SHRI PREM SINGH, FEROZEPUR V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE, JALANDHAR

CO 1/ASR/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4435 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of cross examination; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 271D; 271E; 64

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Jalandhar Vs. Sh. Prem Singh, S/o Sh. Balvir Singh, R/o vill. Allewal, Distt. Ferozepur [PAN: EHTPS 9412J] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 2/Asr/2022 (I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Prem Singh, S/o Sh. Balvir Singh, R/o vill. Allewal, Distt. Ferozepur [PAN: EHTPS 9412J] Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Respondent by: Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT-DR I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Jalandhar Vs. Sh. Prem Singh, S/o Sh. Balvir Singh, R/o vill. Allewal, 2 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Distt. Ferozepur [PAN: EHTPS 9412J] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 1/Asr/2022 (I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Prem Singh, S/o Sh. Balvir Singh, R/o vill. Allewal, Distt. Ferozepur [PAN: EHTPS 9412J] Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 21.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 09.05.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The captioned appeals by revenue and the COs by the assessee are arising out of the order of the Commissioner of income tax appeals (hereinafter referred to as the CIT appeal) on the issue of deletion of penalties levied under section 271D and section 271E of the income tax act in respect of assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. 3 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 2. Since, there are common issues pertaining to relief granted by the learned CIT appeal to the assessee by deleting penalties levied under section 271D and 271E of the act, in the revenue appeals and the COs of the assessee, therefore these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of brevity. 3. During the assessment proceedings the AO completed the assessment under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act. Admittedly, the AO has not discussed or not made any reference to either violation of provisions of section 269SS or 269T and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271 D and section 271E of the act thereof in respect of assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively although assessment orders have been passed with the approval of competent authority that is the additional Commissioner of income tax Central range Jalandhar in the case of the assessee. Subsequent to passing the assessment orders even dated 29.12.2017, the AO submitted a reference dated 14.08.2018 to the joint Commissioner of Income Tax to initiate penalties under section 271D and section 271E of the act, who has levied the penalty is treating a property transaction as a trading transaction. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee appeared before the learned CIT appeal who has deleted the penalties in respective of assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 by observing as under: 4 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Assessment Year 2010-11 "To conclude, from the facts & documents filed, it is apparent that the amounts have been received in respect of an agreement for 'sale of land' by ,he assessee with M/s. Guru Nanak Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. The receipts also include the amount received through cheque which gives credential to the story of the assessee. The outstanding balance as on 31.03.2010 as per the ledger account of the assessee, is reflected in the balance sheet of M/s. Guru Nanak Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. much before the date of search. Thus, there is merit in the argument of the AR that the amounts were received as part of sale consideration of land and these were not loan transactions to be covered u/s 26955. Similarly, the amounts repaid were also on this account only and were not repayment of to be covered under Section 269T of the lncome Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the penalties u/s 271D and Section 271E were not attracted in this Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 60 Lacs and Rs. 45 lacs are deleted." Assessment Year 2011-12 “Thus, held that the repayment of Rs. 55,00,000/- was made in relation to agreement dated 12.03.2009 for sale/purchase of property between the assessee and M/s. Guru Nanak Milk Products and it was not in the nature of repayment of loan. The AR has also filed the copies of the agreement dated 24.05.2010 where the total amount of sale consideration has been mentioned as Rs. 6,00,00,000/- along with the receipt of Rs. 40,00,000/- in cash and the balance payment was to be made and registry was to be done by 31.03.2015 and possession to be handed over only after that. On the backside of pages, the amounts received on different dates are also mentioned along with the total amount received upto different dates. As per the last installment received on 30.03.2011, cash of Rs. 2,35,00,000/- was received and the total amount received upto that date was Rs. 4,58,50,000/-. Thereafter it is also mentioned that an amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- was returned back on 29.03.2013 and the balance left was Rs. 5 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 4,41,00,000/- which has been paid through RTGS on 28.03.2018. This is similar to the narrations on the agreement dated 12.03.2009 where details of amount received in cash as well as through cheques on different occasions have also been mentioned (on the backside of the page) and on each occasion, the cumulative sum received upto the date including the amount received on earlier occasion is mentioned. The payment of Rs. 55,00,000/- made during the year relates to the agreement dated 12.03.2009. A copy of the balance sheet of M/s. Guru Nanak Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. as on 31.03.2010 was called for and placed on file during the appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 and from the balance sheet of M/s. Guru Nanak Milk Products as on 31.03.20L0, it is seen that the balance in the name of Sh. Prem Singh 5/o Sh. Balbir Singh is appearing at Rs. 8,47,50,000/- under the head 'sundry debtors' which matches with the ledger account of Sh. prem Singh showing the receipts through cheque as well as in cash. During the present appellate proceedings, a copy of the balance sheet of M/s. Guru Nanak Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. as on 31.03.2011 has been filed and from the balance sheet, it is seen that the balance in the name of Sh. Prem Singh S/o Sh. Balbir Singh is appearing at Rs. 4,58,50,000/- under the head 'sundry creditors' which matches with the ledger account of Sh. Prem Singh in the books of M/s. Guru Nanak Milk Products showing the receipts through cheque as well as in cash. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Range, Jalandhar in his penalty order has relied upon the statement of the stamp vendor recorded by DCIT, Central Circle, Amritsar which was recorded at the back of the assessee, however during his cross-examination in front of the Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Range, Jalandhar, the Stamp Vendor Sh. Sukhdev Singh has confirmed the fact of sale of stamp paper to the assessee Sh. Prem Singh & M/s. Guru Nanak Milk Products and also explained the reason for his earlier statement because he could not see the papers properly which were shown to him on phone. Here it is also relevant that the proceeds with respect to agreement dated 12.03.2009 have been received both through cheque & in cash and if the cheque amounts are not doubted, 6 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 then the cash amounts should also be accepted. The search in this case was conducted on 11.02.2016 and the transactions relates to the years 2009-2010 and 2010-11 (a period more than five year old). The amount outstanding in the name of the assessee has been reflected in the balance sheet of M/s. Guru Nanak Mils Products Pvt. Ltd. as on 31.03.2010 & 31.03.2011. ln respect of agreement dated 24.05.2010, the assessee made payments to M/s. Guru Nanak Milk Products, the total of which upto 31.03.2011 was Rs. 4,58,50,000/- which has been reflected by M/s. Guru Nanak Milk Products on the liability side of the balance sheet under the head 'sundry creditors' which means that the company had received the funds and it owed money to the assessee which was ultimately returned back (as Rs.77,50,000/- in cash on 29.03.2013 and Rs. 4,41,00,000/- through RTGS on 28.03.2018). Thus, the funds were received by the company M/s. Guru Nanak Milk Products and the assessee was reflected in the balance sheet/books of accounts as 'Creditor' and under the circumstances, there was no basis for treating the payments made by the assessee to the company M/s. Guru Nanak Milk Products as repayment of loan. To conclude, from the facts & documents filed, there is merit in the argument of the AR that the amounts were payment as part of sale/purchase consideration of land and these were not loan transactions to be covered u/s 269T, Accordingly, the penalty u/s 271E was not attracted in this case. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 5,13,50,000/- is deleted.” 5. The learned DR supported the penalty order passed by the assessing officer. He submitted that he was not required to record satisfaction in the case of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271D and section 271E of the act. He pleads that the proposal for levy of the aforesaid penalties can be send by the AO subsequent to the completion of the assessment proceedings and hence recording of satisfaction in the 7 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 assessment orders is not required. He requested that the penalty orders may be sustained in respect of both the assessment years. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee supported the orders passed by the CIT appeal with the support of the COs filed against the revenue appeals. To buttress, its contentions the Ld. AR has filed written submissions which reads as under: ITA 718/ASR/2019 A.Y 2010-11 Sir, during the course of assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings assessee was asked for the funds received from M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products amounting to Rs. 60,00,000/-, in response to which assessee stated that it was amount received as advance against sale of land to M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products, measuring 403 Kanal located at Village Lalle, Tehsil Ferozpur. In order to substantiate it assessee filed original agreement executed for sale of land between assessee and M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., but the Ld. Assessing Officer ignoring the submission of assessee consider it as loan transactions covered under section 269SS of the Act and not as amount received against sale of land by assessee and thereby initiated penalty u/s 271D of the Act. Sir, as regard provision of section 271D of the Act, it is stated that provision of section 271D is not applicable to the present case because this is transaction for purchase and sale of immovable property not of loan or deposits which covered under section 269SS of the Act and the provision of section 271D is very much clear. For the sake of convenience provision of section 271E is reproduced herein below: Section 271D (1) If a person takes or accepts any loan or deposit in contravention of the provision of section 269SS, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit so taken or accepted] (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the 2 [Joint Commissioner] Sir, thus provision of section 271D is clear that it applicable only on acceptance of loan or deposits and not applicable to the present case because this is transaction for purchase and sale of immovable property. 8 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Sir, it is submitted that on 12.03.2009 assessee entered into agreement with M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products for sale of land and in pursuance of this agreement assessee time to time received payments from M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products through bank and through cash. Assessee received amount of Rs.13,76,50,000/- through bank and through cash (i.e. 12,76,50,000/- through bank and Rs.1,00,00,000/- in cash) out of which cash amounting to Rs.60,00,000/- was received on 22.04.2009 and cash amounting to Rs.40,00,000/- received in the preceding year. Sir, due to some unavoidable circumstances they agreement could not be matured and the entire amount received was returned back to M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products on different dates detail of which were furnished to the AO and is also stated in the penalty order. But the Ld. JCIT ignoring the submission of assessee imposed penalty u/s 271D of the Act mainly on the basis of following two reasons: 1. That assessee Sh. Prem Singh found to have categorically admitted in his own statement on oath, recorded during the course of assessment proceedings on 19.12.2017 in question no. 10 that no formal agreement was entered into this regard. 