SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

CO 36/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals and cross-objections by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) concerning the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2017-18. The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment order under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent deductions claimed by SIDBI for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) and section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Tribunal examined the provisions of the Act, previous assessments, and the claims made by SIDBI, ultimately finding that the reassessment was not justified and that the deductions claimed were in accordance with the law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36665 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Catholic Syrian Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Thrissur, State Bank of Travancore vs. Addl. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHESH AKHADE; DR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH JOSHI; AR
• Keywords: Business income; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Revised return; Reassessment proceedings; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 142(1); 263; 115JB

Judgement Text

"| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण \fा यपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3164/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 3161/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & I.T.A. No. 3157/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income tax, Circle -3(3)(1), Mumbai Vs Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai SME Development Centre C-11, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East Maharashtra - 400051 [PAN: AABCS3480N] अपीला थ\u0016/ (Appellant) \u0017\u0018 यथ\u0016/ (Respondent) C.O. No. 36/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 C.O. No. 37/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & C.O. No. 11/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai SME Development Centre C-11, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East Maharashtra - 400051 [PAN: AABCS3480N] Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income tax, Circle -3(3)(1), Mumbai अपीला थ\u0016/ (Appellant) \u0017\u0018 यथ\u0016/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/R Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Akhade, CIT D/R I.T.A. No. 3164/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 36/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3161/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 37/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3157/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 11/Mum/2024 2 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 05/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: The captioned appeals and cross-objections by the revenue and the assesse are preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) pertaining to AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18. 2. This bunch of appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Since the underlying facts are identical in the captioned appeals and cross-objections, we have heard the representatives on the facts of AY 2013-14. 4. C.O. No. 36/Mum/2024 by the assessee challenges the validity of the assessment order framed u/s 147 of the Act and since it goes to the root of the matter, we decided to adjudicate the challenge first. 5. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused and the relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in the light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules, 1963. 6. Vide notice dated 26/03/2021 issued u/s 148 of the Act, the AO initiated reassessment proceedings. The reasons for reopening are as under:- “In this case, return of income was filed on 28.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 1602,66,91,910/-under normal provisions. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return on 24.02.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 1609,22,64,610/-. Assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) dt 17.02.2016 determining total income at Rs. 17164856295/- under normal provisions and Rs.2048,33,02290/- u/s 115JB of the Act. I.T.A. No. 3164/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 36/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3161/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 37/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3157/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 11/Mum/2024 3 Perusal of the records show that assessee vide Note 4 to the computation of income revealed that assessee made provisions for bad and doubtful debts during the year at rs.350,08,52,591/- net of provision writtenback of Rs.68,85,74,6121-/. Under 36(1)(viia) (c) of teh Act, any provision made towards bad and doubtful debts is deductible subject to 5% of the total income. Accordingly a provision of Rs.84,69,61,296/- is claimed under the said section. It is noticed that the department had from AY 2002-03 onwards, when the profits and gains of the assessee became taxable, allowed the provision for bad and doubtful debts made by the assessee in the books of account subject to limit of 5% of total income in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1) (viia)(c) of the Act. Section 36(1)(viia)(c) provides that an assessee being a public financial institution or a state financial corporation or a state industrial investment corporation is eligible for deduction in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts made subject to limit of 5% of total income. As stated above, the department has allowed deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) in every assessment year. In addition to this, the department also allowed the claim of the assessee in respect of bad debts written off u/s 36(1)(vii) without reducing the provision for bad and doubtful debts allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) in every assessment year from 2002-03 onwards. Therefore, the write back of Rs.68,85,74,612/- on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts claimed by the assessee as deduction is out of the provisions allowed u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) in earlier assessment years is not eligible for deduction. This has resulted in under assessment of income to the tune of Rs.68,85,74,612/-. Thus, there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year under consideration as the assessee has claimed excess deduction of Rs.68,85,74,612/-. Therefore, the conditions for initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are fulfilled in this case and accordingly, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of Income Tax Act, 1961, in order to frame proper assessment to bring to tax the amount of Rs.68,85,74,612/- which has escaped assessment. Accordingly, I hereby reopen the assessment by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the year under consideration.” 7. During the course of original assessment proceedings, vide notice dated 01/01/2016 u/s 142(1) of the Act, the AO issued a questionnaire and the relevant questions read as under:- “1. Please refer to Note 25 to revised computation & your reliance on the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Thrissur. It is seen from the judgment that ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is not applicable in your case as provisions of clause (viia) (c) of subsection 1 of Sec.36 applies to this case and the deduction cannot exceed the bad debts actually written off in the books of account of the previous year. Further, in term of section I.T.A. No. 3164/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 36/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3161/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 37/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3157/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 11/Mum/2024 4 36(2)(v) which provides that in cases where clause (viia) of sub section 1 applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such bad debt or part of bad debt in that previous year to the provision for bad & doubtful debts account made under that clause. Further, with respect to your without prejudice, claim that there is no credit balance available in Provisions for bad & doubtful accounts to be set off against bad debts written off, it is observed that whenever bad debts was more than the credit balance, the entire bad debts was allowed as deduction. Hence, question of having a debit balance in the provision for bad debts and doubtful debt account does not arise at all. You are therefore requested to make your submissions & explain as to why deduction claimed of R 293.24 crores u/s.36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act should not be reduced while allowing deduction for bad debts. 2. Please explain why deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) should not be reworked after reducing the deduction allowed in preceding year under this section amounting to Rs. 82,86,76,553/-.” 8. Vide letter dated 15/01/2016, the assessee replied to the queries raised by the AO (supra) and the relevant reply reads as under:- “2. Your goodself has asked (Refer point no. 283 of the notice) as lo why deduction claimed of Rs. 293.24 crores u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act, should not be reduced while allowing deduction for bad debts write off. In this regard it is submitted that assessee has claimed Rs. 78.75 crores (78,75,89,112) as deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) in it's revised return of income for AY 2012-13. As such observation of your goodself in the notice at point no. 2 that Rs. 293.24 crores has been claimed as deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) be read as Rs. 78.75 crores for AY 2012-13. In view of the above we have to submit that the entire claim for bad debts write off is allowable to the assessee in light of detailed note enclosed on applicability of proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(1)(vita)(c) of the Act as Annexure 2 for your kind perusal. Your goodself will appreciate that assessee has rightly claimed deductions for bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) and deduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act, for the reasons explained in the above note.” 9. After satisfying himself, the AO framed assessment u/s 143(3) vide order dated 17/02/2016. The relevant observations of the AO reads as under:- “5. The assessee, for year under consideration, has claimed deduction of bad debts amounting to 2293.24,11,474 from its computation of income u/s.36(1)(vii) read with section 36121 of the Act. In addition, the assessee has claimed an amount of 84,69,61,296, being provision for bad and doubtful debts u/S. 36(2) (via)(c) of the Act @ 5% of total income as per its computation of income. I.T.A. No. 3164/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 36/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3161/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 37/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3157/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 11/Mum/2024 5 6. Under section 36(1)(vii), the amount of any debt or part thereof, which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year is to be allowed as a deduction while computing total income. Proviso to section 36(1)(vii) provides as \"provided that in the case of an assessee to which clause (via) applies, the amount of deduction relating to any such debt or part thereof shall be limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that clause.\" 7. Section 36(2)(v) of the Act provides that in cases where clause (via) of subsection 1 applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such bad debt or part of bad debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that clause. 8. The assessee is a public financial institution and eligible for allowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s.36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act of an amount not exceeding of provision for bad debts actually written off, subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions and limit. 9. The assessee has maintained its accounts as per Company's Act and RBI Guidelines prescribed for the class of financial institutions to which the assessee belongs. The assessee, as per prescribed accounting policies and guidelines, has debited provision for bad and doubtful debts to its P&L account. However, for the purpose of Income tax computation, the assessee has disallowed provision for bad & doubtful debts account in its computation of income and claimed following two deductions towards the same: (i）Bad Debts written off - 7293,24,11,474 (ii) Provision for bad & doubtful debts ul/s. 36(1)(viia)(c) - 284,69,61,296 10. The above claim of the assesste, however, was found to be not in accordance with provisions of sections 36(1)(vii), 36(1)(viia)(c) & 36(2)(v) of the Act vis-à-vis deduction allowed to the assessee in the preceding years on those accounts. On perusal of assessee's case records for A.Y. 2012-13, it was observed that the assessee has been allowed deduction u/s.36(1)(viia)(c) of 782,86,76,553 for that assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13. The aforesaid allowance was in addition to deduction allowed for bad debts actually written off u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act for that year. This implies that for year ended 31.03.2012 relevant to A.Y.2012-13, the assessee has credit balance of 282,86,76,553 in provision for bad & doubtful account allowed u/s. 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act 11. In view of the above facts and specific provisions of the Act, the assessee, while claiming allowance for bad debts written off during the year, was required to debit the actual bad debt account to provision for bad debts account allowed u/s. 36(1)(via)(c) of as stipulated in section 36(2)(v) of the Act and also the provision for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia)(c), which is limited to 5% of the total income before making any deduction under Chapter-VIA. 12. The assessee, however, did not act in accordance with the above provisions of the Act and claimed excess allowance for bad debts u/s. 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2)(v) of the Act. The assessee accordingly, during the course of assessment proceedings, was requested to furnish the reason for allowability of its claim. I.T.A. No. 3164/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 36/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3161/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 37/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3157/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 11/Mum/2024 6 13. The assessee, accordingly, vide Notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 01.01.2016, was requested to explain and make submission on the following: \"Please refer to Note 25 to revised computation & your reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank v CIT, Thrissur. It is seen from the judgment that ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable in your favour as provisions of clause (via)(c) of subsection 1 of section 36 applies to this case and the deduction cannot exceed the bad debts actually written off in the books of account of the previous year. Further in terms of section 36(2)(u) which provides that in cases where clause (viia) of subsection 1 applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such bad debt or part of bad debt in that previous year to the provision for bad & doubtful debts account made under that clause. Further with respect to your, without prejudice, claim that there is no credit balance available in Provisions for bad & doubtful accounts to be set off against bad debts written off, it is observed that whenever bad debts was more than the credit balance, the entire bad debts was allowed as deduction. Hence, question of having a debit balance in the provision for bad debts and doubtful debt account does not arise at all. You are therefore requested to make your submissions & explain as to why deduction claimed of 293.24 crores u/s. 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act should not be reduced while allowing deduction for bad debts. Please explain why deduction u/S.36(1)(wiia)(c) should not be reworked after reducing deduction allowed in preceding year under this section amounting to 82,86, 76,553.\" 14. The assessee, in response to the above, replied vide its letter dated 15.01.2016. The relevant extract of assessee's submissions is as under: 1.1 During the captioned assessment year, assessee has written off bad debts of R293,24,11,474 as irrecoverable in the accounts and has claimed the deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) in the Return of Income after fulfilling all the conditions prescribed under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) and proviso to section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. --- 1.4 The proviso to section 36(1)(vii) is applicable to the case of a bank to which clause (via) applies. Clause (viia) of section 36(1) applies only to rural advances. In the instant case the assessee is a public financial institution and the advances written off in the accounts represents urban advances. Thus, the sub-clause (c) of section 36(1)(viia) is applicable to the assessee. Therefore, the claim for bad debts in the assessee's case is not affected, controlled or limited in any way by the proviso to clause (vii). I.T.A. No. 3164/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 36/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3161/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 37/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3157/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 11/Mum/2024 7 In this regard it is submitted that recently Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian bank Ltd. v. CIT (Civil Appeal No.: 1143 of 2011) has held that proviso to section 36(1)(viia) applies to rural advances only by observing that: \"However, the Revenue disputes the position that the proviso to clause (vi) refers only to rural advances. It says that there are no such words in the proviso which indicates that the proviso apply only to rural advances. We find no merit in the objection raised by the Revenue. Firstly, CBDT itself has recognized the position that a bank would be entitled to both the deduction, one under clause (vii) on the basis of actual write off and another, on the basis of clause (via) in respect of a mere provision. Further, to prevent double deduction, the proviso to clause (vii) was inserted which says that in respect of bad debts) arising out of rural advances, the deduction on account of actual write off would be limited to the excess of the amount written off over the amount of the provision allowed under clause (viia). Thus, the proviso to clause (vii) stood introduced in order to protect the Revenue. It would be meaningless to invoke the said proviso where there is no threat of double deduction. In case of rural advances, which are covered by the provisions of clause (viia), there would be no such double deduction. The proviso limits its application to the case of a bank to which clause (viia) applies. Clause (viia) applies only to rural advances. (Emhasis Supplied) 1.5. Thus, as submitted above the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) is not applicable to the assessee in view of SC decision in case of Catholic Syrian bank Ltd. v. CIT (Civil Appeal No.: 1143 of 2011). However, we would like to submit that even otherwise the benefit of full deduction has been rightly claimed by the assessee as there is an opening debit balance in the account of provision of bad and doubtful debts. 1.5.1 In terms of provisions of section 36(1)(viia)(c), assessee has credited the amount of provision for bad and doubtful debts allowed under the said section to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account. In terms of section 36(2)(v) of the Act, assessee has also debited the said account with the amount of bad debts written off in each year which is reproduced below: *********** *********** *********** Thus, from the above it will be seen that provision for bad and doubtful debts allowed under clause (viia)(c) to section 36(1) has been reduced and considered to arrive at the net credit or debit balance in that I.T.A. No. 3164/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 36/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3161/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 37/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3157/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 11/Mum/2024 8 account. As a result there is an opening debit balance of R1345.49 crore as on 01.04.2012. Thus, there is no credit balance in the Provision for bad and doubtful debts account. Therefore the entire bad debt written off is allowable as deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The above contention is supported by the decision in the case of State Bank of Travancore u/s Addl. CIT (ITA Nos. 465 & 466/ COCH/ 1998) A. Y 1994-95 & 95-96 dated 13.08.2003, ii) State Bank of Travancore v/s Addl. Commissioner of Income tax (Asst), Spi Range, Trivandrum (AY 1996-97) dated 8/11/1999. in view of the above facts and judicial decisions it will be appreciated that in the instant case proviso to section 36(1)(vii) is not applicable. 15. The above submissions of the assessee have been considered carefully, however, found to be not acceptable in view of the facts of the case vis-à-vis specific provisions of the Act governing the claim of the assessee. It is not in dispute that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) as well as u/s.36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. However, the limit for allowance is that the amount of deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) shall not exceed the amount by which's such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in provision for bad & doubtful debt u/s.36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act. As already discussed above, for the accounting year 2011-12 relevant to assessment year 2012-13, the assessee was allowed deduction for bad debt written off and also allowed provision for bad & doubtful debt @ 5% of total income i.e. amount of R82,86,76,553. Therefore, there was credit balance of 782,86,76,553 in Provision for bad & doubtful debt account u/s. 36(1)(via)(c) of the Act, which the assessee did not reduce while claiming bad debt written off account for current assessment year. 16. Reliance placed by the assessee on its own case for A.Y. 2004-05 is not applicable to facts of this year. The undisputed fact is that provision u/s. 36(1)(viia)(c) allowed for A.Y. 2011-12 was in addition to bad debts actually written off account and therefore there is opening credit balance in said provision account for current assessment year. Further, the above issue also received attention of the CIT-3, Mumbai directed that the deduction allowed to the assessee u/s. 36(1)(viia)(c) for A.Y.2006-07 be reduced from the claim of bad debts allowable to the assessee for A.Y. 2007-08. The relevant portion of the order of the CIT passed u/s. 263 is reproduced here under: \"5.2 It is seen that in the assessment order for A Y.2006-07 deduction of Rs.17,91,12,770 was allowed u/s.36(1)(viia). However, this amount is not reduced by the AO while allowing deduction for the bad debts in the assessment year under consideration. Thus, the AO has not considered bad debts allowed as deduction while arriving at the year end balance. Debit balance in the provision for bad debts and doubtful debt account can arise only when bad debts is more than the credit balance. Whenever bad debts was more than the credit balance, the entire bad debts was allowed as deduction to the assessee. Hence, I.T.A. No. 3164/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 36/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3161/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 37/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3157/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 11/Mum/2024 9 question of having a debit balance in the provision for bad debts and doubtful debt account does not arise at all. Further, debit balance in the provision for doubtful debt account cannot be allowed to be carried forward for the simple reason that bad debts pertaining to year older than previous year cannot be allowed in the assessment. CBDT has issued instruction No. 17/2008 under File No. 228/3/2008-ITA-II on 26.11.2008 wherein it was clearly stated that while allowing bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii), opening credit balance available as on 1st April of the respective accounting year should be reduced.\" 17. From the above it is clear that in the present assessment order the deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia)(c) of 282,86,76,553 allowed to the assessee for A.Y.2012-13 has to be reduced from the bad debt in the present assessment year. In view of the above discussions, it is held that the sum of Rs.32,86,76,553 is to be reduced from the claim of bad debts of the assessed. Accordingly, an addition of 782,86,76,553 is being made to the business income.” 9. It can be seen from the above that specific queries were raised to which specific answers were given by the assessee which was duly verified by the AO who based his findings on the facts of AY 2004-05 which has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA Nos.4045, 4047 & 4048/Mum/2011 vide order dated 23/03/2018. 10. Similarly, on reopening of the completed assessments, in AY 2015- 16, the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1809/Mum/2023 vide order dated 26/02/2024, had considered identical reasons for reopening and held as under:- “8. We have thoroughly considered the submissions of both the sides' alongwith original assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and found that issue under consideration for the purposes of section 148 was discussed and deliberated in length. Further, there was no concealment or escapement of information on the part of the assessee. The AO was well versed and have full access to the information relevant for assessment. Rather, he himself calculated the figure of deduction and certain changes were incorporated in the order. In view of the above, case of the revenue is not sustainable as there is no fault at the end of the assessee and the AO already applied his mind during the assessment proceedings. This action of AO u/s. 147 of the Act will tantamount to change of opinion which is not permissible on the given set of facts. Grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.” I.T.A. No. 3164/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 36/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3161/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 37/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 3157/Mum/2023; C.O. No. 11/Mum/2024 10 11. Finding parity of facts on both counts i.e., on reopening of the assessment and on merits of the additions, we find that the quarrel has been settled by the Co-ordinate Bench (supra). We, therefore, have no hesitation in not only quashing the assessment order but also for the sake of completeness, the quantum addition made by the AO stands deleted and to that extent order of the ld. CIT(A) is upheld. 12. In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 5th February, 2025 at Mumbai. Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) VICE-PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 05/02/2025 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs आदेश की \u0015ितिलिप अ\u001aेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u001c / The Appellant 2. \u0015\u001dथ\u001c / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु\" ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \u0015ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 6. गाड& फाई/ Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Mumbai "