CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI V. D.C.I.T. 2(1), MUMBAI

CO 152/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9449 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A C TEJPAL
• Assessee Lawyers: F V IRANI
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Wrong claim; Bad and doubtful debts; Revised return; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 142(1); 147; 148; 11; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C , MUMBAI . . , , , BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI , AM AND SHRI SANJAY GARG , JM ITA NO . 8580 /MUM/20 10 : ASST.YEAR 1997 - 98 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1) MUMBAI. / VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL ACCOUNTS (B/S) DEPARTMENT, CHANDERMUKHI, 4 TH FLOOR NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021 PAN : AAACC2498P. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) CO NO. 152 /MUM/20 12 : ASST.YEAR 1997 - 98 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL ACCOUNTS (B/S) DEPARTMENT, CHANDERMUKHI, 4 TH FLOOR NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021. / VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX CIRCLE 2(1) MUMBAI. ( / CROSS OBJECTOR ) ( / RESPONDENT) / REVENUE BY : SHRI A.C.TEJPAL / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI F.V.IRANI / DATE OF HEARING : 06 . 02 .201 4 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 .0 2 .20 1 4 / O R D E R PER N.K.SAINI (AM) : THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2010 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 4 , MUMBAI. 2. FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ITS APPEAL: - ITA NO. 8580 /M/201 0 & CO.152/M/2012 . CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA . 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT IMPUGNED IN THE GROUNDS ENUMERATED BELOW: 1. THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. I . ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS BAD IN LAW AS THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESS EE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF WRONG CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. I(A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.C IT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS BAD IN LAW WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT IT WAS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WHICH HAD DISCLOSED THE BUSINESS LOSS AT RS.12587.79 LACS IN THE REVISED RETURN BUT LOSS WAS WRONGLY TAKEN AT RS.15374.16 LACS WHIL E COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME. I(B) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS BAD IN LAW WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ASSESSEE ITSELF VIDE LETTER DATED 13.12.2003 CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN COMPU TATION OF TOTAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF TAKING BUSINESS LOSS AT RS.15374.16 LACS INSTEAD OF RS.12587.79 LACS AND EXPRESSLY CONSENTED FROM THE REVISION OF THE LOSS. I(C) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS BAD IN LAW ITA NO. 8580 /M/201 0 & CO.152/M/2012 . CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA . 3 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ASSESSEE WRONGLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.11.00 CRORE ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR PENSION LIABILITY WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 37(I) OF THE ACT. 2. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.11.1997 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.1,15,61,73,400 / - AND BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JA OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ] AT RS.39,10,70,913 / - . THEREAFTER A REVISED RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.03.1999 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.1,14,99,14,150 / - AND B OOK PROFIT U/S 115JA OF THE ACT AT NIL. THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 25.02.2000 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT NIL AND THE BOOK PROFIT AT RS.39,10,70,913 / - . AGAINST THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEAL) [ CIT (A) FOR SHORT] , WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2003 ALLOWED THE WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS IN DETERMINING THE BOOK PROFIT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER GIVING APPEAL EFFECT THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT A LOSS OF RS. 66,18,08,569 / - AND BOOK PROFIT TAKEN AT NIL U/S 115JA OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER [ AO FOR SHORT] REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 24.09.2003 AND DISALLOWED THE EXCESS LOSS, PAYMENT OF PENSION AND BAD DEBT S. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ITA NO. 8580 /M/201 0 & CO.152/M/2012 . CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA . 4 BAD IN LAW AS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS ALREADY COMPLETED AFTER SCRUTINY U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR WERE AS FOLLOWS: - 1. WHILE COMPUTING BUSINESS LOSS THE SAME WAS WRONGLY TAKEN AT RS.15,374.16 LAKHS AS AGAINST THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF RS.12587.79 LAKHS AS PER THE REVISED RETURN. 2. PROVISION FOR PENSION LIABILITY HAS BEEN WRONGLY ALLOWED AT RS.11,00,50,635/ - . 3. CHAPTER VIA DED UCTION HAS BEEN WRONGLY ALLOWED OF RS.74.51 LAKHS. THE AFORESAID RESULTED IN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME BY REASONS OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT OF INCOME. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT REVISED BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.12,587.79 LAKH WAS DISCLOSED IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT REVEALED THAT THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION FOR PENSION FUND CONTRIBUTION HAD BEEN ELABORAT ELY DISCLOSED UNDER THE HEAD PENSION FUND CONTRIBUTION IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT ALL ASPECTS OF THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE U/S 43B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PENSION FUND CONTRIBUTION HAD BEEN DISCUSSED IN GREAT DETAIL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AND THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION ON THE ITA NO. 8580 /M/201 0 & CO.152/M/2012 . CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA . 5 BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE HON. SUPREME COURT . IT WAS STATED THAT IN ITS REVISED RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAD RESTRICTED ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI - A TO NIL IN VIEW OF THE NEGATIVE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ANY MATERIAL FACTS AND NONE OF THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO ANY FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 147 OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 148 OF THE ACT BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS WAS INVALID, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BAD IN LAW. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PARIKH PETRO CHEMICAL AGENCIES (P) LTD. V. ACIT [266 ITR 196] . IT WAS STATED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1994 - 95 AND SINCE THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN U/S 148 OF THE ACT WERE NOT FULFILLED, THE NOTICE ISSUED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT MUST BE HELD TO BE INVALID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES : - (I) MANGALORE REF INERY & PETROCHEMICALS LTD. V. ACIT (282 ITR 516) (II) CIT V. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (320 ITR 561) (SC) (III) ASIAN PAINTS LTD. V. DCIT (308 ITR 195) (BOM.) (IV) CIT V. M/S.EICHER LTD. (294 ITR 310) (DEL.) (V) GERMAN REMEDIES LTD. V. DCIT (285 ITR 26) ( BOM.) (VI) HARI IRON TRADING CO. V. CIT (263 ITR 437) (P&H) 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS EXPIRED ON ITA NO. 8580 /M/201 0 & CO.152/M/2012 . CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA . 6 31.03.2002 WHEREAS THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 24.09.2003, WHICH WAS BARRED BY TIME LIMITATION AS PER THE PROVISO T O SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT NO NOTICE U/S 148 COULD BE ISSUED UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETU RN U/S 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) OR SECTION 148 OF THE ACT OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT . THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THIS CASE THE AO HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY MATERIAL WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS BAD IN LAW. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE CASE OF CIT V. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (256 ITR 1) . ACCORDINGLY REASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY THE AO ON 30.12.2003 WAS CANCELLED. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, THE REASSESSMENT COMP LETED BY THE AO BY ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE DECISION RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE QUOTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMIS SION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WHILE ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS CONSIDERED FIGURES MENTIONED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN O F INCOME AND IGNORED THE FIGURES WHICH WERE MENTIONED IN THE ITA NO. 8580 /M/201 0 & CO.152/M/2012 . CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA . 7 REVISED RETURN, SO IT WAS THE MISTAKE OF THE A.O. AND NOT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WANTED TO REVIEW HIS OWN DECISION , WHICH WAS TAKEN BY FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT . T HEREFORE, REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NOS. 96 AND 97 OF THE ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS THE COPY OF THE LETTER DA TED DECEMBER 13, 2003 WRITTEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO WHEREIN THE OBJECTION WAS RAISED TOWARDS REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148 OF THE ACT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES: - (I) ICICI BANK LTD. V. K.J.RAO & ANR. [(2004) 268 ITR 203 (BOM.)] (II) HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. V. ACIT & ORS. [(2004) 268 ITR 332 (BOM.)] (III) TITANOR COMPONENTS LTD. V. ACIT & ORS. [(2012) 343 ITR 183 (BOM.)] 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.03.1999 WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 25.02.2000. THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF APP EAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2003 ALLOWED SOME RELIEF TO THE ASSESSE E AND ITA NO. 8580 /M/201 0 & CO.152/M/2012 . CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA . 8 THEREAFTER THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 24.09.2003 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. WHILE COMPUTING BUSINESS LOSS THE SAME WAS WRONGLY TAK EN AT RS.15,374.16 LAKHS AS AGAINST CORRECT AMOUNT OF RS.12,587.79 LAKHS AS PER THE REVISED RETURN. 2. PROVISION FOR PENSION LIABILITY HAS BEEN WRONGLY ALLOWED OF RS.11,00,50,635/ - . 3. CHAPTER VIA DEDUCTION HAS BEEN WRONGLY ALLOWED OF R S .74.51 LAKHS. T HE AFORESAID RESULTED IN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME BY REASONS OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME. 8. IN THIS CASE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT REOPENING OF THE ASSESS MENT WAS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND IN THE REASONS RECORDED NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FAC TS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED RETURN CORRECTED THE MISTAKE RELATED TO BUSINESS LOSS WHICH WAS EARLIER TAKEN AT RS.15,374. 1 6 LAKH INSTEAD OF RS.12,587.79 LAKH. SO IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE CORRECT FIGURE OF THE BUSINESS LOSS . THEREFORE, THE REOPENING ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID GROUND NO.1 WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. SIMILARLY PROVISION FOR PENSION LIABILITY WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT WHILE FRAMING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. SO IT CANNO T BE SAID THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY IN THE REVISED RETURN OF ITA NO. 8580 /M/201 0 & CO.152/M/2012 . CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA . 9 INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD RESTRICTED ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI - A TO NIL IN VIEW OF THE NEGATIVE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. SO IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT T HERE WAS ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME. 9. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. V. ACIT & ORS. (SUPRA), HELD A S UNDER: - THAT THE NOTICE WAS CLEARLY BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOWHERE STATED THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMEN T FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE NOTICE WAS NOT VALID AND WAS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AND THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO NOWHERE STATED THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 10. I N ANOTHER SIMILAR ISSUE THE HON BLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TITANOR COMPONENTS LTD. V. ACIT & ORS. (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: - ITA NO. 8580 /M/201 0 & CO.152/M/2012 . CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA . 10 WHERE A REASSESSMENT IS SOUGHT TO BE MADE AFTER FOUR YEARS THE POWER CONFERRED BY SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961, DOES NOT PROVIDE A FRESH OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CORRECT AN INCORRECT ASSESSMENT MADE EARLIER UNLESS THE MISTAKE IN THE ASSESSMENT SO MADE IS THE RESULT OF A FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE ALL MATERIALS FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WRONG CLAIM MADE BY AN ASSESSEE AFTER DISCLOSING ALL THE TRUE AND MATERIAL FACTS AND A WRONG CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY WITHHOLDING THE MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY. IT IS ONLY IN THE LATTER CASE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE ENTITLED TO PROCEED UNDER SECTION 147. 1 1 . IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE AO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A WRONG CLAIM OF BUSINESS LOSS, HOWEVER, HE IGNORED THE FIGURES DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED RETURN. HE ALSO DID NOT CONSIDER THIS VITAL FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED NIL DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI - A IN ITS REVISED RETURN AND THAT THE PROVISION FOR PENSION LIABILITY WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO HIMSELF ONLY AFTER THOROUGH EXAMINATION AND SCRUTINY OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, F ROM THE REASONS RECORDED, IT IS CR YSTAL CLEAR THAT THE AO HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE PROVISION FOR PENSION LIABILITY AND DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI - A HAD BEEN WRONGLY ALLOWED. SO IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT WAS WRONGLY ALLOWED ON THE MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSEE PARTICULARLY, WHEN ALL THE FIGURES AND MATERIAL WAS TRULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE REOPENING BEYOND FOUR YEARS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS BAD IN LAW AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO ON 30.12.2003. WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). ITA NO. 8580 /M/201 0 & CO.152/M/2012 . CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA . 11 1 2 . AS REGARDS THE CROSS OBJECTION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS IN CASE THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. SINCE IN THE FORM ER PART OF THIS ORDER WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, THE CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS BY ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 1 3 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 201 4 . , 2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K.SAINI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 12 TH FEBRUARY , 201 4 . DEVDAS* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / THE CIT , MUMBAI. 4. / CIT(A) - 4 , MUMBAI. 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FI LE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI