ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, RAIPUR vs. LORD BUDDHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RAIPUR

The assessee has also filed cross objections being CO Nos.05- 08/RPR/2022 arising out of the appeals of revenue in ITA Nos.188- 191/RPR/2019 for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014- 2015 & 2015-2016, respectively. The assessee has also filed appeals in IT(SS)A Nos.16&17/RPR/2019 for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18. 3. First, we are taking the appeals of revenue for our consideration. On the basis of issues involved in the aforesaid appeals filed by the revenue, these appeals can be separated in two parts, Part one for unabated years i.e. ITA Nos.188-191/RPR/2019 for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016 and Part two for abated years i.e. ITA Nos.192-193/RPR/2019 for the assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 4. Part one : Since similar and identical issues have been raised by the revenue in, ITA Nos.188-191/RPR/2019 for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016, except difference in quantum, therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we shall first take into consideration, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.188/RPR/2019 for the A.Y.2012-2013 as a lead case and the result of 3 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 the same will apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals for the unabated assessment years also. The sole ground raised by the revenue in ITA No.188/RPR/2019 is read as under: - 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 2,28,39,650/- on account of undisclosed investment without appreciating fact that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on an incriminating material marked as LP-l, page no. 18 duly scanned in the assessment order.”

Part Two : For AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, the one and only ground of appeal of the department is different than that of for AY 2012-13 to 2015-16, though the same is similar and identical for these two abated years, therefore, the issue raised by the revenue in, ITA Nos.192- 193/RPR/2019 for the assessment years 2016-2017 and 2017-18 which is identical, except difference in quantum, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we shall take into consideration the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 192/RPR/2019 for the A.Y. 2016-17 and the result of the same will apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal for AY 2017-18 also. The sole ground raised by the revenue in ITA No.192/RPR/2019 is read as under: - 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 2,68,47,635/- out of the total addition of 3,59,80,960/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of DVO report.”

Brief Facts:- All these appeals have arisen out of common order of the LD CIT(A)-3, Bhopal on a common assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the IT Act., the brief facts culled out, for all these appeals / cases are that the assessee is a trust registered u/s 12A of the 4 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 Act. A survey was conducted at the office premises of assessee on 29.09.2016. During the course of survey cash amounting to Rs. 35,27,030/- was found. To verify the genuineness of the cash found a survey was carried out at Noida Office of the assessee by JDIT (Inv), Noida and it was observed that the cash balance in regular books of account was only Rs. 29,502/- therefore, the survey was converted into search u/s 132 of the Act. The search was conducted on 01.10.2016. During the course of search statement of Shri Dalip Kumar, president of the society was recorded. In his statement he admitted that he is unable to explain the source as he is looking after the administrative matters only and the financial matters are being looked after by Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, treasurer of the society. Therefore, the statement of Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, treasurer, was recorded. In his statement Shri Anil Sharma admitted that he is unable to explain the source of cash found at the premise and surrendered the amount of Rs. 31,47,030/- for taxation in the hand of society for the A.Y. 2017-18. After being given proper opportunity of being heard, the case was centralized to the central circle- 1, Raipur (CG) under section 127 of the income tax Act 1961, vide order dated 20.02.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Lucknow. Consequently, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 08.05.2017 for AY 2011-12 to 2016-17. The assessee in reply, filed returns of income for AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17 on 08.05.2017 declaring the returns of income for the relevant assessment years as under:-

During the course of assessment proceedings, copy of seized

Against the above additions made by the AO, the assessee approached before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO for the A.Ys.2012-2013 to 2015-2016, however, the additions made for the assessment years 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 were partly deleted.

Now, the revenue is in further appeals before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. CIT(A).

Ld DR took us to the order of Ld AO substantiating the contention of revenue, he read para 7(i) of the AO‟s order, wherein Ld AO has observed and narrated that the assessee has made huge investments in purchase and construction of immovable property for medical college & hospital. Ld AO further proposed to refer the matter to District Valuation Officer (DVO) for arriving at a fair value of the investment made in such purchase and construction. A question was also put by the Ld AO before the assessee that “why the case should not be referred to DVO for estimation of cost of purchase and investment in immovable property for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2017.” Assessee responded to the said query through its authorised representative, submitted explanations for cost involvement in acquisition of land at circle rate prescribed by the State Government and average cost of investment @ Rs. 1847/- derived including interest on cost of borrowed fund involved to the tune of Rs. 16/- crore, Ld AR also made a request not to refer the matter to DVO u/s 142A of the Act, but was failed to furnish any valuation report from an approved

Part One: ITA Nos.188-191/RPR/2019 for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016. 12. At the outset, Ld CITDR, vehemently supported the order of Ld AO, he mentioned that the Ld CIT(A) for AY 2012-13 to 2015-16, being the unabated AY‟s, has grossly erred in appreciating the facts of the case and deleting the additions made by Ld AO on the basis of no incriminating material, whereas the CA certificate marked as LP- 1, page 18, unearthed during the course of search proceedings, duly scanned in the assessment order was very much an incriminating material suitable to construct a foundation for reopening of assessment u/s 153A of the Act for unabated AY‟s i.e. AY 2012-13 to 2015-16, therefore, the order of Ld CIT(A) is liable to be quashed and the additions made by the order of AO deserves to be 9 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 restored. In order to strengthen the argument of the revenue to restore the matter back to Ld AO, Ld CIRDR place his reliance on the judgment of coordinate bench of ITAT Jabalpur in in the case of Prince Rai v. Income- tax Officer, Ward-Damoh, (M.P.), reported in (2021) 130 Taxmann.com 463 (Jabalpur-Trib.), wherein, it has been held that “Where assessee had filed return on presumptive tax basis under section 44AF and he had not maintained books of account and Assessing Officer made reference to DVO with regard to construction cost incurred by assessee and made additions on account of valuation difference between cost incurred as per DVO's report and as claimed by assessee, since question of validity of reference made by Assessing Officer to DVO without rejecting assessee's books of account and other issues raised by assessee were not adjudicated upon by Commissioner (Appeals), matter was to be remanded for fresh consideration”. In view of the decision cited, it is further submitted that since in the present case also certain grounds of appeal with respect to validity of reference made to DVO by Ld AO without rejecting books of accounts of the assessee was not adjudicated by the LD CIT(A) the matter is suitable to be restored back to the files of AO for fresh consideration.

To counter the arguments of the department, for unabated AY’s 2012-13 to 2015-16, Ld Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that Ld CIT(A) has very considerately understood the issue relating to incriminating material for the unabated AY‟s 2012-13, 2013-14,

Since the DVO did not submit his report within the time prescribed u/s.142A(6) the report submitted by him is invalid and no reliance could have been placed by the AO on such report, as there was violation of a mandatory condition, which rendered the valuation report as invalid. Consequently, no addition could have been made 071 the basis of such an invalid and time barred report

After taking into consideration the AO's findings and appellant's oral and written submission made in the course of hearing as well as the facts of the case the issues involved in appeal are discussed and decided as under 4.1 Ground No 3 for AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16:- Through these grounds of appeal the appellant has challenged that during search no incriminating material was found which would establish nexus and suggest any unexplained investment in medical college and hospital building. It has been contended that during search no 'incriminating material' was found during the course of search and therefore, the assessment made U/S 153A for A. Y 2012-13 to 2015-16 and additions made in these years are illegal, void and without juri iction of A.O. Ld AR has strongly relied on the decision of CIT v/s Kabul Chawala (2016) 38G.ITR 573 (Del) to argue that where no incriminating material was found, no assessment u/s 153A can be made for that particular year. 4.1.1 Ld AR of the appellant has strongly contended that provision of sec 153A of the Act provides that the assessment or re- assessment relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years, if pending on the dale of initiation of search shall abate whereas with regard to scope of provision of sec 153A that where no incriminating material was found indicating any undisclosed income, no additions or disallowance can be made for that particular year. Reliance has been place on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v/s Kabul Chawla of Delhi High Court in ITA No. 707/2014 dated 28.08.2015.- 380 ITR 573 (Del): "Summary of the legal position"

In a conspectus of Section 153A(J) 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 U/S 153A(J) will have to be mandatorily issued to the persons searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant 10 the AY in which the search lakes place.

Vrs. ACIT & Ors. (2016) 47 CCH 0159 it was held that "When issue of 16 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 share capital was out of purview of assessment u/s 153A as assessment for assessment year 2005-06 was not pending on date of search and no incriminating material relating to share capital was found during course of search hence addition made not justified". (xxvii) the case of ACIT Vs Ram Mehar Garg & Anr. (2016) 47 CCH 0404 it was held that "Provisions of section} 53.11 and 153C are search related provisions and these provisions were applicable only, relating la any undisclosed income on basis of seized documents found in search. (xxviii) In the case of Rawal Das Jaswani Vs. ACIT , (2015) 43 CCH 0606, juri ictional tribunal bench of Raipur have held that "Where A 0 had not referred to any incriminating material found during the course of search based on which addition was made, then the AO had no juri iction to make addition in the assessment framed under s. 153A of the Act". (xxix) In the case of Sainath Colonisers V/s ACIT(CenlTa1)-Il, Bhopal ITA(SS) Nos. 289 to 291/Ind/2017; The juri ictional tribunal bench of Indore have held that "We therefore in the given facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the judgments referred and relied by the Id. Counsel for the assessee are of the considered view that no addition/ disallowance was called for assessment year 2008-09 to 2010- 11 as no incriminating material was found during the course of search at the premises of the assessee as the time limit of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act stood expired much before the date of conducting search u/s 132 of the Act. Accordingly all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed. " (xxx) In the case of Omprakash Gupta vis ACIT (Centrall-ll, Bhopal IT(SS) Nos. 277 to 281/Ind/2017; the juri ictional tribunal bench of Indore have held that "these appeals for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13 are concluded and no abate assessments. The AO has not time to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and until and unless there is an incriminating material found during the course of search no addition can be made. Nowhere in the assessment order shows that additions are based on the incriminating material even in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Additions are only made during the course of assessment proceedings by calling the assessee for various details such as books of accounts various documents and assessment was completed. Therefore once the assessments are concluded/non- abated, addition cannot be made unless there is on incriminating material found during the course of scorch. This legal aspect has already been considered by us in the above appeals in 1T(SS) A No 277 to 281/Ind/2017. In view of our decision above the same is to apply in to in all the other present appeals also. We therefore in view of our decision in those appeals, the orders of the 17 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 Ld. CIT(A) are reversed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. ". (xxxi) In the case of DCIT(Central)-1 Indore v/s M/s. MCS Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS) No. 141, co. No. 38/Ind/2016 & 1TA NO 35311nd/2017; The juri ictional tribunal bench of Indore have held that "We therefore respectfully allowing the above decision and examining the facts of the instant appeal, find that the assessee e- filed its regular return of income u/s J39(1) on 27.08.2009 declaring income of Rs. 29, 39,060/-. The case of the assessee could have been picked up for scrutiny assessment by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act latest by 30.09.2010. No such notices u/s 143(2) of the Act MCS Trading Company Pvt Ltd IT(SS) No. 141, C.

