ITAT Nagpur Holds 115BBE 60% Rate Inapplicable to FY 2016-17

Vimal Pramodkumar Mishra Vs ITO (ITAT Nagpur)

Section 115BBE’s 60% Rate Cannot Travel Backwards — Pre-01.04.2017 Transactions Taxable at the Earlier Rate of 30%

The Nagpur Bench of the ITAT has held that the amendment enhancing the tax rate u/s 115BBE from 30% to 60%, together with the additional surcharge, cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions occurring before 01.04.2017. The Tribunal admitted the assessee’s additional legal grounds and held that the enhanced rate could not be invoked in respect of the disputed cash deposits pertaining to FY 2016-17.

The assessee, Vimal Pramodkumar Mishra, filed her return for AY 2017-18 declaring an income of ₹2,92,000. She was carrying on a small trading business and offered income on a presumptive basis u/s 44AD.

During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed cash deposits aggregating to ₹21,20,000 in the assessee’s accounts maintained with Union Bank, Bank of Maharashtra and Chitnavispura Urban Cooperative Bank.

The assessee furnished a cash-flow statement explaining the principal sources of the deposits. A sum of ₹4,25,451 represented gross receipts from her business, ₹1,65,000 represented earlier bank withdrawals, and ₹16,51,000 was stated to have been received from her father under a family arrangement.

The assessee claimed that her father owned agricultural land measuring approximately 22.748 hectares along with other co-owners and had accumulated agricultural income over the years. The sum of ₹16,51,000 was stated to have been given by him under an “Aapsi Samaj Patra” or family arrangement.

The AO was not satisfied with the explanation. He added ₹16,51,000 as unexplained money u/s 69A. He separately added the business receipts of ₹4,25,451 and the earlier withdrawals of ₹1,65,000, thereby making aggregate additions of ₹22,41,451.

The CIT(A) confirmed the additions. Before the Tribunal, the assessee raised two additional legal grounds apart from challenging the additions on merits.

The first additional ground challenged the validity of the scrutiny proceedings on the ground that the notice u/s 143(2), dated 09.08.2018, was not in the format prescribed by CBDT Instruction F.No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II, dated 23.06.2017.

The CBDT Instruction prescribed separate formats for notices involving limited scrutiny selected through CASS, complete scrutiny selected through CASS and compulsory manual scrutiny. The assessee contended that the notice issued to her merely referred to computer-aided scrutiny selection but did not specify whether the case involved limited, complete or compulsory manual scrutiny.

Reliance was placed upon Anita Garg v. ITO [2025] 180 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi-Trib.) and Hind Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 486 (Kolkata-Trib.), where assessments based upon notices not conforming to the prescribed CBDT format were quashed.

The second additional ground challenged the levy of tax at 60% and additional surcharge u/s 115BBE. The assessee contended that the deposits and underlying transactions occurred before 01.04.2017, whereas the amendment enhancing the rate from 30% to 60% took effect only from that date.

The Tribunal found that both additional grounds involved pure questions of law and could be raised at any stage. Following NTPC Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC), the grounds were admitted.

However, the challenge to the validity of the notice u/s 143(2) had never been raised before the CIT(A). The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court’s decision in Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT [2025] 171 taxmann.com 92 (Delhi) and held that it should not directly adjudicate a ground which did not arise from the order of the first appellate authority. The validity issue was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

Regarding the rate u/s 115BBE, the Tribunal relied upon the Madras High Court’s decision in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT, which held that the enhanced rate introduced with effect from 01.04.2017 was not retrospective and could not be applied to earlier transactions. Reliance was also placed upon Kandasamy Kuppuswamy v. ITO, ITA No. 2874/Chny/2024, dated 27.03.2025.

The Tribunal consequently held that the amended rate of 60% could not be invoked against the assessee for transactions occurring before 01.04.2017. The assessee thus succeeded on the second additional ground.

On merits, the assessee sought admission of additional evidence comprising Khasra records relating to the agricultural lands owned by her father and other co-owners. The records were intended to establish that the father possessed substantial agricultural land and had the capacity to give ₹16,51,000 out of accumulated agricultural income.

Since this evidence had not been produced before the CIT(A), and the foundational challenge to the notice u/s 143(2) was already being restored, the Tribunal considered it inappropriate to decide the additions on merits. If the assessee succeeded on the validity of the notice, adjudication of the factual additions would become academic.

The entire matter on merits was therefore restored to the CIT(A). The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Author’s Comments

The most significant part of the order concerns the prospective application of the enhanced section 115BBE rate. The provision is penal in its financial impact. Raising the tax from 30% to 60%, accompanied by surcharge and cess, substantially alters the assessee’s liability. In the absence of clear retrospective language, such an enhanced burden cannot ordinarily be imposed upon transactions already completed.

The order also illustrates the importance of raising jurisdictional grounds at the earliest stage. Although a pure question of law may be admitted by the Tribunal, admission does not guarantee immediate adjudication. Since the validity of the section 143(2) notice had not been examined by the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored it instead of deciding it directly.

On merits, a family arrangement and confirmation may explain the immediate source, but the assessee must also establish the giver’s financial capacity and the source in his hands. The Khasra records may prove ownership of land, but agricultural income would require supporting evidence of cultivation, crop, yield, sale and accumulation over the years.

The assessee has secured relief on the section 115BBE rate, but the additions themselves have not yet been deleted. The order merely reopens their examination. Winning the rate dispute reduces the tax burden; proving the source alone can eliminate the addition.

Cases Discussed

• Anita Garg v. ITO [2025] 180 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi-Trib.)
• Hind Ceramics (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 486 (Kolkata-Trib.)
• Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC)
• National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC)
• Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 252 ITR 482 (Delhi)
• Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT [2025] 171 taxmann.com 92 (Delhi)
• Deepak Maratha v. Union of India, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3625/2020
• S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No. 2078/2020 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 1742/2020
• Kandasamy Kuppuswamy v. ITO, ITA No. 2874/Chny/2024, dated 27.03.2025
• Shri Dilbag Singh v. ITO, ITA No. 924/CHANDI/2025, dated 01.12.2025

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT, NAGPUR BENCH

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 12.11.2025 framed by Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Chennai (ld.CIT(A)) arising out of Assessment order dated 28.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in passing the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without considering or adjudicating upon the submissions made by the Appellant, while dismissing the grounds of appeal, thereby rendering the order illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. That the learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the addition made by the learned AO, who doubted the genuineness of the transaction for the first time in the assessment order, without having raised any such objection during the course of assessment proceedings, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

2) That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,51,000/- made by learned AO, despite the Appellant discharging her onus by satisfactorily explaining the nature and source of the amount as having been received from her father out of his accumulated agricultural income, duly supported by ‘Aapsi Samaj Patra’ and confirmation.

3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,25,451/-made by learned AO by disregarding the Appellant’s submission that the said amount represented turnover of the Appellant’s business, the income of which was already declared in the income tax return. That the authorities erred in not appreciating that the same issue had been already examined and accepted in the immediately preceding assessment year and that such action of learned AO would lead to double addition of same income, which is unjust and bad-in-law.

4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,65,000/-made by learned AO by disregarding the submission of the Appellant that the same were sourced out of her past savings from her business of sale of gruh udyog items. The authorities erred in holding that the reasons for withdrawal were not provided even when it was duly submitted that the cash was held on account of her daughter’s marriage.

5) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in determining and charging interest u/s. 234A and 234B. The interest charged is improper.

6) That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal with your honor’s kind permission.”

2.1 Assessee has also additional ground which reads as under :

“The Appellant submits below for your honor’s kind consideration: as

1. Additional Ground 7:

1.1. The Appellant’s return was selected for scrutiny assessment, and a notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 09-08-2018. However, it is submitted before your honor that the above-mentioned notice u/s 143(2) is in violation of Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017 (Instruction’) issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’). Therefore, the said notice is invalid, and assessment framed pursuant thereto is vitiated in law and void ab-initio.

1.2. It is submitted before your honor that CBDT has prescribed mandatory guidelines vide the Instruction prescribing the form in which assessing officers are required to issue a notice under Section 143(2) for initiation of scrutiny assessment proceedings. As per the Instruction, three separate formats were prescribed for notice under Section 143(2) for the following cases:

a. Limited scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selected)

b. Complete scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selected)

c. Compulsory manual scrutiny

1.3. Therefore, the assessing officers are mandatorily required to follow the format prescribed under the Instruction and specify in the notice under Section 143(2) as to whether the assessment proceedings are being initiated for limited, complete or compulsory manual scrutiny. A copy of the Instruction is enclosed as (refer PB2 pages 1 to 6).

1.4. In the present case, the notice under Section 143(2) dated 09-08-2018 issued to the Appellant is not in the prescribed format and does not specify as to whether the assessment proceedings have been initiated for limited, complete or compulsory manual scrutiny. A copy of the above-mentioned notice dated 09-08-2018 is enclosed as (refer PB2 pages 7 to 10).

1.5. Since the notice under Section 143(2) dated 09-08-2018 is not in the prescribed format, it is in violation of the mandatory terms of the Instruction and hence, void in law. Accordingly, the assessment order dated 28-12-2019 emanating from such vitiated assessment proceedings is void ab initio and deserves to be quashed.

1.6. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in Anita Garg v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(4), [2025] 180 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi Trib.) [30-07-2025]/ Ι.Τ.A No.4053/Del/2024 (refer JPB pages 1 to 8), wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal has quashed the assessment order pursuant to notice issued under Section 143(2) which was not in the prescribed format as notified by the CBDT notice by holding as follows:

“9…we hold that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) dated 27.12.2019 pursuant to the notice issued u/s 143(2) dated 22.09.2018 which was not in the prescribed format as notified by the CBDT, is bad in law and void ab initio and the same is hereby quashed. The additional ground no.2 raised by the Assessee is allowed”

1.7. Further reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Hind Ceramics (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, [2025] 174 taxmann.com 486 (Kolkata Trib.) [06-05-2025] (refer JPB pages 9 to 16), the Hon’ble Tribunal took a similar view and quashed the assessment order since the notice under Section 143(2) was not in the prescribed format. Notably, the notice extracted in the said decision is identical in format and date to the notice issued in the present case. Therein, it was held as follows:

“Undisputedly the notice issued under section 143(2) dated 9-8-2018, specifies only computer aided scrutiny selection which neither mentioned it either to be a limited or a complete scrutiny nor compulsory manual scrutiny. Thus, the said notice has been issued in violation of the instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23-06-2017 issued by CBDT as noted above. The revenue authorities have to follow the instruction issued by CBDT and violation thereto would certainly render the notice as invalid with the result all the consequential proceeding would also be invalid. [Para 14)”

1.8. In light of the above, the Appellant wishes to crave the leave of this Hon’ble Tribunal to file additional ground of appeal, as ground of appeal number 7, involving a question of law as provided below:

“7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 09-08-2018 in violation of CBDT Instruction dated F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II 23.06.2017. Therefore, the said notice is invalid, and assessment framed pursuant thereto is vitiated in law, void ab-initio and liable to be quashed.”

2. Additional Ground 8:

Without prejudice to anything mentioned above, the Appellant submits as follows:

2.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Appellant was asked to explain the source of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 21,20,000/-. Herein, it is submitted that these transactions pertained to a period before 01-04-2017. Disregarding the submissions made by the Appellant, the Assessment was concluded assessment order u/s 143(3) by making an addition of Rs. 22,41,451/-by treating the same as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act. The Appellant has preferred an appeal before your honor challenging the same. on 28-12-2019 vide

2.2. However, the Appellant would like to bring your honor’s kind attention to the fact that learned AO has erred in applying amended provisions of section 115BBE thereby erroneously levying 60% of tax and 25% of surcharge to the PY 2016-17 even when the enhancement of tax under section 115BBE from 30% to 60%, together with the levy of the additional surcharge of 25%, was introduced by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 with effect from 01.04.2017. Consequently, the enhanced rate of tax under the amended provisions of section 115BBE is inapplicable to the present case and the tax liability deserves to be recomputed by applying the provisions of section 115BBE as they existed prior to the amendment. The relevant computation sheet forming part of assessment order is enclosed herewith (refer PB2 pages 13 to 16) for your kind perusal.

2.3. Reliance in this regard is placed on the latest decision of Hon’ble High Court Rajasthan in the case of Deepak Maratha v. Union of India for the same AY- AY 2017-18, D.B. civil writ petition no. 3625/2020 dated 23-03-2026 (refer JPB pages 77 to 124), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the amendment to section 115BBE enhancing the rate of tax from 30% to 60% together with the consequential surcharge is prospective in operation and cannot be applied to income pertaining to the Previous Year 2016-17. The Hon’ble High Court held that, in the absence of express retrospective language, the enhanced rate under the amended provisions of section 115BBE is applicable only from 01.04.2017 onwards and that the unamended provisions prescribing tax at 30% govern the relevant previous year.

2.4. Further reliance is placed upon Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Ltd, W.P (MD) NO. 2078 Of 2020 & W.M.P (MD) NO. 1742 Of 2020 (refer JPB pages 125 to 134), which held as follows:

“Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the revenue is empowered to impose 60% rate of tax for the transactions from 01.04.2017 onwards and not prior to the said cut-off date. And for prior transaction the revenue is empowered to impose only 30% rate of taxcut-off date….”

Relying on the same, this view has again been confirmed by:

a. Hon’ble ITAT Chennai in the case of Kandasamy Kuppusamy v/s ITO, ITA No.2874/Chny/2024 dated 27-03- 2025 (refer JPB pages 135 to 140).

b. Hon’ble ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Shri Dilbag Singh v/s ITO, ITA No.924/CHANDI/2025 dated 01-12-2025 (refer JPB pages 141 to 144).

2.5. In light of the above, the Appellant wishes to crave the leave of this Hon’ble Tribunal to file additional ground of appeal, as ground of appeal number 8, involving a question of law as provided below:

“8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in invoking and applying the amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 so as to levy tax at the enhanced rate of 60% together with the additional surcharge of 25% in respect of income pertaining to the Previous Year 2016-17, despite the amendments introduced by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 having been made effective only from 01.04.2017. The Learned Assessing Officer thus erred in giving retrospective operation to the amended provisions of section 115BBE, and consequently the tax liability deserves to be recomputed by applying the unamended provisions of section 115BBE as applicable to the relevant previous year.”

3. It is humbly submitted before your honor that the above-mentioned additional ground No. 7 and 8 raises a pure question of law requiring no fresh investigation into facts, all material necessary for its adjudication already being available on record.

4. The aforesaid additional grounds Nos. 7 and 8 could not be raised before the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or while filing the present appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal due to inadvertent omission. The omission was bona fide and neither deliberate nor intentional.

5. It is well settled that the Hon’ble Tribunal possesses ample jurisdiction under Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 to admit an additional ground raising a pure question of law, provided all material necessary for adjudication is already available on record. Reliance is respectfully placed upon the following decisions:

a. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC);

b. National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC);

c. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 252 ITR 482 (Delhi).

6. In view of the foregoing facts and the settled legal position, the additional Grounds Nos. 7 and 8 involve pure questions of law, go to the root of the matter and can be adjudicated on the basis of the material already available on record.

7. The Appellant, therefore, most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly admit the above additional Grounds Nos. 7 and 8 under Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and adjudicate the same in accordance with law, for which the Appellant shall remain most grateful.”

3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 27.03.2018 declaring income of Rs.2,92,000/-. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by validly serving statutory notices.

The assessee is claimed to have been carrying on trading business and showing income u/s.44AD of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has deposited Rs.21,20,000/- in his bank account held with Union Bank, Bank of Maharashtra and The Chitnavispura Urban Cooperative Bank. When asked about the source, assessee furnished cash flow statement and the major source therein is shown to be gross receipts from business at Rs.4,25,451/-, withdrawal from bank account at Rs.1,65,000/- and receipt against memorandum of family arrangement at Rs.16,51,000/- from his father. Assessee claims that his father is having agricultural income from 22.748 Hectare agricultural land held in co-ownership. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with these submissions and he made the addition for unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.16,51,000/- and gross receipts also added at Rs.4,25,451/- and withdrawal from bank at Rs.1,65,000/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) raising grounds only on merit against the addition made by the Assessing Officer but failed to succeed. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee firstly made arguments with regard to the additional grounds of appeal firstly claiming that reassessment proceedings are invalid as notice u/s.143(2) of the Act has not been issued in the prescribed format. Reference also made to the CBDT Instruction No.F.225/157/2017/ITA-II, dated 23.06.2017 and secondly that provisions of section 115BBE of the Act are applicable from 01.04.2017, i.e. A.Y.2018-19. On merits, ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for admission of additional evidences regarding Khasra records of the agricultural land held by assessee’s father with other co-owners placed at paper book pages 67 to 83. Reference also made to the following documents placed in the paper book in which Sl.1 to 4 are part of assessment proceedings and Sl.No.5 to 10 are part of the departmental records and Sl.No.11 is additional evidence :

INDEX TO THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED

We certify that item Nos. 1-4 are part of assessment proceedings, 5-10 are part of departmental records available from ITBA and item 11 is additional evidence.

5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also made reference to the written submissions stating that father of the assessee has accumulated agricultural income and a sum of Rs.16,51,000/- is on account of family arrangement. He submitted that assessee has disclosed it in the Income Tax Return and offered the income u/s.44AD of the Act and that against the addition of Rs.1,65,000/- he submitted that the assessee has declared income of Rs.2,51,000/- in the immediately preceeding assessment year which has been accepted in the scrutiny assessment carried out by the Assessing Officer on 21.12.2018.

6. On the other hand, ld. DR strongly objected to the admission of additional evidence submitting that the assessee has never raised this ground before ld.CIT(A) and in case the additional ground is accepted the same deserves to be remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and also an opportunity should be provided to the ld. Assessing Officer to file a Remand Report on the legal issue as well as also regarding the additional evidences filed by the assessee in the form of Khasra records of agricultural land.

7. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before me. On merits, assessee is aggrieved with various additions totalling to Rs.22,41,451/- referred (supra). Assessee also raised additional grounds challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings firstly that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act dated 09.08.2018 has not been issued in the form prescribed by. CBDT Instruction No.F.225/157/2017/ITA-II, dated 23.06.2017. I find that this legal issue has not been raised by the assessee before both the lower authorities. However, considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 282 (SC) the legal issue can be raised at any stage and therefore since the legal issues goes to the root cause of the assessment proceedings in question, I deem it appropriate to admit these additional grounds. However, since this issue was never raised before ld.CIT(A), I therefore placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT’ [2025, 171 taxmann.com 92 (Del)], wherein their Hon’ble Lordship vide para 13 have categorically held that, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed to decide the ground which did not arise from the impugned order passed by first appellate authority, irrespective of such ground was raised in first appeal or not, remit back this legal issue to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.

8. As regards the second additional ground is concerned, I find that in view of plethora of judicial precedents including the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT in Writ Petition (MD) No. 2078/2020 and WMP (MD) No.1742/2020 dated 19.11.2024 amendment in section 115BBE inserted w.e.f.01.04.2017 is not held to be retrospective and could not have been invoked in the present case. Similar view has been taken in the case of Kandasamy Kuppuswamy Vs. ITO in ITA No.2874/Chny/2024, dated 27.03.2025. Therefore, assessee succeeds on Additional Ground No.8 of appeal raised by the assessee.

9. So far as merits of the case are concerned, major amount of addition is regarding the amount claimed to have been received from family arrangement at Rs.16,51,000/- from the father of the assessee, the assessee has filed additional evidences in the form of Khasra records of agricultural land. It is the main contention of the assessee that assessee’s father owns agricultural land with other co-owners and has been earning agricultural income for past many years and that the amount has been given to the assessee under the family arrangement and it is having nexus of agricultural income earned by the assessee’s father. However, this documents has not been placed before ld.CIT(A) and also since the legal issue has already been remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A), I deem it appropriate to remit all the issues on merit also to the file of ld.CIT(A) as hearing of the issues on merit will be premature in this particular situation. I am of the opinion that the same can be dealt only after the outcome of the legal issue raised in the additional grounds of appeal because in case the assessee succeeds on the legal issue then dealing with the grounds on merit will be merely academic in nature. I therefore refrain from dealing with grounds on merit. Impugned order of ld.CIT(A) is set aside and grounds/additional of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 11th September, 2026 under Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.