← All Phrases

“appeal before the tribunal”

AppealsSection 253Section 25316,033 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before the tribunal is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before the tribunal

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
389 ITR 326 · 2016 · High Court
241
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate additional grounds of appeal if they are legal in nature or go to the root of the matter, even if not raised before lower authorities or filed belatedly.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Otters Club v. DIT
392 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court
202
citing judgments

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.
81 ITR 303 · 1971 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT
317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Judgments citing appeal before the tribunal

Chandu Vijayalakshmi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 805/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.805/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt.Chandu Vijayalakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1) Pan:Aflpc2369E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. I have heard the learned DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There

Ramadevi Nama, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-3, Karimnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 793/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.793/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Smt. Ramadevi Nama Vs. Income Tax Officer Karimnagar Ward 3 Pan:Aokpn3129D Karimnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 274

penalty levied u/s 271D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to provisions of section 269SS of the I.T. Act, 1961 submitted that the said provisions

Venkata Suresh Babu Ratikindi, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 690/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.690/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Venkata Suresh Babu Vs. Income Tax Officer Ratikindi Ward -1 Nellore Nellore Pan:Atnpr5184N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)

Delhi, relating to A.Y.2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 201 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has explained the reasons for such delay. After hearing the learned DR, the delay of 201 days in filing the appeal ... Multiplan India Ltd (38 ITD 320)(Del.). 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 2 of 4 ITA No 690 of 2024 Venkata Suresh Babu Ratikindi 6. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available

Nirmal Dutta, Jalpaiguri vs. A.O./I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the order of the Ld

ITA 1484/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 68

business. 3 Nirmal Dutta AY: 2022-23 Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the Ld. DR as none had appeared on behalf of the assessee and have also gone through the facts

Income Tax Officer-16(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ms. Shabnam Laiq Ahmed Khan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3849/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Savant, Sr. DR
Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69

deleted all the three additions made by the AO and allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. DR submitted that the claim of the assessee that the flats registered

Ramita Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Churchgate

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 3591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 69A

which ultimately did not happen. Accordingly, the assessee has decided to pursue the matter before the ITAT and accordingly, she has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Thus, we notice that the assessee was pursuing the matter before the AO in the set aside proceedings with the bonafide belief that

Vertex Chemicals, Mumbai vs. I.T.O -Ward 32(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3797/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi / Shri PrashantFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

entire purchase of the assessee. On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. AR submitted that the AO has not disputed / controvert the various documents submitted

Iincome Tax Officer -30(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Vilas Transport Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1272/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr. DR
Section 40A(3)

ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 (ITA No. 2600/Mum/2011 dated 24.11.2015). Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the AO stating that no disallowance under section 40A(3) is warranted since the impugned payments

M/S Lokmitra Shikshan Sanstha, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 812/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandram/S. Lokmitra Shikshan Sanshta Cit (Exemption), Pune 608, Pune Mahlunje, Vs. Pune – 411057 Pan: Aaatl9903B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishna Department By : Shri Keyur Patel, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-09-2024 O R D E R Per Astha Chandra, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishnaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 3. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The order dated 19-02-2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) rejecting the application of the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Income Tax Department, Pune vs. Kalawati Vijaykumar Agarwal, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 979/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 2Section 48Section 54Section 54F

grant relief accordingly. 6. In the result, appeal is allowed.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Azizulla Sharief, L/R of Late Alia Begum, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 306/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 306/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sri Azizulla Sharief Vs. The Income Tax Officer, L/R Of Late Smt.Alia Begum, Ward-1(2), D.No. 9-34-9/1, Opp. Visakhapatnam. Kalabharathi Pithapuram Colony, Visakhapatnam. [Pan : Apfpa7533J] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 13/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. 3 CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable ... Rs.3,05,000/-(175000+130000) u/s 68 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the gifts received from Shri

Sree Siva Chaitanya Agro Industries, Polamuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 256/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) Sree Siva Chaitanya Agro Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Industries, Ward-1, 3-81, Toorpu Peta, Polamuru, Kakinada. Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Acsfs5787Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M. Gangaraju Sarma, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 13/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri M. Gangaraju Sarma, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 14 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit and the relevant paras of the affidavit is extracted herein below ... that total delay goes to 14 days. ………….” 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee with respect to filing of the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, we find that the assessee was prevented by 3 a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeal

Pavan Kranti Nadiminti, Pm Palem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 303/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam13 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 303/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Pavan Kranti Nadiminti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-4(4), Pan: Agxpn5603K Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M. Muralidhar, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 13/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri M. Muralidhar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 114 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed petition for condonation of 2 delay along with the affidavit and the relevant paras of the affidavit is extracted herein ... appeal. Hence the delay.” 3. On perusal of the explanation given by the assessee with respect to filing of the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit, we find that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause to file the appeal within the stipulated time

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Bhawani Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1562/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1562/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-2022

Section 69C

Date of pronouncing the order : September 13, 2024 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-21 dated 27th December, 2023 passed for Assessment Year

Gobindram Chandramani Vivek, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

ITA 656/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

Rajappa, registered in his name.These contentions of the assessee were rejected by ld. CIT(A). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has now filed an appeal before the Tribunal, and has raised Ground Nos. 5 to 7 in connection therewith. It is the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee that ... affirmed the assessment order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer . 10. Aggrieved, the assessee has now filed appeal before the Tribunal . It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that there is no double deduction as both the deductions operate on different field as interest on housing loan

Miranda Tools Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1599/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

statutory enablement in Rule 8D and therefore, the addition to income u/s 14A is upheld.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising grounds as mentioned in appeal filed in prescribed proforma i.e. form no. 36. The grounds for AY 2013-14 are reproduced as under

Miranda Tools Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1598/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

statutory enablement in Rule 8D and therefore, the addition to income u/s 14A is upheld.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising grounds as mentioned in appeal filed in prescribed proforma i.e. form no. 36. The grounds for AY 2013-14 are reproduced as under

Sanjeev Mehta, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-70(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 353/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicialmember Sa No.49/Del./2024 (In Ita No.353/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) & Sanjeev Mehta Vs. Acit, Circle 70(1), G-1, Vishwa Apartment, New Delhi. 3, Shankaracharya Marg, Civil Lines, New Delhi – 110 054. (Pan: Aaapm5622L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Order : 13.09.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)’)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2 Since We Have Disposed Off The Appeal In The Instant Case By This Order, The Stay Application Filed By The Assessee Has Become Infructuous, Hence Dismissed.

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 253(5)Section 5

considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is an individual filed its return of income and while processing the return of income under

Arun Namdeo Keni, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5, Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 813/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. P DanielFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 54

delay and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that the appeal for assessment year 2013-14 is still pending

Chaphekar Suspensions Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 793/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 43B

appeal filed on the ground of appeal 3 is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of Addl. / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page 41 of the paper book drew the attention of the Bench