M/s. Sudiva Spinners Private Limited, Bhilwara V. ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara

ITA 95/JODH/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9124 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Jodhpur
• Next Hearing Date: 25-12-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S.S. NAGAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Tax effect; Capital receipt; Set aside
• Section: 144; 154; 143(3); 139(1); 254(2); 48; 72; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, “DB”, JODHPUR Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice President Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No.95/Jodh/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Sudiva Spinners Private Limited, 91, KM Stone NH-79, P.O. Sareri, Village Dhanuwalia, Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311024 Vs ACIT, Circle Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAKCS5788C Assessee by : Sh. S. S. Nagar, CA Revenue by : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 18.01.2024 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 02.02.2023. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance, imposition of tax and interest with reference thereto, the quantification of taxable income and the tax liability, has been grossly unjustified, erroneous and unsustainable and necessary direction be given to the AO to give appropriate relief in accordance with law. 2.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) was not justified and grossly erred in his order for not quantifying the MAT credit amounting Rs.2,45,646/-. ITA No.95/Jodh/2023 Sudiva Spinners Private Limited 2 3.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) was not justified and grossly erred in sustaining the order of Ld. AO without considering the fact that the issues raised are within the purview of powers of rectification u/s 154 of the Act. 3.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) ought to consider that as per proposition laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court about the nature of subsidy, the claim of the appellant that TUF subsidy is capital receipt and not chargeable to tax is as per law and fall within the ambit of section 154 of the Act. 3.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) ought to consider that as per proposition laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court about the nature of subsidy, the claim of the appellant that subsidy under RIPS is capital receipt and not chargeable to tax is as per law and fall within the ambit of section 154 of the Act.” Non-quantification of MAT Credit: 3. It was submitted before us that rectification application u/s 154 of the Act was filed which has been disposed off without considering appellant's submission. The AO is directed to modify the order accordingly. Interest Subsidy - (TUFS): 4. Interest Subsidy received under Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS) and Electricity duty subsidy under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme (RIPS) has been treated as revenue receipt by the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). ITA No.95/Jodh/2023 Sudiva Spinners Private Limited 3 5. The appeal has been filed against non-carrying out of rectification u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as sought by the assessee. The order of the Assessing Officer rejecting the plea of the assessee is as under: “To The Executive Director, M/s Sudiva Spinners Pvt. Ltd. 1-F-33. Old Housing Board, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara Sir/ Madam, Sub: Your application dated 23.05.2017 u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AY 2012-13-Regarding - Please refer to the subject cited above. In your application, you have raised the issue of eligibility of tax credit u/s 115JAA has not quantified in the assessment order. The said issue has been raised after a period of five years which has no relevance at this juncture. The issue has been raised just for the sake of raising an issue. Further, you have also raised the issue of claim of interest subsidy received under TUF Scheme and claim of Electricity Duty Exemption & Interest subsidy as capital receipt under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme (RIPS). In this regard, it is stated that the issue does not come under the purview of section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On the said issue, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Mepco Industries Ltd., Madural Vs. CIT & Another in the civil appeal Nos. 7662-7663 of 2009 (Arising out at SLP.(C) Nos. 9979-9980 of 2008). In this case it has been held that a 'rectifiable mistake is a mistake which is obvious and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible Decision on debatable point of law can't be treated as "mistake apparent from the record”. ITA No.95/Jodh/2023 Sudiva Spinners Private Limited 4 In view of the above facts, you application is not maintainable. The same is treated as disposed off.” Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Umesh Sinha) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Bhilwara 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 7. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that the issues raised in grounds of appeal are not “mistake apparent from the record” for rectification of mistake for the purposes of Section 154 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that for the purpose of Section 154, a mistake is not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible or which are debatable in nature or which are not obvious. 8. Before us, the ld. AR argued and submitted the arguments in written form which are as under: Gr. No.3 Claim of Interest Subsidy received under Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS) and Electricity duty subsidy under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme (RIPS) as capital receipt while computing the Total Income. Brief Facts The appellant received Interest subsidy under TUF Issue falls u/s 154 purview Income tax authority can amend any order, if there is any mistake apparent from record. Now a question arises as to what constitute mistake apparent from record. Whether, a Supreme court judgment delivered at a later point of time after passing of order can constitute mistake apparent from record or not. Reliance is placed on Circular No. 68 dated 17-11-1971 (Kindly refer page no. 1 of PB). ITA No.95/Jodh/2023 Sudiva Spinners Private Limited 5 scheme amounting to Rs.1,04,37,640/- and Electricity duty subsidy under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme (RIPS) amounting Rs.18,08,454/-. The appellant while filing the return of income included the aforesaid subsidies in its total income and paid tax on the same. The Ld. AO completed the assessment by passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 02-06-2014. However, the Ld. AO failed to acknowledge the fact that the amount offered to tax by the appellant included certain incomes in the nature of interest subsidy received under TUF scheme and Electricity subsidy received under RIP scheme which were to be treated as capital receipts on the basis of various judicial pronouncements. Aforesaid mistake apparent from record, the AR of the appellant filed an application u/s 154 of the Act before the Ld. AO on 26- 07-2016 and 23-05-2017 seeking to consider the claim of the aforesaid subsidies as capital in nature. (Kindly refer page no. 74 to 76 of PB). Abruptly the Ld. AO passed the order u/s 154 of the Act on 16-11-2017 rejecting the M/s BR Agrotech Limited vs. ACIT (ITA No. 6244 to 6247/Del/2019) (Kindly refer page no. 2 to 13 of PB). DCTT vs. M/s Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills (ITA No. 130 of 2014) Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar (Kindly refer page no. 14 to 26 of PB). M/s Nulux Engineers vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2073/Mum/2017) Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai. (Kindly refer page no. 27 to 35 of PB). After considering the above circular and judicial pronouncements, it is clear that the petition submitted by the appellant falls within the scope of section 154 of the Act. TUFS subsidy objective Granted to improve technology upgradation in the context to improve its competitiveness and overall long- term viability in case of modernization/expansion of units. (Kindly refer page no, 36 to 40 of PB). RIPS subsidy objective Given for generation of employment, setting up new unit &/or for expansion of (Kindly refer page no. 41 to 47 of PB). Appellant's own case. (ITA No. 65 & 66/Jodh/2018). (Kindly refer page no. 48 to 68 of PB). PCTT vs. M/s Nitin Spinners Limited (116 taxmann.com 26) Jurisdiction High court (Kindly refer page no. 69 to 71 of PB). Further your Honour would appreciate the fact that SLP filed against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme court. (Kindly refer page no. 72 to ITA No.95/Jodh/2023 Sudiva Spinners Private Limited 6 appellant's application stating that the case does not fall under purview of section 154 of the Act, since these are debatable issues and not the mistakes apparent from record. Order of Ld. CIT(A) The Ld. CIT-(A) vide order dated 02- 02-2023 dismissed the appellant's appeal stating that the issues raised in the grounds of appeal are not mistake apparent from record for the purpose of section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is in appeal before your Honour. 73 of PB). Order of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of M/s Vinati Organics Limited vs. ACIT (ΙΤΑ Νο. 1667 to 1669/Mum/2021). In view of the above judicial pronouncement, the respondent humbly state that, interest subsidy under TUF / RIPS as capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. 9. On the other hand, the ld. DR argued that rectification cannot be carried at this juncture and assessee has already filed return u/s 139(1) and there is no mistake of the AO and the same cannot be rectified. 10. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. We have gone through the CBDT Circular No. 68 dated 17.11.1971 which is reproduced below: “SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE - APPARENT FROM RECORDS - MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORDS - WHETHER CAN BE TREATED AS SUCH ON THE BASIS OF SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR NO. 68 [F.NO. 245/17/71-A&PAC] DATED 17-11-1971 ITA No.95/Jodh/2023 Sudiva Spinners Private Limited 7 1. The Board are advised that a mistake arising as a result of a subsequent interpretation of law by the Supreme Court would constitute "a mistake apparent from the records" and rectificatory action under section 35/154 of the 1922 Act/ the 1961 Act would be in order. It has, therefore, been decided that where an assessee moves an application under section 154 pointing out that in the light of a later decision of the Supreme Court pronouncing the correct legal position, a mistake has occurred in any of the completed assessments in his case, the application shall be acted upon, provided the same has been filed within time and is otherwise in order. Where any such applications have already been rejected and the assessee files fresh applications within the statutory time limit, the same may also be treated on par with the applications which may either be pending or received after the issue of this circular. 2. The Board desire that any appeals or references pending on the point at issue may please be withdrawn.” 12. The Circular says that for the purpose of rectification, the assessee has to file application within the statutory time limit. 13. The statutory time limit for the purpose of Section 154 is as under: “Rectification of mistake. 154. (1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record an income-tax authority referred to in section 116 may,— 1 (a) amend any order passed by it under the provisions of this Act ; (b) amend any intimation or deemed intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143; (c) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A; (d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB. ITA No.95/Jodh/2023 Sudiva Spinners Private Limited 8 (1A) Where any matter has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in sub-section (1), the authority passing such order may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, amend the order under that sub-section in relation to any matter other than the matter which has been so considered and decided. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this section, the authority concerned— (a) may make an amendment under sub-section (1) of its own motion, and (b) shall make such amendment for rectifying any such mistake which has been brought to its notice by the assessee or by the deductor or by the collector, and where the authority concerned is [the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals), by the Assessing Officer also. (3) An amendment, which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee or the deductor or the collector, shall not be made under this section unless the authority concerned has given notice to the assessee or the deductor or the collector of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee or the deductor or the collector a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) Where an amendment is made under this section, an order shall be passed in writing by the income-tax authority concerned. (5) Where any such amendment has the effect of reducing the assessment or otherwise reducing the liability of the assessee or the deductor or the collector, the Assessing Officer shall make any refund which may be due to such assessee or the deductor or the collector. (6) Where any such amendment has the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee or the deductor or the collector, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee or the deductor or the collector, as the case may be a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum ITA No.95/Jodh/2023 Sudiva Spinners Private Limited 9 payable, and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be issued under section 156 and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. (7) Save as otherwise provided in section 155 or sub-section (4) of section 186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. (8) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (7), where an application for amendment under this section is made by the assessee or by the deductor or by the collector on or after the 1st day of June, 2001 to an income-tax authority referred to in sub-section (1), the authority shall pass an order, within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by it,— (a) making the amendment; or (b) refusing to allow the claim.” 14. The Act provides for a period of 4 years from the date of order sought to be rectified and not 4 years from original order. Hence, if an order is revised, set aside, etc., then the period of 4 years will be counted from the date of such fresh order and not from the date of original order. 15. In this case, the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2012 and the same has been assessed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 02.06.2014. The assessee filed letter for rectification on 23.05.2017. Thus, we find that the rectification application filed by the assessee is within the time allowed, hence the observation of the revenue authorities that the issue has been raised after a period of 5 years is wrong on facts. ITA No.95/Jodh/2023 Sudiva Spinners Private Limited 10 16. The similar issue has been adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills in ITA No. 130/Asr./2014, order dated 16.01.2015. The operative part of the said order is reproduced as under: “8......Now, the question arises whether power u/s 154 can be invoked when the issue is decided in favour of assessee by the Jurisdictional High Court after the order by an authority has been passed. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Mr. Tarun Bansal, relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court (FB) in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Aruna Luthra (supra), where the facts and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court are reproduced for the sake of convenience herein below: “The power given to the authority under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is very wide. It can correct “any mistake” provided it is “apparent from the record”. Section 154 does not provide that the error has to be seen in the order with reference to the date which it was passed. The mistake has to be on the record of the case. The record would include everything on the case file. The return, the evidence and the order are a part of the record. Thus, even in the case of an assessment u/s 143(1), it cannot be assumed that there can be no error apparent from the record. Section 154 has been enacted to enable the authority to rectify the mistake. The legislative intent is not to allow it to continue. This purpose has to be promoted. The legislature’s will has to be carried out. By placing a narrow construction, the object of the legislation would be defeated. Parliament has prescribed a period of four years for correction of mistake. While an assessment u/s 143 or 144 has to be normally made within a period of one or two years, the mistake can be rectified at any time during the period of four years. The obvious intentions within the prescribed time, it should not be allowed to continue. Section ITA No.95/Jodh/2023 Sudiva Spinners Private Limited 11 154 clearly provides for the intervention of the authority within the specified time, subject to the condition that the mistake is apparent and the issue is not debatable. Thus, any right under an order is subject to the provisions of the statute. That being so there is no vested right which can be said to have been taken away. The provision has inbuilt safeguards. It provides for the issue of notice. It ensures the grant of an opportunity to be heard. It limits the jurisdiction of the authority. The action can benefit the assessee as well as the Revenue. In this situation, there is no ground for placing an unduly restricted interpretation on the provision. The power u/s 154 can be invoked even when an issue is decided by the jurisdictional High Court or a superior court after the order had been passed. In her return for the assessment year 1987-88, the assessee claimed a deduction from the profits of business, of a sum representing loss in chit fund. This was allowed in an assessment u/s 143(1). Subsequently, on the basis of a judgment of the High Court hold that the transactions did not involve any taxable income or revenue expenditure, the Assessing Officer added the sum in question, in proceedings u/s 154. The Tribunal held in favour of the assessee. On appeal: Held, that the dispute related to the assessment year 1987-88. The parties had been litigating for more than 13 years. The ultimate tax effect was limited. Thus, even though the decision on the question of law was in favour of the Revenue, the order passed by the Tribunal was not being interfered with.” 6.1. Also the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court, in the case of Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Co. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Mr. Tarun Bansal, Advocate, is reproduced for the sake of convenience (Head Note) herein below: ITA No.95/Jodh/2023 Sudiva Spinners Private Limited 12 “An order of assessment, based upon an interpretation or application of law which is ultimately found to be wrong in the light of judicial pronouncements rendered subsequently, discloses a mistake apparent from the record When the court decides a matter, it does not make the law in any sense but all it does is that it interprets the law and states what the law has always been and must be understood to have been Where an order is made by an authority, on the basis of a particular decision, the reversal of such decision in further proceedings will justify a rectification of the order based on that decision. A binding decision rendered by a court is always retrospective and the decision which is overruled was never the law. The overruling decision should be deemed to have been in force even on the day when the order sought to be rectified was passed. A subsequent binding decision of the Supreme Court or of the High Court has retrospective operation as in the case of subsequent legislation and overruling is always retrospective. Section 254(2) and section 154 of the Income-tax Act enable the concerned authorities to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. The said expression has a wider content than the expression error apparent on the face of the record” occurring in Order 47, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code The restrictions on the power of review under Order 47, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The restrictions on the power of review u/s 47, rule 1, I do not hold good in the case of section 254(2) and section 154 of the Income-tax Act. Even for the purpose of order 47, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which is more restrictive, a subsequent binding authority taking a different view of law is a good ground for review, on the ground that the order sought to be reviewed ITA No.95/Jodh/2023 Sudiva Spinners Private Limited 13 passed on an antecedent decision, which stands overruled, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee claimed interest on the advance tax paid by it in excess but beyond the due dates. The income tax officer disallowed the claim of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the claim of the assessee. The Tribunal following the decision of a single judge of the Kerala High Court in A. Sethumadhavan v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 587 (Ker.) by order dated October 31, 1981, held that the belated payments were not to be taken into account as advance tax for the purpose of section 214 of Income-tax Act, 196, and hence interest was not admissible for such belated payments. A Division Bench of the High Court by order dated January 22, 1982 in Santha S. Shenoy v. Union of India (1982) 135 ITR 39 (Ker) reversed the decision of the single judge in A Sethumadhavan v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 587 and held that payments of tax made within the financial year, though not within specified dates should be treated as advance tax and the assessee was entitled to interest on the excess tax paid. The assessee filed an application u/s 154 for rectification of the order of the Tribunal dated October 31, 1981, in view of the decision of the Division Bench in Santha S. Shenoy v. Union of India (1982) 135 ITR 39 (Ker.), holding that interest was admissible even belated payments of advance tax. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that rectification u/s 154 of the Act must be of a mistake which was a mistake in the light of the law in force at the time when the order sought to be rectified was passed and the subsequent decision of the Division Bench of the High Court had no retrospective operation as in the case of subsequent legislation or the decision of the Supreme Court. On an original petition filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Tribunal: ITA No.95/Jodh/2023 Sudiva Spinners Private Limited 14 Held: that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated October 31, 1981, relying on the decision of the single judge in Sethumadhavan’s case (1980) 122 ITR 587 (Ker.), disclosed a mistake apparent from the record, in the light of the subsequent overruling of the very decision relied on by the Appellant Tribunal, by a Division Bench in the decision reported in Santha S. Shenoy’s case (1982) 135 ITR 39 (Ker). When the Bench of the High Court overruled the decision of the single judge in Sethumadhavan’s case (1980) 122 ITR 587 (Ker.), the earlier decision was never the law. The law on the point at all times was as stated by the Bench in the decision reported in Santha S. Shenoy’s case (1982) 135 ITR 39 (Ker.) The application for rectification, dated June 17, 1982 was within four years from the date of the order of the Tribunal, and was one filed within the time allowed by law. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in the appeal disclosed a mistake apparent from the record, as it held that the assessee was not entitled to interest on the advance-tax paid beyond the due date, which had to be rectified. This should have been done by the Appellate Tribunal in exercise of the powers vested in it u/s 254(2) read with section 154 of the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Tribunal was directed to dispose of the application for rectification in the light of section 254(2) read with section 154 of the Income tax Act and in accordance with the law.” 7. Further, lately, vide order dated 24.11.14, passed in CWP Nos. 2548, 2722 and 2152 of 2014, in the case of ‘Supreme Industries Ltd. vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax and Others’, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal’, 1980 SCC 420, while dealing with a similar situation, though under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, that: ITA No.95/Jodh/2023 Sudiva Spinners Private Limited 15 “12. It is a settled position in law that every authority exercising quasi judicial powers has inherent/incidental power in discharging of its functions to ensure that justice is done between parties i.e. no prejudice is caused to any of the parties. This power has not to be traced to any provision of the Act but inheres in every quasi judicial authority. This has been so held by the Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal 1980 SCC 420. Therefore, the aforesaid principle of law should have been adopted by the Tribunal. It is expected from the Tribunal to adopt a justice oriented approach and not defeat the legitimate rights o the altar of procedures and technicalities. This is particularly so when there is no specific bar in the Act to correct an order passed on rectification. 13. It is fundamental principle of law that no party should be prejudiced on account of any mistake in the order of the Tribunal. Though not necessary for the disposal of this Petition, we express our disapproval of the stand taken in the impugned order that section 254(2) of the Act are meant only for rectifying the mistakes of the Tribunal and not of the parties. The Tribunal and the parties are not adversarial to each other. In fact, the Tribunal and the parties normally represented by Advocates/Chartered Accountants are comrades in arms to achieve justice. Therefore, a mistake from any source be it-the parties or the Tribunal so long as it becomes a part of the record, would require examination by the Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Act. It cannot be dismissed at the threshold on the above ground.” 8. Thus, this issue, it is seen, has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by various Hon’ble High Courts ITA No.130(Asr)/2014 C.O.Nos. 10 & 11(Asr)/2014 11 across the country. The Department has not been able to cite any decision to the contrary. Thus, the legal position in this regard is unanimous and there is no divergence or cleavage of opinion interse amongst the Courts with regard thereto.” ITA No.95/Jodh/2023 Sudiva Spinners Private Limited 16 17. Similar stand has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT as mentioned below:  PCIT Vs. Nitin Spinners Ltd. (130 taxmann.com 402) (SC)  M/s B. R. Agrotech Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 6244 to 6247/Del/2019, order dated 02.09.2021  DCIT Vs. Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills in ITA No. 130/Asr./2014, order dated 16.01.2015  M/s Nulux Engineers Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 2073/Mum/2017, order dated 05.10.2018  M/s Sudiva Spiners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 65 & 66/Jodh/2018 18. Since, the matter stands covered by the orders of the Co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal and also by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18/01/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Vice President Accountant Member Dated: 18/01/2024 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR