Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the addition of Rs. 1,05,62,000/- on account of sale consideration of shares under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the Long Term Capital Gain, treating it as an unexplained cash credit.
Held
The Tribunal held that the entire transaction of purchase and sale of shares was supported by documentary evidence and no material was brought on record by the revenue to prove otherwise. The decision was based on the precedent set in the case of Vipin Jain, which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act on account of sale of shares as unexplained cash credit is sustainable when the assessee has provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction.
Sections Cited
68, 10, 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Ld. CIT(A)’/’NFAC’ for short), dated 02/09/2024 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the solitary issue involved in the present Appeal is regarding the addition of Rs. 1,05,62,000/- being part of sale consideration of shares u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the present appeal is squarely covered by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee’s son Vipin Jain in (A.Y 2015-16), wherein the Tribunal vide order dated 16/03/2020,allowed the Appeal of the Assessee which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in and other connected matters, accordingly, the Ld. Assessee's Representative sought for allowing the Appeal.
Per contra, though the Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities and sought for dismissal of the Appeal. However, could not controvert the submission of the Ld. Assessee's Representative or produce any contrary judicial precedent decided against the Assessee.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have also gone through the order of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vipin Jain in which was decided in favour of the Assessee vide order dated 16/03/2020, wherein the script of ALPS Motor Finance Ltd. was involved, the same script is also involved in the present case. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vipin Jain (supra), while allowing the Appeal held as under:-
“8. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant findings given in the impugned orders as well as material referred to before us. The main contention of the ld. counsel before us was that nowhere the evidences filed by the assessee have been doubted and neither the purchase made in the earlier years has been disbelieved. The Assessing Officer has taxed only the net Long Term Capital Gain and alleged commission of 5% for arranging such Long Term Capital Gain. He drew our attention to the documents refuting to purchase of 628O0 equity shares for sum of Rs.12,5,600/- in all market transaction to Shri Vishal Yadav in November 2012 and also the factum of dematerialization of shares on 17.1.2014 it was credited to the demat account with Vijaya Bank in the month of January, February 2014. It was in the Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee had sold the shares i.e. 17500 shares on 30.07.2014 at the rate of Rs.430 per share and balance 45300 equity shares got split into 4,53,000 equity shares of Rs.1 each on 06.08.2014. And whole of the split shares were sold from August, 2014 to October, 2014 at a marker price in the range of Rs.61.05 to Rs.53.10 through M/s. Century Finvest Pvt. Ltd., a SEBI registered broker. As per the contract note and the transaction details it is seen that the shares were sold in different lots and the transaction of sale of shares is evidenced from contract notes appearing at pages 29-35 of the PB. And also the statement of the DEMAT Account. Apart from that, from the perusal of the abstract of cash account and confirmation from Vishal Yadav, it can be seen that, assessee has paid amount of Rs.1,25,500 in cash for purchase of shares and the sale proceeds have been received on various dates in the assessee's bank account with Vijaya Bank appearing at Pages 24-28 of the PB. Not only that, from perusal of the DEMAT account, it is seen that assessee also had investment in shares of other companies also and it is not that this was a solitary transaction. Further, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that following documents and evidence goes to show and prove the genuineness of sale and purchase of shares which are as under :- A. Copy of abstract of cash evidencing the payment made against the share purchased. B. Copy of DEMAT account, statement of holding transaction statement, delivery instructions, dematerialization request form. C. Copies of the bills issued by the M/s. Century Finvest Pvt. Ltd. (a SEBI registered Broker) for sale of shares along with duly confirmed copy of account and showing the STT paid on the sale of shares. D. Bank Statement of the assessee indicating the payment received from broker against sale of shares.
10. Further Let. AR submitted that one very important fact in the present case is that SEBI which is a regulatory authority for the smooth functioning and monitoring of the stock exchange has not suspended the scrip ALPS Motors Finance Ltd. at any point of time and the shares are still being transacted at the Market price ruling on the date of transaction on a screen based trading, therefore, the bald allegation against the assessee is wholly without substance particularly when no contrary evidence has been brought on record and the allegation is simply based upon the general modus operandi found by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata in various other penny stock shares.
In relation to reliance placed on the 2 broker’s statements recorded by the, he submitted that firstly, none of these statements were confronted to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and even in the show cause notice, and secondly, even these statements do not disseminate the evidence furnished by the assessee as in none of these statements there is any reference to the transaction carried out in the shares of Alps Motors Finance Limited and so also the transaction of the appellant assessee.
The main case of the revenue is that, BikashSurekha has accepted in the statement reproduced in the assessment order that two entities namely, (i) Duari Marketing; and (ii) RachakVinmay Pvt. Ltd. who had purchased the shares of Alps Motors Finance Limited were run by him and have been used to provide accommodation entry for bogus LTCG. Entirely based or this statement, the assessee’s Long term capital gain has been disbelieved and added under section 68 of the Act. Such a statement first of all, has no direct or indirect connection with the assessee nor there is any reference that assessee was any kind of beneficiary of accommodation entry by any entry operator. So much so, there is no reference to the scrip namely Alps Motors Finance Limited. Otherwise also, such a statement cannot be the sole basis for disbelieving the transaction of the assessee for the reason that neither any cross examination has been allowed by the department nor there is any conclusive averment that all the trade of the scrip of Alps Motors Finance Limited was manipulated for bogus long term capital gain, There is no information or material on record that trading of the said scrip was ever banned by the SEBI. A general modus operandi as to how bogus entry of long term capital gain is provided by entry providers, sans any specific enquiry or material or information on record to implicate assessee cannot be the basis for disbelieving the transaction backed by all documents. AO has to conduct some kind inquiry to find out that transaction is sham or is colourable device. Here it is not the case that transaction of the assessee, both in case of purchase and sale are effected by any bogus entities controlled by any entry operator; or brokers have failed to maintain KYC norms; or there is any statement that entities involved in price movement or scrip operator or promoters of listed company have accepted their role in giving bogus entry nor there is any probe or material relating to bank account of entities involved that purchase or sale by assessee has been done through cash deposits; or there is any order from SEBI/BSE where genuineness of the scrip has been doubted. When no such inquiry or material has been found or gathered that assessee is beneficiary or was involved in any such scam of accommodation entry, then it is very difficult to discard the assessee's explanation and documents.
In addition, in the other statement reproduced i.e. of Anil Khemka, there is no reference to the appellant assessee's transaction or scrip namely Alps Motors Finance Limited.
Ld. AR further submitted that, here, in this case, purchase of shares was made in the Financial Year 2012-13 relevant to assessment year 2013-14 and is evidenced by the cash abstract and other related documents. Thus, possession of the share is not in doubt at all, because same is also reflected in DEMAT account maintained with DP and Vijaya Bank. Not only that, the sale of shares is also evidenced from transaction undertaken through SEBI registered Broker and after the sale of shares, the net receipts have been credited to the assessee's bank account. Hence, the nature of the transactions clearly purchase and sale of shares and the source of the credit, from the material facts on record are quite evident that it is from the sale of shares. Once, no material information has been brought on record to convert these transactions then it cannot be held that the sale proceeds of the shares as unexplained cash credit to be added under deeming provisions of section 68. Further, there is no finding or any whisper in the impugned orders that some unaccounted money has been routed through some accommodation entry provider or getting the bogus long-term capital gain. 15 In addition, one very important fact brought on record by the Ld AR is that the very same scrip was subject matter adjudication in the case of Shri Vìshal Kumar Vijay vs ITO Order dated 28.11.2018 and in the case of Akita Vijay vs ITAT dated 08.02.2019 and the Hon’ble tribunal after examining the transaction statement of the stock broker, Contract Note for sale of shares, transaction statement of the DEMAT Account and other documentary evidences had held that the transaction was genuine.
On the other hand, ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that here in this case the facts and circumstances clearly indicates that assessee has taken an accommodation entry for bogus Long Term Capital Gain for which all paper work has been done like in all such bogus entries. It is a solitary transaction of the shares and the financial credibility of Alps Motor Finance Ltd clearly indicates the fact that this company did not had worth to justify such a higher share price, which means that the price were manipulated in the stock exchange only to provide accommodation entry for bogus Long Term Capital Gains / Loss. In support, he strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of UditKalra v/s. ITO. and decision of Tribunal in the case of UditKalra vs. ITO, 7. He further relied upon the judgment of ITAT Delhi 'SMC' Bench in the case of AnipRastogi and AnjuRastogi in /Del/2018 and 3801/Del/2018. Relying on these Judgments, he submitted that even the Hon’ble High Court have frowned upon such bogus Long Term Capital Gain.
After considering the entire gamut of facts and material on record and the submissions made by the parties, one important fact which emerges from the record is that, the shares were purchased by the assessee in the Assessment Year 2012-13 for sum of Rs.1,25,000/- which has been sold in the impugned assessment order for Rs.3,20,57,034/- and Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.3,18,92,584/- has been declared which has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer and has been taxed u/s.68. This inter alia shows that the purchases made in the earlier years regarding shares have not been disputed at all, only Net LTCG has been added. Major part of the discussion in the assessment order is show how the Director of Instigation Calcutta carried out countrywide investigation wherein the modus operandi were providing Long Term Capital Gain / Short Term Capital Loss were unearthed and Assessing Officer has given sample of cash trail and how the mechanism works which has been illustrated by him in detail. He has given a master table and cash trail showing name of 18 broker companies/persons and concern jamakharchi companies and also name of various persons who were involved as share broker, promoter, beneficiaries or otherwise who were indulged in malpractices and whose case search and survey were carried out and submissions were recorded. From the bare perusal of these exhaustive list and information, it is seen that none of the shareholders or jamakharchi companies were involved in scrips of Alps Motors Finance Ltd. or nowhere the assessee’s transaction or the name of assessee’s broker or assessee being beneficiary has been mentioned. From the statement of the assessee also, nothing adverse can be inferred except that he has bought the shares from one Mr Vishal Yadav who met him in some marriage ceremony from whom assessee had made the purchases and assessee had sold the shares on the advice of brokers M/s Century Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Further, it has been mentioned that assessee had purchased 62800 equity shares for sum of Rs.1,25,600/- in off-market transaction and assessee requested the depositor for materialization of shares on 17.01.2014 and these shares were credited to his demat account with Vjaya Bank on 10.02.2014 thereafter shares have been sold on two lots on two different prices, one of 17500 shares on 30.07.2014, Rs.430per shares and balance of 45300 shares between August 2014 to October 2014 at a market price ranging from Rs.61.05 to Rs.53.10 through registered stock broker, M/s Century Finvest Pvt. Ltd. The shares have been sold to recognized stock exchange BSE on quoted price on the date and thereafter the money has been credited into the account of the assessee.
Further, the Assessing Officer has strongly referred to two statements, one of Mr. BikashSurekha and other of Mr. Anil Khemkha. Though Mr. BikashSurekha have accepted that they were used to provide accommodation entry for bogus Long Term Capital Gain, but nowhere he has said that they have provided accommodation entries in Alps Motor Finance Ltd. Further in the statement of Anil Kumar Khemkha also and in the list of various jamakharchi companies wherein the name of Alps Motors Finance Ltd. has not been figured. Further, in reply to question no. 18, Mr. Anil Kumar Khemkha mentions the list of scrips, and stated that, he has provided accommodation entry but nowhere the name of Alps Motor Finance Ltd. is appearing in his statement. Once again from the bare perusal of the list captioned as Annexure-B annexed alongwith the statement which contains names of 106 companies are mentioned, wherein he has said that he was providing accommodation entry through various scrips, it is seen that, scrip of Alps Motor Finance Ltd. is not appearing and nowhere it has surfaced that scrip was used for providing accommodation entry. We are unable to appreciate as how these statements have any relevance on transaction or there is something to implicate assessee that he was involved in accommodation entry fur taking bogus Long Term Capital Gain.
Another important factor here in this case is that, the ld. counsel has placed various orders of SEBI which is a regulatory authority for smooth functioning or monitoring of stock exchange to point out that at no point of time, the trading of Alps Motor Finance Ltd. was suspended or there was any finding that the prices of the Alps Motor Finance Ltd. were rigged or there was any kind of manipulation. In the present case, the shares have been transacted at a market price quoted on the date of transaction in the Stock exchange and on screen based trading, and therefore, to infer that the price have been rigged in violation of SEBI rules or guidelines may not be correct. There has to be some iota of evidence or incriminating material that, either Alps Motors Finance Ltd. was suspended or trading of its shares were banned by the SEBI for manipulating or rigging of the share price in the stock exchange or any action has been taken by the SEBI against the said company or against the brokers. Simply because the prices have risen in a short span of two years, that does not mean there is some kind of manipulation unless some authority have found so or there is any material or inquiry from it has been unearthed that the price of scrip of Alps Motor Finance Ltd. was manipulated for purpose of providing accommodation entry. Here in this case, there is neither any direct or indirect evidence made through inquiry from assessee’s broker or from Directors of Alps Moto Finance Ltd. or otherwise.
One of the point harped upon by the Revenue is that, Mr. RikashSurekha has accepted in the statements reproduced in the assessment order that two entities, namely, Durai Marketing and RochakVinay Private Lid. who have purchased the shares of Alps Motor Pvt. Ltd. were run by him and were used to provide accommodation entry for bogus long Term Capital Gain, First of all, such statement has no direct or indirect connection with the assessee or the transaction of shares that these two companies have purchased the shares of Alps Motor Finance Ltd. from, assessee; nor there is any reference that assessee was beneficiary of any kind of accommodation entry by the said entry operator. Nowhere there is any reference of the scrip of Alps Motor Finance Ltd. in his statement. To draw any adverse inference against the assessee based on such statement would be wholly erroneous, because, firstly, assessee has not been implicated in such statement; and secondly, if the said statement is the sole basis for disbelieving the transaction, then on the principle of natural justice, cross examination has to be provided to the assessee, In any case, there is no conclusive averment that all the trading of scrip of Alps Motor Finance Ltd. was manipulated for bogus Long Term Capital Gain.
Prima facie there has to be some kind of information or material on record that the trading of Alps Motor Finance Ltd. was ever banned by SEBI.
A general modus operanedi cannot be resorted to hold in all such cases that assessee must have entered into bogus Long Term Capital Gain provided by any entry provider. At best it could be a good ground for making prima facie inquiry to scrutinize the transaction and then draw any inference But sans any inquiry or investigation or material on record to implicate the assessee, cannot be the basis for disbelieving the transaction. There has to at least some kind of prima facie inquiry by the Assessing Officer or some information or material has been gathered or found in some inquiry or investigation to indicate that transaction undertaken by the assessee is sham or is a colourable device, If the shares are recorded in the books and are appearing in physical form and then 19 have been dematerialized and purchase of such shares have not been doubted, then sale of the same shares in Stock Exchange at a quoted price cannot be held to be unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Section 68, Once a Capital asset has been acquired, reflected in the accounts of the assessee and has been sold, for which necessary evidences have been filed and there is no adverse material or information or inquiry to prove that nature and source of credit as explained by the assessee is false, no adverse inference cannot be drawn and the evidences and explanation given by the assessee cannot be discredited. We again reiterate that though the accommodation entry of bogus Long Term Capital Gain is a menace which has been unearthed through investigation but general perception and general modus operandi sans any evidence or material or any kind of prima facie inquiry cannot render the transaction as sham bogus. In such cases, even if preponderance of probability is taken into consideration, then also the material and evidence adduced by the assessee have to rebutted by some kind of tangible material coming on record. Otherwise the evidences and explanation of the assessee cannot be discredited. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as material available on record, we do not find any reason to sustain the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the said addition made u/s.68 and consequently u/s 69C is deleted. Accordingly, Assessee's claim for exemption u/s. 10 on Long Term Capital Gain is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The above order of the Tribunal in the case of Vipin Jain (supra) was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi upheld the order of the Tribunal vide Judgment dated 12/03/2024 in and another connected matters in following manners:-
Against the order of ITAT in Vipin Jain’s case, the Department filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Court has decided the issue against the Department by observing as under :- “11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 12. It is seen from the facts of the present case that it was the astronomical increase in the price of the shares purchased by the respondent-assessee which has, inter alia led to the additions in the income for the concerned AY under Section 68 of the Act. Admittedly, the purchase and sale of shares and the source of credit therein is not in doubt at all. In fact, the concerned amounts have been considered to be added by the AO on account of preponderance of probabilities and human behaviour. 13. A perusal of the impugned order of the ITAT would indicate that the additions in question have also been based on the statement of a person namely, Mr. BikashSurekha. However, the ITAT has concluded that the said statement neither has any direct or indirect connection with the respondent-assessee nor does the same mentions that his entities have provided accommodation entries in the Company. In any case, it is also discernible from the said order that no opportunity of hearing was extended to the respondent- assessee at any relevant point of time to cross-examine the person in question if any claim adverse to the interests of the respondent- assessee was made. 14. The ITAT order further records that there was no material which could signify that either the Company was suspended, or its shares were barred from trading or the price of the scrip of company was manipulated for the purpose of providing accommodation entry. It has been held by the ITAT that purchases made in the earlier years regarding the shares also remained undisputed and the exhaustive list containing the concerned individuals or companies indulged in malpractices pertaining to LTCG, which has been heavily relied upon by the Revenue, does not mention the given transaction of the respondent-assessee. Notably, it is seen from the impugned order that the AO has failed to corroborate its conclusions on the basis of any cogent material available on record before forming an opinion that the sale transaction was sham and a pre-planned arrangement to claim exemption under the guise of LTCG. 15. An upshot of the above findings of the ITAT, coupled with the fact that no irregularity was highlighted by the Securities and Exchange Board of India pertaining to the transaction of the scrips of the Company, would lead us to the conclusion that there is nothing adverse against the respondent-assessee which could establish a fictitious LTCG to claim exemption at the behest of the respondentassessee. Rather, the arguments put forth by the Revenue are mere findings of fact.
16. In any case, the issues raised by the Revenue in the present appeals already stand covered by the decision of this Court in the case of PCIT v. Krishna Devi [2021 SCC OnLine Del 563], wherein, under similar facts and circumstances, it was held that the preponderance of probabilities cannot be a ground to reject the evidence put forth by the parties. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision read as under: - “11. On a perusal of the record, it is easily discernible that in the instant case, the AO had proceeded predominantly on the basis of the analysis of the financials of M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited. His conclusion and findings against the Respondent are chiefly on the strength of the astounding 4849.2% jump in share prices of the aforesaid company within a span of two years, which is not supported by the financials. On an analysis of the data obtained from the websites, the AO observes that the quantum leap in the share price is not justified; the trade pattern of the aforesaid company did not move along with the sensex; and the financials of the company did not show any reason for the extraordinary performance of its stock. We have nothing adverse to comment on the above analysis, but are concerned with the axiomatic conclusion drawn by the AO that the Respondent had entered into an agreement to convert unaccounted money by claiming fictitious LTCG, which is exempt under Section 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance placed on the report, without further corroboration on the basis of cogent material, does not justify his conclusion that the transaction is bogus, sham and nothing other than a racket of accommodation entries. We do notice that the AO made an attempt to delve into the question of infusion of Respondent’s unaccounted money, but he did not dig deeper. Notices issued under Sections 133(6)/131 of the Act were issued to M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited, but nothing emerged from this effort. The payment for the shares in question was made by Sh. Salasar Trading Company. Notice was issued to this entity as well, but when the notices were returned unserved, the AO did not take the matter any further. He thereafter simply proceeded on the basis of the financials of the company to come to the conclusion that the transactions were accommodation entries, and thus, fictitious. The conclusion drawn by the AO, that there was an agreement to convert unaccounted money by taking fictitious LTCG in a pre-planned manner, is therefore entirely unsupported by any material on record. This finding is thus purely an assumption based on conjecture made by the AO. This flawed approach forms the reason for the learned ITAT to interfere with the findings of the lower tax authorities. The learned ITAT after considering the entire conspectus of case and the evidence brought on record, held that the Respondent had successfully discharged the initial onus cast upon it under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from demat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including the deficient enquiry conducted by the AO and the lack of any independent source or evidence to show that there was an agreement between the Respondent and any other party, prevailed upon the ITAT to take a different view. Before us, Mr. Hossain has not been able to point out any evidence whatsoever to allege that money changed hands between the Respondent and the broker or any other person, or further that some person provided the entry to convert unaccounted money for getting benefit of LTCG, as alleged. In the absence of any such material that could support the case put forth by the Appellant, the additions cannot be sustained.
12. Mr. Hossain’s submissions relating to the startling spike in the share price and other factors may be enough to show circumstances that might create suspicion; however the Court has to decide an issue on the basis of evidence and proof, and not on suspicion alone. The theory of human behavior and preponderance of probabilities cannot be cited as a basis to turn a blind eye to the evidence produced by the Respondent. With regard to the claim that observations made by the CIT(A) were in conflict with the Impugned Order, we may only note that the said observations are general in nature and later in the order, the CIT(A) itself notes that the broker did not respond to the notices. Be that as it may, the CIT(A) has only approved the order of the AO, following the same reasoning, and relying upon the report of the Investigation Wing. Lastly, reliance placed by the Revenue on SumanPoddar v. ITO (supra) and SumatiDayal v. CIT (supra) is of no assistance. Upon examining the judgment of Suman Poddar (supra) at length, we find that the decision therein was arrived at in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances demonstrated before the ITAT and the Court, such as, inter alia, lack of evidence produced by the Assessee therein to show actual sale of shares in that case. On such basis, the ITAT had returned the finding of fact against the Assessee, holding that the genuineness of share transaction was not established by him. However, this is quite different from the factual matrix at hand. Similarly, the case of SumatiDayal v. CIT (supra) too turns on its own specific facts. The above-stated cases, thus, are of no assistance to the case sought to be canvassed by the Revenue.
13. The learned ITAT, being the last fact-finding authority, on the basis of the evidence brought on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the lower tax authorities are not able to sustain the addition without any cogent material on record. We thus find no perversity in the Impugned Order.” [Emphasis supplied] 17. The view taken in the case of Smt. Krishna Devi (supra) was subsequently followed in another decision of this Court in PCIT v. KarunaGarg [2022 SCC OnLine Del 4079].
18. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the present appeals do not raise any substantial question of law.
19. Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the ITAT and thus, the appeals stand dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.”
Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of ITAT and Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we are inclined to allow the grounds taken by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.”
In view of the above, by respectfully following the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Vipin Jain (supra), we allow the Grounds of Appeal of the Assessee.
In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.