RELIANCE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

CO 254/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1312 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 29-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Commercial expediency; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 37(1); 148; 37

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN ,AM AND LALIT KUMAR, JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 5972 /M/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEA R : 1999 - 2000 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROOM NO.609, ROOM NO.609,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 / VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., 5 TH FLOOR, NKM INTERNATIONAL HOUSE, BABUBHAI CHINAI ROAD, 178, BACKBAY RECLAMATION, MUMBAI - 400020 ( / A PPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) CROSS OBJECTION / .254/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ./ I.T.A. NO .5972/M/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEA R : 1999 - 2000 ) RELIANCE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., 5 TH FLOOR, NKM INTERN ATIONAL HOUSE, BABUBHAI CHINAI ROAD, 178, BACKBAY RECLAMATION, MUMBAI - 400020 / VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROOM NO.609, ROOM NO.609, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN : AAACR7637P / APPELLANT BY MS.ANU AGGARWAL / RSPONDENT BY SHRI ARVIND SONDE / DATE OF HEARING : 20 .8 . 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 . 9 . 201 5 / O R D E R PER LALIT KUMAR, JM: THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2012 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000 ON ITA NO. 5972 /M/2012 AND CO 254/M/2013 2 THE GROUND THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALL OWING THE LOSS ON SALE OF ASSETS. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/ 147 OF THE ACT. 3. SINCE THE GROUND RELATING TO REOPENING GOES TO THE ROOT OF MATTER, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO DEAL WITH THE RE - OPENING ISSUE FIRST. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.40 , 56 , 090/ - ON 30 - 12 - 1999. THE ASSESSMENT WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 26.3.2002. SUB SEQUENTLY, THE AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LOSS ON SALE OF ASSETS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,65,78,977/ - AS DEDUCTION. THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE SAID CLAIM PERTAIN ED TO THE CUSTOMS DUTY PAID IN RESPECT OF A PLANT & MACHINERY, WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN SOLD IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993 - 94. THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE SAID CLAIM IS NOT ALLOWABLE. ACCORDINGLY, HE RE - OPEN E D THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE DATED 29.3.2006 U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN ORDER TO DISALLOW THE ABOVE SAID CLAIM. 5. THE LD SENIO R COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS RE - OPENED THE ASSESSMENT AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HENCE THE FIRST PROVISO TO SEC. 147 OF THE ACT SHALL APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT PROV ING THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR COMPLETION OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID MAKE ENQUIRIES ABOUT THE IMPUGNED CLAIM DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ITA NO. 5972 /M/2012 AND CO 254/M/2013 3 THE ASSESSEE ALSO GAVE A DETAILED REPLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED CLAIM, ACCEPTED THE SAME AND HENCE HE DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS AND HENCE THE FI RST PROVISO TO SEC. 147 CLEARLY APPLIES TO THE FACTS OF INSTANT CASE . ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON CHANGE OF OPINION ONLY. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE ISS UING ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT NO NEW MATERIAL HAS COME TO THE POSSESSION OF THE AO AND HE HAS ISSUED THE NOTICE ONLY ON CHANGE OF OPINION. ACCORDINGLY HE CONTENDED THAT REASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO QUASHED. 6. THE LD D.R, ON T HE CONTRARY, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS ALLOWED IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON THE BELIEF THAT THERE WAS A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY. LATER IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY AND HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSES SMENT. 7. WE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS LEGAL ISSUE. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HAS ASKED THE FOLLOWING TWO QUESTIONS BESIDES OTHER QUESTIONS, VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 30 - 01 - 2002: Q.14. GIV E THE DETAILS OF LOSS ON SALE OF ASSETS OF RS.2,65,78,977; Q.15. GIVE DETAILS OF CUSTOM DUTY ON PLANT & MACHINERY DEBITED BY YOU IN THE P & L A/C SINCE THE ASSET IS NOT EXISTING DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. WHY HIS CUSTOM DUTY SHOULD BE ALLOWED? 8. THE ASSE SSEE, VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 28 - 02 - 2002, SUBMITTED THE REPLY AS UNDER: .. WE PURCHASED THE SCADA SYSTEM FROM SONAL ELECTRONICS, WHICH WAS INSTALLED AT THE CONTROL ROOM LOCATED AT PATALGANGA ITA NO. 5972 /M/2012 AND CO 254/M/2013 4 AND AT VARIOUS POINTS OF THE PIPELINE. THEREFORE, THIS SCADA SYST EM BECAME AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE LIQUID TRANSPORT SYSTEM, WITHOUT WHICH THIS ACTIVITY WAS NOT POSSIBLE. THIS SCADA SYSTEM WAS SOLD TO RELIANCE CAPITAL LIMITED (RCL) AND LEASED BACK TO US. WE ARE EARNING SUBSTANTIAL INCOME FROM RIL FOR THE USER OF THIS TR ANSPORT SYSTEM . DURING THE INVESTIGATION BY THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT, IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE DUTY PAID BY THE IMPORTERS OF THE PARTS OF EQUIPMENTS WAS LOWER THAN WHAT WAS PAYABLE AS PER THE THEN EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THE CUSTOMS ACT. THE CUSTOMS DEPARTME NT ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE IMPORTERS OF THE EQUIPMENT, THE SR.EXECUTIVE OF OUR COMPANY WERE ALSO ISSUED SUMMONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE IMPORTERS OF THE EQUIPMENT. IRRESPECTIVE OF THE OUTCOME OF THE FINAL DECISION OF THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT AND CONSEQUENTIAL TIME TAKING AND COSTLY LITIGATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT, THERE WAS EVERY LIKELIHOOD OF THE EQUIPMENT BEING CONFISCATED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS PER THE PROVI SIONS OF T HE CUSTOMS ACT. IN THE MEANTIME, KAR VIVAD SAMADH AN SCHEME (KVSS) WAS LAUNCHED BY THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT TO SETTLE THE PENDING DISPUTES. THE AMOUNT PAYABLE UNDER SUCH SCHEMES WAS SUBSTANTIALLY LOW IF COMPARED WITH THE FINAL AMOUNT PAYABLE IN CASE OF ADVERSE FINAL DECISION TAKEN BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITI ES. THIS SCHEME BECAME VERY POPULAR AND LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE SETTLED THE DISPUTE AND PAID THE ADDITIONAL DUTY TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND TO AVOID EXPENSES ON FURTHER LITIGATION. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, IT WAS AGREED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND M/S EA STERN PERIPHERALS LTD. THAT THEY WILL FILE DECLARATION UNDER KVSS 1998, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT CONCESSIONAL FINANCIAL DAMAGE OF DUTY PAYABLE WILL BE BORNE BY US. IT WAS FINANCIALLY PRUDENT ACT OF ACCEPTANCE OF THIS CONDITION AS OTHERWISE THE EQUIPME NT COULD HAVE BEEN CONFISCATED AND THEREBY STOPPING THE FLOW OF INCOME FROM THE USER OF THIS TRANSPORT SYSTEM. THIS EXPENDITURE OF PAYMENT OF CUSTOM DUTY UNDER KVSS HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITA NO. 5972 /M/2012 AND CO 254/M/2013 5 BUSINESS AND IS ALLOWABLE DEDU CTION U/S. 37(1) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. VARIOUS COURTS ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS HAVE CLEARLY LAID DOWN THAT THE CORRECT APPROACH WOULD BE TO SEE WHETHER THE PAYMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS MADE ON THE GROUNDS OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY FOR THE ULTIMATE B ENEFIT OF THE BUSINESS. 9. THROUGH THE ABOVE LETTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON PAYMENT OF CUSTOM DUTY UNDER KVSS IN RESPECT OF SCADA WAS THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE CONTRACTUAL TERMS AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSE SSEE HAS CLAIMED THE SAME AS DEDUCTION. AFTER RECEIVING THE REPLY FROM THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 26 - 03 - 2002 ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF CUSTOMS DUTY REFERRED ABOVE. 10. THEREAFTER, THE AO HAS REOPENED T HE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 29 - 03 - 2006. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE, VIDE LETTER DATED 01 - 09 - 2006, AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER: 'ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, IT I S SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD BEEN CONTRACTED TO TRANSPORT PETROLEUM AND PRODUCTS FROM CHEMBER TO PATALGANGA TO RELIANCE INDUSTRIAL PLANTS THROUGH PIPE LINES. THE QUANTITY OF LIQUID PRODUCTS MOVING THROUGH PIPELINE INSTALLED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ON MONITORED BY SCADA (SUPERVISING CONTROL AND DATE ACQUISITION) SYSTEM, FITTED ON THE LINE, WHICH HAD BEEN ASSEMBLED FROM COMPONENTS IMPORTED, BY M/S. EASTERN PERIPHERALS LTD., SEEPZ, ANDHERI. THE SYSTEM MANUFACTURED BY THE SEEPZ UNIT HAD BEEN FIRST SO LD TO M/S. SONAL ELECTRONICS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PURCHASED AND INSTALLED IN THE CONTROL ROOM AT PATALGANGA AND AT VARIOUS PIVOTS IN THE PIPELINE. THE SYSTEM WAS AGAIN SOLD TO M/S. RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD. AND RECEIVED BACK ON LEASE. 2. DURIN G INVESTIGATIONS BY CUSTOM DEPARTMENT, THE DUTY ON ITA NO. 5972 /M/2012 AND CO 254/M/2013 6 THE COMPONENTS IMPORTED FOR THE SCADA WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN UNDERPAID AND M/S. EASTERN PERIPHERALS LTD., WAS ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO PAY THE DIFFERENTIAL DUTY. M/S. EASTERN PERIPHERALS FILED DECLARATI ON UNDER KVSS SCHEME 1998 AND PAID DIFFERENTIAL DUTY WITH CONCESSIONS AFFORDED UNDER KVSS AFTER OBTAINING AN UNDERTAKING FROM ASSESSEE TO BEAR THE ADDITIONAL DUTY LIABILITY. 3. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SCADA SYSTEM HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM M/S. SONAL ELECTRONICS AND NOT FROM THE MANUFACTURERS M/S EASTERN PERIPHERALS LTD. HENCE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT WITH M/S. EASTERN PERIPHERALS TO BEAR THE ADDITIONAL DUTY IF THE MANUFACTURER RAISED A DEMAND AGAINST M/S SONAL ELECTRONICS AND LATTER APPROACHED ASSESSEE THEN ONLY ANY OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE REQUIREMENT OF BEARING ANY PROFITS OF THE ADDITIONAL COST, ACTUALLY COULD ARISE. 4. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SOLD THE ASSET TO M/S. RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD AND WAS NOT UTILIZING THE SAME IN THE CAPACITY AS A LESSEE. HENCE A S SESSEE COMPANY WAS EITHER NOT THE PARTY WHO SHOULD HAVE BORNE THE ADDITIONAL COST, OR AFTER BEARING THE SAME COULD HAVE PASSED ON IT TO M/S. RELIANCE CAPITAL LID., THE PRESENT OWNER OF TH E SYSTEM. IN EITHER CASE, THE EXPENSE WAS NOT FINALLY REQUIRED TO BE BORNE BY ASSESSEE COMPANY AND HENCE NOT TO BE CLAIMED / ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY'S ASSESSMENT OF INCOME. 11. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE, VIDE ITS LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 16, 2006, HAS S UBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL CUSTOMS DUTY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/ 37(1) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 6. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL CUSTOM DUTY PAID BY US HAS BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S 37 (1) OF THE ACT, IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING TWO REASONS: A) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY (LESSEE) WAS UNDER A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PAY ANY IMPOSTS, CHARGES AND OTHER DUTIES, TAXES, PENALTIES, ETC. AS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE 7.1 OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DT.30 .03.1993 ENTERED INTO WITH RCL ITA NO. 5972 /M/2012 AND CO 254/M/2013 7 LEASING ARRANGEMENT OF SCADA, AND B) THE NON - PAYMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL DUTY WOULD HAVE RESULTED INTO CONFISCATION OF THE SCADA SYSTEM WHICH IN TURN WOULD HAVE DISRUPTED THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. AS EXP LAINED EARLIER, WE HAVE TAKEN ON LEASE THE SCADA SYSTEM FROM RCL VIDE LEASE AGREEMENT DT. 30.03.1993. CLAUSE 7.1 OF THE AGREEMENT CATEGORICALLY PROVIDES THAT THE LESSEE (ASSESSEE) SHALL BEAR ALL THE IMPORTS, CHARGES AND OTHER DUTIES, TAXES, PENALTIES, ETC. LEVIED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THE SAID SYSTEM. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT IS AS UNDER.: WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT SECTION 37(1) OF THE I.T. ACT ALLOWS AN EXPENDITURE AS DEDUCT IBLE EXPENDITURE IF THE SAID EXPENDITURE IS LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY 'FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS'. THE TERM FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS IS OF WIDE CONNOTATION AND INCLUDES ALL EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS OUT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. THE TERM COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY MEANS EVERYTHING THAT SERVES TO PROMOTE COMMERCE AND INCLUDES EVERY MEANS SUITABLE TO THAT END. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED OUT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY WILL BE TAKEN TO BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS EVEN THOU GH NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY PREVAILING PRACTICE. WE FURTHER SUBMIT THAT THE EXPRESSION WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY USED IN SEC 37(1) DOES NOT MEAN 'NECESSARILY'. ORDINARILY, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DECIDE WHETHER ANY EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS. SUCH EXPENDITURE MAY BE INCURRED VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT ANY NECESSITY; AND IF INCURRED FOR PROMOTING THE BUSINESS AND TO EARN PROFITS, THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 37(1) EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO COMPELLING NECESSITY TO INCUR SUCH EXPENDITURE. [SASOON J. DAVID & CO. P. LTD. VS. CIT (118 I TR 261)]. THE PHRASE 'FOR PURPOSES OF BUSINESS' IS WIDER IN SCOPE AND CANNOT BE GIVEN A NARROW INTERPRETATION. IT HAS TO BE ASSIGNED A MEANING ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. AN EXPEND ITURE MAY BE INCURRED ' F OR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS' EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE TO EARN THE INCOME OR INCREASE HIS INCOME. .... . ITA NO. 5972 /M/2012 AND CO 254/M/2013 8 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED CUSTOMS DUTY CLAIM WAS ALLOWED U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS. 12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY COMPLETED THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY DISALLOWING THE IMPUGNED CLAIM. THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED TH E VALIDITY OF RE - OPENING BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 5.6 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE A.O'S ORDER AS WELL AS THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION. HAVING CONSIDERED BOTH, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO HAS NOT SERIOUSLY CH ALLENGED THE RE - OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY VALID DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO ARE VALID AS MERE FILING OF DETAILS OR MENTIONING SOMETHING IN THE RETURN OF INCOME DOES NOT ALONE CONSTITUTE THAT IT SHOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO. THE APPELLANT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAD CLAIMED CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY OF CUSTOM DUTY OF RS.2,62,63,890/ - , WHICH WAS NO T DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3 ) OF THE ACT AND ALSO NOR ANY DETAILS OR SUBMISSION WERE MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THERE WAS A CONNECTION/DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE FACTS, WHICH WERE CAME TO THE LIGHT OF THE A.O AND THE REASON TO BELIEVE BY TH E AO. THE APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS ARE THEREFORE HELD TO BE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE CASE LAWS QUOTED BY THE APPELLANT DO NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF REOPENING OF ASS ESSMENT. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THERE IS NO CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION AS THE CLAIM OF CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF CUSTOM DUTY PAID FOR IMPORT OF SUPERVISING CONTROL AND ACQUISITION SYSTEM (SCADA) WAS NEVER EXAMINED DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS U/S.1 43(3) OF THE ACT. ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, IT IS CLEAR THAT NEW SET OF FACTS AND TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAVE COME ON RECORD AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, AND THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THESE NEW MATERIALS AND FACTS ON RECORD, HAS FORM THE VIEW THAT INCOME OF THE APPELLANT HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THUS, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IS COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 5972 /M/2012 AND CO 254/M/2013 9 HOWEVER, ON MERITS, THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON PAYMENT OF CUSTOMS DUTY . 13 . T HE LD A.R INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR INDIA LTD (320 ITR 561),WHEREIN THE DELHI HIGH CO URT HAS HELD THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GABRIEL INDIA LTD 203 ITR 1089 (BOM) AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD VS ACIT 268 ITR 332(BOM). IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD (SUPRA) , THE HON. HIGH COURT HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF SECTIONS 147 & 148 AND HAS CONCLUDED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: THE REASONS RECORDED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOWHERE STATED THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE REASONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE READ AS THEY WERE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. NO SUBSTITUTION OR DELETION IS PERMISSIBLE. NO ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE TO THOSE REASONS. NO INFERENCE CAN BE ALLOWED TO BE DRAWN BASED ON REASONS NOT RECORDED. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISCLOSE AND OPEN HIS MIND THROUGH REASONS RECORDED BY HIM. HE HAS TO SPEAK THROUGH HIS REASONS. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REACH TO THE CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THE CONCERNE D ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FORM HIS OPINION. IT IS FOR HIM TO PUT HIS OPINION ON RECORD IN BLACK AND WHITE. THE REASONS RECORDED SHOULD BE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND SHOULD NOT SUFFER FROM ANY VAGUENESS. THE REASONS RECORDED MUST DISCLOSE HIS MIND. REASONS ARE THE MANIFESTATIONS OF MIND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REASONS RECORDED SHOULD BE SELF - EXPLANATORY AND SHOULD NOT KEEP THE ASSESSEE GUESSING FOR THE REASONS. REASONS PROVIDE LINK BETWEEN CONCLUSION AND EVIDENCE. THE REASONS RECORDED MUST BE BASED ON EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE EVENT OF CHALLENGE TO THE REASONS, MUST BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY THE SAME BASED ON MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HE MUST DISCLOSE IN THE REASONS AS TO WHICH FACT OR MATERIAL WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE FULLY AND TRULY NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT OF THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR, SO AS TO ITA NO. 5972 /M/2012 AND CO 254/M/2013 10 ESTABLISH VITAL LINK BETWEEN THE REASONS AND EVIDENCE. THAT VITAL LINK IS THE SAFEGUARD AGAINST ARBITRARY REOPENING OF THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SUPPLEMENTED BY FILING AFFIDAVIT OR MAKING ORAL SUBMISSION, OTHERWISE THE REASONS WHICH WERE LACKING IN MATERIAL PARTICULARS WOULD GET SUPPLEMENTED, BY THE TIME THE MATTER REACHES THE COURT, ON THE STRENGTH OF AFFIDAVIT OR ORAL SUBMISSION ADVANCED THE LD A.R ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD VS ACIT 267 ITR 161 (BOM) WHEREIN THE HON.BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 NO ACT ION CAN BE TAKEN FOR REOPENING AFTER FOUR YEARS UNLESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. EXPLANATION 2 TO SEC TION 147 IS REQUIRED TO BE READ WITH SECTION 147 IN ITS ENTIRETY INCLUDING THE PROVISO. THAT, IF ONE READS EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 147 INCLUDING THE PROVISO THEN IT IS CLEAR THAT IN CASES WHERE THE DEPARTMENT REOPENS THE ASSESSMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS, IT CAN DO SO ON THE ROUND OF INCOME HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, IN CASES OF REOPENING AFTER FOUR YEARS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY REASON OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. EXPLANATION 2 CANNOT BE READ WITHOUT READING THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147. EXPLANATION 2( C) HAS TO BE READ WITH SECTION 147 INCLUDING THE PROVISO AND, IF SO READ, THE ABOVE DICHOTOMY WOULD BE CLEARLY SPELT OUT . 14. THE CIT(A), WHILE UPHOLDING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAD EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ALLOWING THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE. THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT WHEN AN ASSESSMENT IS COMP LETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT , IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE ISSUE AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT RESORT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 AND 148 OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, T HE LD A.R RELIED UPON THE ITA NO. 5972 /M/2012 AND CO 254/M/2013 11 JUDGEM ENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF EICHER LTD (2007)294 ITR 310 WHEREIN, THE DELHI HIGH COURT AFTER REFERRING TO THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS LAID DOWN THE RATIO IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: APPLY ING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE FULL BENCH OF THIS COURT AS WELL AS THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, WE FIND THAT IF THE ENTIRE MATERIAL HAD BEEN PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME WHEN THE ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT WAS MADE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED HIS MIND TO THAT MATERIAL AND ACCEPTED THE VIEW CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN MERELY BECAUSE HE DID NOT EXPRESS THIS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT GIVE HIM A GROUND TO CONCLUDE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT NEEDED TO BE REOPENED. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND AND COMMITTED A LAPSE, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE MADE TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT LAPSE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL VIEWS HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IDEA CELLULAR LTD (301 ITR 407) AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF ARONI CHEMICALS LTD VS. ACIT ( 367 ITR 405 ) . 