No. 38/Ind/2016 & ITAN. 353/1nd/2017 was issued to the assessee. Search u/s 132 of the Act conducted on 25.11.10 i. e. After the expiry of ht time limit for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for Assessment 'yea)" 2009-'

No incriminating material pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10 was found during the course of search. In these given facts the Assessment year 2009-10 will come under the category of completed and' non abated assessment and the Ld. A0 can make additions in such assessments only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. In the case of the assessee as there is no incriminating material found during the course of search Ld. A0 could not make any addition on the basis of information called during the course of assessment proceedings and therefore Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held the impugned proceedings u/s 153A r.ws. 143(3) of the Act as invalid. We uphold the same and dismiss revenue's sole Ground No.1 appeal of the revenue for Assessment year 2009-10 stands dismissed. 4.1.3 It has been held in the case of CIT VIs Kabul Chawla (supra) that in absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment cannot be reopened and reassessment cannot be made. The word 'assess' in section 153A is relatable to abated proceedings and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the Assessing Officer, while u/s.153A 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. Decision of Kabul Chawla (Supra) has been followed in subsequent decisions in the cases of CIT Vis. Mahesh Kumar Gupta 2016·:-TIOL-2994-HC-Del and CIT-9 V/so Ram Avtar Verma in ITA No. 6112017 & 6212017 Dtd. 7.02.2017 and Pr.CIT v/s Meeta Gutgutia in ITA No. 30612017 dt,25.05.2017 (Del). In the case of Pr.CIT V/s, Meeta Gutgutia (supra) after considering a catena of judgments on the scope of search assessments u/s.l53A, Hori'ble Delhi High Court has held that Section 153A of the Act is titled "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is connected

Ld AR has further submitted that in view of various judicial precedence setup by the higher judicial forums as relied upon by the assessee in its submissions (supra), since no incriminating material was 19 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 found during course of search and seizure operation relating to assessment years for which assessments were already completed, the same cannot be reopened and reassessed by invoking the provisions of section 153A. It was therefor the prayer that the additions made by the AO for the unabated assessment years from 2012-13 to 2015-16 are rightly deleted by the Ld CIT(A) and the same deserves to be upheld. Our decision for unabated AY’s: 2012-13 to 2015-16:

We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly the search took place in the premises of assessee trust on 01.10.2016 and thus the AY 2012-13 to 2015-16 were unabated years. It is also well explained by the assessee and adjudicated by the Ld CIT(A) that no incriminating material was found during the search and seizure operations and the impugned additions made by the Ld AO based on material already available on record leading to additions of regular nature, on presumptive basis or without any cogent material are not sustainable according to the principle of law laid down by the hon‟ble Delhi High court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) followed in catena of judgments / decisions / cases later reported and referred to supra.

Considering the facts and judicial discipline accorded by the higher courts, we are of the considered opinion that Ld CIT(A) has examined and issued in light of the factual matrix of the case and legality of the applicability of the provisions of section 153A for reopening of the assessment for unabated years or years for which assessments are 20 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 already competed or for the years for which assessment in regular course is already barred by limitation, cannot be done unless some incriminating material qua each of the AY‟s which were sought to be reopened is unearthed during the operations of search and seizure conducted at the premises of the assessee. Since, in the present case such condition for invoking the provisions of section 153A for AY 2012-13 to 2015-16 could not be substantiated by the revenue, assumption of juri iction for these years was not justified. We therefor do not see any reason to disturb the finding of the Ld CIT(A) on this ground, consequently upheld the order of Ld CIT(A) on this ground. In the result the sole ground raised in the appeals of the department in ITA 188-191/RPR/2019 for AY 2012-13 to 2015-16 is dismissed.

With regard to reliance of the Ld CIT(A) of the case of Prince Rai Vs. ITO (supra), there has been a finding on this issue also by the CIT(A) for the later assessment years i.e. 2016-17 and 2017-18, which is mutatis mutandis applicable for the unabated AY‟s 2012-13 to 2015-16, also, in para 4.4.5 (page 45 of 61) of his order, wherein provisions of section 142A, pre amendment and post amendment w.e.f 01.10.2014 were discussed and categorically concluded as under: - “I agree with the views expressed by A.O. in assessment order that reference made to DVO on 04.01.2018 (which falls after 01.10.2014) without rejection of books of accounts was in accordance to the prevailing provision of law and nothing was illegal about such reference and ratio of the judgment pronounce by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema v/s CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) and other case laws is not applicable to the facts of this case in view of changed legal scenario.”

As the issue, whether rejection of books of account is mandatory or not for making a reference to DVO u/s 142A? has been discussed, deliberated and decided by the Ld CIT(A) without leaving room for any ambiguity, we therefor of the view that, ratio of law emanated by the order of ITAT Jabalpur in the case of Price Rai (supra) could not be applied in the present case, so the contentions of the revenue to restore the matter back to AO for fresh adjudication is not acceptable on this ground.

Now, we shall decide cross objections filed by the assessee in CO Nos.05-08/RPR/2012 for the assessment years 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 arising out of ITA Nos.188-191/RPR/2019, wherein the assessee has raised similar and identical grounds. Therefore, for the sake of convenience we shall take up the cross objection of the assessee in CO No.05/RPR/2022 for the A.Y.2012-2013, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds :-

The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any of the ground/s of appeal.

The departmental appeal in ITA Nos.188-191/RPR/2019 for AY 2012-13 to 2015-16 on the sole common ground (except difference in quantum) that, “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. C1T(A) erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 2,28,39,650/- (for AY 2012-13, different for other AY’s) on account of undisclosed investment without appreciating fact that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on an incriminating material marked as LP-l, page no. 18 duly scanned in the assessment order.” has been decided, in terms of our observations above. The additions made by the Ld AO were deleted by upholding the order of Ld CIT(A) and the assessment made u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of Act was held as bad-in-law. Since, the assessment done by the AO has been invalidated and thus additions made were deleted on one legal ground, other grounds on merit as well as on legality becomes infructuous and for academic interest only, this refrains us from adjudicating the same. In the result, CO‟s of the assessee Nos.05-08/RPR/2012 for the assessment years 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 arising out of ITA Nos.188-191/RPR/2019 stands dismissed. Part Two: ITA 192-193RPR/2019 for AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18, being the assessment years open for assessment or abate years.

At the outset to argue the case on behalf of the revenue, Ld CITDR reiterated its submission as argued in the aforesaid para‟s. According to Ld CITDR, Ld AR has made the assessment with his utmost application of 23 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 mind, Ld AO has observed that the assessee had made huge investment in purchase and construction of immovable property for medical college and hospital, thus, to ascertain the fair value of such investments, he referred the matter to Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) u/s 142A of the Act. Contention of the AO was proved when a report of the DVO with comparison between the actual investment in the books of assessee and estimate made by the DVO have reflected a huge difference in the amount for Rs. 3,59,80,962/- and Rs. 6,63,17,874 for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively, which finally has revealed an enormous hidden investment of Rs. 10,22,98,836/- in aggregate for these two years. Copy of the valuation report was provided to the assessee and confronted to explain the reasons for such differences, assessee was also show caused as to why the difference in investment should not be treated as deemed income of the assessee for the respective years. It is further submitted that, the Assessee replied through its counsels / AR‟s before the AO had made various allegations that the time available for study the DVO‟s report was very short in terms of technicalities involved in the report. Certain technical discrepancies with respect to CSR rates, PWD SOR rates were also pointed out by the valuer of the assessee in DVO‟s reports. As per ld CITDR, these were only vague arguments of the assessee, the same should not be adhered to and therefor the Ld AO has rightly disregarded the contention and submission of the assessee and concluded that no technical discrepancy is pointed out in the report of 24 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 DVO, thus, the same is appropriate and can be relied upon. In view of these submissions Ld CITDR has requested to set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) to restore the findings given under the assessment order by Ld AO.

For abated AY‟s 2016-17 & 2017-18, Ld AR contradicted the argument of the department. Ld AR drew our attention to the order of Ld CIT(A) wherein the entire proceeding before the AO, submission of the assessee, deliberations and decision of Ld CIT(A) were recorded as under: -

4 Ground No. 1,2 & 4 for AY 2016-17 and Ground No 1 & 2 for AY 2017-18:- Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 3,59,80,962/- in AY 2016-17 and Rs. 6,63,17,874/- in AY 2017-18 on account of investment J10t fully disclosed in books of account. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed of immovable property for medical college and Hospital. In order to ascertain the fair value of purchase and cost of construction a reference was made to the Departmental Valuation Officer (D.V.O.) u/s 142A of the Act on 04.01.2018 to estimate the value of investment in construction of Medical college and Hospital of the assessee. In compliance, the D.V.O. submitted year-wise valuation report dated 15.12.2018 estimating the year- wise cost of investment and vis-a-vis value of investment declared by the assessee in books of accounts. On comparison of these two i.e. valuation by D.V.O. vis-a-vis cost of investment declared by the assessee in its books of accounts, The A.O. noticed substantial difference in the amount. On comparison made with valuation report following picture emerges:- • Raipur Institute of Medical Science, Gram Godhi Bhansoj road, Raipur A.Y. Declared by As per Difference Assessee (Rs.) Valuation (Rs.) Report 2016-17 53511154 89492116 35980962 2017-18 98628433 164946307 66317874 Total 152139587 254438423 102298836 4.4.1 Copy of valuation report was provided to the appellant and confronted to the assessee and was required to explain the difference between the value of investment shown in the books of 25 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 account vis-a-vis cost of investment estimated by D.V.O. Assessee was also required to show cause as to why the difference in investment should not be' treated as deemed income of assessee of the respective year. In reply, the assessee submitted that the time available for study of DVOs report is too short, especially when a technical matter is involved. The appellant further submitted that the valuer of the assessee on perusal of report of the DVO has pointed out various discrepancy including adoption of CSR rates in place of local rates and the rates which should have been applied are PWD SOR rates and not CSR rates. However, The AO did not find the explanation acceptable and submitted that no technical discrepancy is pointed out in the report of DVO and therefore, the same is appropriate and can be relied upon.

Even though this appeal was admitted on the questions of law referred to supra, the learned counsel on either side fairly concede that the core issue to be determined in this appeal is "Whether the Assessing Officer is entitled to resort to section 69B of the Act and, consequently, refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer, when the books of account were not rejected ?"

The main plea taken by the learned counsel for the assessee is that the onus probandi lies on the Assessing Officer to establish that the assessee has understated or concealed the actual cost of construction and without discharging the onus, the Assessing Officer is not empowered to rely upon the valuation given by the Departmental Valuation Officer, when the books of account were never rejected.

The learned standing counsel for the Revenue is not disputing the fact that the books of account furnished by the assessee were never rejected by the Department.

In the case on hand, it is beyond any cavil that the books of account furnished by the assessee were never rejected. No explanation was called for from the assessee stating that there was concealment or understatement of amount in the books of account. The initial burden cast on the Department to prove that there was understatement or concealment of income has not been discharged and, therefore, the Assessing Officer is not empowered to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer or rely on such report.

The above said view of this court is fortified by the following decisions : (i) In Sargam Cinema v. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 513/[2011] 197 Taxman 203, the Supreme Court has held as under (page 514) : "In the present case, we find that the Tribunal decided the matter rightly in favour of the assessee inasmuch as the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessing authority could not have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) without the 34 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 books of account being rejected. In the present case, a categorical finding is recorded by the Tribunal that the books were never rejected. This aspect has not been considered by the High Court. In the circumstances, reliance placed on the report of the DVO was misconceived." (emphasis supplied) (ii) Following the above decision of the Supreme Court, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal [2011] 335 ITR 572/200 Taxman 188 (Mag.)/12 taxmann.com 88, has held as under (headnote) : "The primary burden to prove understatement or concealment of income was on the Revenue and it was only when such burden was discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the District Valuation Officer. The opinion of the District Valuation Officer, per se, was not an information and could not be relied upon without the books of account being rejected which had not been done in the assessee's case. Moreover, there was no evidence found as a result of the search to suggest that the assessee had made any payment over and above the consideration mentioned in the return of the assessee." (Emphasis1 Supplied) (iii) In K. K. Seshaiyer v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 351/[2001] 114 Taxman 353 (Mad.), a Division Bench of this court held as under (headnote) : "When the actual cost of construction was duly recorded by the assessee and that cost also was set out in the agreement with the contractor, specifying the rates, and which rates had been accepted by the Tribunal, and there was no finding that the building was larger than the assessee had claimed or had better quality of construction or fixtures than the assessee had recorded in his books, the opinion of the valuer could not be straightaway substituted for the actual cost that was recorded in the assessee's books. The Tribunal had not found that the books maintained by the assessee were not credible. Therefore, the Tribunal was not right in not accepting the valuation of house property submitted by the assessee."

In view of the findings recorded above and the law enunciated in the decisions referred to supra, this appeal deserves to be allowed. (3) CIT Vs. Khusha J Chand Nirmal Kumar 263 ITR 77(M.P.)- Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Procedure for - Block period 1-4-1986 to 31-3- 1996 - Whether no additions could be made in income of assessee merely on basis of report obtained from Departmental Valuation Officer, whose evidence was not found during course of search - Held, yes - Whether, in instant case,

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts are that the assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 2,81,83,000/- under section 69B of the said Act on the basis of a valuation report which he received from the District Valuation Officer (DVO). This was in respect of purchase of a property by the respondent/assessee at 2-

Being aggrieved by the said addition the respondent assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) who deleted the said addition after referring to the decision K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 (SC). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the addition had been made on the basis of the valuation report without there being any other material to indicate that any extra consideration had passed in respect of the said purchase of property. Thereafter, the revenue, being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed by the Tribunal by confirming the deletion made by the CIT (Appeals). The revenue is in appeal before us.

The only point to be considered is whether the valuation rendered by the DVO is to be taken into account or not. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revenue that the assessing officer was justified in referring the matter to the DVO for an opinion with regard to the fair market value of the property and once that opinion has been rendered, the same has to be taken into account and if that were to be so, the addition of Rs. 2,81,83,000/- would be fully justified. Consequently, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had erred in deleting the addition. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal [2011] 338 ITR 485/16 taxmann.com 320/[2012] 204 Taxman 16 (Delhi) (Mag.). In that decision a specific question had been raised as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the report of the DVO the revenue had to prove that the assessee had received extra consideration over and above the declared value of the same. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Division Bench in the case of Puneet Sabharwal (supra) had also placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) as also on another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi [2010] 328 ITR 604/[2011] 197 Taxman 173 (Delhi) (Mag.) wherein this Court held that the primary burden of proof with regard to concealment of income was on the revenue and it was 37 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 only when the said burden was discharged that reliance could be placed on the valuation report of the DVO. There are several other decisions of this Court in the same vein. One such case being the case of CIT v. Vinod Singhal (IT Appeal No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again, reliance was placed on the very same decision of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a finding that the assessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated in the sale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when this burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon the value as given in the valuation report of the DVO.

The law seems to be well settled that unless and until there is some other evidence to indicate that extra consideration had flowed in the transaction of purchase of property, the report of the DVO cannot form the basis of any addition on the part of the revenue. In the present case there is no evidence other than the report of the DVO and, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon for making an addition. In these circumstances, the question which has been framed is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is dismissed. (6) ClT VS. Lahsa Construction Pvt. Ltd 357 ITR 671 (Delhi) -, Section 142A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Estimate made by Valuation Officer - Assessment year 1999-2000 - Whether addition can be made solely relying upon report of Departmental Valuation Officer - Held, no [Para 5] [In favour of assessee]

The Departmental Valuation Officer had opined that the value of the property at the time of purchase was Rs.2,84,72,600/- and this became the basis of the addition made by the assessing officer. The respondent/assessee had disclosed sale consideration of as Rs.39,00,000/- for sale of their 50% share, in the property to Mrs. Madhu Arora. Mrs. Madhu Arora and Mr. Om Prakash Arora paid an amount of Rs.44.00.000/- to the four individual co-.owners for purchase of the balance 50% share. Thus, in all they had shown sale consideration of Rs.83,00,000/-, instead of Rs.2,84,72,600/-, as opined by the Departmental Valuation Officer. This property was sold in the period relating to the Assessment Year 2004-05 for Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. No addition was made by the Assessing Officer on this sale consideration.

Whether an addition can be made solely and on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer, is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. S.K. Construction Co. [2008] 167 Taxman 171, CIT v. Navin Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516/[2011] 198 Taxman 93 (Delhi), CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi [2010] 328 ITR 604/[2011] 197 Taxman 173 (Delhi) (Mag.), and CIT v. Bajrang Lal Bansal [2011] 335 ITR 572/200 Taxman 188 (Mag.)/12 taxmann.com 88 (Delhi). It has been repeatedly held that addition cannot be justified solely relying upon the valuation report. Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 has been followed.

In view of the aforesaid position order of the Tribunal does not require Interference. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (7) CIT Pratap Singh Amrosingh Rajendra Singh 200 ITR 788 Held, that there was no dispute that the assessee maintained proper books of account and the same have been accepted in the past and no defects were pointed out in the books. The expenses were fully supported by the vouchers. Full details were also mentioned in respect of each item in the books. Simply because the valuation report was of a higher amount, the books could not be said to be unreliable. The Tribunal, was, therefore, justified in deleting the addition of Rs.55,780/- (8) CIT v/s Vijay Kumar D Gupta (2014) 3651TR 470 (Guj) " ..... Moreover, it is apparent that the only reason for making the addition under section 69 of the Act is that there is a difference in the cost of construction as determined by the Valuation Officer and as shown by the assessee. At no stage of the assessment proceedings does the Assessing Officer appear to have mentioned that the books of account are defective or that the cost of 39 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 construction as shown in the books of account is not the true cost of construction. Thus, while making the reference to the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer has not recorded any defect in the books of account nor has he rejected the same. Except for the difference in the estimated cost determined by the Valuation Officer and the actual cost as shown by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to establish that the assessee had made any unaccounted investment in the construction of the building in question and that the books of account do not reflect the correct cost of construction. Under the circumstances, there was no occasion for the Assessing Officer to make a reference to the Valuation Officer. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema (supra), unless the books of account are rejected, the Assessing Officer cannot make a reference to the Valuation Officer. The reference made to the Valuation Officer, not being in consonance with the provisions of law, was, therefore, invalid. Accordingly, the report made by the Valuation Officer pursuant to such an invalid reference could not have been made the basis for addition under section 69 of the Act." (9) Whether an addition can be made solely and simply on the basis of the valuation report submitted by DVO is no longer 'res integra' and is covered by the various decision of Hon'bIe Courts mentioned below:- • CIT v. S.K. Construction Co. [2008] 167 Taxman 171, • ClT v. Navin Gera [2010] 328 ITR 516/[2011] 198 Taxman 93 (Delhi), • CIT v. Smt. Suroj Devi[2010] 328 ITR 516/[2011] 197 Taxman 173 (Delhi)(Mag) • CIT v. Bojrong Lal Bansal [20111 335 ITR 572/200 Taxman 188 (Mag)/12 taxmann.com 88 (De/hi) • It has been repeatedly held that addition cannot be justified solely relying upon the valuation report. Decision of the Supreme Court in the case oj K.P. Varghese v. ITO {19811131 ITR 597/7 Toxmon 13. • Nirpo/singh vis ClT (2013) 359 ITR 398 (P & H) • Roghuroj Agro Industries (P}Ltd (2013) 38 Toxmonn.com 318(AII). (10) ClT V/I,' Vridnaban Real estate (P) Ltd. (2012) 254 CTR (All)

Although above cited case pertains to re-opening of the case based on DVO's report but ratio laid down is equally applicable to the instant case. Hon'ble court has deleted the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 by holding that OVO's report per se is not an information for the purpose of reopening of assessment uls147-AO has to apply his mind on the information, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon for re-opening of assessment-there has to be 40 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 something more than the report of DVO for the belief of AO. By observing so, hon'ble court dismissed the appeal of revenue. 4.4.8 Considering the aforesaid fact and circumstances of the matter and the law as interpreted by several High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court – the findings on this issue in respect of peculiar facts of this case are as below; i) Admittedly, the assessee company maintained its regular books of accounts supported by bills/vouchers and other records which were subjected to Audit. The AO has neither pointed out any defect in books nor brought any positive material all record to establish alleged unaccounted investment in different projects of appellant. Most importantly, AO has not even rejected the books of accounts even after receipt of valuation report. In view of these facts, valuation report obtained from DVO cannot form a foundation ipso facto for making addition towards alleged suppression or cost of investment. Neither DVO nor AO has pointed out that certain expenditure on certain items/construction was incurred which was not recorded in the books maintained by the assessee. Hence, additions made by AO is not sustainable in law being based merely on valuation report received from DVO. ii) The AO has scanned a loose paper No.8 of LP-1 on page no 7 of the assessment order and has pointed that the said loose paper contain details of investment of Rs. 4913.24 lacs in building by the appellant however, the same is not fully reflected in books of accounts. The appellant, however, has brought some different facts to light and stated that the investment in building has been reflected at Rs. 2740.41 lacs in the schedule of loans and advances and Rs. 2298.30 lacs in \VIP (Work In Progress) which on totaling amounts to Rs.5038.71 which is more than the figure of Rs. 4913.241acs as mentioned on the said loose paper. The appellant has also explained that the amount of Rs. 2298.30 represents payments made against which capitalization was pending and so it was not included in fixed assets while the figure of Rs. 2740.41 is the capitalized amount. While certifying the investment, the CA has considered both the capitalized and un-capitalized amount on account of building as he 'was required to certify the total investment made by appellant. On perusal of copy of balance sheet as on 31.03.2015 it was observed that fixed asset shown by the appellant was at Rs. 35,83,79,872/- and WIP Building at Rs. 22,33,77,614/- which clearly shows that the investment shown by the appellant is more than that shown in loose paper found during the course of search. iii) The A.O. has not mentioned any reason in the assessment order or in the reference to the valuation, that he had any incriminating material which led to form his belief that the appellant had under stated the cost of construction referred for valuation. 11 is very

Interestingly, DVO has applied same rate for cost of construction of the project even though the investment is spread over many years. As per appellant, DVO should have adopted state PWD rates after making certain adjustment for the construction done by the assessee in different assessment years. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v/s Raj Kumar 182 ITR 436 (All) has held that value of property under PWD rates is much lower than the cost of value of property as per CPWD rates. Similarly, in the case of Cl'T vis Prem kumara Murdiya 296 ITR 508 (Raj) wherein hon 'ble court refused to interfere in the order of ITAT holding that appropriate to be taken into consideration would be PWD rates and holding difference between CPWD rates and PWD rates at 20-25%. Similar views have been expressed in the case of ITO vis Nilesh Maheshwari (2011) 53 DTR 43 (ITAT Jaipur). In view of this, a difference of 20-25% between cost shown in books and estimated by DVO falls within 'tolerance band' as held by various courts. Further, appellant purchased material on wholesale basis which brings 'economy of scale' into construction cost which as per appellant would result into savings upto 25-30%. AO has 42 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 acknowledged this aspect but did not provide any relief while making addition. Appellant has also argued about savings in cost of construction for other reasons as well i.e. self-supervision, consultancy charges etc. however, AO failed to allow any benefit to the assessee on any of the count which is not justified. 143 (ITAT Ahd) wherein it was held that when the cost of construction declared by the assessee was supported by regular books of accounts and vouchers, correctness of which was not disturbed by the AO or DVO by bringing any specific material on record, the CIT(A) was fully justified in holding that no addition could be validly made on account of any understatement, of cost of construction merely because of difference as estimated by the DVO. Hence, on this count, 1 am of the view that addition made merely on the basis of DVO's report is not sustainable. viii) The valuation report of DVO is not binding on the AO because it is merely an opinion of an expert. 1n the context of the controversy in issue, it may also be germane to notice the expression used by. legislature i.e. "estimate". Thus, resort can be made to the said provision by the AO for the purpose of "estimating" the value of any investment, bullion, jewellery or any valuable article etc. However, this is settled legal position that addition cannot be made solely on the basis of valuation report which is only give an estimate as held by various High Courts, discussed earlier. ix) It is apparent from record that assessing officer has not brought any material on record to establish that the assessee had made any unaccounted investment in construction of the buildings in question and that books of accounts do not reflect the correct cost of construction. It is evident that only reason for making the addition is that there is a difference in the cost of construction as estimated by the valuation officer and as shown by the assessee in its books of accounts. 4.4.911 is interesting 10 note that valuation of the property under consideration was done by the DVO after applying cost index on the basis of DPAR -2007 (as base). It is settled law that DPAR rates adopted by DVO are higher than PWD rates. Honble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vls Prern Kumari Murdiya 296 ITR 344 (Raj) refused to interfere in the order of ITAT holding that appropriate rate to be taken into consideration would be PWD rates and holding difference between CPWD rates and FWD rates at 20-

Ld AR specifically drew our attention to para 4.4.8(ii) of the order of Ld CIT(A), wherein it has been observed by the Ld CIT(A) that the amount of investment in building for Rs. 4013.24 Lacs considered by the Ld AO from the loose paper LP-1 found during the course of search, a certificate by the Chartered Accountant certifying Investments of the trust is not fully reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee trust was a wrong presumption of the AO without appreciating the facts correctly. Ld CIT(A) has observed that the difference in amount of investment in Building in the Fixed assets of the assessee trust and the certificate of chartered accountant was on account of WIP (Work in Progress) of Rs. 2233.77 Lacs which was not taken into account by the Ld AO. As per books of 44 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 accounts examined by Ld CIT(A) from balance sheet as on 31.03.2015 total fixed assets of the assessee was Rs. 3583.79/- Lacs and WIP building was at Rs. 2233.77 Lacs, which clearly shows that investment shown by the appellant is more than that of the amount shown in loose paper relied upon by the Ld AO. Ld AR submitted that this clearly shows that AO has taken the decision of referring the matter to DVO without properly appreciating the facts of the case. Ld AR therefor submitted that the AO has no reason to refer the matter to DVO, no incriminating material was unearthed during the search which leads the Ld AO to form a belief that the assessee had understated the cost of construction referred for valuation. Ld AR prayed that the reference made to DVO by the Ld AO itself was a wrong, unjust, illegal and arbitrary move by the Ld AO and the assessment should have been quashed on this ground itself and no addition is warranted.

Ld AR further took us to para 4.4.6 of the order of Ld CIT(A) were in observation with respect to the position of law with respect to methodology adopted for preparing valuation repost was discussed. It was observed by the Ld CIT(A) that DVO, in the instant case, has adopted Plinth area rate and cost index method of valuation, however, as per „Guidelines for Valuation of Immovable Properties 2009‟ issued by CBDT, the “Detailed Item Wise Method” should have been given preference over all the other methods. In this regard Hon‟ble Rajathan ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 has held that item wise detailed method of valuation is most accurate, authentic, reliable and desirable. This is submission of Ld AR that in view of this finding that the DVO has not adopted a method duly notified by CBDT it self held the report of DVO unreliable and no assessment or addition can be made relying on the same. Further the DVO has committed several other errors while preparing its report under (i) Plinth Area Rate Method and (ii) Cost Index Method, such mistakes were pointed out in para 4.4.6 of the order of Ld CIT(A). According to the Ld AR the area of the security cabin and shed were wrongly taken by DVO in its report at higher quantities. With regard to the plinth area rate also it was submitted by the AR that DVO has adopted „Standard DPAR 2007 approved by DG, CPWD, New Delhi‟ as per CBDT instruction no 1671, with due adjustments but no details of such adjustment were provided, also no adjustment on account of superior/inferior specifications have been made. Cost of water and sanitary fittings were also taken at 15% of the CPWD rates as against the standard of 7% to 8%. Ld AR further argued that the cost index which is very vital in estimating the valuation of immovable property, adopted by DVO in two segments (i) For all buildings (other than auditorium and shed) at 176.36% and (ii) For auditorium and shed at 894.15%. The DVO has very unreasonably adopted the rates applicable in New Delhi, whereas the property for which the valuation was done is situated at Raipur, such adoption of rates applicable for a place entirely dissimilar in all respect from the place where actual property is 46 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 located and investment was made, cannot be accepted. As per valuer of the assessee after collecting data from open market, the cost index for various building material for construction is worked out at 140%-150% as against 176.36% by the DVO, thus estimation of the DVO was on higher side. It is the submission that, since the additions made by the Ld AO were entirely based on the valuation report of the DVO without bringing any material or cogent evidence to establish that any investment, as alleged, was made out of the books. This is submitted that, as per settled law the additions made solely on the basis of valuation report is not sustainable in law, moreover, reliance on a valuation report with errors / mistakes and defects was a miscarriage of the justice. On this aspect, Ld AR relied upon various of judgments referred to supra. It was the prayer of the Ld AR, that the order passed by the Ld AO is void-ab-initio being based on a valuation report prepared on inapplicable, unjustified and unreasonable factors which cannot be suitable for the facts and in the circumstances, apart from unjustified and inaccurate workings the report of the DVO has several other technical mistakes and errors as pointed out by the Assessee but the same were not considered by the Ld AO. Therefore, the order of the Ld AO has no legal standing and thus the additions made deserves to be deleted in its entirety. Even the relief granted by Ld CIT(A) for margin of 30% on account of excessive rates adopted by the DVO was not a substantial justice to the assessee. In 47 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 such circumstances the entire additions made by the Ld AO are not sustainable and are liable to be deleted.

We have considered the rival submissions, contentions and perused the material available on records. The sole issue raised by the revenue and contested by the assessee for AY 2016-17 is “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs.2,68,47,635/- out of the total addition of Rs.3,59,80,960/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of DVO report.”, similar ground and facts with difference in figures have raised by the revenue for AY 2017-18 also. The revenue has the contention that the Ld AO has validly invoked the provisions of section 142A of the act and therefore the additions made based on the report of the DVO by the Ld AO reduced by the Ld CIT(A) was an error and same needs to be corrected by setting aside the order of Ld CIT(A) and restoring back the order of the Ld AO.

On perusal of the order of Ld CIT(A), wherein he has categorically adjudicated all the grievances raised by the appellant with proper discussion, deliberation and appreciation of the issues, facts and circumstances of the case in light of the judicial discipline guided by various hon‟ble high courts. Ld CIT(A) has decided the issues with a finding that the there were discrepancies in the report of DVO with respect to rates adopted by the DVO on a higher side and therefore a well thought relief of 30% on the valuation given by the DVO was granted to the assessee. The relief granted was based on the foundation of comparative

Appeals of the assessee for AY 2016-2017 and 2017-18 being IT(SS)A No. 16-17/RPR/2019 were also directed against the same common order of CIT(A)-3, Raipur dated 17.06.2021. Identical grounds were raised, except figures, as under:

The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.

The departmental appeal in IT(SS)A Nos.192-193/RPR/2019 for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 on its sole common ground (except difference in quantum) has been decided, in terms of our observations above.

Since, the Order of Ld CIT(A) has been sustained and the departmental appeals are dismissed, the grounds raised by the assessee in its cross appeals are also incidentally decided, become infructuous and for academic interest only, thus, no separate adjudication of the same is called for. Consequently, IT(SS)A No. 16-17/RPR/2019 of the assessee, stand dismissed.

In the result, the appeals of the revenue ITA Nos.188 to 193/RPR/2019 and cross objections of the assessee CO Nos.05 to 08/RPR/2022and also the appeals of the assessee IT(SS)A No. 16- 17/RPR/2019 are dismissed. Order pronounced in pursuance to the Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules,1963 on 27/03/2023. (RAVISH SOOD) (ARUN KHODPIA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायऩुर/Raipur; ददनाांक Dated 27/03/2023 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

Raipur गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रयत //// (