Case Law Details
Bajrangbali Tufanbhai Das Main Bazar Vs ITO (ITAT Surat)
Conclusion: Assessee had made multiple deposits and multiple withdrawals in the SB account of assessee amounting to total deposit of Rs.13,20,535/- whereas total withdrawal of Rs.13,19,392/-, therefore, in absence of any evidence, it couldn’t be ascertained whether the amounts withdrawn were used for purchase of vegetables or were used for personal expenses or investments. Hence, a reasonable estimate of cash deposit @25% might be considered as income of the assessee.
Held: Assessee was a wholesale vegetable trader, was scrutinised by the Income Tax Department after failing to file his original income tax returns for the AY 2011-12. Upon reassessment, it was found that he had deposited ₹13 Lakhs in an undisclosed savings bank account. AO also identified total credit entries of ₹89.6 Lakhs in his disclosed current account and sought to estimate profit at 35% of this turnover. In the 2013-14 AY, a similar issue arose with cash deposits and total income turnover under examination. Due to non-compliance, AO added 100% of the cash deposit of ₹13 Lakhs as unexplained income.AO also estimated profit at 35% of the turnover of ₹89 Lakhs, assuming unreported income, and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271B for failing to get accounts audited under Section 44AB. Aggrieved by the order passed by AO, assessee moved on with an appeal to CIT(A), where assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment, arguing that Section 148 was not justified. CIT(A) upheld the reopening, stating that the then-on-disclosure of the savings account justified the reassessment. CIT(A) reduced the estimated profit rate from 35% to 8%, matching it with the presumptive taxation scheme under Section 44D. CIT(A) confirmed the complete addition of cash deposits as unexplained income since the assessee failed to provide sufficient proof regarding the source of the revenue. Dissatisfied with CIT(A) order, assessee moved the ITAT, where Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment under Section 147, citing a reason to believe the basis for undisclosed income. It was held that no evidence had been given by assessee that it was buying directly from the farmers and after transporting the vegetable in small units and pooling from various places, he dispatched the vegetable in bulk to various places. Therefore, the decision of ITAT Hyderabad Benches was not applicable. From the bank statement of the undisclosed SB account, it was found that there were multiple deposits and withdrawals in the SB account of assessee. There was total deposit of Rs.13,20,535/- whereas total withdrawal of Rs.13,19,392/-. Most of the deposits were in small amounts and withdrawals were also very small amounts. There was nothing on record to suggest that assessee was carrying on any business other than the business of wholesale purchase and sale of vegetables. Therefore, the logical conclusion would be that either he was carrying out the same business a part of which was not disclosed to the Department. It was also possible that part of the profit of his disclosed business was diverted and the amounts were deposited in the SB account. However, it was seen that assessee had also made multiple withdrawals of almost the same amounts during the year. In absence of any evidence, it could not be ascertained whether the amounts withdrawn were used for purchase of vegetables or were used for personal expenses or investments. Hence, a reasonable estimate of cash deposit might be considered as income of the assessee. It would be fair and reasonable if 25% of the cash deposit of Rs.13,20,535/- was taken as the income of assessee. AO was therefore, directed to add Rs.,3,30,134/- and delete the remaining amount.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT SURAT
These three appeals by the assessee emanate from the separate orders passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act [in short, ‘the Act’] all dated 29.01.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’], for the assessment years (AYs) 2011-12 and 2013-14. In ITA Nos.329/SRT/2024 & 330/SRT/2024, the assessee has challenged the addition @ 8% of the estimated turnover and 100% of the cash deposits in both regular assessments, wherein ITA No.328/SRT/2024 (AY 2011-12) assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act. In both quantum appeals, the facts are common and grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are similar except variance of amounts. Hence, with the consent of the parties, all the appeals are clubbed and heard together and are decided by this consolidated order for sake of convenience and brevity. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 329/SRT/2024 for AY 2011-12, treated as “lead” case, are as follow:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A).
2. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in partly confirming the actions of Assessing Officer by sustaining the addition at 8% of the estimated turnover of Rs.89,63,222/-.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.13,20,535/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposit. The CIT(A) ought to have estimated the profit at reasonable percentage on the total estimated turnover of RTs.1,02,83,757/- (Rs.13,20,535 + Rs.89,63,222) instead of making addition of 100% of cash deposit of Rs.113,20,535/-.
4. It is therefore prayed that the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 may please be quashed and/or additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) may please be deleted.
5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.”
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee had not filed original return of income for AY 2011-12. The case was reopened on the basis of information available with the Department that assessee had deposited cash of Rs.13,20,535/- in his Savings bank account during FY 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12. A query letter dated 06.02.2017 was issued to the assessee to furnish explanation/details regarding cash deposit. In reply, assessee stated that he is doing wholesale business of purchase and sale of vegetables, and the transactions are reflected in his return filed on 26.03.2014. On verification of the said return, AO noticed that assessee had disclosed the Current account No.025302000000138 but not the Savings bank account 0253010000003563 where cash of Rs13,20,535/- was deposited. Hence, case was reopened u/s 147 after recording the reasons and taking necessary approval from the PCIT, Valsad. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 21.03.2017. In response thereto, assessee did not file his return within the time allowed but submitted that he has already filed return on 26.03.2014. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued but assessee did not file any reply. The assessee also did not respond to the show cause notices issued on 03.11.2017 and 16.11.2017. Due to noncompliance by the assessee, AO added the entire cash deposit of Rs.13,20,353/-in his Savings account. Regarding the credit entries of Rs.89,63,222/- in the Current account, the AO issued a show cause notice asking assessee as to why profit should not be estimated @ 35% of the turnover of Rs.89,63,222/-. Since assessee did not respond to the said notice, 35% of the turnover amounting to Rs.31,37,127/- was added to the total income of assessee. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act because the turnover of the assessee exceeded the limit prescribed for audit u/s 44AB of the Act.
3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The appellant had challenged the reopening u/s 147 and issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The appellant also raised ground regarding addition of entire cash deposit of Rs.13,20,535/- and estimation of profit @ 35% of the turnover of Rs.89,63,222/-. The submission of the assessee is reproduced at pages 3 to 9 of the appellate order. The assessee requested to estimate profit @ 2% instead of 35% estimated by the AO on the total credits of Rs.1,02,83,757/- (Rs.89,63,222 + Rs.13,20,535/-). Without prejudice to the above, the appellant submitted that addition can be made only to the extent of peak credit and profit @ 2% on total credits could be estimated after date of peak credit. The CIT(A) has observed that reopening notices were issued because assessee had not disclosed in his return of income the Savings bank account where there are cash deposits of Rs.13,20,535/- in AY 2011-12 and Rs.34,92,210/- in AY 2013-14. The CIT(A) dismissed the ground at para-5.2 of his order by stating that there is no infraction regrading jurisdiction of the AO. There is also no violation of law on part of the AO. Regarding cash deposit, the CIT(A) has relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of : (i) Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT (1953) 49 ITR 112, 117, (ii) Seth Kalekhan Md. Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1, (iii) M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147, 150 (Ker.) SLP dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court (1993) 201 ITR (St.), (iv) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 and (v) CIT vs. P. Mohankala (2007) 291 ITR 278. The CIT(A) observed that apart from some sample bills, nothing was brought on record qua the source and nature of credits in the bank account. The sale bills, delivery challans, books of account, audit report u/s 44AB of the Act, stock register, details of sales declared to VAT/ GST/Central Excise Department and matching of cash outflow with deposits in bank were required to be produced to accept claim of the assessee. In absence of the above, the ground of assessee in respect of addition of unexplained cash deposit of Rs.13,22,535/- and Rs.35,82,210/- for AYs 2001-12 and 2013-14 was dismissed.
3.1 The other ground was estimation of profit at 35% of the turnover. The CIT(A) has referred to the presumptive taxation scheme u/ss 44AD, 44DA and 44AE of the Act. The scheme allows individual to declare income at specified rate and granting them exemption from maintaining books of account. In this scheme, income is calculated at fixed rate of 8% of turnover or gross receipt of the eligible business for the year. He has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Subodh Gupta 55 taxmann.com 343 (Del), where it was held that in absence of any material to show the net profit rate, presumptive net profit rate of 8% as stipulated in Section 44AD should be taken for estimation of income. In view of the above, he held that estimation of income should be pegged at 8% of turnover.
4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee filed paper book enclosing the details submitted before the lower authorities. It includes acknowledgement of ROI dated 26.03.2014, bank statements of the Savings account and Current account with Bank of Baroda and sample bills. He has also relied on various decisions. He has reiterated the submission made before the CIT(A) and requested that both cash deposits in the SB account and credits in the Current account should be taken together and profit should be estimated @ 2% of the turnover. He relied on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad Benches in case of ITO vs. Shri Y.Jaya Prakash in ITGA No.1693/Hyd/2012 dated 10.05.2013, where profit was estimated@ 4% of turnover.
5. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) submitted that the entire cash deposit should be added as assessee has not disclosed the SB account in his return of income. He submitted that the profit on the credit entries in the Current account may be decided by the Bench.
6. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. We have deliberated the case law relied by Ld.AR of the assessee. Ground No.1 pertains to the order of CIT(A) in confirming the action of AO in reopening assessment u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. The CIT(A) has dismissed the ground because no infraction regarding jurisdiction of AO has been brought on record. He also did not find any violation of law by the AO. Though the ground of reopening has been raised in the instant appeal, the issue was not seriously contested during the hearing before the Tribunal.
6.1 We have carefully considered the facts on record. There is no dispute that the SB account maintained with Bank of Baroda, where cash of Rs.13,20,535/- was deposited, has not been disclosed by the assessee in his return of income. It has been held in a number of cases that there should be prima facie reason at the initial stage of reopening. The sufficiency or correctness of the reason cannot be examined at the threshold. The conclusion or conclusive establishment of escaped income is not required while drawing satisfaction regarding reopening of the assessment. Useful reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors., 236 ITR 34 (SC), wherein it was held as under:
“3. In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage.
We are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening of the case in the facts of this case. It will be open to the assessee to prove that the assumption of facts made in the notice was erroneous. The assessee may also prove that no new facts came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer after completion of the assessment proceeding. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The questions of fact and law are left open to be investigated and decided by the assessing authority. The appellant will be entitled to take all the points before the assessing authority. The appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.”
6.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC) held that the expression “reason to believe” would mean cause or justification and cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. Whether material would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at that stage. In view of the above authoritative precedents, the requirement is that there should be prima facie reason at the stage of reopening. The sufficiency or correctness of the reason cannot be examined at the threshold. In the present case, the assessee has not disclosed his SB bank account No.02530100003563 with Bank of Baroda in his return of income. On the other hand, he had deposited cash of Rs.13,20,535/-. Hence, there was prima facie reason to reopen the case. In view of the above facts and the precedents cited supra, the reopening is upheld and ground No.1 is dismissed.
7. The next ground is addition of entire amount of cash deposited of Rs.13,20,535/- in the undisclosed bank account of the assessee mentioned in the preceding para of this order. Both AO and CIT(A) have given concurrent finding that the nature and source of cash deposit has not been duly explained by the assessee. The CIT(A) has observed that it was the duty of appellant to explain not only the credits but also the debits. The assessee has not brough on record the sale register, delivery challans, audit report u/s 44AD of the Act, quantitative details of sales in the stock register, sales in VAT/GST/Excise record and chart showing withdrawals and deposits in the bank account. Hence, the addition was confirmed by CIT(A). Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that both cash deposits and other entries in both the accounts should be considered together and profit may be estimated. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, requested that the addition of cash deposit may be sustained.
