ASHOK PARSHAD GUPTA,DELHI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

ITA 1095/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals related to the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2019-20, concerning the assessee, Ashok Parshad Gupta, and the DCIT, Central Circle 20. The appeals were consolidated due to common issues and were heard together. The primary legal issues revolved around the validity of notices issued under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, the applicability of the Fourth Proviso to section 153A, and the treatment of certain amounts as unexplained investments or income. The tribunal examined the evidence presented, including documents and loose papers found during a search operation, and considered the arguments regarding the nature of the income and the proper application of tax laws.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26821 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: CBI vs. V.C.Shukla, Common Cause vs. UOI, Pr. CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma, PCIT vs Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAVED AKHTAR; CITDR
• Assessee Lawyers: K. SAMPATH
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained investment; Document seized; Peak credit; Documents seized; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 48; 132; 153A; 68; 22; 69; 13; 69A; 234B; 20

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIALMEMBER ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year :2011-12) ITA Nos.1143 to 1145/DEL/2023 (Assessment Years :2012-13 to 2014-15) ITA No.1146/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year :2019-20) Ashok Parshad Gupta, vs. DCIT, Central Circle 20, 188/1, Gali Saras Wali, New Delhi. Tilak Bazar, Delhi – 110 006. (PAN: AAAPG2208G) ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year :2019-20) DCIT, Central Circle 20, vs. Ashok Parshad Gupta, New Delhi. 188/1, Gali Saras Wali, Tilak Bazar, Delhi – 110 006. (PAN: AAAPG2208G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri V. Rajkumar, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Javed Akhtar,CITDR Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.12.2024 Date of Order : 07.02.2025 2 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : 1. The assessee has filed four appeals against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to ‘Ld. CIT (A)’) dated17.02.2023 for AY 2011-12 and dated 20.02.2023 for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15. The assessee and Revenue have also filed cross appeals against the order of ld. CIT (A)-27, New Delhi dated 24.02.2023 for AY 2019-20. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, therefore, the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order.First we take up ITA No.1095/Del/2023 for AY 2011-12 as lead case. 3. Brief facts of the case are, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was conducted by the Investigation Wing on 01.12.2018 in Faquir Chand Lockers and Vaults Pvt. Ltd. group of cases. Assessee’s locker no.393, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110 006, was also covered and searched under section 132 (1) of the Act. The cases were centralized u/s 127 of the Act. The AO observed that the relevant assessment year falls within the provision of the Fourth Proviso to section153A of the Act as the seized documents or evidence revealed that 3 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 theincome represented in the form of asset, which was escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- or more in the relevant assessment year or in aggregate in the relevant assessment years. Accordingly, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issuedto the assessee on 29.01.2021. In response, the assessee filed its return of income. Further assessee revised its return of income declaring total income of Rs.14,54,620/- on 13.02.2021. 4. The assessee is engaged in the business of chemicals. Notices u/s 142 of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, ld. AR for the assessee attended the proceedings and furnished the relevant information as called for. During assessment proceedings, the AO observed that during the year, the assessee has earned income under the head ‘income from house property’ of Rs.6,30,000/-, ‘income from other sources’ of Rs.6,37,859/- and claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs.1,53,216/-. 5. During search operation, documents identified as Annexure 1 (pages 123 to 128) were found and seized from locker no.393. The relevant portion is reproduced by the AO at page 3 of the assessment order. In order to verify the same, the assessee was issued a show-cause notice dated 11.08.2021 and was asked to explain the source of investments and expenses towards 4 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 farmhouse for the year under consideration. The notice was also reproduced by the AO at pages 4 & 5. In response, assessee submitted that in calculating the amountsinvolved on the farmhouse for AY 2011-12, an amount of Rs.50,41,000/-has been taken twice. Further it was submitted that the payment of Rs.19,18,000/- was paid throughcheque and details were submitted. Further it was submitted that the amount spent on farm was out of his past savings and agricultural income in the last 13 years. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the AO agreed that payment of Rs.19,18,000/- was made through cheque. The same was also evident from the seized documents. The same was reproduced by the AO at pages 6 to 8 of the order. Further AO observed that assessee was asked to produce documents in support of agricultural income like Form J, KhasraKhatauni, details of purchase in agricultural produce and other supporting documents. He observed that assessee has not produced any documentary evidence. Accordingly, the AO found that the assessee has made undisclosed income amounting to Rs.18,68,540/- during the year under consideration. Accordingly, he made addition u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, with 5 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 regard to addition made u/s 69 of the Act, ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition of Rs.7 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs based on the finding that the assessee has made payment through cheques which were cleared through his bank account and Rs.3 lakhs as accumulated agricultural income for past years. Accordingly, he sustained the addition of Rs.8,68,540/- i.e. Rs.18,68,540/- minus Rs.7 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs. With regard to jurisdictional issue raised u/s 153A of the Act, relating to Fourth Proviso to section 153A of the Act, ld. CIT (A) dismissed the ground by observing as under :- “5.2 Applicability of this proviso in the case of the applicant; i. Search operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted by the Department on 1.12.2018 in Faquir Chand Lockers and Vaults Pvt Ltd. group of cases. The appellant was covered as he was also having locker number 393 with this company. ii. From the incriminating papers found from this locker, it was observed that the appellant has concealed the income for AY 2011-12 to the extent of Rs.82,31,000/- which is more than the limit of Rs.50 lakhs. iii. The entries on these loose sheets indicate investment in Farm House i.e. an asset as defined in Explanation 2 of this proviso under the head \"land or building or both\". 5.3 In view of the above discussion, the action of the ld. AO in invoking the 4th proviso of Section l53A of the Act is upheld and this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.” 6 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 7. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in :- a. The issuing of a notice u/s 153A of the Act beyond the limitation period; b. confirming an addition of Rs.8,68,540/- invoking section 69 of the Act by treating the same as unexplained investment; c. charging interest u/s 234B of the Act; d. in not adjudicating the additional ground with regard to charging of interest u/s 234A of the Act in proceedings u/s 154. The above actions are being arbitrary, fallacious, unwarranted and illegal must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.” 8. At the time of hearing, ld. AR submitted as under :- “1. Ground (a):- This ground urges that the notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. The discussion by the AO on this issue is contained in para 2 of the assessment order in which he records that the subject AY falls under the ambit of the 4th Proviso to S.153A(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) confirms the averments and findings of the AO as per his observations in para 5 pages 6 & 7 of the appellate order. The findings and the reasonings of the Authorities below are all erroneous being based on a misreading of facts and a misappreciation of the provisions of law. In the context of the 4th Proviso, the word ‘relevant’ qualifying the words ‘assessment year’ extends the limitation beyond the period of six years as originally provided for u/s. 153A of the Act. The term relevant assessment years as per the Proviso applies to the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th assessment years preceding the date of search in a financial year. 7 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 With the search taking place in the FY 2018-19 the first of the ‘relevant assessment year’ in terms of the 4th Proviso would be AY 2011-12. The question thereafter would be whether in respect of that AY was there any material or evidence to indicate that income exceeding Rs. 50 lacs had escaped assessment in that year or in the three years preceding that year. Also the fact of such amount getting invested in an asset would also have to be identified and established. As admitted by the AO, the material that was recovered in the search pertaining to this year was page no. 128 of Annexure A-1. The entries on that page are extracted by the AO on pages 3 to 6 of the assessment order. That material is not cognizable material as per the rulings of the apex Court in the cases of CBI vs. V.C.Shukla (1998) Taxman.com 2155(SC) and Common Cause vs. UOI (2017) 394 ITR 220(SC). These decisions stand reiterated by the apex Court in Pr. CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) 165 taxmann.com 846(SC). Appended below are the relevant extracts from those decisions on this point:- CBI vs. V.C.Shukla:- “Section 34 of the Act reads as under:- “Entries in books of account when relevant – Entries in book of account, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the court has to inquire but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability.” 20. ’Book’ ordinarily means a collection of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written, or printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as ‘book’ for they can be easily detached and replaced. In dealing with the work ‘book’ appearing in Section 34 in Mukundram v. Dayaram AIR 1914 Nag. 44, a decision on which both sides have placed reliance, the Court observed:- “In its ordinary sense it signifies a collection of sheets of paper bound together in a manner which cannot be disturbed or altered except by tearing apart. The binding is of a kind which is not intended to the moveable in the sense of being undone and put together again. A collection of papers in a portfolio, or clip, or strung together on a piece of twine which is intended to be untied at will, would not, in ordinary English, be called a book…………… I think the term “book” in S.34 aforesaid many properly’ be taken to signify, ordinarily, a collection of sheets of paper bound together with the intention that such binding shall be permanent and the papers used collectively in one volume. It is easier however to say what is not a book for the purposes of S.34, and I have no hesitation in holding that unbound sheets of paper in whatever quantity, though filled up with one continuous account, are not a book of account within the purview of S.34.”(Underlining supplied) Common Cause vs. Union of India:- “16. With respect to the kind of materials which have been placed on record, this Court in V.C.Shukla’s case (supra) has dealt with the matter though at the stage of discharge when investigation had been completed but same is relevant for the purpose of decision of this case also. This Court has considered the entries in Jain Hawala diaries, note books and file containing loose sheets of papers not in the form of “Books of Account” and has held that such entries in loose papers/sheets are irrelevant and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, and that only where the entries are in the books of account regularly kept, depending on the nature of occupation, that those are admissible.” (Underling supplied) According to these decisions loose papers do not constitute books of accounts. Sec. 34 of the Evidence Act provides only for books of accounts regularly maintained to be constituting admissible evidence. For invoking the deeming provisions of S.68, 69, 69A etc. entries in books of accounts regularly maintained are compulsory. 8 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023  Additionally the Proviso can be invoked, if only, the escaped income for the block of relevant assessment years is Rs. 50 lacs or more. In the subject case, the entries in the seized paper 128 has been totalled by the AO at Rs. 86.86 lacs. He does so without noticing that a figure of Rs. 50.41 lacs which itself was the sum total of the entries prior to that figure on that paper stands re-added to make up the figure of Rs. 86.86 lacs. The correct figure for consideration would thus be Rs. 86.86 lacs minus Rs. 50,41 lacs i.e. Rs. 36.45 lacs, which indeed is the figure reckoned in the assessment. Obviously since this remainder figure of Rs. 36.45 lacs is less than Rs. 50 lacs the AO could not have assumed jurisdiction over this case for this year.  