ZEE MARKETING (GUJ.) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD V. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 20/AHD/2023

AI Insights

This case involves cross appeals by Zee Marketing (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), against the order of the CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The appeals arose from a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which included the premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made protective additions and disallowances based on incriminating documents and non-search issues, which were contested in the appeals. The Tribunal's decision addressed the validity of these additions and disallowances, leading to a partial allowance for the assessee and dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779675 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALPESH PARMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: HEM CHHAJED
• Keywords: Set aside; Depreciation; Document seized; Documents seized; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 132; 153A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.20/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Zee Marketing (Guj.) Private Limited, 304, Aakansha Building, Opp. Vadilal House, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009. (Gujarat) [PAN – AAACZ 0627 K] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(1), 303, Third Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashram Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009. (Gujarat) IT(SS)A No.28/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(1), 303, Third Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashram Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009. (Gujarat) Vs. Zee Marketing (Guj.) Private Limited, 304, Aakansha Building, Opp. Vadilal House, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009. (Gujarat) [PAN – AAACZ 0627 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hem Chhajed, AR Revenue by Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 16.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.20/Ahd/2023 & 28/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Zee Marketing (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Page 2 of 14 O R D E R PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These cross appeals are filed by the assessee and Revenue respectively against the order of the CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad dated 23.12.2022 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 in the proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 26.10.2017 declaring NIL income. A search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Sethna Group on 29.11.2016 and the premises of the assessee company was also covered in the search. The Assessing Officer had initiated the assessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s 153A of the Act on 12.05.2017. In the course of search, certain incriminating documents were found, based on which the Assessing Officer had made protective addition of Rs.217,28,43,376/- in the hands of the assesses. Further, certain disallowance was also made in respect of non-search issues. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153B of the Act on 30.12.2018 at a total income of Rs.217,36,30,420/-. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. Now, both the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before us. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.20/Ahd/2023 & 28/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Zee Marketing (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Page 3 of 14 IT(SS)A No.20/Ahd/2023 4. We will first take up the appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee had raised the following grounds in this appeal:- “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against law, equity & justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding disallowance of travelling expenses of Rs.1,02,678/-. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of 94,140/- as power and fuel expense. 4. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” 5. The first ground taken by the assessee is general in nature and is dismissed. 6. The second ground pertains to disallowance of travelling expenses of Rs.1,02,678/-. The Assessing Officer had noted that the travelling expenses of Rs.1,08,678/- shown by the assessee was in respect of travels undertaken by Shri Tehmul B. Sethna, the Director, to Delhi and Mumbai. The Assessing Officer had observed that the assessee was not having any business or clients at Delhi or Mumbai and that the income of the assessee was in the nature of professional receipts from Ahmedabad based companies only. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of the assessee which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Shri Hem Chhajed, Ld. AR of the assessee summited that the entire travelling expenses were in respect of Shri Tehmul B. Sethna who was a Director of the assessee company and that the expenses were duly supported with bills and vouchers and the payments were also made Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.20/Ahd/2023 & 28/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Zee Marketing (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Page 4 of 14 through bank accounts. Therefore, the AO was not correct in making the disallowance of the entire travelling expense. He submitted that the Director had to undertake the travels in order to promote the business. 8. Per contra, Shri Alpesh Parmar, Ld. CIT- DR submitted that the assessee had failed to co-relate the expenses with the business exigencies. He further submitted that Shri Tehmul B. Sethna was also working as partner of M/s. Apaji Amin & Co. and whether the tours were undertaken for the purpose of company’s affairs or for the own business of the Director or for the firm’s business affairs, was not explained by the assessee company. He, therefore, justified the order of the lower authorities. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. It is true that apart from being Director of the assessee Company, Shri Tehmul B. Sethna was also carrying on his own business adventure and also looking after the affairs of another concern M/s. Apaji Amin & Co. Therefore, the onus was on the assessee to substantiate that the travel expenses incurred by Shri Tehmul B. Sethna, were laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business affairs of the assessee company only. Merely because the traveling expenses were supported with bills and vouchers, does not substantiate the rationale of the expenses. At the same time, the disallowance of the entire travelling expenses by the AO also cannot be justified. In the interest of justice, we, therefore, deem it proper to restrict the disallowance to 50% of the claim. Accordingly, the disallowance in respect of travelling expense is restricted to Rs.51,339/-. The ground taken by the assessee is partly allowed. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.20/Ahd/2023 & 28/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Zee Marketing (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Page 5 of 14 10. The next ground pertains to disallowance of Rs.94,140 on account of power and fuel expenses. The assessee had claimed power and fuel expenses of Rs.2,30,070/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that the business premises of the assessee were utilised by other entities as well. The activities of Shri Tehmul B. Sethna in his individual capacity and that of M/s. Apaji Amin & Company, were more as compared to the activities of the assessee. The assessee did not furnish the rent agreement or any other document to substantiate that the power and fuel expenses were reimbursed to the assessee by the other entities who were utilising the premises. The Assessing Officer had, therefore, allocated the entire expense to four entities who were utilising the premises and accordingly addition of Rs.67,939/- was made in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) had noticed that actual power and fuel expenses incurred by the assessee was Rs.1,35,585/-, as the Assessing Officer did not consider the petrol expenses of Rs.45,000/- claimed separately. By taking into account this additional expense, the Ld. CIT(A) had enhanced the addition to Rs.94,140/- in respect of power and fuel. 11. Shri Hem Chhajed, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that this issue was already adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the A.Y. 2016-17 and the addition in respect of power and fuel expense was restricted to 10% only. 12. We have considered the submission of the assessee. Following the decision on this issue already taken in the assessee’s own case in IT(SS)A No.19/Ahd/2023 dated 08.03.2024 for A.Y. 2016-17, the addition in respect of power and fuel expense is restricted to 10% of the total expenditure on account of power & fuel (including petrol expense) Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.20/Ahd/2023 & 28/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Zee Marketing (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Page 6 of 14 incurred by the assessee. The ground taken by the assessee is partly allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. IT(SS)A No.28/Ahd/2023 14. Now we will take up the appeal filed by the Revenue. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: - “1. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of difference in closing and opening value of fixed assets of Rs.6,40,000/-. 2 In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained income (Protective addition) of Rs.1,97,17,86,816/-. 3. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained income (Protective addition) of Rs.8,00,000/-. 4. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained income (Protective addition) of Rs.20,00,00,000/-. 5. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained expenses met in cash (protective addition) of Rs.1,56,560/-. 6. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained expenses met in cash (protective addition) of Rs.1,00,000/- 7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 8. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.” Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.20/Ahd/2023 & 28/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Zee Marketing (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Page 7 of 14 15. The first ground pertains to addition of Rs.6,40,000/- on account of difference in closing and opening value of fixed assets. The Assessing Officer had noticed that the closing balance of the asset as on 31.03.2016 was Rs.11,36,199/ whereas the opening value of the asset as on 01.04.2016 was Rs.15,36,199/-. The assessee had explained that there was an addition of Rs.4,00,000/- in the fixed asset during the year. However, as there was no separate column in the ITR form to account for this addition, the opening balance as on 01.04.2016 was reflected at Rs.15,36,199/- after taking into account the addition during the year. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the explanation of the assessee and the difference of Rs.4,00,000/- was added to the income of the assessee. Further, depreciation of Rs.2,40,000/- claimed on this addition to asset was also disallowed. The Ld. CIT(A) had, however, deleted the additions after considering the explanation of the assessee. 16. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer, whereas, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition. 17. We have considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute to the proposition that the closing balance of the asset as on 31.03.2016 should appear as opening balance as on 01.04.2016. The difference of Rs.4,00,000/- in the case of the assessee, was duly explained. The assessee has submitted that there was no separate column in the ITR form to reflect the addition of assets made during the year and, therefore, the asset purchased during the year was added to the opening balance. This contention of the assessee has not been controverted by the Revenue. Further, the fact that the assessee had acquired fixed assets Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.20/Ahd/2023 & 28/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Zee Marketing (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Page 8 of 14 of Rs,.4,00,000/- in the form of computer software has also not been disputed. The Ld. CIT(A) had given a categorical finding in this regard after verifying the bills and the payments made by the assessee. The assessee had thus not only explained the difference in the figure of opening and closing value of the asset but the depreciation on the computer software purchased during the year was also rightly claimed. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition of Rs.6,40,000/- in respect of difference in the value of fixed assets and the depreciation thereon. We don’t find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground as taken by the Revenue is dismissed. 18. The ground nos.2 to 6 taken by the Revenue pertain to protective additions made on the basis of seized documents. In the course of search, certain documents were seized from the office premises of Shri Tehmul B. Sethna. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had explained that the documents were seized from the office of M/s Apaji Amin & Co. LLP, the tenant, which was located at the same premises. It was submitted that those documents can be explained only by Shri Tehmul B. Sethna as partner of the said LLP. The Assessing Officer, on the basis of the seized documents, had made protective additions of Rs.217,28,43,376/- in the hands of the assessee company. The Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the entire protective addition for the reason that no substantive addition in this respect was made in the hand of the Shri Tehmul B. Sethna or any other entity. 19. Shri Alpesh Parmar, Ld. CIT-DR was unable to controvert the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of deletion of all protective additions. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.20/Ahd/2023 & 28/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Zee Marketing (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Page 9 of 14 20. On the other hand, Shri Hem Chhajed, Ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the protective addition when no substantive addition was made in the hands of any other person. He further submitted that the documents based on which protective additions were made, didn’t pertain to the assessee at all. 21. We have carefully gone through the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The undisputed fact is that the seized documents, on the basis of which protective additions were made in the case of the assessee, were seized from the premises of Shri Tehmul B. Sethna. Though Shri Tehmul B. Sethna was a Director of the assessee company, he was also running his individual business from the same premises and also working as partner of M/s. Apaji Amin & Company LLP, which was also operating from the same premises. In the course of assessment, the assessee had clarified that it was not concerned at all with the documents seized from the possession of M/s. Apaji Amin & Co. LLP and that those documents will be explained by Shri Tehmul B. Sethna in his capacity as partner of the said LLP. The Assessing Officer, in the assessment order, had recorded the following reason for making the protective addition in the hands of the assessee. “15. Sh. Tehmul B Sethna director of the assessee company was also covered in search u/s.132. In his submissions in his own case as well as in the case of the company Sh. Sethna has clearly stated that all the documents and digital data seized from the premises of the assessee company pertains to him and he is filing reply on the issues emanating from the same no substantial addition on the same is required in the hands of the assessee. However, in order to protect the interest of revenue protective addition in the hands of the assessee is being made as per discussion in table above.” Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.20/Ahd/2023 & 28/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Zee Marketing (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Page 10 of 14 22. The Assessing Officer had thus acknowledged that the seized documents neither pertain to the assessee nor any substantive addition was required to be made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of those documents. The protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee only to safe guard the interest of the revenue as the assessments in the case of entities to whom the documents pertained were still pending. In the course of appeal proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) had enquired about the status of substantive additions on the basis of the seized documents. The Assessing Officer vide his remand report had clarified that no substantive addition was made on the basis of the seized documents, in respect of which the protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) had, therefore, held that where no substantive addition was made, the protective addition cannot be sustained. From the discussion in respect of seized material in the assessment order, it is evident that neither the documents were seized from the premises of the assessee nor the seized documents pertained to the assessee company. Further, in the remand report the Assessing Officer had not made any request to the Ld. CIT(A) to treat the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee, as substantive addition. It is a settled principle that the protective addition cannot survive in the absence of any substantive addition in the hands of any other person. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the grounds as raised by the Revenue in respect of deletion of protective additions by the Ld. CIT(A). 23. We have noted that the present appeal in respect of deletion of protective additions, was filed by the Revenue in a very casual manner without any application of mind. Therefore, a show cause notice to be Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.20/Ahd/2023 & 28/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Zee Marketing (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Page 11 of 14 issued as to why cost should not be imposed for filing the present appeal. A copy of the order sheet note dated 14.08.2025 is reproduced below :- IT(SS)A 28/AHD/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 14.08.2025 “In this case, a search action was carried out u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of Sethna Group on 29/12/2016, wherein the Director of the assessee-company, namely Shri Tehmul Sethna was also covered. As per the Assessing Officer (AO), said Shri Tehmul Sethna had sated that all the documents digital data seized from the premises of the assessee-company pertained to him and that he would file reply on the issues emanating from the said seized material. The AO, however, had made the impugned additions in the hands of the assessee-company on protective basis. The assessee- company contested the impugned additions before the Ld. CIT(A). During the first appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from the AO. As per the report of the AO, no substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Tehmul Sethna. Since after perusal of the seized material, it was found that it was not a case of making any addition to the income of the said Shri Tehmul Sethna on substantive basis and there was not any allegation that the said documents pertain to any undisclosed income of the assessee, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the protective addition made in the case of assessee was not sustainable and deleted the addition. Now the fact in the file is that only protective additions were made in the hands of the assessee. However, no substantive addition has been made in the hands of any person. Even it is not the case of Revenue that any substantive addition is/was required to be made in the hands of the assessee. Under the circumstances, we could not get any convincing reply from the Ld. DR as to why the Revenue has come in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). This appeal as per the facts coming on record, is a frivolous appeal filed by the Revenue without application of mind by the responsible officers. It is, further, pertinent to mention here that the decision as to whether an appeal is to be filed or not has to be taken by the Department after verifications in each case, after the satisfaction/approval of the concerned Pr. CIT. The appeal by the Department cannot be filed in a casual manner, which would, otherwise, result into wastage of time and sources of the Revenue as well as of this Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that a notice to be issued to the concerned Pr. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.20/Ahd/2023 & 28/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Zee Marketing (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Page 12 of 14 CIT as to why the costs may not be imposed in filing the present appeal in a casual manner without application of mind. Let the concerned Pr. CIT file his reply/comments/personal appearance in this respect on 16/09/2025. Kept as part-heard.” 24. The Revenue vide its letter dated 15.09.2025 has furnished the following clarification in this regard: “2. In this regard, it is submitted that the assessment in the case of M/s. Zee Marketing Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2017-18 had been completed on 30.12.2018 by the DCIT, Central Circel-1(1), Ahmedabad. The case was part of Tehmul Sethna group (DOS: 29.11.2016). Shri Tehmul Sethna, a Chartered Accountant by profession was the main person of the Sethna group and a director of the company M/s. Zee Marketing Pvt Ltd. 3. From the records, it is seen that the Assessing Officer had made disallowance of travelling expense (Rs.1,02,678/-), part disallowance of Power & Fuel expense of Rs.67,939/- and had added on account of difference of closing and opening value of fixed assets (Rs.4,00,000/-), and disallowance of depreciation (Rs.2,40,000/-). 4. Apart from the non-search additions, the A.O. had made certain additions based upon the documents seized during the course of search. The A.O. has mentioned that Shri Tehmul Sethna stated that the documents and digital data seized pertained to him and that he was filing reply on the issues emanating from these documents. The assessment in the case of Shri Tehmul Sethna got extended due to special audit as well as Writ Petition filed by the assessee. The A.O. completed the assessment in the case of M/s. Zee Marketing Pvt Ltd making the addition on protective basis, indicating that the substantive addition was not required to be made in the hands of the company. 5 The assessment in the case of Shri Tehmul Sethna was completed on 31.12.2019, after the special audit. The A.O. had examined these issued during the course of the assessment proceeding of Shri Sethna. Though Certain other additions were made in the assessment order, corresponding substantive additions were not made in the hands of Shri Sethna. 6. During the appellate proceedings of the assessee company M/s. Zee Marketing Pvt. Ltd., the Ld. CIT(A) called for a Remand Report and after observing that no substantive addition had been made, deleted the protective additions in the appellate order dated 23.12.2022 made in the case of the assessee company. Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.20/Ahd/2023 & 28/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Zee Marketing (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Page 13 of 14 7. The A.O/R.H. recommended filing of second appeal on the basis that the Ld. CIT(A) had not examined the merit of the issues and since no substantive addition was made in the other case, the protective addition made in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration could have been treated as additions substantive basis. After considering of the Scrutiny Report, filing of appeal against the decision of the Ld. CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad dated 23.12.2022 was authorized by the then Pr. CIT (Central). Shri D.P. Gupta, the then Pr. CIT (Central) Ahmedabad, has since superannuated.….” 25. We are not convinced with the explanation of the Revenue. It has been stated that the appeal was recommended for the reason that the Ld. CIT(A) did not examine the merits of the issue and that the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee could have been treated as substantive addition. As already discussed earlier, it was never the case of the Revenue that the documents or the entries appearing in the documents pertained to the assessee. When the Assessing Officer himself did not discuss the merits of the addition in the assessment order, there was no occasion for the Ld. CIT(A) to examine the matter on merits. Further, in the remand report the AO did not request the Ld. CIT(A) to treat the protective additions in the hands of the assessee as substantive addition. Further, no material or evidence was brought on record to justify the protective additions in the hands of the assessee, as substantive addition. When the Revenue itself did not make any addition in the hands of the person from whom the documents were seized or in the hand of the person to whom the documents belonged; no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee company. The CBDT in its Instructions has repeatedly emphasised that filing of appeals should be decided on merits, keeping in mind the objective of reducing unnecessary litigation and providing certainty to the taxpayers. In essence, no second appeal is required to be filed if there is no merit in the case. The present appeal filed by the Revenue is found to be frivolous, without application of mind Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A Nos.20/Ahd/2023 & 28/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Zee Marketing (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Page 14 of 14 and in disregard to the instructions of CBDT. Though we are refraining from imposing any cost in the present case, the Revenue is advised to be careful in future and to file appeal strictly in accordance with the directions of the CBDT. 26. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 27. In the final result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 16th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Ahmedabad, the 16th October, 2025 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) The PCIT (4) The CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPYE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "