Iapl/276/2015 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Kanpur v. Dinesh Chandra Jain

[1] AFRReserved on 02.08.2019 Delivered on 26.08.2019 Court No. - 35 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 276 of 2015 Appellant:- Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central KanpurRespondent :- Dinesh Chandra Jain Counsel for Appellant :- S.S.C. I.T.,Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinav Mehrotra Connected with:- Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 277 of 2015 Appellant:- Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Kanpur Respondent :- Dinesh Chand Jain Counsel for Appellant :- Praveen Kumar,Abhinav Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinav Mehrotra Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 197 of 2015 Appellant:- Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Kanpur Respondent :- Dinesh Chand Jain Counsel for Appellant :- Praveen Kumar,Abhinav Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinav Mehrotra Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 198 of 2015 Appellant:- Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Kanpur Respondent :- Dinesh Chand Jain Counsel for Appellant :- Praveen Kumar,Abhinav Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinav Mehrotra Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 199 of 2015 Appellant:- Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Kanpur Respondent :- Dinesh Chand Jain Counsel for Appellant :- Praveen Kumar,Abhinav Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinav Mehrotra AND Case:- INCOME TAX APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 200 of 2015 Appellant:- Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Kanpur Respondent :- Dinesh Chand Jain Counsel for Appellant :- S.S.C. I.T. Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinav Mehrotra,Abhinav Mehrotra Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. (Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.) 1.All these six appeals under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'Act') arise out of thecommon order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Delhi, Bench “B”, New Delhi (hereinafter called as 'Tribunal')dated 26.09.2014. The leading appeal is Income Tax AppealNo. 276 of 2015 for the assessment year 2000-01. Theseappeals were heard and decided on 22.02.2019 on thepreliminary objection raised by the assessee regarding theterritorial jurisdiction of this Court. Today with the consent ofboth the parties, the appeal is heard on merit. 2.This appeal was admitted on 16.11.2016 on the followingquestion of law:- “(A) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi is legallyjustified in deleting the penalty of Rs.75,76,441/-imposed by the AO ignoring the quantum appealwhich had been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) aswell as the ITAT, New Delhi on which the penaltywas imposed. (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT has not erred in law in deleting thepenalty of Rs.75,76,441/- imposed by the AOcontradicting their findings in deciding thequantum appeal that the whole transaction wasdesigned to show huge amounts as gifts withoutany liability of paying taxes.” 3.Income Tax Appeal No. 276 of 2015 for the assessmentyear 2000-01 is being treated as leading case. The brief factsof the case are that under Section 132 of the Act, search andseizure was conducted on the business premises of thepersons related to Begum Gutkha Groupon 09.12.2003.During course of search and seizure, various books of [3] accounts and other documents were found and seized. Inresponse to notice under Section 153-A of the Act, theassessee filed a letter on 23.02.2007 stating that his originalreturn filed may be treated as return required under Section153-A of the Act. 3.Income Tax Appeal No. 276 of 2015 for the assessmentyear 2000-01 is being treated as leading case. The brief factsof the case are that under Section 132 of the Act, search andseizure was conducted on the business premises of thepersons related to Begum Gutkha Groupon 09.12.2003.During course of search and seizure, various books of [3] accounts and other documents were found and seized. Inresponse to notice under Section 153-A of the Act, theassessee filed a letter on 23.02.2007 stating that his originalreturn filed may be treated as return required under Section153-A of the Act. 4.The assessee had filed return declaring income ofRs.1,63,65,386/- on 31.10.2000 for assessment year 2000-01.The assessment in this case was completed under Section153-A/143(3) on 08.11.2007 at an income of Rs.3,27,87,990/-as against return income of Rs.1,63,65,386/-. The AO in hisassessment order had made an addition of Rs.1,64,22,604/-by treating the exempted gifts received by the assessee'sminor son of Rs.1,52,20,000/- as his income from othersources. Against the said assessment order, an appeal wasfiled before the Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinaftercalled as 'CIT'). The assessment order was confirmed inappeal and further on appeal before the Tribunal, the order ofthe assessing authority was upheld. No further appeal wasfiled by the assessee challenging the order of the Tribunal asfar as the quantum is concerned. 5.While, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) ofthe Act were initiated against assessee on the ground ofconcealment of particulars of income and a sum ofRs.75,76,441/- was imposed as penalty for assessment year2000-01, on the ground that assessee had furnishedinaccurate particulars and had concealed particulars of itsincome amounting to Rs.1,52,20,000/-. Aggrieved by thepenalty order under Section 271(1)(c), assessee filed an appeal before CIT (A) III, New Delhi, who partly allowed theappeal of the assessee reducing penalty at 100% instead of150%. 6.Against the said order, assessee as well as Revenuefiled appeal before the Tribunal at New Delhi. The Tribunaldismissed the appeal of Revenue and allowed the assessee'sappeal for assessment year 2000-01 to 2005-06. 7.Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for theDepartment submitted that Tribunal was not correct to setaside the penalty imposed against the assessee under Section271(1)(c) of the Act, as assessing authority had categoricallygiven finding that gifts are not genuine and allowable, and afterholding the gifts as unexplained, an amount ofRs.1,52,00,000/- were taxed as income from other source. Hefurther submitted that the facts of the case suggest thatfurnishing of incorrect particular/ claim and consequently theconcealment on assessee's part for which the proceedingswere initiated. It has also been contended that assessmentorder clearly demonstrated the gifts to be a sham transactionand the said finding has been upheld by the CIT holding thesetransactions being designed to avoid payment of tax. It wasalso contended that the order of the assessing authority, FirstAppellate Tribunal was confirmed by the Tribunal, imposition oftax under Section 68 of the act and the findings given thereinhad become final and further no appeal was filed by theassessee. 8.The second limb of argument of the counsel for theRevenue is that order impugned passed by the Tribunal 8.The second limb of argument of the counsel for theRevenue is that order impugned passed by the Tribunal setting aside the penalty, in fact is an order passed by Tribunalas if it was sitting in appeal against the order of the Tribunal inthe quantum proceedings. It has also been submitted that thefindings of original assessment proceedings are good item ofevidence in penalty proceeding, and when that is the case thatthe finding of creation of a malicious design, on the part of theassessee, would clearly be a relevant evidence and has to betaken into account while passing the penalty order. He furtherlaid stress that Tribunal has made fresh inquiry and set asidethe finding given by the Tribunal itself in quantum proceedingsand rejected the imposition of penalty on the assessee. Hehas relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of RamBaboo Agrawal v. Commissioner of Income-Tax andanother (2018) 404 ITR 198 (Allahabad). 9.Per contra, the counsel for the respondent- assesseesubmitted that the order of the Tribunal cannot be discarded,as while deciding the appeal it had recorded categoricalfinding in regard to the factum of gift which was duly disclosedby the assessee in his return of income. Further, assessee hadsubstantiated its claim by legal evidence which has beendiscussed by the Tribunal in Para Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22of its order, analysing and examining in detail the documentssubmitted by the assessee in respect of the gift before theAssessing Officer in penalty proceedings as well as thestatements of both the donors Naresh Jain and Anil Jain beingrecorded in the said proceedings. 10.It is further submitted that gifts were disbelieved by citinghuman probability and perception. It has been stated that it [6] would have been different where any tangible, cogent andrelevant material was discovered by the Revenue todisapprove the gift, but it is not correct to merely disbelieve iton the basis of subjective perception. It was further contendedthat except for the addition on the account of alleged fictitiousgift, all other additions made by the Revenue to the income ofassessee were deleted by the appellate authorities. 11.Replying to the argument of the Revenue on the questionof quantum proceedings, it was submitted that they are notsacrosanct and impregnable for proving a charge ofconcealment of income for furnishing of inaccurate particularsof income, for causing a determination on the question ofliveability of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thecounsel for the assessee to prove his case on this point hasrelied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case ofAnantharam Veersinghaiah and Company [123 ITR 457],which is extracted here as under:- “Since the burden of proof in a penalty proceedingvaries from that involved in an assessmentproceeding, a finding in an assessmentproceeding that a particular receipt is incomecannot automatically be adopted as a finding tothat effect in the penalty proceeding. In the penaltyproceeding the taxing authority is bound toconsider the matter afresh on the material beforeit and, in the light of the burden to prove restingon the revenue, to ascertain whether a particularamount is a revenue receipt. No doubt, the factthat the assessment order contained a finding thatthe disputed amount represents incomeconstitutes good evidence in the penaltyproceeding but the finding in the assessmentproceeding cannot be regarded as conclusive forthe purposes of the penalty proceeding. That ishow the law has been understood by this court in Anwar Ali's Case [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC), andwe believe that to be the law still. It was also laiddown that before a penalty can be imposed theentirety of the circumstances must be taken intoaccount and must point to the conclusion that thedisputed amount represents income and that theassessee has consciously concealed particulars ofhis income or deliberately furnished inaccurateparticulars. The mere falsity of the explanationgiven by the assessee, it was observed, wasinsufficient without there being in addition cogentmaterial or evidence from which the necessaryconclusion attracting a penalty could bedrawn.These principles were reiterated by thiscourt in CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons [1972]83 ITR 369.” 12.He further relied upon in case of T. Ashok Pai [292 ITR11] and the Apex Court held as under:- “Since burden of proof in penalty proceedingsvaries from that in the assessment proceeding, afinding in an assessment proceeding that aparticular receipt is income cannot automaticallybe adopted, though a finding in the assessmentproceeding constitute good evidence in thepenalty proceeding. In the penalty proceedings,thus, the authorities must consider the matterafresh as the question has to be considered froma different angle.” 13.Reliance has been placed on a recent judgment of theApex Court in case of Reliance Petroproducts [322 ITR158], in which the Apex Court in regard to the penaltyproceedings held as under:- “We do not agree, as the assessee had furnishedall the details of its expenditure as well as incomein its Return, which details, in themselves, werenot found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed asthe concealment of income on its part. It was up tothe authorities to accept its claim in the Return ornot. Merely because the assessee had claimed theexpenditure, which claim was not accepted or wasnot acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty underSection 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention ofthe revenue then in case of every Return wherethe claim made is not accepted by AssessingOfficer for any reason, the assessee will invitepenalty under Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly notthe intendment of the Legislature.” 14.The second argument of the counsel for the assessee is that the finding arrived by the Tribunal is finding of fact to theeffect that there is no material in possession of Revenue toprove the charge of concealment of income or furnishing ofinaccurate particulars by assessee and the present appeals onthe behest of the Revenue are not maintainable. He has reliedupon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Additional CIT v. Jeevan Lal Sah [1994] 205 ITR 244. “Similarly, the question whether the assessee hasconcealed the particulars of his income or hasfurnished inaccurate particulars of his incomecontinues to remain a question of fact.” 15.Lastly, it has been contended that by invoking provisionsof Section 68 of the Act or by rejecting the explanation ofassessee, a presumption was drawn against him but thatpresumption was rebuttable and not at all conclusive,particularly when considering the said explanation in the lightof penalty proceedings. It was further submitted that theexplanations had not remained unsubstantiated and further itcan also not be held that explanation was not bona fide asprescribed in explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16.A decision of this Court in case of CIT vs. Sonali Jain, ITAppeal No. 88 of 2008 has been relied upon, wherein thisCourt held in Para Nos. 16 and 17 as under:- 15.Lastly, it has been contended that by invoking provisionsof Section 68 of the Act or by rejecting the explanation ofassessee, a presumption was drawn against him but thatpresumption was rebuttable and not at all conclusive,particularly when considering the said explanation in the lightof penalty proceedings. It was further submitted that theexplanations had not remained unsubstantiated and further itcan also not be held that explanation was not bona fide asprescribed in explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16.A decision of this Court in case of CIT vs. Sonali Jain, ITAppeal No. 88 of 2008 has been relied upon, wherein thisCourt held in Para Nos. 16 and 17 as under:- “16. In view of above, neither the assessee-respondent failed to furnish any explanationregarding the material facts for computation of herincome nor the explanation so furnished by herwas false. At least there is no finding to this effect.At the same time, the assessee-respondent havingsurrendered the above gifts as part of her incomejust in order to buy peace of mind, may be onrealising that she may also be ultimately affectedby the racket of gift deeds busted by thedepartment without any such thing being deductedin respect of her return or gifts, cannot be said tohave failed to prove or substantiate herexplanation regarding the to be bona fides of thetwo transactions. 17. Accordingly, the assessee is not a person whohas failed to offer an explanation or theexplanation offered by her was found to be false orthat she was unable to substantiate theexplanation or that the transactions were not bonafide so as to attract the deeming provisioncontained in Explanation 1(B) to Section 271(1)(c)of the Act. Therefore, the amount added to herincome would not be deemed to be income inrespect of which particulars had been concealed.” 17.We have heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel forthe Revenue and Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel forthe assessee. 18.Before proceeding, it would be necessary to have aglance of provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act:- “271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or theCommissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner inthe course of any proceedings under this Act, issatisfied that any person— (a) ….................. (b) ….................. (c) has concealed the particulars of his income orfurnished inaccurate particulars of [such income,or] (d) ….................. he may direct that such person shall pay by way ofpenalty,— (i) …............ (ii) …............. (iii) …............ Explanation 1.—Where in respect of any factsmaterial to the computation of the total income ofany person under this Act,— (A) such person fails to offer an explanationor offers an explanation which is found bythe Assessing Officer or the Commissioner(Appeals) or the Commissioner to be false,or (B) such person offers an explanation whichhe is not able to substantiate and fails toprove that such explanation is bona fide andthat all the facts relating to the same andmaterial to the computation of his totalincome have been disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowed incomputing the total income of such person as aresult thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c)of this sub-section, be deemed to represent theincome in respect of which particulars have beenconcealed.” Explanation 1.—Where in respect of any factsmaterial to the computation of the total income ofany person under this Act,— (A) such person fails to offer an explanationor offers an explanation which is found bythe Assessing Officer or the Commissioner(Appeals) or the Commissioner to be false,or (B) such person offers an explanation whichhe is not able to substantiate and fails toprove that such explanation is bona fide andthat all the facts relating to the same andmaterial to the computation of his totalincome have been disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowed incomputing the total income of such person as aresult thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c)of this sub-section, be deemed to represent theincome in respect of which particulars have beenconcealed.” 19.It is not in dispute that the assessee had disclosed thefact of gift in his return for the relevant assessment year, but itwas after the assessment proceedings that the AssessingOfficer who did not accept the creditworthiness of the donor aswell as the genuineness of transaction made an addition ofRs.1,52,00,000/- as income from other source. The saidaddition was sustained by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal. Asfrom the reading of Section 271(1)(c), it is clear that that thesaid provisions contemplate for levy of penalty where twoconditions are satisfied, that the assessee has concealedparticulars of his income or has furnished inaccurateparticulars of such income thus, concealment of income and [11] furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are two basicingredients for the initiation of proceedings for penalty underthe relevant section. The explanation further provides, whereany such person fails to offer an explanation or offers anexplanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or theCommissioner to be false or such person offers an explanationwhich he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that suchexplanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to thesame and material to the computation of his total income havebeen disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowedin computing the total income of such person as a resultthereof was for the purpose of Clause (c) of this Sub-section,be deemed to represent the income in respect of whichparticulars have been concealed. 20.The Apex Court while considering the case CIT Madrasv. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC) heldas under:- “No doubt the original assessment proceedings,for computing the tax may be a good item ofevidence in the penalty proceedings but thepenalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of thereasons given in the original order of assessment. In the case before us we have already pointed outthat in the order levying penalty the income-taxOfficer has categorically stated that the reasonsfor adding the disputed amounts in the totalincome of the assessee have been alreadydiscussed in the original order of assessment andthat they need not be repeated again. TheAppellate Assistant Commissioner, we havealready pointed out, has made only a guess-work.That clearly shows that except the reasons givenin the original assessment order for including thedisputed items in the total income, the departmenthad no other material or evidence from which it could be reasonably inferred that the assesseehad consciously concealed the particulars of hisincome or had deliberately furnished inaccurateparticulars. For all the reasons given above, it follows thatthere is no merit in the appeal and it is accordinglydismissed. As the respondent has not appeared,there will be no order as to costs.” 21.Further, the Apex Court while dealing with phrase'concealment of income' and 'inaccurate particulars' as usedunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act discussed in detail in thejudgment of Dilip N. Shroff v. CIT (2007) 6 SCC Page 329.Relevant paras are Para Nos. 48, 49, 50, 51 and 71 which areextracted here as under:- could be reasonably inferred that the assesseehad consciously concealed the particulars of hisincome or had deliberately furnished inaccurateparticulars. For all the reasons given above, it follows thatthere is no merit in the appeal and it is accordinglydismissed. As the respondent has not appeared,there will be no order as to costs.” 21.Further, the Apex Court while dealing with phrase'concealment of income' and 'inaccurate particulars' as usedunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act discussed in detail in thejudgment of Dilip N. Shroff v. CIT (2007) 6 SCC Page 329.Relevant paras are Para Nos. 48, 49, 50, 51 and 71 which areextracted here as under:- “48. The expression "conceal" is of greatimportance. According to Law Lexicon, the word"conceal" means: "To hide or keep secret. The word 'conceal' is derived from the latinconcelare which implies con + celare to hide. Itmeans 'to hide or withdraw from observation; tocover or keep from sight; to prevent the discoveryof; to withhold knowledge of'. The offence ofconcealment is thus a direct attempt to hide anitem of income or a portion thereof from theknowledge of the Income Tax Authorities." 49. In Webster's Dictionary, "inaccurate" has beendefined as: "not accurate, not exact or correct; notaccording to truth; erroneous; as an inaccuratestatement, copy or transcript." It signifies a deliberate act or omission on the partof the assessee. Such deliberate act must beeither for the purpose of concealment of income orfurnishing of inaccurate particulars. 50. The term “inaccurate particulars” is notdefined. Furnishing of an assessment of value ofthe property may not by itself be furnishing ofinaccurate particulars. Even if the Explanations are taken recourse to, a finding has to be arrivedat having regard to clause (A) of Explanation 1that the assessing officer is required to arrive at afinding that the explanation offered by anassessee, in the event he offers one, was false.He must be found to have failed to prove that suchexplanation is not only not bona fide but all thefacts relating to the same and material to theincome were not disclosed by him. Thus, apartfrom his explanation being not bona fide, it shouldhave been found as of fact that he has notdisclosed all the facts which was material to thecomputation of his income. 51. The explanation, having regard to thedecisions of this Court, must be preceded by afinding as to how and in what manner he furnishedthe particulars of his income. It is beyond anydoubt or dispute that for the said purpose theIncome Tax Officer must arrive at a satisfaction inthis behalf. [See CIT v. Ram CommercialEnterprises Ltd., (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del) andDiwan Enterprises v. CIT, (2000) 246 ITR571(Del). 71. “Concealment of income” and “furnishing ofinaccurate particulars” are different. Bothconcealment and furnishing inaccurate particularsrefer to deliberate act on the part of the assessee.A mere omission or negligence would notconstitute a deliberate act of suppressio veri orsuggestio falsi. Although it may not be veryaccurate or apt but suppressio veri would amountto concealment, suggestio falsi would amount tofurnishing of inaccurate particulars.” 22.As noticed above in the case of AnantharamVeersinghaiah and Company (supra), it has been constantview of the Apex Court that burden of proof in penaltyproceedings varies from that in the case of assessmentproceedings and any finding in assessment proceeding that aparticular receipt is income cannot automatically be adopted,though finding in assessment proceeding constitutes goodevidences in the penalty proceedings. In penalty proceedings [14] the authorities must consider the matter afresh as the questionhas to be considered from a different angle. 22.As noticed above in the case of AnantharamVeersinghaiah and Company (supra), it has been constantview of the Apex Court that burden of proof in penaltyproceedings varies from that in the case of assessmentproceedings and any finding in assessment proceeding that aparticular receipt is income cannot automatically be adopted,though finding in assessment proceeding constitutes goodevidences in the penalty proceedings. In penalty proceedings [14] the authorities must consider the matter afresh as the questionhas to be considered from a different angle. 23.Argument of the counsel for the Revenue that assesseefailed to prove the identity of the creditors, theircreditworthiness and the genuineness of transaction and thesame being confirmed by the Tribunal in the quantumproceedings, cannot be reopened now and looked upon in thepenalty proceedings, cannot be accepted, as penalty cannotbe levelled solely on the basis of reason given in the originalassessment order. The reliance placed on the decision of RamBaboo Agrawal (supra) is in relation to the proceedings underSection 68 and is not applicable in the present case. As in thepenalty proceedings, case is examined afresh for limitedpurpose for determining whether the assessee has furnishedinaccurate particulars of income or has concealed the incomeso as to make him liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) ofthe Act. 24.In Khoday Eswarsa and Sons (supra) as well as inDilip N. Shroff (supra), the Apex Court had examined in depthwhat would constitute 'concealment of income' and 'inaccurateparticulars'. In penalty proceedings the burden of proof variesfrom that in assessment proceedings, and any finding inassessment proceeding would not automatically be adopted inpenalty proceedings, thus, in penalty proceedings the taxingauthorities have to independently arrive at a finding regardingthe 'concealment of income' or of 'inaccurate particular'. 25.In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not recordany finding as to incorrect, erroneous or false return of income [15] filed by the assessee which could lead to the fact thatassessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income andmake him liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.The Assessing Officer had only doubted the genuineness ofthe gifts on ground of human probabilities and had alsodoubted the creditworthiness of donors and genuineness oftransaction. The Tribunal on the other hand had recordedfinding regarding the identity of creditors, their creditworthinessand genuineness of the transactions which were before theAssessing Officer but he had not properly appreciated thesame and discarded and doubted the genuineness of gifts onground of human probabilities, though they were tax payersand the amounts gifted had been disclosed in their tax returnfor relevant year. 26.Instant case, is not a case of either concealment ofincome or of furnishing inaccurate particulars as neither theassessing authority nor first appellate authority recorded anyfinding to such effect that details furnished by the assessee tobe incorrect, erroneous or false. 27.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, weare of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had recordedfinding of fact that no penalty can be imposed under Section271(1)(c) of the Act as Revenue has failed to establish thatassessee has concealed income or furnished inaccurateparticulars. 28.These appeals have no merit and are hereby dismissed.The question of law, therefore, is answered in favour of theassessee and against the Revenue.Order Date:-26.08.2019/V.S.Singh