ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. RITU SINGAL, NEW DELHI

Date of Hearing : 21-04-2016 Date of Order : 04-05-2016

ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 05/7/2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-I), New Delhi on the following grounds:-

“1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty imposed by AO u/s. 271AAA of the IT

Act amounting to Rs. 2 crores on the surrender of Rs. 20 Crores, as the assessee had not sustained the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived with any corroborative evidence.

3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal

before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.”

The assessee had filed return of income for AY 2010-11, electronically, declaring an income of Rs. 20,47,14,190/- on 31.7.2010. The notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee on 13.1.2011. Another notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 11.2.2011. Thereafter, order u/s. 143(3) was passed on 30.12.2011 assessing the total income of Rs. 20,47,14,190/- at the returned income. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee had made the disclosure of undisclosed income earned during financial year 2009-10 (relevant to assessment year 2010-11) to the extent of Rs. 20 Crores during the course of search and post search proceedings on the basis of seized material found during the course of search. It was further noted by the AO that the provisions of section 271AAA of the I.T.

Act, 1961 are applicable with respect to the undisclosed income found during the course of search and declared by the assessee in her return of income for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAA during the assessment proceedings on the ground that assessee had not specified the manner in which the undisclosed income was earned and also failed to substantiate, it and accordingly, imposed the penalty of Rs. 2 Crore on the assessee for such failure by passing an order dated 27.6.2012 u/s. 271AAA of the I.T. Act, 1961.

The said relevant paras of the impugned order are reproduced as under:-

“3.1 The only ground of appeal is against the penalty. of Rs.2,OO,OO,000/- imposed u/s 271AAA. The submissions filed on behalf of the appellant are as under:

"The reasons and arguments put forth by the Learned Assessing Officer for levying the said penalty are reproduced as under:-

"(1 ) Smt. Ritu Singal during the course of search disclosed Rs. 20,00,00,000/- as her undisclosed income.

In the written submissions, the assessee has only vaguely stated that the money was derived out of property transactions and forward market transaction for which no record whatsoever were maintained. However, the Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act uses the word "substantiates the manner" with respect to the manner of deriving the income in order for the income to be not treated as undisclosed income. Whereas the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was earned.

(2) Section 271AAA reads as under:

The Assessing Officer may. notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee shall pay way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any payable by him a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year.

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply if the assessee:

(i) In the course of search, in a statement under sub section (4) of section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived.

(ii) Substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived; and (iii) Pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income"

(a) Although the assessee has fulfilled the first and the third condition so as to get immunity from penalty u/s 271AAA in so far as the disclosure of Rs. 16,00,00,000/- is concerned (out of total disclosure of Rs. 20,00,00,000/-) but she has not fulfilled the second condition i.e. assessee has not substantiated the manner inwhich the undisclosed income was derived with any corroborative evidence.

(b) The assessee has not fulfilled the first part of the first condition and the second condition so as to get immunity from penalty u/s 271AAA in so far as the disclosure of Rs. 4,OO,OO,OOO/- (out of total disclosure of Rs. 20,00,00,000/-) is concerned. She has not disclosed it during statement recorded u/s 132(4) but has disclosed Rs. 4,00,00,000/- only after the search i.e, during post search proceedings. Also she has not substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived with any corroborative evidence.

In view of the above discussion, I am satisfied that the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271AAA @ 10% for the undisclosed income of Rs. 20.00,00,000/- for the assessment year 2010-11. Hence a penalty of Rs. 2,00,00,0001- is hereby imposed.

In this connection, the following submissions are being made for and on behalf of the Appellant: _ (l) A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 took place at the residential and other premises of the Appellant and various family members of the group on 04-03-2010 wherein an aggregate disclosure of additional income for A/Y 2010-11 of Rs. 200 crores was made for the entire group out of which Rs. 20 crores was made by the Appellant herself.

(2) The amount surrendered represented additional income earned by the Appellant as a result of various forward/speculative and property transactions carried out by her during the period from 01.04.2009 to 02.03.2010, (relevant to A/Y 2010-1]).

(3) During the course of the search at the residential premises of the Appellant on 04 March 2010, certain documents relating to transactions in properties undertaken by her were found and seized as per page Nos. 81 of Annexure A-3 in SR-4. As per the said papers the Appellant had an outstanding of a sum of Rs. 16,00,00,000/- from various persons which was duly disclosed as additional income for AY 2010-11 while making a statement u/s 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As per the said statement, the Appellant had admitted that she had entered into various forward/speculative and property transactions during the period from 01.04.2009 to 04.03.2010 (i.e. Financial Year 2009-10 relevant to Assessment Year 2010-11).

Keeping in view the same the income of Rs. 20,00,00,000/- arising out of the said transactions was declared in the statement recorded during the course of search u/s 132 which included the said amount as disclosed in page No. 81 of Annexure A-3 in SR-4.

Subsequently, the taxes due thereon were also paid and the said income declared in the return of income filed for Assessment Year 2010-11.

(4) For facility of reference and as an aid for further analysis and discussion the relevant part of the statement recorded during the course of search is as follows:-

'Q.5 I am drawing your attention towards Annexure A3 at page No. 81. Please identify the same and explain the contents thereof.

Ans. Yes. I agree that this paper belongs to me only and has been written under my hand writing. I had advanced the following amounts to the following person.- Name of the Person Amount

Total 16,00,00,000/- The above amounts were advanced to the above persons in the financial year 2009-10.

Q. 6. What is the source of the above advance of Rs. 16 crores.

Ans. The above amount of Rs. 16 crore is my unaccounted income for F.Y. 2009-10 relevant for AY 2010-11. I accept the above mentioned amount of Rs. 16 crores as my undisclosed income for the AY 2010-11 and on which tax is due will be paid in due course of time.

The surrender is being made subject to no penal action u/s 271(1)(c).

(5) The matter relating to specifying the source of such additional income and the manner in which it was earned was also raised in the Investigation proceedings before the Ld. Assistant Director of Income Tax (lnv) Unit VI(3) and before the Ld Assistant Commissioner of Income- Tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi during the assessment proceedings to which replies dated 30-06-2010 and 25-07-2011 were duly filed (copies enclosed). The replies further duly specify and substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income has been earned.

(6) It should be specifically and pertinently noted here that that the said documents and the consequent surrender was duly accepted (both with respect to the quantum and the manner in which the income had been earned) during the investigation as well as assessment proceedings. In fact a review of the entire sequence and record of proceedings would make it undoubtedly and emphatically clear that no further doubt or question arose in the minds of the authorities at any stage to question further the manner in which the income had been earned/derived and the need for any further clarification or enquiries in this regard.

(7) The relevant part of Section 271AAA of the Income- tax Act, 1961 on the basis of which penalty has been levied against the Appellant reads as follows:-

"271AAA. (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year.

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply if the assessee;

(i) In the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specified the manner in which such income has been derived Substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived; and (ii) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income.

(8) Further the explanation to the said section provides that for the purpose of the said section "undisclosed income" means (i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly OR partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery Of other valuable article or things or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has - (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year; or (B) otherwise not been disclosed to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner before the date of search; or (ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any entry in respect of an expenses recorded in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to the specified previous year which is found to be false and would not have been found to be so had the search not been conducted.

(9) The above section, inserted into the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2007 provides that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after Ist June, 2007, the Appellant shall be liable to pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any payable by him, a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year.

However, the said penalty is not leviable, if an Appellant in a statement recorded during the course of search uls 132 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 > admits the undisclosed income; > specifies and substantiates the manner in which it has been derived; and > pay the taxes due thereon together with interest.

(10) In the given case, while the issue of payment of taxes together with the applicable interest thereto is not in dispute, the only issue that can, if at all, give rise to the question of levy of penalty is whether the manner in which the, undisclosed income has been derived is specified and substantiated, which question in the instant case is undeniably and undisputedly settled in favour of the Appellant, as would be clear from the foregoing discussion and as further amplified hereinafter.

(11) In order to escape the rigors of penalty uls 271 AAA, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 an Appellant is required to specify and substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived. The question of specifying the manner in which the income has been derived is duly answered with reference to the fact that the same is relatable to undisclosed forward/speculative transactions and property transactions carried out by him. In so far as the question of substantiating i.e. providing facts to support the surrender made and the manner in which the income has been derived is considered the said test stands duly affirmed by the documents seized during the course of search which duly prove the fact of undisclosed income having been derived from the forward/speculative and property transactions.

It should be remembered here that the Appellant is an individual who took decisions on his own and was, accordingly, neither obliged to nor had the necessary infrastructure to maintain detailed records. However, the surrender stood substantiated with reference to the documents found during the course of search u/s 132 of the "Act" and a reasonable estimate of the amount of income attributable to such activities arrived at on the basis of discussions between the concerned authorized officer who conducted the search and the Appellant.

Accordingly the amount surrendered represented the undisclosed income relatable to the aforementioned activities and the Department was itself suo-moto, convinced as to the quantum of undisclosed income attributable to such activities and the manner of its earning as would be evident from it being accepted as such in the assessment proceedings. As such the question of specifying and substantiating the manner in which the income has been earned gets settled in the Appellant's favour. It would be relevant to mention here that given the fact that it is a search case, the question of specifying and substantiating the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived can be somewhat general and omnibus and no precise calculations or computations can be done with reference thereto.

(12) An overview of the provisions of S 271AAA of the Act will make it clear that no penalty is leviable in case an Appellant discloses and substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was earned and pays the taxes due thereon with interest. In the instant case the Appellant had disclosed the manner in which the income has been earned and the same has also got substantiated with reference to the documents seized during the course of search and accordingly the question of levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 gets answered in the negative.

(13) It would also be worthwhile to mention here that the question of specifying the substantiating the manner in which the income has been earned also gets emphatically answered in the affirmative upon a review of the entire assessment records and investigation proceedings. The very fact that the amount surrendered was duly accepted as such by the various authorities and assessment completed on that very basis leads to the unimpeachable conclusion as to authentication, veracity and genuineness of the same. At no stage of the investigation or assessment proceedings has any doubt been raised as to the quantum of the amount surrendered, or the manner in which the same has been arrived or further queries raised asking the Appellant to substantiate and "specify' and "substantiate" the same further nor do the contents of the assessment order exhibit any such adverse conclusion in this regard specially keeping in mind that it was a block assessment carried out pursuant to a search u/s 132 which entailed a complete, thoroughly and exhaustive investigation of the entire case. The fact that the amount surrendered has been accepted suo-moto by the Department by itself leads to the irrefutable conclusion that the question of specifying and substantiating the manner in which it has been earned has been answered to the satisfaction of the investigation as were as assessing authorities. Moreover it needs to be understood that in the absence of any specific format/procedure prescribed in the Act for specifying and substantiating the undisclosed Income, the fact that the same has accepted, without any variation by the Ld. Assessing Officer is by itself enough evidence of the said criteria having been met and satisfied (14) The above view also get affirmed by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Nashik vs. Smt Inderchand Surajmal Bothra (ITA No. 139/PN/2010) wherein in the context: of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)( c) of the Act (the corresponding predecessor of Section 271 AAA), the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have held as follows:-

"We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties. Certain undisputed material facts are that when search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on Bothara group of cases on 22nd November, 2006, the time for filing of return of income u/s 139(1) for the A. Y.

2007-08 was still available. In the statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, the assessee had declared additional income of Rs. 10,00,000/- being income from water tanker supply business. In the return of income filed u/s 153A, the assessee declared the total income consisting additional income of Rs. 10,00,000/- declared u/s 132(4), of the Act. The AO has assessed the total income of the assessee for the A.Y. by accepting the income returned without making any addition. The A.O has levied the penalty stating that the assessee cannot be given benefit of Explanation 5 to Section 271 (1)( c) of the Act as the clause (ii) of Explanation 5 below Section 271(1)(c) exempts only that part of the income from the penal provision, which is covered by statement uls 132(4), where the assets have been acquired by the assessee out of his income which is not disclosed in the return of income to be furnished before the expiry of the time prescribed in section 139(1) and specified in the statement in the manner in which such income has been derived. We thus find that the A.O has levied the penalty mainly with this allegation that the assessee has not specified in its statement uls 132(4) the manner in which such income had been derived. We do not find substance in such view of the A.O since undisputedly, the additional income of Rs. 10,00,000/- was declared by the assessee in his statements u/s 132(4) of the Act and also offered the same to tax in its return of income filed u/s. 139 of the Act. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah[(2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj)], followed by the Ld CIT(A), it has been held that it is not required to specify the manner in which the income was earned in respect of the amount offered to tax in the return of income filed pursuant to search action by paying taxes thereon for availing immunity from penalty under Explanation 5 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The same decision has been relied upon by the Ld A.R. before us. Since the issue raised is fully covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of err vs. Mahendra C Shah (Supra) followed by the Ld CIT(A), we are not inclined to interfere with the first appellate order in this regard. The same is upheld. The grounds are accordingly rejected.

