ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH V. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

ITA 3703/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Era Infra Engineering Limited, which faced reassessment under Section 153A following a search operation that also targeted Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh and his associates. The search yielded documents and statements suggesting unaccounted transactions involving cash payments for legal fees. The Income Tax Department made additions to the assessee's income based on these findings. The Tribunal examined whether these additions were valid under Section 153A, considering the legal framework and precedents set by the Supreme Court and other High Courts regarding the use of incriminating material found during searches.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 102490 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Abhisar Buildwell vs. Income Tax Department, PCIT (Central)-3 vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), Trilok Chand Chaudhary vs ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi, Om Prakash Tantia vs DCIT, Calcutta Knitwears vs. Income Tax Department
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: CHINU BHASIN
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Revised return; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained expenditure; Document seized; Documents seized; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Block assessment; Loose papers
• Section: 147; 144; 143(3); 271(1)(c); 153; 132; 153A; 69C; 13; 153C; 20

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.3676/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) ITA No.3703/Del/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) Era Infra Engineering Limited, C-56/41, Sector-62, Noida H.O., Gautam Budh Nagar-201301 Uttar Pradesh PAN:AAACE1268K Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Chinu Bhasin, CA Department by Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM, These two appeals are filed by the assessee against two separate orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A) in short]-30, New Delhi in appeal No.10027/10-11 dated 23.10.2023 for Assessment Year 2011-12 and in appeal No.10038/11-12 dated 20.10.2023 for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. During the course of hearing, it is stated by the ld. AR of the assessee that in both the appeals the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are common and also having common issues thus both can be taken together for adjudication. Ld. CIT-DR also 2 ITA Nos.3676/Del/2023 ITA No.3703/Del/2023 Era Infra Engineering Limited vs. DCIT confirmed this fact, therefore, both the appeals are taken together and decided by a single order. First, we take the appeal of the assessee in appeal No. 3676/Del/2023 for A.Y. 2011-12. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee company was engaged in the business of construction of infrastructure facilities and presently is under the process of corporate insolvency resolution process where the NCLT has approved the resolution plan vide its order dt. 11.06.2024. The return of income for the year under appeal was filed on 30.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.246,53,70,512/- which was later revised at a total income of Rs.251,84,23,310/-. The assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 28.03.2013 at a total income of Rs.247,24,79,950/-by making the addition of Rs.7109441/-. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated and the reassessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) dated 28.12.2018 wherein the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.251,84,23,310/- i.e. the income declared by the assessee in the revised return. Thereafter, search and seizure action was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 14.10.2020 simultaneously with Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh (founding member of legal firm M/s Singh & Associates), During the course of search at Shri Manoj Kumar Singh and his business associates, various transactions were found in the computer files seized from the possession of the employees of Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh. As per these computer files and print outs, it was found that they were related to the some unaccounted cash transactions including with various persons including the 3 ITA Nos.3676/Del/2023 ITA No.3703/Del/2023 Era Infra Engineering Limited vs. DCIT assessee company. During the course of search carried out in the case of assessee company, certain loose papers etc. were found in terms of the Panchnama dt 14.10.2020 which are available in the PB pages 457 to 463 filed by the assessee. Thereafter, proceedings u/s 153A were initiated in the case of the assessee and the assessment for various assessment years falling under the block period of ten years were completed u/s 153A including the AY 2011-12 to 2012-13 vide order dated 31.03.2022. 4. In the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s 144 of the Act, addition of Rs.1,90,97,350/- was made by holding the same as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act being cash paid to Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh as legal fees out of unaccounted sources. Against such order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein it was claimed by the assessee that no incriminating material was found from the possession of the assessee, therefore, addition could not be made in the order passed u/s 153A of the Act. However, Ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the contention of the assessee and dismissed the appeal, therefore, the present appeal is filed by the assessee before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld.AO/CIT(A) under Section 153A of I.T. Act, 1961, is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been framed consequent to a search which itself was arbitrary, unjustified, unlawful and invalid in the eye of law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of I.T. Act, against the appellant and the 4 ITA Nos.3676/Del/2023 ITA No.3703/Del/2023 Era Infra Engineering Limited vs. DCIT assessment framed under Section 153A/144 of I.T. Act, is in violation of the moratorium under section 14 of the IBC and as such the same is bad in the eye of law and liable to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of I.T. Act, and order passed by the Ld.AO/CIT(A) under Section 153A/144 of I.T. Act, is without jurisdiction. 4. That even on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A of I.T. Act, (the Act) against the appellant and the assessment framed under Section 153A/144 of I.T. Act, is in violation of the statutory conditions of the Act and the procedure prescribed under the applicable laws and as such the same is bad in the eye of law and liable to be set aside. 5. That the Ld.AO/CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, by re-assessing the closed assessment inspite of the Assessee being protected under the moratorium u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and making the addition and/or disallowance not related to the material seized during the course of search and seizure action. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.AO/CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned assessment order on the basis of relying upon some vague references in parts of a seized/impounded document rather than relying upon the complete seized/impounded documents. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.AO/CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned assessment order by relying upon the part of the statement recorded U/s 132(4)/131(1A) of the LT Act, 1961 rather than relying upon the complete statement recorded U/s 132(4)/131(1A) of the IT Act, 1961. 8. (i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.AO/CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law by making addition of Rs.1,90,97,350/- on account of alleged undisclosed business income which is based on surmises and conjectures which is arbitrary unjustified, bad in law and un-called. ii) That the Ld.AO/CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law making the addition of Rs.1,90,97,350/-/- on mere assumptions, supposition, conjectures, surmises and some vague references without bringing any material on record to establish that the assessee has in fact earned any unaccounted business income over and above the income recorded in its books of accounts. iii) That the above said addition has been made without bringing any material or evidence on record to prove the same, but only by indulging in conjectures and surmises. 5 ITA Nos.3676/Del/2023 ITA No.3703/Del/2023 Era Infra Engineering Limited vs. DCIT 9. That the impugned assessment order passed by the Ld.AO/CIT(A) is against the principles of natural justice and has been passed without allowing the opportunity for any explanation to the appellant 10. (i)That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO/CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs. 253,75,20,660/- as against current year income of Rs.251,84,23,310/- declared by the assessee and thereby increasing the current year income of assessee to Rs.253,75,20,660/-. (ii) That the above-mentioned additions are otherwise untenable since reassessment under Section 153A of the I.T. Act, consequent to the search is to be confined only to the incriminating material belonging to the Assessee found during the search. 11. That the Ld.AO/CIT(A) has erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) on account of the above addition treating the same as concealment of income, is unwarranted and ought to be quashed. 12. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 13. The appellant craves the right to add, amend, alter, withdraw or forgo any ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time of the hearing.” 6. The grounds of appeal No.1 to 7 are legal grounds taken on the issue that additions have been made in the order passed u/s 153Aof the Act without referring to any incriminating material found and seized from the possession of the assessee and solely on the basis of the material found and statements recorded of third parties which are not related to the assessee as neither they were the directors nor employees of the assessee company. 7. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act and subsequent reassessment proceedings u/s 147 were concluded on 28.03.2013 and 20.12.2018 respectively, copy of such orders are placed in paper book pages 18-28. It is further 6 ITA Nos.3676/Del/2023 ITA No.3703/Del/2023 Era Infra Engineering Limited vs. DCIT submitted that the assessment year under appeal is unabated assessment year and no addition in unabated year could be in the absence of any incriminating material found and seized as a result of search in the case of the assessee. As per Ld. AR it is admitted position that no incriminating material was found/seized during the course of search conducted on the assessee and the additions were made solely based upon the material found and seized in the shape of pen drives, laptops, server discs, diaries, etc. from the possession of the Shri ManojKumar Singh and Sh. Devesh Singh, who was an employee of Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh who both the independent and unrelated parties to the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that the AO in para 4 of the impugned order has made a reference of the following materials which has been made basis for making additions in the hands of the assessee, these are as under: a) Pen drives seized from residence of Sh. Devesh Singh (key employee of Manoj Kumar) b) Laptop found and seized from residence of Sh. Devesh Singh c) Pen drive found and seized from possession of Sh. Chander Prakash, employee of M/s Singh & Associates at the office of Singh Associates. d) Server disk forensically imaged and seized from the office of M/s Singh & Associates. e) Printouts found and seized from residence of Sh. Devesh Singh f) Dairies impounded from office of M/s Singh & Associates. 8. Based on the entries found in these pen-drives and other loose papers printout found and seized, it was alleged by the AO 7 ITA Nos.3676/Del/2023 ITA No.3703/Del/2023 Era Infra Engineering Limited vs. DCIT that they contained cash transactions between the assessee company and Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh Prop Singh and Associates which were not recorded in the books of accounts. However, nNo document whatsoever was referred which was found and seized from the possession of the assessee company. For this, Ld. AR drew our attention to the Panchanama dt. 14.10.2020, prepared at the time search at the business premises of the assessee company which is placed at PB pages 457 to 463, a perusal of which reveal that none of the loose papers/computer hard-disc mentioned therein was referred in the assessment order nor it was alleged by the AO that these contained any unaccounted transactions to hold them as incriminating material. It is thus submitted by ld. AR that when no incriminating material was found and seized from the possession of the assessee, no addition could be made in the assessment completed u/s 153A by making additions on the basis of the statements and other material found from the possession of third party even though a search was simultaneously carried out. According to Ld. AR, in such situation, the legal course of action was to complete the proceedings initated u/s 153A and initiate the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act after recording satisfaction first by the Assessing Officer of the person searched from whose possession such material/statements were found belonging to the assessee and thereafter upon the receiving such material and satisfaction note, by the Assessing Officer of the assesse that there was undisclosed income based on such material. Ld. AR submitted that the additions were made in the hands of the assessee company on the basis of statements and material found from the 8 ITA Nos.3676/Del/2023 ITA No.3703/Del/2023 Era Infra Engineering Limited vs. DCIT possession of third party without following the procedure laid down u/s 153C and, therefore, she prayed that the additions made and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. He placed reliance on the judgement of hon’ble Supreme court in the case of M/s Abhisar Buildwell reported in (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC). 9. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that there was a common search carried out in the case of the assessee company and in the case of Sh. Manoj Singh Prop. Singh and Associates and if the documents containing certain undisclosed transactions with assessee were found from the possession of Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh, the same could be used as material in the case of the assessee also in the order passed u/s 153A of the Act. The ld. DR further submitted that in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that \"the object of Section 153A is to bring under tax the undisclosed income which is found during the course of search or pursuant to search and requisition. Therefore, only in a case where the undisclosed income is found on the basis of incriminating material, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment\". 10. He further submitted that this possession was duly considered by the Ld. CIT(A) who after following the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as rejected this plea of the assessee by observing in para 8.4 as under: 9 ITA Nos.3676/Del/2023 ITA No.3703/Del/2023 Era Infra Engineering Limited vs. DCIT “8.4 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred decision has held that the undisclosed income found during the course of search operation can be brought to tax even in the case of completed assessment. The crux of the decision is that the undisclosed income shall be unearthed during the search to assume jurisdiction for the reassessment of completed assessment cases. It would be wrong to interpret that the undisclosed income should emanate only from the incriminating material found from a particular premise or the owner of the premise, as such interpretation would lead impractical preposition and simultaneous proceedings u/s 153A and 153C in the same case. Here in this case several persons who transacted with Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh were searched simultaneously and evidences were gathered from several premises and persons. On perusal of facts of the case it evident that several parties which were covered during the search were involved in unaccounted cash transactions with Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh and his associated entities. Thus, it was one integrated search to gather evidences against all the parties concerned.” 11. The DR thus prayed that contention of the assessee that no addition could be made on the basis of material found from the possession of other person in the assessment completed u/s 153A is baseless as search was carried in both the premises simultaneously, therefore, he requested that the additions were rightly made in the hands of the assessee in the order passed u/s 153A of the Act, and, he prayed for the confirmation of the action of the lower authorities. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. From the perusal of the impugned order of AO, we find that the AO had solely relied upon the material found and seized during the course of search from the possession of Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh Prop. of Singh & Associates and his employees namely Shri Devesh Singh and Chandra Prakash. Besides this, the AO has placed further reliance on the statements given these persons wherein they accepted the movement of cash between the director of the 10 ITA Nos.3676/Del/2023 ITA No.3703/Del/2023 Era Infra Engineering Limited vs. DCIT assessee company and Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh. It is admitted position that search was simultaneously carried in the case of assessee company as well as on the Manoj Kumar Singh and his associates, however, looking to the nature of the business of the assessee company and of Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh, we find that both the entities are independent and separate entities engaged in different line of business and are not related to each other except Shri Manoj Kumar Singh is providing consultancy sieves to assessee. It could not be said that they are interrelated to each other to hold that the documents found from the possession of one person could be used in the case of other person as a common entity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) has held that the object of section 153A is being to tax is under tax been undisclosed income which pursuant to search or requisition, which refers only to the undisclosed income unearth during earch of such person. Only in that case the AO had the jurisdiction to assessee or reassess the total income for the period of fallen under block period even in case completed and unabated assessments years. In other words, if no incriminating material is found/seized during the search from the assessee, the AO cannot assessee or reassess the assessee, by taking into consideration the incriminating material found/seized from the possession of third parson in respect completed and unabated assessment. The year under appeal before us is 2011-12 where the assessment had already completed u/s 143(3) and further u/s 147 of the Act and no proceedings were pending as on the date of search. Under these circumstances, the AO cannot be allowed to assume jurisdiction 11 ITA Nos.3676/Del/2023 ITA No.3703/Del/2023 Era Infra Engineering Limited vs. DCIT u/s 153A to assess on the material which was not found from the possession of assessee but was found in the possession of some other person in whose case the search was also carried out and such other person was not related to the assessee. 13. In the instant case, the best course of action would be u/s 153C after following the procedure of recording of satisfaction to this effect as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (supra). The assessing officer should have completed the proceedings initiated in terms of the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act for the year under appeal since it is an unabated assessment year, and then must followed the procedure as laid down by the hon’ble supreme court in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (supra), which was not followed by the AO thus now no action could be taken u/s 153C of the Act also for the year under appeal. It would not be out of place to refer to the Notes on Clauses of the Finance Bill 2015 when the legislature thought it fit to amend the provisions of section 153C of the Act w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Clause 36 reads as under: “Clause 36 of the Bill seeks to amend section 153C of the Income- tax Act relating to assessment of income of any other person. The existing provisions contained in section 153C provide that in the course of an assessment proceeding, in the case of a person in whose case search action under section 132 or action under section 132A have been conducted, and whether the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the assets or books of account or documents seized belong to another person, then, the assets or books of account or documents seized shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against such other person, if he is that the books of accounts or documents or assets seized have a bearing on determination on the total income of such other person. It is proposed to amend sub-section (1) of the said section so as to provide that where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, 12 ITA Nos.3676/Del/2023 ITA No.3703/Del/2023 Era Infra Engineering Limited vs. DCIT (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against each such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned, have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153А. This amendment will take effect from 1st June, 2015.” 14. On perusal of the above provision read with relevant Notes on Clause to the Finance Bill 2015, it is clear that any information or entry found in any document seized pertaining / relating to a person other than the person searched from the searched premises as was referred u/s 153A of the Act was to be handed over by the investigation wing to the AO of such other person (searched) and then that AO of the searched person shall handover the same to the AO of the person not searched who thereafter was to proceed against such other non-person by issuing a notice u/s 153C of the Act and then to assess / re- assess income of such other not searched person. 15. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT (Central)-3 vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) {ITA 23, 26-31/2021] has held as under: “Even if a search was conducted upon the premises of the assessee, if the AO was relying upon the incriminating material found from the search of third party, then the same cannot be used for assessment u/s 153A and AO should have restored to section 153C of the Act. 13 ITA Nos.3676/Del/2023 ITA No.3703/Del/2023 Era Infra Engineering Limited vs. DCIT 16. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Trilok Chand Chaudhary, New Delhi vs ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi on 20 August, 2019 under identical circumstances has held as under: “In our considered opinion, when the case of the assessee is covered under the provision of section 153 of the Act and if reliance is placed on the incriminating material found during the course of search of third- party, then provision of section 153C of the Act would be applicable and have to be adhered to. Thus, in the instant case, the Assessing Officer was required to first complete the proceedings undersection 153A in hand, which were initiated by way of notice dated 30/06/2014 and thereafter, he was at liberty to take action under section 153C of the Act for bringing the material found from the premise of Sh. Ashok Chaudhri to tax in the hands of the assessee. However, in the case under appeal before us, admittedly, Section 153C is not invoked in the case of the assessee and the assessment is framed under Section 153A. We, respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, hold that during the course of assessment under Section 153A, the incriminating material, if any, found during the course of search of the assessee only can be utilized and not the material found in the search of any other person.” 17. Similarly, the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Shivalik Mahajan in ITA No.5585/Del/2015 has held as under: “Obviously, the reference to the incriminating material in the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is in regard to incriminating material found as a result of search of the assessee's premises and not of any other assessee. The legislature has provided Section 153C by invoking the same the Revenue can utilize the incriminating material found in the case of search of any other person to the different assessee.” 18. Similar view is expressed by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in its recent judgment in the case of Om Prakash Tantia vs DCIT in ITA NO.4737/Del/2018 vide order dated 07.03.2025. 14 ITA Nos.3676/Del/2023 ITA No.3703/Del/2023 Era Infra Engineering Limited vs. DCIT 19. Thus, it could be safely concluded that in the assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act on the basis of an income-tax search conducted on the assessee, the impugned amount of undisclosed/unexplained income, allegedly based on some incriminating material in the shape of statement of third persons recorded elsewhere, could not be assessed in the said assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act but it could be considered for the purpose only and only in a separate assessment order by taking recourse to the mandatory and special non obstante provisions of the section 153C of the Act and then to pass a separate assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 153C of the Act. Had recourse to section 153C of the Act been adopted by the revenue, then it would be in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Knitwears (supra). Admittedly, no money, bullion, valuable article or thing or property which was not disclosed or would not be disclosed was found during the search carried out by the department in the case of the assessee. Under these circumstances, by respectfully following the decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Anand Jain, HUF (supra) and coordinate benches of the Tribunal in various cases, we hold that no addition could be made in the assessment completed u/s 153A of the Act on the basis of statements of third party recorded during the search in their own case and the incriminating material, if any, found during the course of search of the assessee could only be utilized for making addition. 15 ITA Nos.3676/Del/2023 ITA No.3703/Del/2023 Era Infra Engineering Limited vs. DCIT 20. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case and by respectfully following the judgement of jurisdictional high court in the case of Anand Kumar Jain, HUF (Supra) and the coordinate benches of the ITAT, the additions made are hereby deleted. 21. In view of the above findings, the grounds of appeal No.1 to 7 in the appeal of the assessee are allowed in its favour. The remaining grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merits are not adjudicated, since assessee’s legal grounds are allowed in its favour. ITA No.3703/Del/2023 for Asst. Year 2012-13 22. Brief facts of the in ITA No.3703/Del/2023 are identical to the facts in appeal No.3676/Del/2023. Thus, by following the observations made in case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12 in Appeal No.3676/Del/2023, the legal grounds of appeal taken by the assessee for Asst. Year 2012-13 in appeal No.3703/Del/2023 are allowed. 23. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on 16.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANISH AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 16.04.2025 PK/Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 16 ITA Nos.3676/Del/2023 ITA No.3703/Del/2023 Era Infra Engineering Limited vs. DCIT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "