INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION) WARD-1, NAGPUR, NAGPUR V. NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST, NAGPUR

ITA 166/NAG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves cross appeals by the Nageshwara Charitable Trust and the Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-1, Nagpur, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issues revolved around the treatment of unspent grants from NABARD and certain donations received by the Trust. The Assessing Officer had added ` 2,10,99,102 to the Trust's income, considering it unspent grants, and treated ` 8,33,380 of donations as anonymous due to lack of verification of donors. The CIT(A) reversed the addition of the NABARD grant, while upholding the addition for the unverified donations. The Tribunal, referencing a similar case, ruled in favor of the Trust, emphasizing the need for proper verification and procedural adherence by the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474382 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2023
• Other Referred Cases: DIT(Exemptions) vs Keshav Social & Charitable Trust, Madhavi Raksha Sankalp Nirmal Niketan v. Dy. CIT, ACIT v/s Shri Dadasaheb Gawai Charitable Trust, ACIT(E) v/s Rajeev Gandhi Institute of Petroleum Technology
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKASH AGRAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KAPIL HIRANI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Onus to prove; Principle of natural justice; Charitable institution; Procedural lapse
• Section: 143(3); 12AA; 205; 22; 133(6); 12A; 10; 119(2)(b); 80G

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.123/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Nageshwara Charitable Trust Flat no.101, Laxmivilas Apartment Rangole Marg, Khare Town Dharampeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AAATN2648F ……………. Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer Exemption, Ward–1, Nagpur ……………. Respondent ITA no.166/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Income Tax Officer Exemption, Ward–1, Nagpur ……………. Appellant v/s Nageshwara Charitable Trust Flat no.101, Laxmivilas Apartment Rangole Marg, Khare Town Dharampeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AAATN2648F ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue by : Shri Vikash Agrawal Date of Hearing – 06/11/2024 Date of Order – 18/11/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The captioned cross appeals have been filed challenging the impugned orders of even date 05/04/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of 2 Nageshwara Charitable Trust Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [―learned CIT(A)‖], for the assessment year 2017–18. ITA no.123/Nag./2023 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2017–18 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:– ―1. Ground No.1: On the facts and circumstances of the order is not according to law to the extent of section 115BBC. 2. Ground No.2: On the facts and circumstances of the case the order is not according to law to the extent of calculation under section 115BBC. 3. Ground No 3: By not giving a chance to submit more details in support of the case the order is not according to the principles of natural justice.‖ 3. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, and it is also registered under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"). The assessee trust also accorded recognition under section 80G of the Act. The assessee trust is carrying out 100% non–commercial activities benefitting the poorest of the poor in the society. Since its inception, the assessee trust is fully devoted for the relief of the poor and other charitable objects. As a part of the objectives, the assessee trust is implementing various programs to support rural women, tribal folks and marginal farmers and rural youth. For the year under consideration, the assessee trust filed its return of income on 28/10/2017, declaring total income at ` nil. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through ―CASS‖. During the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of ` 2,10,99,102, which was added to the total income of the assessee. The said amount of ` 2,10,99,102, relates to the advance received from NABARD towards implementation of on-going tribal development 3 Nageshwara Charitable Trust projects and farmers’ welfare projects. The assessee treated this amount as liability in Audited Balance Sheet, as the grant was fully utilised during the first quarter of subsequent financial year and refundable in case not utilised as per the sanction of NABARD. The Assessing Officer added this amount for the reason that the assesse had treated NABARD's TDF grants as liability and delayed in filling Form–9A for the year under consideration. As per Para–5.5 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer also made addition under section 115BBC of the Act treating ` 8,33,380, as anonymous donation for the reason that the donation of ` 56,000, ` 2,69,104 and ` 5,08,276, remained unverified due to donation denied by the persons, insufficient address and no reply received from the donors. The Assessing Officer thus held that the total donation of ` 8,33,380 are not genuine and remained unexplained and made addition of ` 5,30,250 as anonymus donation as per calculation prescribed under section 115BBC of the Act. The assessee trust being aggrieved, filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. The learned CIT(A) the addition of ` 2,10,99,102, is concerned, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under:– ―6.5. Thus, once the grant is received from Government Agency with certain conditions and stipulations provided therein and it is also specified for which purposes such grant has to be utilized, then that grant cannot be the income of the assessee. Such grant if not utilized for specific purpose, then automatically it has to be refunded back again to the Government Agency. Therefore, on the basis of the fact and circumstances of the case, the appellant is not liable for tax on NABARD advance grants as it is received for specific purposes, and it is to be refunded to NABARD if it is not utilized. Further, I also note that the application for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A is pending with Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune which was filed in terms with the CBDT circular dated 19/02/2020. Once the condonation is allowed, the addition made by the Ld AO will be automatically nullified. In 4 Nageshwara Charitable Trust view of the foregoing discussion, I direct the Ld AO to delete the above addition of Rs2,10,99,102/-. Ground of the appellant is allowed.‖ 5. With regard to the second issue, which relates to the addition of ` 8,33,380, made under section 115BBC of the Act treating the same as anonymous donation, the learned CIT(A) referring to Para–5.3 of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:– ―6.4. From the observation of the Id. AO, it is clear that the appellant has not maintained proper record of the donors. As seen from the above, the donation of Rs.56000/-, Rs.269104/- and Rs.508276/- remains unverified due to donation denied by the persons, insufficient address and no reply received from the donors. Therefore, it is clear that the total donation of Rs.8,33,380/- are not genuine and remains unexplained. Thus, it is evident that the appellant has failed to establish the genuineness of donation. The evidence available on record are overwhelmingly against the appellant. Merely stating that all the records are properly maintained is not enough. The appellant is required to demonstrate whatever is being stated. 6.5. The appellant has relied on the judgment of the DIT(Exemptions) vs Keshav Social & Charitable Trust 278 ITR 152 (DEL). In this case it was held that complete list of donors and their addresses should be maintained so as not to attract the provision of the section 115BBC of the Act. From the discussion in the AO's order, it is clear that the appellant has not maintained address in many cases and the address. maintained in some of the cases are not correct. Further, on verification it was found that the names mentioned by the appellant as donors have actually not made any donation. Thus, on the basis of the fact of the present case, the case law cited by the appellant is not applicable. 6.6. In case of Madhavi Raksha Sankalp Nirmal Niketan 165 ITO 627 (Mumbai) Tribunal) has held that onus as well as burden of proof is entirely on the assessee to provide to the Assessing Officer as to the compliance of Section 115BBC and as to genuineness of the said donation and if the assessee failed to do so. the entire transaction will be hit by provisions of Section 115BBC. 6.7. Also, Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in case of Madhavi Raksha Sankalp Nirmal Niketan v. Dy. CIT [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 316 (Mumbai Tribunal) held that burden of proof is entirely on the assessee to provide to the Assessing Officer all details to his satisfaction as to compliance of Section 115BBC and the genuineness of the said donations failing which entire transactions will be hit by provisions of Section 115BBC. 5 Nageshwara Charitable Trust 6.8. In view of the above discussions, I uphold that the addition made by the Ld AO. Accordingly, the ground of the appellant is dismissed.‖ 6. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by the rival parties and perused the material available on record, both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties agree before us that the issue for our adjudication is mutatis mutandis identical to the issue decided by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in ACIT v/s Shri Dadasaheb Gawai Charitable Trust, ITA no.2/Nag./2018, vide order dated 11/07/2024, wherein this Tribunal, while speaking through the same Bench, has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and dismissed the appeal by observing as follows:- ―14. The assessee has filed complete details of the donors before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer by sending all the details filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, after examining all the details of the donors filed by the assessee, sent the remand report to the learned CIT(A). We find that out of 23,136 donors, the Assessing Officer selected 205 donors randomly and out of 205 donors, 89 donors attended the office of the Assessing Officer and their statements were recorded, but 76 persons did not attend the office of the Assessing Officer, but confirmations were filed; 22 persons neither attended nor submitted any written reply; in case of 12 persons, summons were returned back to the office of the Assessing Officer by the Postal Department with remark ―unserved‖. Regarding 89 donors, they appeared before the Assessing Officer their statements were recorded and out of these 89 donors, except 2 persons, the Assessing Officer has not doubted having paid donation to the assessee. We further find that out of 89 persons appeared before the Assessing Officer, 2 persons namely Shri Pankaj Parasram Nandeshwar and Shri Sudhir Mahadeo Kathane, denied payment of donation and hence, the Assessing Officer has doubted the entire donations. Insofar as these 2 persons are concerned, who denied having paid donation to the assessee, we find that the assessee has submitted all the details in respect of these 2 persons namely Shri Pankaj Parasram Nandeshwar and Shri Sudhir Mahadeo Kathane. The Assessing Officer ought to have forwarded the statements of these 2 persons who denied payment of donations to the assessee and opportunity should have been given to cross–examine these two donors. Simply believing the statement of the donors, the Assessing Officer was not correct to doubt the entire donations paid to the assessee. 6 Nageshwara Charitable Trust 15. Insofar as 76 donors are concerned, these donors have confirmed having paid the donations to the assessee Trust. If the Assessing Officer has any doubt regarding payment of donations, he should have been called further details to substantiate the same. Without doing so, the Assessing Officer has doubted the statements of 76 donors on the ground that all the 76 donors are closely connected to the assessee Trust, but these donors are living in different places. In this regard, we find that there is nothing on record to show that these 76 donors, who made payment of donation to the assessee trust, are closely connected to the assessee. Even the Assessing Officer has not discussed anything in this regard. Even assuming for a while that these 76 donors are connected to the assessee Trust, but there is no bar under any law to give donation by closely related person. It is merely suspicion in the mind of the Assessing Officer who doubted the transaction despite filing of all the details of the donors by the assessee Trust. 16. Insofar as 28 donors are concerned, summons were issued by the Assessing Officer to these 28 donors by the Assessing Officer, however, neither these donors attended office of the Assessing Officer nor any confirmation of having paid donation to the assessee were filed and hence the Assessing Officer doubted the entire donations. Regarding the donors who have neither appeared before the Assessing Officer nor filed any confirmation before the Assessing Officer, under these circumstances, the Assessing Officer ought to have asked the assessee to produce them before the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer, without adopting such process, has simply doubted the donations received by the assessee. 17. Insofar as 12 donors are concerned, the Assessing Officer issued summons to these donors, but these summons were returned back to the Assessing Officer with remark ―unserved‖. The assessee has filed all the details in respect of these donors before the Assessing Officer. The reason for unserved summons to the donors may be due to the reason that the donors have left the address or the donors must have changed their address. However, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to call the assessee to find out the whereabouts of the donors but the Assessing Officer failed to do so. Once the donations are received by the assessee, it is not the duty of the assessee to have a watch on the donors about their whereabouts whether they are staying in the same place which the addresses were given at the time of payment of donation. The donors are not under the control of the assessee, they may shift anywhere or change their residence. It was the duty of the Assessing Officer to ask the assessee to produce those 12 person before him which the Assessing Officer failed to do so. 18. In view of the forgoing discussions and by considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115BBC of the Act for the only reason of doubting the genuineness of the donors. The assessee has discharged the onus casted upon it and, therefore, if at all the Assessing Officer is having any doubt, he should have been brought the evidence on record that the donations are not genuine. Once the assessee has filed all the details of the donors and enquiry made by the Assessing Officer, 7 Nageshwara Charitable Trust the Assessing Officer cannot doubt the donors. We also find that some of the donors appeared before the Assessing Officer and stated that they had paid the donations. Some of them had filed confirmation stating that they paid donation to the assessee trust. A few of them did not appear before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer without giving opportunity to the assessee to produce the donors before the Assessing Officer, simply doubted the entire donation received by the assessee as not genuine. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer was not correct in doubting the entire donations as not genuine. Insofar as application of provisions of section 115BBC of the Act is concerned, the same is reproduced below:– ―Anonymous donations to be taxed in certain cases. 115BBC. (1) Where the total income of an assessee, being a person in receipt of income on behalf of any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiad) or sub-clause (vi) or any hospital or other institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiae) or sub- clause (via) or any fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or any trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11, includes any income by way of any anonymous donation, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated at the rate of thirty per cent on the aggregate of anonymous donations received in excess of the higher of the following, namely:— (A) five per cent of the total donations received by the assessee; or (B) one lakh rupees, and (ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the aggregate of anonymous donations received in excess of the amount referred to in sub-clause (A) or sub-clause (B) of clause (i), as the case may be. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any anonymous donation received by— (a) any trust or institution created or established wholly for religious purposes; (b) any trust or institution created or established wholly for religious and charitable purposes other than any anonymous donation made with a specific direction that such donation is for any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution run by such trust or institution. (3) For the purposes of this section, \"anonymous donation\" means any voluntary contribution referred to in sub-clause (iia) of clause (24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.‖ 19. Insofar as the anonymous donations are concerned, the assessee maintained the record of the identity and address of the persons who are 8 Nageshwara Charitable Trust making contribution and other particulars and, therefore, provisions of section 115BBC of the Act are not applicable. In the present case, the assessee has maintained identity of the donors i.e., complete details such as name, address, PAN card details, Aadhar details and, hence, provisions of section 115BBC of the Act are not applicable to the assessee Trust. We find that the assessee has given all the details of the donors including names, address, PAN card details, Aadhar details, etc. Thus, the assessee discharged onus casted upon it by producing all the details before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, without following the procedure and without providing proper opportunity to the assessee, doubted the genuineness of the donations and invoked the provisions of section 115BBC of the Act, which is not correct. The learned CIT(A) after considering all the facts and explanation given by the assessee, deleted the addition. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. 20. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.‖ 7. Since the issue before us for our adjudication in this appeal being common, consistent with the view taken as aforesaid, respectfully following the finding given therein, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and delete the addition of ` 5,90,250, made under section 115BBC of the Act. Thus, this ground is allowed. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA no.166/Nag./2023 Revenue’s Appeal – A.Y. 2017–18 9. The Revenue has raised following grounds:– ―1. On facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (hereinafter CIT(A) in short] erred in directing the Assessing Officer (hereinafter AO in short) to delete the addition of Rs. 2,10,99,102/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee itself had submitted during the assessment proceedings that a procedural lapse had occurred on its side of not filing Form 9A in time, for claiming the amount as application of income u/s 11(1)(2) of the Act. 2. On facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 2,10,99,102/- by stating that once the assessee's pending application for condonation 9 Nageshwara Charitable Trust of delay in filing Form 9A for A.Y. 2017-18 is allowed by the Ld. CIT(E) Pune the addition so made would be nullified, since the assessee's said application for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A is already rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order u/s 119(2)(b) dated 14.01.2021. 3. On facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the decision of Hon’ble Lucknow ITAT relied upon in the case of A CIT(E). Lucknow Vs Rajeev Gandhi Institute of Petroleum Technology is not accepted by the Department and the appeal filed against the aforesaid case is pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Cour,. Lucknow Bench. 4 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or omit any or all the grounds of appeal.‖ 10. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the BPT Act, 1950 and is also registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\") vide order dated 22/07/2004, passed by the CIT-I, Nagpur. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 28/10/2017, declaring its total income at ` nil. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. On a perusal of the account statements, the Assessing Officer observed that for the year under consideration, the assessee had received grants for various projects at ` 78,08,171, donation from general public at ` 48.62.600, service charges at ` 83,47,541, and interest from bank at ` 23,36,365. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had shown ` 2,15,92,973, as unspent grant in its Balance Sheet, but the same was not shown in its Income & Expenditure Account. The assessee was asked to explain the same vide letter dated 28/10/2019, to which it submitted its reply on 28/10/2019. The Assessing Officer, while going through the assessee's submission, observed that the assessee had filed Form no.9A, on 24/10/2019 for ` 2,10,99,102, which was after the due date of filing of return 10 Nageshwara Charitable Trust of income. He further observed that the assessee had not claimed deemed application of income in its return of income and not mentioned about the same in its Audit Report in Form no.10B. In view of the above, the claim of deemed application of income of ` 2,10,99,102, was not allowed by the Assessing Officer and added it to the total income of the assessee. 11. The Assessing Officer further observed that assessee had claimed donation from general public at ` 48,62,600. It was observed that 15 donors had paid donation of ` 13,58,000, through cheque and 409 donors had paid ` 35,04,600, in cash. As per the list of donors submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the donors who had paid donation in cash. After the enquiry, the Assessing Officer sought explanation from the assessee to show cause as to why the donation of ` 18,68,892, should not be treated as anonymous donation under section 115BBC of the Act in the absence of credible evidence in respect of this amount. The assessee's contention in this regard was considered by the Assessing Officer, however, the same was not found to be acceptable for the reason that though the assessee had submitted names and address of the donors, the genuineness of all donation were not proved. Accordingly, the donation of ` 56,000, ` 2,69,104 and ` 5,08,276, which remained to be verified due to the reasons – donation denied by the persons and/or insufficient address and no reply received from the donors; the Assessing Officer treated the total donation of ` 8,33,380, to be not genuine and as remained unexplained. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed to establish genuineness of donation of ` 8,33,380, and therefore, the said 11 Nageshwara Charitable Trust amount was treated as \"anonymous donation\" and taxed under section 115BBC(1) of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer completed scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 24/12/2019, for the assessment year 2017-18 assessing the total income of the assessee at ` 1,89,29,460, and anonymous donation under section 115BBC(1) of the Act at ` 5,90,250. Aggrieved with the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 12. The learned CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal deleting the addition of ` 2,10,99,102, against which the Revenue has filed the appeal. 13. Ground no.1 & 2, relate to addition of ` 2,10,99,102, being unspent grant shown in the Balance Sheet, but not shown as income in the Income & Expenditure Account. After considering the assessee submission and the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the learned CIT(A) observed that the sum of ` 2,10,99,102, constitutes advance received from NABARD towards specific purpose of implementation of on-going Tribal Development Projects and farmers’ welfare projects with certain specific conditions. As per the terms of NABARD, if the grant is not fully utilised for the purpose for which the same had been sanctioned, the assessee is liable to refund the balance amount. Even the interest received on such grants had to refunded back to NABARD. The learned CIT(A) further observed that the assessee had not filed Form no.9A, in time and had filed it on 24/10/2019, and subsequently filed application for condonation of delay in filing Form no.9A, with the learned CIT(E), Pune, in terms of CBDT Circular dated 19/02/2020. The Assessing Officer had observed that the assessee had not 12 Nageshwara Charitable Trust treated this amount as its income and not filed Form no.9A, with its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of ITAT, Lucknow, in ACIT(E) v/s Rajeev Gandhi Institute of Petroleum Technology, wherein it is held that \"once a grant is received from Government Agency with certain conditions and stipulations provided therein and the purpose for utilization is specified then that grant cannot be the income of the assessee. If such grant is not utilized for specific purpose then automatically it has to be refunded back again to the Government Agency‖. On the basis of fact and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) held that the assessee is not liable for tax on NABARD advance grants as it is received for specific purposes and it is to be refunded to NABARD, if not utilized. It further noted that the application for condonation of delay in filing Form no.9A, is pending with learned CIT(E), Pune, which was filed as per CBDT Circular dated 19/02/2020, and that once the condonation is allowed, the addition made by the Assessing Officer will be automatically nullified. In view of the above, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the above addition of ` 2,10,99,102, and allowed ground no.1, raised by the assessee. 14. We have heard the arguments of rival parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Insofar as ground no.1, which relates to the addition of ` 2,10,99,102, being unspent grant shown in the Balance Sheet is concerned, it needs to be mentioned here that tied–up grants are not voluntary contribution and cannot be considered as ―Income‖. Form no.9A, is required to be filed under rule 13 Nageshwara Charitable Trust 17(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1963. The requirement to file Form no.9A, arises only when application falls short of 85% of the income derived from the property held under the Trust. Once it is held that grants received under certain stipulated conditions, is not income, there is no requirement to file Form no.9A. Acquiescence on the part of the assessee cannot be held against them as there is no estoppel against the statute. So, the Assessing Officer had fallen under wrong premise to add which has been correctly deleted by the learned CIT(A) and such order needs no interference at our end. Accordingly, grounds no.1 & 2, raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 15. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 16. To sum up, assessee’s appeal is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/11/2024 Sd/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- K.M. ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 18/11/2024 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur "