ITAT Deletes Section 69A Addition as WhatsApp Chats Alone Cannot Prove Cash Payments

Amit Katyal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

No Addition Under Section 69A Without Independent Inquiry Into Alleged Cash Transactions;  ITAT Quashes Cash Payment Addition as Revenue Relied Only on Presumptions and Digital Messages;  Wedding Expense Addition Deleted as Revenue Failed to Prove Assessee Paid Cash Amounts;  ITAT Rules Third-Party Search Documents Cannot Automatically Justify Addition Against Assessee.

Summary: In Amit Katyal Vs DCIT, the Delhi ITAT deleted additions made under Section 69A relating to alleged cash payments to a sportsperson and wedding-related expenses, holding that the additions were based merely on presumptions and uncorroborated digital messages. The Revenue relied on WhatsApp chats, statements recorded during post-search proceedings, and documents found from a third party’s premises to allege unexplained cash payments. However, the Tribunal found that no independent inquiry was conducted with the alleged recipients, event managers, or related parties to verify the transactions. The assessee had explained that payments recorded through banking channels were genuine and that wedding cash expenses could have been met from customary “Shagun” collections received during the marriage. ITAT held that mere digital chats, assumptions, and third-party documents without corroborative evidence cannot justify additions under Section 69A. Since the Assessing Officer failed to bring concrete evidence on record, all additions were deleted.

Core Issue: The core issue before the Tribunal was whether additions under section 69A towards alleged cash payments to Ms. Jwala Gutta and alleged marriage expenditure incurred in cash for the marriage of assessee’s niece could be sustained solely on the basis of digital chats, presumptions and uncorroborated statements recorded during post-search proceedings, in absence of any independent enquiry, confirmation from recipients, or incriminating evidence directly proving actual cash payments by the assessee.

Facts of the Case: The assessee was subjected to search and seizure proceedings under section 132 in connection with the LARA Group cases. During search, certain digital data and WhatsApp chats were found from the assessee’s iPhone and from the mobile phone of one Anand Mohta, an employee of the group. Based on these materials, the Assessing Officer alleged that the assessee had made unaccounted cash payments partly to Ms. Jwala Gutta and partly towards marriage expenses of his niece Ms. Radhika Katyal.

With regard to Ms. Jwala Gutta, the department noticed that payments aggregating to ₹82.50 lakh had been made to her, allegedly partly through cheque and partly through cash. The assessee explained that all payments were properly recorded in books and made through banking channels. However, the AO relied upon certain statements recorded during post-search proceedings and some images of cash receipts found in the mobile phone of Anand Mohta showing payment of ₹3.50 lakh to Manish Malhotra on behalf of Ms. Jwala Gutta. On that basis, the AO presumed that the assessee had made unexplained cash payments from undisclosed sources.

Regarding marriage expenditure, WhatsApp chats recovered from the assessee’s mobile referred to wedding expenses payable to Q Events Pvt. Ltd. for marriage functions relating to the assessee’s niece. The chats reflected total expenses of ₹80 lakh, out of which ₹42 lakh was allegedly paid in cash, ₹27 lakh through banking channels and ₹11 lakh remained payable. The assessee clarified that the marriage was not of his dependent but of his brother’s daughter and that any cash payments were made out of Shagun money received during marriage ceremonies, which is customary and exempt in nature. It was also argued that no investigation was conducted from the event manager or family members and no evidence existed to establish that the assessee himself had made any unaccounted payment.

Findings of the AO and CIT(A): The Assessing Officer held that the assessee himself had admitted during post-search statement under section 131(1A) that payments were made partly in cash and partly through cheque. The AO observed that though the ledger accounts reflected cheque payments only, the seized materials and chats indicated existence of cash transactions. Accordingly, ₹3.50 lakh relating to payments connected with Ms. Jwala Gutta was treated as unexplained money under section 69A.

Similarly, with respect to marriage expenses, the AO concluded that since the assessee had admittedly made certain payments through banking channels, the remaining cash component of ₹53 lakh must also have been paid by him. The explanation regarding Shagun money was rejected for want of documentary proof. The AO thus treated ₹53 lakh as unexplained money under section 69A.

The CIT(A) confirmed both additions and upheld the assessment order.

ITAT Findings: The Tribunal deleted both additions and held that the entire assessment was founded merely on presumptions and conjectures without proper enquiry or corroborative evidence.

Regarding alleged cash payments to Ms. Jwala Gutta, the Tribunal observed that the seized material merely indicated that certain payments had been made on behalf of Ms. Gutta. However, there was absolutely no material proving that such payments were made by the assessee personally. No confirmation was obtained either from Ms. Jwala Gutta, Manish Malhotra, or any other recipient to establish receipt of cash from the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had merely presumed existence of unexplained cash payments because some cheque payments admittedly existed. Such presumption without independent corroboration could not sustain an addition under section 69A.

On the issue of marriage expenses, the Tribunal held that the AO wrongly presumed that the balance cash component of marriage expenditure must have been incurred by the assessee merely because some cheque payments had been made by him. The Tribunal observed that the marriage pertained to the assessee’s niece, who was an adult, and the possibility of payments being met out of customary Shagun collections could not be ruled out. The AO failed to conduct any enquiry from the event manager or recipient of payments and also failed to examine the availability of Shagun receipts. The Tribunal therefore held that the addition was entirely based on assumptions and lacked evidentiary foundation.

The Tribunal further noted that digital chats or WhatsApp messages, without independent corroboration and proper investigation, could not automatically establish actual movement of cash or undisclosed expenditure. Accordingly, both additions were deleted for all three assessment years.

Cases Relied Upon

A2Z Infraservices Ltd. & Anr. v. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd SLP Civil No. 8636/2021 2021 (7) TMI 1475 – SC Order (LB)

1. Dated: 07.06.2021-Relied upon for the proposition that WhatsApp chats/messages by themselves do not constitute conclusive evidence unless duly corroborated.

Amit Katyal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI

These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 06.10.2025 for the Assessment Years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19.

2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. We take up assessee’s appeal being ITA No.7369/Del/2025 for AY 2017-18 as lead case.

3. Brief facts of the case are, original return was filed on 30.03.2018 declaring income of Rs.1,10,18,270/-. Search and seizure operation was conducted on LARA Group of cases under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on 16.05.2017, 01.06.2017 & 07.07.2017. A warrant of authorization for search was issued in the name of the assessee, for his residence premise at C-654, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. During search certain papers/documents relating to certain cash transactions were found and seized. Assessment jurisdiction over the assessee was transferred from Pr. CIT (Central), Gurgaon, vide order u/s 127(1) dated 20.11.2018 with immediate effect. Due to the search conducted u/s 132 in this case, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 23.09.2019,directing the assessee to furnish return of income for the year under consideration being one of the six assessment years preceding to the assessment year in which search was conducted.

4. In response to the notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs.1,10,18,270/- on 12.12.2019. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, ld. AR of the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and submitted the requisite details and clarifications as called for.

5. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown income from salary, income from capital gains and income from other sources. During the course of search at the residence of assessee, the I Phone 5S of the assessee, was seized and on analysis of the same, it was seen that assessee had made payment of Rs.82,50,000/- to Mr. Jwala Gutta, consideration partly in cash and partly through cheque payment. In this connection vide notice dated 14.11.2019, assessee was asked to submit the details as under:

• Details of all transaction entered by you or any of your business concerns with Ms. Jwala Gutta along with the documentary evidences.
• Details of all payments (either in cash or cheque) made by you or by any of your business concern to Ms. Jwala Gutta from F.Y. 2011-12 to 2017-18 alongwith documentary evidence.

6. In response to the notice issued, no detail was submitted by the assessee, therefore, vide notice dated 15.06.2021, the assessee was show caused as to why the amount of Rs.82,50,000/- paid to Ms. Jwala Guttashould not be added to his total income. In response, the assessee has e-filed letter dated 24.06.2021, in which it was stated that the entire amount was duly paid either by cheques and in cash from the regular books of account and a copy of her ledger account has already been submitted to the income-tax department and if she failed to disclose the cash receipts in her income-tax returns is not relevant to the assessment of the assessee and nothing incriminating is there.

7. AO after considering the submissions of the assessee but he found it as not tenable. During the course of post search proceedings, statement of assessee has been recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) of the Act wherein he has admitted that he had made cash payment to Ms. Jwala Gutta. Further, the assessee in its reply also stated that the payment made to Ms. Jwala Gutta was partly made in cash and partly through cheque. However, AO observed that on perusal of the ledger account of Ms. Jwala Gutta in the books of assessee it is noticed that the assessee has made all the payments of Rs.82,50,000/- through cheque only and no details of cash payment was mentioned in the ledger account submitted for the period 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2018. Further, during the course of search at the premise of one Sh. Anand Mohta, who is an employee of the assessee/group entities, various incriminating documents were found and seized and on perusal of the same, it is noticed thatpayment of Rs.3,50,000/-in cash was made to Mr. Manish Malhotra on behalf of Ms. Jwala Gutta which clearly shows that the assessee has made payment of Rs.3,50,000/- on behalf of Ms. Jwala Gutta to Mr. Manish Malhotra.

8. Further, AO observed that the assessee has not submitted plausible reply and also failed to submit documentary evidence either during post search proceedings or during assessment proceedings which proves that the cash payments made to Ms. Jwala Gutta has been properly accounted for in the books of assessee and the AO was of the view that it clearly shows the assessee has made payment to Ms. Jwala Gutta in cash from his undisclosed sources and therefore, the same is required to be added to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Further, AO observed that the assessee has made payment of Rs.41,50,000/- during the period F.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18 and the same are reproduced below:

9. AO therefore held that the source of expenditure remained unexplained and therefore, the payment of Rs.3,50,000/- made to Ms. Jwala Gutta in cash is treated as unexplained money and added to the income of the assessee.

10. Further, during the course of search operations at the residence of assessee, iPhone 5s was seized and on analysis of the same, it was seen that the assessee had received a message on 29.01.2017 related towedding expenses from Ms. Redhima Kapoor, who works in the office of Mrs. Geeta Samuel who is a Director in the company Q Events Pvt. Ltd. AO observed that as per the contents of the message it is clear that assessee was required to pay Rs.80,00,000/- to M/s Q Events Pvt. Ltd. out of which, Rs.42,00,000 had been paid in cash and Rs.27,00,000/- (plus Rs.5,50,000 tax) had been paid otherwise. The balance Rs.11,00,000 was yet to be paid to Q Events Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, vide notice dated 28.11.2019, the assessee was asked to provide the details in this regard and further, the assessee was asked as to why Rs.53,00,000/- should not be added to the income of assessee as unaccounted income.

11. In response, the assessee filed his submission in respect of payment made in cash related to payment made to M/s Q. Events Pvt. Ltd. and the relevant extract of the reply was reproduced by the AO in the assessment order. AO observed that submissions of the assessee are not tenable. He further observed that assessee in its submission stated that he does not have any dependent whose marriage was performed by him and the payments of Rs.42,00,000/- was paid in cash from the Shagun money received by the daughter only on the occasion of her marriage from relative and the assessee has tried to co-relate the payment made by him in cash with the shagun money received by Ms. Radhika Katyal whose marriage function was performed. AO observed that during the course of post search proceedings, the assessee accepted that he had made payment of Rs.32.5 lakh and the same was paid through banking channels, therefore, the contention raised by assessee that he does not have any dependent and therefore payment is not made by him is proved false as the assessee himself accepted that he had made payment of Rs.32,50,000/- through banking channels during post search proceedings and secondly, the total payment was required to paid was Rs. 80,00,000/-. Further, AO observed from the messages that an amount of Rs. 69 lacs have been received by M/s Q. Event Pvt. Ltd and reproduced the message in the assessment order. AO observed that it is clear that the assessee has incurred the expenditure for wedding expenses of his brother’s daughter amounting to Rs.53,00,000/- and in absence of any plausible explanation along with documentary evidences, the amount of expenditure Rs.53,00,000/- is treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added to the income of assessee.

12. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and submitted detailed submissions. Ld. CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee sustained the additions and dismissed the appeal.

13. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :-

“1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is erroneous, bad in law, against the facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed.

2. The CIT(A) erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs.3,50,000/- made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act alleging cash paid to or on behalf of Ms Jwala Gutta by the appellant without making any independent enquiries from her about the same and ignoring the explanation given. The addition made should be deleted as the same is based purely on surmises, conjectures and presumptions without any tangible, credible, or corroborative evidence on record to prove any actual cash transaction.

3. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.53,00,000/- alleging the same to be the expenses incurred by the appellant on the marriage of Ms Radhika Katyal daughter of Mr Rajesh Katyal, the elder brother of the appellant whereas it was specifically submitted that the assessee did not incur the said expense and ignoring the request made to take a direct confirmation of receipt of any such amount from the event manager. Thus, the addition made on surmises and conjectures should be deleted.

4. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the above addition though no incriminating material was found in the search from the premises of the assessee but from the other person searched. Thus, the addition made u/s 153A of the Act should be deleted.

5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the digital messages retrieved from the assessee’s phone were mere discussions or propositions and did not constitute evidence of any concluded transaction or actual movement of any cash. It is a settled judicial principle that additions cannot be sustained on the basis of dumb documents or inconclusive digital data without corroboration.

6. The CIT(A) erred in law and facts in upholding the addition based on a statement recorded u/s 131(1 A) during the search, which was not backed by any material evidence but just given without access to records and the ledger accounts clearly showed all payments were made through banking channels. A retracted or uncorroborated statement cannot be the sole basis for an addition.

7. The entire proceedings are vitiated by the jurisdictional error of making an addition u/s 153A for a completed AY 2017-18 without the discovery of any incriminating material from the premises of the assessee. The documents relied upon (Annexure A-l) were seized from the premises of a third party, Shri Anand Mohta, and cannot be used to make an addition against the appellant in an assessment u/s 153A for an unabated assessment year.

8. The CIT(A) ignored the detailed submissions made on 12/05/2022 which has been copied in the appellate order and nothing more was required to be stated. Thus, the addition need to be deleted.

9. The CIT(A) erred in law and facts by committed a gross violation of the principles of natural justice by relying on documents allegedly seized from Shri Anand Mohta and his statement, without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine. Any evidence collected at the back of the assessee cannot be used against him without affording the right of cross-examination.

10. The CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the specific ground raised by the appellant that the assessment order was bad in law as the statutory approval granted u/s 153D by the Addl. CIT was purely mechanical and without any independent application of mind, thus rendering the entire assessment order void ab initio.”

14. At the time of hearing, with regard to addition of Rs.3,50,000/-, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was show caused by the Investigation wing and not by the AO to explain the sources of payment of Rs.82,50,000/-to her by the assessee and the same was duly reflected in his books of account and a copy of the said ledger account in his books of account which was also submitted before the authorities which fact is admitted by the AO in the assessment order. He further submitted that the AO never gave any SCN of the three amounts assessed by him as cash payments to Ms Jwala Gutta in the periods relevant to the three AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19, thus, in absence of any SCN for the said amounts, nothing could be added. He further submitted that no evidence at all was found at the time of search on 17.05.2017 in the premises of the assessee to suggest in any manner that the assessee had ever made any cash payments as has been alleged over and above the duly recorded amount of Rs.82.50 lakhs in the books of account of the assessee. He submitted that the addition has been made purely on surmises without verification of the facts and that too without confronting the assessee with any evidence with the Revenue of any said such payments by the assessee.

15. He further submitted that there is only a reference two cash payment receipts aggregating to Rs 3,50,000/- paid to one Manish Malhotra or to his company M. M. Fashions Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi during the period relevant to the AY 2017-18 which are in the name of Ms Jwala Gutta and images of which were found in the mobile chat of Mr Anand Mohta, an employee of the Krrish Group and not at all of the assessee and which were also found/seized at the residence of Mr Anand Mohta as has been reproduced in the assessment orders, do not at all show that those payments were ever made by the assessee or any of his associates in any manner. No name of the assessee or even of his any company/associate is appearing therein in any manner. No statement of any person including Mr Anand Mohta, Mr Manish Malhotra and even of Ms Jwala Gutta are on record to support the allegation that the assessee ever made any such cash payment to her or on her behalf

16. Ld. AR further submitted that it is also a settled law that in case of any incriminating material, found in an income-tax search conducted in the premises of a third person, which here was Mr Anand Mohta, then the said incriminating material can only be used in the case of another person (here the assessee) through the process of taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C of the Act where two separate satisfaction notes have to be recorded, one by the AO of the person searched i.e. here of Mr Anand Mohta and then in the case of the other person, here the assessee, by their respective AOs, may be the same AO. He submitted that nothing can be presumed or assessed as has been alleged or has been done by the AO. He further submitted that merely finding images of those receipts in the mobile of an employee of the assessee cannot at all lead to any presumption that the assessee had made any such cash payment. He accordingly pleaded that no addition could otherwise be made for the said amounts in the hands of the assessee for any of the three assessment years as no evidence is mentioned to support the allegation.

17. With regard to another ground i.e. the addition of Rs.53,00,000/ – made alleging that the assessee had paid the same in cash outside the regular books of account on the marriage of Ms Radhika Katyal D/o Mr Rajesh Katyal, the elder brother of the assessee, because some details of an event which took place at the time of her marriage, was found in the mobile chat of the assessee and the said WhatsApp chat is reproduced on page 10 of the assessment order. As regards payment of Rs.42 lakhs in cash to the said company for a marriage event organized by the said company and Rs.11 lakhs balance was to be paid, he submitted that the assessee did not and actually does not have any dependent whose marriage was to be performed by him, however, the said event was for the marriage of Ms. Radhika Katyal, daughter of Mr Rajesh Katyal brother of the assessee. He further submitted that the amount of Rs.42 lakhs was paid from the Shagun money received by the daughter only on the occasion of her marriage from various relatives, friends, near and dear ones which was exempt under the second proviso, specifying exceptions for its application, in the section 56(2)(ii) of the Act and the balance amount of Rs.11 lakhs was never paid to the event manager and may be confirmed from the sender of the message.

18. Further, he submitted that on perusal of the assessment order, it is also clear that the AO has not been able to rebut the contention of the assessee that the said Rs.42,00,000/- was paid from the Shagun money received at the time of marriage by Mr. Rajesh Katyal, the brother of the assessee and which has been rejected without any verification from the brother or even from the event manager. He submitted that the assessee categorically discharged his onus by stating that he did not make any payment because he was not at all under any obligation to make any such payment from his own sources, may be, he had just coordinated the account of the event manager from his brother whose sole responsibility was to incur the said expenses on the marriage of his daughter and not of the assessee. He further submitted that it is also on record that no advantage of any such cash gifts received by way of Shagun money at the time of marriage has been taken in the books of account by way of any cash deposit in the banks or purchase of any asset either of the Ms Radhika Katyal or Mr Rajesh Katyal or of any other family member. He further submitted that it is also an undisputed fact that such cash Shaguns are always received by a bride at the time of her marriage from several relatives, friends, etc. etc. He submitted that since, incurrence of the said expenses were not at all the responsibility of the assessee nor any evidence was found in the mobile of the assessee or anywhere else at the time of the search for making such payment by himas is reproduced on page 8 of the assessment order. Accordingly, he pleaded that merely because the assessee was intervening to settle the account does not at all mean that assessee had paid any such amount. In absence of any evidence of the same or contradictory statements of the event manager or somebody else, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee on surmises which should be deleted.

19. Further, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court Larger Bench while hearing a SLP in the case of A2Z Infra services vs Quippo Infrastructure Ltd in SLP Civil 8636/2021 wherein it is categorically opined that a WhatsApp chat message cannot be used as evidence in any proceedings. Thus, any reference to and reliance on any WhatsApp chat messages by the revenue cannot incriminate the assessee at all.

20. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authorities and further submitted that the assessee himself accepted that the settlement was made partly by cheque and by cash.

21. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that search was conducted at the premises of the assessee and certain details of payments made by the assessee or may be by the group companies to Ms Jwala Gutta and certain payments were made by the assessee in the marriage of his niece Ms. Radhika Katyal. We observed that the AO had heavily relied on the post search statements on both the issues under consideration. It is fact on record that the assessee or his group entities had made payments to Ms. Gutta of Rs.82.50 lakhs, in the statement he had agreed that the payments were made partly by cheque and cash but it was found that all the payments were made only by cheque. Hence, the AO was of the view that there must be some cash payments, in this regard, he came to know of certain payments made by the employee of the group entities had made payment of Rs. 3.50 lakhs to M M Fashions Pvt Ltd on behalf of Ms. Gutta. The AO came to the conclusion that the assessee is the settler of the above dues instead of the group entity. The contract of Ms. Gutta was with the group entities, who are the beneficiaries in sponsorship. Since, the statement was recorded from the assessee, AO presumed that the assessee has settled the dues. The evidence found during the search was payment made on behalf of Ms.Gutta, the same cannot be presumed that the assessee must have made the payments. We further observed that the AO had not made proper enquiries before making addition in the hands of the assessee, there is no record to show that Ms Gutta had confirmed the payments made on her behalf or had confirmed the receipt of cash from the assessee. This clearly shows that the AO had only presumed without there being any material at his disposal. The evidence found may be related to the one of the entities of the group. Therefore, in our considered view, the AO had only applied presumption to make the addition without there being any material or any confirmation from the other side. Therefore, in our view, the submissions of the assessee had merits. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

22. With regard to payments made by the assessee in the marriage of his niece, it was noticed that a payment of Rs. 42 lakhs was made in cash and it is presumed that the settlement was made by the assessee overlooking the fact that the marriage of his nice and the payments were claimed to have been made out of Shagun collection during the marriage. No doubt the assessee had made the payment of cheque payments and the other part payment made in cash, it was presumed that the cash payments must have been made by the assessee over looking the fact that it is marriage of an adult and also the elder brother was also involved in the marriage, we are not able to understand, why the payments made in cash was presumed only against the assessee. There is no document to show that the AO had made any investigation with the receiver, whether the payments were made by the assessee or any other family member. Just because substantial portion of the marriage expense was made by the assessee by cheque, it was presumed that the balance cash payments must also been made by the assessee. The AO had also not quantified the collection of Shagun money during the marriage. Since there is exception in the section 56(2)(v) of the Act receipt of money without consideration on the occasion of the marriage of the individual, the same cannot be considered as the income of the individual on the year of receipt. In this case, the marriage is of the niece of the assessee, who happened to be the adult, there is possibility of receipt of Shagun in the marriage, the same belongs to the bride groom. In case the presumption is that the payment was made to the M M Fashions but the source was not identified by the AO with the improper enquiry, the easiest possible way to presume that it must have been made by the assessee since the part payment was made by cheque payment by the assessee. The addition was made purely on the basis of presumption, without bringing on record the source of settlement from the M M Fashions and also there is ample evidence to show that it could also be made out of Shagun. Hence, the AO had only made presumption without bringing on any material. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the grounds raised by the assessee.

23. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

24. Since the facts in other two appeals filed by the assessee for the AY 2016-17 and 2018-19 are exactly similar to the facts in the AY 2017-18, hence applicable mutatis mutandis to the facts in the other appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

25. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 6^th day of May, 2026.