RADHIKA SURGICAL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

ITA 5090/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2496 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOVIND SINGHAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Question of law; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274; 73; 153C; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NOS. 5090, 5091 & 5092/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RADHIKA SURGICAL PVT. LTD. C-30, PANCHSHEEL ENCLAVE NEW DELHI - 110017 PAN : AADCR 5053 L VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY SHRI P. C. YADAV, ADV. RE VENUE BY SHRI GOVIND SINGHAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 1 7 /0 2 /202 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17 /0 2 /202 1 ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2017 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-24, NEW DELHI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR THREE YEARS BUT THE ISSUE AND AMOUNT INVOLVED IN ALL THE THREE YEARS ARE IDENTICAL ITA NOS. 5090, 5091 & 5092/DEL/2017 RADHIKA SURGICAL PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT A.YS. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 2 EXCEPT FOR THE YEAR INVOLVED AND THEREFORE HIS SUBMISSIONS ARE ALSO COMMON. THE LEARNED DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED AR. WE THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE THREE APPEALS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER BUT HOWEVER REFER TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.5090/DEL/2017 FOR A.Y. 2010-11. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORDS ARE AS UNDER : 4. AO HAS NOTED THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 WAS CONDUCTED AT BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE COMPANIES OF ROCKLAND GROUP AS WELL AS AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANIES ON 06.09.2011. CONSEQUENTLY, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 05.08.2013 AND IN RESPONSE TO WHICH ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME ON 10.09.2013. PENDING ASSESSMENT U/S 153C, ASSESSEE APPROACHED SETTLEMENT COMMISSION U/S 245C OF THE ACT DECLARING ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION WAS REJECTED BY SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153C VIDE ORDER DATED 20.06.2014 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1 LAKH BEING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. ON THE AFORESAID ADDITION, AO VIDE PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION ITA NOS. 5090, 5091 & 5092/DEL/2017 RADHIKA SURGICAL PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT A.YS. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 3 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 27.03.2017 LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.30,900/-. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 29.06.2017 IN APPEAL NO.18/2017-18 UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY AND THEREBY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE PENALTY OF RS.30,900/- IMPOSED BY THE AO., INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE PENALTY OF RS.30,900/-, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RELYING ON IRRELEVANT JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. 3. THAT THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL BAD IN LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF RUDIMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF CONTEMPORARY JURISPRUDENCE. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CARVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER ANY/ ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 6. BEFORE US, LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SOLE ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION IS LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). HE SUBMITTED THAT A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN ROCKLAND GROUP AS A RESULT OF WHICH PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C WERE CONDUCTED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153C WAS FRAMED BY THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT FOR A.YS. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 ADDITIONAL INCOME THAT WAS DISCLOSED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS.1 LAKH IN EACH YEAR WAS ADDED BY ITA NOS. 5090, 5091 & 5092/DEL/2017 RADHIKA SURGICAL PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT A.YS. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 4 THE AO AND ON SUCH ADDITION, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN LEVIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS SIMPLY INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT RECORDING HIS CLEAR SATISFACTION AND WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SSA EMERALD HAS HELD THAT NOTICE ISSUED FOR ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE UNAMBIGUOUS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT RELYING ON THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT, THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, FOR A.Y. 2008- 09 HAS DELETED THE LEVY OF PENALTY. HE POINTED TO THE COPY OF THE DECISION PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF A.Y. 2008-09, THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 THE PENALTY LEVIED BY AO BE DELETED. 7. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE QUANTUM ADDITION HAS BEEN UPHELD IN ALL THE THREE YEARS, THE AO WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2008-09 AND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. ITA NOS. 5090, 5091 & 5092/DEL/2017 RADHIKA SURGICAL PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT A.YS. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 5 5088/DEL/2017 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.01.2021 HAS DELETED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3. SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE THE ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE ROCKLAND GROUP OF CASES ON 06.09.2011. SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION, ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE CARRIED OUT U/S 153C R.W.S. 143(3), BY ISSUE OF NOTICE DATED 05.08.2013 TO THE APPELLANT TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 10.09.2013, DISCLOSING THE TOTAL INCOME AS NIL. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR SETTLEMENT U/S 245C OF THE ACT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE CAPACITY OF A RELATED PERSON, RELATED TO THE OTHER ASSESSEES OF THE ROCKLAND GROUP WHO HAD ALSO FILED SETTLEMENT APPLICATIONS AS SPECIFIED PERSON' U/S 245C(I) PROVISO (I). HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE'S APPLICATION WAS REJECTED BY THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 23.04.2013, WHEREIN THE COMMISSION HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR ADMISSION AS A PERSON RELATED TO TO THE SPECIFIED PERSON. THE ASSESSEE FILED A WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, CHALLENGING THE REJECTION ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, BUT THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT ON 20.10.2015. MEANWHILE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS OVER AND ABOVE THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE: A.Y HEAD OF ADDITION AMOUNT (IN RS.) 2008-09 (I) DISCLOSURE IN SETTLEMENT APPLICATION 30,00,000 (II) UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS 1,79,56,880/- (III) COMMISSION PAID TO SECURE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS 5,38,706/- THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AGAINST ALL THE ABOVE HEADS OF ADDITIONS. IN THE APPEAL AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS, THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS WERE CONFIRMED IN FIRST APPEAL. A.Y HEAD OF ADDITION AMOUNT (IN RS.) 2008-09 (I) DISCLOSURE IN SETTLEMENT APPLICATION 30,00,000 (II) UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS 2,26,000/- (III) COMMISSION PAID TO SECURE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS 1,79,569/- ITA NOS. 5090, 5091 & 5092/DEL/2017 RADHIKA SURGICAL PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT A.YS. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 6 AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, AND CONSIDERING THE SAME, REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO LEVY PENALTY AT THE RATE OF 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON THE AMOUNTS CONFIRMED IN FIRST APPEAL. . 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRST OF ALL, IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CHARGES AS RELATES TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. FROM THE NOTICE DATED 20/06/2014 PRODUCED BY THE LD. AR DURING THE HEARING, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SURE UNDER WHICH LIMB OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY. BESIDES THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO DID NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AS TO WHETHER THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN ASSESSEES CASE. BESIDES THIS, THE PRESENT CASE IS RELATING TO SEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, WHILE THE DECISION RELIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT (A) THAT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF MAK DATA P. LTD. VS. CIT 358 ITR 593 IS RELATING TO SURVEY AND THERE IS NO ISSUE INVOLVED ABOUT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 OF THE ACT. THIS CASE RELIED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE DUE TO THE DISTINGUISHING FACTS. THERE IS SEPARATE PROVISION FOR PENALTY IN SEARCH CASES GIVEN UNDER THE STATUTE AFTER 01.07.2012 THAT OF SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT WHICH WAS TOTALLY IGNORED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THE PENALTY ITSELF IS BASED ON INCORRECT SECTION. THEREFORE WE ARE TAKING UP THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO PARTICULAR LIMB MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 OF THE ACT. THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF M/S SSA EMERALD MEADOW. THE EXTRACT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN M/S SSA EMERALD MEADOWS ARE AS UNDER WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT: '3. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT') TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT ITA NOS. 5090, 5091 & 5092/DEL/2017 RADHIKA SURGICAL PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT A.YS. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 7 SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS RELIED ON THE ITA NO. 4913/DEL/2015 DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. IN OUR VIEW, SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THIS APPEAL FOR DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED.' THUS, ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. (II) OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1)(C) HAS BECOME NULL AND VOID, THERE IS NO NEED TO COMMENT ON MERIT OF THE CASE. THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS QUASHED. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS IN THE PENALTY NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN STRUCK OFF AND THE NOTICE DOES NOT SPECIFY AS TO UNDER WHICH LIMB OF THE PROVISIONS, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN INITIATED, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND HAS TO BE DELETED. ALTHOUGH THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT MERE NON- STRIKING OFF OF THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS WILL NOT INVALIDATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA) WHERE THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED IS DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE CONTESTED HEREIN BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, WHEN THE NOTICE IS NOT MENTIONING THE CONCEALMENT OR THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS, THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN CASE OF M/S. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (SUPRA) WILL BE APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: 21. THE RESPONDENT HAD CHALLENGED THE UPHOLDING OF THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ITAT. IT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT V. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY 359 ITR 565 (KAR) AND OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO WOULD BE BAD IN LAW IF IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED UNDER I.E. ITA NOS. 5090, 5091 & 5092/DEL/2017 RADHIKA SURGICAL PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT A.YS. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 8 WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAD FOLLOWED THE ABOVE JUDGMENT IN THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (2016) 73 TAXMAN.COM 241(KAR), THE APPEAL AGAINST WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP NO. 11485 OF 2016 BY ORDER DATED 5 TH AUGUST, 2016. 22. ON THIS ISSUE AGAIN THIS COURT IS UNABLE TO FIND ANY ERROR HAVING BEEN COMMITTED BY THE ITAT. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. THUS, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 OF THE ACT ITSELF IS BAD IN LAW. WE, THEREFORE, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CANCEL THE PENALTY SO LEVIED. 9. BEFORE US, NO DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT OF EARLIER YEAR HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE. FURTHER IT HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE/ STAYED OR OVER RULED BY THE HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR 2008-09 AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE THEREFORE DIRECT ITS DELETION. THUS THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. AS FAR AS APPEALS FOR 2011-12 AND 2012-13 ARE CONCERNED, BEFORE US, BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS AND ITA NOS. 5090, 5091 & 5092/DEL/2017 RADHIKA SURGICAL PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT A.YS. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 9 ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE THREE YEARS ARE IDENTICAL. WE FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREINABOVE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2010-11. FOR SIMILAR REASONS, WE ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS IN A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13. THUS THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.02.2021 SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:- 17.02.2021 *PRITI YADAV, SR.PS* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI