1. This bunch of 14 appeals has been filed by two different assessees against the two consolidated orders (both dated 5.3.93) of the CIT(A), Shimla for the assessment years as shown in the caption. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
2. In these appeals, following identical grounds have been taken with the only difference that up to assessment year 88-89, the assessees have disputed the charging of interest under Sections 1.39(8) and 215/217 and for the assessment year 89-90 onwards, the assessees have disputed charging of interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act: 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred both the questions of law and facts in confirming the order of the Asstt. Commr. Of Income-tax in charging interest Under Section 139(8) and 215/217 by passing order Under Section 154/155 after considering it to be a mistake apparent from records.
2. That the action of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while confirming the order Under Section 154/155 is unwarranted and against the provisions of law. While passing the order, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not considered the following facts - ii) That where there is controversial issue and two different opinions arc involved, no mistake can be rectified Under Section 154/155 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
iii) That the intt. charged Under Section 154/155 is against the provisions of law.
3. That no interest Under Section 139(8) and 215/217 can be charged in re/assessment proceedings. The interest can only be charged in regular assessment proceedings. The interest can only be charged in regular assessment proceedings. Regular assessment has been defined in Section 2(4) and 215(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
4. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not passed a speaking order, which is illegal and against the natural justice.
5. That the Assessing Officer is not definite as to under which section interest is chargeable i.e. whether Under Section 215 or The facts of the cases are that both the assessees had filed original returns and assessments were completed by the AO Under Section 143(1). Since the assessments completed Under Section 143(1) resulted in refunds, these were duly granted to assessees.
Naturally, there was no question of charging interest Under Section 139(8)/215/217/234A/234B. Subsequently, Income-tax Department carried out search and seizure action at the premises of Shri Gagan Singh, one of the partners, which resulted in seizure of certain incriminating documents belonging to the assessees. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessments Under Section 147 by issue of notices Under Section 148 on 4.3.94. Re-assessments were completed on 22.3.96. At the time of completing re-assessments, the AO also refused registration to the firms and the assessees were treated as unregistered firms. However, while computing the tax, the AO inadvertently charged tax on registered firms. No interest under Sections 139(8), 215, 217, 234A and 234B was charged. Thereafter, the AO realized this mistake and issued show cause notice to the assessees for charging tax by taking the status as URFs and interest Under Section 139(8)/215/217/234A/234B. The assessees filed replies to the show cause notice, the merits whereof have not been discussed by the AO in the identical orders passed Under Section 154 on 4.5.96 in both the cases for all the assessment years. However, the AO charged interest Under Section 139(8)/215/217 for the assessment years 85-86 to 88-89 and Under Section 234A/234B for the assessment years 89-90 to 92-93.
3. Aggrieved with the orders of AO, both the assessees filed appeals before the CIT(A). In the seven grounds taken before the CIT(A), both the assessees, inter alia, challenged the legality of the orders passed by the AO Under Section 154, on the ground that the issue being debatable and controversial, these were not mistakes apparent from record and, therefore, fell outside the scope of provisions of Section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act. The assessees had also taken a ground that no interest under the above mentioned sections could be charged at the time of completing the re-assessments, as the same were not "regular assessments" as defined Under Section 2(40) of the Income-tax Act. It also appears that the assessees were represented through their counsel before the CIT(A) but the CIT(A) has dismissed these appeals in a summary manner without passing speaking orders. She has not at all discussed the various submissions made before her and has not recorded separate findings in regard to each ground of appeals. The identical findings of ld. CIT(A), recorded in para 2 of her appellate order, are reproduced as under: "2. I have carefully examined the contentions raised by the appellant and the facts on record. This issue was specifically discussed with the ld. Counsel also and it is seen that this is a mistake apparent from records and the Assessing Officer was justified in passing orders Under Section 154/155. Hence all the appeals filed by the appellant are dismissed." Both the assessees are aggrieved with the orders of the CIT(A) and have now preferred the present appeals before us.
4. The ld. Counsel for the assessees submitted that in these cases, original assessments were completed Under Section 143(1). The assessees were granted refunds. No interest Under Section 139(8)/215/217/234A/234B was charged at the time of completing the assessments Under Section 143(1). As a result of search, the assessments were subsequently reopened by issuing notices Under Section 148 on 4.3.94. The re-assessments were completed on 22.3.96. The assessees were refused registration. However, while calculating the tax, the AO charged tax at the rates of registered firm. No interest Under Section 139(8)/215/217/234A/234B was charged even at the time of completing the re-assessments. Subsequently, the AO issued show cause notices Under Section 154 proposing to charge tax on unregistered firms and accordingly charged interest Under Section 139(8)/215/217/234A/234B for the above mentioned assessment years. The AO passed the orders Under Section 154 and charged interest under the above mentioned sections for the above mentioned assessment years. The ld. Counsel submitted that no interest under the aforementioned sections could be charged at the time of completing the reassessments because such assessments were not "regular assessments". Moreover, such interest could also not be charged Under Section 154 if the same had not been charged at the time of completing the original assessments.
Drawing our attention to provisions of Section 139(8), the ld. Counsel submitted that interest could be charged only on income as determined on regular assessment. Sub-section (40) of Section 2 of the Income-tax Act defines regular assessment as to mean the assessment made under Sub-section (3) of Section 143 or Section 144. The same does not include re-assessment or assessment completed Under Section 147.
Drawing our attention to Explanation 2 to Section 139(8) and Sub-section (6) of Section 215, the ld. Counsel submitted that only in a case where the assessment is made for the first time Under Section 147, the assessment shall be regarded as a regular assessment for the purpose of charging interest Under Section 139(8), 215, 217 etc.
However, he submitted that in these cases, original assessments had been completed Under Section 143(1)/143(1)(a). Therefore, the assessments completed Under Section 147 were not made for the first time. He further relied on the following judgments: Where it has been held that interest Under Section 139(8) and 217 can be levied only in the case of regular assessment. Regular assessment means an assessment Under Section 143(3) or Section 144.
It does not include an assessment or re-assessment Under Section 147. Even SLP filed against the order of Karnataka High Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as reported in 186 ITR (Statute) 28.
Where the High Court has held that 'regular assessment', as defined in Sub-section (40) of Section 2 means the assessment completed Under Section 143(3) or Section 144. An assessment or reassessment made Under Section 147 cannot, therefore, consider as 'regular assessment'.
Where the Apex Court has held that 'regular assessment' has been defined in Section 2(4) to mean the assessment made Under Section 143 or 144.
Where it has been held that if interest Under Section 215 had not been charged at the time of regular assessment, interest Under Section 215 could not be levied on the basis of any subsequent assessments.
Where the Tribunal has held that in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 139(8) and Sub-section (6) of Section 215, only assessment made for the first time Under Section 147 is to be regarded as 'regular assessment' for the purposes of Section 139(8)/215/217 etc.
It was also held that where original assessment was completed Under Section 143(1), 143(3) or Section 144, the assessment subsequently completed Under Section 147 could not be regarded as regular assessment for the purpose of charging interest Under Section 139(8), 215, 217 etc.ITO v. Smt. P. Thilagavathy, Where it has been held that interest Under Section 139(8) and 217 could not be charged at the time of completing the re-assessment if the same had not been charged at the time of completing the original assessment.
5. At the very outset, the ld. D.R. sought an adjournment of the hearing on the ground that the group of cases involved seized material and she has not been able to collect the same from the AO. Considering this fact, the hearing of all other group cases where additions could have possibly been made by relying on the seized records and where action of the AO in reopening the assessments has been challenged and the same required reference to the reasons recorded by the AO or the assessment records, the request of the ld. D.R. was allowed and the hearing in those cases was adjourned. Since these cases involve purely legal issues without any reference to assessment records or seized records and the facts of the case discussed above were not in dispute and the party had come from distant place like Damtal near Pathankot, these cases were heard. However, the ld. D.R. was allowed opportunity to file written submissions, if any, apart from the submissions made at the time of hearing. The written submissions have been received on 25.11.2002 and the same have also been taken into account while disposing of these appeals.
6. The ld. D.R. submitted that ld. CIT(A) has not at all passed speaking orders while disposing of these appeals. The assessees had taken as many as seven grounds before the CIT(A) but she has not dealt with any of these grounds and has simply disposed of these appeals in a summary manner without recording clear finding in respect of each ground. The ld. D.R. further submitted that refunds were granted to the assessees at the time of completing the assessments/processing the returns Under Section 143(1)/143(1)(a). Since there was no liability to charge interest Under Section 139(8)/215/217/234A/234B, no such interest was charged. However, subsequent to the search and seizure action, the assessments had been reopened Under Section 147. At the time of completing the re-assessments, the AO did not charge interest under the above mentioned sections. However, he detected such mistake and thereafter rectified the order Under Section 154 and charged interest under the above mentioned sections. Referring to Explanation 2 to Section 139(8) introduced w.e.f. 1.4.85 and the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 215, the ld. D.R. submitted that the assessments made for the first time Under Section 147 are to be regarded as regular assessments for the purpose of charging interest under the above mentioned sections. Relying on the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. K. Govindan And Sons, 238 ITR 1005, the ld. D.R. submitted that Explanation 2 to Section 139(8) is only explanatory in nature and levy of interest Under Section 139(8) in a case where the assessment is completed Under Section 147 for the first time is justified. She further submitted that Sub-section (40) of Section 2 of the Income-tax Act defines "regular assessment" as to mean the assessment completed Under Section 143(3) or Section 144. Relying on the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. v. CIT, 126 ITR 125, the ld. D.R. submitted that order giving effect to AAC's order is to be treated as re-assessment Under Section 143 and the assessee would be entitled to refund on excess amount of advance tax paid. She further submitted that levy of interest is a part of the same process of assessment. It is a statutory levy. She relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 160 ITR 961 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that levy of interest is part of the process of assessment although Sections 143 and 144 do not specifically provide for such levy. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of CIT v. Bishwanath Tulsyan, 220 ITR 178, where it has been held that levy of interest Under Section 139(8)/215 is a part of process of assessment. The ld. D.R. submitted that failure to levy interest at the time of completing the assessment would amount to a mistake apparent from record and, therefore, the AO is within his right to rectify such mistake Under Section 154. Relying on the judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Ramswarup Bhawsinka v. CIT, 101 ITR 827, the ld. D.R. submitted that the mere non-mention of interest in the settlement arrived at with the CIT does not mean that demand of interest could not be raised against the assessee. She further submitted that rectification proceedings arc only part of the assessment proceedings and, therefore, interest under the above mentioned sections could easily be charged. She further submitted that there is a qualitative change in the provisions of the Act by insertion of Section 143(1)(a) w.e.f. 1.4.88. The order passed Under Section 143(1)(a) does not amount to an assessment but only an intimation. She has relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam v. Chairman, CBDT (Delhi), 246 ITR 173.
7. We have heard both the parties at some length and given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions with reference to the facts, evidence and material on record. The undisputed facts of the case are that original assessments were completed Under Section 143(1)/143(1)(a) resulting in refunds. There was no question of charging any interest Under Section 139(8)/215/217/234A/234B. These assessments were subsequently reopened Under Section 147 after search and seizure action. Even at the time of completing the re-assessments, the AO did not charge interest under the above mentioned sections. It was only after issue of notices Under Section 154 that the AO charged interest under the above mentioned sections for the various assessment years. We are in complete agreement with the ld. D.R. that the CIT(A) has disposed of these appeals in a casual manner without passing speaking orders to say the least. The assessee has taken as many as seven grounds of appeals before the CIT(A). She has not recorded any finding in regard to merits of the grounds and also whether the AO had rightly rectified the orders Under Section 154 or not.
Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that there are two aspects of the appeals - one, whether the AO was justified in charging interest Under Section 139(8)/215/217/234A/234B by resorting to provisions of Section 154 although he omitted to charge such interest at the time of completing the re-assessments. The second aspect that requires to be considered by this Bench is whether interest under these sections could be charged at the time of completing the re-assessments or not. As regards the first aspect i.e. whether the AO was justified in rectifying the orders Under Section 154 or not, we wish to mention that Section 154 allows limited authority to the AO to rectify the mistake of facts or of law apparent from record. All those issues, which involve prolonged arguments, discussions and where two conceivable views are possible, fall outside the scope of Section 154.
In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50, where the Apex Court has held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. Section 139(8) provides for charging of interest at the rates mentioned therein reckoned from the day immediately falling the specified date to the date of furnishing of the return or where no return has been furnished, the date of completion of the assessment Under Section 144 on the amount of the tax payable on the total income as determined on regular assessment as reduced by the advance tax, if any, paid and any tax deducted at source. Similarly, Sections 215 and 217 of the Income-tax Act also refer to charging of interest up to the date of regular assessment. Sub-section (40) of Section 2 defines regular assessment to mean the assessment completed Under Section 143 or Section 144.
Explanation 2 to Section 139(8) and Sub-section (6) of Section 215 provide that in a case where assessment is made for the first time Under Section 147, the assessment so made shall be regarded as a regular assessment for the purpose of these sub-sections. Of course, Section 139(8)(b) and Section 215(3) provide for increasing or reducing the interest as a result of an order Under Section 147, 154, 155, 250, 254, 260, 262, 263, 264 or Sub-section (4) of Section 245D. Now the issues whether the assessments completed Under Section 147 are regular assessments as assessments were earlier completed Under Section 143(1)/143(1)(a) or not, whether failure to charge interest at the time of completing the first assessments made Under Section 143(1)/143(1)(a), was not relevant for the purpose of charging interest under the above mentioned sections and also whether the AO could charge interest under the above mentioned sections by resorting to provisions of Section 154 in a case where he did not charge such interest even at the time of completing re-assessments Under Section 147, were highly debatable and contentious involving long drawn process of reasoning as two conceivable views are possible. This is further evident from a number of judgments mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, which show that these issues were highly contentious. Therefore, the same fell outside the scope of provisions of Section 154 of the Income-tax Act.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Brothers, supra. We are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) was not justified in holding that these were mistakes apparent from record and, therefore, the AO had rightly resorted to provisions of Section 154 of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, all these appeals deserve to be allowed on this ground itself.
8. Now, the next issue that requires to be considered is whether interest Under Section 139(8)/215/217/234A/234B is chargeable in the present cases in view of the fact that assessments completed by the AO Under Section 147 were not regular assessments. As mentioned above, interest under these sections could be charged only at the time of completing regular assessments. Sub-section (40) of Section 2 defines re-assessment as to mean the assessment completed Under Section 143(3) or 144. The only exception being in a case where the assessment is completed for the first time Under Section 147. Admittedly, the assessments up to the assessment year 87-88 were completed Under Section 143(1). The returns received for the subsequent assessment years were also processed Under Section 143(1)(a). Therefore, the assessments completed Under Section 147 in both the cases could not be regarded as regular assessments. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Charles D'Souza v.CIT, supra, where the High Court has held that regular assessment does not include an assessment or re-assessment completed Under Section 147 and, therefore, no interest Under Section 139(8) and Section 217 could be charged at the time of completing the re-assessment.
In the case of Smt. Kamla Vati v. CIT, supra, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana has also held that regular assessment, as defined in Section 2(40) is to mean the assessment Under Section 143 or Section 144 and assessment or re-assessment made Under Section 147 cannot therefore, be considered as regular assessment. In the case of Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken the same view. In the case of CIT v. Haripada Khatua, supra, the Calcutta High Court has held that in a case where original assessment was completed and no interest Under Section 215 was levied as the advance tax paid was in excess of the tax assessed in regular assessment, interest under Sub-section (3) of Section 215 could not be levied on the basis of any subsequent assessment or re-assessment. Therefore, these judgments support the case of the assessees.
9. The ld. D.R. has submitted that levy of interest is statutory and mere omission on the part of the AO to charge interest at the time of completing the re-assessment does not mean that such mistake could not be rectified Under Section 154. She has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT, supra, and the judgment of Patna High Court in the case of CIT v. Bishwanath Tulsyan. We have carefully gone through the aforesaid judgments but we are of the opinion that the same are clearly distinguishable on facts. The issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT, supra, was whether liability in regard to charge of interest under Section 139(8) and Section 215 could be raised in appeal as there are no specific provisions in the Act that these were appealable orders. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this context, has held that charging of interest under Section 139(8) and Section 215 was part of the processing the tax liability of the assessee and, therefore, the same could also be disputed in appeal provided the assessee denies such liability. Thus, the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the context in which such judgment was delivered were totally different. In the present case, the issue is whether the AO was justified in charging the interest under the above mentioned sections at the time of completing the re-assessments, when the sections do not regard the same as regular assessments. For the purpose of levy of interest, there should be power conferred by the statute. If this power is not vested, the AO cannot assume the jurisdiction for doing so. Similarly, the judgment of Patna High Court in the case of CIT v. Bishwanath Tulsyan, supra, relied upon by the ld. D.R., is also in a different context inasmuch as the issue involved was whether the AO was bound to issue a show cause notice before charging interest Under Section 139(8) and Section 217. The issue involved was not whether the AO could charge interest at the time of completing the re-assessments. The ld. D.R. has also referred to various other judgments, which are clearly distinguishable on facts.
The judgment of any court takes its colour from the questions raised, facts of the case and the context in which the same has been delivered.
It is not correct to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of court divorced from the context of the question and treat it to be the complete law declared by the court. The judgment must be read as a whole and observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions, which were before the court. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of apex court in the case of CIT v.Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd., 198 ITR 297. One such judgment relied upon by the ld. D.R. is that of Orissa High Court in the case of Ramswarup Bhawsinka v. CIT, 101 ITR 827. The facts of that case were that assessee made a disclosure of income Under Section 271(4A) for the four assessment years before the CIT. As a result of such settlement, the assessee agreed to be assessed on income of Rs. 45,000 each for these assessment years. In the terms of settlement, the assessee's liability to pay interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 was omitted to be mentioned. The question before the High Court was whether, interest Under Section 139(8) could still be charged in terms of the settlement reached. In this context, the Hon'ble High Court has held that levy of interest Under Section 139(8)7215 was part of the assessment process and mere failure to include in the terms of settlement would not mean that AO could not levy interest under these sections. This was altogether a different issue. Similarly, the ld. D.R. has relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, CBDT, where, in the context of reopening of the assessment, the High Court has held that intimation Under Section 143(1)(a) does not amount to assessment. As mentioned, the judgment of Delhi High Court was delivered in the context of reopening of assessment, where proviso to Section 147 itself required different conditions and time limit for reopening the assessment where the original assessment was completed Under Section 143(1)/143(1)(a) and in a case where the assessment was completed Under Section 143(3).
Therefore, the ratio of the same would not be applicable to the facts of the present cases, Further, the ld. D.R. has relied on the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. K. Govindan & Sons, supra, where the High Court has held that interest Under Section 139(8) could be charged in a case where the assessment has been made for the first time Under Section 147. The position is recognized by the statute itself. But in these cases, assessments Under Section 147 were not made for the first time. These were reassessments. Thus, none of the judgments cited by the ld. D.R. is applicable to the facts of the present cases.
10. In addition to the judgments discussed above, we also find that the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of the ITAT in the case of ACIT v. Manmohan D. Mehta, 57 1TD 461(Ahd.), where the Tribunal has held that only an assessment made for the first time Under Section 147 is to be regarded as regular assessment for provisions of Sections 139(8), 215, 217 etc.
Re-assessment made in relation to assessment year where originally regular assessment under Section 143(3), 144 or 143(1)(a) had already been made, cannot be treated as assessment made for the first time Under Section 147. By referring to Explanation 2 to Section 139(8) and provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 215, the Tribunal has held that in case interest was not levied at the time of regular assessment completed for the first time, it could not be done by taking resort to these sections. Similarly, reliance is also placed on the decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of ITO v. Smt. P. Thilagavathy, 80 ITD 239 (Chennai). In that case also, the original returns received were processed Under Section 143(1)(a). No interest was charged. Later, as a result of survey, assessments were reopened Under Section 147. Interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 was charged. In the light of these facts, the Tribunal has held that no interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 could be charged at the time of completing the reassessment Under Section 147 because the assessment so made was not made for the first time Under Section 147 and, therefore, interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 was unjustified.
11. Before parting with these matters, we would like to mention that while interpreting the provisions of a taxation statute, strict rule of interpretation is to be applied. This is particularly so with regard to the provisions relating to charge of tax, interest or levy of penalty.
The levy of tax, interest and penalty could be justified only if it is specifically provided in the relevant sections of the Act. The operation of section cannot be given an extended meaning so as to construe a meaning, which has not been specifically provided in the Act. Now, when we see the present cases, in the light of such legal position, we find Sections 139(8), 215 and 217 only refer to charging of interest at the time of completion of regular assessment. If the intention of the Legislature was to provide for levy of interest under these sections at the time of completing any assessments under the Act, this could have been specifically provided in the relevant sections.
Therefore, the mere fact levy of interest is statutory does not mean that interest could be charged at the time of completing any assessments which do not fall in the definition of regular assessment.
No doubt, Explanation 2 to Section 139(8) and Sub-section (6) of Section 215 have extended the meaning of regular assessment so as to cover the assessment made for the first time Under Section 147. But here also, the distinction has been drawn between a case where the assessee has filed the original return Under Section 139 and the AO has completed the original assessment and the case where the assessee has not filed the return and the first assessment has not been made. While in the first case, interest under Sections 139(8), 215, 217 could be charged only up to the dale of regular assessment, in the second case, interest under these sections could be charged at the time of completing the assessment Under Section 147. But no section of the Income-tax Act provides that in case where first assessment was made Under Section 143(1)/143(1)(a) and subsequently an assessment had been made Under Section 147, the subsequent assessment so made Under Section 147 shall be regarded as an assessment made for the first time. Of course, where the interest has been charged under these sections, the same could be revised upward or downward as per Explanation (b) to Sections 139(8) and 215(3), provided the same had been charged at the time of completing the regular assessment or an assessment made for the first time Under Section 147. Thus, we do not find any force in the submissions of the ld. D.R. that interest chargeable under Sections 139(8), 215 and 217 could be levied at the time of completing the re-assessments or by way of rectification Under Section 154. The same is rejected.
12. In the light of detailed discussion in the preceding paragraphs and the legal position discussed above and respectfully following the decisions/judgments, cited above, we are of the considered opinion that even on merits, interest under Sections 139(8)/215/217/234A/234B could not be charged at the time of completing the re-assessments apart from the fact that the same could not be charged by resorting to the provisions of Section 154. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and allow the respective grounds of appeals in both the cases for the respective assessment years.