2. That stamp vendor Sh. Sukhdev Singh deposed on oath that the stamp paper were not sold by him neither he signed the stamp paper nor the stamp of Sh. Sukhdev Singh as appearing on them belongs to him. Sir, as regard above observation of Ld. Assessing Officer, submission of assessee is as follows: 1. That when the statement was recorded, assessee was under pressure. He was not in present state of mind. But after that and during the course of assessment proceeding assessee submitted Original Agreement/Ikrarnama entered with Guru Nanak Milk Product. Copy of agreement (along with English translated version) along with copy of fard to show that land for which agreement was executed was in actually in the name of assessee is enclosed. 2. That assessee stated these amounts are not loan/deposit, this amount relates to sale/purchase of property. 3. That while imposing penalty the Ld. JCIT knew this fact that the transaction was purely relates to the sale/purchase of immovable property as the Agreement was placed on record and merely a payment of Rs. 60.00 lacs was received in cash only and balance amount of Rs. 12,71,50,000/- was received through cheque. 4. That while imposing penalty the Ld. Assessing Officer knew this fact that the transaction was purely relates to the sale/purchase of immovable property as the Agreement was placed on record and merely a payment of Rs. 45.00 lacs was returned back in cash only and balance amount of Rs. 12,76,50,000/- was returned through cheque. 9 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 5. That while framing assessment and also imposing penalty the Ld. Assessing Officer has not pointed out any discrepancy or not made any addition of disallowance regarding amount received through cheque or bank transfer. That means he is himself accepting the amount received from banking channel relates to purchase/sale of property. 6. That while imposing penalty the Ld. Assessing Officer also fail to appreciate the statement of Sh. Prem Singh, the Ld. Assessing Officer mentioned only Q. no. 10, (as mentioned in page 5, para 5 of penalty order) of the statement but there are some other question and answer which are relevant to prove that transaction was relates to the sale/purchase of immovable property and not to the loan and advances. The relevant question and answer relates to this transaction are reproduced herein below(Pg 51 of the Paper Book): Ques-9: What was the source of cash deposit made by you in your saving bank account no. 5664 with SBOP, though as per your return of income your net agricultural income was Rs. NIL. Ans: There was only one cash deposit of Rs. 10 lakh on 24.04.2009 which was made out of cash receipt of Rs. 60.00 lacs from M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products, as advance for land. The remaining amount of Rs. 50 lacs was retained by me for cash expenses for registration of land. Ques-21: It is noticed that you have entered into a number of transaction with M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products in cash, which are in violation of provision of section 269SS & 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Why did you violated these provision? Ans. Since the transactions were for sale and purchase of lands that’s why some of the transactions were made in cash. It is clarified that these were not loans or advances transactions. 7. That the Ld. Assessing Officer while framing assessment relied upon the part of statement which is in favour of revenue only the other part of statement which is also an essential part to adjudicate the matter, was not discussed by him while imposing impugned penalty. 8. That statement of Sh. Sukhdev Singh (Stamp vendor) were recorded in back of the assessee when assessee was given opportunity of cross examination than Sh. Shukhdev Singh admitted that facts that he sold these stamp papers to M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products on 20.04.2010 and on 12.03.2009. 9. That while imposing penalty the Ld. Assessing Officer has not appreciate the facts of statement of Sh. Sukhvinder Singh (stamp vendor), some important and relevant facts of the statement of Sh. Sukhdev Singh dated 29.11.2018 are given herein below(Pg 64 of the Paper Book): Ques-8: During the course of statement recorded by DCIT, Central circle, Amritsar on 24.11.2018 in response to q. no. 4, you had denied of having sold stamp papers on 12.03.2009 and 24.05.2010 to sh. Prem Singh and M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products. Is it correct? 10 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ans; At that time I denied of having sold these papers because I could not properly see the particulars shown to me on the mobile phone. But now, I recall that stamp papers no. E- 097190, K-276939, K-276940 were sold by me to the party – M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products Vide entry no. 2185 dated 20.04.2010. further, stamp paper no. K-276028, K-276029 and K- 276030 were also sold by me to Sh. Prem Singh S/o Sh. Balbir Singh on 12.03.2009 vide entry no. 2285. Question asked during cross Examination: Q. No. 1: Do you recognize the stamp at the back of stamp paper purchased on two different dates as stated above? Ans: Yes, it is mine. Q. No. 2: Please tell whose handwriting is on the back of this stamp paper i.e writing name of purchaser etc. Ans: It is written by me. I clearly mentioned on this paper name and who purchased this agreement Sh. Gurmeet Singh, date and s. no. of my register. 10. That it is clear from the statement recorded on 29.11.2018 that during the statement recorded on 24.11.2018, the impugned agreement /stamp papers were shown in mobile phone only and that’s why he fail to recognize the same at the time of earlier statement recorded on 24.11.2018. 11. That the stamp vendor clearly recognize the stamp papers issued by him and stated that it was sold by him and it was issued in his hand writing. 12. That while imposing penalty the Ld. Assessing officer stated at page 7, para 9 that “....when he was asked to substantiate the alleged sale of these stamp papers from his entry register of stamp paper sale maintained during the relevant period, he replied that the relevant register had been lost on 14.12.2010. But surprisingly, he did not file any FIR for that loss neither he reported the said matter to Treasury Office who was supposed to verify the said register at the beginning and end of it.....” But this is incorrect to state that Sh. Sukhdev Singh has not reported the matter to any where in-fact he reported this matter before the Executive Magistrate, Tarn Taran on 14.12.2010 and proof the same was also produced while recording statement but the Ld. Assessing Officer fail to appreciate this fact and ignoring the same wrongly imposed penalty on assessee. Copy of the same is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal. 13. That Ld. JCIT on page 1 of the penalty order states that copy of assessee’s account in the books of M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products is reproduced below but it was no where reproduced by the Ld. JCIT in the entire penalty order. That copy of assessee’s account in the books of M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products clearly states (with narration) that amount of Rs.60,00,000/- was paid as advance 11 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 for land to assessee (Pg 46 of the Paper Book). Thus M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products duly accepted that amount as advance paid for purchase of land. The copy of accounts in the books of assessee of M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products and cash account along with the copy of account of assessee in the books of M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products are enclosed herewith. Sir, reliance is placed on the decisions of DCIT V/S PATHIK CONSTRUCTIONS, ITAT MUMBAI in which it was held as under: “Since the Dept. has not disputed the amounts of transactions and they have also not disputed about the cheque component of Rs 2,22,00,000 in the said transaction. But when the question of cash payment of Rs 5,94,96,000 to Jai Ganesh CHS comes, the Dept. is not willing to accept the same. As per our considered view, if at all the said loose paper 0-2 can be relied upon, it should be relied upon as a whole, i.e., both the amounts of cheque and cash should be recognized. Thus, the Dept. cannot admit the evidence selectively (and only a part) which is in their favour. For this purpose, reliance can be placed on the following decisions:- i) CIT Vs Anant Swarup Khandelwal (2009) (177 Taxmann 450)(Del) ii) CIT Vs P 0 Abraham (349 ITR 442 - Ker.) iii) Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers Vs DClT (105 ITj 376(Pune ITAT)]” Sir, since the transaction were related to sale/purchase of immovable property, stamp vendor also admitted that he sold the impugned stamp papers and provision which quoted while imposing penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Act not applicable to the year under consideration, so, it is requested that considering the facts and circumstances of the case penalty imposed by the Ld. Assessing Officer may kindly be deleted. LEGAL PROPOSITION Sir without prejudice to the above it is stated that Assessment Order is conspicuously silent on recording of any satisfaction by the AO for the purpose of initiating the penalty u/s 271D/271E. Sir, recording of satisfaction by the AO is essential for initiation of any penalty under s. 271D/271E and failure to record the satisfaction in the manner provided by the law is fatal, thus, the penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee are liable to be quashed. Sir, in the present case AO is silent on recording any satisfaction for purpose of initiating any penalty u/s 271D and u/s 271E of the Act. Copy of Assessment Order is enclosed in the Paper Book Page 1-2. Sir, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of Jai Lakshmi Rice Mills 64 taxmann.com 75 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the identical facts decided that 12 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 in case the satisfaction is not recorded in the original assessment itself, then the initiation of penalty proceeding under s. 271E, would not survive. Copy of Order of Apex Court is enclosed in Paper Book page 66. Sir, reliance is further placed on the decision of Jurisdictional Bench in the case of Ram Lubhaya Jassal v/s ACIT, ITAT Amritsar, ITA.747/Asr/2017 dated 24.09.2021 in which it is held as under: Penalty under s. 271D—Validity—Recording of satisfaction by AO—Assessment order is conspicuously silent on recording of any satisfaction by the AO for the purpose of initiating the penalty under s. 271D—Recording of satisfaction by the AO is essential for initiation of any penalty under s. 271D—Failure to record the satisfaction in the manner provided by the law is fatal—Accordingly, the penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are quashed—Jai Lakshmi Rice Mills 64 taxmann.com 75 followed Sir, reliance is further placed on the decision of ITAT, Banglore in the case of S.B. Patil v/s JCIT, ITA 1053 & 1054(BNG.)/2014 dated 10.02.2016, in which it was held as under: 7. In our opinion, the legal issue raised by the assessee do not require any fresh assimilation of facts and can therefore, be admitted. A reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reproduced above does show that it is thus imperative for satisfaction to be recorded in the assessment order for initiation of penalty u/s 271E of the Act. Proceedings u/s 271D of the IT Act, also in our opinion will stand on the very same footing. If satisfaction has to be recorded with respect to proceedings u/s 271E of the IT Act, similar satisfaction has to be recorded for the proceedings u/s 271D of the IT Act, 1961 also. These have not been done in the case before us. Accordingly, by virtue of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (Supra), we are of the opinion, that the levy of penalty u/s 271D & 271E of the IT Act, 1961 cannot survive. Such orders are set aside and the appeals of the assessee are allowed. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed” Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case and following the decision of Apex Court and Jurisdictional Bench, it is requested that penalty may kindly be deleted. A.Y 2011-12 ITA 91/ASR/2020 Respected Sir, Brief facts of the case: 13 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Sir, during the course of assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings assessee was asked for the funds repaid to M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products amounting to Rs. 5,13,50,000/-, in response to which assessee stated that it was amount repaid/returned back by assessee which was received as advance against sale of land to M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products, located at Village Lalle, Tehsil Ferozepur. In order to substantiate it assessee filed original agreement executed for sale of land by assessee and M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., but Ld. JCIT, ignoring the submission of assessee consider it as loan transactions covered under section 269T of the Act and not as amount repaid which was received against sale of land by assessee and thereby initiated penalty u/s 271E of the Act. Sir, as regard provision of section 271E of the Act, it is stated that provision of section 271E is not applicable to the present case because this is transaction for purchase and sale of immovable property not of loan or deposits which covered under section 269T of the Act and the provision of section 271E is very much clear. For the sake of convenience provision of section 271E is reproduced herein below: Section 271E (1) If a person repays any 1 [loan or deposit] referred to in section 269T otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that section, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the 1 [loan or deposit] so repaid. (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the 2 [Joint Commissioner] Sir, thus provision of section 271E is clear that it applicable only on repayment of loan or deposits and not applicable to the present case because this is transaction for purchase and sale of immovable property. Sir, it is submitted that on 24.05.2010 assessee entered into agreement with M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products for Purchase of land and in pursuance of this agreement assessee time to time made payments to M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products through bank and through cash. Assessee paid amount of Rs.4,58,50,000/- through cash and on the cancellation of agreement assessee received cash amounting to Rs. 17,50,000/- on 29.03.2013 and through bank/RTGS on Rs. 4,41,00,000/- on 28.03.2018. Sir, detail of payment made and received already stated in the Hon’ble CIT(A) Order. Sir, it is stated that this amount of Rs. 4,58,50,000/- has duly been recorded in the books of assessee but the said deal was not matured and assessee received back the amount from M/s Guru Nanak Milk Product on different dates detail of already stated in Penalty Order and Hon’ble CIT(A) order. 14 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Sir, in support of this we have enclosed in Paper Book copy of agreement wherein all the transaction were recorded. But the Ld. JCIT ignoring the submission of assessee imposed penalty u/s 271E of the Act mainly on the basis of following two reasons: 1. That assessee Sh. Prem Singh found to have categorically admitted in his own statement on oath, recorded during the course of assessment proceedings on 19.12.2017 in question no. 10 that no formal agreement was entered into this regard. 2. That stamp vendor Sh. Sukhdev Singh deposed on oath that the stamp paper were not sold by him neither he signed the stamp paper nor the stamp of Sh. Sukhdev Singh as appearing on them belongs to him. Sir, as regard above observation of Ld. Assessing Officer, submission of assessee is as follows: 1. That when the statement was recorded, assessee was under pressure. He was not in present state of mind. But after that and during the course of assessment proceeding assessee submitted Original Agreement/Ikrarnama entered with Guru Nanak Milk Product. Copy of agreement along with copy of fard to show that land for which agreement was executed was in actually in the name of assessee is enclosed. 2. That assessee stated these amounts are not loan/deposit, this amount relates to sale/purchase of property. 3. That while imposing penalty the Ld. Assessing Officer knew this fact that the transaction was purely relates to the sale/purchase of immovable property as the Agreement was placed on record and merely a payment of Rs. 4,58,50,000/- was paid in cash. 4. That while framing assessment and also imposing penalty the Ld. Assessing Officer has not pointed out any discrepancy or not made any addition of disallowance regarding payment made through cheque or bank transfer. That means he is himself accepting the payment made through banking channel relates to purchase/sale of property. 5. That while imposing penalty the Ld. Assessing Officer also fail to appreciate the statement of Sh. Prem Singh, the Ld. Assessing Officer mentioned only Q. no. 10, (as mentioned in page 5, para 5 of penalty order) of the statement but there are some other question and answer which are relevant to prove that transaction was relates to the sale/purchase of immovable property and not to the loan and advances. The relevant question and answer relates to this transaction are reproduced herein below (Pg 51 of the Paper Book of AY 2010-11): 15 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ques-9: What was the source of cash deposit made by you in your saving bank account no. 5664 with SBOP, though as per your return of income your net agricultural income was Rs. NIL. Ans: There was only one cash deposit of Rs. 10 lakh on 24.04.2009 which was made out of cash receipt of Rs. 60.00 lacs from M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products, as advance for land. The remaining amount of Rs. 50 lacs was retained by me for cash expenses for registration of land. Ques-21: It is noticed that you have entered into a number of transaction with M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products in cash, which are in violation of provision of section 269SS & 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Why did you violated these provision? Ans. Since the transactions were for sale and purchase of lands that’s why some of the transactions were made in cash. It is clarified that these were not loans or advances transactions. 6. That the Ld. Assessing Officer while framing assessment relied upon the part of statement which is in favour of revenue only the other part of statement which is also an essential part to adjudicate the matter, was not discussed by him while imposing impugned penalty. 7. That statement of Sh. Sukhdev Singh (Stamp vendor) were recorded in back of the assessee when assessee was given opportunity of cross examination than Sh. Shukhdev Singh admitted that facts that he sold these stamp papers to M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products on 20.04.2010 and on 12.03.2009. 8. That while imposing penalty the Ld. Assessing Officer has not appreciate the facts of statement of Sh. Sukhvinder Singh (stamp vendor), some important and relevant facts of the statement of Sh. Sukhdev Singh dated 29.11.2018 are given herein below (Pg 64 of the Paper Book of AY 2010- 11): Ques-8: During the course of statement recorded by DCIT, Central circle, Amritsar on 24.11.2018 in response to q. no. 4, you had denied of having sold stamp papers on 12.03.2009 and 24.05.2010 to sh. Prem Singh and M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products. Is it correct? Ans; At that time I denied of having sold these papers because I could not properly see the particulars shown to me on the mobile phone. But now, I recall that stamp papers no. E- 097190, K-276939, K-276940 were sold by me to the party – M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products Vide entry no. 2185 dated 20.04.2010. further, stamp paper no. K-276028, K-276029 and K- 276030 were also sold by me to Sh. Prem Singh S/o Sh. Balbir Singh on 12.03.2009 vide entry no. 2285. Question asked during cross Examination: 16 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Q. No. 1: Do you recognize the stamp at the back of stamp paper purchased on two different dates as stated above? Ans: Yes, it is mine. Q. No. 2: Please tell whose handwriting is on the back of this stamp paper i.e writing name of purchaser etc. Ans: It is written by me. I clearly mentioned on this paper name and who purchased this agreement Sh. Gurmeet Singh, date and s. no. of my register. 9. That it is clear from the statement recorded on 29.11.2018 that during the statement recorded on 24.11.2018, the impugned agreement /stamp papers were shown in mobile phone only and that’s why he fail to recognize the same at the time of earlier statement recorded on 24.11.2018. 10. That the stamp vendor clearly recognize the stamp papers issued by him and stated that it was sold by him and it was issued in his hand writing. 11. That while imposing penalty the Ld. Assessing officer stated at page 7, para 9 that “....when he was asked to substantiate the alleged sale of these stamp papers from his entry register of stamp paper sale maintained during the relevant period, he replied that the relevant register had been lost on 14.12.2010. But surprisingly, he did not file any FIR for that loss neither he reported the said matter to Treasury Office who was supposed to verify the said register at the beginning and end of it.....” But this is incorrect to state that Sh. Sukhdev Singh has not reported the matter to any where in fact he reported this matter before the Executive Magistrate, Tarn Taran on 14.12.2010 and proof the same was also produced while recording statement but the Ld. Assessing Officer fail to appreciate this fact and ignoring the same wrongly imposed penalty on assessee. Copy of the same is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal. 12. That Ld. JCIT on page 1 of the penalty order states that copy of assessee’s account in the books of M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products is reproduced below but it was no where reproduced by the Ld. JCIT in the entire penalty order. That copy of assessee’s account in the books of M/s Guru nanak Milk Products clearly states (with narration) that amount of Rs.4,58,50,000/- was received as advance for sale of land from assessee (Pg 26-28 of the Paper Book). Thus M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products duly accepted that amount as advance paid for purchase of land. The copy of accounts in the books of assessee of M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products and cash account along with the copy of account of assessee in the books of M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products are enclosed herewith. Sir, during the year under consideration penalty was imposed on Rs. 5,13,50,000/- (i.e Rs. 4,58,50,000/- relates to agreement dated 24.05.2010 and Rs. 55,00,000/- relates to an agreement dated 12.03.2009) payment of Rs. 55,00,000/- paid on 30.03.2011 and the 17 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 same was considered in the case of assessee for the A.Y 2010-11 and appeal of assessee was allowed by CIT(A) vide order dated 26.09.2019. Sir, reliance is placed on the decisions of DCIT V/S PATHIK CONSTRUCTIONS, ITAT MUMBAI in which it was held as under: “Since the Dept. has not disputed the amounts of transactions and they have also not disputed about the cheque component of Rs 2,22,00,000 in the said transaction. But when the question of cash payment of Rs 5,94,96,000 to Jai Ganesh CHS comes, the Dept. is not willing to accept the same. As per our considered view, if at all the said loose paper 0-2 can be relied upon, it should be relied upon as a whole, i.e., both the amounts of cheque and cash should be recognised. Thus, the Dept. cannot admit the evidence selectively (and only a part) which is in their favour. For this purpose, reliance can be placed on the following decisions:- i) CIT Vs Anant Swarup Khandelwal (2009) (177 Taxmann 450)(Del) ii) CIT Vs P 0 Abraham (349 ITR 442 - Ker.) iii) Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers Vs DClT (105 ITR 376(Pune ITAT)]” Sir, since the transaction were related to sale/purchase of immovable property, stamp vendor also admitted that he sold the impugned stamp papers and provision which quoted while imposing penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Act not applicable to the year under consideration, so, it is requested that considering the facts and circumstances of the case penalty imposed by the Ld. Assessing Officer may kindly be deleted. LEGAL PROPOSITION Sir without prejudice to the above it is stated that Assessment Order is conspicuously silent on recording of any satisfaction by the AO for the purpose of initiating the penalty u/s 271D/271E. Sir, recording of satisfaction by the AO is essential for initiation of any penalty under s. 271D/271E and failure to record the satisfaction in the manner provided by the law is fatal, thus, the penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee are liable to be quashed. Sir, in the present case AO is silent on recording any satisfaction for purpose of initiating any penalty u/s 271D or u/s 271E of the Act. Copy of Assessment Order is enclosed in the Paper Book Page 1-3. Sir, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of Jai Lakshmi Rice Mills 64 taxmann.com 75 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the identical facts decided that in case the satisfaction is not recorded in the original assessment itself, then the initiation of penalty proceeding under s. 271E, would not survive. 18 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Sir, reliance is further placed on the decision of Jurisdictional Bench in the case of Ram Lubhaya Jassal v/s ACIT, ITAT Amritsar, ITA.747/Asr/2017 dated 24.09.2021 in which it is held as under: Penalty under s. 271D—Validity—Recording of satisfaction by AO—Assessment order is conspicuously silent on recording of any satisfaction by the AO for the purpose of initiating the penalty under s. 271D—Recording of satisfaction by the AO is essential for initiation of any penalty under s. 271D—Failure to record the satisfaction in the manner provided by the law is fatal—Accordingly, the penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are quashed—Jai Lakshmi Rice Mills 64 taxmann.com 75 followed Sir, reliance is further placed on the decision of ITAT, Banglore in the case of S.B. Patil v/s JCIT, ITA 1053 & 1054(BNG.)/2014 dated 10.02.2016, in which it was held as under: 7. In our opinion, the legal issue raised by the assessee do not require any fresh assimilation of facts and can therefore, be admitted. A reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reproduced above does show that it is thus imperative for satisfaction to be recorded in the assessment order for initiation of penalty u/s 271E of the Act. Proceedings u/s 271D of the IT Act, also in our opinion will stand on the very same footing. If satisfaction has to be recorded with respect to proceedings u/s 271E of the IT Act, similar satisfaction has to be recorded for the proceedings u/s 271D of the IT Act, 1961 also. These have not been done in the case before us. Accordingly, by virtue of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (Supra), we are of the opinion, that the levy of penalty u/s 271D & 271E of the IT Act, 1961 cannot survive. Such orders are set aside and the appeals of the assessee are allowed. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed” Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case and following the decision of Apex Court and Jurisdictional Bench, it is requested that penalty may kindly be deleted. 7. We have heard both the sides, perused the material record, the impugned order and case law cited. Admittedly, the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/-, as an advance against sale of land from M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products, measuring 403 Kanal located at Village Lalle, Tehsil Ferozpur. In order to substantiate, the assessee filed original agreement executed for sale of land between assessee and M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., but the Ld. Assessing Officer had ignored 19 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 the submission of assessee and considered it as loan transactions covered under section 269SS of the Act and not as amount received against sale of land by assessee and thereby initiated penalty u/s 271D of the Act, subsequent to assessment order dated 29.12.2017, by way of a reference dated 14.08.2018 to the joint Commissioner of income tax. In the following assessment year 2011-12, during the course of assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings assesse was asked for the funds repaid to M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products amounting to Rs. 5,13,50,000/-, in response to which assessee stated that it was amount repaid/returned back by assessee which was received as advance against sale of land to M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products, located at Village Lalle, Tehsil Ferozpur. In order to substantiate it assessee filed original agreement executed for sale of land by assessee and M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., but Ld. JCIT, ignoring the submission of assessee and being not satisfied, considered it as loan transactions covered under section 269T of the Act and not as amount repaid which was received against sale of land by assessee and thereby initiated penalty u/s 271E of the Act subsequent to assessment order dated 29.12.2017, by way of a reference from AO dated 14.08.2018 in the following assessment year 2011-12. 7.1 The Ld. counsel contended that provision of section 271D is not applicable to the present case because this is transaction for purchase and sale of immovable property not of loan or deposits as covered under section 269SS of the Act. For the sake of convenience provision of section 271D and 271E is reproduced herein below: 20 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Section 271D (1) If a person takes or accepts any loan or deposit in contravention of the provision of section 269SS, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit so taken or accepted] (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the [Joint Commissioner] Section 271E (1) If a person repays any [loan or deposit] referred to in section 269T otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that section, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of the 1 [loan or deposit] so repaid. (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the [Joint Commissioner] Thus provision of section 271D and 271E, it is clear that these are applicable only on repayment of loan or deposits and not applicable to the present case because this is transaction for purchase and sale of immovable property. 7.2 From the provision of section 271D and 271E, it is clear that it applicable only on acceptance of loan or deposits and repayment thereof and not applicable to the present case because these were a transactions executed for the purpose of purchase and sale of immovable property. It is evident from the agreement entered with M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products that it was for sale of land and in pursuance of this agreement, assessee 21 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 time to time received payments from M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products through bank and through cash. The learned counsel contended that due to some unavoidable circumstances the agreement could not be matured and the entire amount received was returned back to M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products on different dates as per details furnished before the AO and is also stated in the penalty order. 7.3 The Ld. JCIT on page 1 of the penalty order stated that copy of assessee’s account in the books of M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products is reproduced below but it was nowhere reproduced by the Ld. JCIT in the entire penalty order. That copy of assessee’s account in the books of M/s Guru nanak Milk Products clearly states (with narration) that amount of Rs.60,00,000/- was paid as advance for land to assessee (Pg 46 of the Paper Book). Thus, M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products duly accepted that amount as advance paid for purchase of land. The copy of accounts in the books of assessee of M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products and cash account along with the copy of account of assessee in the books of M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products were produced before the authorities below. 7.4 The CIT appeal categorically that the amounts were received as part of sale consideration of land and these were not loan transactions to be covered u/s 269SS of the Act. Similarly, he further observed that the amounts repaid were also on this account only and were not repayment of amounts to be covered under Section 269T of the lncome Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the penalties u/s 271D and Section 271E were not attracted in this 22 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 case. Therefore, these penalties were deleted in respect of assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12. 7.5. Likewise, in respect of assessment year 2011-12, the CIT appeal has discussed that the funds were received by the company M/s. Guru Nanak Milk Products and the assessee has reflected in the balance sheet/books of accounts as 'Creditor' and under the circumstances, there was no basis for treating the payments made by the assessee to the company M/s. Guru Nanak Milk Products as repayment of loan. To conclude, from the facts & documents filed, we hold that the amounts were payment as part of sale/purchase consideration of land and these were not loan transactions to be covered u/s 269T, Accordingly, 'the penalty u/s 271E was not attracted in this case. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 5,13,50,000/- is deleted. 8. In the case of “DCIT V/S PATHIK CONSTRUCTIONS”, ITAT MUMBAI, it was held as under: “Since the Dept. has not disputed the amounts of transactions and they have also not disputed about the cheque component of Rs 2,22,00,000 in the said transaction. But when the question of cash payment of Rs 5,94,96,000 to Jai Ganesh CHS comes, the Dept. is not willing to accept the same. As per our considered view, if at all the said loose paper 0-2 can be relied upon, it should be relied upon as a whole, i.e., both the amounts of cheque and cash should be recognised. Thus, the Dept. cannot admit the evidence selectively (and only a part) which is in their favour. For this purpose, reliance can be placed on the following decisions:- 23 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 i) CIT Vs Anant Swarup Khandelwal (2009) (177 Taxmann 450)(Del) ii) CIT Vs P 0 Abraham (349 ITR 442 - Ker.) iii) Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers Vs DClT (105 ITj 376(Pune ITAT)]” 9. Since the transaction were related to sale/purchase of immovable property, stamp vendor also admitted that he sold the impugned stamp papers and provision which quoted while imposing penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Act not applicable to the year under consideration. The relevant part of his statement is reproduced hereunder: Ques-9: What was the source of cash deposit made by you in your saving bank account no. 5664 with SBOP, though as per your return of income your net agricultural income was Rs. NIL. Ans: There was only one cash deposit of Rs. 10 lakh on 24.04.2009 which was made out of cash receipt of Rs. 60.00 lacs from M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products, as advance for land. The remaining amount of Rs. 50 lacs was retained by me for cash expenses for registration of land. Ques-21: It is noticed that you have entered into a number of transaction with M/s Guru Nanak Milk Products in cash, which are in violation of provision of section 269SS & 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Why did you violated these provision? Ans. Since the transactions were for sale and purchase of lands that’s why some of the transactions were made in cash. It is clarified that these were not loans or advances transactions. 10. Without prejudice to the above, it is stated that Assessment Order is conspicuously silent on recording of any satisfaction as regard to the purpose of initiating the penalty u/s 271D/271E. The learned counsel contended that recording of satisfaction by the AO is essential for initiation of any penalty under s. 271D/271E and failure to record the satisfaction in the manner provided by the law is fatal, thus, the penalty proceedings 24 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 initiated against the assessee are liable to be quashed. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of Jai Lakshmi Rice Mills 64 taxmann.com 75 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the identical facts decided that in case the satisfaction is not recorded in the original assessment itself, then the initiation of penalty proceeding under s. 271E, would not survive (APB, Pg.66). 11. The Coordinate Bench in the case of Ram Lubhaya Jassal v. ACIT, ITAT Amritsar, ITA.747/Asr/2017 dated 24.09.2021 has quashed a penalty under section 271D, on non-recording of satisfaction by AO following the Lakshmi Rice Mills 64 taxmann.com 75. 12. In another order the ITAT, Banglore in the case of S.B. Patil v/s JCIT, ITA 1053 & 1054(BNG.)/2014 dated 10.02.2016, held that, by virtue of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (Supra), that is imperative to record satisfaction for initiation of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act that the levy of penalty u/s 271D & 271E of the IT Act, 1961 cannot survive. Such orders are set aside and the appeals of the assessee are allowed. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court and Jurisdictional Bench, the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT appeal deleting penalty levied by the AO under section 271D and section 271E of the act in the respect of assessment years 2010-11 and 25 I.T.A. No. 91/Asr/2020 & I.T.A. No. 718/Asr/2019 C.O. No. 1&2/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 2011-12 are hereby sustained. Accordingly, the CO appeals of the assessee rendered academic. 14. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.05.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Membe r Date: 09.05.2022 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order