ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA V. SMT. SIPRA GUPTA, PATNA

ITA 71/PAT/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Patna-3, which quashed the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, and a Cross Objection by the assessee, Smt. Sipra Gupta, against the addition of 1,21,63,000 to her income as unexplained cash deposit during the demonetization period. The AO had reopened the assessment based on substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, which were alleged to be unexplained. The CIT (A) quashed the notice, but the Tribunal found that the reopening was justified based on the materials available with the AO, although the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable as it resulted in double taxation of the same income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791853 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Sunita Jain Vs. ITO, CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & chemical Ltd., United Electrical Company (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT & Ors., CIT Vs. Anr. Vs. GMR Holding Pvt. Ltd., Pr. CIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyle (I), Pr. CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) ltd, Parveen Kumar Mittal Vs. Pr. CIT, Ragini Verma Vs ACIT Circle-49(1), Kolkata, ITO vs. Joydeb Kundu, ITO vs M/s. Senco Alankar, Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD. AH CHOWDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: S A.K. RASTOGI; RAKESH KUMAR; ARS
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Reopening of assessment; Competent authority; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 68; 69; 234B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA No.71/PAT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna 6th floor, C.R. (Annexe) Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna-800001 Vs. Smt. Sipra Gupta C/o Late Ramesh Prasad, Naugariyain forntof panch mandir, Dira Par, Mangal Talab, Patna City, Patna-800008, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AJOPG7743B CO No.1/PAT/2023 (Arising in ITA No. 71/PAT/2023 for A.Y. 2017-18) Smt. Sipra Gupta C/o Late Ramesh Prasad, NaugariyaInPront of Panch mandir, Dira Par, Mangal Talab, Patna City, Patna-800008, Bihar Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna 6th floor, C.R. (Annexe) Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna-800001 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi & Shri Rakesh Kumar, ARs Revenue by : Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR Date of hearing: 24.11.2025 Date of pronouncement: 09.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: The appeal of the Revenue and the CO of the assessee are arising against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Patna-3 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 25.01.2023 for the AY 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we note that the Cross Objection of the assessee is barred by limitation by 85 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 Smt. Sipra Gupta; A.Y. 2017-18 ITA No. 71/PAT/2023& CO No. 1/PAT/2023 the assessee explained the reason for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. A.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reason, hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal. 3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of learned CIT (A) quashing the notice u/s 148 of the Act. 3.1. The facts in brief are that the learned AO reopened the case u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 12.10.2017, after obtaining approval of competent authority. The case of the assessee was reopened for the reason that the assessee has deposited a huge amount of ₹1,12,30,000/- in her bank account of Allahabad Bank, Patna. It was further noted by the learned AO that the cash was deposited during the period of 09.11.2016 to 31.11.2016.However during the assessment proceedings the AO noted that in fact cash of Rs, 1,21,63,000/- was deposited into bank and accordingly added the same to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act dated 13.12.2018. 3.2. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) recorded a very cryptic finding by observing and holding as under: - “I have considered the reasons recorded by the AD which has been reproduced in foregoing paragraph I have also considered the written submission made by the Ld. Als There is no dispute that the cash of Rs. 1,12,30,000/- has been deposited in bank account of the appellant. There is also no dispute that the source of the cash have been explained in online submission to the AO. It was submitted that source of cash deposit during the demonetization period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 was the cash in hand as on 08.11.2016 of Rs. 38.01 lakh and the cash sales as per cash invoices Rs. 83.26 lack aggregating to Rs. 1,21,63,000/- crore, out of which Rs. 1,12,30.000/- was deposited after 08.11.2016. There is no dispute that the assessee is in business of sale of FMCG products As per the audit report and ITR, the turnover for AY 2017-18 was Rs Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 Smt. Sipra Gupta; A.Y. 2017-18 ITA No. 71/PAT/2023& CO No. 1/PAT/2023 8.82 crore. There is also no dispute that the sale of FMCG products is largely in cash. The assessee is regularly filing her return of income year after year wherein she has disclosed the nature of business carried on in her proprietorship concern M/s Ramesh Enterprises. It has also been argued that scrutiny assessment were under CASS for earlier years. It has be in submitted under the facts of the case that the AO was fully aware of the nature of business conducted by her proprietorship concern. It would now necessary to examine whether there was any relevant material available before the learned AO to form reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. In the reason recorded the AO has merely reproduce the fact of cash deposit and the details of explanation submitted by the assessee online in respect of ‘cash transaction-2016’. In the body of the reason, the AO has stated that the online submission of the assessee is incomplete and unsatisfactory as the assessee did not mentioned al out the items sold with reference to the invoice no, details of party which has generated the luge amount of cash for the purpose of cash deposit in her bank account. The AO was also of the opinion that the assessee has not mentioned the business turnover and the activity which will justify receipt of huge cash. It has also been stated by the AO that the assessee has failed to quote any precedence to justify huge cash deposit from sale proceeds during the period. With these reasons, the AO has apparently formed his reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment. Undisputedly in this case, the AO had the audit report, the ITR for last several AY's wherein the nature of business was recorded and the turnover was disclosed. In the FMCG business the sales are made largely in cash for which sale invoice is generated but no Information regarding the purchaser is generally available.In respect of credit sales only the assessee would have details of the purchasers. The recorded narration does not divulge any reason which may indicate any escapement of income. The cash deposit is routine phenomena for the business conducted by the assessee. There is nothing peculiar regarding the cash deposit during the demonizationperiod. The AO has not brought on record any evidence that the appellant has accepted SBN notes during the demonetization period. The deposit of cash per se under the background fact of the business of the assessee does not generale even a suspicious that the cash deposit may have been sourced from source other than business. The ARs have challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO u/s 147. They have vehemently urged that the AO had no information which could justify the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.147. The ARs have relied upon various case laws: 1. Sunita Jain Vs. ITO (2017) 49 CCH 330 (Ahd.-Trib) 2. CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & chemical Ltd. (2015) Tax Pub (DT) 5456 (SC) 3. United Electrical Company (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT & Ors. 4. CIT Vs. Anr. Vs. GMR Holding Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 439 (Karn) 5. Pr. CIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyle (I) 396 ITR 5 (Delhi) 6. Pr. CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del) 7. Parveen Kumar Mittal Vs. Pr. CIT (2021) 63 CCH 0256 (Chd-Trib). I have gone through the submission of Learned. Ars and I have considered the entire gamut of the fact of the case. In my considered view, there was no information Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 Smt. Sipra Gupta; A.Y. 2017-18 ITA No. 71/PAT/2023& CO No. 1/PAT/2023 in possession of the Assessing Officer which would have indicated escapement of income. I hold that the AO has recorded the reason mechanically and his assumption of jurisdiction under Section 47 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I quash the notice issue under Section 148. The ground taken is allowed.” 3.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the learned CIT (A) has passed a very cryptic and unreasoned order on this issue and quashed the reopening of assessment without giving any cogent reasons. The learned AO reopened the assessment on the ground that there were huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee and after considering the explanation of the assessee, he found the same to be not plausible and the assessment was reopened. In our opinion, there was a sufficient material before the learned AO to reopen the case of the assessee and accordingly the reasons were recorded. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the cryptic order passed on this issue by the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, we are inclined to set aside the order of learned CIT (A) on this issue by upholding the reopening of assessment. The ground no. 1 is allowed. 4. So far as the deletion of addition on merit is concerned, the Revenue has challenged the deletion made by the learned CIT (A) of ₹1,21,63,000/- as made by the learned AO on account of cash deposited during the demonetization period. 4.