M/s. Siva Ventures Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

CO 170/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8212 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIDISHA KALRA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Business income; Principle of natural justice; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1725/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 & C.O. NO. 170/MDS/2012 [IN I.T.A. NO. 1725/MDS/2012] THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE VI(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEW BLOCK, 7 TH FLOOR, 121, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S. SIVA VENTURES LTD., NO. 327, ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI. [PAN: AAACS8496D] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT/ CROSS OBJECTOR) APPELLANT BY : SMT. VIDISHA KALRA, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SRIRAM SESHADRI, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 23.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.01.2013 ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS ON ASSESSEES BEHALF, EMANATE FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) V, CHENNAI DATED 18.06.2012 IN CIT(A)-V/ITA NO.349/201 1-12 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 [IN SHORT THE ACT]. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 1725 725725 725/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 170 7070 70/M/12 /M/12 /M/12 /M/12 2 2.1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OF WAIVER OF INTEREST AND FEES BY ITS HOLDI NG COMPANY MIS SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LTD (SIHL). 2.2 THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY HAS ADDED THE INTEREST AND FEES TO, THE LOAN AND SHOWN AS LIABILI TY IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND WAIVER OF INTEREST AND FEES IS NOTHING BU T WAIVER OF LOAN LIABILITY. 2.3 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNTS WAIVED THOUGH CAPITAL IN NATURE AT THE TIME OF RECEIPT BUT WHEN WAIVED THE CHARACTER IS CH ANGED AND BECOMES ASSESSEE'S OWN MONEY WHICH IS TAXABLE U/S 28(IV) OF THE IT ACT AS BENEFIT IS DERIVED FROM BUSINESS BY WAY OF CESSATIO N OF LIABILITY. 3. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS READ AS UN DER: BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, M/S SIVA VENTURES LIMITED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE RESPONDENT'), RESP ECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ['CIT(A)'] HAS ERRED IN CONFORMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER ('AO'), WHICH IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND LAW OF THIS CASE, IS VIOLATIVE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE AND IS VIO LATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT'). 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE LEARNED AO UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED AO, WHO HAS NO JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147 OF TH E ACT TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FAILURE ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSE ALL MATERIA L FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO, WHO HAS NO JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147 OF TH E ACT TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHEN THERE IS NO FRESH EVIDENCE/MA TERIAL BROUGHT ON I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 1725 725725 725/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 170 7070 70/M/12 /M/12 /M/12 /M/12 3 RECORD BASED ON WHICH THE LEARNED HAD A REASON TO B ELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE SUBJECT ASSES SMENT YEAR. THE RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, VARY, OM IT, SUBSTITUTE OR AMEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT T HE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. REPRESENTING REVENUE, THE DR SUBMITS THAT THE C IT(A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PERTAINING TO ASSESSEES INCOME FROM WAIVER OF INTEREST AND FEES BY ITS HOLD ING COMPANY. REITERATING THE GROUNDS ABOVE SAID, SHE PRAYED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF TH E APPEAL. 4. PER CONTRA, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORTED CIT(A)S ORDER ON MERITS. THE AR HAS ALSO REFERRED TO GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS AN D VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE REOPENING IN QUESTION IS BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW . 5. OPPOSING, THE REVENUE RELIES ON CIT(A)S ORDER REJECTING ASSESSEES CONTENTION QUA VALIDITY OF REOPENING. 6. ADMITTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING STRATEGIC INVESTMENT IN POTE NTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES. ON 28.10.2005, IT HAD FILED ITS RETURN DISCLOSING LOSS OF ` . 2,88,860/-, WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143 (1) OF THE ACT ON 12.06.2006. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINAL IZED SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ON 06.12.2007; WHEREIN, INCOME RECEIVED FROM TRADE MAR K AND INTEREST OF ` .8,82,880/- WAS ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 1725 725725 725/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 170 7070 70/M/12 /M/12 /M/12 /M/12 4 7. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FORMED OPIN ION THAT ASSESSEES INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, HE ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 30.03.2011. IN RESPONSE, THE AS SESSEE SOUGHT REASONS FOR REOPENING AND ALSO REITERATED THE RETURN ALREADY FILED. 8. AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE REASSESSMENT ORDER DA TED 09.12.2011, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AVA ILED LOAN FROM ITS HOLDING COMPANY TO PURCHASE SHARES OF AIRCEL LTD. AND RPG C ELLULAR SERVICES. ITS CONTENTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT IT HAD CAPITALIZED INTEREST AND FEES INCURRED THEREIN AND DID NOT CLAIM THE EXPENSE S. ALONG WITH THIS, IT HAD ALSO CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AGREE TO ASSESSEES ABOVE SAID EXPLANATION. IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDER, HE HELD THAT ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS POSING CHALLENGE TO VAL IDITY OF REOPENING DID NOT WARRANT ACCEPTANCE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER REFERRED TO SECTION 28(IV) OF THE ACT PRESCRIBING THAT ANY VALUE ARISING FRO M BUSINESS IS TO BE TAXED AND AN AMOUNT RECEIVED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT CHANGES ITS NATU RE AND BECOMES TAXABLE AS AND WHEN IT ACQUIRES THE SHAPE OF ASSESSEES OWN MO NEY. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT IF THE RECEIPT IS CAPITAL IN NATURE, THE MOMEN T ITS CHARACTER CHANGES AS STATED HEREINABOVE, IT BECOMES BUSINESS INCOME. ACCORDINGL Y, THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME WAS COMPUTED AS ` .12,04,11,547/-. 9. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL AND C HALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON LEGALITY OF REOPENING AS WELL AS ON MERITS . IT IS EVIDENT FROM CIT(A)S I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 1725 725725 725/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 170 7070 70/M/12 /M/12 /M/12 /M/12 5 ORDER THAT HE HAS TURNED DOWN ASSESSEES CONTENTION ON LEGALITY OF REOPENING BUT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHA LLENGING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON MERITS. HE HAS HELD THAT T HE AMOUNT IN QUESTION COULD NEITHER BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SECTION 41(1) NOR U NDER SECTION 28(IV) OF THE ACT. IN THIS MANNER, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST DE LETION OF ADDITION ON MERITS, WHEREAS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN PREFE RRED QUA CIT(A)S FINDING ON LEGALITY OF REOPENING (SUPRA). 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AT CONSIDERABLE LEN GTH, PERUSED ORDERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) AS WELL AS PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IN HAND CHALLENGE TH E VERY LEGALITY OF REOPENING, WE PROCEED TO DEAL WITH THE SAME FIRST. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2005- 06 AND RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD IS 01.04.2004 TO 31.03.2005. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT INITIALLY ASSESSEES RETURN HAS BEEN SUMMARILY PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, REGULAR ASSESS MENT HAD BEEN FINALISED ON 06.12.2007. FROM THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IT IS FOUND THAT IN THE COURSE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBMITTED ITS NOTE TO THE ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH READS A S FOLLOWS: 4. INTEREST / FEES WAIVER DURING THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2005, THE HOLDING CO MPANY, STERLING INFOTECH LIMITED, HAS WAIVED THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 115,028,667 AND FEES AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,500,000 OUT STANDING AS OF 31 MARCH 2004 ON CERTAIN LOANS TAKEN IN PRIOR YEARS (R EFER NOTE 3(A) (I) ABOVE). THE INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.115,028,667 AN D FEES AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,500,000 OUTSTANDING AS OF 31 MARCH 2004, W ERE ORIGINALLY I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 1725 725725 725/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 170 7070 70/M/12 /M/12 /M/12 /M/12 6 CAPITALISED AS PART OF THE COST OF INVESTMENTS WHIC H WERE ACQUIRED OUT OF THE LOAN PROCEEDS. CONSEQUENT TO THE WAIVER OF THE INTEREST AND FEES, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAYABLE AMOUNTING TO RS.115,028,667 AND FE ES PAYABLE AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,500,000 AS OF 31 MARCH 2004 HAVE BEEN REVERSED FROM THE BORROWINGS AND ADJUSTED AGAINST THE COST O F INVESTMENTS DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE QUA SAID PARTICULARS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, ON 31.03.201 1 HE ISSUED A REOPENING NOTICE AFTER 5 YEARS OF THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT YEAR ON 31.03.2006. ON ASSESSEES ASKING, HE ALSO SUPPLIED REASONS FOR REO PENING WHICH READ AS UNDER: AAACS8496D/2005-06 DATED 14 TH JUNE, 2011 M/S SIVA VENTURES LIMITED #327, STERLING TOWER, ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI - 600 006 SIR, SUB: INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT - IN YOUR CASE - ASSESS MENT YEAR 2005- 06 REASON FOR REOPENING - REG. REF: YOUR LETTER DATED 31.03.2011 KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 005-06 ARE GIVEN BELOW. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, HAS FI LED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON 28.10.2005 AD MITTING LOSS OF RS.2,88,880/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143 (1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON 12.06.2006. ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS COMPLETED ON 06.12.2007 ON ASSESSING THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM TR ADE MARK AND INTEREST, AMOUNTING TO RS.8,82,880/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 1725 725725 725/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 170 7070 70/M/12 /M/12 /M/12 /M/12 7 THE HOLDING COMPANY M/S. STERLING INFOTECH LIMITED HAS WAIVED INTEREST OF RS.11,50,28,667/- AND FEES AMOUNTING TO RS 45,00,000/-. THESE AMOUNTS ARE STATED TO HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST IN VESTMENTS. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE INTEREST AND FEES WERE ORIGINALLY CAPITALI ZED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE INTEREST OF RS.11,50,28,66 7/- AND FEES OF RS.45,00,000/- HAVE NOT BEEN ORIGINALLY DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BUT ADDED TO THE LOAN AND SHOWN AS LIABILITY IN THE BALANCE SHEET. HENCE THE WAIVER OF INTEREST AND FEES IS NOTHING BUT WAIVER O F LOAN LIABILITY. AS PER SECTION 28(IV) OF THE LT. ACT, 1961, THE VAL UE OF ANY BENEFIT ARISING FROM BUSINESS IS CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX. IT IS ALSO JUDICIALLY HELD IN TV SUNDARAM IYYANGAR AND SONS LIMITED CASE REPORTED IN 222 ITR 344 THAT THOUGH AMOUNTS RECEIVED ARE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITA L RECEIPTS AT THE TIME OF RECEIPT, WHEN IT BECOMES ASSESSEE'S OWN MONEY ITS C HARACTER IS CHANGED AND IT BECOMES TAXABLE. AS SUCH, THE AMOUNTS WAIVED THOUGH CAPITAL IN NATUR E AT THE TIME OF RECEIPT, WHEN IT IS WAIVED THAT CHARACTER IS CHANGED AND BEC OMES ASSESSEES OWN MONEY WHICH IS TAXABLE U/S.28(IV) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AS IT IS A BENEFIT DERIVED FROM BUSINESS BY WAY OF CESSATION OF LIABIL ITY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS, THEREFORE, FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT AT THE TIME OF SCRUTINY ASSESSME NT. MERE PRODUCTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ACCOUNT BOOKS OR OTHER EVI DENCE FROM WHICH MATERIAL EVIDENCE COULD WITH DUE DILIGENCE HAVE BEEN DISCOVE RED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL NOT NECESSARILY AMOUNT TO FULL AND TRU E DISCLOSURE OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AT THE TIME OF ASSESS MENT U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. IN THE LIGHT THEREOF, THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US IS AS TO WHETHER THE FIRST PROVISO OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT HEREIN BELOW WHICH DEALS W ITH A CASE OF REOPENING AFTER FOUR YEARS OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, IS APPLICAB LE OR NOT. WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE THE SAME AS UNDER: PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOU R YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEA BLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF TH E FAILURE59 ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 1725 725725 725/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 170 7070 70/M/12 /M/12 /M/12 /M/12 8 ISSUED UNDER SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTI ON 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSE SSMENT, FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR: A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISO MAKES IT AMPLY CLEA R THAT THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF TREATS A REOPENING INSTANCE TAKEN RECOURSE T O BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN AND AFTER 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT A SSESSMENT YEAR, ON DIFFERENT FOOTINGS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE TENOR OF THE PROVISIO N IS THAT IN CASE THE REOPENING NOTICE IS ISSUED AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE E ND OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE SAME CAN ONLY IN CASE OF A FAILURE ON ASSESSEE S PART IN DISCLOSING FULL AND TRUE ALL MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT. WHEN WE APPLY THIS ANALOGY TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE IN THE LIGHT OF MATER IAL FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND REASONS OF REOPENING, WE FIND THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY FAILURE ON ASSESSEES PART IN DISCLOSING T HE SAID PARTICULARS IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. WE REITERATE THAT THERE IS NO ISSUE BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE REOPENING NOTICE WAS ISSUED AFTER 5 YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THIS BACKDROP OF THE FACT, IT I S CLEAR THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF FURNISHED ALL RELEVANT PARTICULARS WHICH FORMED THE REASON FOR REOPENING, WE HOLD THAT REOPENING IN QUESTION IS HI T BY FIRST PROVISO ABOVE SAID. THEREFORE, BEING FINAL FACT FINDING AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT, WE HOLD THAT REOPENING IN QUESTION IS INVALID IN THE EYES OF LAW . ACCORDINGLY, WE ACCEPT THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. SINCE, WE HAVE ACCEPTED ASSESSEES CONTENTION CHALLENGING LEGALITY OF I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 1725 725725 725/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 12 22 2 & && & C.O. C.O. C.O. C.O. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 170 7070 70/M/12 /M/12 /M/12 /M/12 9 REOPENING; WE ARE NOT DEALING THE GROUNDS OF THE AP PEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED, WHEREAS , ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS STAND ACCEPTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 31 ST OF JANUARY, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 31.01.2013 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.