Reassessment based on vague group-level search findings

Reassessment based on vague group-level search findings and lacking primary additions is invalid and quashed.

Issue

Whether a reassessment initiated under Section 148 based on generic group-level search reasons, without assessee-specific incriminating material, and approved mechanically under Section 151, is valid in law.
Whether an Assessing Officer can complete a reassessment under Section 147 by making an addition on an unrelated issue (delayed PF/ESIC deposit) when no addition is made on the issues that formed the original basis for reopening the assessment.

Facts

The assessee, a private limited company, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21 declaring NIL income.
A search under Section 132 and survey under Section 133A were conducted on the DB Realty Group and related entities, covering the assessee.
Following the search, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 to reopen the assessment, relying on Explanation 2(i) to Section 148.
The reasons recorded for reopening and seeking approval under Section 151 referred broadly to group-level unaccounted transactions, undisclosed income of ₹486.26 crores across the group, and seizure of cash and jewellery, without specifying any assessee-specific material or its impact for AY 2020-21.
In the final reassessment order, the Assessing Officer made no addition regarding the search-based reasons; instead, the sole addition made was ₹37.57 lakhs under Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees’ PF/ESIC.

Decision

Vagueness and Non-Application of Mind: In favor of Assessee. The recorded reasons lacked assessee-specific particulars and failed to isolate any material belonging or relevant to the assessee for the assessment year in question. Approval under Section 151 granted on such vague, group-level findings reflected a mechanical extension of findings and suffered from non-application of mind.
Addition on Unrelated Issue Without Primary Addition: In favor of Assessee. Where no addition is made on the income that formed the very basis of reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer is not competent to sustain the reassessment solely on the strength of an unrelated addition (delayed PF/ESIC deposit).
Quashing of Reassessment: In favor of Assessee. Because the approval was vitiated by non-application of mind and no primary addition was made on the grounds of reopening, the entire reassessment was quashed.

Key Takeaways

Assessee-Specific Material Required: Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated or approved on generic, group-wide search findings without identifying specific incriminating material pertaining to the particular assessee and assessment year.
Jurisdictional Pre-condition for Additional Issues: Under Section 147, if the original grounds/income for which the assessment was reopened are not ultimately assessed or added, the Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction to make additions on other unrelated matters.
Sanction Under Section 151: Approval by the specified authority under Section 151 is a safeguard that requires meaningful application of mind to the individual assessee’s facts, not mechanical endorsement.

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH “H(SMC)”

MIG Bandra Realtors & Builders (P.) Ltd.

DCIT

ANIKESH BANERJEE, Judicial Member
and Om Prakash Kant, Accountant Member

IT Appeal No. 5126 (Mum.) of 2026
[Assessment year 2020-21]

SEPTEMBER 18, 2026

Sunil Kumar for the Appellant. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR for the Respondent.

ORDER

Om Prakash Kant, Accountant Member. – This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 4th February 2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-47, NFAC, Mumbai, (in short ‘the learned CIT(A)’) for assessment year 2020-21, raising following grounds:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the assessment made under section 143 (3) read with section 147, by issue of notice under section 148, when the same is illegal, bad in law or otherwise void for want of jurisdiction.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment and the additions / disallowances made by the AO, when such order has been passed without providing copy of reasons recorded before re-opening of the assessment and consequently the impugned order is illegal and hence liable to be quashed.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs.37,57,324/- u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC, when the said payments were made before the due date of filing return of income.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the provisions of section 36(1) (va) were incorrectly invoked and the disallowance sustained is contrary to the facts and settled legal position applicable to the appellant’s case.

5. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, delete, vary and/or withdraw any or all of the grounds of appeal as may be necessary.”

2. Briefly, stated facts of the case are that assessee is a private limited company. It filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 9th February 2021, declaring total income at Rs. NIL, within the time period prescribed under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961, (in short ‘the Act’). Subsequently, a search and seizure action u/s 132 along with survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 07.10.2021 on M/s DB Realty Group, Dynamics Group, and other related entities, wherein the assessee was also covered u/s 132 of the Act.

3. Consequently, the assessment was reopened by way of issue of notice u/s 148 dated 27/10/2022. In response, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.NIL on 28/11/2022. In the reassessment order, however, the Assessing Officer made no addition in respect of any of the matters referred to in the reasons for reopening namely, unaccounted transactions, concealed income, bogus expenses, or undisclosed income of the group. The sole addition made was of Rs. 37,57,324/- under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act, on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s challenge to the addition on merit, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 448 ITR 518 (SC). The relevant finding of ld CIT(A) reads as under:

“12.9 Post-judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Service Pvt Ltd v. CIT 448 ITR 518, the controversy over the issue of delayed remittance of employees contribution to welfare funds is finally settled. The Hon’ble Court interpreted that employees contribution to welfare funds have to be deposited before the due dates as provided in the respective statutes for being eligible as business expenditure allowable u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act.

12.10 In the present case, since the appellant admittedly deposited employees’ contribution beyond the due dates prescribed under the PF/ESIC Acts, the amount rightly falls within the mischief of section 2(24)(x), and the appellant fails to satisfy the condition for deduction under section 36(1)(va). Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the disallowance of Rs.15,80,854/-. In view of the above discussion, the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) is confirmed. Ground No. 4 is dismissed.”

4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the validity of the reassessment itself on two grounds.

4.1 Firstly, it was submitted that the reasons for reopening are generic to the entire ‘DB Realty’ Group and disclose no material specific to the assessee for the year under consideration. It was submitted that no seized document was referred, no escaped income was identified, and no nexus between any seized material and the assessee’s income for AY 2020-21 was set out. It was submitted that Explanation 2(i) to section 148 creates only a deemed existence of information consequent upon search but it does not dispense with the requirement that such information be shown to pertain to the assessee and to the relevant assessment year before the specified authority can meaningfully grant approval under section 151 of the Act. It was submitted that a reason for reopening in these generic terms, does not permit the sanctioning authority to apply its mind to the assessee’s case specifically, and the approval so granted is vitiated by non-application of mind.

4.2 Secondly, and without prejudice to the first submission, it was submitted that the addition actually made in the reassessment was of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution under section 36(1)(va) , which bears no relationship whatsoever to the reasons for reopening, which spoke only of unaccounted transactions, concealed income, bogus expenses, and undisclosed income of the group. No addition was made on any of those issues referred to in the reasons. The ld Counsel placed reliance on CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay), and on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 3431 (Mum.) of 2026, dated 30-6-2026], for the proposition that this principle continues to apply with full force under the reassessment regime substituted by the Finance Act, 2021.

5. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We proceed to examine the challenge to the reassessment at the threshold, since a finding that the reassessment itself cannot be sustained would render the merits of the addition academic. We address both limbs of the challenge raised.

A. Vagueness of reasons for reopening and non-application of mind in granting approval under section 151

5.1 The Assessing Officer while seeking approval u/s 151 of the Act for issue of notice u/s 148 has referred the reasons to explain that income had escaped assessment. For ready reference said reasons are reproduced as under:

“In the case of DB Realty Group, a search & seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 07.10.2021, wherein the assessee viz M/s MIG Bandra Realtors and Builders Pvt Ltd was also covered u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

During the course of search & seizure action, various incriminating documents/papers and digital data were found and seized, which validates that the group has carried out unaccounted transaction, concealed income, bogus expenses etc. Statement of key persons including that of the assessee has been recorded and confronted with related documents found and seized. Search & seizure action resulted into undisclosed income of Rs. 486,26,37,075/- of the entire DB Realty Group. Cash & jewellery has also been seized amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/- & 32,41,730 respectively.

The above context, in terms of Explanation 2(i) of Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggest that the Assessing Officer has deemed information w.r.t. income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.”

5.2 The reasons for reopening of the case reproduced above, state no more than that “a search was conducted on the DB Realty Group; that incriminating material was found , which validates that the group has carried out unaccounted transaction, concealed income, bogus expenses etc.”; and that the group as a whole yielded undisclosed income of Rs. 486,26,37,075/-. Beyond naming the assessee as one of the entities covered in the search, the reasons contain no reference to any specific document or digital data seized from, or pertaining to, the assessee; no description of the nature of the income alleged to have escaped assessment in its hands; and no indication of the assessment year to which any such material relates.

5.3 Explanation 2(i) to section 148 of the Act creates a deeming fiction that, upon search under section 132 on or after 01.04.2021, the Assessing Officer of the searched person “shall be deemed to have information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.” This fiction dispenses with the necessity of establishing, at the threshold that information exists; it does not dispense with the requirement, embedded in the first proviso to section 148, that such information must suggest escapement of income in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year.” The deeming fiction operates upon the fact of search; it does not extend to deeming that generic, group-level findings are, without more, referable to a particular assessee for a particular year. Before granting approval under section 151, the specified authority is required to satisfy itself that the information communicated by the Assessing Officer bears on the assessee before it and the year for which the notice is proposed to be issued, a satisfaction that presupposes reasons disclosing, at least in outline, the assessee-specific material and its bearing on the relevant year.

5.4 In the present case, the reasons for reopening don’t disclose either assessee-specific material or its bearing on the relevant year. They are couched entirely in terms of the DB Realty Group as a whole, without isolating any material said to be belonging to, or concerned to the present assessee for AY 2020-21. Approval granted on the strength of such reasons cannot be said to reflect application of mind by the specified authority to the case of this particular assessee; it reflects, at best, a mechanical extension of group-level findings to every entity covered in the search. We accordingly hold that the reasons for reopening suffer from vagueness and lack of assessee specific particulars, and that the approval granted under section 151 on the basis of such reasons is vitiated by nonapplication of mind. This ground succeeds.

B. No addition made on the basis of the reasons recorded

5.5 Independently of the above, we find equal merit in the assessee’s second submission. The reasons for reopening refer exclusively to unaccounted transactions, concealed income, and bogus expenses detected in the course of the search on the DB Realty Group. The reassessment order, however, contains no discussion, verification, or addition on any of those matters. The sole addition sustained is of Rs. 37,57,324/- under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act, concerning delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC , a matter of routine compliance wholly unconnected with the search, finding no mention in the reasons for reopening and not traceable to any material seized in the search.

5.6 The law on this point is well settled. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. , (supra), held that the words “and also” in section 147 of the Act must be read together. The Assessing Officer must first assess or reassess the income that formed the basis of the reasons recorded, and it is only upon doing so that jurisdiction is acquired to assess any other income that comes to notice during the reassessment proceedings. Where the income that formed the very basis of reopening is not, in the end, assessed, the reassessment cannot be sustained merely to support an addition on an unrelated issue.

5.7 A Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel (supra), has applied this very principle to reassessments framed under the substituted regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. It held that the new regime, by requiring disclosure of information under section 148A(b) and recording of satisfaction thereon under section 148A(d), anchors the jurisdiction to reopen even more closely to the specific information disclosed than did the erstwhile “reason to believe” standard; that Parliament, having retained the words “and also any other income” in section 147 despite the settled interpretation placed upon them in Jet Airways(I) Ltd. (supra), must be taken to have approved that interpretation; and that permitting a reassessment to survive on an addition unconnected with the information disclosed, once that information itself yields no addition, would render the safeguards under section 148A illusory. The Coordinate Bench accordingly quashed the reassessment before it, following also Milan Agency v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 5414 (Mum.) of 2024, dated 21-2-2025], decided on materially similar facts. The coordinate Bench in the case of Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel (supra) has held as under:

6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and examined the material available on record. We have also considered the statutory scheme governing reassessment as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, together with the judicial precedents relied upon by the parties. Since the additional grounds challenge the very assumption of jurisdiction under Sections 147/148 of the Act, we deem it appropriate to adjudicate the said legal issue at the threshold. It is well settled that where the assumption of jurisdiction itself is found to be invalid, the Tribunal need not enter upon the merits of the additions made in the reassessment proceedings.

6.1 The Finance Act, 2021 has substituted the entire reassessment framework by introducing Section 148A and substantially amending Sections 147 to 151 of the Act. Under the substituted regime, before issuing a notice under Section 148, the Assessing Officer is statutorily obliged to identify the “information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment”, furnish such information to the assessee by issuing a notice under Section 148A(b), consider the reply filed by the assessee, and thereafter pass a reasoned order under Section 148A(d) determining whether it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148. Thus, unlike the erstwhile provisions, the jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is no longer founded merely upon the uncommunicated subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The jurisdictional foundation now rests upon the specific information disclosed to the assessee, who is afforded a statutory opportunity to rebut the same before issuance of notice under Section 148. The legislative scheme, therefore, clearly manifests that the reassessment proceedings originate from and remain anchored to the information communicated under Section 148A(b). Consequently, the validity of the reassessment necessarily depends upon the survival of the very foundation on which jurisdiction was assumed.

6.2 In the present case, the notice issued under Section 148A(b), read with the order passed under Section 148A(d), reveals that the Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel 9 reassessment was proposed on account of the following information: (i) cash deposits in bank account; (ii) cash withdrawals; (iii) turnover reported in GST returns; (iv) TDS information; (v) depository transactions; and (vi) other information available through the Insight Portal. Significantly, the alleged unsecured loan of Rs.15,00,000 received from M/s. Vavya Enterprises, which ultimately formed the sole basis of addition under Section 68, does not find mention either in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) or in the order passed under Section 148A(d). Equally significant is the fact that while completing the reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144B, the Assessing Officer has not made any addition whatsoever in respect of any of the issues forming the very basis of reopening. The only addition made is under Section 68 in respect of the unsecured loan received from M/s. Vavya Enterprises, which is admittedly an altogether distinct issue.

6.3 The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) held that the expression “and also any other income” occurring in Section 147 cannot be read in isolation. The Hon’ble Court held that the Assessing Officer must first assess or reassess the income which formed the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening. It is only thereafter that he acquires jurisdiction to assess any other income which may come to his notice during the reassessment Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel 10 proceedings. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court further held that where the Assessing Officer ultimately does not assess the income which constituted the basis for reopening, the reassessment cannot be sustained merely for making additions on other issues discovered subsequently. In other words, the jurisdiction to assess “any other income” is merely incidental and supplemental to the jurisdiction validly exercised in respect of the income for which the assessment was reopened.

6.4 Although the present reassessment is governed by the substituted provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, we are of the considered view that the ratio laid down in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra) continues to hold the field. In fact, the substituted statutory framework reinforces, rather than dilutes, the principle laid down therein. Section 148A(b) mandates disclosure of the information suggesting escapement of income, while Section 148A(d) requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction with respect to such information before assuming jurisdiction under Section 148. Therefore, the jurisdiction itself is founded upon the specific information disclosed to the assessee. Where, ultimately, no addition is made on the very issue constituting the basis for assumption of jurisdiction, the substratum of the reassessment disappears. In such circumstances, permitting the Assessing Officer to sustain the reassessment solely for making an addition on an Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel 11 altogether unrelated issue would render the statutory safeguards introduced by Parliament under Section 148A wholly nugatory.

6.5 The Finance Act, 2021 has undoubtedly altered the procedural framework governing reassessment. However, the amendments merely strengthen the procedural safeguards available to the assessee by introducing a pre-notice enquiry under Section 148A. They do not enlarge the substantive jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to assess issues wholly unconnected with the information forming the basis of reopening. Significantly, Parliament has not altered the substantive language of Section 147 in so far as it empowers the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess the escaped income and “also any other income” which comes to his notice during the course of reassessment proceedings. The expression “and also”, which formed the foundation of the interpretation adopted by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra), remains unchanged. It is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that where Parliament retains the same statutory language despite being aware of the judicial interpretation placed thereon, such interpretation must ordinarily be regarded as having received legislative approval.

6.6 Indeed, under the substituted regime, the jurisdictional foundation is even more clearly defined. Under the erstwhile provisions, the reassessment was founded upon the “reasons to believe” recorded by the Assessing Officer. Under the substituted Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel 12 provisions, the jurisdiction is founded upon the “information suggesting escapement of income” disclosed under Section 148A(b) and accepted in the order passed under Section 148A(d). Thus, although the form has changed, the jurisdictional foundation remains the same, namely, the existence of identified information indicating escapement of income. Consequently, where the Assessing Officer ultimately accepts, either expressly or by necessary implication, that no addition is warranted on the very issue forming the foundation of reopening, the reassessment loses its jurisdictional basis. Once the jurisdictional foundation fails, the consequential exercise of jurisdiction in respect of other independent issues cannot survive.

6.7 Any other interpretation would defeat the very object underlying the introduction of Section 148A. Parliament consciously introduced a pre-notice adjudicatory mechanism to ensure that reassessment proceedings are founded upon specific, tangible and disclosed information. If, after invoking jurisdiction on one set of information, the Assessing Officer is permitted to abandon that very foundation and sustain the reassessment solely on an altogether different issue discovered subsequently, the safeguards consciously incorporated by Parliament would become illusory. Such an interpretation would not only frustrate the legislative intent underlying the Finance Act, 2021 but would also Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel 13 permit reassessment proceedings to travel beyond the jurisdictional foundation on which they were initiated.

6.8 We also find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Milan Agency v. ITO, ITA No. 5414/Mum/2024, after considering the substituted reassessment provisions and following the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra), held that where no addition is made on the issue for which the reassessment proceedings were initiated, the Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction to make additions on any other issue. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under:-

“7. Before us, the ld. Counsel in respect of additional ground filed vehemently contended that no addition has been made on the issues raised in the reason provided in the notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act. He further made reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 336 (Bombay). The ld. Counsel also filed paper book comprising copies of details and submission filed before the lower authorities. He submitted that as per accounting standard, the assessee was following an exclusive system and accordingly VAT collection and VAT liability and payment was accounted separately and was not formed part of P&L A/c and the lower authorities has not disputed the details and documentary evidences furnished.

8. On the other hand Id. DR supported the order of lower authorities.

9 Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information from the CGST Authorities that M/s. Germanium Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Cannonball Trading Pvt. Ltd. have issued bogus invoices and the assessee has received such bogus invoices. The assessee was asked to submit the detail in respect of bogus invoices of Rs. 1,07,68,326/- received from the above entities and was also asked to show cause and explain by such bogus invoices of Rs. 1,07,68,328/- shall not be treated as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act. However, the AO has not made any discussion verification and examination of this issue in the assessment order. On the other hand, the AO has made addition of Rs. 2,84,16,279/-on account of recalculation of the net profit on the basis of party wise sale amount of Rs. 36,24,13,765/- furnished by the assessee and purchase amount of Rs. 32,77,88,333/- shown n the trading account of the assesscc. It is noticed that Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel 14 without any reason the AO has ignored the corresponding party wise purchase amount of Rs. 34,89,13,119/- to the party wise sale and also not considered the sale amount of Rs. 33,24,60,256/- shown in the trading account. The AO has also not controverted the relevant material submitted during the course of assessment proceedings that the VAT paid on purchases as well as VAT collected on sales was separately accounted and not passed through P&L account. In respect of additional ground of appeal on the validity of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, we have perused the the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jet Airways (1) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) 2010 wherein held that effect of section 147 is that the AO has to assess or reassess such income that has escaped assessment and which was the basis of the formation of belief and if he does so, he can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice during the course of the proceedings. Since in the case of the assessee the AO had not made addition on the issue of bogus invoices as alleged to be obtained from M/s. Cannonball Trading Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Germanium Trading Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of which the case was reopened as escaped assessment therefore following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdiction as discussed supra, the AO is not justified in making the other addition as discussed above in this order.”

6.9 Accordingly, respectfully following the binding decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay), whose ratio, in our considered opinion, continues to govern reassessment proceedings even under the substituted statutory regime, we hold that the reassessment framed in the present case is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.

5.8 Respectfully, following the Tribunal in the case of Chandrakant Mohanbhai Patel (supra), we hold that the addition of Rs. 37,57,324/- under section 36(1)(va) has no nexus with the reasons for reopening, which spoke solely of unaccounted transactions and undisclosed income detected in the search on the DB Realty Group. Since no addition has been made on the basis of the reasons for reopening, the Assessing Officer was not competent to sustain the reassessment solely on the strength of an unrelated addition. This ground also succeeds.

5.9 Having, held the reassessment to be unsustainable on both grounds set out above, we do not consider it necessary to examine the merits of the addition under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, or the correctness of the Ld. CIT(A)’s reliance on Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. (supra) in that behalf.

6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.