ito Vs. Sham Lal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
all these appeals by the revenue are directed against the separate orders of learned commissioner (appeals) each dated 23-1-2003 in respect of all the assessees for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. since the issue involved is identical having similar facts and the appeals were heard together, so, these are being disposed off by this consolidated- order for the sake of convenience.first we will take up ita nos. 225 & 226/chandi/2003 for assessment years 1988-89 & 1989-90 because these cases are the base which has been followed by the learned commissioner (appeals) wall other cases. the common ground raised in both the appeals read as under:- "1. the learned cit(a) on the facts and in the circumstances, of the case, erred in holding that the issuance of notice under section 148 to give effect to the order of settlement coiinmission in the case of the partners is not covered by provisions of section 150(1) of income tax act, 196l." "2. that the order of learned cit(a) be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored." the facts related to the issue as appearing from the orders of authorities below, in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income for both the assessment years i.e. 1988-89 and 1989-90 on 25-4-1990 vide receipt nos. 23 & 24 respectively and declared an income of rs. 14,550 which included 20% share profit from punjab soap factory amounting to rs. 19,653 for the assessment year 1988-89 and similarly for the assessment year 1989-90, income was declared at rs. 38,950 which included 25% share of profit from punjab soap factory. both these returns were processed under section 143(1). later on notice under section 148 was issued on 31.5.00 which was returned by the learned counsel for the assessee on the plea that the notice issued was bad in law and was barred by limitation within the meaning of sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section 149 of income tax act, 1961 and the non-struck off assessment/reassessment leading to irrefutable conclusion that there was no reason to formation of belief under section 147 of income tax act, 1961. assessing officer thereafter issued notice under section 142(1) dated 24-8-2000 which remained non complied.the assessing officer further issued various notices under section 148 read with section 147(a) and section 150(1) of income tax act, 1961 and ultimately passed the assessment ex parte under section 144 on 27-1-2002. the assessing officer completed the assessment by taking into consideration the share of profit of the assessee from the firm punjab soap factory, raman market, ludhiana as per settlement commission's order and accordingly additions were made.the assessee carried the matter in appeal to the learned commissioner (appeals) and submitted that notice dated 31-5-2000 issued by the assessing officer under section 148 was not clear because nothing had been mentioned as to whether the assessing officer wanted to assess or to reassess the income of the assessee and no reasons had been communicated in that regard. therefore no proceedings could have been initiated as the same had been beyond the period of limitation as per sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 149 of income tax act, 1961 as amended by the director tax laws (amendment) act, 1987. it was further stated that nothing was heard thereon in that notice under section 142(1) received by the assessee to file return of income in january, 2002. in response to that notice, it was submitted that the proceedings initiated had already been barred by limitation within the meaning of section 149(1)(b)(iii) of income tax act, 1961.it was also stated that thereafter, the assessing officer informed that proceedings had been initiated under section 148 read with section 150(1) of income tax act, 1961 and in reply thereto it was submitted that the provisions of section 150(1) had no application in assessees case because the order passed by the hon'ble settlement commission under section 245d(4) dated 24-4-96 in the case of punjab soap factory could not construed to be an order passed under this act by way of appeal, reference or revision so as to necessitate re-assessment for the assessment year under consideration. reliance was placed on the judgment of hon'ble patna high court in the case of gauri shankar chaudhry v. addl. cit, (1998) 234 itr 865 (pat). reliance was also placed on the following cases: it was further submitted that basic pre-requisite conditions for re-opening under section 148 had not been complied with by the assessing officer for exemption of jurisdiction to proceed with the case and also no reasons had been recorded whatsoever as mandated as per sub-section 2 of section 148 with escapement of any income. it was also stated that the substitution/ rectification of assessee's share of profit from the firm would not fall within the meaning of any income having 'escaped assessment.learned commissioner (appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee, held that the action taken by the assessing officer was incapable to being upheld because section 150(1) was not applicable in assessee's case in view of the judgment of hon'ble patna high court in the case of gauri shankar chaudhry v. addl cit (supra). learned commissioner (appeals) also observed that re-opening in the manner attracted by the assessing officer was not permissible in the case. in this manner, appeal of the assessee was allowed. now the department is in appeal.learned departmental representative for the revenue, while supporting the order of assessing officer submitted that notice was issued by the assessing officer under section 148 because the income of the assessee escaped assessment since no effect had been given after the order of settlement commission. it was further stated that reasons were recorded by the assessing officer before issuing notice under section 148.therefore, the proceedings initiated by the assessing officer were within the jurisdiction and also in accordance with the law. he accordingly submitted to restore the order of assessing officer and set side the order passed by the learned commissioner (appeals).in his rival submissions, learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and vehemently argued that re-assessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer were barred by limitation because notice under section 148 was issued on 31.5.2000 whereas the returns were filed on 25.4.90 as such re-opening was barred by limitation because the cases can be reopened within four years from the end of relevant assessment year. it was further stated that the provisions of section 150(1) were not applicable to the facts of assessee's case because the order of settlement commission had not been passed neither by way of appeal nor by way of reference or revision, reliance was placed on the judgment of hon'ble patna high court in the case of gauri shankar chaudhry v. addl. cit (supra).reliance was also placed on the judgment of hon'bie punjab & haryana high court in the case of parveen kumari, nand kishore v. cit and another, (237) itr 339 (p&h). learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessment in question had been annulled by the learned commissioner (appeals) and no ground had been raised by the department against that observation of the learned commissioner (appeals). therefore, these appeals filed by the department should be dismissed. he further submitted that since the order of learned commissioner (appeals) attained finality as regards to the reopening which was considered by the learned commissioner (appeals) who held that it was not permissible and the department had not raised any ground against that observation of the learned commissioner (appeals), hence, these appeals become infructuous. reliance was placed on the judgment of hon'ble supreme court in the case of k.m. sharma vs. i.t.o.(2002) 254 itr 772 (sc).we have heard both the parties at length and also gone through the material available on record. in the present case, it is noticed that learned commissioner (appeals) in para 3 the impugned order observed as under : "nevertheless, in deference to the plethora of.judgments cited by the learned counsel, 1 have no alternative but to hold that reopening in the manner attempted by the assessing officer was not permissible in the cases. the appellants succeed on this issue too." admittedly the department had not challenged the above observation of learned commissioner (appeals). on that secure alone, these appeals of the department can be dismissed. in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the assessing officer reopened the assessment only on the basis of order of settlement commission which is dated 29-3-1996. it is also noticed that the copy of the said order was forwarded to the income tax officer ward 1(2), ludhiana i.e. the then assessing officer on 24-4-1996. however, the assessing officer issued notice under section 148 on 31-5-2000. in other words, notice issued by the assessing officer was beyond the limitation period of four years. on this secure also reopening was not justified. further more the assessing officer took the shelter of section 150(1) of income tax act, 1961 act which read as under: "150(1) notwithstanding anything contained in section 149, the notice under section 148 may be issued at any time for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment or recomputation in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order passed by any authority in any proceeding under this act by way of appeal, reference or revision (or by a court in any proceeding under any other law).(2) the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such assessment, reassessment or recomputation as is referred to in that sub-section relates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment or recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the subject matter of the appeal, reference or revision, as the case may be was made by reason of any other provision limiting the time within which any action for assessment, reassessment or recomputation may be taken." however, on a similar issue, the hon'ble patna high court in the case of gauri shankar choudhry v. addl. cit (supra) held as under: "that the settlement commission directed the assessing officer having jurisdiction in the matter to take action in accordance with law. even if the direction issued by the settlement commission was the reason which impelled the assessing officer to issue notice under section 148 of the income tax act, 1961, he could have recorded that reason either in the ngtice issued to the assessee, or even in the file maintained by,him in his office. there was no averment in the counter affidavit that reasons had been separately recorded in the file. on this short ground alone the notice issued under section 148 must be quashed. there was another reason why the notice could not be upheld. so far as the assessment year 1981-82 was concerned, the period of limitation prescribed was ten years for the issuance of notice under section 148 of the income tax act, 1961. the said period, therefore, expired on 31-3-1992. the notice issued on 22-1-1996 was ex facie barred by limitation. the assessee before the settlement commission was different and distinct from the assessee in this case. the order passed by the settlement commission could not be construed to be an order passed under this act by way of appeal, reference or revision so as to necessitate reassessment for the assessment year 1981-82. sub-section (2) of section 150 of the act makes it quite clear that the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case if the order which was the subject matter of the appeal, reference or revision could not have been made by reason of any other provision limiting the time within which any action for assessment, reassessment or recomputation may be taken. it, therefore, follows that if the original order which was the subject matter of the appeal, reference or revision could not have been passed when it was purported to have been passed by reason of its being barred by limitation, the same cannot be revived under sub-section (1) of section 150. in the instant case. that question did not arise, because there was no assessment order for the assessment year 1981-82 which had been taken in appeal, reference or revision before any authority under the act. the order of the settlement commission might have only justified issuance of the notice, if that was the reason for issuance of the notice, but beyond that it could not operate to revive a proceeding which was barred by limitation.in the instant case also, the assessing officer issued notice under section 148 of income tax act, 1961 only on the basis of directions given in the order of settlement commission, no other basis had been taken by the assessing officer while issuing the notice under section 148. therefore, the ratio laid down by the hon'ble patna high court in the case of gauri shankar choudhry v. addl. cit (supra) is quarrely applicable to the facts of the present case and in that view of the matter, learned commissioner (appeals) rightly observed that the action taken by the assessing officer was incapable of being upheld.therefore, he was justified in deleting the additions so made by the assessing officer. similarly, honble jurisdictional high court in the case of parveen kumar, nand kishore v. cit, 237 itr 339 (p&h) held as under: "a perusal of sub-section (1) of section 150 of income tax act, 1961, makes it clear that a notice under section 148 can be issued at any time in consequence of or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an appellate order. under the deeming provision contained in explanation 2 to section 153, an assessment on any income in any assessment year shall be deemed to have been made inconsequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in any order under the act, if such income has been excluded from the total income of the assessee in another assessment year. explanation 2 containing the deeming provision in section 53 is applicable for the purposes of section 150 also. however, according to sub-section (1) of that section shall not apply where, by virtue of any other provision limiting the time within which action for assessment or reassessment may be initiated, issuance of notice for such assessment or reassessment is barred on the date of the order, which is the subject matter of appeal, reference or revision in which the finding or direction is contained.it would, thus, meant that an appellate or revisional authority cannot give a direction for assessment or reassessment which goes to the extent of conferring jurisdiction upon the assessing officer if his jurisdiction had ceased due to the bar of limitation. if the issuing of a notice for assessment or reassessment for a particular assessment year had become time barred at the time of the order, which was the subject matter of the appeal, the provisions of section 150(1), cannot be invoked for making an assessment or reassessment." in the instant case also the assessee filed returns for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 on 25-4-90. therefore, the period of four years from the end of assessment year, 1988-89 expired on 31-3-1993 and for assessment year 1989-90 expired on 31-3-1994. however, the assessing officer issued notice on 31-5-2000. as such on that date the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice to the assessee under section 148 of income tax act, 1961 for assessment years under consideration.viewed from any angle as discussed herein above, addition made by the assessing officer, was not justified and the learned commissioner (appeals) rightly deleted the same. we do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings of the learned commissioner (appeals). in that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in these appeals of the department.in all other appeals. i.e. ita nos. 221, 2229, 223, 224, 202, 203, 200 and 201/chandi/2003, the issue involved is similar having identical facts and even the ground raised by the department is identical and also rival contentions of the parties were similar. therefore, our findings given herein above in the case of i.t.0 vs. sham lal in ita nos. 225 & 226/chandi/2003 shall apply mutatis mutandis. in that view of the matter, these appeals are also dismissed.in the result, all the 10 appeals filed by the department are dismissed.

Judgment:
All these appeals by the revenue are directed against the separate orders of Learned Commissioner (Appeals) each dated 23-1-2003 in respect of all the assessees for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. Since the issue involved is identical having similar facts and the appeals were heard together, so, these are being disposed off by this consolidated- order for the sake of convenience.

First we will take up ITA Nos. 225 & 226/Chandi/2003 for assessment years 1988-89 & 1989-90 because these cases are the base which has been followed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) wall other cases. The common ground raised in both the appeals read as under:- "1. The learned CIT(A) on the facts and in the circumstances, of the case, erred in holding that the issuance of Notice under section 148 to give effect to the order of Settlement Coiinmission in the case of the partners is not covered by provisions of section 150(1) of Income Tax Act, 196l." "2. That the order of learned CIT(A) be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored." The facts related to the issue as appearing from the orders of authorities below, in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income for both the assessment years i.e. 1988-89 and 1989-90 on 25-4-1990 vide receipt Nos. 23 & 24 respectively and declared an income of Rs. 14,550 which included 20% share profit from Punjab Soap Factory amounting to Rs. 19,653 for the Assessment year 1988-89 and similarly for the assessment year 1989-90, income was declared at Rs. 38,950 which included 25% share of profit from Punjab Soap factory. Both these returns were processed under section 143(1). Later on notice under section 148 was issued on 31.5.00 which was returned by the learned counsel for the assessee on the plea that the notice issued was bad in law and was barred by limitation within the meaning of sub-clause (III) of clause (b) of sub-section 149 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the non-struck off assessment/reassessment leading to irrefutable conclusion that there was no reason to formation of belief under section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessing Officer thereafter issued notice under section 142(1) dated 24-8-2000 which remained non complied.

The assessing officer further issued various notices under section 148 read with section 147(a) and section 150(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and ultimately passed the assessment ex parte under section 144 on 27-1-2002. The assessing officer completed the assessment by taking into consideration the share of profit of the assessee from the firm Punjab Soap Factory, Raman Market, Ludhiana as per Settlement Commission's order and accordingly additions were made.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that notice dated 31-5-2000 issued by the assessing officer under section 148 was not clear because nothing had been mentioned as to whether the assessing officer wanted to assess or to reassess the income of the assessee and no reasons had been communicated in that regard. Therefore no proceedings could have been initiated as the same had been beyond the period of limitation as per sub-clause (III) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 149 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended by the Director Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. It was further stated that nothing was heard thereon in that notice under section 142(1) received by the assessee to file return of income in January, 2002. In response to that notice, it was submitted that the proceedings initiated had already been barred by limitation within the meaning of section 149(1)(b)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961.

It was also stated that thereafter, the assessing officer informed that proceedings had been initiated under section 148 read with section 150(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and in reply thereto it was submitted that the provisions of section 150(1) had no application in assessees case because the order passed by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) dated 24-4-96 in the case of Punjab Soap Factory could not construed to be an order passed under this Act by way of appeal, reference or revision so as to necessitate re-assessment for the assessment year under consideration. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Gauri Shankar Chaudhry v. Addl. CIT, (1998) 234 ITR 865 (Pat). Reliance was also placed on the following cases: It was further submitted that basic pre-requisite conditions for re-opening under section 148 had not been complied with by the assessing officer for exemption of jurisdiction to proceed with the case and also no reasons had been recorded whatsoever as mandated as per sub-section 2 of section 148 with escapement of any income. It was also stated that the substitution/ rectification of assessee's share of profit from the firm would not fall within the meaning of any income having 'escaped assessment.

Learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee, held that the action taken by the assessing officer was incapable to being upheld because section 150(1) was not applicable in assessee's case in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Gauri Shankar Chaudhry v. Addl CIT (supra). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that re-opening in the manner attracted by the assessing officer was not permissible in the case. In this manner, appeal of the assessee was allowed. Now the department is in appeal.

learned Departmental Representative for the revenue, while supporting the order of assessing officer submitted that notice was issued by the assessing officer under section 148 because the income of the assessee escaped assessment since no effect had been given after the order of Settlement Commission. It was further stated that reasons were recorded by the assessing officer before issuing notice under section 148.

Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the assessing officer were within the jurisdiction and also in accordance with the law. He accordingly submitted to restore the order of assessing officer and set side the order passed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals).

In his rival submissions, learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and vehemently argued that re-assessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer were barred by limitation because notice under section 148 was issued on 31.5.2000 whereas the returns were filed on 25.4.90 as such re-opening was barred by limitation because the cases can be reopened within four years from the end of relevant assessment year. It was further stated that the provisions of section 150(1) were not applicable to the facts of assessee's case because the order of Settlement Commission had not been passed neither by way of appeal nor by way of reference or revision, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Gauri Shankar Chaudhry v. Addl. CIT (Supra).

Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'bie Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Parveen Kumari, Nand Kishore v. CIT and another, (237) ITR 339 (P&H). Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessment in question had been annulled by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and no ground had been raised by the department against that observation of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, these appeals filed by the department should be dismissed. He further submitted that since the order of Learned Commissioner (Appeals) attained finality as regards to the reopening which was considered by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) who held that it was not permissible and the department had not raised any ground against that observation of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals), hence, these appeals become infructuous. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Sharma vs. I.T.O.(2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC).

We have heard both the parties at length and also gone through the material available on record. In the present case, it is noticed that Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in para 3 the impugned order observed as under : "Nevertheless, in deference to the plethora of.judgments cited by the learned counsel, 1 have no alternative but to hold that reopening in the manner attempted by the assessing officer was not permissible in the cases. The appellants succeed on this issue too." Admittedly the department had not challenged the above observation of Learned Commissioner (Appeals). On that secure alone, these appeals of the department can be dismissed. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the assessing officer reopened the assessment only on the basis of order of Settlement Commission which is dated 29-3-1996. It is also noticed that the copy of the said order was forwarded to the Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Ludhiana i.e. the then assessing officer on 24-4-1996. However, the assessing officer issued notice under section 148 on 31-5-2000. In other words, notice issued by the assessing officer was beyond the limitation period of four years. On this secure also reopening was not justified. Further more the assessing officer took the shelter of section 150(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 Act which read as under: "150(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 149, the notice under section 148 may be issued at any time for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment or recomputation in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order passed by any authority in any proceeding under this Act by way of appeal, reference or revision (or by a court in any proceeding under any other law).

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such assessment, reassessment or recomputation as is referred to in that sub-section relates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment or recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the subject matter of the appeal, reference or revision, as the case may be was made by reason of any other provision limiting the time within which any action for assessment, reassessment or recomputation may be taken." However, on a similar issue, the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Gauri Shankar Choudhry v. Addl. CIT (supra) held as under: "That the Settlement Commission directed the assessing officer having jurisdiction in the matter to take action in accordance with law. Even if the direction issued by the Settlement Commission was the reason which impelled the assessing officer to issue notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he could have recorded that reason either in the ngtice issued to the assessee, or even in the file maintained by,him in his office. There was no averment in the counter affidavit that reasons had been separately recorded in the file. On this short ground alone the notice issued under section 148 must be quashed. There was another reason why the notice could not be upheld. So far as the assessment year 1981-82 was concerned, the period of limitation prescribed was ten years for the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said period, therefore, expired on 31-3-1992. The notice issued on 22-1-1996 was ex facie barred by limitation. The assessee before the Settlement Commission was different and distinct from the assessee in this case. The order passed by the Settlement Commission could not be construed to be an order passed under this Act by way of appeal, reference or revision so as to necessitate reassessment for the assessment year 1981-82. Sub-section (2) of section 150 of the Act makes it quite clear that the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case if the order which was the subject matter of the appeal, reference or revision could not have been made by reason of any other provision limiting the time within which any action for assessment, reassessment or recomputation may be taken. It, therefore, follows that if the original order which was the subject matter of the appeal, reference or revision could not have been passed when it was purported to have been passed by reason of its being barred by limitation, the same cannot be revived under sub-section (1) of section 150. In the instant case. that question did not arise, because there was no assessment order for the assessment year 1981-82 which had been taken in appeal, reference or revision before any authority under the Act. The order of the Settlement Commission might have only justified issuance of the notice, if that was the reason for issuance of the notice, but beyond that it could not operate to revive a proceeding which was barred by limitation.

In the instant case also, the assessing officer issued notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 only on the basis of directions given in the order of Settlement Commission, no other basis had been taken by the assessing officer while issuing the notice under section 148. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Gauri Shankar Choudhry v. Addl. CIT (supra) is quarrely applicable to the facts of the present case and in that view of the matter, learned Commissioner (Appeals) rightly observed that the action taken by the assessing officer was incapable of being upheld.Therefore, he was justified in deleting the additions so made by the assessing officer. Similarly, Honble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Parveen Kumar, Nand Kishore v. CIT, 237 ITR 339 (P&H) held as under: "A perusal of sub-section (1) of section 150 of Income Tax Act, 1961, makes it clear that a notice under section 148 can be issued at any time in consequence of or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an appellate order. Under the deeming provision contained in Explanation 2 to section 153, an assessment on any income in any assessment year shall be deemed to have been made inconsequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in any order under the Act, if such income has been excluded from the total income of the assessee in another assessment year. Explanation 2 containing the deeming provision in section 53 is applicable for the purposes of section 150 also. However, according to sub-section (1) of that section shall not apply where, by virtue of any other provision limiting the time within which action for assessment or reassessment may be initiated, issuance of notice for such assessment or reassessment is barred on the date of the order, which is the subject matter of appeal, reference or revision in which the finding or direction is contained.

It would, thus, meant that an appellate or revisional authority cannot give a direction for assessment or reassessment which goes to the extent of conferring jurisdiction upon the assessing officer if his jurisdiction had ceased due to the bar of limitation. If the issuing of a notice for assessment or reassessment for a particular assessment year had become time barred at the time of the order, which was the subject matter of the appeal, the provisions of section 150(1), cannot be invoked for making an assessment or reassessment." In the instant case also the assessee filed returns for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 on 25-4-90. Therefore, the period of four years from the end of assessment year, 1988-89 expired on 31-3-1993 and for assessment year 1989-90 expired on 31-3-1994. However, the assessing officer issued notice on 31-5-2000. As such on that date the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice to the assessee under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment years under consideration.

Viewed from any angle as discussed herein above, addition made by the assessing officer, was not justified and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) rightly deleted the same. We do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in these appeals of the department.

In all other appeals. i.e. ITA Nos. 221, 2229, 223, 224, 202, 203, 200 and 201/Chandi/2003, the issue involved is similar having identical facts and even the ground raised by the department is identical and also rival contentions of the parties were similar. Therefore, our findings given herein above in the case of I.T.0 vs. Sham Lal in ITA Nos. 225 & 226/Chandi/2003 shall apply mutatis mutandis. In that view of the matter, these appeals are also dismissed.

In the result, all the 10 appeals filed by the department are dismissed.