Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 11/JP/2022
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 11/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 cuke The DCIT, Shri Anil Gupta Circle-7, Vs. 1, Ashok Vatika, Khatipura Road Jaipur. Jhotwara, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPG 5219 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal ( C.A.) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 12/04/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 13/06/2022
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter called as ‘NFAC’) dated 23.11.2021 for the Assessment year 2013-14.
The Revenue raised the following additional ground of appeal:-
“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,37,270/- in view of the provisions of the Section 37 of the IT Act. The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the ground on or before the hearing”
2 ITA No. 11 /JP/2022 DCIT vs. Shri Anil Gupta
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is running hospital in the name of his proprietorship concern M/s Deep Hospital & Research Centre, and derives income from house property, profession, capital gain and other sources. The assessee filed his return of income on 29.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 62,25,700/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 04.09.2014, which was served upon the assessee.
The AO arrived the findings that the assessed u/s 143(3) at total income of Rs. 79,96,390/-. Issue demand notice and challan. Give the credit of prepaid taxes after verification. Income Tax and interest under different sections, has been calculated/charged as per ITNS-150 appended to his order, which is a part of this order. Issue penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the concealing particulars and furnishing of in accurate particulars of income.
Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who allowed the relief to the assessee. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) are contained at para 5 which is reproduced as under:-
“5. Appellate findings: 5.1 Ground No. 1:- vide this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the order u/s 154 dated 18.12.2017 passed by the DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur for the A.Y. 2013-14 vide which the AO disallowed Rs. 5,37,270/- u/s 37 of the IT Act read with CBDT Circular No. 05/20152 dated 07.08.2012 on account of business promotion expenses. 5.1.1 The issue under consideration is identical to the issue decided upon by the ITAT, Jaipur in the case of the appellant in ITA No. 409/JP/2004 vide order dated 06.03.2018 read with the order of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in ITA No. 485/2008. Accordingly, the following the decision of the Higher judicial authorities, the issue is decided in favour of appellant. The said ground of appeal is allowed.”
3 ITA No. 11 /JP/2022 DCIT vs. Shri Anil Gupta
Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. The ld. DR raised only one ground whether CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,37,270/- in view of the provisions of the Section 37 of the IT Act.
Firstly, The DRs contentions are that the documentary proof wgich was submitted by the AR in his paper book at page number 8 relates to the expenses on account of Rental Expenses paid. Secondly, the Ld DR is questioning the Ledger Account 5 profession promotion Expenses, where the asessee has TDS commission for (refer Cases). Pages 9 to 13 of paper book of AR. there is an Audit objection Thirdly, The Ld DR submitted that according to the CBDT Circular, No 05/2012 dated 01.08.2012,the assesee has to be disallowance u/s 37 and the AO accordingly made disallowance Rs.5,37,270/-. Further, the Ld DR submitted that the AO has taken appropriate findings after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Ld AR for the assesee has reiterated his submissions, which was taken on record by the CIT (A). Before us the Ld AR for assessee submitted a detailed Written submissions which are as under :-
“1. The assessee is running a hospital in the name of his proprietorship concern M/s Deep Hospital & Research Centre and derives income from house property, profession, capital gain & other sources. 2.During the year assessee debited a sum of Rs.5,37,270/- on account of professional promotion expenses. These expenses are incurred in respect of the patients referred to hospital by doctors/villagers/RMP’s etc. The expenses are in respect of accompanying charges/initial investigation charges or reimbursement of the cost incurred by these persons for bringing the patients to the hospital. In the original assessment assessee vide letter dated 05.12.2015 filed the details of professional promotion charges along with ledger account(PB 4-13).The AO after considering the same passed the order u/s 143(3) accepting the expenses claimed.
4 ITA No. 11 /JP/2022 DCIT vs. Shri Anil Gupta
After assessment, the office of the Principal Director of Audit (Central) raised an audit objection on 27.01.2016 (PB 14)that professional promotion expenses is not allowable in view of the CBDT Circular No.05/2012 dt. 01.08.2012. 4. In the meanwhile the matter for AY 2001-02 wherein similar disallowance of professional development expenses was made by AO, deleted by the CIT(A) but restored by ITAT came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High court who vide order dated 18.07.2017 (PB 15-22)set aside the issue to ITAT by holding as under:- “11.Counsel for the respondent has strongly relied upon explanation but in view of the observations made by the AO where he has allowed the part expenses of the hospital, in that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) observations which are made by the CIT are required to be accepted. The explanation cannot come into play on appeal which was filed at this stage. Even otherwise in income tax proceedings the medical ethics will not be taken into consideration. At the most even if it is a professional misconduct it is to be dealt with by Medical Council of India. The income tax authority cannot decide the medical ethics when the original authority has partly allowed the expenses.” 12.In view of the above, the order of the tribunal is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh.” The Hon’ble ITAT vide order dt. 06.03.2018 (PB 23-33)deleted the entire addition by following the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in assessee’s own case and the coordinate bench decision in case of D.D. Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.Vs. ACIT. 5. The AO, thereafter passed order u/s 154 by holding that assessee has debited Rs.5,37,270/- as professional promotion expenses in the P&L A/c which was to be disallowed as per section 37 of the Act read with CBDT Circular No.05/2012 dated 01/08/2012. Accordingly he made disallowance of Rs.5,37,270/-.
5 ITA No. 11 /JP/2022 DCIT vs. Shri Anil Gupta
Against the order of AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging the order passed u/s 154 of the Act and on merits of the case. The Ld. CIT(A) after relying on the order dt. 06.03.2018 of Hon’ble ITAT (supra) allowed the appeal of assessee on merits without giving any finding on the validity of order passed u/s 154 of the Act. Submission:- 1. At the outset it is submitted that since in the present case the tax effect does not exceed Rs.50 lacs, the appeal filed by the department is not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dt. 08.08.2019. 2. On merits it is submitted that professional development expense incurred by the assessee is not hit by the provisions of section 37 read with Circular No.05/2012 dt. 01.08.2012. In fact this circular is applicable on the expenditure incurred in providing freebies to medical practitioner by pharmaceuticals and allied sector health industry which is not applicable in the present case as the payment made by the assessee is not a freebies but the expenses paid by way of accompanying charges/ referral charges for bringing/ referring the patients by various persons. Hence the circular on the basis of which disallowance is made is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 3. Without prejudice to above, the order passed u/s 154 is also not valid in law. Section 154 of the Act reads as under:- “154. (1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record an income-tax authority referred to in section 116 may,— (a) amend any order passed by it under the provisions of this Act ; (b) amend any intimation or deemed intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143; (c) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A; (d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB.
From the above provisions it can be noted that only the mistake apparent from record can be rectified u/s 154. Hon’ble Supreme Courtin case of ITOVs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 has held that a mistake apparent from record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two options. A
6 ITA No. 11 /JP/2022 DCIT vs. Shri Anil Gupta
decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. In the present case, whether the professional development expenses is hit by the provisions of section 37 read with Circular No.05/2012 dt. 01.08.2012 or not is highly debatable issue as evident from the fact that similar issue for AY 2001-02 went up to Rajasthan High Court and decided in favor of assessee Therefore, the same is out of the scope of the provisions of section 154. In view of above, order of Ld. CIT(A) be upheld by dismissing the appeal filed by the department.”
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and the order of Lower Authority. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, The assesee is a doctor by profession and is running a hospital in the name of his proprietorship concern M/s Deep Hospital & Research Centre. The expenses are incurred by the assesee are in nature of referral cases, investigation charges or reimbursement of the cost incurred to the persons for bringing the patients to the hospital. The assesse has submitted a detailed of Professional promotion charges PB (4-13).We are of the opinion that AO has not doubted the genuineness of the expenditure incurred by the assessee as referral charges but the disallowance was made by the AO only on the ground that the said expenditure is hit by the explanation to Section 37(1) being prohibited. When the genuineness of the expenditure is not doubted then the claim of the assessee cannot be disallowed.
We are of the view that the AO has wrongly interpreted the CBDT circular. No 05/2012 dated 01/08/2012. The Ld. AR for assesee submitted that the circular is not applicable for the present case, it is applicable for expenditure incurred in providing freebies to medical practitioner by pharmaceuticals and allied sector health industry. We are of the considered view that the CIT(A) has rightly upheld the order by relying on the identical issue decided by the Jaipur ITAT in the case ITA No.409/JP/2004 dated
7 ITA No. 11 /JP/2022 DCIT vs. Shri Anil Gupta
06.03.2018 and along the same order of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in ITA No 485/2008. 10. We further note that an identical issue has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 06.03.2018 in case of ACIT Vs. Dr. Anil Gupta in ITA No. 409/JP/2004 and the relevant observations are held in para 5 as under:-
“5. We have considered the rivals submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. The assessee has claimed to have incurred advertisement, sales promotion, entertainment, travelling, business and miscellaneous expenses on doctors and business guests total amount to Rs. 71,97,585/-. The AO noted that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is hit by explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act in view of the MCI Regulations, 2002 which were issued on 10.12.2009 w.e.f. 14.12.2009 prohibiting the doctors and medical practitioners from receiving gifts, freebies from the pharmaceutical companies/ individuals. Accordingly, the AO disallowed 60% of the said expenditure amounting to Rs. 45,75 552/-.The details of the expenditure and disallowance made by the AO are as under:-
GOA Head of disallowance Disallowance made by the AO Expenses % disallowed Amount of claimed disallowance 3.1 Advertisement & Sales Rs. 40,87,254/ 60% Rs. 24,52,352/- promotion expenses (as gift to doctors) 3.2 Advertisement & Sales Rs. 7,77,292/- Rs. 7,23,377/- promotion expenses 3.3 Entertainment expenses for Rs. 79,410/- (Rs. 60% Rs. 47,646/- business agent 44,276/-+Rs. 35,134/-) 3.4 Travelling & conveyance Rs. 22,47,930/- 60% Rs. 13,48,758/- for business guests 3.5 Miscellaneous expenses on Rs. 5,699/- 60% Rs. 3,419/- doctor
8 ITA No. 11 /JP/2022 DCIT vs. Shri Anil Gupta
Amount of disallowance Rs. 71,97,585/- Rs. 45,75,552/-
Aggrieved by the action of the AO in disallowing the expenditure the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), however, it could not succeed as the ld. CIT(A) has decided in this issue in para 4.3 is as under:- “4.3 I have carefully considered the findings of the A.O. and also the submission of the appellant. It may be noted that as per explanation to the sec. 37(1) of IT Act any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure. In this background it may be noted that as per the regulations issued by MCI, Notified on 14.12.2009 which is a statutory body of Govt. of India certain payments/expenditure incurred on account of gifts/travel facilities/hospitality and cash and monitory grants to the medical practitioners by any pharmaceutical companies or any individual dealing in health care for pharmaceutical sectors was prohibited and accordingly as per explanation to Sec. 37(1), such claim of expenditure under the income tax act was not to be allowed. There is no dispute on the fact that such prohibition came into effect w.e.f. 14.12.2009 as also that the assessee is a pharmaceutical company and covered under such regulation issued by MCI. The only dispute of the assessee is that the Circular issued by the CBDT w.e.f. 01.08.2012 subsequent to such regulation issued by MCI on 14.12.2009 should be effective from 01.08.2012 i.e. from A.Y. 2013-14. However, such contention is devoid of any merit in as much as the prohibition of law in respect of such expenditure was introduced by the MCI w.e.f. 14.12.2009 and not by the CBDT by way of Circular dated 01.08.2012. In fact the Circular issued by the CBDT is only of clarificatory nature explaining the same facts which have been stated by the MCI. The important issue to be noted is that even if such Circular would not have been issued by the CBDT such type of expenses/ payments would certainly qualified for disallowance because of the prohibition/ illegality fixed by the MCI. It is also a settled law that the Circulars of clarificatory nature are to be enforced with retrospective effect. Accordingly prima facie there is no merit in the contention of the
9 ITA No. 11 /JP/2022 DCIT vs. Shri Anil Gupta
appellant. As regards the case laws relied upon by the appellant, it may be stated that as the Circular issue by the CBDT is of clarificatory nature therefore the case laws relied upon by the appellant will not have any applicability in this case. Accordingly the ground of appeal is dismissed.”
Before us, the assessee as well as Department has placed reliance on series of decisions wherein two divergent views were taken by this Tribunal. However, the Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court in case of Dr. Anil Gupta Vs. ACIT (supra) while dealing with an identical issue has held in para 5 to 11 are as under:- “5. The Tribunal while considering the case of the appellant has observed as under:- “8. We may submit that expenses are vouched, comparable from earlier year, incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. On test chech basis few person were produced and examined by AO. Section 37(1) provides that:- (i) any expenditure, (ii) not being in the nature of capital expenditure or (iii) personal expenses of the assessee (iv) expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “profits and gain of Business or profession”. 6. Counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Max hospital, Pitampura vs. Medical Council of India; ILR (2014) 1 Delhi 620 where expenses are required to be allowed to the hospital as business expenses and wherein the Delhi High court has observed as under:- “In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent, it is not disputed that the MCI under the 2002 Regulations has jurisdiction limited to taking action only against the registered medical practitioners. It’s plea however, is that it has not passed any petitioner cannot have any grievance against the impugned order. At the same time, it is stated that only simple observations were made by the ethics committee of the MCI about the state of affairs in the petitioner hospital and the same did not harm any legal right or interest of the petitioner. It will be apposite to
10 ITA No. 11 /JP/2022 DCIT vs. Shri Anil Gupta
extract the relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed by the MCI as under:- 4. Preliminary objections: (i) That the instant writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there is not cause of action for filing of this instant petition. The MCI has not passed any order against the petitioner in the impugned minutes of meeting dated 27.10.2012, therefore, there is no cause of action for filing the instant writ petition. (ii) That the MCI has not passed any order against the petitioner and nor does the impugned minutes of meeting dated 27.10.2012 affect any legal right or interest of the petitioner which the petitioner seeks to enforce by filing this writ petition and thus the same is not maintainable. (iii) That the jurisdiction of MCI is limited only to take action against the registered medical professionals under the Indian Medical Council ( Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter the ‘Ethics Regulations’) and has no jurisdiction to pass any order affecting rights/interests of any Hospital, therefore the MCI could not have passed and has not be assailed before this Hon’ble court in writ jurisdiction. (iv) That a simple observation made by the Ethics committee of MCI about the state of affairs in the petitioner Hospital has harmed no legal right/interest of the petitioner for which a writ can be issued by this Hon’ble Court against the answering respondent. (v) That the petitioner contends that an adverse order has been passed by the MCI and that too without hearing the petitioner. Both these contentions of the petitioner are incorrect and by the MCI against the petitioner as MCI does not have any such jurisdiction; secondly, the petitioner was throughout represented before the Ethics Committee of MCI during the proceedings initiated on complaint of one Mr. Sunil Manchanda against some of the doctors working in the petitioner hospital. The petitioner was heard through is advocates on several occasions and had submitted several documents also in support of their stand. 7. It is clearly admitted by the respondent that it has no jurisdiction to pass any order against the petitioner hospital under the 2002 Regulations. In fact, it is stated that it has not passed any order against the petitioner hospital. Thus, I need not go into the question whether the
11 ITA No. 11 /JP/2022 DCIT vs. Shri Anil Gupta
adequate infrastructure facilities for appropriate post-operative care were in fact in existence or not in the petitioner hospital and whether the principles of natural justice had been followed or not while passing the impugned order. Suffice it to say that the observations dated 27.10.2012 made by the Ethics Committee do reflect upon the infrastructure facilities available in the petitioner hospital and since it had no jurisdiction to go into the same, the observations were uncalled for an cannot be sustained.” 7. he has also relied upon the decision in case of Dr. T.A. Quereshil vs. Commission of Income Tax reported in (2006) 287 ITR 0547 where the expenses were allowed for business loss as a result of seizure of heroine. 8. However, counsel for the respondent Mr. Jain contended that action of the respondent unethical and in view of the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Commissioner of income Tax vs. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Centre P. Ltd. reported in (2012) 344 ITR 476 and also the decision of Supreme Court in case of M/s Maddi Venkataraman and CO. (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1998 299 ITR 534 wherein para 24 and 25 it has been had as under:- 24. In the instant case the assessee had indulged in transactions in violation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange ( Regulation) Act. The assessee’s plea is that unless it entered into such a transaction, it would have been unable to dispose of the unsold stock of inferior quality of tobacco. In other words, the assessee would have incurred a loss. Spur of loss cannot be a justification for contravention of law. The assessee was engaged in tobacco business, the assessee was expected to carry on the business in accordance with law. If the assessee contravenes the provision of FERA to cut down its losses or to make larger profits while carrying on he business, it was only to be expected what proceedings will be taken against the assessee for violation of the Act. The expenditure incurred for evading the provisions of the Act and also the penalty levied for such evasion cannot be allowed as deduction. As was laid down by Lord Sterndale in the case of Alexander Von Glehn (supra) that it was not enough that the disbursement was made in the course of trade. It must be for the purpose of the trade. The purpose must be a lawful purpose.
12 ITA No. 11 /JP/2022 DCIT vs. Shri Anil Gupta
Moreover, it will be against public policy to allow the benefit of deduction under one statute, of any expenditure incurred in violation of the provisions of another statute or any penalty imposed under another statute. In the instant case, if the deductions claimed are allowed the penal provisions of FERA will become meaningless. It has also to be borne in mind that evasion of law cannot be a trade pursuit. The expenditure in this case cannot, in any way, be allowed as wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of assessee’s business.” 9. We have heard counsel for both the sides. 10. Section 37 of the Income Act reads as under:- “37(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head, “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession”. [Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure.]” 11. Counsel for the respondent has strongly relied upon explanation but in view of the observations made by the AO where he has allowed the part expenses of the hospital, in that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) observations which are made by the CIT are required to be accepted. The explanation cannot come into play on appeal which was filed at this stage. Even otherwise in income tax proceedings the medical ethics will not be taken into consideration. At the most even if it is a professional misconduct it is to be dealt with my Medical Council of India. The income tax authority cannot decide the medical ethics when the original authority has partly allowed the expenses”.
Respectfully the following the decision of the jurisdiction High Court (supra) we set aside the orders of the authorities below and allow the claim of the assessee. We make it clear that the AO has not doubted the genuineness of the expenditure incurred by the assessee but the
13 ITA No. 11 /JP/2022 DCIT vs. Shri Anil Gupta
disallowance was made by the AO only on the ground that the said expenditure is hit by the explanation to Section 37(1) being prohibited by the MCI Regulations, 2002 issued on 10.12.2012 w.e.f. 14.12.2012 and consequently CBDT Circular no. 5/2012 dated 01.01.2012. Thus, when the genuineness of the expenditure is not doubted then the claim of the assessee cannot be disallowed in view of the binding precedent of Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court.”
The Ld AR for the assesee placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ITO Vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50, as under :
“has held that a mistake apparent from record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two options. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. In the present case, whether the professional development expenses is hit by the provisions of section 37 read with Circular No.05/2012 dt. 01.08.2012 or not is highly debatable issue as evident from the fact that similar issue for AY 2001-02 went up to Rajasthan High Court and decided in favor of assessee Therefore, the same is out of the scope of the provisions of section 154.”
Thus, it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal by following the decision of Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court in the case of the assessee before us has decided this issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, following the decision of Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court as well as the decision of the Coordinate Bench (supra) we decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the Revenue the order of the ld. CIT(A is upheld.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering the relevant facts has rightly held that the expenses claimed by the assessee is allowable u/s.37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, we do not find any
14 ITA No. 11 /JP/2022 DCIT vs. Shri Anil Gupta merit in the case of the Revenue and accordingly, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is confirmed and the appeal of the Revenue in I.T.A No.11/JPR/2022 is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/06/2022.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalashmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 13/06/2022. *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Shri Anil Gupta, Jaipur. 2. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 11/JP/2022} 6. सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत