- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. (1) Kanhaiyalal
Summary of Opinion: Income-tax Appeals Nos. 40 and 42 of 2003 (Decided December 13, 2007)
Factual and Procedural Background
During a search under section 132, the assessee gave a statement under section 132(4) disclosing undisclosed income of Rs. 3,50,000 and stated that he would show the entire amount in the return for assessment year 1987-88. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised returns for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89, spreading the Rs. 3,50,000 across those years. The Assessing Officer accepted the revised returns for assessment purposes but adjusted the year-wise figures; ultimately Rs. 1,05,000 was assessed for 1987-88, Rs. 1,25,000 for 1988-89, and the remaining Rs. 1,20,000 in the other three years. Penalty proceedings were initiated by the assessing authority under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89, treating the spreading as resiling from the earlier statement and alleging concealment, and imposing the maximum penalty (three times the tax) for each year. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the penalty for the two years. The Revenue appealed to the court, leading to these two appeals which raised questions about the interpretation and application of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, having given a statement under section 132(4) disclosing undisclosed income of Rs. 3,50,000 and stating that it would be shown in the return for assessment year 1987-88, the assessee could claim immunity under Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) despite subsequently spreading the same amount over five years in revised returns (appeal No. 40 of 2003)?
- Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal correctly interpreted Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) in holding that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable, contrary to the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (appeal No. 42 of 2003)?
Arguments of the Parties
Assessing Authority / Revenue
- The assessing authority found that although the Department accepted that the income could be spread across years, the assessee had resiled from his earlier stand in the statement under section 132(4) (where he had offered the entire Rs. 3,50,000 for taxation in 1987-88) solely to reduce tax liability; on that basis it concluded concealment under section 271(1)(c) and imposed the maximum penalty for each of the two years in question.
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)
- The Commissioner held that immunity under Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) is available only if four conditions are satisfied: (1) during search the assessee gives a section 132(4) statement admitting acquisition of assets from undisclosed income; (2) a return under section 139(1) is furnished; (3) the manner in which the income was derived is specified; and (4) tax and interest on the disclosed income is paid. Because the assessee had stated he would show the amount in 1987-88 but instead spread the amount over five years to avoid a higher rate, the Commissioner found the assessee had not adhered to his section 132(4) statement and thus upheld the penalty.
Assessee
- The assessee filed revised returns for assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89 declaring the undisclosed income as having arisen over those years. The assessee's position (accepted by the Assessing Officer for assessment purposes, albeit with different year-wise apportionment) was that the disclosed Rs. 3,50,000 pertained to multiple years and therefore the spreading in revised returns reflected the year-wise origin of the income rather than an attempt to defeat the section 132(4) disclosure.
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
- The Tribunal accepted that the assessee's revised returns and the Assessing Officer's assessments showed that the undisclosed income of Rs. 3,50,000 related to the five-year period and that the Department had accepted that position for assessment. The Tribunal relied on a precedent (Shyam Biri Works P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, [2001] 70 TTJ 880) holding that an assessee who disclosed income in a section 132(4) statement and later filed revised returns for different years could still claim immunity under sub-clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders for the two years.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Shyam Biri Works P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, [2001] 70 TTJ 880 (Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal) | Held that where an assessee disclosed undisclosed income in a statement under section 132(4) and later filed revised returns declaring additional income forming part of the undisclosed amount, the assessee could still be entitled to immunity under sub-clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). | The Tribunal relied on this decision to support its conclusion that the assessee in the present case remained entitled to immunity under sub-clause (2) of Explanation 5 and therefore the penalty under section 271(1)(c) should be set aside. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's analysis focuses on the interpretation of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) and in particular sub-clause (2) of that Explanation in the context of a statement given under section 132(4).
- Nature of the question: The essential question was whether giving a section 132(4) statement disclosing Rs. 3,50,000 and later filing revised returns spreading that amount over five years attracts penalty under section 271(1)(c) or whether immunity under Explanation 5(2) applies.
- Statutory text considered: The court quoted and closely examined section 132(4), Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) (including clauses (a) and (b) and sub-clauses (1) and (2)), and section 271(1). It emphasized that section 132(4) itself merely permits use of statements made during search as evidence and does not by itself confer immunity.
- Construction of sub-clause (2): Sub-clause (2) provides immunity from penalty where, in the course of search, the assessee makes a section 132(4) statement that assets found were acquired out of undisclosed income to be declared before the expiry of time under section 139(1), specifies how such income was derived, and pays tax with interest. The court observed that the clause does not require the tax and interest to be paid in respect of any particular assessment year; there is no textual requirement that the income must be declared in the precise assessment year mentioned in the section 132(4) statement.
- Relationship with clauses (a) and (b): The court noted the opening part of Explanation 5 contemplates undisclosed income that may belong to any previous year (clause (a)) or a previous year ending on or after the date of search (clause (b)). Because the parent provision contemplates income that may relate to one or more previous years, the provisos (sub-clauses (1) and (2)) must be read consistently with that scope. Consequently, an assessee who discloses assets under section 132(4) should not be deprived of immunity simply because he later shows the income as arising in more than one previous year, so long as the conditions of sub-clause (2) are satisfied.
- Practical considerations and evidence: The court illustrated that in some factual situations there will be documentary evidence (e.g., fixed deposit receipts or bank passbooks) that fix the year of acquisition, and an assessee cannot be compelled to show the asset in the return of a particular year merely because of an earlier oral or written statement. The court emphasized that the obligation is to disclose and pay tax and interest in respect of the income in the relevant previous years as determined by assessment, not to adhere to a single year stated in the section 132(4) disclosure where the facts show otherwise.
- Application to the present facts: Here the Assessing Officer made assessments for the five years and adjusted year-wise figures (assessments became final in 1991). Tax and interest in respect of the assessed income were paid. Because the assessments (reflecting year-wise apportionment) were finalized and the conditions of sub-clause (2) as to disclosure and payment were satisfied, the court held that immunity under sub-clause (2) of Explanation 5 was not taken away simply because the assessee spread the disclosed income over more than one year in revised returns.
- Conclusion of analysis: The court found no basis to read additional words into sub-clause (2) (such as a requirement to declare the amount in any particular assessment year) and declined to adopt the Revenue's narrower interpretation which would penalize the assessee for spreading the income across years after a section 132(4) disclosure. The Tribunal's reasoning and reliance on the cited Tribunal precedent were upheld.
Holding and Implications
Holding: APPEALS DISMISSED.
Direct effect on the parties: The court answered the questions framed against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, maintained the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that set aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89, and dismissed both appeals. In short, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held not leviable in the present case given the operation of Explanation 5(2) and the facts (finalized assessments and payment of tax and interest).
Broader implications: The opinion does not purport to lay down a new broad precedent beyond the interpretation applied to Explanation 5(2) on the facts before the court; it sustains the Tribunal's approach (including reliance on a prior Tribunal decision) that an assessee who discloses assets under section 132(4) and subsequently has the income assessed to relevant years (with tax and interest paid) is not automatically deprived of immunity under sub-clause (2) merely because the income is spread over multiple years.
Income-tax Appeals Nos. 40 and 42 of 2003
Decided on December 13, 2007
JUDGMENT
1. These two appeals seek to challenge the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated October 30, 2001, deciding the two appeals of the assessee, for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89, and thereby setting aside the penalty imposed by the assessing authority, and upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which was imposed under section 271(1)(c). These appeals were admitted on different dates. However, the question framed in appeal No. 40 of 2003 is as under:
“Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view that the assessee in his statement under section 132(4) has agreed to surrender the undisclosed income of Rs. 3,50,000 for the assessment year 1987-88, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit of immunity from levy of penalty under Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) notwithstanding that the assessee has not surrendered his undisclosed income for the assessment year 1987-88 but has spread over the same for five years.”
2. While Appeal No. 42 of 2003 was admitted on September 15, 2003, by framing the following substantial question of law:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in its interpretation of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) so as to hold that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable in the case, contrary to the findings given by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ?”
3. In our view, the precise question that emerges is, about the interpretation of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c), as to whether on the face of the statement given by the assessee under section 132(4), any liability of penalty is attracted, on account of the assessee filing revised returns for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89, showing the income disclosed under section 132(4) by spreading it over the aforesaid assessment years. The assessing authority, accepting the revised returns, has made the assessment, though by changing the figures. For the present purposes, it would suffice to say, that out of the amount of Rs. 3,50,000 disclosed under section 132(4), income of Rs. 1,05,000 has been assessed for the assessment year 1987-88, and another sum of Rs. 1,25,000 has been assessed for the assessment year 1988-89, and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,20,000 has been assessed in the other three assessment years. The matter of other three assessment years is not in question.
4. The assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings after show-cause notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c), calling upon the assessee, as to why penalty should not be imposed under section 271(1)(c).
5. It was found by the assessing authority, that even though the Department had accepted the spreading over of the income in the given assessment years, but then, the assessee has resiled from his earlier stand, [taken in the statement given under section 132(4)] only with a view to reduce the tax liability, inasmuch as, in the statement under section 132(4), he had offered the entire income of Rs. 3,50,000 for taxation in the assessment year 1987-88, and thus, it was found, that it was a case of concealment, made out under section 271(1)(c), and three times the amount of tax, being the maximum imposable penalty, has been imposed, for each of the two assessment years.
6. In appeal, the learned Commissioner found that the immunity from the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is available, if the four conditions mentioned in paragraph 7 of the order are satisfied, being, firstly, if during the course of search, the assessee gives a statement under section 132(4) admitting that the available funds were acquired out of his undisclosed income, the second being that the return of income under section 139(1) will be furnished, the third being the manner in which the income has been derived will be stated, and the last being that the tax and interest on the income disclosed is paid. With enumerating these conditions, it was found that in the statement under section 132(4) he had admitted that certain assets were acquired by undisclosed income, relating to the assessment year 1987-88, but then, the amount was spread over for five years, to avoid higher rate of tax, which would have been applicable, if the entire surrendered amount was taxed in the year 1987-88. Thus, the assessee has not stuck to the statement given under section 132(4), and, consequently, the penalty order was upheld.
7. Then in further appeal, the learned Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted revised returns for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89, on the basis, that such income [as disclosed under section 132(4)] did pertain to the said years, and that, this stand of the assessee was accepted by the Assessing Officer, in view of the fact, that the documents found during the course of search indicated that the assessee is carrying on a business from the assessment year 1984-85, and the quantum of the income declared by the assessee in each year was varied by him, on estimate basis, and thus, it was clear, that as a matter of fact, the concealed income of Rs. 3,50,000 was earned during the 5 years, which was accepted by the Department, and that being the position, it cannot be said that the assessee did not stick to the statement given under section 132(4). The learned Tribunal also relied upon a judgment of the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Shyam Biri Works P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT reported in [2001] 70 TTJ 880, wherein also the assessee had disclosed large amount of undisclosed income in the statement under section 132(4), and later on filed revised returns for two years, declaring additional income, which formed part of undisclosed income, and on these facts, the Tribunal held that the assessee was still entitled to immunity under sub-clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c), in respect of such additional income. With this, it was held that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in holding that the assessee lost the immunity available under clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c), and thus, the penalty order was set aside.
8. We may gainfully quote the provisions of section 132(4), along with the Explanation appended thereto, which reads as under:
“(4) The authorised officer may, during the course of the search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statement made by such person during such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act.
Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the examination of any person under this sub-section may be not merely in respect of any books of account, other documents or assets found as a result of the search, but also in respect of all matters relevant for the purposes of any investigation connected with any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act.”
9. Likewise, we may also quote the provisions of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c), which reads as under:
“Explanation 5.—Where in the course of a search initiated under section 132 before the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing (hereafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilising (wholly or in part) his income,—
(a) for any previous year which has ended before the date of the search, but the return of income for such year has not been furnished before the said date or, where such return has been furnished before the said date, such income has not been declared therein; or
(b) for any previous year which is to end on or after the date of the search,
then, notwithstanding that such income is declared by him in any return of income furnished on or after the date of the search, he shall, for the purposes of imposition of a penalty under clause (c) of subsection (1) of this section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income unless,—
(1) such income is, or the transactions resulting in such income are recorded,—
(i) in a case falling under clause (a), before the date of the search; and
(ii) in a case falling under clause (b), on or before such date,
in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income or such income is otherwise disclosed to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner before the said date; or
(2) he, in the course of the search, makes a statement under sub section (4) of section 132 that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found in his possession or under his control, has been acquired out of his income which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before the expiry of time specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, and also specifies in the statement the manner in which such income has been derived and pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of such income.”
10. We may also quote the provisions of section 271(1), which reads as under:
“271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person—…
(b) has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (2) of section 115WD or under sub-section (2) of section 115WE or under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142, or
(c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, or
(d) has concealed the particulars of the fringe benefits or furnished inaccurate particulars of such fringe benefits,
he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty,—
(ii) in the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure;
(iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c) or clause (d), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or fringe benefits or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income or fringe benefits.”
11. With quoting the above provisions, we may recapitulate, that it is not in dispute, that the assessee, during the course of search, gave a statement under section 132(4), making disclosure of an undisclosed income of Rs. 3,50,000, and giving out, that he will file a return with respect to that amount, for the assessment year 1987-88. It is also not in dispute, that thereafter the assessee filed the revised returns for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89, and did spread over the said undisclosed income of Rs. 3,50,000 in different years. It is also not in dispute, that the assessment on the basis of the said revised returns was made by the assessing authority, not accepting the spreading as returned by the assessee, but reshuffling the spreading, on his own estimates, of the assessing authorities, but then confined to a total amount of Rs. 3,50,000, spread over the assessment years, i.e, 1984-85 to 1988-89, that has also become final, as that was done in the year 1991.
12. It is thereafter, that the penalty proceedings had been initiated, with respect to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 only, and the income assessed for these two years, pursuant to the revised assessment order is Rs. 1,05,000 and Rs. 1,25,000, respectively. In this background, a look at Explanation 5 again, would show, that it provides, that where in the course of a search initiated under section 132, the assessee is found to be the owner of any assets mentioned therein, and the assessee claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilising (wholly or in part) his income, for any previous year, which has ended before the date of the search, but the return of income for the said year, has not been furnished before the said date, or where such return had been furnished before the said date, such income has not been declared therein, then, notwithstanding that such income is declared by him in any return of income furnished on or after the date of the search, he shall for the purpose of imposition of penalty under sub-section (1)(c) be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income, or furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
13. Significantly, such concealed income could be for any previous years, and could be required to be disclosed in such particular previous years. It is to this language of Explanation 5, that two exceptions are carved out, by using the word “unless”, and the controversy in the present case is covered by sub-clause (2), which has been quoted above, and which provides, that it would be not so treated the undisclosed or concealed income, if the assessee, in the course of the search, makes a statement under section 132(4), that any asset found in his possession or under his control has been acquired out of his income, which has not been disclosed so far in his return of the income to be furnished before the expiry of the time specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, and also specifies in the statement, the manner, in which such income has been derived, and pays tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of such income.
14. Thus, it is clear that the immunity flowing from the disclosure according to section 132(4) is provided by this sub-clause (2) of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). Therefore, it is to be examined, as to what is the extent of immunity provided and/or, as to whether this provision contemplates any circumstances, which may have the effect of taking away the immunity. It should be clarified that section 132(4) by itself does not provide any immunity, rather it provides, that the statement given under that sub-section can be used as evidence in any proceedings under the Income-tax Act.
15. On a plain reading of the said sub-clause (2), we may immediately observe that it does not provide any eventuality in which the immunity conferred by this clause may be taken away, or may be lost, except where the assessee fails to pay tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of such income. It is clear from the language of the said sub-clause (2) that it does not contemplate the requirement of the assessee paying tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of such income, in any particular assessment year only. In the present case, in view of the fact that the assessments for these years have been finalised, and tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of such income has been paid, it cannot be claimed that the immunity is lost, simply because of the spreading of the income over more years. Taking any other view would amount to reading the words in sub-clause (2), which do not exist, and according to the settled legal position regarding the interpretation of statutes, this is not permissible for us to so read. Then the other thing to be seen is, as to whether this sub-clause (2) confers any immunity or not. Admittedly, the assessee had given the statement under section 132(4) disclosing to be having undisclosed assets worth Rs. 3,50,000, of course in addition, he gave out therein that he would show it in the return for the assessment year 1987-88. But then in the language of section 132(4) read with sub-clause (2) of Explanation 5, this is nowhere the requirement, that the assessee should undertake to show that asset, in a return of any particular assessment year, to be entitled to claim the immunity.
16. To appreciate this aspect, we may again revert to the opening part of Explanation 5, which attracts the liability under section 271(1) by providing Explanation, and clause (a) thereof clearly contemplates a situation, where the assessee may claim the undisclosed assets to have been acquired by him for any previous year, which has ended before the date of the search, but the return of the income of such year has not been furnished before the said date. Further significantly, it is clause (b), which provides for the other eventuality, of the asset having been acquired by him for any previous year, which is to end on or after the date of the search. This is a million dollar distinction. Inasmuch as, in cases covered by clause (a), the asset may have been acquired by income for any previous year, which cannot be confined to any one previous year, for the relevant assessment year, of which previous year, the assessee may have deposed under section 132(4), to be submitting the return. Obviously, such assets may have been acquired as or from the income for any one or more number of previous years, within the block period. Thus, when the parent provision contemplates the income to be permissible in any previous years, obviously sub-clauses (1) and (2), which are in the nature of the proviso to this Explanation, have to be read in line therewith, and, therefore, if the disclosure of the asset has been made, then the assessee cannot be prohibited from showing that the income related to any one or more of the previous years before the date of the search, at the pain of the immunity conferred by sub-clause (2) of Explanation 5 being taken away.
17. We may consider the things from yet another aspect, viz., that under the set up of the Income-tax Act, in whatever eventuality the assessment may have to be made, i.e, whether a regular assessment, or assessment consequent upon escapement of income, or assessment of a block period, but in either case, the assessment has to be, with respect to the particular assessment year, relating to the concerned previous year, and the income derived, or found by the Department to have been derived, or earned, by the assessee, during particular previous year, has to be assessed during the relevant assessment year only, and assessment of such income cannot be shifted to any other past or future years, so much so that there may be cases, where the right of the Department to assessment may have been lost on account of passage of limitation also.
18. If considered from that stand point, the assessee may have derived income in sequence of years, which might be voluminous income, and be taxable, and he may not have furnished returns at all, then a search may be undertaken under section 132, and in that event, may be for purchasing peace, or may be due to good sense prevailing on the assessee, he may straightaway make a disclosure of all existing assets under section 132(4), disclosing to be in possession of the assets as found, which by virtue of the covering language of Explanation 5 would amount to the concealment of the income for the purpose of section 271(1)(c), but then, sub-clause (2) being in the nature of the proviso, would come in, and in that event, obviously, the assessee would be not only entitled, rather would be under obligation to make disclosure of the income earned during the relevant previous years, in which the income may have been earned, resulting into the disclosure of the total assets as acquired by undisclosed income, and admitted in statement under section 132(4).
19. This may be a question of fact, as to whether the particular extent of income shown by the assessee in such revised returns in each particular previous year, may be correct or not, but then, there may be cases, where there may be foolproof material to show, that the assets found during the search, and disclosed under section 132(4), were acquired by the assessee during a particular past previous year. For instance, let us take an example, that in case of a search, fixed deposit receipts and/or pass books of undisclosed bank accounts are found, disclosure whereof has been made by the assessee under section 132(4). Obviously, the dates of the fixed deposit receipts, and the entries of the receipts as appearing in the bank pass books are the foolproof material to show, that the assessee had acquired those assets at the time it purports to have been acquired, as appearing from those documents, or at any earlier point of time. In that event, the assessee cannot be said to be under any obligation, or even rather entitled, to submit the return, with respect to that income, in any past or future previous year, simply because, he may have deposed in the statement given under section 132(4), that he will show that income in the return of any particular assessment year, at the pain of the immunity conferred by sub-clause (2) of Explanation 5 being taken away.
20. The above illustration clearly demonstrates, that the assessee is rather under obligation to submit the return with respect to the income, from which the undisclosed assets have been acquired, as disclosed under section 132(4), in the returns of the relevant previous years only.
21. Examining the present case from that standpoint, it is clear, that the assessing authority has made assessment for the five assessment years, and instead of believing the returns filed by the assessee, the assessing authority, as a fact, had found the income to be relating to different assessment years, in different volumes, as contra-distinguished to the one submitted by the assessee, and has accordingly made the assessments, which assessments had become final, and are not the subject-matter of challenge. That being the position, in our view, it cannot be said that the immunity conferred by sub-clause (2) of Explanation 5, consequent upon the assessee giving statement under section 132(4), was at all taken away, or even watered down. Thus, the questions framed in the two appeals are answered against the Revenue, and in favour of the assessee, and the impugned orders of the learned Tribunal are maintained.
22. Both the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
Alert