Alok Bhandari, New Delhi V. ACIT, Faridabad

ITA 5747/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3428 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEDOBANI
• Assessee Lawyers: R S AHUJA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Retrospective amendment; Revised return
• Section: 153A; 132; 139; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5747/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 ALOK BHANDARI, 1/2873, RAM NAGAR EXTN. LONI ROAD, SHADARA, NEW DELHI. PAN: AGMPB 5584A VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.5749/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 RAJENDRA BHANDARI, 1/2873, RAM NAGAR EXTN. LONI ROAD, SHADARA, NEW DELHI. PAN: AGMPB 5581F VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI R.S. AHUJA, C.A.. REVENUE BY : MS. BEDOBANI, SR.D.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 19/04/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21/04/2017 ORDER THESE TWO APPEALS OF TWO ASSESSEES, MR. ALOK BHAND ARI AND MR. RAJENDRA BHANDARI ARISE FROM TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS O F LEARNED CIT(A)-CENTRAL GURGAON, VIDE ORDERS EACH DATED 9.7.2014 EACH FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF MR. ALOK BHAND ARI HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL . (A) THAT ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED ITO & THE CIT(A) ERRED IN : 1) IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS . 2 , 69,000/-. 2) LEVYING PENALTY INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT LAW APPLIC ABLE FOR IMPOSING THE PENALTY U/ 271(1)(C) IS THE LAW IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF ORIGINAL RETURN. THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED ON 03 . 03.2009 WHILE THE FINANCE ACT (NO.2) OF 2009 CAME I N EFFECT FROM 01.04.2009 PASSED IN LOK SABHA ON 27 T H JULY 2009 AND IN RAJYA SABHA 29 T H JULY 2009 AND ASSENTED ON 19 TH AUGUST 2009 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT 01 . 06.2007. ITAS NO.5747 & 5749/DEL/2014 2 3) IGNOR I NG THE FACT THAT EXPLANATION 5A OF SECTION 271(1) W AS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2009, W.E . F. 01 . 06.2007 WHICH IS AFTER THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUEST ION. 2. THE GROUNDS IN THE CASE OF RAJENDRA BHANDARI ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY. SINCE, THE ISSUE IN BOTH THE AP PEALS IS IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE BEING TAKEN BY THES E CONSOLIDATED ORDER. FIRST OF ALL, I AM TAKING UP THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF AL OK BHANDARI IN ITA NO.5747/DEL/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AS UNDER. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE BESTECH GROUP ON 0 7.02.2008. ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED . SURVEY OPER A TIONS U/S. 1 33A(1) OF THE ACT WERE A LSO CONDUCTED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN THE PREMI S ES OF SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP. ASSESSMENT U/S.15 3 A(1)(B) W A S COMPLE T ED ON 17/07/2009 AT A TOTAL INCOME O F RS .1 2 , 50,791/- WHICH HAPPEN E D TO B E THE INCOME RETURNED U/S.153A . PENAL T Y PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED, CU L MINAT I NG INTO LE V Y OF PENALTY OF RS. 2,69 , 000/- @ T HE MINIMUM RATE OF 100% . 4. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED MAINLY ON THE LEGAL GROUNDS THAT PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED WHICH IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. THE SAID ISSUE WAS RAISED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL WHICH PLEADINGS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED T HE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT ONCE A RETURN IS FILED PURSUANT TO NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 153A, THE SAME IS TREATED AS RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE AC T [REFER CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 153A91)]. FURTHER, CONCEALMENT/FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/UNDISCLOSED INCOME, HAS TO BE NECESSARILY SEEN VIS-A-VIS RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT, ONCE, INCOME ITSELF IS DECL ARED WHICH IS ACCEPTED AS SUCH UNDER SECTION 139 R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT, THEN , THE QUESTION OF THERE ITAS NO.5747 & 5749/DEL/2014 3 BEING CONCEALMENT/FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME/UNDISCLOSED INCOME, DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL. I N THE PRESENT CASE, THE ENTIRE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF ASSES SMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLAN T HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS SUCH BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT ANY VARIATION. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BEING FOUND I N THE ASSESSMENT VIS-A- VIS THE RETURN FILED, THE ISSUE OF IMPOSITION OF PE NALTY DOES NOT ARISE. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRED IN IMPOSING THE PENA LTY ON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE THAT LAW PREVAILING ON T HE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN IS APPLICABLE FOR IMPOSTIOIN OF PENALTY. IN THE PRESEN T CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THOUGH THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS I.E. (A) AND (B) OF EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1), ARE SATISFIED SINCE THE RELEV ANT PREVIOUS YEAR HAD ENDED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH ON 7 TH FEBRUARY, 2008 AND THE DUE DATE EXPIRED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH. HOWEVER, THE T HIRD CONDITION, I.E., THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE SA ID PREVIOUS YEAR, IS NOT SATISFIED INASMUCH AS FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVAN T TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT ON 31.07.2007. IN VIEW OF THE AFO RESAID, DEEMING FICTION ENACTED IN THE AFORESAID EXPLANATION 5A AS ON THE S TATUTE ON 03.03.2009, I.E., THE DATE OF FILING IN RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTIO N 153A OF THE ACT, IS NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT-COMPAN Y. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY ON THE ASSESS EE. 5.1. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IN FACT ARE THAT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND ITS GROUP CONCERNS ON 7 TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH STATEMENT OF SH . DHARMENDRA BHANDARI, WAS RECORDED UNDER ITAS NO.5747 & 5749/DEL/2014 4 SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT WHEREIN UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.8 , 00,000/- WAS SURRENDERED. ACCORDINGLY , BASED ON THE AFORESAID DISCLOSURE MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION, THE APPELLA NT , IN THE RETURN FILED ON 03.03 . 2009 PURSUANT TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A O F THE ACT DECLARED INCOME OF RS.12,50,791/- INCLUDING AFORESA ID ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 8,00,000/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLET ED BY ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 17TH JULY, 2009 PASSED UNDER SECTI ON 153C/153A OF THE ACT, RETURNED INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS SUCH . THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED PENALTY ON THE APPELLANT U/S. 271(1)(C) OF INCOME TAX ACT , VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 19.03 . 2010. 5.2. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT O NCE A RETURN IS FILED PURSUANT TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A, THE SAME IS TREATED AS RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT [REFER CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 153A(L)] . FURTHER, CONCEALMENT/ FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME/UNDISCLOSED INCOME, HAS TO BE NECESSA R ILY SEEN VIS-A-VIS RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON CE, INCOME IT IS DECLARED WHICH IS ACCEPTED AS SUCH UNDER SECTION 139 R.W.S . 153A OF ACT , THEN, THE QUESTION OF THERE BEING CONCEALMENT/ FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME/UNDISCLOSED INCOME, DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL . IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ENTIRE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX BY THE APPELLANT-COMPANY IN THE RETURN INCO ME, WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RETURN FIL ED BY THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS SUCH BY YOUR ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT ANY VARIATI ON. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BEING FOUND IN THE ASSESSMENT VI S-A-VIS THE RETURN FILED, THE ISSUE OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY DOES NOT, ARISE. 5.3 THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIO N IN THIS REGARD. 1) IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PREM ARORA VS. DCIT IN (2012) 78 DTR (DEL)(TRIB)91 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT WHERE RETURNED INCOME FILED U/S.153A IS A CCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WILL BE NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND CONSEQUENTLY PENALTY ITAS NO.5747 & 5749/DEL/2014 5 U/S.271(1)(C) CANNOT BE IMPOSED. II) IN CIT VS. SAS PHARMACEUTICALS (2011) 3351TR 259, HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD -'IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT CONCEALMEN T OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME B Y THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE IN THE IT RETURN FILED BY IT. THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN HIS RETURN AND EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE IT RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN HIS RETURN AND EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE IT RETURN FILED BY ASSESSEE. THIS VIEW GETS SUPPORTED BY EXPLANATIONS 4 AS WELL AS 5 AND 5A OF SECTION 271. OBVIOUSLY NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE CONDITIONS STIPUL ATED IN THE SAID PROVISIONS ARE DULY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY SATISFIED . SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS EXPOSED DURING SURVEY, MAY BE, IT WOULD HAVE NOT DISCLOSED THE INC OME BUT FOR THE SAID SURVEY . HOWEVER, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PENALTY ONLY ON SURMIS ES. CONJECTURES AND POSSIBILITIES. SECTION 271(1)(C) HAS TO BE CONSTRUE D STRICTLY. UNLESS IT IS FOUND THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY A CONCEALMENT OR NON-DISCLOS URE OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED. THERE IS NO SUCH CONCEALMENT OR NON- DISCLOSURE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN THE IT RETURN AND OFFERED THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT FUR THE PURPOSES OF TAX'. III) IN CIT V. T.M. ABDUL HAZEEZ & CO. [2007J 293 ITR 384 (MAD.) IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, THE APPEL LANT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME 18 . 03 . 2004, ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,71,960 WHIC H INCLUDED ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,82,000 BEING THE LOAN CREDITS IN THE NAMES OF TEN PERSONS. THE AO IMPOSED THE PEN ALTY ON THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DISCLOSED ADDI TIONAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION AND ALSO FAILED TO PRO VE THE GENUINENESS LOAN CREDITS. THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE PENALTY HOLD ING THAT THE PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IV) IN CI T VS SHYAMLAL M. SO NI : 276 ITR 156, TH E I S SU E B E FO RE TH E HIGH COURT WA S: ' WH E TH E R O N TH E FA CT S A ND C IR C UM S TAN CE S OF TH E C AS E AND IN TH E LAW THE TRIBUNAL W A S JU ST IFI E D IN H O LDING T HA T NO P E NAL TY UND E R SECT I O N 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT COULD B E L EV I E D FOR A S S E SSM E NT YE ARS 198 5- 8 6, 1986 - 8 7 AND 1987 - 88 E V E N THOUGH TH E R E VIS E D R E TURNS WERE FIL E D OFF E RING T H E ADDI T IONAL INCOME AF TE R S E ARCH AN D IN R E SP O N SE T O NO T I CE U N D E R S EC TI O N 1 4 8 . O F TH E A CT ISSU E D BY THE D E PARTMEN T ?' TH E COURT ANSW E R E D TH E ABOV E QUE S TION IN THE AFFIRMA T IVE . T H E COURT HELD THAT NO PENALTY U L S 27 1(1)(C) OF TH E A C T COULD B E L E VI E D WH ERE THE R EVIS ED R E TURN HAD B EE N AC C EPT E D AND ASS E SSED AT TH E HANDS OF T H E APP E LLANT ALTHOUGH TH E R E VIS E D RETURNS HAD B E EN FILED AFTER A S E ARCH UND E R S E CTION 132 OF THE ACT AND AFTER A NOTI CE HAD BEEN UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT . V) RAJIV GAR G 175 TA X MAN 184 ( P & H) I N THE RETURN FIL E D IN PURSUANCE TO NOT I CE UN D ER SECT I ON 148 OF THE ACT THE APPE LL ANT REVIS E D I TS C L A I M O N E I NSTEAD OF OFF E RING FOR TAX THE AMOUNT OF CAP I TA L GAIN, HE O F FERED THE E N TI R E SAL E PROCEEDS AS INCOME. SUCH ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED WAS ASSESSED TO TA X THEREFORE, THE FINA L LY ASS E SSED INCOM E WAS THE SAM E AS INCOM E D E CLARED BY ITAS NO.5747 & 5749/DEL/2014 6 THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN FIL E D IN R E SPONS E TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U N DER SECTION 148 OF TH E ACT . THE COURT , WHILE AFFIRMING TH E ORD E R OF THE TRIBUNAL D E LETING PENALT Y, OBS E RVED THAT UNDENIABLY THE NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 148 OF T H E ACT WAS ISSUED ON 21 - 3 - 200 3 AND THE APPELLANT FILED I TS RETURN ON 30 - 4 - 2003 . THE CIT(A ) HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE DDIT ( L NV . ) , GURGAON REGARDING THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION, SALE A ND PURCHASE OF S HARE S CARRIED OUT THROUGH THE BROKER SHRI S . S . MEHTA ENABLED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HOLD THE CAPITAL GAIN AS BOGUS . TH E INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING THAT SA L E WA S BOGUS WAS NOT COMMUNICATED T O APPE L LANT WH E N NOT I CE UN D ER S . 148 W A S I SSUED . T H E RETURN FI L ED ' UNDER SECTION 148 WAS N OT F IL E D AF TER 'DETECTI ON '. TH E R ET URN OF IN CO M E SO F I L ED WAS VO LUN T AR Y A N D HA D OF FERE D TH E ADDITIONA L INCOME T O BU Y P E A CE OF MIND AN D TO AV O I D LI T I GATION . IN THE AFORESAID FACTS THE COURT HELD THAT DURI N G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T ; THE AFORESAID EXPLANATION GIV E N BY THE APPELLANT WAS NEITHER REJECTED NOR IT WAS HELD TO BE MALA FIDE . FURTHER, TH E ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD FAILED TO TAKE ANY OBJECTION THAT THE DECLARATION O F INCOME MADE BY TH E APP E LLANT IN HIS REVISED RETURN AND IN HIS EXPLANATION W E R E NOT BONA FIDE . THEREFORE, IN VIEW , OF THE AFORESAID FINDING, THE COUR T H E LD THAT THE T R IBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING TH E ORD E R OF THE COMMIS S ION E R OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS), WHEREBY TH E PENAL TY IMPOSED UNDER SEC TION 271(1)(C) OF THE A C T BY T HE ASSESS I NG OFFIC E R WAS ORD E RED TO B E D E L E T E D . 5.4 FURTHERMORE, LEVY OF PENALTY HAS TO BE AS PER L AW APPLICABLE ON THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN AND ADMITTEDLY ON 03.03 . 2009 WHEN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 WAS FILED BY THE APP E LLANT , THE UN- AMENDED PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE ON THE STATUTE . THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOM E AND/OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF BY THE APPELLANT IN THE R E TURN OF INCOME FILED ON THE SAID DATE HAS TO BE SEE N VIS-A-VIS , LAW AS APPLICABLE ON THAT DATE . IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE AMENDED PROVISION O F EXPLANATION 5A MADE APPLICABLE W.R.E . F FROM 1 . 6 . 2007 CANNOT BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, THE PRE-SUB STITUTED PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271 WOULD, THEREFORE, APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE APPELLANT-COMPANY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION, EVEN THOUGH THE SAID EXPLANATION STANDS SUBSTITUTED RETROSPECTIVELY BY THE SUBSEQUENT ITAS NO.5747 & 5749/DEL/2014 7 FINANCE ACT . 5.5 EVEN OTHERWISE, IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PR ESUMPTION RAISED BY THE EXPLANATIONS TO SECTION 271(1) ARE REBUTTABLE AND DOES NOT, ISPO FACTO, RESULT IN AUTOMATIC IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. IN THE P RESENT CASE, THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' WAS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SEARCH AND THE SAME WAS A LSO DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED PURSUANT TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTIO N 153A, CLEARLY GOES TO SHOW THE BONA FIDES OF THE APPELLANT, NOT WARRANTIN G IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT . 6. IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, PENALTY LEVIED U /S.271(1)(C) IS DIRECTED TO BE QUASHED. THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. 8. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF MR. RAJENDRA BHAND ARI IN ITA NO.5749/DEL/2014, WHERE THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL EXCE PT THE QUANTUM OF THE PENALTY AND BY FOLLOWING MY ORDER IN THE CASE OF MR . ALOK BHANDARI HEREINABOVE, THE ORDER OF THE PENALTY CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO BE REVERSED AND ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THUS I AM REVERSING THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN BOTH THE APPEALS. 9. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY 21 ST APRIL, 2017 SD/- (B.P. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 21/04/2017