7.1 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record carefully. We find that the assessee was engaged in the wholesale business of purchase and sale of vegetables during the year under consideration. It has shown net profit of Rs.2,59,112 /- on total turnover of Rs.32,34,156/-. We find that the assessee has shown only the Current account maintained with Bank of Baroda where total credits were Rs.89,63,222/-. The assessee had another undisclosed account in the same bank where he had deposited cash of Rs.13,20,535/-. Even in respect of the disclosed Current account, assessee has shown turnover of Rs.32,34,156/- though there were credit entries of Rs.89,63,222/-. Therefore, we find that all the entries in the disclosed account have not been properly explained by the assessee. However, the CIT(A) has been very fair and reasonable in estimating the profit @ 8% in lieu of 35% considered by the AO. The Ld. AR of the assessee has relied on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad Benches in case of Shri Y. Jaya Prakash (supra). In the said case, the assessee was engaged in the business of selling fruit and vegetables. He was buying from the farmers directly and transported the goods in tractors in smaller units and pooled from various places, and dispatched in bulk to various places. The CIT(A) has adopted the percentage of margin at 4% which was confirmed by Tribunal. In the instant case, the facts are not similar. No evidence has been given by the assessee that it was buying directly from the farmers and after transporting the vegetable in small units and pooling from various places, he dispatched the vegetable in bulk to various places. Therefore, the decision of ITAT Hyderabad Benches is not applicable. We find from the bank statement of the undisclosed SB account at pages 4 to 9 of the paper book that there are multiple deposits and withdrawals in the SB account of assessee. There was total deposit of Rs.13,20,535/- whereas total withdrawal of Rs.13,19,392/-. Most of the deposits are in small amounts and withdrawals were also very small amounts. There is nothing on record to suggest that assessee was carrying on any business other than the business of wholesale purchase and sale of vegetables. Therefore, the logical conclusion would be that either he was carrying out the same business a part of which was not disclosed to the Department. It is also possible that part of the profit of his disclosed business was diverted and the amounts were deposited in the SB account. However, it is seen that the appellant has also made multiple withdrawals of almost the same amounts during the year. In absence of any evidence, it cannot be ascertained whether the amounts withdrawn were used for purchase of vegetables or were used for personal expenses or investments. Hence, a reasonable estimate of cash deposit may be considered as income of the assessee. In our view, it will be fair and reasonable if 25% of the cash deposit of Rs.13,20,535/- is taken as the income of assessee. The AO is, therefore, directed to add Rs.,3,30,134/- and delete the remaining amount. This ground of assessee is partly allowed.
8. Next ground is estimation of profit @ 8% by the CIT(A) in lieu of profit @ 35% by the AO on the turnover of Rs.89,63,222/-, as evident from the Current account of assessee with Bank of Baroda. The Ld. AR of the assessee has relied on the decision in case of Shri Y. Jaya Prakash (supra). The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that the Bench may take a reasonable view on the subject issue.
9. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. We have also deliberated the decisions relied upon by Ld. AR of the assessee. As stated earlier, assessee has shown turnover of Rs.32,34,156/- on which it has shown profit of Rs.2,59,112/-, which is @ 8% of the turnover. However, the credit entries in the Current account of the assessee comes to Rs.89,63,222/-. Thus, the appellant has not disclosed all credit entries even of his disclosed bank account. The appellant has not brought anything on record to show that the nature of the other credit entries are different from sales made by assessee and they are not tenable. Hence, the total credit entries are held to be sales of the assessee during the year. As assessee himself has shown profit @ 8% of the turnover in his ROI. Hence, we do not find any reason, to adopt a profit rate lower than the rate adopted by appellant. Therefore, the decision of CIT(A) in estimating income @ 8% is upheld. Accordingly, ground is dismissed.
10. Ground No.4 is inter-connected with earlier grounds raised by assessee. Hence, no separate adjudication is required.
11. In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed.
ITA No.330/SRT/2024 (A.Y 2013-14)
10. The facts of appeal in ITA No.329/Srt/2024 for AY 2011-12 are similar to the facts of the case in ITA No.330/Srt/2024 for AY 2013-14. In this appeal also, similar grounds were raised before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has passed a common order confirming the addition of the cash deposit and estimating income @ 8% of the turnover of Rs.99,73,390/-. The appellant has taken up similar grounds in ITAT except variation of amounts. Therefore, following the reasons given in ITA No.329/Srt/2024 for AY 2011-12, we dismiss the ground No.1 & 2 and restricted the addition on cash deposit to 25% of Rs.35,82,201/-. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed in above terms.
11. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
ITA No.328/SRT/2024 (A.Y 2011-12)
12. The assessee has raised following grounds:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Assessing Officer in levying the penalty of Rs.44,816/- u/s 271B of the Act.
2. It is therefore prayed that above penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted.
3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of appeal.”
13. The facts of the case have already been discussed in the earlier part of this common order. Since the gross receipt of the assessee was more than the limit prescribed u/s 44AB of the Act, the assessee was required to get his accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Act and submit the report before due date of filing the return, i.e., 30.09.2011. The assessee failed to do so. Hence, assessee was liable to penalty u/s 271B of the Act for failure to get his accounts audited on or before due date. The AO issued show cause notice requesting assessee to explain as to why order imposing penalty u/s 271B of the Act be not passed. Neither the assessee attended nor did he furnish any written submission. Therefore, the AO levied penalty @ 0.5% of the turnover of Rs.44,57,662/-. It seems that AO has wrongly taken the total addition of Rs.44,57,662/- as the turnover instead of the actual turnover of Rs.89,63,2212/-. This is clear from the assessment order as well as the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before CIT(A).
14. Aggrieved by the penalty of the AO, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). It was submitted that assessee was not aware of the provisions of Sec. 44AB of the Act and hence, failed to conduct any audit from Chartered Accountant. He submitted that ignorance of law can be a reasonable cause for the above failure. It was submitted that assessee has shown turnover of Rs.32,34,156/-but AO has considered credit of Rs.89,63,222/- as estimated turnover. The assessee relied on the following decisions: (i) Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. – 253 ITR 745 (Del) (ii) CIT vs. K P V S Mohammad Rowther & Co. 232 ITR 176 (Mad) (iii) Brij Lal Goyal vs. ACIT (2004) 88 ITD 413 (Del). The CIT(A) has given the decision at para-5 (pages 5 to 9) of the appellate order. He observed that specific category of assessee are required to get their accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Act. They are also required to furnish the tax audit report. In case of default, the assessee would be penalized u/s 271B of the Act @ 0.5% of the total sales/turnover or gross receipt. However, provisions of Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposable if the person or the assessee proves that there is reasonable cause for said failure. He stated that the prayer of the assessee that he was not aware of provisions of Section 44AB of the Act and hence he failed to conduct any audit from Chartered Accounted is not acceptable in view of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of Peroorkkada Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. ITO (2020) 114 taxmann.com 18 (Kerala). He has also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.1449 of 2022 SLP No.7620/2021 dated 11.07.2022 where it was held that twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the AO and that too before due date of filing original return of income u/s 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with. Hence, the ground was dismissed by the CIT(A).
15. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that there was a reasonable cause for failure to get the accounts audited by a Chartered Accountant. He has relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT & Anr. vs. S.K. Gupa & Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (All.) (ii) Surajmal Parsuram Todi vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 691 (Gauh.) and (iii) CIT vs. Bisauli Tractors (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All.). On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submitted that the turnover of the assessee is over the limit specified in u/s 44AB of the Act and, therefore, he was mandatorily required to get his account audited by a Chartered Accountant. He relied on the decisions referred to by the CIT(A) including the decision in case of Wipro Ltd. (supra).
16. We have heard the rival submissions of both parties and perused the materials on record. We have also deliberated the decisions relied upon by both sides. We find that the AO has wrongly taken the turnover at Rs.44,57,662/- which was the total addition made by him and not the turnover on which he estimated profit @ 35%. This is also clear from the ground of the appellant before the CIT(A) where the turnover is shown at Rs.89,63,222/-. The assessee had contended before CIT(A) that he was not aware of provisions of Section 44AB of the Act and hence he failed to conduct any audit from the Chartered Accountant. The appellant had also relied on some decisions which have been considered by CIT(A). However, the reasons as advanced by the assessee was not considered a “reasonable cause” by the CIT(A). He has relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Wipro Ltd. (supra). We find that apart from stating that the assessee was not aware of provisions of Section 44AB of the Act, no other reason has been advanced by the assessee. We are of the view that the reason given by the assessee that he was not aware of provisions of section44AB of the Act would not constitute “reasonable cause” u/s 273B of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) has held that the twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the AO and that too before due date of filing original return u/s 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with. Hence, we agree with the CIT(A) that filing of audit report is mandatory and only exception for noncompliance is to establish with documentary evidence a “reasonable cause”. The assessee has not been able to establish any reasonable cause for failure to get accounts audited. In fact, he had estimated profit @ 8% on turnover of Rs.32,34,156/- though the actual turnover was Rs.89,63,222/-. No reasons are given as to why such a lower turnover was shown by the assessee. Hence, the accounts were not audited by showing turnover below limit prescribed u/s 44AB of the Act but assessee is taking the plea that he was not aware of the provisions of section 44AB of the Act. In view of the above facts and the precedents cited supra, the ground is dismissed.
17. In the result, appeal is dismissed.
18. In combined result, ITA No.328/Srt/2024 is dismissed whereas ITA Nos.329 and 330/Srt/2024 are partly allowed. Registry is directed to place one copy of this order in both the appeals folder / case file(s).
Order pronounced on 30/12/2024 in the open court.
Author Bio
