Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI LALIT KUMAR
सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 27.08.2015 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.10.2015 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are 10 appeals under consideration. Out of them, 6 appeals are filed by the assessee and 4 appeals are filed by the Revenue involving the AYs 2001-02 to 2006-07. Since, the issues raised in all these appeals are inter-connected, as such there are cross appeals for the AYs 2001-02; 2002-03; 2003-04 and 2005-06, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed-of in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs of this order.
Firstly, we shall take up assessee‟s appeal for the AY 2001-02 as a lead appeal for adjudication.
I (AY 2001-2002) (By assessee) 2. This appeal filed by the assessee on 10.12.2010 is against the order of the CIT (A)-36, Mumbai dated 27.1.2009 for the AY 2001-02. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under:
“1. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in passing the order u/s 250 of the Act.
The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in not holding that the assessment proceeding and consequential assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C is without jurisdiction in the absence of issuance of issuance of mandatory legal notice u/s 143(2) of the Act.
3. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in not holding that the assessment proceeding and consequential assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C is without jurisdiction in the absence of valid notice u/s 142 of the Act as one single common notice u/s 142 dated 20.10.2008 was issued for the six assessment years ranging from AY 2001-2002 to 2006-07.
The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in not holding that the assessment proceeding and the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C is bad in law.
5. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the provisions of section 292BB are applicable in the present case and that the same are clarificatory in nature.
The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in not holding that the addition amounting to Rs. 7 lakhs cannot be made in the proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act as the same is not on the basis of evidence found during the course of search and hence beyond jurisdiction.
8. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 7 lakhs under section 68 of the Act in respect of share capital received by the appellant.”
Assessee also raised the Additional Grounds of appeal vide letter dated 8.2.2014 and the same read as under:
1. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in not holding that the initiation of assessment proceeding and order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C is bad in law as there was no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer of the search person for initiating proceeding u/s 153C of the Act.
2. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in not holding that the initiation of assessment proceeding and order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C is bad in law as there was no money, bullion, jewellery etc belonging to the assessee seized during the course of search nor any such assets have been handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee.”
4. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of Finance & Investment. Assessee filed the return of income declaring the total loss of Rs. 481/-. A search and seizure was carried out on 10.8.2006 in the case of M/s. Rohan Group including Directors of different associates and sister concerns as well as the assessee‟s case. Basing on the papers / documents found and seized during the said search and seizure action in the case of M/s. Rohan Group of cases related to the assessee company, notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued on 5.9.2008 and served on the assessee. In response, assessee filed the return of income declaring the total income of Rs. NIL. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 20.10.2008 and the same was served on the assessee. Accordingly, AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act and the assessed income was determined at Rs. 31,99,519/-, which include the addition of Rs. 32 lakhs u/s 68 of the Act on account of share application money received by the assessee. Aggrieved with the above decision of the AO, assessee is in appeal before the first appellate authority.
During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, after considering the submissions of the assessee, CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal and confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 7 lakhs. Again aggrieved and not satisfied with the said decision of the CIT (A), assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal by raising the abovementioned Grounds and also raised a legal ground that the addition made by the AO is not based on the incriminating material seized during the course of search. 6. During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee narrated the brief facts of the case. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that in all the 6 appeals of the assessee involving the AYs 2001-02 to 2006-07 have a common legal issue and submitted that issue relates to when the assessments involved are non-abated assessment (either regular assessments are completed u/s 143(3) and the quantum proceedings are not pending or the due date for issue of notice us 143(2) has expired, the additions, if any, in the search assessment can be made basing on any incriminating material seized u/s 132 of the Act and forwarded to the concerned AO as per the procedure laid down in the Act. Drawing our attention to each of the assessment order and each of the additions made by the AO in all the 6 AYs, Ld Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that there is no reference to the seized material in any of the additions made by the AO in all the 6 AYs. Further, he mentioned that the additions made were actually in the nature of routine additions which are made under regular assessment. Ld Counsel for the assessee also argued that such additions are unsustainable in law. For this, Ld Counsel for the assessee filed written submissions and the relevant portions from the said written submissions are extracted as under: “It is submitted that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High court in the 6. case of CIT v. All Cargo Global Logistic (374 ITR 645) only the assessments pending on the date of search abate. In other words, the assessments not pending on the date of initiation shall not abate and the original assessment order passed u/ s 143(3) of the Act shall stand. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to issue notice u/ s 153A and accordingly pass an assessment order as per the provisions of S. 153A of the Act. However, in case of assessment years which are not abated i.e. assessment years for which assessment order has been previously passed or time limit for issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has expired addition if any can be made only on account of incriminating material found during the course of search. The relevant position of non-abated assessment years is demonstrated vide chart attached herewith.
From the above chart, it is clearly evident that all assessment years ie. AY 01-02 to 06-07 are non - abated years. As stated above, all the additions made by the Assessing Officer are on account of share application and are not based on any seized material found during the course of search. Reliance is also placed on the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Shri Govind Agarwal v. ACIT being ITA No: 3389/Mum/2011 dated 10.01.2014 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held that in case of non-abated years, addition can only be made with respect to seized material found during the course of search. While arriving at this conclusion, the Hon'ble Tribunal has relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics v. Addl.CIT 137 ITD 287(Mum)(SB) which has now been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court referred above. In view of the above, it is humbly submitted that on the basis of the legal 8. propositions, the additions made by the Assessing Officer are bad in law and hence are to be deleted.
9. We would like to bring to Your Honours kind attention the following points:- a. The additions made by the Ld. AO on account of Share application money received is not based on any incriminating seized material found during of Search. Further, additions on account of share application is not arising out of any finding of search b. Action u/ s. 132(4) of the Act. Also, Aa is not referring to any seized material in his entire Order. Further, the addition was made on account of findings / information received from ACIT - 45, c. Mumbai. However the Hon'ble IT AT, Mumbai in case of SKS Ispat and Power Limited vs. DCIT CC 45 (ITA 8746/M/12 and ITA 8747/M/12) have held that additions u/s. 68 in absence of incriminating seized material cannot be made an hence ought to be deleted. Copy of Order placed on record. As per Section 153C of the Act, notice issued u/ s. 153C would be date wherein all the d. pending assessment will be abate. In the present case issue of Notice u/ s. 153C is 5.9.2008 for AY 2001-02 to 2006-07, hence as seen from chart submitted all years from AY 01-02 to 06-07 are non- abated years, hence no additions based on any incriminating material found during the course of search can be made by the Ld. AO. As submitted above no incriminating material was found during the course of search, hence additions made should be deleted.
6.1. Further, Ld Counsel for the assessee also filed a statement showing the AY wise details of the appeals under consideration and demonstrated how these appeals fall under the category of non-abated years. The said statement also contains the details viz (i) date of filing of return; (ii) time limit for issue of notice u/s 143(2); (iii) date of issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act; (iv) Additions made by the AO; (vi) details of additions confirmed by the CIT (A) and relief granted. For the sake of completeness of this order, the said statement is scanned and placed here under:
7. On the other hand, Ld DR relied on the order of the AO and the CIT (A). Further, on the legal propositions, Ld DR has nothing to controvert except relying on the decisions of the Revenue Authorities.
We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the cited decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Govind Agarwal v. ACIT being ITA No: 3389/Mum/2011 dated 10.01.2014 (supra); All Cargo Global Logistics v. Addl.CIT (supra); SKS Ispat and Power Limited vs. DCIT CC 45 (ITA 8746/M/12 and ITA 8747/M/12) (supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the cases of CIT v. All Cargo Global Logistic (374 ITR 645) (supra), copies of which are placed on record. On perusal of the said decisions, we find they are relevant for the proposition that “when no assessment has abated, the question of making any addition or making disallowance which are not based on only material found during the search is bad in law”. In this regard, we find it relevant to extract the relevant paras from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Govind Agarwal (supra) and the same is as follows:
“12. We have heard the parties and their divergent stands on the legal issue and the validity of the instant assessment/reassessment with the routine additions u/s 68 and section 14A of the Act based on the accounted transactions. The instant case for the AY 2002-03 deals with the case of disturbing the „completed assessment‟. Earlier the assessment was completed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Completeness of the summary assessment is considered and held in favour of the assessee vide many judgments cited above. In the assessment u/s 153A, the AO made (i) Addition u/s 68 on account of artificially inflated investment in house duly disclosed in the balance sheet of the assessee Rs.31,33,070/-; and (ii) disallowance u/s 14A: Rs. 23,31,469/-. Admittedly, there is no incriminating material before the AO to support the above additions. The valuation report, which is garnered by the authorities constitutes mere estimates and the provisions of section 132 is not required to obtain such report from the DVO. As such, for making aforesaid additions of Rs 31,33,070/-, AO has not used even the said valuation report and the AO disallowed what is reported in the books. Similar is the case with the additions u/s 14A of the Act. Therefore, undisputedly, the impugned quantum additions are made merely based on the entries in the accounted books and certainly not based on either the unaccounted books of accounts of the assessee or books not produced to the AO earlier or the incriminating material gathered by the investigation wing of the revenue. Considering the legal propositions place before us by the assessee‟s counsel, we are of the opinion, such assessments or additions are unsustainable in law.
For the sake completeness of the assessee, we insert here some of the extracts from relevant judgments and they are: A. [2013 36 taxmann.com 523 (Rajasthan) in the case of Jai Steel (India) vs. ACIT - From Held portion: ….The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of sections 132 or 132A, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then the question of reassessment of the concluded assessments does not arise, which would require more reiteration and it is only in the context of the abated assessment under second proviso which is required to be assessed. ....... ....... Para 26 of the Judgment: The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within the six assessment years, is merely reading the said provision in isolation and not in the context of the entire section. The words 'assess' or 'reassess' have been used at more than one place in the Section and a harmonious construction of the entire provision would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the word 'assess' has been used in the context of an abated proceedings and reassess has been used for completed assessment proceedings, which would not abate as they are not pending on the date of initiation of the search or making of requisition and which would also necessarily support the interpretation that for the completed assessments, the same can be tinkered only based on the incriminating material found during the course of search or requisition of documents. B. [2012] 28 Taxmann.com 328 (Mumbai –Trib.) in the case of Gurinder Singh Bava vs. DCIT …. Whether since assessment under section 153A was passed by Assessing Officer on basis of material available in return of income and there was no reference to any incriminating material found during search and since no assessment was abated, assessment under section 153A was to be quashed being made without jurisdiction available under section 153A - Held, yes [Para 6.2] [In favour of assessee] Para 6.1 of the Order: The Special bench in the case of Alcargo Global Logistics Ltd. (supra), has held that provisions of section 153A come into operation if a search or requisition is initiated after 31.5.2003 and on satisfaction of this condition, the AO is under obligation to issue notice to the person requiring him to furnish the return of income for six years immediately preceding the year of search. The Special Bench further held that in case assessment has abated, the AO retains the original jurisdiction as well as jurisdiction under section 153A for which assessment shall be made for each assessment year separately. Thus in case where assessment has abated the AO can make additions in the assessment, even if no incriminating material has been found. But in other cases the Special Bench held that the assessment under section 153A can be made on the basis of incriminating material which in the context of relevant provisions means books of account and other documents found in the course of search but not produced in the course of original assessment and undisclosed income or property disclosed during the course of search. In the present case, the assessment had been completed under summary scheme under section 143(1) and time limit for issue of notice under section 143(2) had expired on the date of search. Therefore, there
was no assessment pending in this case and in such a case there was no question of abatement. Therefore, addition could be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during search. B. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-44 [2012] 23 taxmann.com 103 (Mum.) (SB)
Para 58 of SB decisions: Thus, question No.1 before us is answered as under : (a) In assessments that are abated, the AO retains the original jurisdiction as well as jurisdiction conferred on him u/s 153A for which assessments shall be made for each of the six assessment years separately ; (b) In other cases, in addition to the income that has already been assessed, the assessment u/s 153A will be made on the basis of incriminating material, which in the context of relevant provisions means - (i) books of account, other documents, found in the course of search but not produced in the course of original assessment, and (ii) undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search.
Thus, in case of the completed assessments either u/s 143(1) or 143(3), the above extracts are uniform in advocating against making additions in routine manner in the assessments made u/s 153A of the Act when there is no incriminating material gathered in the search action. Statutory notice u/s 153A of the Act can also be issued to reiterate the returned income or for making additions based on the incriminating material or unproduced books of account. Otherwise, additions made in routine matter as in the present appeal are not sustainable. Further, for the sake completeness of the order, we have perused the orders/judgments relied upon by Ld DR for the revenue and found they are distinguishable on facts for one reason or other. To start with, we have perused the judgment of Honble Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Madugula Venu (supra) and find that, though explained the provisions in plain language, it does not dealt with the relevance or factum of incriminating material. Further, the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Gopal Lal Bhadruka (supra) is not on the notices issued u/s 153A of the Act and the same is pronounced in the context of the notice u/s 153C of the Act. Further, also, the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of Scope (P) Ltd (supra) has granted relief to the assessee though the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act was upheld. However, this order has not considered the then existing decision of the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of Pratibha Industries Ltd (supra) which is relevant for the proposition that the completed assessment may not be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material specific to the assessee. In fact, all these judgments take spirit from the Special Bench decision in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd (supra), which is relevant for the proposition that the assessment u/s 153A will be made on the basis of incriminating material such as books of accounts, other documents found in the search but not produced in the course of original assessment and undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of the search. 15. .......
In these circumstances, we have no doubt about the absence of any seized material which are incriminating in nature to back the additions u/s 68 or 14A of the Act made in the assessment made u/s 153A of the Act for the AY under consideration. Regarding the DVO‟s report gathered during the search action, we find that the report suffers from certain deficiencies qua cost of construction of residential property and the land obtained thereto. The said report constitutes an opinion of the third party which cannot be used by the AO for making additions and such additions, if any, cannot be sustained legally. As such, we find that the AO has not used the said report of the DVO also for making additions of Rs. 31,33,007/-, the difference between accounted amount of Rs. 46,13,007/-, claimed as the amount spent on construction of house and acquisition of land as on 31.3.2002 minus Rs. Rs. 14.8 lakhs, the investment made on the land plots. AO made addition for assessee‟s failure to provide evidences / bills in support of the claim of expenditure on the construction. It the presumption of the AO that the plots since acquired only by July 2001, the assessee would not have spend Rs. 31,33,007/- by 31.3.2002. This is merely a presumption rather conclusion based on any evidences. Such additions are unsustainable in law in the assessments made u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act.
Rajasthan High Court judgment in the case of Jai Steel (India) (supra), vide para 18, it is categorically mentioned that “the requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section (153A) has to be read in the context of sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of search or requisition, then the question of reassessment of the concluded assessments does not arise, which would more reiteration………….”. Thus, the judgment of Hon‟ble High court in the case of Jai Steel Ltd, supra and above decisions of the Tribunal are categorical in concluding that, in case of the concluded assessments like the present one, the additions are made only based on the incriminating material discovered during the search action. The facts of the Jai Steel Ltd (supra) are identical to the present one ie AO made additions by reassessing u/s 153A on the completed assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thus, considering the judgment in the case of the Jai Steel Ltd (supra), the arguments on the legal issue raised before us stands covered. Therefore, considering the Rajasthan High Court‟s judgment in the case of Jai Steels Ltd, supra, we have no difficulty in (i) upholding the issue of notice u/s 153A of the Act and (2) in disapproving the making of the impugned additions u/s 68 and 14A of the Act, which are not backed by the incriminating materials. In the absence of incriminating material, the role of the AO is only to reiterate the returned income filed in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act. Accordingly, in substance, the common legal issue raised in the grounds for both the appeals of the assessee (ITA NO 3389&3390/M/2011) is allowed.”
Further, in the recent past, similar issue was adjudicated by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla vide and others, dated 28.8.2015, wherein the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court has reiterated the above settled legal proposition that since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed. In this regard, we find it relevant to extract the summary of the legal propositions and the conclusion of said judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court which is as follows:
Summary of the legal position: 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall ii. abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs “in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax”. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly iv. made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment “can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material.” In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can v. be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make vi. the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making vii. the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. Conclusion 38. The present appeals concern AYs, 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07.On the date of the search the said assessments already stood completed. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed.
The question framed by the Court is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.” From the above settled legal position of the issue that in the absence of any 10. incriminating material found during search, additions made on the assessed income are unsustainable in law, we are of the considered opinion that the additions made in the instant case are not sustainable and accordingly, we delete the additions made in the assessment u/s 68 on account of share application money. Considering our decision on the legal issue in favour of the assessee, the other grounds demand no specific adjudication. Thus, the legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed and rest of the grounds as well as the additional grounds are dismissed as academic.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. (AY 2002-2003) (By assessee) ITA No.8630/M/2010 (AY 2003-2004) (By assessee) ITA No.8631/M/2010 (AY 2004-2005) (By assessee) ITA No.8632/M/2010 (AY 2005-2006) (By assessee) ITA No.8633/M/2010 (AY 2006-2007) (By assessee) 12. All these appeals are filed by the assessee against the difference orders of the CIT (A)-36, Mumbai commonly dated 13.10.2010 for the AYs 2002-03 to 2006-07. In all the present appeals, assessee raised the identical issues that are raised in AY 2001-2002. While adjudicating the assessee‟s appeal for the AY 2001-02 in the above paragraphs of this order, we have decided the legal issue raised in that appeal by holding that in the absence of any incriminating material found during search, additions made on the assessed income are unsustainable in law. Since, the issues raised in all the present appeals are identical to that of the one decided by us in the appeal for the AY 2001-2002, therefore, our decision given therein squarely applies to the present appeals too. Considering the same, legal issue raised by the assessee is decided in favour of the assessee and all other grounds as well as additional grounds raised
in all the instant appeals under consideration are dismissed as academic.
13. In the result, all the 6 appeals of the assessee are allowed. II ITA No.9117/M/2010 (AY 2001-2002) (By Revenue) ITA No.9118/M/2010 (AY 2002-2003) (By Revenue) ITA No.9119/M/2010 (AY 2003-2004) (By Revenue) ITA No.9120/M/2010 (AY 2005-2006) (By Revenue)
14. All these appeals (4) are filed by the Revenue against the different orders of the CIT (A)- 36, Mumbai commonly dated 13.10.2010. As such, these are the cross appeals for the AYs 2001-02; 2002-03; 2003-04 and 2005-06. In all these appeals, Revenue raised the common grounds, and the only difference, is in figures. Considering the commonality of the grounds raised
by the Revenue, we take up the grounds raised by the Revenue for the AY 2001-2002 for the sake of adjudication and the same read as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT (A) was justified in restricting the addition made u/s 68 of Rs. 32,00,000/- to Rs. 7,00,000/- by holding that the addition made u/s 68 in respect of parties wherein complete details were furnished was not sustainable ignoring that the alleged subscribers to share capital were found to be non-existent at the address given in the bank statements and thus, before the Assessing Officer their identity and creditworthiness as well as the genuineness of the transactions was not proved.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT (A) was justified in holding that the addition u/s 68 in respect of parties wherein complete details furnished is not sustainable ignoring that the addresses given in the bank statements were pertaining to the persons, who confirmed that the address was given fradulantly.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT (A) was justified in holding that assessee had discharged the onus cast upon u/s 68 of the Act relating to the credit to its capital account to the extent of Rs. 25,00,000/-.”
15. Considering our decision on the legal issue raised by the assessee is its appeals, which are adjudicated in the above paragraphs of this order, we are of the opinion that the adjudication of the grounds raised by the Revenue becomes an academic exercise. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue in all the four appeals under consideration are dismissed as academic.
16. In the result, four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
17. Ex-consiquenti, 6 appeals of the assessee are allowed and 4 appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th October, 2015.