DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI V. FOURSTAR HOSPITALITIES LLP, DELHI

ITA 2954/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-16, Delhi against Fourstar Hospitalities LLP concerning the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The appeals were directed against the order of the CIT(A) which had partly allowed the assessee's appeal by applying a profit rate of 10% on undisclosed receipts found during a search operation, instead of taxing the entire amount as income. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the entire undisclosed receipts should be taxed as income. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and relevant legal precedents, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312700 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. 454 ITR 212 (SC), CIT Vs. Willamson Financial Service and others 297 ITR 17, CIT Vs. President Industries [2002] 258 ITR 654 (Guj), Man Mohan Sadani Vs. CIT [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP), CIT Vs. Indeo Airways Pvt. Ltd. [2012]349 ITR 85 (Del)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NEERAJ JAIN
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Documents seized; Search and seizure; Loose papers
• Section: 132; 153A; 69C; 12; 15; 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2954/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2018-19) ITA No.2955/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2019-20) Dy. CIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi. Vs. Fourstar Hospitalities LLP, E-2, Jhandewalan Extn, ARA Centre, Delhi-110055 PAN-AAFFF4111N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Neeraj Jain and Sh. P.K. Mishra, CA’s Department by Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 26/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/04/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, [CIT(A)], vide separate orders both dated 04.08.2023 in Appeal No.10533/2017-18 and 10598/2018-19 for Assessment Year 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tac, 1961. 2 ITA Nos. 2954 & 2955/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Fourstar Hospitalities LLP 2. The issues raised in both the appeal are common, therefore, they are taken together for consideration. We first take the appeal No.2954/Del/2023 which is related to Assessment Year 2018-19. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 30.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,93,880/-. A search and seizure operation was carried u/s 132 of the Act on 30.05.2018 at the business premises of Kohli Tent Group of cases to which assessee belonged. Thereafter, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 24.09.2020. In response to which assessee has filed the return of income on 27.10.2022 declaring the same income as was declared in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. During the course of search, certain documents including pen drives etc. were found and seized from the possession of the assessee company and its Directors and other trusted person. Based on which, it was concluded by the Assessing Officer that assessee was having undisclosed receipts as well as unaccounted expenditure, and after considering the submissions made by the assessee, made additions and assessed the income of assessee at Rs.8,58,51,255/-. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the Assessing Officer has made addition towards the undisclosed receipts found noted in the documents found and seized during the course of search and also expenditure on account of unexplained expenditure. The Ld. CIT(A) by following the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and also of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court has held that entire receipts cannot be taxed and restrict the addition by 3 ITA Nos. 2954 & 2955/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Fourstar Hospitalities LLP applying the profit rate of 10% on such undisclosed receipts and further deleted the addition made on account of unaccounted-for expenses by observing that these are covered in the profit rate application. Against this order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before on this strength of following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to Rs. 68,21,171/- (@ 10% of Rs. 6,82,11,710/-), when the assessee has failed to produce any documents to refute unaccounted business receipts & unaccounted business profits? 2. Whether on facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not upholding the entire addition amounting to Rs. 7,34,57,375/- (Rs. 6,35,39,625/- + Rs. 1,60,000/- + Rs. 97,57,750/-), as the assessee could not produce any documents regarding unaccounted business receipts and related expenditures incurred on earning these above receipts? 3. Whether on facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in estimating the unaccounted income of the assessee at 10% of total undisclosed receipts whereas no such evidence is available on record that assessee had incurred any expenditure to earn the above receipts? 4. (a) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 4. As all the grounds of appeal taken by the revenue are in relation to the deletion of additions by applying profit rate as against making additions of gross undisclosed receipts and further against the deletion of unexplained expenditure thus the same are taken together for consideration. 5. Before us, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted the assessee company was incorporated on 12.05.2017 and its main activity is of running and letting out of Banquet hall for Marriages and other functions. For this 4 ITA Nos. 2954 & 2955/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Fourstar Hospitalities LLP purposes, assessee has taken over the Banquet halls owned by M/s Angel Promoters Private Limited (APPL) who is the owner of the premises at 14/2, Site-IV, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. During the course of search, one excel work book titled as ‘Pendrive-000641’ were found and seized which contained details of receipts of Banquet Hall for the period from 02.03.2017 to 10.04.2018. Besides this, certain loose papers were also found containing details of un-recorded expenditure made by the assessee during this period which include expenses on the construction towards improvement of Banquet Halls and other routine expenses. Since part of the receipts as recorded in the said pend drive were recorded in the books of account, the AO made a reconciliation of the same and found that total receipts of Rs.6,61,61,600/- as found recorded in the said sheet-1 for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 are undisclosed receipts. As per Ld. CIT-DR, the AO though has held the expenses as found recorded in the seized documents as allowable however, since majority of these expenses are in violation to provisions of section 40(A)(3), 40a(ia), etc. Therefore, he allowed expenditure to the tune of Rs.28,09,045/- only and balance expenditures of Rs.6,35,39,625/- is added to the total income of the assessee. 6. As per Ld. CIT-DR these receipts are not disclosed in the books of account and assessee has violated various provisions of the Act for claiming the expenditure as allowable expenditure, the action of AO in making additions of the residuary amount of income is as per the 5 ITA Nos. 2954 & 2955/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Fourstar Hospitalities LLP provisions of the Act, and therefore, he prayed for the restoration of the additions made. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. AR vehemently supported the orders of the CIT(A) who had applied the NP rate on entire undisclosed receipts. He further submitted that entire receipts cannot be held as income and only the net income is to be treated as the income of the assessee by following the real income theory. The Ld. AR also filed the written submissions which reads as under: The alleged addition of Rs.7,34,57,375/- comprises of following amounts: Amount (Rs.) Reference Particulars Submissions 6,35,39,625 Page 52/AO Unaccounted business profits on the basis of Sheet- 1 Pendrive-000641 which includes Rs.1,87,070/- on account of other receipts as per Sheet-1 A reference to page 52 of the Assessment Order will show that the total business receipts for the period 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 are of Rs. 6,61,61,600/- and other receipts of Rs. 1,87,070/- totalling to Rs. 6,63,48,670/-. The AO has worked out the unaccounted business profits on these receipts of Rs. 6,35,39,625/-. Sheet-1 is for the period from 02.03.2017 to 02.05.2018. It maybe pointed out that the assessee commenced its business from 11.11.2017 which Is 6 ITA Nos. 2954 & 2955/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Fourstar Hospitalities LLP evident from the finding of ld. CIT(A), in para 7.2.7 at page 32, agreeing with the submissions of the assessee at pages 8 to 10 of the order that the premises wherefrom the business was conducted were taken on rent from November 2017 and the firm got registration under GST to commence business on 11.11.2017 and thus the receipts for the period from 11.11.2017 to 31.03.2017 is Rs. 5,81,07,070/- (66161600 minus 8054530 relating to period 01.10.2017 το 10.11.2017). The CIT(A), at page 40 of the order, has considered the total receipts of Rs. 5,81,07,070/- for the period from 11.11.2017 to 31.03.2017 and other receipts of rs.1,87,070/-. 1,60,000 Page 53/AO Being receipts as per Pen drive 00089 The CIT(A) at page 40 of his order has considered these receipts of Rs.1,60,000 7 ITA Nos. 2954 & 2955/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Fourstar Hospitalities LLP 9,57,750 Page 56/AO Unaccounted business receipts from mobile phone of Sunit Goel The CIT(A) at page 40 of his order has considered these receipts of Rs.97,57,750/- The Id. CIT(A) has applied a GP Rate of 10% on total sales of Rs.6,82,11,710/-(58107070-187070-160000-9757570) and has sustained an addition to the tune of Rs. 68,21,171/-, It is submitted as under: 1. It is the total income of the assessee that has to be assessed on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. For this proposition reliance is placed on the case of PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. 454 ITR 212 (SC), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 14(iii) has held that: “ ……. (ii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the Assessing Officer would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the \"total income\" taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the Assessing Officer including the income declared in the returns; and ...\" (Page 28 of RPB) 2. For the proposition that what is chargeable to tax is not gross receipts but income reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Willamson Financial Service and others 297 ITR 17 wherein it has been held as under: \"38. ... The word \"income\" has been defined in section 2(24) of the said Act to include profits and gains. The term \"total income\" is defined in section 2(45) of the said Act. The definition of the term \"total income\" involves two ingredients-firstly, that the income must consist of the total amount of income referred to in Section 5 and secondly, it must be computed in the manner laid down in the Income Tax Act. Therefore the manner of computation laid down by the Income Tax Act forms an integral part of the definition \"total income\". The correct method of approach is to treat nothing as being charged to tax until by the process of computation laid down by the said Act, the status of income, profits and gains, emerges. This principle is very important for deciding the present case. We repeat that computation laid down by the said Act forms an integral part of the definition of \"total income\". 8 ITA Nos. 2954 & 2955/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Fourstar Hospitalities LLP Section 4 charges the total income of an assessee to income tax. Section 5 of the Income Tax Act defines \"total income\" (Page 48 of RPB) \"44. It is also important to bear in mind that under Section 4 the levy is on \"total income\" of the assessee computed in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the income Tax Act. What is chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act is the profits and gains of a year. What is chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act is not gross receipts but income. Under the Income Tax Act the tax us on income and not on gross receipts. Section 4 is the charging section. Section 5 defines gamut of total income. Section 4 charges every person in respect of his total income, however, income cannot be taxed unless it falls within Section 5 subject to it being saved by any other section from taxation. The ambit of taxation, being subject to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, involves two consequences. Firstly, provisions of the Income Tax Act, example, Section 10 to Section 12 and various sections under Chapter VI-A, may have the effect of exempting income which would otherwise be chargeable under Section 5. Secondly, the amount of income from whatever sources derived is to be ascertained subject to the provisions of particular sections dealing with the sources, namely, Section 15 to Section 59.\" (Page 49 of RPB) \"50. The word \"income is defined in Section 2(24) of the 1961 Act. That word finds place in Rule 8(1). The word \"income\" in Section 2(24) includes \"profits and gains\". The term \"total income\" is defined in Section 2(45) to mean the total amount of income referred to in Section 5, computed in the manner lard down in the Income Tax Act. The word \"total income\" is not there in Rule 8. 51. The word \"income\" is an expression of elastic ambit. It is not exhaustive. That is why Section 2(24) defines \"income\" as including a particular category of receipts. Mere gross receipt cannot be taxed as income.\" (Page 51 of RPB) 3. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. President Industries [2002] 258 ITR 654 (Guj) and judgement of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Man Mohan Sadani Vs. CIT [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP). 4. In the line of the business of the assessee there are unrecorded expenses against the unrecorded receipts which is quite evident from the seized material found during the course of search and seizure operation (Sheet-1). A reference in this context maybe made to the following observation by the id. AO in the order of Fourstar Hospitalities LLP at page 7 reproduced as under: 9 ITA Nos. 2954 & 2955/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Fourstar Hospitalities LLP \"In the wake of admission by Abhishek Jain and Sh. Sunit Goel, it is clear that the payment for expenses and receipts found recorded in sheet in excel file \"Pendrive_000641\" were made in cash which remained unaccounted. It has also been stated in your reply that \"the assessee with a view to cooperate with the Income Tax Department has prepared a profit and loss account and balance sheet for the period 11.11.2017 to 31.03.2018 and for the period from 01.04.2018 to 02.05.2018 wherein all the transactions found from its premises having a financial implication considered on the presumption that the seized documents are true. A reference to the profit and loss account as prepared would show a Net Profit of Rs. 8,47,424/- for the period ending 31.03.2018 and a net loss of Rs. (3,16,292/-) for the period ending 31.03.2019(up to 02.05.2018). Your above claim is not acceptable in view of the fact that no evidence has been filed by you in support of any expenses incurred. Further, even if the expenses have been incurred, the same can be only be allowed subjected to provisions of sections 40A(3), 40a(ia), etc. of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There is no supporting evidence for the admissibility of any expenses furnished by you. Therefore, yourclaim of expenses as per P&L account submitted by you is not acceptable.\" The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Indeo Airways Pvt. Ltd. [2012]349 ITR 85 (Del) has held that: \"Having once drawn the presumption that the contents of the documents of the assessee taken into possession during the search were true, the Revenue could not, consistently with that presumption, have proceeded to require the assessee to produce materials in support of the expenditure entries. Such an in consistent approach in respect of the contents of the same book was founded only on suspicion that they were not genuine. However, suspicion cannot replace proof. Moreover, the full effect of the presumption should be given effect, whenever the statute directs a particular non-existent state of affairs to be assumed. Therefore, in the absence of any materials in the form of documents, the Revenue could not have denied the benefit of any expenses which would otherwise have enured to the assessee, as an allowable deduction under section 37(1).\" 5. The ld. AO in the case of the partners has accepted the gross profit rate of 10% while considering the explanation of the partner of the assessee that 10 ITA Nos. 2954 & 2955/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Fourstar Hospitalities LLP the money (unaccounted money) deployed in M/s. Fourstar Hospitalities LLP to the extent of Rs. 1,41,08,424/-was out of the profits of 10% on unaccounted receipts of Tristar Hospitalities of Rs. 14,10,83,966/- and Rs. 27,35,536/ out of unaccounted receipts amounting to Rs. 2,73,55,360/- of Kohli Tent House (Page 35 of CIT(A) order). 6. It is submitted that a reference may kindly be made to the P&L and balance sheet mentioned at page 7 of the assessment order showing profit of Rs. 8,47,424/- on an unaccounted turnover of Rs. 5,55,25,400/- (Pages 148 to 149 of RPB) drawn on the basis of seized material which come to about 1.52% whereas the Id. CIT(A) has estimated the net profit at the rate of 10% on the turnover determined by him at Rs. 6,82,11,710/-amounting to Rs. 68,21,171/-.” 8. in the last ld. AR, prayed for the confirmation of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 9. After having considered the arguments put forth by both the parties, we find that in the instant case, the AO has made the additions on account of undisclosed receipts after reducing amount of expenditure which are allowable expenditure under the Income Tax Act, meaning thereby, the AO has disallowed those expenses which are in violation to section 40A(3), 40(a)(ia) and under other provisions of the Act. Admittedly, the undisclosed receipts as well as undisclosed expenditures were found noted in the loose papers and excel sheets etc. found and seized during the course of search. It is settled proposition that in case where undisclosed receipts were found as a result for search such entire receipt cannot be taxed as income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs CIT reported in (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC) has held as under: 11 ITA Nos. 2954 & 2955/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Fourstar Hospitalities LLP “The question whether there was real accrual of income to the assessee-company in respect of the enhanced charges for supply of electricity has to be considers by taking the probability or improbability of realisation in a realistic manner. If the matter is considered in this light it is not possible to hold that there was real accrual of income to the assessee-company in respect of the enhanced charges for supply of electricity which were added by the income tax officer while passing the assessment orders in respect of the assessment years under consideration. The Appellate Assistant commissioner was right in deleting the said addition made by the income tax officer and the tribunal had rightly held that the claim at the increased rates as made by the assessee-company on the basis of which necessary entries were made represented only hypothetical income and the impugned amounts as brought to tax by the income tax officer did represent the income which had really accrued to the assessee-company during the relevant previous years. The High court in our option was in error in upsetting the said view of the Tribunal. 10. The Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs. President Industries [2002] 258 ITR 654 (Guj) has held that only profit in embedded in undisclosed receipts could be taxed and not the entire undisclosed receipts. The ld. CIT(A) while applying profit rate of 10% made following observations in para 7.2.7to 8.12 of the order: “7.2.7 In view of the above facts and submissions by the appellant, I am of the view that only net profit of the out of books sales can be added to the income of the appellant. In the appellant's line of business which is a very competitive one and considering the net profit computed in the case of the appellant itself on the basis of unaccounted receipts and expenditure account found during the course of search and the discussion made in Para 7.2.5 above, I find it appropriate to consider the Net Profit of the appellant @10% of the Unaccounted Sales. As per the submission of the appellant, the total business receipts were computed as per 'Sheet 1' in pendrive-000641 pertaining to period from 01.10.2017 till 31.03.2018. However, the appellant had taken the premises on rent from 11.11.2017, thus, the transaction prior to 11.11.2017 should be excluded from the business receipt of the appellant which is Rs. 80,54,530/~. Considering the agreement with the M/s APPL for running the banquet hall by the appellant from 11.11.2017 the total unrecorded business receipt for the period between 11.11.2017 to 31.03.2018 has been considered as Rs. 5,81,07,070/- and Rs. 1,87,070/- as other unaccounted receipts as per 'Sheet 1'. Further, the AO has made 12 ITA Nos. 2954 & 2955/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Fourstar Hospitalities LLP separate addition of Rs. 99,17,570/- (Rs. 1,60,000/- + Rs. 97,57,570/- ) on account of unrecorded business receipts on the basis of Annexure A-13 and images from iPhone of Sh. Sunit Goel. Considering the same the total unrecorded business receipt has been computed at Rs. 6,82,11,710/- Accordingly, the net profit for the year under review shall be Rs.68,21,171/- (i.e. 10% of 6,82,11,710/-. Therefore, the addition made by the assessing officer is restricted to Rs.68,21,171/-. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 8. Ground no. 12 and 16: These grounds appeal is raised on the issue of addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- on account of unexplained expenses. The appellant submitted that appellant was under an obligation to pay a rent of Rs.5,00,000/- per month from November 2017. In this connection copies of bills raised by the landlord M/s APPL are enclosed wherein the first bill bearing number 001 is for the month of November 2017 and subsequent bills are consecutively numbered showing that the rent is payable from the month of November 2017 and not from October 2017. The allegation that it was found that M/s Fourstar Hospitalities LLP was paying Rs.5,00,000/- per month only through banking channel since October 2017is incorrect in view of the fact that the rent of Rs.5,00.000/- per month was payable from November 2017 and not October 2017. The appellant in its own capacity has not paid any amount of cash towards rent to M/s APPL. In the seized document there is no rent paid in cash to M/s APPL by the appellant. In 'Sheetl' there are notings of rent paid to one Shri D.B Jain and not M/s APPL (the landlord). Thus, it is wrong to say that the rent of Rs.20,00,000/- per month was paid to M/s APPL in cash for months of October 2017 to March 2018. The addition proposed is merely on the basis of statements which are not corroborated by any valid evidence. Thus, no addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- deserve to be made. It may be mentioned, for sake of argument only, that rent is an expenditure and the same cannot be held to be income. 8.1 I have considered the submissions of the appellant and material available on record. In the assessment order, the AO has observed that the actual rent paid by the appellant to M/s APPI was Rs. 25,00,000/- per month for Zestin Banquets taken on rent. However, in the books of account the rent of Rs. 5,00,000/- per month were recorded against the rent of Rs. 25,00,000/- per month. It is evident from the seized document 'Sheet 1' that Mr. D.B. Jain was receiving Rs. 20,00,000/- per month in cash who is also the Director of M/s APPL which proves that he was receiving the rent in cash on behalf of the company. Accordingly, the AO inade addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- in the hands of the appellant u/s 69C of the Act. 13 ITA Nos. 2954 & 2955/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Fourstar Hospitalities LLP The appellant submitted that the rent payment is a business expenditure and since the profit of the appellant LLP has been already estimated separate addition on this account is not sustainable. the addition on account of estimation of profit at the rate of 10% of the total such unaccounted business receipts has been already made separate disallowance on account of further expenses is not desirable. 8.2 In view of the above, since the profit of the appellant has been computed @10% after considering out of books receipts and expenditure, and rent is also an expense, in my opinion, further addition on account of rent expenses is not sustainable. Therefore, the addition made on account of rent paid in cash by the AO is deleted. In view of this, these grounds of appeal filed by the appellant are allowed.” 11. Before us, the Ld. CIT-DR failed to controvert the findings given by Ld. CIT(A) made while deleting the additions by applying profit rate of 10% as against the addition of entire undisclosed receipts. Further, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the amount of unaccounted expenditure recorded in the same pages by holding the same are not required since net profit rate on undisclosed receipts was applied and addition of Rs. 68,21,171/- is sustained as profit on such undisclosed receipts. Accordingly, we find that no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) which is hereby upheld. 12. As a result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 13. As stated earlier the issues involved and grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2018-19 are identical with the those grounds of appeal as raised in the appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20. Hence, the decision rendered herein above for Assessment Year 2018-19 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal for AY 2019-20. 14 ITA Nos. 2954 & 2955/Del/2023 DCIT vs. Fourstar Hospitalities LLP 14. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/04/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANISH AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 29/04/2025 PK Sr. Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "