 1A, 10
West Street, New York, USA was purchased and total consideration of 36 Lakhs US $ and ancillary charges were paid for which the amounts were transferred by R B K Investments Ltd. He drew our attention to para 6.9 where the table is given all the payments made for the purchase of the said property alongwith bank statement of R
B R K Investment, U.K. Ld. AR also drew our attention to para 6.10
of the Ld.CIT(A) where in the source in hands of R B R K Investment
Ltd. were explained. He thus, submits that Ld.CIT(A) after considering these facts, has observed that the assessee has simply stated his interest in the said property as beneficial owner as he is the beneficiary of R B Trust, Isle of Man who holds direct interest in all the companies/trust as stated above. Therefore, for the reporting
ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
purpose, the property was declared under the statement of foreign assets by the assessee. Ld.AR submits that originally the investments were made by all the family members of the assessee and assessee has been able to substantiate all the investments therefore, Ld.CIT(A) has observed that investment was not made by the assessee but by the company R B Property Corporation and therefore, deleted the addition. He requested for the confirmation of the said order.
The assessee has also filed the bank statement of R B R K Investment Ltd. which are available at pages 372 to 377 of the Paper Book, statement of purchase of the property by R B Property Corporation at page 411 to 415, bank statement of Ms. Tara Bahl at pages 598 to 599 (Barclay Bank) and at pages 599 (HDFC Bank), bank statement of Shri Vidur Bahl (Barclay Bank) at pages 642 to 645 and Shri Subhas Bahl at pages 692 to 697 wherein all the investments made CRPSs of R B Trust were reflected.
Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. As observed above, AO had made the addition for the reason that assessee has not been able to substantiate the source of investment in the said property acquired in US for INR 26,45,38,040/-. Ld.CIT(A) observed that assessee has not made any direct investment in the said property and he is only the beneficial/protecter in R B Trust of ISL of MAN who holds complete voting rights in R B R K Investment, U.K. In turn R B R K Investment Ltd. made investment in R B Property Corporation, USA who purchased the said property. Therefore, the funds received by ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023 R B Trust and R B R K Investment Ltd., UK were utilized for the purposes of property and all these facts were duly appreciated by Ld. CIT(A) in para 6.3 to para 7 of the appellate order which are reproduced as under:- 6.3 “In the assessment order, Ld AO states that the appellant acquired immovable property in USA at Unit PH 1A, 10 West Street, New York on 20.09.2019 for total consideration of Rs 26,45,38,040/- Sh Raghav Bahl i.e. the appellant is protector and beneficiary in RB Trust, Isle of Man and this trust incorporated M/s RBRK Investment Ltd in UK in 2016 and M/s RBRK Investment Ltd UK incorporated a corporate entity in USA on 11.07.2019 in the name of M/s RB Property Corporation, USA On 12.07.2019 M/s RB Property Corporation USA entered into a contract of purchase of property located at unit PH-1A, 10, West Street, New York for a consideration of U 26,00,000/-. Ld AO states that the appellant has shown beneficial interest in the form of investment of Rs 26.83,83,365/- into a Contract of Sale for purchase of property located at Unit PHÍA 10 West Street New York for consideration of U 26,00.000. Thereafter RBRK. UK transferred complete purchase consideration into the escrow account in USA for execution of sard transaction on behalf of RBPC, USA. And RBPC, USA in turn issued common voting stock in favour of RBRK, UK on premium The total amount of investment made by RBRK UK in respect of acquisition of the said property through RBPC, UK was Rs 26,45,38,040/-. 6.4. In the assessment order Ld. AO observes that the appellant has created channels and layers in the form of Trust, company & corporation and in all of these, he has financial interest. The assessee has indirectly purchased the property through these entities and he is the ultimate beneficial owner of the property. Ld. AO states that Mis RBPC, USA entered into contract of sale for purchase of property in USA on 12.07 2019. Thus it makes it clear that RBPC, USA was incorporated on 11.07 2019 solely for purchase of the said property in USA Ld AO observes that this was done out of funds available with RBRK. UK and out of funds infused by Ms. Tara Bahi (Daughter of Sh. Raghav Bahl) and Sh Vidur Bahl (son of Sh. Raghav Bahl) & Smt Subhash Bahl (mother of Sh. Raghav Banl) against issuance of CRPSs of RBRK, UK issued during period under consideration. It is further observed that the source of funds of the family members of the appellant was out of gifts given by the appellant himself to his family members Sh. Raghav Bahl gifted Rs 5.30,00,000/- to his daughter Ms. Tara Bahl on 25.07.2017. These funds were invested by Ms. Tara Bahl in reliance Fixed Horizontal and then in IIFL and on 14.08.2019 an amount of Rs. 7,30,00,000/- was transferred to Barclays, UK through Barclays India Finally these funds were transferred to Bank account of RBRK, Barclays UK and ultimately to RBRK CRPS Further Ld. AO states that the appellant had also given gift of Rs.5,00,00,000/- to Ms Tara Bahl on 25 07.2017 which ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023 was routed through various bank accounts and finally transferred to RBPC US. Similarly, the appellant had given gift of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- to his son Sh Vidur Bahl on 19.03.2019. The funds were then transferred through different channels to his Barclays UK account. Also on 14.08.2019, the appellant had taken loan from IL which was ultimately transferred to RBRK CRPS Similarly in case of Smt Subhash Bahl the assessee had gifted her Rs 1,80,00,000/- on 19.03.2019 which was transferred through different channels to her Barclays UK a/c. And the appellant had taken loan of Rs. 3.60,00,000/- from IIFL which was ultimately transferred to RBRK CRPS. 6.5 Thus from the fund flow analysis, Ld. AO concludes the funds actually belonged to the appellant Sh. Raghav Bahl only and over time and through various bank accounts these funds have been transferred to the accounts of Ms Tara Bahl, Sh Vidur Bahl and Smt. Subhash Bahl and ultimately the funds have been transferred to RBRK, UK The amounts shown as transferred to the family members nave been shown as gift and the initial owner of the funds was the appellant ie. Sh Raghav Bahl only. Ld. AO further observes that if we look through this layered structure and trace the funds, it is clear that the Sh. Raghav Bahi is the ultimate owner as well as the beneficiary of the property purchased in US during the year under consideration Sh. has summarized her findings as under: (i) The appellant has claimed in his replies that the source of funds in RBPC, US is from RBRK, UK and the source of funds in RBRK, UK is from issue of cumulative redeemable preference shares (CRPS) to his family members and initial balance available in RBRK UK However, the appellant failed to produce any registered gift deed or any evidence to prove that the amount was actually a gift or it was just a means to rotate funds from the appellant to the different bank accounts of his family members and ultimately to RBRK, UK Transfer of such huge amounts without any written document is not justifiable (ii) For down payment of purchase of US property, M/s RBRK, UK utilized proceeds from redemption of FDRs held as on 31.03.2019 amounting to U 10,70 000. These FDRs were ultimately sourced out of funds received from the appellant and his family members through issue of CRPS (Cumulative Redeemable Preference shares) which is not supported by any documentary evidence furnished during the assessment proceedings. (iii) M/s RORK, UK utilized loan of U 10,00,000 from Barclays Bank, UK which was later repaid in December 2018, again by redemption of FDRs held as on 31.03.2019. These FDRs were ultimately sourced out of funds received from the appellant and his family members through issue of CRPS (Cumulative Redeemable Preference shares) However, the mortgage deed in this regard could not the furnished
ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
(iv)
The appellant has not produced the ITR and bank statements of his family members, clearly specifying the transactions claimed by them. Their bank statements only for FY 2019-20 have been produced and the same do not clearly indicate the source of funds originally received by them.
(v)
The appellant has also not furnished the ITR and Balance sheet of RBRK UK and RBPC, US for the year under consideration to back the claim of genuineness of transaction. The appellant has failed to explain the creditworthiness of his family members as well as all the entities like RB Trust, Isle of Man, RBRK UK and RBPC US
6.6
Ld. AO states that the appellant failed to furnish necessary supporting documentary evidences to back the numerous claims made in his replies And since the appellant is the beneficial owner of the property purchased in US for Rs 26,45,38,040/- and as he failed to furnish the required documentary evidences to justify the source of investment in the said property, the amount of Rs 26.45.38.040/- was treated as unexplained investment in property and added as deemed income u/s 69A of IT Act 1961
r.w.s. 115BBE of IT. Act 1961. 6.7
On the other hand Ld. AR submits that the appellant had acquired the beneficial interest in said property situated at New York, USA being the beneficiary / protector of M/s RB Trust, Isle of Man (hereinafter referred as 'RB Trust, IOM) which holds complete voting rights in M/s. RBRK Investment
Limited, UK (hereinafter referred as RBRK, UK) whereas said RBRK, UK had invested in M/s RB Property Corporation, USA (hereinafter referred as RBPC, USA) for the purchase of impugned USA Property, whereas, it is on record that the appellant had not made any investment directly in said property during the period under consideration Lo AR states that the appellant had duly reported impugned investment made in said property as well as in various financial assets pertaining to aforesaid entities in the Schedule FA to Income Tax Return filed for the period under consideration for the purpose of reporting since these investments were beneficially held by the appellant assessee.
6.8
Ld. AR submits that in 2016, a trust namely M/s RB Trust, Isle of Man was created by Smt Ritu Kapur, wife of the appellant assessee i.e she acted as the settlor of said trust, whereas the appellant assessee was appointed as the protector of said trust as well as he was also one of the beneficiaries of said trust, whereas, the other two beneficiaries were their children i.e Ms.
Tara Baht and Sh. Vidur Bahl. Thereafter, in 2016 itself, M/s. RB Trust, Isle of Man incorporated RBRK, UK and had acquired complete voting rights therein Pertinently, RBRK, UK had issued Cumulative Redeemable
Preference Shares (hereinafter referred as 'CRPS) to the appellant assessee as well as other family members of appellant assessee including his spouse,
Smt. Ritu Kapur, his mother Late Smt. Subhash Bahi and his children Ms.
Tara Bahl and Sh. Vidur Bahl, on various occasions after incorporation in following manner:
ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
Investor Name
No. of CRPSs
Amount (In INR)
Raghav Bahl
4,60,038
4,03,57,824
Ritu Kapur
4,76,993
4,18,22,862
Subhash Bahl
8,82,396
7,76,91,558
Tara Bahl
20,15,974
17,83,43,790
Vidur Bahl
9,91,551
8,61,55,222
Total
48,26,952
42,43,71,256
As an evidence to the same, Ld AR furnished copy of Register of Members of RBRK, UK as on 29 05 2020. He submits that these funds have been utilized for making various investments including investment in London
Property and USA Property whereas remaining funds have been held in bank accounts or as FDRS.
6.9 Ld. AR submits that on 11.07 2019 le during the period under consideration, M/s RBRK Investment Limited, UK incorporated a corporate entity in South Dakota, State of USA, in the name of Mis. RB Property
Corporation with registered address as 333. SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000,
Miami, Florida 33131 and subscribed 100 Voting Common Stock at a price of 0.01$ per share (Copy of Incorporation Documents related to RBPC, USA was attached in the Paper Book) Subsequently, on 12.07.2019. RBPC, USA entered into a contract of sale with Mr. Philip Giordano and Mrs. Madeline
Giordano for purchase of property located at Unit PH1A, 10 West Street. New
York, USA for a consideration of U 36,00.000 plus other ancillary charges and taxes. Thereafter, RBRK, UK transferred complete purchase consideration into the escrow account in USA for execution of said transaction on behalf of RBPC, USA whereas RBPC. USA issued common voting stock in favor of RBRK, UK on premium Pertinently, total amount of investment made by RBRK, UK in respect of acquisition of said USA Property through RBPC, USA was U 37,10,497 equivalent to Rs 26.45.38.040/-
Detail of payment made by RBRK, UK to vendor in USA is as under:-
S No.
Particulars
Amount (In U )
Amount (In INR)
1. Down Payment on 17.07.2019
1,80,000
1,28,33,008
2. Tranche 1-Paid on 17.09 2019
28,00,000
19,96,24,569
3. Tranche 2-Paid on 18.09.2019
7,15,613
5,10,19,248
4. Tranche 3-Paid on 19.09.2019
27,216
19,40,329
5. Excess amount refunded from said
Escrow Account on 16.10.2019
12,331
(8,79,115)
ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
Total Amount paid for investment in US Property through RBPC, USA
37,10,498
26,45,38,040
As an evidence, copy of closing statement drawn at the time of closure of said transaction on 20.09.2019 was furnished and relevant extract of bank statement of RBRK, UK, indicating said payments was also furnished
Further, copy of share certificate issued by RBPC, USA was also furnished.
6.10. Ld AR submits that in respect of source of funds invested by RBRK,
UK in acquisition of said USA Property, the investment of U 37,10,498
has been primarily sourced out of funds amounting to U 19,90,022
infused by Ms. Tara Bahi. Sh Vidur Bahl and Smt. Subhash Bahl against issuance of CRPSs of RURK, UK issued during the period under consideration whereas remaining amount has been sourced out of accumulated funds of RBRK UK up till 31 03 2019. Tabular representation thereof is as under S No.
Particulars
Amount (In U )
Amount (In INR)
Source in the hands of RBRK,
UK
1. Down Payment on 17.07.2019
1,80,000
1,23,93.864
Out of redemption of FDR of U 10.70,000 held as on 31.03.2019
2. Tranche 1-Paid on 17.09 2019
28,00,000
20,01,56,040
Out of remaining funds of received out redemption of FDR of U 10,70,000 held as on 31.03.2019 alongwith funds infused during FY 2019-20 by Ms. Tara Bahl, Sh. Vidur Bahi and Smt. Subhash Bahl
3. Tranche 2-Paid on 18.09.2019
7,15,613
5,09,23,722
Out of loan of U 10,00,000
availed from Barclays Bank,
UK.
Said loan was subsequently repaid by redemption of FDR of U 15,00,000
held as on 31.03.2019
4. Tranche 3-Paid on 19.09.2019
27,216
19,40,329
5. Excess amount refunded on 16.10.2019
12,331
(8,76,949)
Total investment
37,10,498
26,45,38,040
(Details regarding source of funds available with RBRK UK and subsequent investment in USA Property through RBPC, USA alongwith relevant documentary evidences was furnished in the Paper Book.)
6.11 It submission of Ld AR that from the aforesaid chronology of events occurring during the course of execution of impugned transaction related to acquisition of impugned property situated at USA, it is evident that the impugned investment was made by RBRK, UK out of explained sources in ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
its hands whereas the appellant had reported said investments in Schedule
FA of ITK filed by him for the period under consideration, for the sake of reporting of foreign assets held as beneficial owner by him during the period under consideration, since the appellant is a beneficiary of M/s RB Trust,
Isle of Man which holds direct interest in RBRK UK whereas RBRK, UK holds financial interest in USA entity le RBPC, USA which holds said property in New York. USA directly. As an evidence copy of ITR filed u/s 139 of IT Act for the period under consideration by the appellant was furnished.
6.12. Ld AR submits that the appellant had duly explained the source of funds in the hands of RBRK, UK which were utilized for making impugned investment in said USA Property Pertinently, the appellant had filed specific details alongwith supporting documentary evidences to illustrate the actual source of funds in the hands of Ms Tara Bahl Sh Vidur Bahl and Late Smt
Subhash Bahl, who had cumulatively invested funds to the tune of U 19,90,022 in RBRK, UK during the period under consideration Whereas, in order to substantiate the source of remaining fund invested in said USA
Property by RBRK UK the appellant had duly brought on record the Financial
Statements of RBRK, UK for the year ending on 31.03 2019 wherein sum available in form of cash and cash equivalents as on said date was sufficient to source remaining investment. It is submission of Lo. AR that the appellant had duly discharged the primary onus to explain the source of impugned investment alongwith relevant documentary evidences by filing detailed explanation in respect of funds infused afresh during the period under consideration by the family members of the appellant Whereas in respect of funds infused in RBRK, UK prior to initiation of period under consideration ie prior to 01.04 2019, the appellant assessee had duly brought on record the details of funds infused by him and his family members between date of incorporation of RBRK, UK and 31.03 2019 and also had filed the Financial Statement of RBRK. UK indicating state of affairs of said concern as on 31.03.2019. Ld. AR submits that is a basic legal premise that during the course of assessment proceeding being conducted in respect of a specific assessment year, verification of transactions executed prior to initiation of that assessment year is beyond juri iction of the assessing officer and no adverse inference can be drawn by the assessing officer merely on the ground that detail pertaining to transaction beyond juri iction of said assessment proceeding was not available on record for verification. Thereby, impugned additions to the tune of Rs
26.45:38.040/-made u/s 68A of the act by the Ld Ao merely on the ground that the appellant assessee had not explained the source of said investment without appreciating the detailed submissions filed in this regard during the course of impugned assessment proceeding and without appreciating that verification of transactions executed prior to initiation of period under consideration were beyond juri iction of impugned assessment proceeding and thereby, said addition deserves to be deleted at the threshold.
7. I have carefully perused the findings of Lo AO in the assessment order and submission of Lo. AR. In the assessment order Ld AO made addition of Rs. 26,45,38,040/- u/s 69A of IT Act on account of interest of the appellant
ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
on the property situated in USA at Unit-PH-1A, 10 West Street, New York
From the facts of the case, it was found that Sh Raghav Bahl je the appellant is protector and beneficiary in RB Trust, Isle of Man and this trust incorporated M/s RBRK Investment Ltd in LUK in 2016 and M/s RBRK
Investment Ltd. UK incorporated a corporate entity in USA on 11.07.2019 in the name of M/s. RB Property Corporation, USA and on 12.07 2019 M/s RB
Property Corporation USA entered into a contract of purchase of property located at unit PH-1A, 10, West Street, New York for a consideration of Rs.
26,83.83.365/-by RBRK Investment Ltd. into equity shares of RB Property
Corporation. In the assessment proceedings, the appellant has furnished all the requisite documents to clarify the source of this investment. In the light of these facts it is clear that no addition can be made u/s 69 or for that matter u/s 69A of IT Act when source of investment has been clearly explained by furnishing all documentary evidences and explaining fund flow in this regard. Therefore, the addition made by Ld.AO amounting to Rs.26,45,38,040/- cannot be sustained. With this observation, various grounds of appeal are disposed off accordingly.”
Before us, Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue simply retained the allegations made by the AO in the assessment order and no make out the case whether the source of the said investment made by assessee and his family members is actually pertained to the assessee. More particularly, when all the family members have been able to establish that they are having funds for making investment in R B Trust/R B R K Investment Ltd, UK and therefore, we find no error in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by observing that the said property was actually purchased by R B Property Corporation, USA out of the funds received from R B R K Investment Ltd. and therefore, the order of Ld.CIT(A) is hereby, uphold.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
ITA No.1639 & 1640/Del/2023
29. In the final result, both appeals of the Revenue in ITA No.1639
& 1640/Del/2023 for Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2020-21 are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.12.2025. (YOGESH KUMAR U.S)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date:-19.12.2025
*Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S*