Delhi ITAT: Section 153C Assessment Quashed; Assumed Higher Assured Returns-Based On-Money Addition Deleted

Samir Kumar Datt Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Delhi ITAT: Section 153C Assessment Quashed; Alleged ‘On-Money’ Addition Based on Assumption of Higher Assured Returns Deleted

The Delhi ITAT quashed assessments made under section 153C and deleted additions towards alleged cash (“on-money”) payments for purchase of commercial units in the Elan Mercado project, holding that the Revenue had no incriminating material against the assessees and that the additions were based merely on assumptions drawn from the rate of assured returns.

The Revenue had initiated proceedings under section 153C following a search on the Elan Group, relying on Excel sheets seized during the search which recorded different rates of assured returns offered to investors. The Assessing Officer inferred that investors receiving 33% assured returns must have paid substantial cash over and above the cheque payments, assuming that the genuine market return should have been only 11%. On this basis, additions of ₹52.85 lakh were made in each assessee’s hands under section 69 as unexplained investment.

The assessees consistently maintained that the entire purchase consideration had been paid through banking channels, that the actual cost of the units was much higher than what was assumed by the Assessing Officer, and that the assured return worked out to around 11% of the total investment, leaving no basis to infer any cash payment.

The Tribunal held that no incriminating material relating to the assessees was found during the search which could justify invocation of section 153C. Consequently, the decision of the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. squarely applied, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C invalid. The assessments were therefore held to be bad in law and liable to be quashed.

Even on merits, the Tribunal found that the Revenue had failed to produce any cogent evidence of cash payments. The entire addition was founded on the presumption that a prudent businessman would not offer 33% assured returns and, therefore, there must have been an undisclosed cash component. The Tribunal held that such assumptions and mathematical inferences, unsupported by substantive evidence, cannot sustain an addition under section 69.

Accordingly, the ITAT quashed the assessments under section 153C, deleted the additions of alleged unexplained investment, and allowed both the assessees’ appeals.

Cases Discussed

• Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (SC), Civil Appeal No. 6580 of 2021 dt. 24.04.2023
• ACIT Vs Pepsi Foods Private Limited (SC), [2018]
• Pepsi Foods Private Limited (Delhi High Court), [2014]

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

Both theappeals filed by the assesseesare directed against the orders both dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the ACIT, Central Circle-7, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. AO’) under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) for Assessment Year 2014-15.

ITA 7184/DEL/2025. SAMIR DATT (A.Y2014-15)

2. On the basis of a search and seizure operation conducted under Section 132 of the Act on the entities of Elan Group on 29.05.2018 at the premises of M/s Elan India Private Limited, M/s Best Selling Realty Pvt. Ltd. And M/s K & T Realty Services Pvt.ltd., Golf View Corporate Tower, 2nd/3rd Floor, Golf Course Road, Sectdor-42, Gurugram, wherefrom data of 2 excel sheet were retrieved fromthe back up of Desktop PC of Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma namely (a) copy of Assured Details [214940].Xlsx & (b) Assured Details.xlsx..]. Upon analysis of the same certain documents belong to/contain information pertaining to Sh. Samir Kumar Datt, the Assessee, before us, were found and upon recoding satisfactionby the Ld. AO of the searched person dated 31.05.2021 and Ld. AOof the Assessee on 11.06.2021 notice under Section 153C of the Act on 11.06.2021 was issued to the assessee. 143(2) Notice was issued on 26.06.2022 followed by Notice under Section 142(1) dated 16.01.2023 directing the Assessee to furnish details, documents mentioned therein. The satisfaction recorded by the A.O. of the searched person was as follows:

ii. As is observed from the above table the percentage of assured return given to various customers ranged from a normal range of 10%-12% to unusually high rate of return of 33%.

iii. Any prudent businessman would not borrow funds at such high rates when he can obtain unsecured loans from friends and relatives or secured loans from NBFCs and other financial institutions at marginally higher rate as compared to the Nationalized Banks.

iv. The only logical inference that can be drawn in this case is that M/s Elan Ltd. received ‘on money’ by cash from the customers which has not shown in the accounts. However, the assured return has been offered on the total payment i.e. on cash as well as cheque component received by the assessee company from the customer/investor. This has been managed by the assessee company by tweaking/ increasing the assured return rate to account for the cash component paid by the customer.

v. As mentioned above, M/s Elan Ltd. has promoted a project in the name of Elan Mercado in Gurgaon. The details recorded in the above referred seized documents pertain to the bookings made by customers in this project on various dates. Based on the above inference drawn, and the records furnished by M/s Elan Ltd during the assessment proceedings, the cash component paid by the below mentioned customers who has availed the assured return scheme is determined assuming 11% is the actual return offered by the builder as under:

In view of the above, I am satisfied that above mentioned documents seized from the premises of M/s Elan India Pvt. Ltd., M/s Best Selling Realty Pvt. Ltd., M/s K & T Realty Services Pvt. Ltd., Golf View Corporate Tower, 2nd/3rd Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 42, Gurugram, Haryana 122001 party AP-6 during the course of search also contain information which relates to above referred ‘other person’ i.e. Shri/Smt/M/s Samir Kumar Datt (PAN: AAFPD3498J) and have a bearing on the determination of his/her total income. Accordingly, these documents are handed over to the DCIT/ACIT/ITO, Circle-1, Faridabad, the assessing officer of Shri/Smt/M/s Samir Kumar Datt (PAN: AAFPD3498J), for necessary action in the case of the above referred ‘other person’ as per the provision of section 153C r.w.s 153A of the IT Act, 1961 for the relevant assessment years as per the seized documents.

RAJESH RAINA
Digitally signed by RAJESH RAINA
Date: 2021.05.31 16:53:28 +0530
DCIT, CC-7, New Delhi

3. The relevant satisfaction recorded by the Ld. AO of the assessee is reproduced as under:

“(Relevant part of satisfaction recorded by AO of any other person is below)

A search and seizure operation was conducted on the entities of Elan Group on 29.05.2018. Analysis of the documents seized at the premises of M/s Elan India Pvt. Ltd., M/s Best Selling Realty Pvt. Ltd., M/s K & T Realty Services Pvt. Ltd., Golf View Corporate Tower, 2nd/3rd Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 42, Gurugram, Haryana 122001, party AP-6, revealed certain documents which belong to / contain information pertaining to Shri/Smt/M/s Samir Kumar Datt (PAN:AAFPD3498J). The relevant details are as under:

i. During the course of search at the above premises (Party No.AP-6), the backup of Desktop PC of Mr. Vinod Sharma was seized as Annexure A-2. From this computer, two excel sheets have been retrieved with names (a) Copy of Assured Detail [214940].xlsx & (b) Assured Detail.xlsx. Analysis of these documents show that these contain information related to Mercado project of M/s Elan Limited (PAN: AADCE3341G) showing payment of assured benefit to the clients varying from as low as 10% to as high as 33%.

ii. As is observed from the annexed table-1 the percentage of assured return given to various customers ranged from a normal range of 10% -12% to unusually high rate of return of 33%.

iii. Any prudent businessman would not borrow funds at such high rates when he can obtain unsecured loans from friends and relatives or secured loans from NBFCs and other financial institutions at marginally higher rate as compared to the Nationalized Banks.

iv. The only logical inference that can be drawn in this case is that M/s Elan Ltd. received on money by cash from the customers which has not shown in the accounts. However, the assured return has been offered on the total payment i.e. on cash as well as cheque component received by the assessee company from the customer/investor. This has been managed by the assessee company by tweaking/increasing the assured return rate to account for the cash component paid by the customer.

v. As mentioned above, M/s Elan Ltd. has promoted a project in the name of Elan Mercado in Gurgaon. The details recorded in the above referred seized documents pertain to the bookings made by customers in this project on various dates. Based on the above inference drawn, and the records furnished by M/s Elan Ltd during the assessment proceedings, the cash component paid by the below mentioned customers who has availed the assured return scheme is determined assuming 11% is the actual return offered by the builder as shown in table-2 annexed.

2. The documents pertaining and relating to Sh. Samir Kumar Datt have been gone through and the same have duly been examined. After considering all facts and circumstances of the case and nature of entries made in the documents found and seized during search, I am satisfied that the documents pertaining and relating to Sh. Samit Kumar Datt found and seized during search at Golf View Corporate Tower, 2nd /3rd Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 42, Gurugram on 29.05.2018 have bearing on the determination of the total income of Sh. Resham Datt for 6 assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the prevous year in which search is conducted and for the relevant assessment year of search as referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A of the IT Act, 1961. And therefore, it is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 153C of the IT Act, 1961 and assess the income of Sh. Samir Kumar Datt. in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the IT Act, 1961. Hence notices u/s 153C of the IT Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2019-20 are hereby issued in the case of Sh. Samir Kumar Datt.

NCOME TAX DEPARTMEN
RAHUL GAUTAM CIRCLE 1, FBD

(In case the document is digitally signed please refer
Digital Signature at the bottom of the page)

4. The Assessee filed its reply to the Ld. AO in the following manner:-

‘the logical inference as drawn by A.O. hat has unusually high rate of returns givenby M/s. Elan Ltd is due to the some cash money paid by me in addition to the amount paid by cheques to the builder is totally incorrect. I have not paid any cash to M/s. Elan Ltd. It is humbly submitted that the cost of my one service unit and the payments made against the unit as mentioned in the satisfaction note is grossly incorrect.

Amount of assured returns Rs. 36,600/- is correct, but amount paid is wrongly taken as 13,50,000/-. The actual cost is of the flat (area 675Sq. Ft) is Rs. 38,06,050/-. All the above cost has been paid by cheques through my ICICI and Canara savings bank. The rate of assured returns on the basis of total cost come to nominal value of approx 11%. The calculations of rate of returns as 27% to 33% is totally incorrect. No amount of cash has been paid to M/s. Elan and all payments are documented in the bank statements already provided.”

5. Since the response of the Assessee was not found acceptable, the Ld. A.O. finalized the reassessment with the following observations:

“5.1 Based on the information available on record and documents obtained during the course of assessment, it is seen that you have made investment of Rs. 27,00,000/- through banking channel and Rs. 52,85,454/- in cash. The investment was made by you booking two flats on 24.12.2013 & 24.01.2014 in Mercado Project of M/s. Elan Limited for acquiring unit no. SA-1102 & SA-1103. After making the said investment, you were earning a fixed return, in the form of interest receipts @ 73,200/-per month from M/s. Elan Buildtech Private limited. The receipts are also appearing in your 26AS of the F.Y. under consideration, on which TDS of Rs. 7,320/- u/s 194A of the Act was deducted by M/s. Elan Buildtech Private Limited. The TDS referred above has been claimed by you while filing ITR u/s 139 of the Act. From the above, it can be said that the fixed amount of Rs. 36,600/-per month which is around 33% of the payment made to Mis. Elan Buildtech Private Limited, is the fixed return of cash component as well as payment made through banking channel. Reply filed by you in respect of transaction with M/s. Elan Buildtech Private Limited and M/s. Elan Limited is considered and found not acceptable. Therefore, you are once again requested to justify the above-mentioned transactions with sufficient supporting documentary evidences and also submit the copy of purchase agreement of flat SA-1102 & SA-1103 from M/s. Elan Buildtech Private Limited.

5.2 Furthermore, in absence of sufficient documentary evidences, you are hereby show caused as to why an amount of Rs. 52,85,454/- given by you in cash may not be treated as unexplained and same may not be added to your total income u/s 69 of the act.

6. In connection to ongoing proceedings, all details regarding your issues have already been provided to you. However, for providing natural justice if you require any information/documents/copy of seized material etc., then a request may be made for the same before this office well within time.

7. In response to the above show-cause notice, the assessee filed his response by email on 16.03.2023 which is placed in file. Reply filed by assessee is considered. In reply, assessee submitted that all the payments have been made by cheques andthere is no cash component. Actual average rate of assured return on my investment is approx 11% is found to be not tenable as assured return received by assessee is on the amount of payment made in F.Y. 2013-14 i.e. 27,00,000/-. After this payment, assessee received fixed return of Rs. 73,200/- per month which is reflecting in her 26AS that is 33% from of the amount paid which is unusual high rate of return. Information was also sought from M/s. Elan Buildtech Pvt Ltd and above amount paid as well as fixed assured return is verified from builder also. Therefore, reply filed by assessee is not acceptable.

8. Hence, based on the information available on record and documents obtained during the course of assessment, it is seen from the seized excel files that assessee had made investment of Rs. 27,00,000/- through banking channel for booking a flat in Mercado Project of M/s. Elan Buildtech Pvt Ltd for acquiring unit no. SA-1102 and SA-1103. After making the said investment, assessee was earning a fixed return, in the form of interest receipts @ 73,200/- per month from M/s. Elan Buildtech Private limited. The receipts are also appearing in assessee’s 26AS of the F.Y. under consideration, on which TDS of Rs. 7,320/- u/s 194A of the Act was deducted by M/s. Elan Buildtech Private Limited. The TDS referred above has been claimed by the assessee while filing ITR u/s 139 of the Act. The assessee has started regular claims of such TDS in her ITRs for claiming refunds. The fixed amount received by the assessee is of Rs. 73,200/- per month which is around 33% of the payment made to the M/s. Elan Buildtech Private Limited for F.Y. 2013-14 which is usually high rate of return from normal range of 10-12%.

8.1 Furthermore, Any prudent business man would not borrow funds at 33% when he can obtain unsecured loans from friends and relatives or secured loans from NBFCs and other financial institutions at marginally higher rate as compared to the Nationalized Banks. From satisfaction note recorded, it is noticed that M/s. Elan Buildtech Private Limited had assured benefits to the clients varying from as low as 10% to as high as 33% depending on the cash amount received from the customer. After analysis of seized excel file, detail of assured cases was perused in which name of assessee appears at sr. no.33 & 34 with details as below:

From the above, it is seen that assessee has paid amount of Rs. 27,00,000/-through banking channel and received assured return of Rs. 73,200/- per month which is 33% of the amount paid to the builder for the F.Y. 2013-14. So, assuming 11% is the actual rate of return offered by builder, cash component calculated for the assessee is Rs. 52,85,454/- which is shown below.

Cash component = (Fixed amount 12)/11% – Total amount received (amount paid through banking channel in F.Y. 2013-14)

8.2 From the above, the undersigned is of the view that the cash payments made by the assessee is not shown in the record and the assured return received by the assessee is on the total payment i.e. on cash as well as cheque component made by the assessee to M/s. Elan Buildtech Private Limited. This is managed by M/s. Elan Buildtech Private Limited by increasing the assured return depending on the cash component paid by the assessee. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee has paid cash amount of Rs. 52,85,454/- to purchase immovable property from M/s. Elan Buildtech Pvt Ltd which is assessee’s unexplained investment and assessee has failed to furnish sufficient documentary evidences. Therefore, investment made by assessee fall in the ambit of section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is

reproduced hereunder:
Unexplained investments

69. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year.

8.3 In view of the above, it is clear that assesssee has failed to explain the unexplained investment of Rs. 52,85,454/- for the year under consideration. Therefore, amount of Rs. 52,85,454/-remained unexplained. The same is added as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the total income of the Assessee.

(Addition: Rs. 52,85,454/-)

6. Before the First Appellate Authority, the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the addition observed as follows:-

“5.1.2 I have perused the facts of the case including material on record, the assessment order, and submissions of the appellant. The proceeding under consideration owes its genesis to search in the case of M/s Eian Group dated 29.05.2018 wherein certain incriminating documents related to investment in immoveable property made by the appellant were unearthed [Annexure-A-2 containing excel sheets seized from Desktop PC of Vinod Sharma from premises of M/s Elan India Private Limited, M/s Best Selling Realty India Private Limited, and M/s K&T Realty Services Private Limited, Golf View tower, (2 ^ (nd)) / (3 ^ (rd)) Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector-42, Gurgaon]. Accordingly, the “AO of the searched person” recorded his due satisfaction and transferred the incriminating material to “AO of the Other person”, who initiated proceeding u/s 153C of the IT Act, 1961.

5.1.3 In this context, a perusal of Satisfaction-Note recorded by the AO of the any other person as per Section 153C of the IT Act, 1961, reveals that the officer has explicitly discussed the incriminating material and duly recorded his satisfaction as mandated under the law. The officer has categorically recorded that it was only after due examination of these incriminating documents, that he has arrived at his satisfaction that these documents had a bearing upon determination of income of the appellant. Thus, in my view, the actions undertaken by the AO of the any other person under Section 153C of the IT Act, 1961, fulfil the mandatory requirements for assuming jurisdiction over the case under the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961.

5.1.4 The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the IT Act, 1961 in this case is in accordance with judgement in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 6580 of 2021 dt. 24.04.2023, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: –

“In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under:

i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for blockeassessment under section 1534;

ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated;

in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns; and

(v) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments.”

5.1.5 It is also noticed that in this case, the AO of the Searched Person covered u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961 had also recorded his due satisfaction for initiation of action under Section 153C in the case of appellant prior to transfer of seized records to AO having jurisdiction over the appellant. Thereafter, only upon examination of these records, the AO having jurisdiction over the appellant’s case recorded his satisfaction. Thus, two distinct satisfaction notes ensuring strict compliance to mandate of ACIT Vs Pepsi Foods Private Limited [2018] SC and Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Private Limited [2014] were recorded.

5.1.6 In view of the above discussion, there is indeed an availability of “incriminating material” in the case of the appellant, which had a clear bearing on determination of its total assessable income. The procedure laid down as per the provisions of Section 153C of the IT Act, 1961 for invoking Section 153C in this case were duly catered to. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 6580 of 2021 dt. 24.04.2023, the AO does get jurisdiction to assess u/s 153C in respect of such incriminating material. Therefore, the invocation of proceeding u/s 153C in the instant case is legally justified.

5.1.7 In this case, AO has made an addition of Rs.52,85,454/- on ground of unaccounted & undisclosed cash component embedded in investment made by appellant in M/s Elan Buildtech Private Limited, which has been inferred by analysing the annual investment of Rs.27,00,000/- made by the appellant with M/s Elan during the year on which the appellant has claimed to have received assured annual return @33%, which the AO has held to be incredibly high rate of assured return claimed as per the market analysis. Therefore, AO concluded that 11% as actual rate of return offered, while the rate of assured return over and above 11% was held to be undisclosed/unaccounted cash component paid by the appellant to the builder to the extent of Rs.52,85,454/-, and the same was added u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

21.8 In this regard, the appellant has contested the addition on the ground that there was unaccounted cash investment made by the appellant with the builder and that all the ransactions were made through banking channel. However, contrary to the appellant’s claim, an examination of factual matrix of the case in its totality leads to following noteworthy factual findings:

(1) The “Assured returns” in commercial real estate is an investment arrangement offered by developers to attract potential buyers. These schemes guarantee a fixed or assured rate of return on the investment for a specific period. This fixed return is expressed as a percentage. It is noticed that the builders in Gurgaon, during the relevant period offered 8-10 percent of invested amount as a payout to the investors annually. The appellant has not brought on record any specific reason or justification for claiming a much higher assured return of 33%.

(II) It is noticed that neither during assessment nor during appellate proceeding before me the appellant could produce vital documentary evidences showing actual disbursement of 33% return by way of clauses reflecting the said assured return in (a) the builder-buyer agreement, (b) The assured return agreement, and (c) All relevant correspondence with the developer.

5.1.9 Therefore, following the circumstantial evidences put forth by AO, particularly the lack of commercial prudence in claim of 33% assured return when borrowing from Banks/Market was easily feasible at a much lower rate and following the principle of human probabilities, I am of the view that the 33% assured return on investment is not a genuine claim. It needs to be appreciated that there cannot exist a direct proof of such unrecorded/unaccounted cash transaction, the same needs to be inferred based on test of commercial prudence and principle of human probabilities. Hence, considering the overall factual matrix, the addition made by the AO in the given factual matrix is justified. It is also noticed that the appellant had been granted ample time and sufficient opportunities to substantiate its claim, so the plea regarding denial of natural justice does not hold good in given circumstances.

5.1.10 In view of above discussion, Grounds No 1, 2, 3 and 4 stand DISMISSED.

5.3 In Ground No. 5, the appellant has contended that the Appellant prays that the addition of Rs 52,85,545/- made in be deleted in full. This ground, being general in nature and does not require a separate adjudication.

5.4 In Ground No. 6, the appellant has contended that the appellant craves leaves to add, amend letter, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.

DECISION:

5.4.1 Since, the appellant did not add, alter, modify or change the ground of appeals, hence Ground No. 6 of appeal stands DISMISSED.

6. All grounds are disposed of, as above.

7. In view of the above, the appeal is DISMISSED.

7. Heard the respective parties, perused the materials on records. The assumption of jurisdiction while reopening of assessment under Section 153C of the Act has been challenged before us as without jurisdiction by the Assessee which has been addressed by the Ld. CIT(A) against the Assessee.

8. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. A.O. in reopening assessments under Section 153C of the Act is found to be correct and the Judgment relied upon by the Assessee in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited in Civil Appeal No. 6580/2021 dated 24.04.2023 passedby the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the case in hand.

9. The reopening of assessment, however, as it appears from the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) has found to be justified by him in view of the incriminating material unearthed during the course of search. So far as the material relating to the case made out by the Revenue against the Assessee is concerned nothing is found to have been unearthed qua the assessee which could have been set to be incriminating and, therefore, the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited in Civil Appeal No. 6580/2021 dated 24.04.2023 is found to be squarely applicable. Thus, the assessment itself is bad in law and therefore, liable to be quashed.

10. So far as the merit of the matter is concerned, it appears that considering 11% of the actual rate of return offered by the builder cash component was calculated at Rs. 52,84,454/- by the Ld. AO, However, though that has been claimed to have been done on the basis of the substantive evidence, but no such evidence is forthcoming in order to support such calculation of cash component paid by the Assessee and finally the addition made in the hands of the assessee only found to have been done on assumption basis without being supported by cogent evidence in support of the case made out by the revenue and therefore, the same in our considered opinion is not found to be justifiable and therefore quashed.

11. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.

ITA 7185/DEL/2025. RESHAM DATT

12. Facts being identical, the aforesaid decision would apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of the present case also. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

13. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessees are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04 .08.2026.