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s Ramesh Enterprises which deals in FMCG products like tea, perfume and Oil etc. The learned AO noted that the assessee deposited of ₹1,12,30,000/- on several occasions from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016, which was stated to be deposited cash out of accumulated cash in hand and the same represented to be accumulated out of cash sales Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 Smt. Sipra Gupta; A.Y. 2017-18 ITA No. 71/PAT/2023& CO No. 1/PAT/2023 by the assessee. According to the AO the actual cash deposited was Rs. 1,21,63,000/- .During the year, the said sales have been shown in the profit and loss account and income has been offered to tax. The ld AO accepted the sales however he AO added the cash on the ground that assessee has not produced any documentary evidences and therefore, addition was made u/s 68 of the Act. 4.2. The learned CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings allowed the appeal of the assessee again passing a very cryptic order as under: - “Ground No. 3 to 8: For that, addition of Rs.12163000 under section 68 is lead in law in absence of any reasonable opportunity of being heard. The whole assessment is in violation of natural law and justice and void ab initio. For that Ld. A.O. has failed to appreciate the stand taken initially by the appellant that the entire deposit in the bank account in between 09.11.2016 amounting to Rs.11230000 to 30.12.2016 to 30.12.2016 amounting to Rs.11230000 is fully covered out of cash in hand as on 08.11.2016 as per books and sales proceeds from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.20216 especially when the sales are supported by cash invoices and disclosed to the Income Tax Department and Sales Tax Department under VAT. The addition is based on suspicion and surmises and surmises and has no leg to stand in the eye of law. For that that Ld. A.O. has erred in disallowing the exemption of Rs.150000 claimed under section 80 by the appellant on account of accrued interest on NSC payment of LIP and Investment in NSC on suspicion and surmises without giving proper opportunity of being heard. For that the Ld. A.O. has similarly erred in disallowing deduction under section 80TTA at Rs.263 whereas in fact he has accepted the bank interest as income from other Sources. For that the charming of interest under section 234A is bad in law as original return as well as return filed under section 148 is well within time. The consequential relief under section 234B may be allowed in case of quantum relief. For that whole order is bad in fact as well as in law and suitable to be allowed in full. As I have I have already quashed the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147, these grounds are only of academic interest, hence no opinion is expressed on these grounds” Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 Smt. Sipra Gupta; A.Y. 2017-18 ITA No. 71/PAT/2023& CO No. 1/PAT/2023 4.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that undisputed facts are that the assessee is a FMCG dealer and during the year filed the return of income, declaring the total income of ₹7,33,275/-. The books of the account of the assessee were audited and the cash which were accumulated in the cash book was on account cash sales made by the assessee during the financial year itself. The cash sales were accepted by the learned AO. However, the cash deposited out of those sales was added again, meaning thereby same income is added twice. First, by way of same being shown as sales during the year and second time again by way of adding the cash which was deposited in the bank. Besides, addition was made by the learned AO u/s 68 of the Act which is not correct section under this addition could be made. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ragini Verma Vs ACIT Circle-49(1), Kolkata in ITA No.1361/KOL/2023 for A.Y.2017-18, order dated 13-06-2024. The operating part thereof is extracted as under: - “7. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record including the decisions cited before us, we observe that the assessee has shown to have done trading in sarees in Kolkata. We also note that all the transactions of sale and purchases were made in cash and the assessee has also maintained the books of account and recorded the transactions as regards purchase and sales therein. This is undisputed that the cash deposited in to the bank account of assessee was out of cash books and a finding to that effect has been given by the AO as well. We also note that the AO has not rejected the books of account and even sale was not doubted. Therefore the action of the AO by adding the cash sales u/s 69A amounted to double addition which is not permissible under the Act. First by way of accepting the sales and secondly by way of making further addition towards cash sales u/s 69A of theAct. The case of assessee finds support from the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ITO vs. Joydeb Kundu (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Bench has held as under: “8. We have carefully gone through the material available on record and considering the rival submission made by the parties, in the present case both the authorities below accepted the fact that the amount received by assessee are nothing but sale proceeds in the course of business of the assessee. The Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 Smt. Sipra Gupta; A.Y. 2017-18 ITA No. 71/PAT/2023& CO No. 1/PAT/2023 addition has made only on the basis that after demonetization, the demonetization note could not have been accepted as valid tender. Since the sales proceeds for which cash was received are added u/s 69A of the Act which would amount to double taxation once as sale and another against as unexplained cash credit which is violate principles of taxation. The ld. AR further contended that Hon’ble ITAT of Kolkata in the case of ITO vs M/s. Senco Alankar in ITA No. 10/Kol/2021 dated 27.06.2022 on an identical fact held as under: “7. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the material placed on record and gone through various judicial precedents relied upon by both the parties. At the outset, we find that the moot point for consideration is in respect of explanation furnished by the assessee regarding nature and source of cash deposit to the tune of Rs.1,95,03,291/- (Rs.3,87,69,800 – Rs.1,92,66,509) during the demonetization period which has been treated as deemed income of the assessee and added to the total income u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money. We find that written submissions and all the relevant documentary evidences were placed on record. 7.1 The foremost point which invites our attention is the computation method adopted by the AO in arriving at this figure of Rs.1,95,03,291/- which is nothing but based on a hypothesis to arrive at estimated probable sales value that could have been made on 08.11.2016 between the time window from 8.30PM to 12 midnight and the entire day. As discussed above, Ld. AO has made certain assumptions on the logistics and the conduct of business transactions/operations to arrive at this probable sale value estimation. We find that the assumptions so made by the Ld. AO are devoid of any scientific basis and third party comparable which gives credibility to such an estimation. All these assumptions and calculations carry AO’s own figment of imagination. We note that the assessee has countered all the assertions and assumptions made by the AO by submitting the details from its audited books of accounts and stock registers by providing all the relevant details from time to time. We note that the assessee had given all the explanations which are reasonable and there is no other material except for the estimation of probable sales value done by the Ld. AO for the purpose of treating the deemed income as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. We also note that assessee has duly recorded in its books of accounts all the sales made on the date of announcement of demonetization in the time window available on that day which has been credited in the P&L Account. It is also noted that the assessee had stock in hand to meet the sales demand, all of which is duly recorded in the stock register furnished before the authorities below. It is also noted that there is no specific discrepancy pointed out in respect of the books of account, more particularly when the purchases have not been doubted in the assessment. Ld. AO has noted that details of customers on the invoices raised during the time window on the date of Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 Smt. Sipra Gupta; A.Y. 2017-18 ITA No. 71/PAT/2023& CO No. 1/PAT/2023 announcement of demonetization were not recorded on the invoices for some of the instances wherein the details were recorded, summons were issued to those customers, most of which remained unreplied. We note that all the sales were cash sales and in case of cash transactions of sale, delivery of goods istaken against the cash payment and it is hardly necessary for the seller to bother about the name and address of the purchaser. 7.2 We further observe that the assertion of the ld. AO on the mere possibility of assessee earning considerable amount out of cash sales on the date of announcement of demonetization is a pure conjecture on the part of the AO and is based on surmises, speculating on the approach adopted by the assessee. Rather, the estimation approach of arriving at probable sales value by the Ld. AO cannot be rationally inferred to justify the addition so made. Thus, we find that the Ld. AO indulged in suspicion, conjecture and surmises and acted without any evidence and upon a view of facts which cannot reasonably be entertained. It is a settled position of law that in making the assessment, the AO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assumption without reference to any evidence or any material at all. It has been consistently held by various Hon’ble Courts that there must be some matter more than their suspicion to support the assumption made u/s. 143(3) of the Act. We find force from the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) wherein it was held as under – “The mere possibility of the appellant earning considerable amounts in the year under consideration was a pure conjecture on the part of the Income-tax Officer and the fact that the appellant indulged in speculation (in Kalai account) could not legitimately lead to the inference that the profit in a single transaction or in a chain of transactions could exceed the amounts, involved in the high denomination noted, - this also was a pure conjecture or surmise on the part of the Income-tax Officer. It is, therefore, clear that the Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion it did in the present case indulged in suspicion, conjectures and surmises and acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse and this court is entitled to interfere.” 7.3 Ld. Counsel pointed out that assessee had all the capabilities, infrastructure, manpower, process and procedures to handle and deal with high volume of customers during small time window available to it. For comparability of the circumstances which existed on the day of demonetization announcement, he pointed to the occasion of Dhanteras which is a festival wherein similar kind of high traffic volume of customers happens for the purchase and sale of gold/bullion/jewellery, it being an auspicious day for making such investments. It was placed on record that on the day of Dhanteras which fell on 28.10.2016 i.e. prior Printed from counselvise.com Page | 9 Smt. Sipra Gupta; A.Y. 2017-18 ITA No. 71/PAT/2023& CO No. 1/PAT/2023 to the day of announcement of demonetization, sales bills to the tune of 229 numbers were generated while dealing with those many customers which was also during the smaller time window available on that day depending on the muhurats. It was also pointed out that the VAT returns filed by the assessee for the year under consideration have not been revised in any manner so as to reflect any kind of adjustment or accommodation made in the accounted data of the assessee. All these facts and explanations were placed before the lower authorities, copies of which are placed in the paper book at page 19 to 28 and 52 to 75. 8. Keeping in view the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the guess work adopted by the ld. AO in arriving at probable sales value and the judicial precedents relied upon, we find no reason to interfere with the factual findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.1,95,03,291/- made by the ld. AO. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. 8. On the issue of wrong invocation of provisions of Section 69A the Act, we observe that the same is not applicable to the transactions recorded in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. For the sake of convenience the provisions of section 69A are extracted as below: 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year.] 8.1. A perusal of above section reveals that it deals with unexplained money in the form of bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles which are not recorded in the books of account if maintained by the assessee for any source of income and the assessee has not offered any explanation about nature and source of acquisition of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article but in the present case, the facts are quite clear that the assessee has shown the receipt of money from cash sales which has been duly accounted in the books of accounts. In the case of JMK Exports (supra) wherein the it has been held as under: “19. In the facts of the present appeal, it is an admitted factual position that the disputed transactions are duly recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. Therefore, at the very threshold the provisions of section 69 will not get attracted. In fact, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly accepted aforesaid factual and legal position. In any case of the matter, both the Assessing Officer and learned First Appellate Authority have proceeded on the premise that the credit entries appearing in the books of account are Printed from counselvise.com Page | 10 Smt. Sipra Gupta; A.Y. 2017-18 ITA No. 71/PAT/2023& CO No. 1/PAT/2023 unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. It is quite patent and obvious that provisions contained u/s. 68 and 69 of the Act operate in different situations and conditions therein are also different. Therefore, when it was never the case of the Department that the disputed addition has to be treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act, at the second appellate stage, a new dimension cannot be given to the disputed issue by converting the addition from section 68 to section 69, that too, without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. More so, when applicability of section 69 was never within the purview of the Tribunal and not even the case of the Department. I don’t intend to deal further on the issue as to whether the Tribunal has powers to change the provision under which the addition has been made by the Departmental Authorities as it is academic in the present case considering the fact that the conditions of section 69 are not satisfied. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the above decisions, we are of the view that the order passed by the AO is not sustainable under the law on two counts: i) that provision of section 69A were wrongly invoked by wrong interpretation of the provisions of the Act and ii) that the addition would result in double taxation of the same sales which is not permissible under the Act as has been discussed hereinabove. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition.” 4.4. It has not been the case of the tax authorities that the during demonetization, sales had not been shown by the assessee as income in the books. In this case if we accept the plea of the department it would result into double taxation of the same income in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, we uphold the order of the learned CIT (A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue on this issue. 4.5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” CO No.1/PAT/2023 5. The issue raised in assessee’s Cross Objection in ground nos.1 to 3 is in support of the learned CIT (A) order, where reopening has been upheld by us. Since, we have reversed the order of learned CIT (A) in the above Para on this issue by holding that the reopening has been validly made and therefore, the ground no. 1 to 3 are in the cross objection are dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 11 Smt. Sipra Gupta; A.Y. 2017-18 ITA No. 71/PAT/2023& CO No. 1/PAT/2023 6. The second issue raised in assessee’s Cross Objection in ground no.4 is in support of the learned CIT (A) order deleting the addition of ₹1,21,63,000/- as made by the learned AO on account of cash deposited during the demonetization period u/s 68 of the Act. Since, we have upheld the order of the learned CIT (A) on this issue, therefore, ground no. 4 become infructuous and academic and consequently dismissed. 7. The issue raised in ground no. 5 is not pressed at the time hearing, hence, dismissed. 8. In the Result, the appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (VICE PRESIDENT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Patna, Dated: 09.12.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "