ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER AMIT SHUKLA :- The aforesaid appeals filed by the revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are interconnected and based on identical issue and facts and therefore, for the sake of convenience these appeals are adjudicated together by this common order, by taking the as a lead case and the findings of the same on the major issues will be applied to the other appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee mutatis mutandis wherever it is applicable.

A.Y. filed Issues by Addition u/s Addition u/s Int paid Total 68 on account 56(2)(viib) on loan of share on account taken premium of share from premium Holding Co. 2011-12 2653/Mum/23 Department 10,00,00,000/- - 45,67,728 10,45,67,728 CO Assessee - - - - 119/Mum/23* 2012-13 2635/Mum/23 Department 30,00,00,000 - - 30,00,00,000 2013-14 2651/Mum/23 Department - 9,60,00,000 - 9,60,00,000 2014-15 2650/Mum/23 Department - 8,00,00,000 - 8,00,00,000 2017-18 2646/Mum/23 Department - 12,00,00,000 - 12,00,00,000 70,05,67,728 * Validity of reopening u/s 147 of the Act.

, 2635, 2651, 2650, 2646 & CO. 119/Mum/2023 AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2011-12 Aadhaar Wholesale Trading And Distribution Ltd.

ITA No. 2653/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 2. The grounds of appeal of the revenue in are as under: 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- being the share premium u/s. 68 of the Income tax Act, without appreciating the fact that during the course of assessment the assessee has failed to submit or explain the basis of arriving at the said premium, without which is was not possible to ascertain the genuineness of claim of transaction." 2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10,00,00,000/- being the share premium u/s. 68 of the Income tax Act, without appreciating the fact that during the course of assessment the assessee has not submitted any valuation report to show how the premium amount has been arrived at." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of interest of Rs.45,67,728/- paid on loan taken from holding company viz Future Venture India Ltd., without appreciating the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings no explanation was offered by the assessee to show how the payment of interest made to its holding company is justified on the basis of prevalent market rate."

4. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO be restored.

The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 13.01.2012 accepting the returned income. The case was picked up for scrutiny and after hearing the assessee, the order u/s 143(3) was passed on 30.01.2013 without any addition. Subsequently, the case was reopened after recording the reasons for reopening, which is given at page 2 of assessment order dated 24.08.2016. The case was reopened for the reason that the assessee has issued 25,00,000 equity shares of ₹10/- each on premium of ₹40/- per share. The company collected huge premium of ₹10,00,00,000/- on face value of ₹2,50,00,000/- despite the fact that the company‟s accumulated losses were of more than 50% of its net worth. The assessee was asked to justify the premium received from the shareholders. The AO observed that the assessee did not provide any documentary evidences to show how premium of ₹40/- per share was arrived at. The AO also referred to the qualifying remarks of the auditors of the assessee, wherein it was stated that the assessee did not have an internal audit system. The AO also found that the company has accumulated loss of more than ₹175,00,00,000/-. Therefore, the investment of such huge amount by way of share premium makes the transaction appear non-genuine. The other reason for reopening was claim of interest expenses of ₹45,67,728/- in spite of huge losses during the year. Since the holding company and the shareholders have introduced share capital, it would , 2635, 2651, 2650, 2646 & CO. 119/Mum/2023 AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2011-12 Aadhaar Wholesale Trading And Distribution Ltd. have been proper, if they had advanced interest free loan instead of charging interest.

transaction on account of share premium was held to be doubtful because the assessee failed to justify the issuance of shares at such huge premium.

Future Venture India Pvt. Ltd. and Godrej Agrovet Ltd. respectively into share capital, wherein it was agreed to issue the share at ₹50/- per share comprising face value of ₹10/- per share and share premium of ₹40/- per share. The assessee submitted various documents such as Form-2, board resolution, minuets of meeting and financial statements of the investors to prove genuineness of the transaction. After perusing details submitted by the assessee and the arguments advanced by it, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the grounds of appeal of the assessee by holding as under: “6.3 However, as submitted by appellant, which has been reproduced at para 6.1 supra, in this case the appellant has converted the loans received by it from its holding company and other shareholders, viz. Future Ventures India Ltd, Godrej Agrovet Ltd., Mahendra Arumugham & Bahar Agrochem & Feeds Pvt. Ltd. In support of its reply, appellant has furnished the following documents before the Id. AO to prove the genuineness of the transaction:-  Letter dated 22.11.2013 wherein the financials of Future Ventures India Ltd. and Godrej Agrovet Ltd for relevant year are submitted before the Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceeding (copy of the letter placed at pg 36 of the paper book.  Preferential offer given to Mr. A Mahendran for increasing the share capital.  Preferential offer given to Bahar Agrochem & Feeds Pvt. Ltd for increasing the share capital.  Letter from Future Ventures India Itd and Godrej Agrovet Ltd to convert the short term loan into share capital. , 2635, 2651, 2650, 2646 & CO. 119/Mum/2023 AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2011

12. Aadhaar Wholesale Trading And Distribution Ltd.

 Valuation report for the issue of shares (page no.107-122 of the paper book. 6.4 From its submissions, it is seen that the subject capital was introduced to augment the appellant company's long term capital requirements and to repay some of the debts. The shares were issued to the joint venture partners at a face value of Rs. 10/- each and premium of Rs. 40/- per share, as recorded in the assessment order and the submission of appellant. The appellant has submitted that the transaction is a commercial transaction wherein a set of independent investors have agreed to participate in a business venture based on their own understanding of the industry, risk-reward matrix and other relevant factors which are highly subjective for each individual investor. The said investors have applied their own commercial acumen to arrive at the value of the shares and accordingly invested in the shares of the Company. 6.5 The valuation report for issue of shares is prepared prior to notification of Rule 11UA in the I. T. Rules 1962. As regards the company, which is a limited company, its board of directors has decided the allotment of the shares to the said investors as per their discretion and strategic planning of the venture under consideration based on the report submitted by an independent consultants before the board. The minutes of the Board Meeting of appellant have been furnished wherein the decision of the Board Members in support of the business plan for allotment of shares after conversion of short term loans into equity has been resolved. In view of the above discussion, this ground of appeal is allowed.”

10. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. The Ld. (CIT) DR has strongly relied on the assessment order and has argued that despite sufficient opportunity of hearing, , 2635, 2651, 2650, 2646 & CO. 119/Mum/2023 AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2011-12 Aadhaar Wholesale Trading And Distribution Ltd.

the assessee has not been able to prove the genuineness of the transaction regarding the high premium of ₹40/- per share paid by investors. However, he admitted that the identity and creditworthiness of the investors are not in doubt. He stated that there is no valuation report to justify the exorbitant premium paid by the investors. He drew our attention to the fact that the assessee has been constantly incurring losses over the years and total accumulated loss was about ₹173,00,00,000/- at the end of said financial year. In absence of fresh valuation report for the subject year, it is not reasonable to accept the payment solely on the basis of the earlier valuation report.

Therefore, genuineness of the transactions cannot be doubted. It is further submitted that the appellant company has already submitted following documents before the AO to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction:  Letter dated 22.11.2013 wherein the financials of Future Ventures India Itd and Godrej Agrovet Ltd for relevant year are submitted before the ld.ao during the course of assessment proceeding (copy of the letter placed at pg 36 of the paper book.  Preferential offer given to Mr.A Mahendran for increasing the share capital.  Preferential offer given to Bahar Agrochem &Feeds Pvt. Ltd for increasing the share capital.  Letter from Future Ventures India ltd and Godrej Agrovet Ltd to convert the short term loan into share capital.  Valuation report for the issue of shares (page no.107-122 of the paper book.”

Cash Flow (DCF) method where the fair market value of the share is determined by the merchant banker or an accountant. He contended that actual result may vary upwards or downwards depending on various marketing/economics/social conditions and therefore, such valuation cannot be reviewed or compared with actual figures at a later date. He stated that the valuation report needs to be accepted as it was supported by an independent Valuer which cannot be tinkered at a later point of time by substituting it with actual results. In the said valuation report the equity value of the company has been estimated ₹123,00,00,000/- and the enterprise value estimated at ₹ 145,00,00,000/- and therefore the fair market value of shares of the assessee company ranges from ₹50 to ₹60/-. In the DCF method, all cash flows expected as a particular point of time are estimated and discounted by using cost of capital to determine its present value. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO has nowhere pointed any specific adverse findings in the projections of the valuation report nor has made any independent valuation of the shares of the appellant company. 13.

same by the AO is would be beyond the scope of section 68 of the Act. For this the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Green Infra Limited v/s ITO-20 (2013) 38 taxmann.com 238 (Bombay). The said decision has been upheld by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax. V/s Green Infra Limited (2017) 78 taxmann.com 340 (Bombay).

to make the addition of ₹10,00,00,000/- towards share premium. The section reads as under: 68. Cash Credits:- “- Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for " Income-tax Officer" (w.e.f. 1.4.1988).], satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. [Provided that] where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee-company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless— (a)the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b)such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: [Provided further] that nothing contained in the first proviso [or second proviso] shall apply if the person, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10.”

explanation given by the assessee is found not to be satisfactory, further inquires can be made by the AO himself, both in regard to the nature and source of the income credited by the assessee in the books of account. The section accords statutory recognition to the principle that cash credits which are not satisfactorily explained, or not at all explained, might be assessed to be taxed as income of the assessee. The onus of proving source of sum found to have been received by the assessee is on the assessee. It is for the assessee to prove that even if cash credit represents income, it is income from a source which has been already taxed. To prove the genuineness of transaction, the burden lies on the assessee and to discharge the onus, the assessee must prove (i) the identity of the creditors,(ii) creditworthiness or the capacity of the creditors to advance the money and (iii) the genuineness of the transaction. Only when the above three ingredients are prima facie established, the department is required to undertake further exercises. As to how the onus can be discharged would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

non for forming the opinion. The burden is on the assessee to take the plea that, even if the explanation is not acceptable, the material and the attending circumstances available on record do not justify the sum found credited in the books being treated as a receipt of income nature.

under section 68 for treating the premium amount as unexplained on the reason that premium amount is not justified. To tax such such premium amount on account of valuation more that the fair market value statute has brought section 56(2)(viia)/(viib) from A.Y.2013-14. Thus such an addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act.

u/s 56(2)(viib) and the same cannot be rejected merely on the ground that actual result or profit does not tally with the projected result.

adverse material has been produced by the revenue to take a different view on the impugned issue.

25. The next ground in deletion of disallowance of interest of ₹ 45,67,728/-. During the year assessee has paid interest of ₹ 45,67,728/- on loan taken from holding company Future Venture India Ltd. AO has made disallowance on the ground that when assessee has made huge losses why interest has been paid. , 2635, 2651, 2650, 2646 & CO. 119/Mum/2023 AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2011-12 Aadhaar Wholesale Trading And Distribution Ltd.

C.O. No. 119/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2011-12

3. The Cross objector crave leaves to add, amend, alter, modify and or withdraw any of the above grounds of cross objection, which are without prejudice to one another.

during the proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the original assessment order, details submitted by the assessee and the explanation were accepted by the AO and order u/s 143(3) was passed assessing the total income at returned loss at ₹ 25,70,73,672/-. However, the AO has reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act for the reasons which were already examined in the assessment proceedings i.e. receipt of share capital including share premium. The objection of the assessee was rejected by the AO on the ground that the assessee was not able to prove the genuineness of the transaction of share premium of ₹ 10,00,00,000/- at the time of assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR submitted that the issue was duly raised by the AO in the original assessment proceedings and no new tangible material has been received by the AO after completion of the original assessment which can warrant any change of the opinion already formed on the subject issue. Mere change of opinion on the same set of facts does not entitle the AO to reopen the completed assessment. It would amount to review of own decision by the AO, which is not permissible. For this, the Ld. AR also relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v/s Kelvintor of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561 (SC). The Ld. AR relied on the decision in the case of CIT v/s Eicher Ltd (2009( 26 DTR (Del.) 310 wherein it was observed that if the entire material has been placed by the assessee , 2635, 2651, 2650, 2646 & CO. 119/Mum/2023 AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2011-12 Aadhaar Wholesale Trading And Distribution Ltd. before the AO during the original assessment and the AO had applied his mind, then merely because this is not expressly stated in the assessment order, the same would not be a ground to conclude or hold that there was no application of mind. Such cases also fall under „change of opinion‟ to quash reopening of completed assessement. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Projects Development Pvt. Ltd. V. ITO in Writ petition No. 8041 of 2025 dated 01.02.2024 and contended that the facts of the appellant are similar and the case is covered by the above decision.

premium. The Ld. CIT(DR) has not placed any evidence or material before us to counter the argument of the Ld. AR that the details regarding impugned issue were not provided to the AO and the same was not considered by the AO. Therefore, we are of the view that the reopening is based on mere change of opinion on the same set of facts and the same issue already considered by the AO in the original proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. The reopening is based on mere change of opinion, which is not permissible, as held by the Hon‟ble Courts including Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelivintor of India Ltd. (supra).

ITA No. 2635/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 34. The grounds taken up by the revenue are similar to the grounds raised in A.Y. 2011-12. The facts are similar to the facts of the case for A.Y. 2012-13. The issue involved is regarding addition of ₹30,00,00,000/- towards share premium u/s 68 of the Act. The arguments of the Ld. AR and the reasons given by the AO, which was relied upon by the Ld. CIT (DR), are also similar to the reasons and arguments of the earlier year. Hence, following reasons given above for A.Y. 2011-12, the grounds of revenue are dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal of revenue is dismissed. A.Y. 2013-14

35. The facts of the case are similar to the facts of the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13. However, the share premium receipt of ₹ 9,68,00,000/- during the year has been added by the AO u/s 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act in lieu of provisions of section 68 of the Act applied in the A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13. The grounds are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances of Rs.9,60,00,000/- u/x. 56(2) (viib) of the Income tax Act. made by the AO, without appreciating the fact that during the course of assessment the assessee has failed to submit or explain the basis of arriving at the premium, without which it was not possible to ascertain the genuineness of claim of transaction". , 2635, 2651, 2650, 2646 & CO. 119/Mum/2023 AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2011-12 Aadhaar Wholesale Trading And Distribution Ltd.

2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances of Rs.9,60,00,000/- u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Income tax Act, without appreciating the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has not submitted any fresh valuation for FY 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14 to show how the premium amount has been arrived at."

3. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the A.O be restored.”

also stated the projected targets considered in the valuation report were never achieved and the appellant company continued to incur losses over the years. He further stated that in the case of M/s. Bahar Agrochen and Feeds Pvt. Ltd., which is one of the shareholders of the assessee company in A.Y. 2011-12, the NAV of the appellant company was determined at only ₹5.93. However, the company has received excessive premium of ₹ 40 per share and totaling to ₹9,60,00,000/-. The AO has quoted section 56(2)(viib) in the light of the above factual background and held that the assessee failed to justify issuance of shares at such high premium. Accordingly, the total sum of ₹ 9,60,00,000/- received by the assessee as share premium was disallowed and added u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. He also simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

“6.2 The appellant has made a detailed submission on the issue that provision of section 56(2)(viib) do not apply to a company in which public are not substantially interested. The appellant has contended that the investors in appellant assessee are Future Ventures India Limited and Godrej Agrovet Limited. These investors have extended Inter Corporate Deposits (ICDs) to appellant. During this AY, assessee has received a premium of Rs. 9,60,00,000/- from these 2 companies as a result of capitalization of working capital loan extended by these 2 companies to appellant. Appellant has allotted 24,00,000 shares at Face Value Rs. 10/- and premium of Rs. 40/- per share to the investor companies during FY 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14. 16,80,000 shares at a premium of Rs. 6,72,00,000/- were allotted to Future Ventures India Limited (FVIL) and 7,20,000 shares at a premium of Rs. 2,88,00,000/- were allotted to Godrej Agrovet Limited. Future Ventures India Limited (FVIL) is a group company of Future Group and Godrej Agrovet Limited is a subsidiary of Godrej Industries Ltd. As per the above shareholding, it is clear that the appellant is a subsidiary of M/s. Future Ventures Enterprises Ltd. (FVIL) (now known as Future Consumer Ltd.) which holds more than 51% of the shareholding. FVIL is a listed company on BSE and NSE stock exchanges since 2011 and accordingly, it is a public company as per section 2(71) of the Companies Act, 2013 or Sec 3(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 1956. As per section 2(18)(b)(B) of the 1. T. Act, 1961, FVIL holds 70% of the shares as well as voting rights in the appellant company with no fixed dividend rights. 6.3 The provisions of Sec. 56(2)(viib) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are as under "where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any , 2635, 2651, 2650, 2646 & CO. 119/Mum/2023 AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2011-12 Aadhaar Wholesale Trading And Distribution Ltd. person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that accede the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares" "company in which the public are substantially interested a company is said to be a company in which the Public are substantially interested- 6.4 The provisions of section 2(18)(b)(B) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are as under b) if it a company which is not a private company as defined in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), and the conditions specified ether in tem(Ajor in tem(B) are fulfilled, namely (A) shares in the company for being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a further right to participate in profits were, as on the last day off the relevant previous year, listed in a recognized stock exchange in India in accordance with the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act 1956 (42 of 1956) and any rules made thereunder, [(B) shares in the company (not being shares entitled to a fixed of dividend whether with or without further right to participate in profits) carrying not less than fifty percent of the voting power have been allotted unconditionally to, or acquired unconditionally by, and were throughout the relevant previous year beneficially held by (a) the Government, or (b) a corporation established by a Central, State of Provincial Act (c) any company to which this clause applies or any subsidiary company of such company if the whole of the share capital of such subsidiary company has been held by the parent company or by its nominees throughout the 6.5 In the view of the above facts, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not attracted to the appellant, which is a 29 , 2635, 2651, 2650, 2646 & CO. 119/Mum/2023 AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2011-12 Aadhaar Wholesale Trading And Distribution Ltd. subsidiary of a public limited company. The appellant has relied on decisions of Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad in the cases of Apollo Sugar Clinics Ltd [2019] 105 taxmann.com 254 and M/s Sembcorp Energy India Limited [ITA No. 1774/Hyd/2019] in support of its contention. Respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad and in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, this ground is allowed.”

of the appellant is not covered under the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. We also find that the assessee covered by the clause (b) (B)(c) of the subsection (18) of section 2 of the Act because the share holding in the appellant‟s company is as follows:(1) Future Venture India Ltd. (now known as Future Consumer Ltd.) – 70%, (2) Godrej Agrovet Ltd.19% and (3) Others 11%. Thus, appellant is a subsidiary of Future Venture India Ltd.

subscribing to the shares of the assessee company in FY 2009-10. In this regard, the appellant has relied upon the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Green Infra Ltd. v/s ITO (2013) 37 CCH 0059 where a newly created company had issued shares of ₹ 10 each at premium of ₹ 490 per share. During the assessment proceedings, the AO had observed that own funds were introduced by the assessee through shareholders under guise of revenue. The AO also questioned the authenticity of the valuation report. In the first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. However, the ITAT decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The following observations of the ITAT are relevant and hence reproduced as under: "10.1. No doubt a non-est company or a zero balance company asking for a share premium of Rs. 490/- per share defies all commercial prudence but at the same time we cannot ignore the fact that it is a prerogative of the Board of Directors of a company to decide the premium amount and it is the wisdom of the shareholders whether they want to subscribe to such a heavy premium. The Revenue authorities cannot question the charging of such of huge premium without any bar from any legislated law of the land. Details of subscribers were before the Revenue authorities. The AO has also confirmed the transaction from the subscribers by issuing notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act. The Board of Directors contains persons who are associated with IDFC group of companies, therefore their integrity and credibility cannot be doubted. The entire grievance of the Revenue revolves around the charging of such of huge premium so much so that the Revenue authorities did not even blink their eyes in invoking provisions of Sec. 56(1) of the Act." 32 , 2635, 2651, 2650, 2646 & CO. 119/Mum/2023 AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2011-12 Aadhaar Wholesale Trading And Distribution Ltd.

by the revenue are similar to the grounds taken up in appeal for A.Y. 2013-14. The facts are similar to the facts , 2635, 2651, 2650, 2646 & CO. 119/Mum/2023 AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2011

12. Aadhaar Wholesale Trading And Distribution Ltd. of the case for A.Y. 2017-18. The issue pertains to the addition of share premium of ₹ 12,00,00,000/- u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Since, facts are similar, following reasons given above for A.Y. 2013-14, the grounds of revenue are dismissed. According, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 46. In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 05/04/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Place: Mumbai Date 05.04.2024 ANIKET SINGH RAJPUT/STENO आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.