Case Law Details
ITO Vs Pramod Roshanlal Agarwal (ITAT Pune)
No cross-examination, no corroborative evidence: ITAT Pune upholds deletion of ₹1.14 crore addition under Section 69C
Case Summary:
The case arose from an assessment framed for AY 2022-23, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,14,39,908 under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging that the assessee had paid cash to obtain accommodation entries for import transactions through a hawala network. The addition was primarily based on statements recorded during a search conducted in the case of two other individuals, who allegedly admitted to operating a syndicate facilitating foreign remittances through bogus entities. The Revenue also relied upon certain WhatsApp chats to contend that the assessee had availed accommodation entries in lieu of cash payments.
During the assessment proceedings, the assessee denied the allegations and submitted comprehensive documentary evidence, including import invoices, letters of credit, bills of entry, customs clearance documents, transportation receipts, warehouse and insurance invoices, bank statements evidencing payments through banking channels, and sales records of the imported goods. The assessee also requested an opportunity to cross-examine whose statement formed the sole basis of the addition. However, no effective cross-examination was provided.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), after examining the documentary evidence, deleted the addition holding that the Assessing Officer had failed to produce any corroborative material establishing that the assessee had made cash payments or received accommodation entries. The CIT(A) further held that denial of cross-examination violated the principles of natural justice.
Aggrieved by the relief granted, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench. Advocate Sachin P. Kumar, appearing on behalf of the assessee, supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the entire addition rested only on an untested third-party statement without any independent evidence. It was further argued that all import transactions were genuine, duly supported by documentary records, and routed through normal banking channels. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries to contend that denial of cross-examination renders such evidence unreliable.
After considering the rival submissions, the Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had failed to establish how the figure of Rs. 1.14 crore was arrived at or produce any independent evidence proving that the assessee had made cash payments for obtaining accommodation entries. The Tribunal further noted that the assessee had furnished exhaustive documentary evidence substantiating the import of goods and corresponding banking transactions, none of which had been found to be defective. The Tribunal also held that reliance solely on the statement of a third party, without granting an effective opportunity of cross-examination, amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Outcome/Final Judgement:
The Hon’ble ITAT, Pune dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,14,39,908 made under Section 69C. The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of an uncorroborated third-party statement, particularly when the assessee has substantiated the transactions with credible documentary evidence and has been denied the right to cross-examine the witness. The decision reinforces the settled principle that suspicion cannot substitute evidence, and additions under the Income-tax Act must be supported by independent corroborative material while adhering to the principles of natural justice.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
The captioned appeal at the instance of Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2022-23 are directed against the order dated 30.10.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 23.03.2024 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act.
2. We will first take up the Revenue’s appeal and the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows :
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO u/ s. 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 1,14,39,908/ by observing that the AO failed to adduce any corroborative evidence in support of the addition and that the evidences furnished by the assessee during the assessment proceedings were genuine.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), while deleting the addition of Rs. 1,14,39,908/ – made by the AO u/ s.69C, failed to appreciate that Shri Aditya Kumar Jha and Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta in their statement recorded u/ s.131(IA) during the search proceedings had admitted running the hawala operations whereby Aditya Kumar Jha used to receive the RTGS entries from Manoj Kumar Gupta (PAN AAGPK2218J) to route the funds and finally remitting the same to foreign entities managed and operated by Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta. The Id. CIT(A) also failed to appreciate that it was also admitted by them that the parties who were sending RTGS were bogus entities which were also controlled and managed by Manoj Kumar Gupta and that the assessee Shri Pramod Roshantal Agarwal is also one of such beneficiaries who has availed accommodation in lieu of cash payment amounting to Rs. 1,14,39,908/ – , supported by evidence unearthed during the search proceedings. The Id CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the assessee’s nexus with the above hawala group, which was initially denied by him, was established by the WhatsApp chats the assessee had with Mr. Manoj Gupta.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded contradictory finding inasmuch as on the one hand he observes that no expenditure was incurred or claimed by the assessee which can be considered for disallowance u/ s.69C while on the other hand, he has accepted the genuineness of the evidence furnished by the assessee in support of Import of goods, movement of goods and expenditure incurred towards payment against such goods.
4. The appellant prays that in the light of the aforesaid grounds, the order of the Id. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO be restored.
5. The appellant crave for leave to add to, amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of selling shoes and other materials. Income of Rs.13,40,790/- declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 e-filed on 27.09.2022. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by validly serving statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer made reference to a search and seizure action conducted in the case of Aditya Kumar Jha. Delhi on 10.10.2021 who is alleged to be engaged in operating numerous domestic entities though which huge amount of foreign outward remittances were made for providing accommodation entries in lieu of commission. Ld. Assessing Officer observed that Mr. Aditya Kumar Jha received the RTGS entries through person namely Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta to route the funds and finally remitting the same to foreign entities managed and operated by Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta. In the statement recorded u/s.131(1A) of the Act, Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta admitted to be working with Mr. Aditya Kumar Jha for the transaction of making remittances to the entities based abroad. Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta admitted that the alleged beneficiaries have given him cash and obtained accommodation entries in lieu of cash for making outward remittances to foreign entities and in this list name of the assessee appears with an amount mentioned at Rs.1,14,39,908/-. Ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to file details of import purchases. Further, it is observed by ld. Assessing Officer that in the statement of Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta reference has been made to few persons who were also engaged in the alleged business of providing accommodation entries and one of the name mentioned is Mr. Sanjay Garg whose statement was also recorded wherein he stated that there are companies which are part of the accommodation entry provider group and engaged in under invoicing and providing entry of imports to Indian beneficiaries. When the assessee was confronted with these details and statements, it was submitted that the proposed addition of Rs.1,14,39,908/- for the alleged accommodation entry of purchasing imports are based solely on the statement given by Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta and there is no other corroborative evidence. As regards the Whatsapp Chat referred by the Ld. Assessing Officer containing the communication about the transaction of Rs.26,38,020/- the assessee submitted that there is no trace of cash transaction as mentioned in the said chat and one cannot drew any inference that cash has been paid to Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta. Further, assessee was not provided any detail as to how the alleged figure of Rs.1,14,39,908/- has been arrived. However, ld. Assessing Officer without giving any specification about the alleged transaction, mainly gave reference to the statement of Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta and Mr. Sanjay Garg and further referring to the foreign concerns through which the assessee has imported the goods, came to conclusion that the assessee has failed to explain the source of cash amount of Rs.1,14,39,908/- and the same is treated as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act and made the addition along with other minor additions of Rs.50,000/-and Rs.1,42,500/- for unexplained credits and disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act and assessed income at Rs.1,29,73,200/-.
4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and apart from deleting the additions of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.1,42,500/-ld.CIT(A) also deleted the impugned addition of Rs.1,14,39,908/-on the ground that the assessee has successfully demonstrated with various supporting documents with respect to the import of goods made, movement of goods and that the actual payments were made through banking channel. Ld.CIT(A) also held that in absence of proper opportunity of cross examination of Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta who allegedly controlled and operated the above parties, impugned addition deserves to be deleted in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/ s. Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [(2015) 62 com 3 (SC)]
5. Aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A) raising the abovementioned grounds.
6. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of Assessing Officer and submitted that Whatsapp chat clearly indicate that there transaction between the assessee and Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta took place and further the parties through whom the assessee has imported the goods were also referred in the list of parties allegedly used by Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta and Mr. Sanjay Garg for providing accommodation entries for purchases.
7. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assesee referred to the submissions filed before ld.CIT(A) and heavily supported the finding of ld.CIT(A).
8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The sole issue raised by the Revenue is that ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition for unexplained cash at Rs.1,14,39,908/- allegedly paid by the assessee for the purpose of getting accommodation entry for importing goods through various foreign entities. We observe that ld.CIT(A) after going through the facts of the case has summarised them in para 5.6 of the impugned order which reads as under :
“5.6 The factual matrix of the case is summarized as under:
(i) That the appellant is an individual and engaged in the business of trading of footwear in the whole sale and retail segment.
(ii) It is the case of the AO that Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta in his statement recorded on oath u/ s 131(1A) of the Act has admitted that he was engaged in converting cash into RTGS through Hawala with the purpose of sending the same to foreign remittance to the entities based abroad and as per the list submitted, appellant Sh. Pramod Roshanlal Agarwal is also one of the beneficiaries who has availed accommodation entry in lieu of cash payment amount to Rs. 1,14,39,908/ -.
(iii) AO has mainly stressed upon the screenshot of the WhatsApp chat which provided the basis of the impugned addition that the appellant was in contact with Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta, who had provided the accommodation entry i.e. the impugned addition to the appellant. AO has also pointed out that appellant has recorded import purchase from the two foreign entities i.e. Jieyang Junbao Shoes Co. Ltd Candy and Jieyang Yana Trading Co. Ltd. Hoga.
(iv) The exact purchase amount was objected by the appellant but AO has based is finding on the ground that assessee has carried the import purchase from the foreign entities who were part of the syndicate of Sh. Manoj Kumar Kumar Gupta. The request of cross examination of Shri Manoj Kumar Kumar Gupta was also accepted by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and opportunity of cross examination was provided to the appellant through Video Conferencing, however, neither Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta nor his authorized representative attended the scheduled video conference so as to give the opportunity of cross examination to the appellant.
(v) That the relevant extract from the statement of Sh. Manoj Gupta, Sh. Sanjay Kumar Garg and relevant extracts of transaction of the other entities who are engaged in providing accommodation entry were provided to the appellant.
Hence, AO concluded that some of the foreign entities who were part of the syndicate of Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta and engaged in the providing accommodation entries and assessee has also recorded some business transactions with some of the parties i.e. Jieyang Junbao Shoes Co. Ltd Candy and Jieyang Yana Trading Co. Ltd. Hoga and obtained accommodation entry through the foreign entities and has availed accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 1,14,39,908/ – in lieu of cash.
9. Further ld.CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition observing as follows :
“5.7 I have carefully gone through the grounds of appeal, facts of the case, assessment order passed by the AO, written submission uploaded as well as judicial decisions relied upon by the appellant. Appellant has also uploaded supporting documents in the form of paper book to substantiate his transactions and import purchases mainly in respect of foreign entities which were alleged to have given accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 1,14,39,908/ – in lieu of cash to the appellant. Before going into the merit of the addition it is important to examine the details asked by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and the details submitted by the appellant in response to that. Appellant has contended that AO has only relied upon the statement made by Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta and made an allegation on the assessee without any corroborative evidence that appellant has taken the accommodation entries in lieu of cash. However, it has been submitted by the appellant that the WhatsApp chat screenshots shared by the AO, had no trace of cash transactions and hence, strongly objected the conclusion of the AO that the cash has been paid to Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta. Further, it has also been pointed out that the working and computation of alleged cash paid of Rs. 1,14,39,908/ – for making foreign remittance has not been given by the AO in spite of specific request.
5.8 From the perusal of paper book and submission of the appellant, it is a fact on record that during the course of assessment proceedings various details were called by the AO i.e. detail of purchases including party wise details of import purchases, sundry creditors, bank statements, unsecured loans as well as details of transactions carried by appellant with Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta and the other business concerns managed and controlled by Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta. It is also on record that the appellant has made detailed submission in respect of these queries made by the AO along with supporting documents. However, AO has made an addition of Rs. 1,14,39,908/ – under section 69C of the Act mainly relying upon the statement given by Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta which states that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries who has converted cash into RTGS to make foreign remittance to parties outside India thereby treating the same as unexplained expenditure. AO has also made a reference to the statement given by Sh. Sanjay Garg wherein he has mentioned the name of some parties to whom Sh. Sanjay Garg has made payments with the help of Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta and made a conclusion that the assessee was also involved in the same manner. AO has stated that appellant has made imports from the same entities to whom Sh. Sanjay Garg has made RTGS payments with the help of Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta and tries to make a link between Sh. Sanjay Garg and appellant’s case.
5.9 During the course of assessment proceedings, appellant has submitted the details of import purchases made from the alleged parties along with supporting evidences of payment made from the bank account of the appellant. Further, copies of invoices received from parties, letter of credit, copies of transportation receipt for movement of goods, copies of custom clearance certificate and documents evidencing duly paid by the assessee for import of goods, copies of bills of entry, copies of invoice for warehousing charges paid for goods warehoused after import into India, copies of insurance invoices for goods in transit, copies of invoice for labor charges incurred for movement of goods and copies of acknowledgement of custom duty paid in respect of import of goods, freight invoices for transportation of goods through sea were also submitted before the AO. Appellant has contended that all the above payments and transactions had duly been accounted in his books of accounts. That he has also offered the corresponding sales of the imported material and offered the same to tax during the year under consideration. Copies of the sales invoices of the sales made by the assessee were also submitted before the AO. Lastly, appellant has challenged the impugned addition on the legal ground that he has not been granted an opportunity for cross-examination of Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta, based on whose statement the impugned addition has been made, is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE [2015] has emphasized that the denial of cross-examination amounts to a denial of a fair hearing, rendering the evidence inadmissible.
5.10 Before going into the legality of the issue and the denial of opportunity of providing the cross examination of the third party based on whose statement the impugned addition has been made, I will examine the case of the appellant on the basis of factual matrix and the documents available on record. As discussed in the preceding paras, the appellant has submitted all the related documents to support its import purchases from the alleged foreign entities as well as purchases made with the different parties and the evidences appear to be very sound as are supported with transportation receipt for movement of goods, copies of custom clearance certificate and documents evidencing duly paid by the assessee for import of goods, copies of bills of entry, copies of invoice for warehousing charges paid for goods warehoused after import into India, copies of insurance invoices for goods in transit, copies of invoice for labor charges incurred for good transported etc. Hence, I find force in the contention of the appellant that AO without pointing out any defect in respect of the import purchases made by the appellant verifiable through the various documentary evidences which were submitted before the AO and also uploaded during the course of appellate proceedings has rejected the submission of the appellant and made the impugned addition.
5.11 Having considered the above submission, assessment order and supporting evidence uploaded by the appellant, it is evident that the AO has made the impugned addition of Rs. 1,14,39,908/ – mainly relying upon the statement given by Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta which states that the appellant is one of the beneficiaries who has converted cash into RTGS to make foreign remittance to parties outside India thereby treating the same as unexplained expenditure. However, AO has failed to bring on record any other corroborative evidence to substantiate the finding that appellant has received the accommodation entry in lieu of payment of cash which has been added by the AO u/s 69C of the Act. The primary condition for invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act is that the assessee must have incurred any expenditure during the year and offers no explanation or if the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory in the opinion of the AO. The burden of proof lies upon the assessee to furnish the details/ documentary evidences to support its contention and to offer the best possible explanation and after submission of the explanations, the onus cast by virtue of this section is shifted to the department to make rebuttals of the contentions made by the assessee in his explanations offered in the situation of making any adverse opinion in the case of the assessee or if he is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee.
5.12 However, from the perusal of records it is evident that no such rebuttal was given by the AO in his assessment order. AO has relied on the statement of Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, who alleged that the appellant was involved in transactions amounting to Rs. 1,14,39,908/ – through the use of hawala channels. The AO used this statement as the primary basis for making the addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the absence of any direct evidence linking the appellant to the alleged transactions and made an addition of Rs. 1,14,39,908/ – u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating it as unexplained expenditure. AO’s rationale was based on the assertion that the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the funds used for these transactions, as alleged by Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta. AO had relied on certain WhatsApp chats retrieved from the mobile phone of Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, which purportedly indicated the involvement of the appellant in the alleged transactions. AO had treated these chats as corroborative evidence of the appellant’s involvement in the alleged transactions and rejected the detailed explanations and documentary evidence provided by the appellant, which included bank statements and financial records.
5.13 On perusal of the documents uploaded by the appellant which were also submitted before the AO, it is apparent that the appellant has not made any expenditure or claimed any expenditure during the year under consideration which remained unaccounted or unexplained. The proper documentary evidences as mentioned in the preceding paras in respect of the import purchases were submitted before the AO, along with details of sundry creditors as well as sales made. There is no expenditure incurred by the appellant during the year that could be classified as unexplained expenditure u/ s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applies when an assessee incurs an expenditure and fails to explain the source of such expenditure satisfactorily. AO failed to demonstrate that the alleged expenditure was actually incurred by the appellant i.e. taking the accommodation entry by making payment to the alleged parties in cash. The Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2019] held that the burden of proof lies with the AO to establish that the expenditure was indeed incurred and that it was unexplained. In the present case, AO did not provide any credible evidence to meet this burden. AO rejected the explanations and documentary evidence provided by the appellant without offering a valid rationale. This includes the bank statements and financial records that contradict the AO’s findings and shows that the payments were actually made to the alleged import parties through banking channels and goods were also imported duly complying with the custom clearance. These are strong factual documentary evidences which cannot be brushed aside.
5.14 It is a well-established principle that any rejection of evidence must be accompanied by a reasoned order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [2018] 404 ITR 1 (SC) that orders lacking cogent reasoning are liable to be set aside. In this case, AO’s failure to explain the grounds for rejecting the appellant’s evidence indicates a lack of application of mind and procedural fairness. AO’s arbitrary dismissal of these evidences without proper consideration or justification constitutes a significant procedural defect. As pointed out above, in the present case, actually payments were made to the alleged import parties through banking channels. Appellant has successfully demonstrated with the various supporting documents submitted before the AO with respect to the import purchases made and movement of goods. Further, AO has also failed to bring on record any corroborative evidence to show that appellant has made the cash payment for taking the accommodation entries from the above alleged parties. Therefore, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 1,14,39,908/ -u/ s 69C of the Act will not sustain.
5.15 Otherwise also, it is also a fact on record that appellant has requested for cross-examination of the Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta who allegedly controlled and operated the above parties giving the accommodation entry to the appellant but the same was not provided to the appellant and therefore for not providing the opportunity to cross examine a person whose statement was recorded by the Investigating Wing and relied upon by the Assessing Officer, itself is a reason to quash the entire addition. For the aforesaid proposition, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Andaman Timber Limited Vs. CCE [2015] 62 Taxman.com and Commissioner of Income Tax-7, New Delhi vs. M/ s Odeon Builders Put. Ltd. Hence, addition of Rs. 1,14,39,908/ – made u/s 69C of the Act is unwarranted and hereby deleted. Thus, Ground no. 3 and 4 of the appeal raised by the appellant on this issue are allowed.”
10. The above finding of ld.CIT(A) has not been controverted by ld. DR by placing any other material or any other evidence which could show that firstly how the Assessing Officer has arrived at the addition for the amount of Rs.1,14,39,908/- and secondly the assessee has imported the goods and for importing such goods the assessee has to receive the goods through custom clearance and payments are to be made through banking channel which have duly been explained before the lower authorities and before this Tribunal. It is also noticed that the alleged sum is only referred by Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta in his statement but apart from that there is no other evidence indicating the details of the alleged sum and how it has been found to be an accommodation entry. We also note that assessee has not been provided any opportunity of cross examination of Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta which is a sheer violation of principles of natural justice as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Andaman Timber Industries (supra). Further, ld. Assessing Officer has also failed to take note that on one hand it has been alleged that sum of Rs.1,14,39,908/- is in the nature of unexplained expenditure as section 69C has been invoked but on the other hand is alleging that assessee is one of the beneficiary of converting cash into RTGS to make foreign remittances to parties outside India. However, the assessee has filed copies of invoices received from parties, letter of credit, copies of transportation receipts for movement of goods, custom clearance certificate, payment for import of goods through banking channel, warehouse charges and other details to prove that import of goods have been made by the assessee as per the invoices raised.
11. Under all these given facts and circumstances, we find that ld. Assessing Officer has failed to furnished corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has given cash to Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta for importing of goods by making payments through other entities and that the impugned addition has been made solely on the basis of third party statement for which even an opportunity of cross examination has not been provided to the assessee. We therefore fail to find any reason to interfere with the finding of ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.1,14,39,908/-. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
12. As regards the Cross Objection appeal No.37/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee is concerned, we find that the Cross Objection is time barred by 149 days. Even though no specific application for condonation has been filed, however, in the course of hearing, it is submitted that for unavoidable circumstances and lack of proper professional advice from the Tax Consultant the delay has arisen. It is prayed for condonation of the delay in filing the Cross Objection. Considering the ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the Cross Objection within the stipulated time, we condone the delay of 149 days before this Tribunal.
13. So far as grounds of Cross Objection are concerned, we find that they are majorly supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) deleting the impugned addition made u/s.69C of the Act along with raising of legal issues. However, since we have already dismissed the Revenue’s appeal concurring the finding of ld.CIT(A), dealing with the grounds raised in the Cross Objection would be merely academic in nature and therefore renders the grounds raised in the Cross Objection to be Infructuous.
14. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed being infructuous.
Order pronounced on this 19th day of June, 2026.
Author Bio