(15) It would be relevant to mention here that Explanation 5 to sec 271(1)( c) provided that no penalty could be levied in respect of undisclosed income in a case where the Appellant "specifies" the manner in which the income has been derived and pays the tax, together with interest or such income. As such Explanation 5 to sec 271(I)(c) and sec 271AAA being pari-materia, the above decision would apply with equal force in the instant case.

(16) In this connection Your Honour's attention IS also invited to the decision dt 20/07/2012 of the Cuttack Bench of the Hon'ble Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Sri Pramod Kumar Jain vs Deputy Commissioner of Bargarh Income tax, Circle 2(1) and M/s JRC Resources (P) Ltd vs Sambalpur c/o Shri S S Agrawal, Advocate, Hospital Road Bargarh in 132 and 133/CTK/2012 wherein it was held (following an earlier decision dated 22.12.2011 of the same bench in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Others in ITA no. 476 to 480/CTKJ2011)that having accepted the surrendered income on the basis of returns filed by an Assessee satisfaction as to the specifying and substantiating the manner in which the same has been earned gets answered automatically. In this regard the following comments of the Hon'ble Income-Tax. Appellate Tribunal are topical and relevant:

"We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to hold that no definition could be given to the "specified manner" insofar as the very statement on oath u/s 132(4) specifies the manner on which the assessee is prepared to pay tax thereon. The inscribing in the books of account was taken care of by the assessee when he filed the returns in pursuance to notice uls 153A accounting the assets. Therefore, the case laws cited at the Bar clearly indicate that the penalty is not automatic if one of the purported condition is not fulfilled although all the conditions have been agreed to of having fulfilled by the Assessing Officer insofar as the tax and interest has been recovered. Penalty has been levied after the tax has been recovered therefore answers the queries raised by the Learned DR for that the said provisions become redundant was not the intention of the legislation. The manner, during the search operation, is noted by the search party which the Assessing Officer has acceded to. Therefore, following the decisions as relied upon by the Learned counsel for the 23 assessee, wherein the Tribunal was pleased to consider cancelling the penalty so levied are also applicable to the assesses case before us insofar as there is no prescribed method to indicate the manner in which income was generated when the definition of "undisclosed income" has been defined in the Act itself 'when no income of the specified previous year represented "either wholly or partly" which onus lay upon the assessee stood discharged. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the levy of penalty u/s 271 AAA in the instant cases are not justified and as such, we cancel the penalty so levied u/s 271AAA for the A/Ys under consideration in the case of respective assessees.'

(17) The above view also has been subsequently endorsed by various Benches of the Hon'ble ITAT in the following cases:- i) Mothers Pride Education Personna Pvt Ltd vs DCIT, CC 5 in (ii) Sulochanadevi A. Agarwal, Surat vs epartment of Income Tax in ITA no. 1052/Ahd/2012 It is respectfully submitted that the appeal against the levying of penalty of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- may kindly be decided in favour of the Appellant" in view of the averments made above."

3.2 Section 271AAA was introduced w.e.f 1.4.2007. Thereafter, another section 271AAB has been introduced w.e.f. 1.7.2012. Prior to these provisions, the applicable provisions were section 271(i)(c) read with Explanation 5 hereto in respect of a search initiated u/s 132 before 1.7.2007, and section 271(i)(c) read with Explanation 5A thereto in respect of a search initiated u/s 132 after 1.7.2007. The comparative chart given below clarifies these schemes of concealment penalty under the Income Tax Act, 1961:

For searches conducted 1.7.2012 onwards 1.6.2007 to Prior to in the period 30.6.2012 1.6.2007 A B C D Admits UDI u/s 134(4), NIL NIL NIL Specifies the manner. Substantiates the manner. Includes UDI in the return filed, Pays tax & interest thereon.

NIL Admits UDI u/s 134(4). Penalty of 10% on income Penalty of 10% on Specifies the manner, Includes sought to he evaded u/s income sought to 27JAAB(l)(a) UDI in the return filed. Pays be evaded u/s tax & interest thereon. 27IAAA Does not admit UDI u/s Penalty of 20% on income Penalty of 10% on 100% to 300% of 134(4), Includes UDI in the sought to be evaded u/s income sought to the fax sought to return filed, Pays fax & 271AAB(l)(b) :. be evaded u/s be evaded u/s interest thereon. 27IAAA 271(1)(c)

Cases other than those Penalty of 30% -90% on 100% to 300% of 100% to 300% of specified above income sought to be the tax sought to the tax sought to evaded u/s27IAAB(1)(c) be be evaded u/s evaded u/s 271(1)(c) 271(1) (c)

3.3 Keeping in view the above provisions of law and changes brought therein, in the case of Sh. . Neeraj Singhal for AY 2010-11 (Appeal No.51112-13) vide my order dated 17.12.2012, I have held as under:

“I have considered the assessment order and submissions filed by the appellant. From the chart given in para 3.3 above, it is clear that to escape the penalty of 10% on undisclosed income admitted during the course of search, the taxpayer has to fulfill the clause “substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived.” Search in the case was conducted on 3.3.2010. Therefore, the law applicable is as per Column C in the table given in para 3.3 above. The AO has held in this case that the appellant has not substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived to the extent of Rs. 90,00,00,000/- and has also failed to disclose the sum of Rs.35,00,00,000/- in the statement recorded u/s 132(4). The AO, therefore, imposed penalty @10 % on the entire amount of Rs.125,00,00,000/-. What would constitute "substantiates" in section 271AAA (2) (ii) is nowhere indicated and this word itself is not defined anywhere in the Act. The law provides that where a word is not defined, the ordinary and common sense meaning of the. word is to be. construed. The word ‘substantiate' is defined as to "provide evidence to support or prove the truth of" in the Oxford dictionary (source Internet). In the present case, admittedly, the undisclosed income was on the basis of documents seized during the course of search. On the basis of the seized documents (primary evidence in the case), the advances outstanding to the appellant from various persons as on 31.1.2010 was found to be Rs.69 crore and in another document the appellant was shown to have advanced an amount of Rs.3 crore on 9.6.2009 for purchase of a property at Q I- A, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi. Based on these documents, the appellant admitted an amount of Rs.90 crore as his undisclosed income in his statement recorded uls 132(4). As to the question about the source of the amount of Rs.69 crore, the appellant merely stated that "it is my unaccounted income for the current financial year generated from undisclosed sources". This statement of the appellant cannot be said to have fulfilled the condition in section 271AAA (2) (ii) so as to provide evidence to support or prove the truth of the claim made by the appellant. The amount of Rs.35 crore does not appear in the statement given by the appellant u/s 132(4). It is to be noted that a cardinal principle of law in India is that no person can be forced to give evidence against himself. Therefore, both the legality and the efficacy of this clause are questionable. However, the law is to be implemented as it exists and passed by the Parliament in its wisdom. As rightly held by the AO, all the conditionalities imposed uls 271AAA, which are inclusive and not exclusive of each other, are not fulfilled in the case. Accordingly, I hold that the AO was correct in imposing the penalty u/s 271AAA of 10% of the income sought to be evaded of Rs.125 crore. The appeal of the appellant is according dismissed."

3.4 However, Ld. AR now points out that subsequently, in that case, the Hon'ble ITAT( Delhi) has held as under:-

In view of above facts of the present case wherefrom it is evident that during the course of search proceedings the authorized officer of the department had not raised any specific query regarding the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived and on the contrary the assessee has tried to explain the earning of the undisclosed income in question in its reply during the course of recording of his statement uls 132(4) of the Act and thereafter. We thus respectfully following the ratio of above cited decisions of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court hold that in absence of query raised by the authorized officer during the course of recording of statement uls 132(4) about the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived and about its substantiation, the AO was not justified in imposing penalty u/s 271 AAA of the Act specially when the offered undisclosed income has been accepted and due tax thereon has been paid by the assessee."

3.5 The appellant and Sh. Neeraj Singal belong to the same group of cases, and the facts in the two cases are the same. After pronouncement of the above cited ruling by the Hon’ble ITAT, I am bound by the ruling. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and penalty imposed is cancelled.”

7.1 After going through the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute as well as the orders of the Tribunal relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the penalty in dispute, we are of the view that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interfere on our part. Therefore, respectfully following the precedents of the ITAT as mentioned in the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty in dispute and accordingly, we dismiss the Appeal of the Revenue.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04/05/2016.