TATA DIGITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI V. DCIT- 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2334/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Tata Digital Private Limited appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which confirmed an addition of Rs. 5,44,65,784 to the total income/loss of the appellant for the assessment year 2020-21. This addition was initially made by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contested that the reduction in carryforward losses was made without a reasonable opportunity of virtual hearing, violating principles of natural justice and specific notification requirements. The ITAT noted the absence of a proper show cause notice and the lack of response to the rectification application by the Assessing Officer, leading to the decision to remand the matter back for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123460 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Arham Pumps [(2022) 195 ITD 6791 (Ahmedabad Tribunal)], Khatau Junkar Ltd. & Anr. v. K.S. Pthania, DCIT & Anr. (1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom HC), ACIT v. Som Distilleries & Breweries Limited (ITA No. 248/Ind/2012 dated 13 July 2017)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Capital expenditure; Capital Gains; FORM 26AS
• Section: 143(1); 195; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 2334/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Tata Digital Private Limited, Army & Navy Building 148, M G Road, Opposite Kala Ghoda Fort Mumbai, Mumbai City-400 001 Vs. Central Processing Centre/The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(3)(1), Mumbai. PAN No. AAHCT 2205 N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue by : Mr. Ashish Heliwal, DR Date of Hearing : 14/11/2022 Date of pronouncement : 29/12/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 22/07/2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of income- tax(Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [in short the Ld. CIT(A)] for assessment year 2020-21, arising from the intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Centra Bangluru. The grounds raised by the assessee under: General Ground: 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal Unit 1) (hereinafter referred addition of Rs.5.44,65.784 to the total income/(loss) of the Appellant. 2. Ground 2 2020-21 2.1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in reducing the loss without providing reasonable opportunity virtual hearing to the Appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and additional not following the point 12(3) of the notification no 139 of 2021 dated 28 December, 2021 laying down the requirement to provide an opportunity to the Appellant for virtual hearing. 2.2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Centralized Processing Centre ("CPC*) of Rs. 5,44,65,784 as per the intimation w/s 143(1) of (hereinafter referred as "the Act") without appreciating the submissions made by the Appellant in this regard. by the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC), Bangluru. The grounds raised by the assessee are General Ground: 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal Unit 1) (hereinafter referred as "Ld CIT(A)") erred in making an addition of Rs.5.44,65.784 to the total income/(loss) of the 2. Ground 2 - Reduction in Carry forward losses of AY 2.1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in reducing the loss without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard through virtual hearing to the Appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and additional not following the point 12(3) of the notification no 139 of 2021 dated 28 December, 2021 laying down the requirement to provide an pportunity to the Appellant for virtual hearing. 2.2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Centralized Processing Centre ("CPC*) of Rs. 5,44,65,784 as per the intimation w/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") without appreciating the submissions made by the Appellant in this regard. Tata Digital Private Limited ITA No. 2334/M/2022 2 lised Processing Centre (CPC), are reproduced as 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal Unit 1) as "Ld CIT(A)") erred in making an addition of Rs.5.44,65.784 to the total income/(loss) of the Reduction in Carry forward losses of AY 2.1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in reducing the loss without of being heard through virtual hearing to the Appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and additional not following the point 12(3) of the notification no 139 of 2021 dated 28 December, 2021 laying down the requirement to provide an 2.2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Centralized Processing Centre ("CPC*) of Rs. 5,44,65,784 as Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") without appreciating the submissions made by the Appellant in this regard. 2.3. The Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in misinterpreting the provisions of section 71 of the Act to undertake additions of Rs. 5,44,65,784 to the total income/(loss) of the Appellant. 2.4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the intimation received w/s 143(1) of the Act has already allowed the set under the head profi profession as per section 71(2) of the Aet and the same was not subject matter of dispute raised in the appeal filed. 2.5. The Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the ground of appeal before him was wrong amount of carrie loss considered in intimation us 143(1) of the Act and not the question of set of inter head loss as adjudicated by him. 2.6. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant would be eligible for loss of Rs.55,24,98,770 instead of Rs. 49,80,32,986 to be carried forward to future years. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 13/02/2021 declaring loss of ₹55,24,98, section 143(1) of the Act loss of current year to be carried forward was restricted to 49,80,32,986/-. Aggrieved with the adjustment made by the CPC, the assessee filed application for rectification before the Assessing 2.3. The Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in misinterpreting the provisions of section 71 of the Act to undertake additions of ,44,65,784 to the total income/(loss) of the Appellant. 2.4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the intimation received w/s 143(1) of the Act has already allowed the set-off of income from capital gains with the loss under the head profits and gains from business and profession as per section 71(2) of the Aet and the same was not subject matter of dispute raised in the appeal filed. 2.5. The Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the ground of appeal before him was wrong amount of carried forward of loss considered in intimation us 143(1) of the Act and not the question of set of inter head loss as adjudicated by him. 2.6. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant would be eligible for loss of Rs.55,24,98,770 of Rs. 49,80,32,986 to be carried forward to future stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 13/02/2021 55,24,98,770/-. In the intimation order under of the Act dated 28/07/2021 issued by the CPC loss of current year to be carried forward was restricted to . Aggrieved with the adjustment made by the CPC, the assessee filed application for rectification before the Assessing Tata Digital Private Limited ITA No. 2334/M/2022 3 2.3. The Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in misinterpreting the provisions of section 71 of the Act to undertake additions of ,44,65,784 to the total income/(loss) of the Appellant. 2.4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the intimation received w/s 143(1) of the Act has already off of income from capital gains with the loss ts and gains from business and profession as per section 71(2) of the Aet and the same was not subject matter of dispute raised in the appeal filed. 2.5. The Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the ground of d forward of loss considered in intimation us 143(1) of the Act and not the question of set of inter head loss as adjudicated by him. 2.6. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant would be eligible for loss of Rs.55,24,98,770 of Rs. 49,80,32,986 to be carried forward to future stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 13/02/2021 . In the intimation order under ed 28/07/2021 issued by the CPC, the loss of current year to be carried forward was restricted to ₹ . Aggrieved with the adjustment made by the CPC, the assessee filed application for rectification before the Assessing Officer, on 13/08/2021, however in view of the no response from the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), but the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order dated 20/07/2022 has adjudicated the issue of int capital gain against the business loss by the assessee. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under “5.4. The replylexplanation given by the appellant and the entries available in the electronically filed IT 6 dated 13.02.2021 have duly been considered 5.5. As the explanation given by the appellant and the entries available in the electronically filed IT 6 to decide the appeal, the appeal is decided without giving any further opportunity. 5.6. A s may be seen from the IT 6 dated 13.02.2021 the appellant has adjusted/set off STCG of Rs.3,97,84,884/ Rs.59,22,83,654/ 5.7.1. As per the provisions of Sec.71 losses under the head "capital gain" cannot be set off against income from other heads of income 5.7.2. As per the provisions sec.74 of the Income Tax Act, where the net result of computation under the head "capital gain" is a loss, such loss shall be carried forward to the Officer, on 13/08/2021, however in view of the no response from the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the L CIT(A), but the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order dated 20/07/2022 adjudicated the issue of intra-head adjustment of short capital gain against the business loss by the assessee. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 4. The replylexplanation given by the appellant and the entries available in the electronically filed IT 6 dated 13.02.2021 have duly been considered. 5.5. As the explanation given by the appellant and the entries available in the electronically filed IT 6 are sufficient to decide the appeal, the appeal is decided without giving any further opportunity. 5.6. A s may be seen from the IT 6 dated 13.02.2021 the appellant has adjusted/set off STCG-short term capital gain of Rs.3,97,84,884/- with the business lo Rs.59,22,83,654/-. ref-Sch BP, Sch-CG & Sch-CYLA). 5.7.1. As per the provisions of Sec.71 losses under the head "capital gain" cannot be set off against income from other heads of income 5.7.2. As per the provisions sec.74 of the Income Tax Act, e the net result of computation under the head "capital gain" is a loss, such loss shall be carried forward to the Tata Digital Private Limited ITA No. 2334/M/2022 4 Officer, on 13/08/2021, however in view of the no response from preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order dated 20/07/2022 head adjustment of short-term capital gain against the business loss by the assessee. The relevant 4. The replylexplanation given by the appellant and the entries available in the electronically filed IT 6 dated 5.5. As the explanation given by the appellant and the are sufficient to decide the appeal, the appeal is decided without giving 5.6. A s may be seen from the IT 6 dated 13.02.2021 the short term capital gain with the business loss of CYLA). 5.7.1. As per the provisions of Sec.71 losses under the head "capital gain" cannot be set off against income from other 5.7.2. As per the provisions sec.74 of the Income Tax Act, e the net result of computation under the head "capital gain" is a loss, such loss shall be carried forward to the following assessment year and it can be set off against any income under the head "capital gain" as follows (i) From the assessment year 200 can be set off only against long term capital gain (ii) Short term capital loss can be set of against any capital gains (STCG/LTCG) (iii)ST/LT capital loss can be carried forward for 8 assessment (iv) such loss cannot be filed within the time limit of section 139(1). 5.7.3. . As per the provisions sec.72 of the Income Tax Act, the carried forward and set off of loss arising in a business is subject to the following restrictions (i) the business loss can be carried forward and set off against the profits of any business in a subsequent year (ii) loss cannot be carried forward for more than 8 assessment years. The time limit of 8 years is not applicable in the case of unabsorbed depreciat unabsorbed capital expenditure on scientific research and unabsorbed capital expenditure on family planning (iii) such loss cannot be carried forward unless the return is filed within the time limit of section 139(1). (iv)Business loss can any business profit and such a business loss can be carried forward for 8 years. following assessment year and it can be set off against any income under the head "capital gain" as follows- ) From the assessment year 2003-04, long term capital loss set off only against long term capital gain ) Short term capital loss can be set of against any capital gains (STCG/LTCG) LT capital loss can be carried forward for 8 years. (iv) such loss cannot be carried forward unless the return is filed within the time limit of section 139(1). 5.7.3. . As per the provisions sec.72 of the Income Tax Act, the carried forward and set off of loss arising in a business is subject to the following restrictions business loss can be carried forward and set off against the profits of any business in a subsequent year ) loss cannot be carried forward for more than 8 assessment years. The time limit of 8 years is not applicable in the case of unabsorbed depreciation allowance, unabsorbed capital expenditure on scientific research and unabsorbed capital expenditure on family planning (iii) such loss cannot be carried forward unless the return is filed within the time limit of section 139(1). (iv)Business loss can be carried forward and set off against any business profit and such a business loss can be carried forward for 8 years. Tata Digital Private Limited ITA No. 2334/M/2022 5 following assessment year and it can be set off against any 04, long term capital loss ) Short term capital loss can be set of against any capital LT capital loss can be carried forward for 8 carried forward unless the return is 5.7.3. . As per the provisions sec.72 of the Income Tax Act, the carried forward and set off of loss arising in a business business loss can be carried forward and set off against the profits of any business in a subsequent year ) loss cannot be carried forward for more than 8 assessment years. The time limit of 8 years is not applicable ion allowance, unabsorbed capital expenditure on scientific research and unabsorbed capital expenditure on family planning (iii) such loss cannot be carried forward unless the return is be carried forward and set off against any business profit and such a business loss can be carried 5.8.As may be seen from the IT 6 dated 13.02.2021, the appellant has adjusted/set off STCG of Rs.3,97,84,884/ Rs.59,22,83,654/ ,Which is not correct/permissible, as per the Sec.72,71 and 74 of the Income Tax Act. As the addition made in the order u/s 143(1) dated 28.07.2021 with the statute, the same is hereby CONFIRMED. 5.9. In result, the appeal is DISMISSED. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in raising grounds as reproduced above. 3.1 In the grounds raised the sole plea of the ass claim of carryforward of the loss has been reduced by an amount of ₹5,44,65,784/- without being provided an opportunity to the assessee . 4. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant mater Ld. counsel of the assessee has referred to various decisions in support of his contention that the followed the requirement of issuing show cause notice prior to issuing intimation vide amendment 5.8.As may be seen from the IT 6 dated 13.02.2021, the appellant has adjusted/set off STCG-short term capital gain Rs.3,97,84,884/-with the business loss of Rs.59,22,83,654/-.( ref- Sch BP, Sch-CG & Sch ,Which is not correct/permissible, as per the provisions of Sec.72,71 and 74 of the Income Tax Act. As the addition made in the order u/s 143(1) dated 28.07.2021 with the statute, the same is hereby CONFIRMED. 5.9. In result, the appeal is DISMISSED.” assessee is in appeal before the s reproduced above. In the grounds raised the sole plea of the ass claim of carryforward of the loss has been reduced by an amount of without being provided an opportunity to the We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. Before us the of the assessee has referred to various decisions in support of his contention that the Ld. Assessing Officer has not followed the requirement of issuing show cause notice prior to issuing intimation vide amendment to section 143(1) of the Tata Digital Private Limited ITA No. 2334/M/2022 6 5.8.As may be seen from the IT 6 dated 13.02.2021, the short term capital gain with the business loss of CG & Sch- CYLA) provisions of Sec.72,71 and 74 of the Income Tax Act. As the addition made in the order u/s 143(1) dated 28.07.2021 is in tune with the statute, the same is hereby CONFIRMED. appeal before the ITAT by way of In the grounds raised the sole plea of the assessee is that claim of carryforward of the loss has been reduced by an amount of without being provided an opportunity to the We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in ial on record. Before us the of the assessee has referred to various decisions in Assessing Officer has not followed the requirement of issuing show cause notice prior to to section 143(1) of the Act:  Arham Pumps [(2022) 195 ITD 6791 (Ahmedabad Tribunal)  Khatau Junkar Ltd. & Anr. v. K.S. Pthania, DCIT & Anr. (1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom HC)  ACIT v. Som Distilleries & Breweries Limited (ITA No. 248/Ind/2012 dated 13 July 2017). 4.1 The relevant extract of first provision to section 143 (1) is reproduced for ready reference as under : 143. [(1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub 142, such return shall be proc manner, namely : (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely: (i)any arithmetical error in the return; 22***] (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure 2 or increa indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 23[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI Arham Pumps [(2022) 195 ITD 6791 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) Khatau Junkar Ltd. & Anr. v. K.S. Pthania, DCIT & Anr. (1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom HC) ACIT v. Som Distilleries & Breweries Limited (ITA No. 248/Ind/2012 dated 13 July 2017). The relevant extract of first provision to section 143 (1) is reproduced for ready reference as under : [(1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely :- (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:- any arithmetical error in the return; 22***] ) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent nformation in the return; ) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of (iv) disallowance of expenditure 2 or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 23[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI Tata Digital Private Limited ITA No. 2334/M/2022 7 Arham Pumps [(2022) 195 ITD 6791 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) Khatau Junkar Ltd. & Anr. v. K.S. Pthania, DCIT & Anr. ACIT v. Som Distilleries & Breweries Limited (ITA No. The relevant extract of first provision to section 143 (1) is [(1) Where a return has been made under section 139, section (1) of section essed in the following (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making ) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent ) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished section (1) of se in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 23[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading if] the return is under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return: Provided that no such adjustments shall be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments either in writing or in electronic mode: Provided further that the response received fusmthe assessee, if any shall be any ad ustment, and in a cay. where no response is received within thirty days of the issue of suc intimation, such adjustments shall be made: 4.2 Thus it is clear that provisions of the law provide f adjustment under section 143 (1) of the to the assessee either in writing or in electronic mode and adjustment could be considered if no response is received within 30 days from the issue of such intimation or notice. Ld. Department Representative or intimation issued by the Assessing Officer prior to adjustment to "C. -Deductions in respect of certain incomes*, if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A 16 which has not been included in computing the income in the return: Provided that no such adjustments shall be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments either in writing or in electronic mode: Provided further that the response received fusmthe assessee, if any shall be considered before making any ad ustment, and in a cay. where no response is received within thirty days of the issue of suc intimation, such adjustments shall be made: (emphasis supplied eternally) it is clear that provisions of the law provide f adjustment under section 143 (1) of the Act subject to prior notice to the assessee either in writing or in electronic mode and adjustment could be considered if no response is received within 30 days from the issue of such intimation or notice. Accordi Department Representative was asked to file copy of any notice or intimation issued by the Assessing Officer prior to adjustment to Tata Digital Private Limited ITA No. 2334/M/2022 8 in respect of certain incomes*, furnished beyond the due date specified (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A 16 which has not been included in computing the Provided that no such adjustments shall be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments either in writing or in electronic mode: Provided further that the response received fusmthe considered before making any ad ustment, and in a cay. where no response is received within thirty days of the issue of such (emphasis supplied eternally) it is clear that provisions of the law provide for subject to prior notice to the assessee either in writing or in electronic mode and adjustment could be considered if no response is received within 30 Accordingly, the was asked to file copy of any notice or intimation issued by the Assessing Officer prior to adjustment to the amount of carryforward of loss by the assessee. expressed his inability in producing the said record. We also note that the Ld. CIT(A) has also not adjudicated issue raised by the assessee in the appeal. From para seven of the written submission of the assessee also selected for scrutiny and order under section been passed. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has apprised as of the fact that the Assessing Officer has rectification application filed by the assessee the assessee has neither been attended by the Assessin by the Ld. CIT(A). In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter of amount of loss for which the assessee is eligible for Officer for avoiding multiplicity of the proceedings, because rectification proceeding of the assessee are already pending before the Assessing Officer. It is needless to mention that the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. carryforward of loss by the assessee. expressed his inability in producing the said record. We also note that the Ld. CIT(A) has also not adjudicated issue raised by the assessee in the appeal. From para seven of the written submission of the assessee also we find that this case was selected for scrutiny and order under section 143 (3) of The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has apprised as of the that the Assessing Officer has till date not responded to the rectification application filed by the assessee. Thus the grievance of the assessee has neither been attended by the Assessin . In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter of amount of loss for which the assessee is eligible for carryforward to the file of the Officer for avoiding multiplicity of the proceedings, because rectification proceeding of the assessee are already pending before the Assessing Officer. It is needless to mention that the assessee rded adequate opportunity of being heard. Tata Digital Private Limited ITA No. 2334/M/2022 9 carryforward of loss by the assessee. The Ld. DR expressed his inability in producing the said record. We also note that the Ld. CIT(A) has also not adjudicated issue raised by the assessee in the appeal. From para seven of the written submission find that this case was subsequently 143 (3) of the Act has The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has apprised as of the not responded to the Thus the grievance of the assessee has neither been attended by the Assessing Officer nor . In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter of amount of loss for which the carryforward to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for avoiding multiplicity of the proceedings, because rectification proceeding of the assessee are already pending before the Assessing Officer. It is needless to mention that the assessee rded adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced the ITAT Rules, 1963 on Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 29 /12/2022 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Order pronounced in the open Court/under Rule 34(4 the ITAT Rules, 1963 on 29/12/2022. Sd/ VIKAS AWASTHY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai Tata Digital Private Limited ITA No. 2334/M/2022 10 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for under Rule 34(4) of Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai Original dictation pad is enclosed at the end of file 1. Draft dictated on: 2. Draft placed before author: 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member: 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member: 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS: 6. Order pronounced on: 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk: 8. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk: 9. Date on which file goes to AR Date Initials Original dictation pad is enclosed at Draft dictated on: 26.12.2022 Draft placed before author: 26.12.2022 Draft proposed & placed before the Draft discussed/approved by Second Approved Draft comes to the Sr. Order pronounced on: File sent to the Bench Clerk: which file goes to the Head Date on which file goes to AR Tata Digital Private Limited ITA No. 2334/M/2022 11 Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS JM/AM JM/AM Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS