Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs V.K. Gupta And Ors. on 16 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: [2003]86ITD200(ALL), (2003)81TTJ(ALL)141
ORDER
1. ITA No. 2419/A11/1995 by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Varanasi, dt. 21st Sept., 1995, for the asst. yr. 1992-93, ITA No. 2420/A11/1995 by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Varanasi, dt. 21st Sept., 1995, for the asst, yr. 1992-93, ITA No. 2421/A11/1995 by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A), Varanasi, dt. 26th Sept., 1995, for asst. yr. 1992-93, ITA No. 2423/A11/1995, by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Varanasi, dt. 28th Sept., 1995, for asst. yr. 1992-93, ITA No. 2424/A11/1995, by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A), Varanasi, dt. 28th Sept., 1995, for the asst. yr. 1992-93 and ITA No, 2425/Alld/1995 by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A), dt. 21st Sept., 1995, for the asst. yr. 1992-93.
2. All these appeals by the Revenue raised similar questions and, therefore, all these appeals were heard together and we dispose of the same by this common consolidated order.
3. The details are slightly different in all the appeals. However, the questions raised in all the appeals are similar. Therefore, instead of reproducing the grounds of appeal of all the appeals, we would like to mention the grounds of appeal as well as facts raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2419/A11/1995 in the case of Shri V.K. Gupta. The grounds of appeal are as under:
"1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts in deleting the additions of unexplained amount of gift Rs. 1,00,000 credited in the bank a/c of the assessee ignoring the facts that the assessee was not covered by the immunity under the "Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities & Exemptions) Act, 1991" in respect of the said deposits and the assessee failed to explain the source of the deposits as per the provisions of Section 69 of the IT Act.
2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts in not appreciating the CBDT Circular No. 611, dt. 30th Sept., 1991, and gave a perverse finding that the Board's circular clarifies that remittances in foreign exchange are exempt from levy of tax under the IT Act, whereas the CBDT circular clarified that only the remittance of the nature referred in Section 3 of the Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991, will get preferential treatment for which no enquiry as to its source would be carried out in any proceedings under the IT Act, 1961.
3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that remittances in foreign exchange are exempt from levy of tax under the IT Act under Section 4 of the Remittances in Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991 though the assessee is admittedly not covered by Section 3 of the said Act.
4. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts in not properly appreciating the letter dt. 20th July, 1995, of Asstt. General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Kanpur, addressed to the Asstt. CIT which clearly indicated that since the declaration was filed by the recipient after the prescribed date, he was not eligible for immunity under the scheme.
5. That the order of learned CIT(A), being erroneous in law and on the facts deserves to be vacated and that of the assessment order (sic-AO) deserves to be restored."
4. The facts taken from the appeal of Vijay Kumar Gupta are that the assessee/individual had share income from the firm M/s Lala Sukhdeo Ram Rolling Mills, Varanasi. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that there are deposits on 29th Jan., 1992, in the account of the assessee in a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. When the assessee was required to explain the genuineness of these two deposits, the assessee replied that these deposits credited on 29th Jan., 1992, had been received under the Remittance of Foreign Exchange (Immunities and Exemption) Act, 1991. According to the assessee, the gift of Rs. 1 lakh was received through demand draft No, 242597/2/92, dt. 20th Jan., 1992, issued by New Bank of India, Goraya (Jalandhar). The assessee had also filed the declaration under Remittances in Foreign Exchange Scheme on 5th Jan., 1995, though the assessee was required to file the certificates in the month of November, 1994. The dispute raised was about the taxing of the aforesaid amount which the assessee claimed as exempt under Section 4 of "The Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991" (in short, 'Special Act'). The assessee deposited the aforesaid amount in its savings bank with Bank of India, Varanasi. The AO required the assessee to explain as to why the immunity provided under the aforesaid Special Act be not disallowed because the assessee failed to file declaration within 15 days as per provision of Section 3 of Special Act for claiming immunity in respect of the remittances received in foreign exchange. The AO found that the declaration, according to the scheme of the Act, was not filed within 15 days. Therefore, no immunity was available to the assessee under the aforesaid Act. Accordingly, the AO directed to explain the details in respect of the donor, i.e., the name and address, capacity of the donor and the genuineness of the transaction. The statement of the assessee was recorded. However, the assessee reiterated that he had immunity not to disclose anything. The assessee also claimed that the assessee was entitled for benefit provided under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act. Ultimately, the AO came to the conclusion that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus as required under Section 69 of the IT Act. The AO further held that no immunity under the Remittance of Foreign Exchange Act, 1991, is available to the assessee and thus made the addition in the hands of the assessee under Section 69 of the IT Act being unexplained deposit, The action of the AO was challenged before the CIT(A) and the assessee claimed before the CIT(A) that his case is covered under the provisions of Section 4 of the aforesaid Act and also referred to the circular of the CBDT No. 611, dt. 30th Sept., 1991, claiming that the remittances received were exempt. The learned CIT(A) has taken note of RBI's letter dt. 20th July, 1995, addressed to the AO to the effect that "since the declaration was filed by the recipients after the prescribed date, they are not eligible for immunity under the scheme." From the facts it was clear before the CIT(A) that declaration was not filed within the time. The CIT(A), after considering the provisions of the Act and the Board's circular, came to the conclusion that the declaration was not filed within the prescribed period but the assessee claimed exemption under the provisions of Section 4 of the aforesaid Act and, as such, the assessee is entitled to relief as per Section 4 of the aforesaid Act as the remittances in the foreign exchange are exempt from levy of tax under the IT Act. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Revenue, feeling aggrieved with the findings of the CIT(A), filed this appeal on the grounds of appeal incorporated above.
5. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and learned counsel for the assessee. During the course of argument on 21st May, 2002, the learned counsel for the assessee was directed to file consolidated chart of all the appeals showing relevant details and also to file copy of the instruction extending the period of the special Act. The learned counsel for the assessee filed the same which are taken on record. The learned counsel for the assessee filed copy of the Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991, along with the scheme and the copy of the Board's circular on the subject. The learned counsel for the assessee also filed the paper book containing the details that the aforesaid special Act was extended upto 31st Jan., 1992, copy of the notification dt. 22nd Oct., 1991, copies of the bank drafts and bank slips, copies of the extract from Taxman Publication by Rakesh Bhargava and detailed chart of remittances received and deposited in the accounts of various assessees in the appeal, along with the copy of the bank a/c of different assessees.
6. The learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the findings of AO. The learned Departmental Representative argued that Section 3 of the special Act will override Section 4 and, as such, assessee is not entitled to exemption under Section 4 of the special Act. The learned Departmental Representative further argued that Sections 3 and 4 of the special Act will have to be read together and since the assessee is not entitled to the immunities under Section 3 of the special Act, therefore, remittances were (sic-not) exempt under Section 4 of the special Act. The learned Departmental Representative further argued that no declaration was filed by the assessee within 15 days according to the scheme of the special Act, therefore, assessee is not entitled to any relief. The learned Departmental Representative further argued that the AO has relied on the cases of Tribunal, Bombay Bench, in support of his finding and, as such, the order of the AO may be restored.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee argued that Section 4 of the special Act is having overriding effect over Section 3 of the said Act. He has further argued that the special Act deals with two aspects, i.e., immunities and remittances. He has further argued that the name of the special Act is very clear to show that this Act deals with two different propositions and, as such, even if the assessee is not entitled to immunities, he would be entitled for exemption under the IT Act. The learned counsel for the assessee further argued that the provisions of the special Act were extended upto 31st Jan., 1992, and in the case of all the assessees remittances were received prior to that date and deposited in the accounts of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption under the IT Act as provided under Section 4 of the special Act. The learned counsel for the assessee further argued that Explanation to Section 4 of the special Act further clarifies that the remittances were exempt under the Act. However, the income arising out of the said remittances was subjected to the tax liability under the IT Act. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied on Clause (7) of the Board's circular referred to above. The learned counsel for the assessee further argued that all the deposits were during the period when the special Act was in operation. Therefore, according to the aims and objects of the special Act the assessee is entitled to the relief under Section 4 of the special Act. The learned counsel for the assessee, in the alternate submissions, argued that all the details were furnished before the AO explaining the details of the gifts and other sources. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the drafts in question were prepared from the Bank a/c of the NRE and, as such, it was the duty of the AO to verify the genuineness of the transaction if he was not satisfied. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that once it is proved that the drafts were prepared from the accounts of the NRE, it would go to show that the donors were having sufficient source of income to give the gifts in question. The learned counsel for the assessee relied on the following cases :
(1) Saroj Aggarwal v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 497 (SC) (2) Kamal Kishore & Co. and Ors. v. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 668 (MP) (3) Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC) The learned counsel for the assessee lastly argued that the details, as furnished in paper book, clearly show that the remittances were received within the period of the special Act, deposited in the account of the assessee within the prescribed period and, as such, they were entitled to exemption under Section 4 of the special Act.
8. We have bestowed our careful consideration to the rival submissions, facts of the case and the material available on record. The name of the special Act, as given in the title, is "Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991" (Act No. 41 of 1991).
The preamble of this special Act provides, "An Act to provide for certain immunities to persons receiving remittances in foreign exchange and to persons owning the foreign exchange bonds and for certain exemptions from direct taxes in relation to such remittances and bonds and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Whereas the position relating to balance of payments has become difficult and it is necessary to attract large inflow of foreign exchange;
And whereas with a view to attracting such inflow of foreign exchange, it is expedient to provide for certain immunities and exemptions to render it possible for certain persons to receive the said remittances in foreign exchange and to own the said bonds;
Be it enacted by Parliament in the Forty-Second Year of the Republic of India as follows :"
Section 2 of the special Act provides certain definitions. However, the relevant definitions for the purpose of decision of these appeals are the definition of 'recipient' and 'remittance'. The same are reproduced as follows :
"2. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) 'recipient' means a person as defined in Clause (31) of Section 2 of the IT Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) who receives any remittance under this Chapter;
(b) 'remittance' means remittance made in foreign exchange by any person resident outside India to a person resident in India on or after the date of commencement of this Act but before the specified date, in the form of drafts, traveller's cheques, cheques drawn on banks situated outside India, telegraphic transfers, mail transfers, money orders, or by way of transfer from Non-resident (External) Account, Foreign Currency Non-resident Account or Foreign Currency Non-resident Special Deposit Account maintained in India under the rules made under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973).
Explanation : For the purposes of this clause, 'specified date' means the 1st day of December, 1991, or such other later date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf."
The specified date, as provided in Section 2(b) means 1st day of December, 1991, or such other later date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. The learned counsel for the assessee as per the direction of the Bench has filed copy of the Amnesty Scheme in which it was provided that the Government has extended the deadline for the three Tax Amnesty Schemes, including the two schemes announced in the Budget for attracting foreign exchange from abroad till the end of January, 1992. Copy of the same is filed at pp. 1 and 2 of the paper book. It is further provided at p. 1 of the paper book that the specified date for the purpose of remittances under the special Act, 1991, has been fixed as 1st Feb., 1992. Before this date the remittances should be received in India or the investment in foreign exchange bonds should be made abroad. The Government has thus extended the provisions of the special Act till January, 1992.
Section 3 of the special Act provides immunities. This section is reproduced as follows :
"Immunities:
3. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force,
(a) no recipient, who claims immunity under this Chapter in accordance with such scheme as the Reserve Bank of India may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for the purposes of receiving remittances under this Chapter, shall be required to disclose, for any purpose whatsoever, the nature and source of the remittance made to him;
(b) no inquiry or investigation shall be commenced against the recipient under any such law on the ground that he has received such remittance;
(c) the fact that the recipient has received a remittance shall not be taken into account and shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceedings relating to any offence or the imposition of any penalty under any such law.
(2) Nothing in Sub-section (1) shall apply :-
(a) to any foreign exchange which is required to be brought into India under any of the provisions of
(i) the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973); or
(ii) the IT Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), read with the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973), if the period within which such foreign exchange is to be brought into India has not expired or where such period has been extended, in any manner, by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India or any other authority, such extended period has not expired on the date of commencement of this Act;
(b) in relation to prosecution for any offence punishable under Chapter IX or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987), the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), or for the purpose of enforcement of any civil liability.
(3) The Central Government shall cause the scheme notified under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) to be laid, as soon as may be after it is notified, before each House of Parliament."
Section 4 of special Act provides for the remittances not to be taken into account in certain cases. Section 4 of the special Act is reproduced as follows :
"4. Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of Section 3,-
(a) any remittance received under this Chapter shall not be taken into account for the purpose of any proceeding under the IT Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and, in particular, the recipient shall not be entitled to claim any set off or relief in any assessment, reassessment, appeal, reference or other proceeding under that Act or to reopen any assessment or reassessment made under that Act on the ground that he has received such remittance.
Explanation : For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) will apply to any income which accrues or arises or is deemed to accrues or arise to the recipient from the amount of the remittance;
(b) any remittance received under this Chapter shall not form part of the assets of any assessee for the purposes of computing his net wealth under the WT Act, 1957 (27 of 1957) in relation to any assessment year commencing before the 1st day of April, 1992."
9. The Reserve Bank of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the special Act, which is reproduced above, specified the Scheme, 1991, which provides Section 3(a) with regard to issue of certificate of remittances. This section provides, "issue of certificate of remittances.
3.(a) The recipient of a remittance in foreign exchange, desirous of claiming immunity under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, shall, not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of such remittance, file a declaration in the form with the authorised dealer through whom the remittance is received."
10. We may note here that the aforesaid special Act received the assent of the President of India on 18th Sept., 1991 and came into existence at once. The facts and circumstances of this case have already been incorporated above and the facts are not in dispute regarding the assessee having received the remittances in foreign exchange after the commencement of the special Act and before the specified date, It is also not in dispute that the assessee has received the gift in question through the draft from NRE account. It is also not in dispute that the assessee was recipient of the amount in question who received the remittances under the special Act. Therefore, the assessee was recipient in this case and had received the remittances before the specified date as mentioned above. The learned counsel for the assessee also filed copy of the notification dt. 22nd Oct., 1991, on the subject in question with regard to the special Act which was obtained from CTR 99. Copy of the same is filed at pp. 3 to 5 in the paper book which provided the answers to certain questions raised in which it was clarified that the instructions would be applicable for immunities and exemptions under the special Act in which the instrument of remittances was drawn by the issuing bank before (after) 18th Sept., 1991, but before 1st Dec., 1991, and the instrument of remittances is drawn by the issuing bank after 18th Sept., 1991, and is posted from abroad received and deposited for realisation before 1st Dec., 1991. We may add here that the specified date under the special Act was 1st Dec., 1991, which was later on extended upto 31st Jan., 1992. In the case of the assessee also the draft was received after the commencement of the special Act and it was deposited in the account of the assessee prior to the specified date and the amount was also credited before the specified date.
11. The assessee has filed copy of the reply filed before the AO in which it was claimed that the assessee could not file declaration in the prescribed form within 15 days' time as per the scheme approved by the RBI. However, the assessee did file a declaration subsequently and received back a copy of the said declaration from the authorised dealer. The claim of the assessee had been that the assessee is not claiming immunity as per Section 3 of the special Act but the case of the assessee is covered by Section 4 of the special Act which clearly states that the remittances are not to be taken into account for any proceedings under the IT Act. The AO has rejected the claim of the assessee under Section 4 of the special Act as the assessee had not filed the declaration under Section 3 within 15 days of the scheme as approved by the RBI. The CIT(A) has considered the letter of the RBI dt. 20th July, 1995, addressed to the AO to the effect that since the declaration was filed by the recipients after the specified date, therefore, they are not eligible for immunity under the scheme and hence rejected the claim of the assessee under Section 3 of the special Act. The assessee himself has not claimed any benefit under Section 3 of the special Act, The claim of the assessee had been that though the assessee is not eligible for immunity under Section 3 of the special Act but the case of the assessee is covered by exemption provided under Section 4 of the special Act. Therefore, the only point in issue left for consideration before us is that whether the assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 4 of the special Act. Section 4 of the special Act deals with remittances not to be taken into account in certain cases. Thereafter, the language of Section 4 starts with "without prejudice to the generality of the provision of Section 3", "(a) any remittance received under this Chapter shall not be taken into account for the purpose of any proceeding under the IT Act, 1961..." The plain reading of this section clearly shows that the provisions of Section 4 are not dependent upon the provisions of Section 3 of the special Act. Even if the conditions of Section 3 are not complied with or satisfied with even independent to Section 3 of the special Act, exemption could be granted under Section 4 of the special Act. As stated above, the special Act deals with two different propositions, i.e., immunity and exemption in respect of remittances of foreign exchange. The immunities could be claimed after complying with the scheme approved by the RBI, which is mentioned above, otherwise the persons claiming immunities under the special Act would not get the benefit of immunity under this Act and could be liable for disclosure. However, Section 4 deals with different proposition and provides that the exemption under Section 4 could be claimed independent of the provisions of Section 3 of the special Act. Section 4 of the special Act would not be influenced by the conditions of Section 3 of the special Act. Section 4(a) provides exemption of any remittance, received under this Chapter for the purpose of proceedings under the IT Act. This section provides that any remittance received under this Chapter shall not be subject-matter for income-tax proceedings. The Explanation to this rule, however, provides differently and provides that if any income accrues or arises out of the remittances received under Section 4(a), the same shall be subjected to the provisions of IT Act. The Explanation clearly supports the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee. If the remittances will have to be dependent on the conditions of Section 3 of the special Act, then there was no need to provide this Explanation to Section 4(a). The Explanation clearly provides that the remittances are clearly exempted under the IT Act. This Explanation also makes it clear that Sections 3 and 4 of the special Act deal with different proposition. The special Act deals with two different things, i.e., immunities and exemptions. Both are not interlinked at all. The name of the special Act and preamble also provide to mean two different situations. The preamble of the special Act clearly supports the view that the assessee is entitled for benefit under Section 4 of the special Act even if the assessee has not complied with the conditions of Section 3 of the special Act.
12. Copy of the Circular No. 611, dt. 30th Sept., 1991, is also placed in the paper book. Clause (4) of this CBDT circular provides that Section 4 of the special Act further provides "that any remittance of the nature referred to above will not be taken into account for the purpose of any proceeding under the IT Act, 1961. Clause (7) also provides that the relevant provision of the Act, as briefly explained above, makes it very clear that the AO in any proceedings under the direct taxes laws will not make any enquiry with regard to the remittances in foreign exchange received under the special Act or gift of any India Development Bonds from non-resident Indian/overseas corporate body. There should, therefore, be no apprehension of any prejudice against the person in receipt of remittances under scheme for donees of India Development Bonds. There should also be no fear of any harassment by the taxing authorities". This CBDT circular is clearly applicable to the case of the assessee and is binding upon the IT authorities. This circular clearly provides that the special Act deals with two different propositions and once it is proved that the assessee has received remittances as per the special Act, then it would not be subject-matter of enquiry under the IT Act and no harassment will be made to the assessee. We have already noted above Section 3(a) of the Remittances in Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991, as approved by the RBI which provides that the recipient of the remittances in foreign exchange, desirous of claiming immunities under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act has to, not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of such remittances, file a declaration in the form with the foreign dealer through whom the remittance is received the scheme so approved by the RBI was only in respect of the claim of the immunities under Section 3. It provides that if the recipient is desirous to claim immunity, he may, file declaration within 15 days. This scheme never provided that if no immunity is claimed, then the benefit of Section 4 of the special Act would not be granted. The scheme only provides for immunity and that too if the recipient is desirous of doing so. If the assessee did not desire to get immunity, still the assessee could be entitled to the benefit under Section 4 of the special Act, if the conditions are so satisfied of Section 4. The crux of the above discussion would be that remittance of foreign exchange shall not be included in the recipient's income in his income-tax assessment irrespective of the fact that the Department came to know about the receipt of the remittances in foreign exchange. Accordingly, any proceeding under the IT Act will not take into account the fact that assessee had received remittance of foreign exchange under the special Act.
13. The AO has denied the exemption to the assessee by following the same order of the Tribunal, Bombay Bench, in different ITAs, passed on 27th July, 1982. Though the learned Departmental Representative did not file a copy of this order but we find that the above decision of 1982 is prior to the enactment of the special Act in 1991. Therefore, we find it difficult to believe if really this order would help the Department in any way. The AO also denied benefit of exemption under Section 4 of the special Act as the assessee has not complied with terms of Section 3. We are of the considered view that the AO has acted against law and facts of the case, The learned CIT(A) has gone through both the provisions in the impugned order as well as considered the CBDT Circular No. 611 and came to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 4 of the special Act and allowed the appeal of the assessee.
14. Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the case of the assessee is clearly covered under Section 4 of the special Act and the assessee is entitled to exemption of the remittances in foreign exchange and the remittances received by the assessee under the special Act shall not be taken into account for the purpose of any proceeding under the IT Act. We, therefore, find no infirmity or illegality in the order of the CIT(A). We uphold his finding. Since we have held that the case of the assessee is covered by Section 4 of the special Act, therefore, there is no need to decide about the applicability of Section 69 of the IT Act in which the AO has made the addition. Once the remittances cannot be the subject-matter of the proceeding under the IT Act, no addition under Section 69 of the IT Act could be made. The learned counsel for the assessee referred to some of the judgments of the Hon'ble Madhya pradesh High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court which we have referred to above but these are on different legal proposition and have not been referred to here in view of our findings that Section 4 of the special Act is applicable in the case of the assessee. As a result, there are no merits in the appeal of the Revenue. The same is accordingly dismissed.
15. The remaining appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos. 2420, 2421, 2423, 2424 and 2425 (All) of 1995, mentioned above, are having identical facts and circumstances though the amounts are slightly different. Therefore, all the Departmental appeals are squarely covered by our order in ITA No. 2419/A11/ in the case of V.K. Gupta. By following our own order on the identical facts and circumstances, we dismiss all the appeals of the Revenue.
16. As a result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.