Page 128 of Annexure A-1 is a dumb document for want of narration, description, dates and other material particulars. It could not, therefore, be taken cognizance of in the assessment.  Absence of any asset which was relatable to those entries on the seized paper, the requirement as envisaged under Explanation 2 to sub- section(1) of S.153A of the Act remained unfulfilled. In sum, therefore, since the material recovered from the locker in the form of loose paper did not constitute any evidence or even if it did, it did not indicate any escapement of income for the subject year exceeding Rs. 50 lacs, the invocation of 4th Proviso to Sec. 153(1) of the Act to assume jurisdiction was erroneous, unwarranted and invalid. 2. Ground No. (b):- This ground is in respect of the addition of Rs. 8,86,540/- made u/s. 69 of the Act by treating the said sum as an unexplained investment. The discussion by the AO on this point is contained on pages 3 to 10 of the assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) has discussed this issue in para 6 spread over pages 8 to 9 of the assessment order.  The addition is based on seized loose papers 128 of Annexure A-1 which does not constitute valid evidence as per apex court decision cited supra.  The entries in that seized loose paper would not fall under the ambit of the deeming provision of Sec. 69 of the Act. Besides as per Sec.69 it was for the Assessee to have made investment during that year out of the sums represented by the entries on seized papers which were not recorded in the books of accounts. In the subject case neither the Assessee has not made any investment and so nor the AO has identified any as having been done. The invocation of S.69 of the Act fails at the threshold itself.  Alternatively the entries pertained to agricultural activities and to savings therefrom over the years which were beyond the pale of taxation.  The ground invoked by the AO to reject the claim for agricultural activities was that the khasrakhatauni and Form ‘J’ had not been provided. The AO ignored the khasrakhatauni which was indeed filed during the course of the assessment proceedings. The issuance of Form ‘J’ stood suspended during that period due to legal disputes.  The Ld. CIT(A) gave partial relief on quantum after observing that the entries in the seized paper 128 / Annexure-1 had been wrongly read by the AO, in as much as, a cheque entry of Rs. 7 lacs had not been reckoned and further that there could be savings of Rs. 3 lacs from the 9 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 agricultural activities over a period of thirteen years. The Department has not appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A). There is no corroborative evidence for the AO’s version. 3. Ground Nos. (c) & (d) are consequential.” 9. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the submissions of the ld. AR and submitted that the search was conducted on 01.12.2018 and he brought to our notice seized documents found in the locker no.393 and documents found are in the form of loose papers. Further he brought to our notice provisions of section 292C of the Act as per which it is presumed that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belonging to such person and the contents of such books of account and documents are true. He submitted that it is presumed that material found in the locker are belonging to the assessee and he relied on the decision of PCIT vs Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd (Delhi) [ITA 52/2024 dated 3.4.2024] and submitted that this decision will be applicable to all the grounds under consideration. 10. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. Let us first address the issue raised by the assessee in the AY 2011-12. It was submitted that the 4th Proviso of Sec.153A covers the period commencing from the searched assessment year and not from subsequent to the searched assessment year as held in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd (supra). 10 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 Therefore, in the given case, the search was conducted on 1.12.2018. The relevant searched assessment year is AY 2019-20. Therefore, the relevant AYs for the purpose of 4th Proviso would be, 7th year –AY 2013-14, 8th year –AY 2012-13 and 9th year - AY 2011-12. The argument of the Ld AR that the year under consideration is the only year falls within the ambit of 4th proviso of section 153A is not correct, also the escapement of income exceeding 50 lakhs covers the period of 7th year to 10th year, it has to be seen covering all the years from 7th to 10th year. The arguments of the Ld AR are not acceptable considering the facts on record. 11. Coming to the issue of document found during the search, we observe that in the locker no 393, certain details of loose papers or diary were found and the same was reproduced by the AO in his order. From the same, it is seen that it contains the details of expenses incurred by the assessee in the farm house for construction andincome from agricultural activities. The details contained transactions both in cash as well as through bank without there being record of any specific activities.The assessee in its submissions raised several arguments, which includes whether loose papers found during the search can beconsidered as cognizable material to make the addition u/s 69 of the Actby relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case 11 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 of V.C. Shukla (supra). It is fact on record that the material found in the search which is identified as page 128 of Annexure A-1 for the current year under consideration, without there being any description, was partly datedand recording other particulars. Even otherwise, we observe that the document found in the search contains the details of cheque transactions and even the assessee has submitted that this relates to Farm related details for which it was submitted that this is out of agriculture income.This shows that the cheque payments were not disputed and transactions described in the loose sheets were explained by the assessee, therefore, the loose sheets cannot be termed as dumb documents as submitted by the Ld AR relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C.Shukla (supra) and reliance of the same decision by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Sharma (159 taxmann.com 179). Hence, the submissions of the Ld AR on the aspect of quality of the loose papers found during the search as dumb documents cannot be accepted. Hence, we are inclined to dismiss the ground no (a) raised by the assessee. 12. With regard to Ground no (b), the issue contested is on merit. On careful consideration of the facts available on record, we observe that the loose papers found during the search, the written caption on the loose papers 12 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 shows that it is written as Farm Account and not as perceived by the AO that is Farm House Account. There is considerable difference between the two. The AO has made the addition on the basis that the assessee has invested the funds in the construction of Farm House, whereas the assessee has submitted that investment in farm house was made out of agricultural income and past savings. Therefore, it was disputed on the addition proposed by the AO u/s 69. 13. After careful consideration, we observe that during the course of search, loose sheets containing Farm Account were seized. When this was confronted with the assessee, the assessee explained that construction of Farm House was carried out by him out of past savings and agricultural income derived by the assessee. This statement was disbelieved by the revenue on the ground that assessee had disclosed agricultural income of Rs 41,460/- only and no Khasra, Khatuni or Form J was filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO treated the Farm Account as Farm construction account and made an addition towards unexplained investment in construction of farm house in the hands of the assessee. In other words, the AO concluded that the loose sheets in Annexure 1 (pages 123 to 128) represent amounts spent by the assessee and that no cash is available with assessee for future 13 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 capitalization. 14. It is pertinent to note that AO had accepted the claim of agricultural income of the assessee in the sum of Rs 41,460/- and had not made any addition thereon. Further the ldCITA had accepted the agricultural income figure of Rs 3,00,000/-. This behaviour of the lower authorities reflect that assessee’s claim of agricultural income being derived in the past gets accepted. Consequently out of the past agricultural income, the construction of the farm house being carried out, as stated by the assessee, also need to be believed. However the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature of income as reflected in the loose sheets captioned as Farm Account which was seized. This was not properly explained by the assessee. The details found in sheets shows that the funds pertaining to Farm accountwithout specifically mentioning the nature of transactions thereon. Hence the cash transactions reflected thereon become undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee for AY 2011-12. But it is pertinent to note that these amounts which are treated as undisclosed income of the assessee would be available as a cash source for explaining the future investments or outgoings. In view of the above discussion, the findings of the AO that the funds invested in the Farm Houseis not justified and the funds spent and involved in the Farm 14 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 Account shows that the assessee has generated funds which can be considered as undisclosed money u/s 69A.Therefore, we hold that only the addition of undisclosed money earned by the assessee could be taxed in the facts and circumstances of the case as unexplained money u/s 69A. 15. The other grounds raised are (C )and (d), which are consequential in nature. 16. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as stated above. 17. In AYs 2012-13& 2013-14, facts are exactly similar to AY 2011-12 as stated above. The issues raised by the assessee in Grounds (a) and (b) are exactly similar, therefore, our above findings in AY 2011-12 are applicablemutatis mutandisto AYs 2012-13& 2013-14 and Grounds No.(c) and (d) are consequential in nature as decided in AY 2011-12. Therefore, the appeals being ITA Nos.1143& 1144/Del/2023 for AYs2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively filed by the assessee arepartly allowed. 18. In AY 2014-15, facts are exactly similar in AY 2011-12 as stated above. The issue raised by the assessee in Ground No.(a) of AY 2014-15is exactly similar to Ground (b) of AY 2011-12, therefore, our above findings in AY 2011-12 are applicablemutatis mutandisto AY 2014-15 and Ground No.(b) of AY 2014-15 is consequential in nature as decided in AY 2011-12. Therefore, the appeal being ITA No.1145/Del/2023 for AY 2014-15 filed by 15 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 the assessee is partly allowed. 19. Now we take assessee as well as Revenue’s appeal for AY 2019-20. 20. Relevant facts are, assessment was completed in this assessment year also by relying on the documents and material found in search proceedings carried in the case of Faquir Chand Lockers and Vaults Pvt. Ltd. Group of cases. The assessee has filed return of income declaring an income of Rs.188,69,190/- on 24.10.2019. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. In response, ld. AR for the assessee attended the proceedings and submitted information as called for. The AO observed that on the operation of assessee’slocker no.393 on which search proceedings were initiated, cash of Rs.1,55,00,000/- was found, some loose papers were found, they were seized. In order to verify the same, notice u/s 142(1) was issued and served on the assessee along with questionnaire. Ld. AR for the assessee attended the proceedings. In response, assessee submitted that the cash found and seized in the abovesaid locker of Rs.1.55 crores was already declared as income in the return of income filed for AY 2019-20. With regard to cash seized of the amount as indicated above, the AO observed that the assessee was doing business on commission of keeping the cash in trust custody i.e. in locker and getting the commission of 16 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 Rs.200 per lakh. For the purposes of principle of natural justice, a show- cause notice was issued to the assessee. After considering the submissions of the assessee, AO rejected the submissions made by the assessee. He observed that assessee stated that he had earned interest on loans and earned income from foodgrains,the assessee has failed to explain the same with supporting documentary evidence and merely declaration of the cash found during the search to be income from foodgrains and commission income is not sufficient ground to consider as income from other sources as onus is on the assessee to prove how it is generated during the course of business. The abovesaid amount was not disclosed by the assessee in its books of account and surrendered the amount during the search proceedings and the same was declared in his return of income for AY 2019-20. By relying on the provisions of section 69A, he treated the above cash seized from the locker no.393 as undisclosed income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 21. Further he observed that documents identified as Annexure A-2 were found and seized from the locker belong to the assessee. On perusal of these papers, it was observed that assessee has given cash loans to various parties. In order to verify, notice was issued to the assessee to explain the same. In reply, assessee submitted that Sl.No.1 to 4 and 10 & 11 were received back 17 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 with interest and Item No.5 to 9 were not in lakhs but in thousands and abovesaidamounts were also received back after two months. The assessee has submitted date-wise details and chart before the AO and as per the chart, the assessee has done business of Rs.86 lakhs not Rs.175,00,000/-. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee in his statement u/s 132(4) of the Act dated 01.12.2018 stated that he used to keep the cash in trust custody i.e. in his locker on commission basis and in the same submission, he also stated that he lends money to anyone normally for two months. According to the AO, the assessee himself has made contradictory statements. He observed that the assessee has not provided the source of loan of Rs.1,75,00,000/- and if the amount pertained to above discussion is considered as third party’smoneythen also the details of the loan of the party concerned is not provided by the assessee. He rejected the plea of the assessee of Rs.86 lakhs as no evidence was submitted in support of the same. Accordingly, he proceeded to make addition of Rs.1,75,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 22. Further the AO observed that during the search proceedings, four undated cheques signed by Avadh Aggarwal totaling to Rs.1.40 crores were seized from the locker. Out of which, two cheques are blank and one each in the 18 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 name of PrabhaGarg and Ashok Prasad Gupta signed by Avadh Aggarwal. A separate notice was issued to the assessee to explain the same. Assessing Officer did not find the reply of the assessee tenable as assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim and simply stated that Avadh Aggarwal contacted the assessee and gave four cheques to be invested with any interested party on the responsibility of the assessee and also wrote the name of the assessee on one of these cheques to impress the assessee of his credibility.SinceAvadh Aggarwal could not be contacted and his whereabouts are not known to the assessee, with the above observation, he proceeded to make the addition of Rs.1.4 crores as unexplained money u/s 69Aof the Act. 23. Further the AO observed that on page nos.63 to 108 of Annexure A-1, the assessee has made income and expenditure type of account. He has extracted the same at pages 13 & 14 of the order. A separate show-cause notice was issued to the assessee to explain the same. In response, assessee submitted that it is not income and expenditure but is receipt and withdrawal of cash which were kept in the locker. It was submitted that the assessee received commission @ Rs.200 per lakh and nothing else. It was submitted that the cash deposited in the locker was recorded on left side and 19 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 withdrawal of the locker was recorded on the right side and the balance showed the cash in hand which was carried forward to the next day. After considering the above submissions, the AO rejected the same by observing that assesseecould neither identify any parties nor could provide details of the parties from whom loans were lent and to whom loans were provided. Since assessee has not submitted information pertaining to the parties, he observed that it remained, assessee failed to explain as without any knowledge of person, concerned loans would neither be taken nor be given. In absence of any details of the parties, it is assumed that all the receipts in assessee’s accounts were his own money which was extended to different parties. Accordingly, he proceeded to treat the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and proceeded to make the addition. 24. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition of Rs.1,55,00,000/-. With regard toaddition of Rs.1.75 crores, he sustained the addition of Rs.86 lakhs instead of Rs.1.75 crores. With regard to addition of Rs.1.40 crores, he deleted the addition by observing as under :- “7.3 The fact of the case is that these cheques were not encashed by the appellant as these were found in original. The ld. AO could not justify why she is treating this amount as unexplained money in the hands of the 20 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 appellant particularly when cheques were not all cashed. No efforts were made by the ld. AO to locate Mr. Avadh Aggarwal to understand why he had left these cheques with the appellant,one simple observation can be made that this was the money of Mr. Avadh Aggarwal and it was laying in his bank account. Had there been any transaction between the appellant and Mr. Avadh Aggarwal in terms of cash or kind like purchase of property etc., Mr. Avadh Aggarwal would have certainly taken back these cheques as these were signed cheques. Finding the cheques in original in locker of the appellant by the search party establishes that no such transaction in lieu of these cheques had taken place. 7.4 In view of the above discussion and considering that the ld. AO has also not given any sound logic behind treating these uncashed Cheques as unexplained money of the appellant, the contention of the appellant is found to be sustainable and the addition of Rs.1,40,00,000/ - is deleted and this ground of appeal is hereby allowed.” 25. With regard to addition of Rs.8,71,67,456/-, he restricted the addition of Rs.1,74,25,900/- in place of Rs.8,71,67,456/- with the following observations :- “8.4 From the above table it can be observed that the peak credit comes at Rs.1,74,25,900/- (Sum of the amount kept as closing cash in hand i.e. Rs.l,62,00,000/- and the amount which was set aside as opening balance for next day i.e. Rs.12,25,900/-) on 14-July. 8.5 Another contention of the appellant that seized amount of Rs.1,55,00,000/- should be adjusted against the peak credit is not found to be sustainable as these entries are only up to 25th August while search took place on 1.12.2018 and therefore it can not be ascertained what happened between August 25th and December 1st. The appellant could also not establish that seized amount is part of the transactions which took place till August 25th. Therefore, this contention of the appellant is rejected. 8.6 In view of the above discussion, the addition of Rs.8,71,67,456/- is restricted to Rs.1,74,25,900/- and this ground of appeal is hereby partly allowed.” 21 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 26. Further with regard to not allowing credit of tax paid of Rs.1.55 crores seized by the department in spite of the letter that seized amount be adjusted towards the taxes due against the returned income. In this regard, assessee submitted that cash was found and seized on 01.12.2018 during search proceedings and assessee filed his return of income on 24.10.2019 declaring taxable incomeatRs.1,88,69,190/-. Subsequently, assessment was made u/s 143(3) dated 25.09.2021 and demand of Rs.12,89,49,052/- was raised. It was submitted that as per section 132B(1) of the Act, seized cash can be utilisedfor adjustment of any existing liability. After considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) observed that though assessee has disclosed seizure of Rs.1.55 crores in return of income filed in respect to notice u/s 153A of the Act but did not pay the corresponding tax on declared income. There was no tax liability determined at the time of filing of return and the tax liability of Rs.12,89,49,052/- was raised u/s 143(3) of the Act on 25.09.2021. Before completion of the assessment, there was no existing liability onassessee’s side. Accordingly, the contentions raised by the assessee are not found to be sustainable and accordingly dismissed. 27. Aggrieved with the above order, both assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :- 22 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 “ASSESSEE’S APPEAL (ITA NO.1146/Del/2023) 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the following additions:- a. Rs. 1,55,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained income by invoking section 69 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE even though the same was duly declared in the return of income; b. Rs.86,00,000/- as unexplained money by invoking section 69A of the Act; c. Rs.l,74,25,900/- as unexplained money by invoking section 69A of the Act; d. In omitting to telescope the inter-dependant additions as regard in the facts of the case; 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in – a. not directing allowance for credit for taxes paid out of seized amounts of Rs.1,55,00,000/- from the date seizure; b. charging interest u/s 234B of the Act; The above actions are being arbitrary, fallacious, unwarranted and illegal must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.” “REVENUE’S APPEAL (ITA NO.1243/Del/2023 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in restricting the addition of Rs.1,75,00,000/- to Rs. 86,00,000/- made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee could not substantiate his claim that certain figures recorded on the incriminating document under question, are in thousands and not in lakhs. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in deleting the addition of Rs.1,40,00,000/- made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, ignoring the fact that the said incriminating \"undated cheques\" in original, were found and seized from the locker owned by the assessee and the same have remained unexplained on the part of the assessee. 23 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, restricting the addition of Rs.8,71,67,456/- to Rs.1,74,25,900/- made on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee could not substantiate his claim that the figures recorded on the right- hand side of the incriminating document under question, are cash out flows and the assessee did not submit any details & supporting evidence i.r.o. the alleged parties who have received such cash loans from the assessee. 4. (a) The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.” 28. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted as under : “Ground (a) is with regard to the taxing of the sum of Rs.1.55 crores u/s 69A of the Act. The discussion by the AO is to be found between pages 3–6 of the Order in para 6 therein. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the findings of the AO as per his observations contained between pages 8 – 9 of the impugned order in para 5. The appellant submits that the sum of Rs.1.55 crores was income derived from business. At worst, with the observations of the AO that such money is assessee’s own money it would not have been brought to tax under Section 69A of the Act. Besides, as stated earlier, the business receipts located during the course of the search would have to be assessed as ‘income from business’ and not as of ‘other sources’ u/s 69A of the Act. Therefore, the said sum of Rs.1.55 crores may please be directed to be assessed at normal rates being business income voluntarily surrendered by the assessee who has also explained the nature in source thereof. Ground No. (b) is against the taxing of Rs.86 lakhs as undisclosed money by invoking section 69A of the Act. The discussion by the AO on this issue is contained between pages 6–9 of the assessment order in para 7 therein. The Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the findings of the AO as per observations contained in his order in para 6 therein. 24 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 These amounts as detailed in page No. 41–42 are the sums advanced which were later received back. They are an integral part of the recovery of cash of Rs.1.55 crores from the Locker. With the amount of Rs.1.55 crores having been subjected to tax, the said sum of Rs.86 lakhs which stood embedded in cash recovery cannot be put to tax again. Doing so would militate against the principle of double taxation. The said amount, therefore, merits be deleted. Ground No. c& d are with regard to entries on loose paper they cannot constitute material evidence for making any valid addition. Without prejudice to the foregoing, in respect of the sum of Rs. 1.74 crores plus being brought to tax u/s 69A of the Act, the relevant discussion by the AO is contained between pages 12–17 of the assessment order in para 9 therein. The Ld. CIT (A) has discussed this issue between para 12 & 22 of the Act. The said sum of Rs.1.74 crores plus has been confirmed for addition on the basis of peak calculations done by the Ld. CIT (A). The figures which have been taken for calculations by the Ld. CIT (A) are wholly with regard to the amount recovered from the Locker at Rs.1.55 crores during the search. With the sum of Rs.1.55 crores having already been brought to tax as discussed in Ground ‘a’ above, such sum has to be telescoped against the sum of Rs.1.74 crores plus computed by the Ld. CIT(A). Resultantly, the addition would be restricted to Rs.19,25,900/- (i.e. Rs.1.74 crores plus – Rs.1.55 crores). It is pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be amended so as to bring to tax this balance of Rs.19,25,900/- alone. Ground No. 2 with its sub-parts is with regard to credit being not permitted for the cash seized in a sum of Rs.1.55 crores during search against the taxes as due. The said sum of Rs.1.55 crores was seized during the course of the search as per Panchnama provided to the assessee by the AO. In that background, it is respectfully pleaded that the directions be kindly be issued for allowing credit of seized cash against the demand after verification by the AO and to thereafter adjust the 25 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 penal interest charged under different clauses of section 234 of the Act.” 29. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue brought to our notice detailed findings of the AO and findings of ld. CIT (A), by referring to them he submitted that the AO has given detailed findings, therefore, he relied on the findings of the AO and prayed that the additions proposed by the AO may be sustained. 30. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. The issues raised by the assessee and revenue in their respective appeals are inter- connected and adjudicated together. We observed that during the search, revenue seized cash of Rs. 1.55 crores along with certain loose papers which contained the details of assessee’s financial transactions containing details of Rs. 1.75 croresduring the period and alsofound four cheques which are unencashed in the possession of the assessee for the total value of Rs. 1.40 crores and loose sheet containing details of movement of cash maintained by the assessee kept in the locker during the period for the total amount of Rs.871,67,456/-. 31. With regard to ground no.1(a) of assessee’s appeal, the issue of cash found during the search was the main item found in the locker along with the 26 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 details of loan given to various parties,we observe that the assessee has declared the cash found during the search as additional income in his return of income and also submitted the information and source of the same. The AO also acknowledged the same and it was submitted that the assessee was handling the cash for commission from various persons, however, the AO himself rejected the same and treated the cash found and transactions carried on by the assessee as business. Since the assessee himself declared the above cash as additional income and explained the nature of transactions, the fact is that the assessee whether maintained the cash for a fees or as treated by the AO as assessee’s own cash and meant for financial transactions, it clearly indicate that the cash found during the search is relating to the business carried by the assessee. Therefore, the addition can be made as income under the head income from business or profession and not under the head income from other sources. Hence it cannot be treated as income falling within the nature of section 68, 69 to 69D of the Act so as to apply the tax rate prescribed in section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, the ground no. 1(a) raised by the assessee is allowed and direct the AO to assess the relevant income accordingly. 27 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 32. Coming to Ground No.1(b) of assessee’s appeal and ground no.1 of Revenue’s appeal which are raised on the same issue, after considering the submissions of both theparties, we observe that during search operation, the loose papers found which are identified as Annexure A-2 pages 31 to 33 & 57 to 58 found in the locker no.393 which has the details of all the persons who has received the cash from the assessee on various dates. The above information contained at pages 48 to 52 as well and in these pages, the amounts were written as 20, 10, 20 & 25 and no reference of any persons were mentioned. The Assessing Officer treated the same as 20 lakhs, 10 lakhs, 20 lakhs and 25 lakhs to calculate the total transactions of Rs.1,75,00,000/-. In response to notice, the assessee has objected to the same and submitted that the figures written in hand are in thousands not in lakhs. The Assessing Officer rejected the same. However, ld. CIT (A) accepted the same and observed that the main transactions were recorded at pages 27 to 30 and there were certain loose sheets on which the figures were written as 20, 10 & 25 and these entries were not recorded in the same manner as other entries recorded in lakhs. Accordingly, he sustained theactual transaction of Rs.86,00,000/- instead of Rs.1,75,00,000/-. 33. Before us, Revenue is in appeal objecting to such interpretation made by the 28 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 ld. CIT (A). After consideration of the submissions of both the parties, we also observe that assessee has maintained transactions meticulously and mentioned the transaction amounts in lakhs. However, some entries found in pages 48 to 52 wherein it was mentioned in numbers as 20, 10 & 25 without there being clear information and also there is no details of the persons to whom such amounts were given. If it is in lakhsdefinitely, itwould have formed part of the transactions. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the findings of the ld. CIT (A) and accordingly ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 34. Coming to the ground raised by the assessee, after considering the nature of transactions and information available on record, we observe that these are financial transactions made by the assessee which corroborates with various information available on the material found during search, therefore, we are inclined to sustain the above addition. Accordingly, ground no.1(b) raised by the assessee is dismissed. 35. Ground No.1(c )& 1(d) of assessee’s appeal is also connected with Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue. During search proceedings, certain loose sheets were found in the locker wherein assessee has recorded various transactions left hand side and right hand side and as per the explanation and 29 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 information gathered from the assessee, it was noticed that on the left hand side, the assessee records the receipts of cash which were kept in the locker and the transactions recorded on the right side denotes the outcome of cash which were maintained in the record. The sheets found during the search haveopening balance of Rs.17 lakhs and the closing balance of Rs.14 lakhs. The detailed transactions are reproduced at pages 14 to 20 of the appellate order. After analysing the above transactions and submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) observed the nature of transactions and accepted the fact that the information contained therein are relates to inflow and outflow and cash which were kept in the locker. Accordingly, ld. CIT (A) determined the peak credit of Rs.1,74,25,900/- which is closing cash in hand of Rs.1,62,00,000/- on 14th July and opening balance set aside for next day of Rs.12,25,900/-. 36. Against the above finding, Revenue is in appeal. After carefully considering all material available on record, we notice that it is a running account sheet maintained by the assessee for the purpose of deposit and removal of cash in the locker. Since it is a running account, the Assessing Officer has taken only the total receipts which are mentioned on the left hand side and treated the same as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Act. The approach of the 30 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 Assessing Officer cannot be accepted. The information found during the search has to be appreciated the way it is maintained, the transactions contained are receipts as well as payment and it carried the closing balance of the respective dates. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the findings of the ld. CIT (A) that it is a running account and only peak credit has to be considered for addition. Accordingly, we are inclined to accept the findings of theld.CIT (A). Hence we dismiss ground no.3 raised by the Revenue. 37. With regard to ground no.1(c )& 1(d) raised by the assessee, after considering the submissions made by the assessee, we observe that the information contained in the loose sheets maintained by the assessee wherein the assessee has carried on his business transactions utilizing the cash available in the business and the sources of the cash can be connected with the funds available with the assessee. Since the ld. CIT (A) has considered the peak credit of the transactions, the cash available with the assessee is proved to the extent the assessee had the cash to rotate in the lending business.On careful consideration of the facts, we observe that the assessee had generated cash in the agricultural activities in the earlier AYs ie., AY 2011-12, AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15, the AO had made the additions as under: 31 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 AY 2011-12 Rs.11.68 lakhs (8.68 lakhs plus 3 lakhs allowed by ld. CIT (A) as agricultural income) AY 2012-13 Rs. 85.80 lakhs AY 2013-14 Rs. 39.40 lakhs AY 2014-15 Rs. 38.16 lakhs Total Rs. 175.04 lakhs As discussed in detail at para no.14, on the issue of available cash with the assessee which was sustained by the AO found during the search in the earlier assessment years are available with the assessee to invest in the business. Technically, the above cash is available with the assessee and intangible benefit have to be extended to the assessee to the extent the addition made in the earlier assessment years. Therefore, on corroborating the peak credit with the cash available with the assessee shows that the assessee has cash in the business to carry on the financial activities during this year of operation. Therefore, we are inclined to give credit of the same and delete the addition sustained by the ld CIT(A) in the sum of Rs 1,74,25,900/-. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 38. Coming to the issue of cheques relating to ground no.2 of revenue, which was found in the possession of the assessee which are not encashed. We observethat merely the relevant cheques were found with the assessee, the 32 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 AO proceeded to make the addition. We noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has observed that the cash belongs to Mr. Avadh Aggrawal, who has given this signed chequesmay be as security towards the cash lent by the assessee or towards advance for purchase of property cannot be ruled out. Since it is not encashed, it establishes that no transactions in lieu of these cheques hadtaken place. There is logic in the argument of the Ld CIT(A) that the signed cheques would have taken back by Mr. Avadh. Unless the cheques are encashed or acted upon, the transaction is not complete. The cheques are issued meant for transaction and if it is not acted upon then the relevant paper may be live but it has no transaction value until it is transacted. Mere guarantee for giving loan also has to be established by making proper investigation. As observed by the Ld CIT(A), the AO has not made any investigation further, therefore, the mere presence of blank cheque without there being any evidence to show that the assessee has earned any income or made capital transaction with the presence of above cheques, the same cannot be treated income of the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined not to disturb the findings of the Ld CIT(A). In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 39. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee relating to adjustment of cash found 33 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 during the search with the tax demand raised after completion of the assessment. We observe that ld. CIT (A) considered the similar issue and dismissed the ground raised before him by observing that the assessee had disclosed the seizure of Rs.1,55,00,000/- in return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act but did not pay the corresponding tax on declared income. He observed that there was no tax liability determined at the time of filing of return. Therefore, the total tax liability of Rs.12,89,49,052/- was raised only upon completion of assessment u/s 143(3) on 25.09.2021. Before completion of assessment, there was no existing liability on assessee’s side. 40. After considering carefully the submissions of both the parties, we observe that no doubt the cash was found during search and the assessee also declared the same as additional income in his return of income and it is a fact on record that the tax liability was determined only after completion of assessment on 25.09.2021. Ld. CIT (A) rejected the submissions of the assessee. However, in our considered view, the cash was lying with the Revenue from the date of search and the tax liability no doubt determined only after completion of the assessment, therefore, from that date of determination of the tax liability, the tax credit may be given to the assessee. 34 ITA No.1095/DEL/2023 ITA Nos.1143 to 1146/DEL/2023 ITA No.1243/DEL/2023 Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to determine the charging of interest u/s 234B after making the above adjustment on the date of determining the tax liability on completion of the assessment on 25.09.2021. Accordingly, ground no.2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 41. To sum up : in the result, the appeals being ITA No.1095, 1143, 1144 & 1146/Del/2023 filed by the assessee are partly allowed and ITA No.1145/Del/2023 is allowed and the appeal being ITA No.1243/Del/2023 filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 7TH day of February, 2025. SD/- SD/- (SUDHIR PAREEK) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 07.02.2025 TS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals)-27, New Delhi. 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "