ACIT, New Delhi V. Sundeep Gupta, Uttar Pradesh

ITA 519/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9668 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Question of law; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE ) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.519/DEL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF VS. SH. S UNDEEP GUPTA INCOME TAX, R/O. A-43, CENTRAL CIRCLE 04, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI NOIDA EXTENSIO N, UTTAR PRADESH-201305 (PAN :AADPG8124E) (APPELLIANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI VED JAIN, CA ASSESSEE BY : SH. H.K. CHOUDHARY, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 15.07.2021 DATE OF ORDER : 29.07.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW D ELHI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE REVENUE) BY FILI NG THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.11.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- 23, NEW ITA NO.519/DEL./2017 2 DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE GROUND S INTER ALIA THAT : 1. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,78,54,242/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCO UNT OF GAIN ON SALE OF INVESTMENT. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND ANY/ A LL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF TH E APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDI CATION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH A ND SEIZURE OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON 03.10.2013 U/S 132 OF THE A CT IN JAKSON GROUP OF COMPANIES, STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS RECOR DED AND CONSEQUENTLY PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A WERE INITIATED. I N RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143A, ASSESSEE FILED RETURN O F INCOME ON 05.01.2015 AT THE INCOME OF RS. 3,91,84,350/- SAME AS DECLARED IN THE RETURN INCOME. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE ALONG WITH M/S. JAKSON GROUP NAMELY SH. SAMEER GUPTA, SH. BHAWANA GUPTA AND SMT. ANITA GUPTA HAS HUGE CAPITAL GAINS F ROM THE SALE OF SHARES AND HAVE CLAIMED EXEMPT INCOME ON THE SAM E. AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED A MODUS OPERANDI BY CLAIMING BOGUS LTCG BY PRE ARRANGED TRADING IN SHARES OF VAR IOUS NON- DESCRIPT LISTED COMPANY AIMING AT AVAILING INCOME T AX EXEMPT AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. DECLINING THE CONTENTION RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO PROCEEDED TO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 9,78 ,54,242/- BY ITA NO.519/DEL./2017 3 WAY OF DISALLOWANCE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CLAIM ED AS EXEMPT INCOME. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) BY WAY OF FILING APPEAL WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY ALLOW ING THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED REVENUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DE CIDED ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING HIS OWN ORDER PASSED IN CASE OF SMT. SAMEER GUPTA BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2011-12 AND 2012-13. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, NO INCRIMINATING MAT ERIAL WAS FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPU TE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED ON OATH. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ORDER PASSE D BY LD. CIT(A) IN CASE OF SMT. SAMEER GUPTA AND BHAWANA GUPTA HAS BEE N UPHELD BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BY T HE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT. ITA NO.519/DEL./2017 4 6. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE IN ORDER TO CHALLENGE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE AO. HOWEVER ON THE OTHER HAND LD. AR FOR THE ASSES SEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER CONTENDE D THAT THE ORDER FOLLOWED BY CIT(A) PASSED IN CASE OF SMT. SAM EER GUPTA AND SMT. BHAWANA GUPTA HAS ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED B Y TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 516/DEL/2017, ACIT VS. LATE SMT. BHAWNA GUP TA ITA NO. 522/DEL/2017, ACIT VS. SMT. ANITA GUPTA, IT A NO. 514, 515/DEL./2017, ACIT VS. SAMEER GUPTAB DATED 31.07.2018 & 23.08.2017 WHICH HAS BEEN FURTHER CONFIRMED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1 VS. SAMEER GUPTA DATED 02.02.2018, ITA NO. 169/2018 & CM APPL. 5356/2018 DATED 12.02.2018. THIS FACTUAL POSITION HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY LD. DR FOR TH E REVENUE. 7. LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE BY FOLLOWING HIS OWN ORDER PASSED IN CASE OF SAMEER G UPTA BY RETURNING FINDINGS AS UNDER :- GROUND NOS. 02, 03, 04, 05 & 09 ARE SIMILAR TO THAT TAKEN IN THE APPEALS IN THE \ CASE OF SH. SAMEER GUPTA, BROTHER OF APPELLANT, IN AYS 2011-12 & 2012-13 AND HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY ME AT PARAS- 4.1 TO 4.4 IN MY ORDER DT. 23.11.2016 IN A.NOS. 180 & 188/ 16-17 WHEREIN ON SIMILAR FACTS I HAVE HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED RE-ASSE SSMENT ORDERS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND I HAVE QUASHED THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THOSE CASES. THE FACTS OF THE MATTER IN THIS CASE I N BOTH THE YEARS ARE THE SAME/SIMILAR AND THEREFORE REIYING ON MY ORDER IN THE CASE OF SH. SAMEER GUPTA (SUPRA) I HOLD SIMILARLY INJHESE TWO A PPEALS AS WELL. ITA NO.519/DEL./2017 5 4.3 THE FACTS OF THE MATTER TAKEN IN GROUND NO. 08 RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 4,56,37,110/- AND RS.9,78,54,242/- U/S 68 IN THE AYS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY ON ACCOUNT OF GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES ARE ALSO SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE CASE OF SH. SAMEER GUPTA FOR AYS 2011-12 & 2012-13 (SUPRA) CONSIDERED AT PARAS-4 .5 TO 4.5.4 THEREIN. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPEL LANT WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT A DETAILED STATEMENT IN EXCEL SHEET OF THE D ATE-WISE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THESE SHARES ALONGWITH THE RATE OF PURC HASE AND SALE AS ALSO THE PAYMENT DETAILS WITH COPY OF THE BANK STAT EMENT. THE SAME HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED WITH WS FOR AY 2011-12 AT PAGES -139-140 AND PAGES-176-179 FOR AY 2012-13 OF THE RESPECTED PBS F ILED WITH WS ON 23.11.2016 WHICH ARE ENCLOSED AS ANNX.1 AND ANNX . 2 TO THIS ORDER. ON PERUSAL OF THESE DETAILS IT IS OBSERVED T HAT THE SHARES OF THE TWO COMPANIES WERE PURCHASED AT THE SAME RATE AT ON E GO WHILE THESE HAVE BEEN SOLD ON DIFFERENT DATES AT VARYING RATES, THAT OF SVEL @ RS.193/- ON 19.01.2011 TO @ RS.143.60 ON 03. 02.2011 AND THAT OF CFSL @ RS.141.50 ON 11.04.2011 TO @ RS. 163 .90 ON 28.06.2011. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE SALE RATE IS NOT CONSTANT AND WHILE THAT OF SVEL WAS SOLD @ RS193.50 ON 19.01.201 1 IT WAS LATER SOLD EVEN @ RS. 174.50 ON 24.01.2011, @ RS.182/- ON 27.01.2011 AND AT FURTHER REDUCED RATES UPTO RS.143.60 ON 03.0 2.201 LAND SIMILARLY THOSE OF CFSL WERE SOLD EVEN @ RS.141.50 ON 25.05.2011, INCREASING TO RS.156/- ON 05.05.2011 AN D AGAIN @ RS.148.50 ON 10.05.2011, RS.141.85 ON 09.06.2011, R S.156/- ON 17.06.2011, RS.140/- ON 21.06.20111 & RS. 163.90 ON 22.06.2011. THE CORRESPONDING DATE-WISE RECEIPTS HAVE ALSO BEEN CREDITED IN THE APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT NO. 13741000025837 WITH HD FC BANK NEW DELHI. FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION AND REASONS AT PARAS-4.5 TO 4.5.4 OF MY ORDER OF SH. SAMEER GUPTA (SUPRA) WHERE IN I HAVE HELD THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN BOTH THE-YEARS O N PRESUMPTIONS_AND SURMISES SANS ANY MATERIAL EVIDENC E OR FACT RELEVANT TO THE TRANSACTION INVOLVED AND THEREFORE I HAVE HELD THAT THE ADDITIONS IN BOTH THE YEARS ON THIS ACCOUNT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE EVEN ON MERITS. I HOLD ACCORDINGLY IN THE CASE OF THE APPEL LANT AS WELL ANCTTHE ADDITION IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE T HEREFORE DELETED. 8. WHEN WE EXAMINE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION, TH E ENTIRE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO IS ON THE BASIS OF POST SEA RCH INQUIRY. THERE IS NOT AN IOTA OF MATERIAL NOR ANY SUCH GROUN D RAISED BY THE REVENUE IF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND A ND THE ENTIRE ITA NO.519/DEL./2017 6 CASE IS BASED UPON THE SOLE STATEMENT OF SANDEEP GU PTA, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWALA CITED AS 21 TAXMANN.COM 41 2. OTHERWISE ALL THE TRANSACTION RELATING TO CAPITAL G AIN ARISEN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE ALREADY BEEN RECO RDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. SO, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARC H IN THE CASE OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 1 53A READ WITH SECTION 143(3). 9. COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING CASE OF SAMEER GUPTA, SON OF ASSESSEE ARISEN OUT OF SAME SEARCH PR OCEEDINGS AND KEY PERSON OF M/S. JAKSON GROUP DECIDED THE IDENTIC AL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY RETURNING FOLLOWING FINDI NGS : 24. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE H Y BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND TH E CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 30 TH MARCH, 2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,92,11,220/-. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE IT ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN IN RESPONS E TO NOTICE U/S 153A ON 5 TH JANUARY, 2015 DECLARING THE SAME INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 5,62,61, 726/-. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A BY MAKING ADDITION OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GA IN AS BOGUS. FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE FIND NO WHERE IT IS MENTIONED THAT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE ITA NO.519/DEL./2017 7 COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O IS BASED ON POST SEARCH INQUIRIES. THERE IS ALSO NO GROUND B Y THE REVENUE THAT ANY SUCH INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND OTHE R THAN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SUNDEEP GUPTA AT THE TIME OF SEAR CH. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE TO ADJUDICATE AS TO WH ETHER THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE AO IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. 25. WE FIND THE ID. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION HAS RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISIDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K ABUL CHAWALA REPORTED IN 21 TAXMAN.COM 412 (234 TAXMAN 3 00). FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEE N REPRODUCED IN THE PRESIDING PARAGRAPHS. SO FAR AS T HE RELIANCE BY THE LD. DR IN THE CASE OF SMT. DAYAWANTI VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THE FACTS OF THAT CASE ARE COMPL ETELY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THAT CASE THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE HAD CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT THERE WERE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE AND SALE OF VARIOUS ITEMS IN S UPARI FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES. HE HAD ALSO ADMITTED THAT CERTAI N PURCHASES ARE UNACCOUNTED AND ACCORDINGLY HE HAD SURRENDERED CERTAIN INCOME. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO UN ACCOUNTED TRANSACTION FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE CAPITAL GAIN THAT AROSE FROM THE SALE OF SHARES ARE ALREADY RECO RDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHA TSOEVER WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH . THEREFORE, THE SAID DECISION IN OUR OPINION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FA CTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 26. IT HAS COME TO OUR NOTICE SUBSEQUENT TO THE HEARIN G THAT THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. MEETA GUTGUTIA REPORTED IN 2017 (5) TMI 1224 HAS HELD THA T ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATE RIAL AND THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SMT. DAYAWANTI GUPTA HA S BEEN DULY CONSIDERED. SO FAR AS THE DECISION OF HON'BLE KERAL A HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF E. N. GOPAL KUMAR (SUPRA) RELIED BY THE LD. DR IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THE SAID DECISION IS OF A NON-JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE TRIBUNAL IS BOUND BY THE DECISIO N OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. SINCE THE HON'BLE HIGH C OURT IN A NUMBER OF CASES RECENTLY HAS HELD THAT ADDITION CAN NOT BE MADE IN ORDER PASSED U/S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH IN THE CASE OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE A DDITION IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 27. WE FURTHER FIND THE REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE VITAL ITA NO.519/DEL./2017 8 LEGAL GROUND ON WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED TH E ADDITION. SINCE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS CLE ARLY HELD THAT ADDITION IN ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/ 153A CANN OT BE MADE IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AND SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER ON RE CORD THAT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SINCE THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF CER TAIN INQUIRIES CONDUCTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH ON THE BASIS OF RETURN ALREADY FILED, THEREFORE, ON THIS ISSUE ITSE LF ADDITION HAS TO BE DELETED. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 10. REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SAMEER GUPTA BEFORE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COUR T BUT THEIR APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT BY RETURNING FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- IN THIS CASE THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE IN THE PREMISES ON 03.10.2013. A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH RE-AFFIRMED ITS EARLIER RETURNS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE SECTION 153A ASSESSMENT BY AD DING AMOUNTS UNDER SECTION 60A TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5,62, 61,726/- FOR AY 2011-12. THE CIT (A) AND THE ITAT CONCURRENTLY G RANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HOLDING THAT NO FRESH INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS SEIZED WARRANTI NG THE ADDITIONS DURING THE SEARCH. BOTH THE APPELLATE AUT HORITIES RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN CIT V. KABUL CHAWLA, 380 ITR 573. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES AS THE RATIO IN KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) APPLIED. THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED 11. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE AND FO LLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN CAS E OF SAMEER GUPTA AND BHAWNA GUPTA (SUPRA) CONFIRMED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED FROM THE SALE OF SHARES WERE ALREADY RE CORDED IN THE ITA NO.519/DEL./2017 9 BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL W AS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION ON JAKSON GR OUP BEING RUN BY SAMEER GUPTA, BHAWANA GUPTA AND SANDEEP GUPTA, ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF SOLE STATEMENT OF SANDEEP GUPT A IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW, PARTICULARLY WHEN A LL THE TRANSACTIONS QUA SALE OF SHARES AND CAPITAL GAIN EARNED DURING T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE BEEN DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. SO, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO ILLEGALITY OR PERVERSITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A), HENCE, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF JULY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 29 TH DAY OF JULY, 2021 BINITA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.