GDX Facility & Management Services P.Ltd, New Delhi V. DCIT,Circle-10(10, New Delhi

ITA 5218/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5948 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Time period of passing order
• Section: 43B; 139(1); 43; 13

Judgement Text

BEFORE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C, DELHI APPELLANT: M/S. GDX FACILITY AND MANAGEMENT SERVICE S PVT. LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 APPEAL NO.: 5218/DEL/17 RESPECTED SIRS, SUB: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS REF: OUR APPEAL DATED 11/0 8/2017 REGULAR HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING HAS BEEN FIXED IN THE MATTER OF CAPTIONED APPEAL ON THURSDAY, 24 TH INSTANT BEFORE YOUR HONOUR. ONLY ISSUE TAKEN UP IN THIS APPEAL IS DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESI AMOUNTING RS. 14,50,188/ - U/S 36(1 )(VA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON GROUND OF DELAYED PAYMENT O VER THE PRESCRIBED DATE OF PAYMENT UNDER THE RELEVANT ACTS. STATEMENT SHOWING DETAILS OF THE RELEVANT DELAYED PAYMENTS VIS-A-VIS PRESCRIBED DATE IS AS PER ANNEXURE A FOR READY REFERENCE. OUR SUBMISSIONS MADE HEIEUNDER MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED BY YOUR HONOUR WHILE DISPOSING OF THE AP PEAL. 1.01 FROM PERUSAL OF THE ATTACHED STATEMENT YOUR HONOUR WOULD OBSERVE THAT THERE IS A MINOR DELAY IN THE FOLLOWING PAYMEN TS DISALLOWED U/S 36(1 )(VA): 6 IN THE RELEVANT PERIOD APPELLANT HAS TENDERED THE P AYMENT BY CHEQUE ALONG WITH THE PRESCRIBED CHALLANS TO THE AUTHORISED BANK FOR ACCEPTING SUCH PAYMENTS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD PERMITTED UND ER THE RELEVANT ACTS. NORMALLY, THE PAYMENTS THROUGH CHEQUE TAKE 2-3 DAYS IN THE CLEARING AND THE PAYMENT CHALLANS ARE DATED BASED ON THE DATE OF CLE ARING AND NOT THE DATE ON WHICH THE PAYMENT WAS TENDERED. FURTHER WHERE THE L AST PRESCRIBED DAY IS A PUBLIC HOLIDAY, LIMITATION PERIOD STAYS EXTENDED BY A DAY. 1.02 THUS, APPARENTLY THIS MAY APPEAR AS A DELAYED PAYMENT, THESE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN TENDERED BY THE APPELLANT WITHIN THE PRES CRIBED PERIODS UNDER THE RELEVANT ACTS TO THE BANK RECEIVING SUCH PAYMENTS. HONBLE COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY TAKEN THE VIEW THAT ON CLEARING THE CH EQUE, THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF CHEQUE SHOULD BE RECKONED AS A DATE OF MAKING PAYME NT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLIANCE UNDER THE ACTS. HENCE, PRIMA FACIE THE A BOVE AGGREGATE PAYMENTS RELEVANT ACT DUE DATE PAID DATE AMOUNT NO OF DAYS OF DELAY ESIC 21/06/2013 22/06/2013 2,347 1 ESIC 21/07/2013 23/07/2013 3,292 2 ESIC 21/07/2013 23/07/2013 2,466 2 ESIC 21/08/2013 23/08/2013 2,63,011 2 ESIC 21/08/2013 23/08/2013 12,537 2 ESIC 21/08/2013 22/08/2013 2,235 1 ESIC 21/09/2013 24/09/2013 2,77,415 3 ESIC 21/09/2013 24/09/2013 12,036 3 ESIC 21/02/2014 25/02/2014 3,17,706 4 ESIC 21/02/2014 25/02/2014 15,439 4 ESIC 21/02/2014 25/02/2014 2,260 4 PF ACT - .. 20/04/2014 21/04/2014 10,265 1 TOTAL 9,21,008 7 OF RS. 9,21,008/- ARE WELL WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36( 1 )(VA) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE SAME MAY BE ALLOWED 2.01 IN RESPECT OF BALANCE DISALLOWED AMOUNT OF RS. 5,29 ,180/- APPELLANT DRAWS YOUR KIND ATTENTION TO THE DEFINITION OF TERM INCOM E AS PER SECTION 2(24)(X) WHICH READS AS UNDER: ANY SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS EMPLOYEE S AS CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANY PROVIDENT FUND OR SUPERANNUATION FUND OR ANY FUND S ET UP UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948 (34 OF 194 8 ), OR ANY OTHER FUND FOR THE WELFARE OF SUCH EMPLOYEES. ABOVE SUB-CLAUSE WAS ADDED AS A DEEMED INCOME TO CH ECK THE TENDENCIES OL DELINQUENT ASSESSES OF NOT DEPOSITING THE AMOUNT CO LLECTED AS EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION WITH THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES AND THER EBY POCKETING EMPLOYEES FUND. HENCE, LAW AS PER THE ABOVE PROVISION ASSUMES COLLECTION OL EMPLOYEE S CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESI AS A DEEMED INCOME. 2.02 POST COLLECTION OF SUCH CONTRIBUTION, WHERE THE ASS ESSE MAKES A DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT COLLECTED WITH THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND THAT TOO WITHIN THE FINANCIAL YEAR OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN, NO SUCH INCOME ACTUALLY VESTS WITH THE ASSESSE WHICH CAN BE SUBJEC TED TO TAX. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ALL THE PAYMENTS INDICATED IN THIS PARA HAVE BEEN D EPOSITED WITH THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES IN THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR OF THE COLLE CTION OF SUCH CONTRIBUTION FROM EMPLOYEES. HENCE, THERE IS NO INCOME EFFECTIVELY LE FT WITH APPELLANT ON THIS COUNT AT THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH CAN BE TAXED UNDER THE ACT. HENCE, THE PRESENT DISALLOWANCE NEEDS TO BE VACATED ON THIS CO UNT. 3.01 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, APPELLANT INVITES YOUR KIND ATTENTION TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF COVERING BOTH EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES CONTIIBUTION TO PF AND ESI BY INCLUDING THE SAME U/ S 43B AND SECTION 36(1 )(VA). LIKE SECTION 36(1 )(VA), SUB SECTION (B ) OF SECTION 43 B COVERING EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESI WERE INTRODUCED WITH EFFECT FROM 1/4/1988 PROVIDING FOR ALLOWING SUCH PA YMENTS ONLY WHEN THE PAYMENTS ARE TENDERED WITHIN DUE DATES PRESCRIB ED UNDER THE RELEVANT ACTS. 3.02 CONSIDERING PROBABLY THE REASONING GIVEN IN PARA 2 ABOVE, LEGISLATUREPERMITTED THE ALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYERS CO NTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESI WHERE SUCH PAYMENTS THOUGH NOT MADE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED DATE UNDER THE RELEVANT ACTS BUT MADE SUBSEQUENTLY NOT O NLY WITHIN 8 THE FINANCIAL YEAR BUT ALSO BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE IT RETURN BEYOND THE FINANCIAL YEAR, BY DROPPING SECOND PROVI SO TO SECTION 43B WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/2004. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (2009)/185 7 AXMANN 416 (SC) HAVE HELD THIS AMENDMENT TO BE RETROSPECTIVE RIGHT FROM THE DATE O F THE INTRODUCTION OF THE PROVISION I.E. 01/04/1988. THUS, LEGISLATURE HAS ALREADY CORRECTED ITS ERROR IN DRAFTING OF THIS PROVISION A S PERTAIN TO EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION BY THE ABOVE AMENDMENT. 3.03 EMPLOYER S AND EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION WERE P LACED ON THE SAME GROUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITIAL TAXATION BY MAKIN G SIMULTANEOUS PROVISIONS IN THE INCOME TAX ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/1988. BASED ON OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROVISIONS IT APPEARS THAT LEG ISLATURE HAS MISSED SIMILAR AMENDMENT IN SECTION 36(1 )(VA) FOR NOT SUBJECTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED OF SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS BEFORE DUE D ATE OF FILING OF 11 RETURN. COGENT READING OF BOTH THE PROVISIONS SUPPORTS SUCH IDENTICAL TREATMENT OF BOTH EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION UNDER I T ACT. HENCE, APPELLANT REQUEST YOUR HONOUR TO FOLLOW THE ABOVE REASONING F OR ALLOWING THE CLAIM. 4.01 WE FURTHER REFER TO A RECENT JUDGMENT BY CHENN AI ITAT IN CASE OF DY. CIT V/S REPCO HOME FINANCE (P.) LTD. (117 TAXMANN.C OM 233) WHERE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DEEPLY EXAMINED AND RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE BASIS OF THE DECISION IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 'THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW STRICT AND LITERAL INTERPRET ATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1 )(VA) OJ THE 1961 ACT READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 AND S ECTION 2(24)(X) OF THE 1961 ACT, THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION AS THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE WAS DEPOSITED LATE BEYOND T HE TIME STIPULATED UNDER THE RELEVANT STATUTE GOVERNING PF. BUT, IT IS EQUALLY T RUE THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS VIZ. HON'BE HIGH COURTS AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN IND IA HAVE POWERS TO READ DOWN THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1961 ACT TO MAKE IT WORKABLE AND TO AVOID ABSURDITY. ON PERUSAL OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF ALOM EXTRUSION (SUPRA), IT IS OBSERVED THAT HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1 )(VA), 2(24)(X) AND AMENDMENTS MADE BY FINANCE ACT, 2003 TO SECTION 43B OF THE 1961 ACT, WHICH AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 43B OF TH E 1961 ACT WERE HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ALSO REFERRED IN ITS DECISION IN ALOM EXTRUSION (SUPRA) TO ITS EARLIER DECISION IN C IT V. J.H. 9 GOTLA [1985] 156 ITR 323(SC) , PARA 10 THAT INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS TO BE FOUND OUT FROM THE LANGUAGE USED AND IF STRICT LITE RAL CONSTRUCTION LEADS TO AN ABSURD RESULT I.E. RESULT NOT INTENDED TO BE SUB SERVED BY THE OBJECT OF THE LEGISLATION FOUND IN THE MANNER INDICATED BEFORE, THEN IF ANOTHER CONSTR UCTION IS POSSIBLE APART FROM STRICT LITERAL CONSTRUCTION, THEN THAT CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE PREFERRED TO THE STRICT LITERAL CONSTRUCTION. THOUGH EQUITY AND TAXATION ARE OFTEN STRANGERS, A TTEMPTS SHOULD BE MADE THAT THESE DO NOT REMAIN ALWAYS SO AND IF A CONSTRUCTION RESULTS IN EQUITY RATHER THAN IN INJUSTICE, THEN SUCH CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE PREFERR ED TO THE LITERAL CONSTRUCTION. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT AFTER CONSIDERING, ANALYZING AND INTERPRETING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTRUSION (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT IT WILL APPLY BOTH TO EMPLOYERS AND EMPLO YEE CONTRIBUTION AND IF THE SAME IS DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE 1961 ACT, THE DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED, EVEN IF THE SAME IS DEPOSITED BEYOND THE TIME STIPULATED AS DUE DATE AS PRESCRIBE D UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF STATUTE GOVERNING PF/ES1 ACT. THUS, THE APPLICABLE PROVISION AS IS CONTAINED IN SECTION 36(1 )(VA) IS READ DOWN BY MOST OF THE CONS TITUTIONAL COURTS INCLUDING OUR JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (BARRING HON'BLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT) TO MAKE IT WORKABLE AS OTHERWISE THE TAX-PAYER WILL LOSE THE DEDUCTION FOR EVER IF THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION IS NOT DEPOSITED WITHIN DUE DATE AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RELEVANT STATUTE , ALTHOUGH THE SAID CONTRIBUTION STOOD DEPOSITED BY EMPLOYER BELATEDLY BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE 1961 ACT AND THE AMOUNT WILL STOO D BROUGHT TO TAX AS INCOME KEEPING IN VIEW PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(24)(X) OF T HE 1961 ACT SO FAR EMPLOYEE SHARE OF CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PH ,ES1 AND OTHER EMP LOYEES WELFARE FUNDS IS CONCERNED. NO DOUBT IT IS WELL CHERISHED OBJECTIVE THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT OF THE EMPLOYER OF THE AMOUNT WHI CH IT COLLECTS FROM 10 ITS EMPLOYEES TOWARDS EMPLOYEES SHARE OF PF , ESI A ND OTHER EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUNDS AND IN THE IDEAL SITUATION , THE SAID AMOUNTS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED BY EMPLOYER WHICH IT COLLECTED FROM ITS EMPLOYEES, TO THE CREDIT OF EMPLOYEE WITH RELEVANT FUNDS WITHIN TIME STIPULATED AS DUE DATE B Y RESPECTIVE STATUTE GOVERNING PF/ESI ETC. BUT AT THE SAME TIME IF THE EMPLOYER DO ES NOT DEPOSIT THE CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF/ESI ETC WITHIN DUE DATE AS PRESCRIBED UN DER RELEVANT STATUTE GOVERNING PF/ESI ETC, THE EMPLOYERS ARE VISITED WITH INTEREST FOR DELAYED DEPOSIT OF PF/ESI AS WELL PENALTIES FOR LATE DEPOSIT BEYOND THE TIME STIPULATED UNDER THE RELEVANT STATUTE GOVERNING PF/ESI AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WELFAR E FUNDS. REFERENCE IS DRAWN TO SECTION 7Q AND 14 OF THE EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FU NDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952. SIMILARLY, HON'BLE MADRAS HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) AFTER CONSIDERING AND INTERPRETING THE DECISION OF HON'BL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTRUSION (SUPRA) AND HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AIM IL LIMITED (SUPRA) HELD THAT DEDUCTION IS TO BE ALLOWE D FOR BELATED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO PF/ESI WHICH IS DEPOSITED BEYOND THE DUE DATE STIPULATED UNDER THE RELEVANT STATUTES GOVERNING PF /ESI, BUT THE SAME STOOD DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AS IS PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) OF THE 1961 ACT. 4.02 THE ISSUE OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF HAS BEEN DEBATED BEFORE SEVERAL HIGH COURTS. MAJORITY OF THE HIGH COURTS I NCLUDING THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAVE TAKEN THE VIEW IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSE AS PER THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS: SR. NO. PARTICULARS 1. CIT VS AIMIL LIMITED[2010] 188 TAXMAN 265 (DELHI HC) 11 SI P FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT O F HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OT M/S RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD REFERRED ABOVE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY HONBLE SUPREM E COURT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 4 LH JULY 2017 (84 TAXMANN.COM 185 (SC)). ONLY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT HAVE TAKEN A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE CASE OF M/S. GUJARAT S TATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED (2014) 223 TAXMANN 0398 AND POP ULAR VEHICLES & SERVICES (P.) LTD. [2018] 96 TAXMANN.COM 13 (KERALA ) WHICH HAVE BEEN DISPUTED BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. AS THE MAJORITY OF THE HIGH COURTS INCLUDING JURISD ICTIONAL HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAVE TAKEN THE VIEW OF ALLOWING SU CH DEDUCTIONS WHERE THE SAME ARE DEPOSITED BEIORE DUE DATE OF FIL ING OF IT RETURN, APPELLANT REQUESTS YOUR HONOUR TO FOLLOW- THESE MAJ ORITY JUDGEMENTS AS WELL AS BINDING JUDGEMENT OT HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHICH ARE MUCH MORE LOGICAL AND CONVINCING VIS-A-VIS THE OPPOSITE VIEW TAKEN BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND HONBLE KERALA HI GH COURT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. [A.R.] 2. CIT VS. GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORTS LTD. (2012) 1002 & 1034368ITR (BOM.) 3. CIT VS. HERNIA EMBROIDERY MILLS (P .) LTD (2014) 366 ITR (PUN & HAR) 167/127 [TAXMANN 207/37] 4. BIHAR STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT1 ( 2008) 302(PATNA) [71 TAXMANN 247] 5. SAGUN FOUNDRY (P.) LTD. VS. CIT(2006) 87 (ALL.) [78 TAXMANN 47] 6. CLL V. INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AND INTEL LIGENCE INDIA PVT. LTD. (MAD) TAX CASE APPEAL NOS. 585 AND 586 OF 2015 AND M.P NO. 1 OF 2015 , DATED 24.07.2015 7. PR. CIT V. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LT D. [2017] 84 TAXMANN.COM 173 NAMAN DESAI 12 ANNEXURE-A A) DETAILS OF DELAYED PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ESI: B) DETAILS OF DELAYED PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF EPF: DUE DATE PAID DATE AMOUNT 21/06/2013 22/06/2013 2,347 21/06/2013 23/07/2013 2,61,901 21/06/2013 22/07/2013 12,015 21/07/2013 23/07/2013 3,292 21/07/2013 23/07/2013 2,466 21/08/2013 23/08/2013 2,63,011 21/08/2013 23/08/2013 12,537 21/08/2013 22/08/2013 2,235 21/09/2013 24/09/2013 2,77,415 21/09/2013 24/09/2013 12,036 21/02/2014 25/02/2014 3,17,706 21/02/2014 25/02/2014 15,439 21/02/2014 25/02/2014 2,260 TOTAL (A) 11,84,660 DUE DATE PAID DATE AMOUNT 20/02/2014 27/05/2014 1,26,420 20/03/2014 27/05/2014 1,28,844 20/04/2014 21/04/2014 10,264 TOTAL (B) 2,65,528 GRAND TOTAL (A+B) 14,50,188 ITA-5218/DEL/2017 13 5.1 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 22.09.2020 FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA; HONBLE H IGH COURTS INCLUDING THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, AS MENTI ONED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 22.09.2020 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ESPECIALLY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTRUSION LIMITED BY REFERRING ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS JH GOTLA (1985) 156 ITR 323 AND HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. AIMIL LIMITED (2010) 188 TAXMAN 265 (DELHI HC) (SUPRA). T HEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENTS, WE DELETE THE AD DITION IN DISPUTE BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ABOVE DECISION WAS ANNOUNCED ON 30 SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (H.S. SIDH U) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SRB. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR