Case Law Details
C.M. Jewellers Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)
Discrepancies in the silver jewellery cannot be said to be from an unexplained source as no such fact or allegation has either been made in the Survey. The discrepancy in the silver stock was in the regular course of the business of the assessee.
Facts-
The assessee was subjected to a search & seizure operation as well as survey operation u/s 132(1) and 133A of the Act on 21.03.2017. In the course of the survey it was noticed that during the demonetization period of 09.12.2016 to 30. 12.2016 the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.7,61,70,000/-in its bank. It was explained that these deposits had been made in the normal course of business and during Diwali. These were as per cash in hand shown in the books of account as on 08.11.2016.
The assessee in order to buy peace of mind agreed to make a disclosure of Rs. 3 Crores under PM Garib Kalyan Yojana and accordingly, has paid tax of Rs.1.50 Crores for this disclosure and had deposited an amount of Rs.75,000/- to the Government account as per the Scheme.
In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to explain the excess of 24.104 Kg of silver which already stood noticed in the Survey. The explanation of the assessee that it was covered under the declaration of Rs. 3 Crores was discarded. The AO treated it as an addition maintainable u/s 69A. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.
Conclusion-
Held that the assessee is dealing in gold and silver jewellery etc. and the discrepancies in the silver jewellery cannot be arbitrarily said to be from an unexplained source as no such fact or allegation has either been made in the Survey or referred to by the AO. The discrepancy in the silver stock was in the regular course of the business of the assessee.
Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Sudershan Gupta has held that If the Department does not allow the assessee to buy peace of mind, why should the assessee be bound by the offer to pay tax. The statement of surrender has got to be accepted in toto or it has got to be ignored. Thus, we find no error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 22.09.2021 of CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon pertaining to 2017-18 assessment year is assailed on the following grounds :
1. That learned CIT A has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by AO of Rs. 8,60,778/- on account of excess stock of jewelry found during survey.
2. That without prejudice to Ground No.l, learned CIT A has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by AO of Rs. 8,60,778/- u/s 69A and not under Income from Business.
3. That the learned CIT A has erred in law and facts in confirming the action of AO in making the addition of Rs. 8,60,778/- u/s 69A and applying the tax rate u/s 115BBE.
4. That learned CITA has erred on facts and in law in not considering discrepancies of stock during survey amounting Rs. 8,60,778!– against Income offered under PMGKY amounting Rs. 3,00,00,000!– to cover the discrepancies.
5. That Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or to substitute the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of case.
2. The ld. AR inviting attention to the assessment record submitted that the assessee partnership firm was subjected to a search & seizure operation as well as survey operation u/s 132(1) and 133A of the Act on 21.03.2017. It was submitted that in the course of the survey it was noticed that during the demonetization period of 09.12.2016 to 30. 12.2016 the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.7,61,70,000/-in its bank. The assessee was required to explain the same. It was submitted that it had been explained that these deposits had been made in the normal course of business and during Diwali. These were as per cash in hand shown in the books of account as on 08.11.2016. It was submitted that there were some other shortcomings also found by the Survey team including excess of silver stock as per books. In the said background, it was submitted that the assessee in order to buy peace of mind agreed to make a disclosure of Rs. 3 Crores under PM Garib Kalyan Yojana and accordingly, has paid tax of Rs.1.50 Crores for this disclosure and had deposited an amount of Rs.75,000/- to the Government account as per the Scheme. It was submitted that the AO, however, in the course of the assessment proceedings, required the assessee to explain the excess of 24.104 Kg of silver which already stood noticed in the Survey. The explanation of the assessee that it was covered under the declaration of Rs. 3 Crores was discarded. The AO treated it as an addition maintainable u/s 69A. The allegation of the AO that Section 69A was attracted was also assailed. It was submitted that it had been argued that the said provision was not attracted as the source of the same was from the very same business of the assessee and was from the profit from the unaccounted sale, if any which stood disclosed in the disclosure by the assessee. Carrying the Bench through para 4, para 6 to para 6.3 of the assessment order, attention was invited to the submissions made before the CIT(A). The submissions, it was submitted, have been extracted in para 3 to 3.8 at page 5 & 6 of the impugned order. It was submitted that these submissions have been mechanically dismissed by the CIT(A).
2.1 In the said background, the ld. AR carried the Bench through the facts available on record. Attention was invited to the synopsis of submissions available at pages 1 to 3. Copy of the surrender letter available at Paper Book page 4 was also referred so as to highlight that all the discrepancies during the survey were the basis for the surrender in order to buy peace. Thus, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was contrary to facts. For ready reference, it is extracted hereunder :
Dated : 22.03.20-17
To
Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Ambala.
Sub: Offer of Income under PMGK scheme pursuant survey/search conducted at the business premises of M/s C.M. Jewellers/C.M. sanitation Residence of Arvind Aggarwal-Sachin Aggarwal-Sangeet Aggarwal-Sandeep & other group cases.
Sir,
That pursuant to search at the residence & business premises of C.M. Jewellers group of cases, it is submitted that certain discrepancies were observed related to cash deposit/income etc. of group cases that all this issues were explained to you. However, is, order to by peace of mind and to avoid any litigation and is order to settle the group cases of the persons covered under survey/search in connection with C.M. Jewellers group, a sum of Rs. 3 Crore (three crore only) is offer under PMGK scheme. The head wise bifurcation shall be submitted within next few days. We assure to deposit the application along with deposited & tax under the scheme before 31.03.2017. This is subject to condition that no penalty & prosecutions under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be untreated against the group cases pertaining to action conducted on 21.03.2017.
Thanking you,
For C.M. Jewellers (Group cases)
Sd/-
(Sachin Aggarwal)
Sd/-
(Rohit Aggarwal)
Sd/-
(Arvind Aggarwal)
(emphasis supplied)
2.2 Copies of decisions of the ITAT Chandigarh in the cases of Famina Knit Fabs dated 8-2-2019 (Paper Book pages 9-18) and Arora Alloys Limited dated 6-11-2019 (Paper Book pages 19-25) and decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sudershan Gupta 10DTR 184 (Paper Book pages 26-29) were heavily relied upon so as to argue that Section 69 was wrongly applied on facts.
2.3 Attention was also invited to the copy of the PMGKY Deposit Scheme, 2016. Copy of the said scheme is available at pages 30 to 35. Specific attention was invited to Section 199C(1) in Chapter IXA, Taxation and Investment Regime for Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, 2016 introduced vide The Taxation Law (Second) Amendment Act, 2016 which reads as under :
“199C. (1 ) Subject to the provisions of this Scheme, any person may make, on or after the date of commencement of this Scheme but on or before a date to be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, a declaration in respect of any income, in the form of cash or deposit in an account maintained by the person with a specified entity, chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act for any assessment year commencing on or before the 1st day of April. 2017.”
2.4 Attention was also invited to the copy of the statement of Shri Sachin Aggarwal, Partner of the assessee company recorded on 22.03.2017 during the survey available at pages 36 to 44. English translation of the said submissions, it was submitted, is available at pages 45 to 48. Attention was invited to specific questions 8 and 9 at page 47. These read as under :
Q 8. It is found that after making announcement by Prime Minister you have deposited during demonetization Rs.7,61,70,000/- in demonetized currency of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 in your current A/c no. 5020001437341 with HDFC Bank, Ambala City. Kindly explain the source of such deposit and also during survey proceedings it is found that your firm has not maintained item wise stock register. Please provide the sale records for the period of October and upto 8November 2016. What would you like to say in this context?
Ans 8. Out of above mentioned Rs. 7,61,70,000!– some cash was available in hand on account of cash sales made during Diwali festival and same is duly reflected in books of accounts on 08.11.2016 as opening balance and some cash is unexplained which we are not able to explain. That to buy peace of mind I declare Rs. 3,00,00,000!– as income under Prime Minister gareeb Kalyan Yojna and promise to pay tax on such income in due course and details of same will be provided in due course.
Q 9. At the time of survey at your premises M!S CM Jewelers, physical stock of gold jewelry has been valued by registered valuer at Rs. 11,61,84,851!– and silver jewelry stock at Rs. 18,04,073!– however you have stock of Rs. 109134044!– as per your books of accounts dated 07.03.2017. What would you say about the excess stock of Rs. as per your books?
Ans 9. I want to tell you that sale bills after 03.03.2017 are not entered in the books of accounts. Above mentioned sales bill no. 637 to 663 are presented before your honor and also three purchase bills are not entered in the books, details of which have already been provided to you above.
2.5. Inviting attention to Circular No. 2 of 2017 dated 18.01.2017 available at pages 60 to 63 which is copy of the Clarification on Taxation and Investment Regime for PMGKY argued that the tax authorities have incorrectly interpreted the Scheme as the shortfall in the silver stock was explained as sale outside the books of account and the profit therein stood covered under the Scheme. Reliance was also placed upon Circular 9 of 2017 dated 14.03.2017, copy of which is available at Paper Book page 64 which is again Clarification on Taxation and Investment Regime for PMGKY. It was explained that the profits from the said sale were available in the form of cash and as such is covered by the Scheme. Para 2 addressing the background addressed in para 3 by the CBDT to clarify the doubts was heavily relied upon. For the sake of completeness, it is reproduced hereunder :
2. Subsequent to issuance of the said circular, representations have been received from various stakeholders seeking clarification as to whether the deposits made in bank account or cash in hand which are eligible for being declared under the Scheme should exist on the date of filing of declaration under die Scheme.
3. In this context, it is clarified that where the undisclosed income is represented in the form of deposits in an account maintained with a specified entity, it is not necessary that the said deposits should exist on the date of making payments under the Scheme or furnishing a declaration under the Scheme. However, where the undisclosed income is represented in the form of cash, it is clarified that such cash should exist on die date of making payment of tax, surcharge and penalty under the Scheme or on die date of making deposit under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Deposit Scheme, 2016, whichever is earlier.
2.6 Attention was also invited to Paper Book page 49 to 59 to show the entries passed by the assessee in its books of account to support its argument that the addition on facts was wrongly sustained. Paper Book pages 49 to 57, it was submitted, is a copy of the Trading, Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet for the year ending 31.03.2017. specific attention was invited to page 59 of the same which was a copy of the receipt voucher No. 740 dated 31.03.2017 in the books of account of the assessee. Attention was invited to Paper Book page 58 which showed the position for the stock of silver and silver ornaments in the Trading Account as on 21.03.2017 i.e. for the period 01.04.2016 to 21.03.2017 vis-à-vis Trading Account post survey i.e. 22.03.2017 to 31.03.2017. Referring to these, it was submitted that it would show that in the Opening Stock for silver ornaments, the figure remains the same i.e. Rs. 8,28,952.20. Attention was invited to Paper Book page 51 to 52 to show that the amount of silver also reflected in the balance sheet remained the same. Accordingly, it was submitted that the doubts addressed by the Circular No. 9 of 2017 were clarified in para 3 and the entries in the Books of Account of the assessee are in alignment with the Scheme. For ready reference, the receipt voucher heavily relied upon at Paper Book page 59 is extracted hereunder also for completeness:
2.7 Accordingly, it was his submission that the position of law has incorrectly been considered by the CIT(A). Reliance was placed upon decision of the Chandigarh Bench dated 22.05.2018 in the case of DCIT Vs Marshal Machines Pvt. Ltd. 2018(5) TMI 1872 and Gaurish Steels Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 43 ITR (Trib) 414 (ITAT Chandigarh). Copies available at pages 65 to 74 and 75 to 81 of Paper Book.
2.8 In the said factual background it was vehemently submitted that the cash deposits made by the assessee, though questioned in the demonetization period were regular deposits of the assessee in the regular course of business during Diwali and excess silver jewellery also stood covered therein. The assessee has offered these under the Scheme and the excess in the silver stock noticed by the Survey Team also stood covered therein. The treatment given in the books of account of the assessee, it was argued is supported by the Scheme. Accordingly, it was his submission that the addition on facts was incorrectly made and sustained.
3. The ld. Sr.DR relied upon the impugned order. Specific attention was invited by him to the assessment order para 4 which addressed the background of the deposit. It was stated that it was due to cash deposited in the bank during the specific demonetization period. Para 6.1 and 6.2 referring to the present addition made on account of excess in silver stock, it was submitted, elaborates this. Accordingly, heavy reliance was also placed upon the impugned order in support of the addition. The case law relied upon by the assessee, it was submitted, is not applicable. The issue, it was submitted, is very fact specific. The decision of the Chandigarh Bench in the case of Famina Knit Fabs (supra) it was submitted, has been considered in M/s Arora Alloys (supra) which also has been relied upon by the ld. AR. The decisions are distinguishable as therein the sources stood explained. However, in the facts of the present case, those decisions have no role to play. Similarly in the case of M/s Marshal Machines (supra), it was submitted that the source stood explained as it was coming from the business. Similar was the position in the case of Gaurish Steels P.Ltd. V ACIT 2015(11)TMI 631 at pages 75 to 81 of the Paper Book wherein at page 79 para 15, it has specifically been noticed that the AO did not bring on record the fact that income surrendered during the course of survey was not out of the business of the assessee. In the facts of the present case, it was her submission that the AO has noticed the shortcoming on the part of the assessee which has been upheld by the CIT(A).
3.1 Heavy reliance was placed on Kantilal Chandulal & Co.1982, 136 ITR 889 (Cal).
4. The ld. AR in reply submitted that the decision relied upon by the ld. CIT-DR in the case of Kantilal Chandu Lal & Co. Vs CIT (cited supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said decision, it was submitted that the assessee was required to explain certain seized goods by the Custom Officers of Preventive and Intelligence Unit, West Bengal. The assessee firm therein was a dealer in precious stones and also acted as a middleman. It was explained that the seizure was partly explained from the opening stock and purchases upto a certain extent and the remaining goods belonged to 16 persons from whom they had received precious stones on approval basis for sale or for repair on estimation etc.. It was submitted that the assessee’s explanation was partly accepted by the AO and the order of the AO stood confirmed in appeal. Subsequently, at the ITAT, considering the evidences on record, certain further relief was granted to the assessee, however, for the remaining items which remained unexplained, addition u/s 69A of the Act was confirmed. The assessee carried the issue before the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court upheld the order of the ITAT holding that once the assessee was found to be in possession of the stones, it was for the assessee to explain the nature of his possession. It was highlighted that the Hon’ble Court held in para 20, “if a satisfactory explanation was not forthcoming it was open to the Tribunal to conclude that the assessee was the owner of the stones in question. The Tribunal has considered the explanation of the assessee and the entire circumstances of this case.” Accordingly, in the facts of the present case, it was his submission that the Hon’ble High Court clearly mandated that the explanation of the assessee has to be considered. In the facts of the present case, the explanation of the assessee consistently on record has been discarded without any plausible reason. It was argued that no other source exists even as per the Department. The source is business. In the circumstances, in the facts as they are, it was his prayer that the addition may kindly be deleted.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the facts of the present case, search & seizure operation as well as survey operation was carried on at the business and residential premises of the assessee u/s 132(1) and 133A on 21.03.2017. Admittedly in the course of the Survey, certain shortcomings were noticed and the assessee was also required to explain the deposits made in specific bank account with HDFC during the demonetization period of 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. For ready reference, para 4 of the assessment order heavily relied upon by the ld. Sr.DR and referred to by the ld. AR is extracted hereunder for completeness :
3. The assessee firm has deposited cash amount of Rs.7,61,70,000/- in its bank account No.50200014437341 with HDFC Bank during the demonetization period of 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. During the course of survey as well as during assessment proceedings, the assessee firm was required to explain the source of this huge cash deposit in its bank account with documentary evidence. In response to the query, it has been submitted by the assessee firm that the said cash has been deposited out of cash sales made by it during Diwali Festival and cash sales made on 08.11.2016 as per cash in hand shown in the books of accounts of the firm as on 08.11.2016. Further, it has been submitted by the assessee firm that the source of this cash deposit as well as cash sales made by it was shown and verified to the survey team, who also pointed out certain discrepancies in the accounts of the assessee firm. Therefore, after considering all facts and circumstances of the case and after discussion with the Ld. Authorized Officers present during survey, the assessee firm has agreed for a disclosure of Rs.3,00,00,000/- under Prime Minister Garib Kalyan Yojna and accordingly, has paid tax of Rs. 1,50,00,000!– on this disclosure amount and has deposited amount of Rs.75,00,000!– to the Govt, account as per scheme of the Government. Considering the reply of the assessee firm and disclosure made by it in PMGKY as well as affairs of the assessee firm shown in its books of accounts, no adverse inference has been drawn on this account.
(emphasis supplied)
5.1. In the said backdrop, the AO has made an addition in paras 6 to 6.3 which is the subject matter of consideration in the present proceedings. These specific reasons have been heavily relied upon by the ld. Sr.DR. These reasons for making the present addition have been assailed by the ld. AR. For ready reference, para 6 to 6.3 of the assessment order is reproduced hereunder for completeness:
“6. During the survey proceedings, Stock of silver of Rs.50.513 Kg was found on 21.03.2017. Whereas, the stock of silver has been shown at 26.409 Kg as on 21.03.2017 in the books of accounts of the assessee firm. The assessee did not offer any valid explanation about the difference of stock in silver jewellery in its reply. Therefore, vide order sheet entry dated 06.12.2019, the assessee was required to showcause as to why the difference quantity of 24.104 Kg @ Rs.35,711!– Kg i.e. the rate of silver taken by the Govt. Approved Valuer on 21.03.2017, which comes to Rs.8,60,778!– may not be added to its income as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act. In response to the query, the assessee has submitted that an it has offered an amount of Rs. 3,00,00,000!– under the PMGKY scheme and due taxes on same have been paid in order to cover such discrepancies.
6.1 The reply of the assessee has been considered and the same is not found convincing. The declaration of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- made by the assessee firm under PMGKY to cover up the discrepancies found in the books of accounts of assessee firm during demonetization period of 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 i.e. the discrepancies observed in the cash sales shown by the assessee firm and huge amount of cash deposit of Rs.7,61,70,000/- during demonetization period. Such declaration does not provide a blanket umbrella to the assessee firm against each and every discrepancy find out during survey operation during and after the demonetization period. Hence, plea of the assessee that the discrepancies found during the survey proceedings are also covered under PMGKY scheme is hereby rejected.
6.2 Further, in its response, the assessee has also submitted that regarding additions u/s 69A which deals with unexplained money, the silver found during survey was the trading item of the assessee firm, who is a jeweller. Being stock of the business, any difference on account of same forms part of business income of assessee and not as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act. This plea of the assessee is considered and does not make any difference as far as the unexplained stock of silver is considered. The unexplained stock of the assessee firm may be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act or the same may also be added u/s 69B on account of investment etc. not fully disclosed in the books of accounts.
6.3 In this case, the assessee firm has been found to be the owner of excess silver jewellery of 24.104 Kg, that has been valued at Rs 8,60,778/- @ Rs.35,711/- Kg, which was not recorded by the assessee in its books of account maintained by it. Further- the assessee firm has failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding the difference in quantity found during the course of survey proceedings on 21.03.2017. Therefore, after considering all facts and circurristances of the case, it is held that the difference amount of Rs.8,60,778/- owing to the difference in stock of silver found during the course of survey proceedings is held to be the unexplained money of the assessee firm within the meaning of Section 69A of the Act. Thus, the amount of Rs.8,60,778/- is hereby treated as unexplained money of the assessee within the meaning of Section 69A of the Act and the same is hereby added to the income of the assessee firm accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act is hereby initiated separately on this issue.
(emphasis supplied)
5.2. The ld. AR has referred to the submissions as advanced before the CIT(A) extracted at pages 5 to 11. A perusal of the same shows that the excess Silver Stock via-a-vis the books of account of the assessee was noticed to the tune of 24.104 Kg. A perusal of the submissions extracted in the order shows that it has been argued that, “As a matter of fact all such differences unearthed during the course of survey including difference of Rs. 8,60,778/- was considered as Income and was offered on consolidate basis under Pardhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna (PMGKY) Rs. 3,00,00,000/- on 31-32017”.
5.3 A further reading of the submissions extracted in the impugned order shows that it has also been argued that, “AO under Para 6.1 page 4 of the assessment order has observed that declaration under PMGKY is for demonetize deposit only and do not cover any other discrepancies which is not the correct position of law. As per section 199C of Taxation and Investment Regime for Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna, 2016 “Declaration of undisclosed Income” and assessee is eligible to declare income for AY 2017-18 and earlier assessment year. As such, the declaration under the scheme was not confined to the deposit under demonetization as observed by learned AO.
5.4. The decision of the AO for invoking Section 69A of the Act was assailed on the following reasons on facts :
“3.5 Further, regarding additions u/s 69A which deals with unexplained moneys, it is submitted that the silver found during survey was the trading item of the assessee who is a jeweler. As such, being stock of business of assessee, any difference on account of same forms part of business income of assessee and not as unexplained income.”
5.5 It is also seen that before the CIT(A) also, the decisions of the ITAT in the case of Famina Knit Fabs (supra), Arora Alloys Ltd. (supra) and Marshal Machines Pvt.Ltd. (supra) were relied upon. On a consideration of the same on going through the PMGKY Scheme alongwith the Circular No. 2 and 9 of 2017 which clarify the Scheme considering the facts of the peculiar case, we find that in the facts of the present case, the AO incorrectly invoked Section 69A of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) on facts was not justified to sustain the addition so made. In the facts of the present case, accordingly, we are of the view that the order cannot be sustained. We have duly taken into consideration the facts as available in the respective orders of the ITAT. It is seen that the assessee is dealing in gold and silver jewellery etc. and the discrepancies in the silver jewellery cannot be arbitrarily said to be from an unexplained source as no such fact or allegation has either been made in the Survey or referred to by the AO. The discrepancy in the silver stock was in the regular course of the business of the assessee. We have taken into consideration the Surrender Letter dated 22.03.2017 filed by the assessee. It is a matter of fact that the surrender has been honoured and has not been retracted by the assessee. On a careful reading of the specific reasons for surrendering the income wherein very clearly the assessee states that; “it is submitted that certain discrepancies were observed related to cash deposit/income etc……. However, is, order to by peace of mind and to avoid any litigation and is order to settle the group cases of the persons covered ……”The wordings are very clear and categoric. We have taken into consideration the PMGKY Scheme 2016 and have also taken into consideration two Circulars which clarify those i.e. Circular No. 2/2017 and 9/2017. We have also taken into consideration the specific questions put to Shri Sachin Aggarwal, Partner. We have taken into consideration the Circular No. 2/2017 and 9/2017 and Paper Book page 59. On a careful consideration of the facts and evidences on record, we find that the addition cannot be sustained.
5.6 We have seen that the decision relied upon by the ld. CIT-DR is distinguishable on facts in the case of Kantilal Chandulal & Co (supra). A specific reference has been made by the ld. AR to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Sudershan Gupta which has been relied upon by the assessee for the proposition “If the Department does not allow the assessee to buy peace of mind, why should the assessee be bound by the offer to pay tax. The statement of surrender has got to be accepted in toto or it has got to be ignored. Thus, we find no error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. No question of law arises for the determination of this Court from the order of the Tribunal. Thus, both the appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed.”
5.7 Accordingly, on a consideration of facts on record, the specific Scheme, Surrender letter and case law relied upon, we are of the view that the addition cannot be sustained. Allowing the appeal of the assessee, the addition is directed to be deleted.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 23r d June,2022.
Author Bio
