A Commissioner cannot initiate revision proceedings under Section 263 to review an Assessing Officer’s order if an appeal against that same order is already pending before the Commissioner (Appeals).

By | October 6, 2025
0 Comment

A Commissioner cannot initiate revision proceedings under Section 263 to review an Assessing Officer’s order if an appeal against that same order is already pending before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue

Can a Commissioner invoke their revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to revise an Assessing Officer’s order, if an appeal filed by the taxpayer against that very same order is already pending for adjudication before the Commissioner (Appeals)?

Facts

  • The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under Section 201 of the Act, holding the assessee liable for not deducting TDS on payments for External Development Charges (EDC). The AO’s view was that the payments were “rent” and required TDS under Section 194I.
  • The assessee disagreed and filed an appeal against this order, which was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals).
  • While this appeal was still pending, a different authority, the Commissioner (TDS), decided to intervene. He initiated revision proceedings under Section 263 against the same order. His view was that the AO’s order was erroneous because the correct section to apply was Section 194C (TDS on contracts), not Section 194I.

Decision

The court ruled in favour of the assessee.

  • It held that once an appeal against an AO’s order is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), another coordinate authority like the Commissioner (TDS) loses the jurisdiction to revise that same order under Section 263.
  • This is based on the legal principle that the matter has become sub-judice before a higher appellate authority, and a parallel proceeding by a coordinate authority would lead to a conflict of jurisdiction.
  • The revision order was therefore passed without jurisdiction and was set aside and quashed.

Key Takeways

  1. The “Doctrine of Merger” Principle: Once an order is appealed, it essentially “merges” with the jurisdiction of the appellate authority. This prevents another authority of a similar or lower rank from exercising their own powers over that same order, which would create legal chaos.
  2. No Parallel Proceedings on the Same Order: The law does not permit two parallel proceedings—an appeal by the assessee and a revision by the department—to run simultaneously on the very same assessment order.
  3. Pendency of an Appeal is a Jurisdictional Bar: The filing and pendency of an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) acts as a clear jurisdictional bar that prevents a Commissioner from exercising their revisionary powers under Section 263 over the order that is being appealed.

TDS on External Development Charges (EDC) paid to a development authority like HUDA falls under Section 194C (TDS on contracts), not Section 194I (TDS on rent).

Issue

Are the External Development Charges (EDC) that are paid by a real estate developer to a government development authority like HUDA to be treated as “rent” and subjected to TDS under Section 194I, or are they a payment for a “work contract” that should be subjected to TDS under Section 194C?

Facts

  • The assessee, a real estate business, paid External Development Charges (EDC) of ₹5.34 crore to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).
  • The Assessing Officer (AO) and subsequently the Commissioner (Appeals) both held that these payments were in the nature of “rent” and were therefore subject to a higher rate of TDS under Section 194I. To support this view, they relied on a CBDT office memorandum.
  • The assessee, however, contended that EDC payments are not rent. They are contractual charges that are paid to the authority for specific development works (like roads, water supply, sewerage) to be carried out by the authority. Therefore, they should be treated as payments for a work contract, which would fall under Section 194C.

Decision

The court ruled partly in favour of the assessee.

  • It followed the binding precedent that had been set by the Delhi High Court in the case of Puri Constructions (P.) Ltd. on this very issue.
  • It held that the payment of EDC to a development authority is not rent. It is a payment for carrying out specific development work.
  • Therefore, the correct provision to apply for TDS is Section 194C (TDS on contracts), not Section 194I (TDS on rent).
  • The matter was sent back to the Assessing Officer with a clear direction to apply the provisions of Section 194C to the EDC payments made by the assessee.

Key Takeways

  1. The Nature of EDC is “Work,” Not “Rent”: The core nature of an EDC payment is that it is a charge collected by a development authority to carry out large-scale infrastructure work external to a real estate project but essential for its viability. This squarely falls within the definition of “work” under Section 194C.
  2. “Rent” vs. “Contract”: The term “rent” legally implies a payment for the use of an asset (like land, a building, or machinery). EDC is not a payment for the use of any existing asset; it is a payment for services or works to be performed by the authority in the future.
  3. The Importance of Judicial Precedent: This case shows how a binding precedent from a jurisdictional High Court (or another High Court, if there is no conflicting view from the local one) is crucial in settling a disputed legal issue. The Puri Constructions case was the deciding factor here.
  4. Practical Implication: The rate of TDS under Section 194C (typically 1% or 2%) is significantly lower than the rate under Section 194I (typically 10%), so this distinction has a major financial impact on real estate developers.
IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH ‘C’
International Green Scapes Ltd.
v.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member
and BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, Accountant Member
IT Appeal Nos. 2046 & 2047 (Delhi) of 2024
[Assessment year 2015-16]
SEPTEMBER  19, 2025
Sandeep Jain, CA for the Appellant. B.S. Anand, Sr. DR for the Respondent.
ORDER
Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member.- These two appeals have been preferred by the same assessee against the different orders dated 20.03.2024 and 26.03.2024 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT-4, Kolkata, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Delhi-1, New Delhi-110092, u/s 263 of the Act, [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(TDS)], respectively, pertaining to Financial Year 2014-15 relevant to Assessment Year 2015-16. Since inter-connected issues are involved in both the appeals, these are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
2. First, we take up ITA No.- 2047/Del./2024. The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 26.03.2024 of the Ld. CIT(TDS), u/s 263 of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under: –
ITA No.- 2047/Del/2024
“1. The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income tax is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding the assessment order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue.
3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”
3. Brief facts of the case are: The assessee is a company and engaged in the construction and real estate sector. In its case, the order u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act, was passed by DCIT, Circle-74(1), Delhi (AO) vide order dated 22.03.2022 raising a demand of Rs. 1,01,73,629/- (including Rs 53,42,400/- u/s 201(1) and Rs 48,31,229/- u/s 201(1A) of the Act.).
4. While raising the said demand, the Assessing officer, held that during Financial Year 2014-15, the assessee had paid a sum of Rs. 5,34,24,000/- to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “HUDA”) towards External Development Charges (hereinafter referred to as ‘EDC’). According to the AO, HUDA was not a government organization and, therefore, the provision of section 194I of the Act, was applicable on such payments, which according to the AO was payments as being ‘rent’ or was in the nature of ‘rent’ and, therefore, levied the above demand.
5. On examination of the records of this case for the proceedings u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act, for the Financial Year 2014-15, vide the aforesaid order of the AO, the Ld. CIT(TDS) noted that the AO had incorrectly applied section 194I of the Act to such payments. The CIT(TDS) observed that the EDC was charged for development work by HUDA from Pvt. Builders pertaining to creation, development, and maintenance of urban infrastructure, which was a work carried out which was civil in nature for providing amenities and therefore, on such payments to HUDA, the correct provision of section 194C of the Act, was applicable. The Ld. CIT(TDS) further observed in para 6.5 of his order, that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in it order 24.03.2023 in the case DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT(OSD) 176/459 ITR 773 (Delhi), adjudicated the issue of TDS u/s 1941 of the Act on the EDC payments made to HUDA and the Court held that EDC charges cannot be subjected to TDS under Section 1941 of the Act. The Ld. CIT further observed that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has set aside the case by stating that “.we reject the contention that the findings of the AO regarding the nature of EDC charges as well as the provisions referred by him for determining the petitioner’s liability are not material.”. The Ld. CIT(TDS) further held that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its order dated 12.02.2024 dismissed the SLP of Revenue.
5.1 Further, the Ld. CIT(TDS) relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Puri Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Addl CIT 444/462 ITR 326 (Delhi), wherein he stated that, vide order dated 13.02.2024, in respect of TDS on EDC payments to HUDA, the Hon’ble Court held at para 88 of its order and reproduced the relevant extract as below:
“.we negative the challenge raised in these writ petitions insofar as the invocation of Section 194C of the Act is concerned and hold that EDC payments would be covered there under. For reasons recorded in the body of this judgement, we also turn down the challenge to the clarification issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 23 Dec 2017”.
5.2 Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(TDS) held that the impugned order passed by the AO under Section 201(1)/(1A) of the Act, invoking the provisions of section 194I of the Act instead of section 194C of the Act on the payments of Rs. 5,34,24,000/- by the assessee to the HUDA was not in accordance with law, and was erroneous, and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He therefore, cancelled the said order and asked the AO to pass fresh order under Section 201(1)/201A of the Act, in view of the direction given by him in the order u/s 263 of the Act to enquire and examine the applicability of TDS provision u/s 194C of the Act in respect of EDC payments made by the assessee to HUDA on which no TDS was deducted by assessee after giving due opportunity to the assessee and to decide the matter in accordance with law.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the assesse is in appeal before us.
7. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the order u/s 201(1)/201A of the Act was passed on 22.03.2022, and that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-TDS, Delhi-1, on 18.03.2023 against the said order. It was further submitted that as per the provision of section 263(1)(c) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(TDS) could not have exercised jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on the same issue i.e. deduction of TDS on EDC payments by the assessee to HUDA amounting to Rs. 5,34,24,000/-which was subject matter of the aforesaid appeal by issuing a show-cause notice dated 11.03.2024. It was further submitted that when the Ld. CIT(TDS) passed his order on 26.03.2024, setting aside the impugned order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act dated 22.03.2022, the Ld. CIT(A) had already disposed the appeal on the very same issue on 20.03.2024. In this regard, the assessee relied upon the order dated 31.12.2024 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of IREO (P.) Ltd. v. CIT(TDS) 7 (Delhi – Trib.)/ITA No. 2369/Del/2024 & others.
8. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(TDS).
9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.
9.1 On similar facts, the Co-ordinate Bench, in the case relied upon by the assessee, allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order passed u/s 263 of the Act, of the Ld. CIT(TDS). The relevant findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in para nos. 11 and 12 of its order are reproduced as under:
“11. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the issue under consideration is payment of EDC to HUDA. The core issue under consideration is payment made to HUDA relating to payment of EDC whether this payment falls under TDS provision or not, however the AO no doubt proceeded to treat the payment made to HUDA as chargeable under the provisions of section 1941 as rental payment and determined the liability u/s 201/201(1A) of the Act. The same issue on which assessee has preferred an appeal before the Id. CIT (A) is still pending for adjudication. However, in the meantime, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Puri Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT (supra) passed an order treating the EDC payment falls under the provisions of section 194C on 13.02.2024. By relying on the said decision, ld. PCIT has initiated the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. This development on the subject of payment of EDC was not available with the AO at the time of passing the assessment order. The recent development forced the ld. PCIT to revise the assessment order treating the same as against the law as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. After considering the submissions of both the sides, we observed that the issue under consideration is already pending before ld. CIT(A) and the issue under consideration is not settled considering the fact that Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the operation of Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Puri Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (supra). After careful consideration, we are of the view that the issue under consideration is payment of EDC to HUDA which is pending before first appellate authority where the provisions of section 1941 or 194C can also be the point of adjudication. However, ld. PCIT found that it is against the law and also observed that it is against the interest of Revenue. After careful consideration, we are of the view that the slab at which the AO calculated liability u/s 201/201(1A) is at 10% considering the same as rental payment. However, Id. PCIT has cancelled the relevant assessment order following the provisions of section 194C for which slab of 2% is applicable. It is not against the interest of Revenue.
12. After considering the overall facts on record, we observed that the order passed by the AO is not erroneous when the same was passed and also this is a debatable issue not settled considering the fact that the issue was pending before ld. CIT (A) and also Id. PCIT should not have proceeded to initiate proceedings u/s 263 of the Act when the same was pending before the Id. CTT (A)._Let alone the fact that there is no prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in this case. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order passed u/s 263 of the Act and the same is quashed. Accordingly, this appeal being ITA No.2369/Del/2024 for AY 2015-16 filed by the assessee is allowed.”
9.2 On perusal of the aforesaid order, it is seen that the facts in the present case are identical, because in this case also the Ld. CIT(TDS) passed the order u/s 263 of the Act, on the ground that the AO had wrongly applied the provisions of section 194I of the Act on EDC payments to HUDA, whereas according to the CIT(TDS), the correct section was 194C of the Act. Further, the Ld. CIT(TDS), in the present case also invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act, when the assessee’s appeal against the impugned order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, dated 22.03.2022, of the AO, bearing TDS liability u/s 194I of the Act on such payments was pending before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, following the above order of the Co-ordinate Bench, we set aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2024 passed u/s 263 of the Act, and the same is quashed.
10. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the assesse is allowed.
11. Now we take up ITA No.- 2046/Del/2024 for adjudication.
11.1 As discussed above, the AO in this case had applied the provisions of section 194I of the Act, in respect of payment of Rs. 5,34,24,000/- as EDC charges to HUDA. In this regard, the AO has relied upon the Office Memorandum dated 23.12.2017 of the CBDT, wherein it was clarified that payments in the nature of EDC are not to the Government but to HUDA which is a Developing Authority of State, Government of Haryana and it was a taxable entity under the Act, and the provision of TDS would be applicable on such payments. The relevant discussion of the AO in this regard in para 4.2 of his order is reproduced as under:
“The CBDT Office Memorandum (UM) dated 23.12.2017 has clarified that payment in the nature of EDC are not to the Government but to HUDA which is a Developing Authority of State Govt. of Haryana and is a taxable entity under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Board has further clarified that TDS provisions would be applicable on EDC payment made by the Builder to HUDA. The relevant para of the CBDT OM dated 23.12.2017 is reproduced hereunder as:
“In this regard it is submitted that provisions of non-deduction of tax under Section 196 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is applicable to the Government and to the other authorities as mentioned under the Section. Accordingly, External Development Charges (EDC) if paid to Government of Haryana would be exempt from TDS provisions. However, in the instant case, it appears that the developer has made the payment in the nature of External Development Charges (EDC) not to the Government but to HUDA (Haryana Urban Development Authority) which is a development authority of State Government of Haryana and is a taxable entity under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hence, TDS provisions would be applicable on EDC payable by the developer to HUDA.””
12. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A), which was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under:
“Ground No. 1 to 5: All these five grounds are related to a single point of treating the Appellant as an Assessee in Default u/s 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence these grounds are taken together for adjudication.
I find that the Appellant has furnished a detailed reply but no explanation has been filed regarding the Para 3 of the Notice u/s 250 (as in para E above) where it was mentioned that there is a GST No. of HUDA and PAN of HUDA. Both the GST No. and the PAN was mentioned in the Notice. The PAN IS AAAAH0087N. The fourth character of the PAN is A. which is for Association of Persons as defined in Section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 No explanation has been filed as how an Association of Persons can be treated as a purely Government Organization. A decision of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was mentioned in the notice u/s 250, but no reply has been filed on this issue. The Appellant has mentioned a decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, but, no explanation has been filed regarding the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court in this order upheld Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on External Development Charges (EDC) in a real estate project. A division Bench of Delhi High Court Comprising Justices Yashwant-Varma and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav upheld that Section 194C is applicable to EDC paid by real estate developers to Haryana Urban Development Authority. “We negative the challenge raised in these writ
petitions in so far as the invocation of Section 194C of the Act is concerned and hold that EDC payments would be covered there under, the bench said. Further, it also turned down the challenge to the Clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated December 23, 2017.
The said office memorandum clarified that EDC if paid to the government of Haryana would be exempt from TDS provisions. However, in case the developer has made the payment like EDC not to the government but to HUDA [Haryana Urban Development Authority) which is a development authority of the State government of Haryana and is a taxable entity under the income-tax Act, 1961, it would attract TDS.
Section 194C of the Income Tax Act mandates that deductions can be made under TDS if the total payment credited to a contractor or subcontractor in a financial year exceeds Rs 30,000 in a single payment or amounts to Rs.1 lakh in the aggregate. The TDS rate varies between 1-2 per cent, if the contractor has PAN. In case of no PAN, the rate would be 20 per cent. EDC means the charges paid by real estate builders to the municipal authorities for the creation and maintenance of civic facilities that are included in a real estate project. As per the guidelines set by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA), 2016, EDC is utilised for the development of essential infrastructure such as roads, water and electricity supply, drainage and sewage systems, waste management, landscaping and other similar projects that benefit the entire project.
Although the civic authorities determine the charges, the ultimate responsibility of payment lies with the homebuyer, as the developer generally transfers the cost to them. EDC is calculated based on the size of the project and can add up to 15-20 per cent of the total project cost for the homebuyers.
The issue of whether EDC paid by real estate developers are subject to TDS as payment to a contractor or as rental payments has been a matter of contention and has seen various rulings by different courts. External development charges typically refer to fees levied by local authorities on real estate developers for the development of infrastructure around a project, such as roads, sewage systems, parks, etc. The moot question arises whether these charges should be treated as payments to contractors for services rendered or as rent payments. As per the Assessment. Order, the Ld. AO has clarified that the payment in question is RENT. As per the above decision of the Division Bench, it has been clarifies that TDS has to be made on payment to the HUDA, which is not a Government Department
In view of the above and on the basis of the OM of CBDT dated 23.12.2017, the Appellant has failed to substantiate his case. The Appellant has mentioned regarding some very recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but no such copy has been uploaded by the Appellant. I find that no such Order has been reported anywhere
On the basis of the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, and the existence of GST No, and PAN, it is apparent that TDS was required to be made by the Appellant while making payment to HUDA, which the Appellant has failed. In view of the above, these Grounds of Appeal are DISMISSED”
(emphasis supplied by us)
13. Aggrieved with this, the assessee is in appeal before us, by the following grounds of appeal:
“1.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT (A) is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts.
2.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition made by A. O by not treating the payment of EDC to HUDA as government payment and held HUDA as taxable authority.
3.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order Passed u/s 201 by invoking the provision of section 1941 and held the EDC ought to be subject to TDS u/s 1941.
4.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition by invoking the provision of section 194C and held the EDC ought to be subject to TDS u/s 194C
5.The appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”
14. The Ld. AR submitted before us, that the provisions of section 194I of the Act were not applicable in the present case, and therefore, the order passed under section 201 was not a valid order. Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that addition should to be deleted.
15. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other side, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the provisions of Section 194C of the Act was applicable in respect of the payments of Rs. 5,34,24,000/- to HUDA towards EDC, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
16. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the material available on record. In this regard, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Puri Constructions (P.) Ltd. (supra), vide order dated 13.02.2024, held in para no. 88, that invocation of section 194C of the Act, on EDC payments to Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (earlier known as HUDA) was justified. The relevant extracts of this order are reproduced as below:
“1. This batch of writ petitions assail the action initiated by the respondents predicated upon a purported failure on the part of the writ petitioners to deduct tax on payments made to the Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (earlier known as the Haryana Urban Development Authority, for short HUDA) under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 19612. The respondents assert that the External Development Charges which were paid by the writ petitioners to HSVP albeit on the directions of the Director General, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, a department functioning under the Government of Haryana, would clearly fall within the ambit of Section 194C of the Act and as a consequence of default, the petitioners are liable to be proceeded under Section 201 as also to answer why penalty be not levied in terms of Section 271C of the Act.
2. We at the outset deem it appropriate to note and observe that we have heard learned counsels for respective sides solely on the question of whether the payment of EDC would fall within the ambit of Section 194C of the Act and whether the writ petitioners can be held liable to have deducted tax at source in terms of that provision. We thus propose to principally answer the primary question and consequentially leave it open for the writ petitioners as well as the respondents to proceed further in respect of notices that may have been issued referable to HSVP The Act EDC DTCP Sections 201 and Section 271C of the Act in accordance with the present judgment.
Xxxxx
88. Accordingly, we negative the challenge raised in these writ petitions insofar as the invocation of Section 194C of the Act is concerned and hold that EDC payments would be covered there under. For reasons recorded in the body of this judgement, we also turn down the challenge to the clarification issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 23 Dec 2017″.
xxxxx
16.1 In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we hold that the provision of section 194C of the Act, on the payment of Rs. 5,34,24,000/- by the assessee to HUDA towards EDC charges would be applicable. Therefore, ground no. 4 of the appeal of the assessee challenging the action of the Ld. CIT(A), in confirming the addition by invoking the provisions of section 194C of the Act is not maintainable, and therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
16.2 However, we agree with the submission made by the assessee in respect of ground no. 3 of the appeal, that the provisions of Section 194I on EDC payments will not be applicable.
16.3 We, therefore, set aside the order of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) to the extent that the AO is directed to apply the provisions of Section 194C of the Act, on the payment of Rs. 5,34,24,000/- towards EDC charges paid by the assessee to HUDA, and modify his order accordingly. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the above observations.
17. To sum up, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.-2047/Del/2024 is allowed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2046/Del/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes.