Loading judgment…
Facts
The case involves cross-appeals by the assessee and revenue against an order concerning the valuation of cold storage, plant, and machinery. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on a valuation report, which the assessee challenged, citing errors and unreliability. The CIT(A) deleted a significant portion of the addition relating to the building but sustained an addition for plant and machinery.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had given a well-reasoned order, rightly accepting the revised valuation report for the building. Regarding plant and machinery, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision, upholding the deletion of a part of the addition and sustaining another part.
Key Issues
Whether the valuation reports were reliable and whether additions made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in building and plant/machinery were justified, considering the errors pointed out by the assessee.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 69B, 271(1)(c), 35AD, 56(2)(viib), 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH,
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
Revenue are preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 14.02.2023 for A.Y 2017-18.
[A.Y. 2017-18] Assessee’s appeal
2. The grievances of the Assessee read as under:
“1. The subject valuation report has chosen higher valuations for the machinery as a figment of pure imagination without giving any basis thereto, and such report could not be made basis for the impugned additions.
The value of machinery has been capitalised by the Appellant on the basis of proper bills / invoices and the same cannot be ignored without any basis in making the subject additions on the basis of a faulty valuation report.
3. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has sustained the subject additions based on imaginary installation charges, which is unjustified.
An offer letter is always issued on the basis of estimations w.r.t. to the quantity and specifications of the items required, and the Purchase Invoice is issued on the basis of actual items sold. It is very normal that both the documents may have some variations because of Page 2 of 19 & 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15] Sneh Qualiy Spices the requirement assessed correctly at the time of installation, commissioning, etc. Rejection of such a document is highly unjustified.
5. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has sustained the subject additions based on the installation charges that were not part of the Departmental Valuation Report in the first place and are a pure figment of imagination, which is highly unjustified.
6. There can be no inference with regard to having undisclosed investments u/s 69B merely with reference to the opinion of the Valuation Officer in absence of any evidence regarding such additional outlay, as per the judgement given by various Hon'ble Courts, and therefore the subject addition is bad in law.
The Ld. A.O. has failed to appreciate the fact that value given in a valuation report is merely an estimate, and cannot become the grounds of addition without any further basis.”
ITA No. 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15]
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 9,87,63,400/-, on account of addition u/s 69B in respect of cost of cold storage/ structure/ building. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the Assessing Officer has not mentioned why the revised report of the DVO was not acceptable, when specific
Page 3 of 19 & 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15] Sneh Qualiy Spices findings have been given by the Assessing Officer at Para 3.9 of the assessment order.
3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that authorised valuation report dated 01.06.2017 already considered the objection of the assessee and the physical availability of structure and other fixed asset item at that time.
4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in taking cognizance of revised valuation report of DVO, ignoring the fact that revised valuation report dated 16.12.2019 was prepared after a period of two and half years, and change in the structure in the period between authorised and revised valuation report cannot be ruled out. Under these circumstances, authorised valuation report shows more true statement of affairs compared to revised valuation report and should have been considered for the purpose of assessment.
5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that the revised valuation report cannot be considered for the purposes of Income Tax Act, 1961, as the Assessing Officer never referred the matter to the valuation officer for furnishing revised valuation report.
6. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the AO had withdrawn the show cause notice dated 20.12.2019 on the basis of revised valuation report, without assigning any reason, when in show cause notice dated
Page 4 of 19 & 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15] Sneh Qualiy Spices 28.12.2019, the AO has clearly specified that the earlier show cause notice was wrongly issued.
7. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 76,92,927/-, on account of addition u/s 69B in respect of cost of cold storage machinery installed during the year.
8. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that the valuation has been done on a particular date considering the bills/vouchers and value decided by DVO is irrespective of assets capitalization in different FYs.
9. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law.
10. The grounds of appeal
are without prejudice to each other.
11. The appellant craves to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.”
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Spices & Kiryana items during the year under consideration. The assessee filed its Return of Income on 30.11.2014 declaring an income of (-) Rs. 11,94,75,549/-. Return was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. In its computation of income, the assessee indicated that it had claimed a deduction u/s 35AD amounting to Page 5 of 19 & 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15] Sneh Qualiy Spices Rs 11,90,72,918/-. Thereafter, assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 21.12.2016 at a total loss of Rs. 10,07,51,549/- with following additions: a. Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35AD Rs. 73,99,500/- b. Addition u/s unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Rs. 1,07,00,000/- (c) Disallowance u/s 56(2)(viib) Rs. 6,24,500/- Total Addition Rs 1,87,24,000/-
During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed a sum of Rs 5,39,90,000/- as cost of construction of cold storage unit at village Bazidpur- Saboli, Pio-Maniyari, Narela Road, Sonepat, Haryana. Since, the investment was made in land and building and also new plant and machinery was installed by the assessee, two separate references were made for valuation of both type of assets. Since no report was received till the completion of assessment, the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act without considering any adverse impact.
When the Assessing Officer received the valuation reports, he found certain variations in the total values declared by the assessee and the valuation officers. The Assessing Officer rejected the revised valuation report of the DVO and adopted the 1st Valuation report and accordingly an Page 6 of 19 & 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15] Sneh Qualiy Spices amount of Rs. 11,12,94,857/- was added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69B of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,05,43,310/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately.
7. The assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the order of the Assessing Officer. After considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the grounds of appeal of the assessee challenging the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. However, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition amounting to Rs. 9,87,63,400 on account of addition u/s 69B in respect of cold storage/structure/building and Rs. 76,92,927/- on account of addition u/s 69B in respect of cold storage machinery installed during the year.
8. Now, both the assessee and the Revenue are aggrieved against the action of the ld. CIT(A) and are in appeal before us.
9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the 1st Valuation report had many inconsistency which rebutted by the Assessee and confronted to the DVO, resulted in an admission by the DVO that his valuation could need revision. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the DVO has also made reference to the value as Page 7 of 19 & 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15] Sneh Qualiy Spices per Income tax Rules. When the assessee gets construction done, or purchases machinery, the cost thereof is as per market forces, and not Income tax Rules. To seek to match the same is a technical exercise at best.
Even otherwise, the ld. counsel for the assessee continued by saying that on a comparison of the two sets of reports, once the errors of the DVO are taken aside, all that remains is a difference of opinion on the value of identical construction and machinery. It is the say of the ld AR that on a perusal of the two sets of reports, it may be seen that both quantitatively tally as to the quantum of machinery deployed.
The ld AR of the Assessee pointed out only three out of several basic errors in the DVO report:
• Item at Serial No.16 of the Building Report (Page 18) values 'PUF
Panel & PUF Slat at Rs. 1.44 crores. This is actually not part of Building but Machinery, and DVO himself has valued the same as part of Machinery also at Serial No.1, 2, & 3 of his report on Macy • Similarly, Item at Serial No.6 of the Building Report (Page 18) values
Metallic Swing/11 Doors as part of Building. The very same item has also been included by DVD as part of Machinery also Page 8 of 19 & 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15] Sneh Qualiy Spices • While DVO has correctly measured size of Mezzanine room for Level
2 of Building at 91 8 sq. metres, he has reckoned the Mezzanine rooms at Level 4, 6, & 7 incorrectly at 1,571.08 sq. metres, ie, equal to the size of a complete floor (Page 7 of DVO Report); • Block A of the Building has been taken by DVO as part of the Cold
Storage, though it was never a part of the said Cold Storage (Page 7 of DVO Report), In the list of structures in Black A is a "Shed', which no reasonable person can reckon as part of a Cold Storage
The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that since the assessee's claim u/s 35AD is duly allowed in assessment after enquiry, if the addition on account of valuation of cost of Infrastructure and plant and machinery, is made to the cost the asset itself, the Assessee would in fact benefit from the same, since 150% of the reckoned as additional cost would become eligible to deduction for the Cold Storage facility.
The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued that as the DVO report was not received within 6 months, the same can not be used for making addition and relied upon the following case laws: a) ITO Vs. Neumec Builders & Developers 104 ITR 62 b) Zulfi Revdjee Vs. ACIT 75 ITR 219
Page 9 of 19 & 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15] Sneh Qualiy Spices 14. Per contra, the ld. DR vehemently relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. The ld DR argued that the 2nd report of the DVO has to be rejected as the DVO exceeded his jurisdiction. When the assessee pointed out inconsistency in the 1st report, the AO forwarded the objections of the assessee to the DVO for his comments. Instead of providing comments, the DVO “re-estimated the cost of investment in construction of building/infrastructure (only cold storage) as per direction of the AO”. It is the say of the ld DR that no such re-estimation of cost was requested by the AO and he only asked for comments on the objections of the assessee on the 1st DVO report.
We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) at Paras 7 and 8 pages 62 to 68 of his order has dealt with the issues as under:
“7. Ground nos.1 to 9: In these grounds, the appellant has challenged the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment of Rs. 11,12,94,857/-u/s 69B which was computed on the basis of reports of Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The computation of unexplained investment as adopted by the AO u/s 69B of the Act is reproduced as under:
Page 10 of 19 & 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15] Sneh Qualiy Spices
Particulars Declared Estimate Difference by the Valuation Cell assessee (Rs) (Rs) Cold Building/ 5,39,90,0 00/- 15,27,53,400/- Rs 9,87,63,400/- structure storage Cold Storage 2,17,54,5457/- 3,42,86,002/- Rs 1,25,31,457/- Machinery Total 7,57,44,545/- 18,70,39,402/- Rs.11,12,94,857/-
7.1 The AO has observed in the assessment order that the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and it was noted in the computation of income that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 35AD. References to District Valuation Officer (DVO), Jaipur and Valuation Officer (P&M), (VO) Income Tax Department, Delhi was made during the assessment proceedings by the AO for Valuation of cost of investment made by the appellant in the construction of cold storage building and plant & machinery respectively. The assessment was concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 21.12.2016 pending the receipt of Valuation Reports by the DVOs. The AO has further observed that huge difference was found in the declared value of investment by the assessee and the amount estimated by the Valuation Officers. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened u/s 147/148 of the IT Act vide notice dated 27.03.2019. The AO has further noted that the Valuation Reports and reasons for reopening of case were provide to the appellant and objections filed by the appellant were duly disposed off. The objections received from the appellant regarding the Valuation of the building was referred back to the DVO and revised computation of variation in values were received. In the revised estimation DVO has estimated cost of investment of building at Rs. 5,44,68,600/- against the previous estimation of Rs.15,27,53,400/. In para 3.7 of the assessment order the AO has recorded that the DVO Jaipur submitted his revised valuation report wherein the estimated value of investment has been reduced substantially. He has further noted that he had sought comments of DVO on the objections raised by the assessee whereas the DVO submitted revised valuation report in his own volition which cannot be Page 11 of 19 & 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15] Sneh Qualiy Spices accepted. Thus rejecting the revised valuation report the AO made addition of the differential amount between the original valuation by the DVO and the amount declared by the appellant. 7.2 The appellant submitted that the original valuation report estimated the cost of investment at Rs. 15,27,53,400/ as against the revised estimation of Rs.5,44,68,600/-. The original valuation report was full of errors those were evident on the face of the report therefore, the same was not reliable. The appellant listed major variations in the original DVO'S report which are listed as under: a. The building was constructed with the basement alongwith two floors having temporary wooden levels was valued as an eight storeyed building, resulting in massive overvaluation. b. Certain items that formed part of the plant and machinery were included in the valuation report for cold storage building as well, thereby forming part of both the valuation reports resulting in double counting. For eg. The "Metallic swing/ hinged doors" at Sl. No.6 on Page 18 of the subject valuation report for Rs. 15,94,260/- are part of plant and machinery and included in the plant and machinery valuation report too a liem No.5 in Annexure 2(A). The same is true for Item No. 16 on Page 18 of the subject valuation report "PUF panels & PUF slab" for Rs. 1,44,40,730/ - which has not been part of the buildings and was also included in the plant and machinery valuation report too Sl No. 1, 2 and 3 in Annexure 2(A). c. Major areas of construction have not been taken as per the actual measurements and there were significant mistakes. d. While the Ld. Valuation Officer was to value only the cold storage building, two additional buildings were also included in the subject valuation report as Block A (Front Part) and Block B (Rear Part), valued at a total of Rs. 7,51,45,589/-, thus inflated the value."
Page 12 of 19 & 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15] Sneh Qualiy Spices
The appellant submitted that there were gross mistakes in the original valuation report which were apparent on its face. Therefore, this report was not reliable the revised valuation report was prepared by the same office in which these mistakes were removed. 7.3 I have carefully examined the assessment order and the submission of the appellant. 1 have also perused the original valuation report along with the revised report from the office of District Valuation Officer, Jaipur. DVO in his revised valuation report dated 16.12.2019 has addressed the objections raised by the appellant and the comments of the AO in para 9 of the report titled as "special observations" which is reproduced as under: 9 SPECIAL OBSERVATIONS 9.1 This valuation report is for building works ie Block B (Cold storage) only and does not include cost of Land, Godown unit, Spice processing unit, Security Guard Room. Boundary Wall, Plant & Machinery, Movable items, Furniture, Computers. Air conditioning, DG sets, any special treatment in cold storage building etc. 9.2 This office has furnished report for whole premises and issued vide no. DVO/ITD//pr/IT-10/2016-17/39 Dated 01.06.2017 for Rs: 26.57.47,300/-. After contention of the assessee, that this office considered whole premises in previous valuation report along with Semi Permanent worden floors of Cold storage as "Mezzanine floors work out as per Plinth Area Rate. 9.3 Subsequently, the letter of ACIT vide no. ACIT/C- 24(1)/DVO Letter/2019-20/662 dated 29.11.2019 vide which it was requested to offer comments on Assessee submission/ objection. ACIT again vide letter their mail dated 03.12.2019 has requested to work out the valuation of Cold Storage unit only. 9.4 In view of above, This office reinspect the property on 04.12.2019 of Cold Storage only & worked out the cost of this Semi Permanent wooden floors item separately on the basis of rate analysis (Detailed calculation as per sheet attached). Clear explanation to this issue has already been incorporated in the report & work out the cost of building work of Block B i.e. Cold Storage Building only. Page 13 of 19 & 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15] Sneh Qualiy Spices
The awswssee has not attended the date of scorelation at construction. He has given uspendre detale for FY 2012/11 2011 14 & 2014 15. Therefore the date of start al completion has beze considered de 01.04.2012 and 31.03.2015 respectively. 9.6 Assessor vide his letter no. Nil Dated 03.12.2019 informed that he procurred material & sell supervise the construction AD may check in his own by vouchers & payment details in respect of self procurement of material & wages paul for landors 9:7 The Cold Storage Building Block B was having very inferior specification from a normal public school building as per PAll Therefore plinth area rate for normal school building is being considered anth suitable adjustment factors as per site condition and architecture. 9.8 Measurements were rechecked during revnspectioncon. dated 04.12 2019 and found same as per previous report. Accordingly this "Revised Valuation Report has been prepared. 9.9 it would be appreciated that the report of this office has been prepared in a fair & transparent manner & is a speaking report and the assessee has not pointed out any other deficiency in the previous report of this office & therefore no further comments are offered regarding assessee submission 10 VALUATION 10 Having considered the documents furnished by the Assessing Officer and the assessee and having taken into consideration all relevant materials gathered, 1 estimate the cost of investment in construction of building structure as follows: XXXX 7.4 The AO has not mentioned in his assessment order why the revised report of the DVO was not acceptable to him. The revised report of DVO was repared after considering the objections raised by the assessee which was provided to him by the AO. The DVO realized mistakes in the original report on the representation of the appellant and corrected the same after conducting fresh inspection. The AO too
Page 14 of 19 & 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15] Sneh Qualiy Spices had issued show cause notice dated 20.12.2019 on the basis of revised valuation report which was later on withdrawn without assigning any valid and justifiable reasons. 7.5 In view of the above facts and the observations of DVO in his revised valuation report I find that the revised valuation report cannot be rejected. Having said as above it is noted that the difference in the value declared by the assessee and the value estimated by the valuation Officer is Rs.4,78,600/- which is less than 1% of the estimated value. The variation in the value estimated by the DVO and that has been declared by the assessee is not significant and may be considered as acceptable margin of error. The reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. 25 taxmann.com 210, and Agile Properties (P) Ltd. 45 taxman.com 512 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese 131 ITR 597 (SC) In view of above facts and judicial precedence, the addition made by the AO on account of difference in the valuation of cost of investment in building amounting to Rs.9,87,63,400/- is deleted.
Ground nos. 10 to 16: In these grounds the appellant has challenged the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.1,25,31,457/ on account of unexplained investment in plant & machinery. The AO has observed in the assessment order that the plant & machinery was valued by the Valuation Officer (VO) at Rs.3,42,86,002/- against the value adopted by the appellant in its books at Rs.2,17,54,545/-. The appellant in the written submission has stated that the Valuation Officer visited its premises on 23.06.2017 and included all the machineries existing in the cold storage on the date of his visit and not upto F.Y. 2013- 14 as referred by the AO. The appellant has pointed out that the value of Plant & Machinery was estimated by the VO at Rs.3,42,86,002/- considering the total value of machineries declared by the appellant in its books on the date of inspection which Rs.2,94,47,472/-. The machineries purchased / capitalized during the later years amounting to Rs.76,92,927/- were unjustifiably included in the report whereas the report was issued for and up to FY. 2013- 14 only. The appellant submitted that it had purchased 4 chambers of air conditioning for a total value of Rs.2,94,47,472/- which was capitalized as under:
Page 15 of 19 & 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15] Sneh Qualiy Spices
Date of Amount capitalization 01.01.2014 Rs.72,51,515/- 01.02.2014 Rs. 72,51,515/- 01.03.2014 Rs. 72,51,515/- 30.06.2014 Rs.76,92,927/- Total Rs.2,94,47,472/-
8.1 The appellant further submitted that against the above purchases an amount of Rs. 2,17,54,545/- was capitalized during the year under appeal and the balance amount of Rs. 72,51,515/- was kept under work in progress and was capitalized during the subsequent year with further addition of Rs. 4,41,412/. On perusal of valuation report and the balance sheet of the appellant, it is noted that the valuation officer has also incorporated plant and machinery in his valuation report which were capitalized by the appellant in subsequent year. It is also noted that the invoices in respect of machinery worth Rs. 72,51,515/ were though raised during the year under consideration but it was not capitalized. The valuation officer has valued plant and machinery on the basis of invoices received by the appellant during the year under consideration not on the basis of capitalization thereof. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the VO has wrongly included the plant and machinery amounting to Rs.76,92,927/- which were capitalized on 30.06.2014 in its valuation report for the A.Y. 2014-15. Accordingly, valuation of machinery in AY 2014-15 is arrived at Rs.2,65,93,075/- by reducing Rs.76,92,927/- from the total estimated value of Rs.3,42,86,002/ in the valuation report. During the appellate proceeding the appellant was asked to explain the difference in the valuation of machinery in its books vis-a-vis the valuation report. It was noted that the appellant had produced invoices for the supply of plant and machinery to AO and VO which evidently does not include the charges for installation, commissioning and testing etc. Therefore, appellant was asked to substantiate its valuation during the appellate proceedings. The appellant, vide its letter dated 16.03.2023 had submitted "Offer for Proposed Cold-Storage" dated 15.03.2013 from Controlled Atmospheric Technologies. The appellant however did not submit the copy of purchase order or the works
Page 16 of 19 & 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15] Sneh Qualiy Spices contract with the supplier. The offer letter is for 6000 MT cold- storage and contains different items for supply. It also does not match with the final supply/invoices. It is noted that this letter has quite different terms of payment and scope of work and is in the nature of turnkey project in which running bills were supposed to be raised on pro rata basis that is not in line with the invoices submitted by the appellant. Further, quantity and capacity of various items mentioned in the offer letter are different from the invoices raised by the supplier and physically found by the Valuation Officer, For example; in the offer letter Air Cum Water Cooler Refrigerator System are 36 in number whereas the invoices were raised for 38 such items which were also confirmed in Valuation Report. The rates and quantities of items in offer letter are different from, invoices raised and as mentioned in valuation report. Therefore, it cannot be considered as reliable document in absence of signed contract. In such circumstances the offer letter submitted by the appellant is rejected. The valuation report was prepared on the basis of physical inspection by the experts; therefore, it is more authentic and reliable. Valuation Officer has valued P&M on the basis of invoices produced by the appellant and estimated the cost and also apparently considered cost incurred in installation, commissioning and testing of such products based on physical inspection, assessment and actual quantitative measurements of items/works. Therefore, the differential amount of Rs.48,38,530/- (Rs.2,65,93,075 - 2,17,54,545) is considered unexplained. Accordingly, addition of Rs.48,38,530/- is sustained on account of unexplained investment in plant and machinery and balance amount of Rs. 76,92,927/- is deleted.”
We are of the view that the CIT(A) has given a well reasoned order .
He has rightly accepted the DVO 2nd and revised report. The AO had requested for comments of the DVO on the objections of the assessee and the DVO after considering the objections of the assessee has revised the Page 17 of 19 & 1740/DEL/2023 [A.Y. 2014-15] Sneh Qualiy Spices report. The CIT(A), finding a small variation in the revised report, deleted the addition which we endorse. As regard the unexplained investment in Plant and Machinery, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A). The grounds of appeal of assessee is dismissed. The grounds of appeal of Revenue is also dismissed. well the appeal of the Revenue in is also dismissed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 10.11.2025