15. THE LD.AR FOR T HE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF GKN S INTER METALS LTD V S . MS RAMAPRIYA RAGHAVAN, ACIT { 2015}55 TAXMANN.COM 438( BOMBAY) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS THAT PREVAILED IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE. IN THE CAS E BEFORE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ORIGINALLY ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80 - IA/ 80 - IB OF THE ACT. LATER HE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE REASONING THAT THERE WAS INAPPROPRIATE ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES BETWEEN THE UNITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCT ION. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT HELD THAT REOPENING WAS ON CHANGE OF OPINION AND THE SAME IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HONBLE BOMBAY ITA NO. 5972 /M/2012 AND CO 254/M/2013 12 HIGH COURT ARE EXTRACTED BELOW: - 13. IN THE PRESENT FACTS, THE PETITIONER HAD ALONG WITH ITS RETURN OF INCOME FILED ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHEREIN CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 801A/ IB OF THE ACT WAS MADE. BESIDES THE AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 80IA(8) OF THE ACT TO CLAIM TO DEDUCTION WAS ALSO FILED ALONG WITH A NOTE INDICATING THE BASIS OF ALLOCATION OF EXPENDITURE AMONGST ITS THREE MANUFACTURING UNITS WAS ALSO FILED. THESE WERE ALL PRIMARY DOCUMENTS WHICH WOULD NOT NORMALLY ESCAPE EXAMINATION DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS. THIS IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE F ACT THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BY LETTER DATED 27TH DECEMBER, 2004 CALLED UPON THE PETITIONER TO FURNISH DETAILS WITH REGARD TO ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 801A/ IB OF THE ACT INCLUDING THE METHOD/MANNER OF A LLOCATION OF EXPENDITURE AMONGST ITS THREE MANUFACTURING UNITS. THE PETITIONER BY ITS LETTER DATED 25TH JANUARY, 2005 SUBMITTED VARIOUS DETAILS OF ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES SUPPORTING ITS NOTE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN ALLOCATED ACTUAL BASIS, TURN OVER BASIS AND TIME SPENT BASIS AMONGST THE THREE MANUFACTURING UNITS. THE AFORESAID ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES ON DIFFERENT BASIS WAS ON THE BASIS OF THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED WITH TH E PETITIONER'S RESPONSE AND CONSEQUENTLY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 9TH MARCH, 2005 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ACCEPTED THE PETITIONER'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80LA / L B OF RS. 2.08 CRORES. THIS ESTABLISHES THAT AN OPINION WAS FORMED IN RESPECT OF ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES AMONGST THE THREE MANUFACTURING UNITS FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80LAT LS OF THE ACT WHILE PASSING AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ON 9TH MARCH, 2005. 14. HOWEVER, MR. CHHOTRARY, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE SUBM ITS THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO FORMATION OF OPINION ON ALLOCATION OF EXPENDITURE AMONGST THE THREE MANUFACTURING UNITS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 9TH MARCH, 2005 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT CONTAINS NO DISCUSSION ON T HE SAME. ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE, IT COULD ONLY BE WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTAINS DISCUSSION WITH REGARD TO PARTICULAR CLAIM CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FORMED AN OPINION WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS COURT IN IDEA CELLULAR LTD. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MANU/MH/0169/2008 : 301 ITR 407 HAS EXPRESSLY ITA NO. 5972 /M/2012 AND CO 254/M/2013 13 NEGATIVED ON IDENTICAL CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. THE COURT HELD THAT ONCE ALL THE MATERIAL WAS PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE CHOSE NOT TO REFER TO THE DEDUCTION/CLAIM WHICH WAS BEING ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT COULD NOT BE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. MOREOVER IN THIS CASE, IT IS EVIDENT FROM TH E LETTER DATED 6TH AUGUST, 2007 ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER CONTAINING THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ALSO RECORD THE FACT THAT DURING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80LATLS OF THE ACT. THE LETTER FURTHER RECORDS THAT THE DETAILS SOUGHT FOR WERE FURNISHED AND IT IS NOW OBSERVED THAT THERE HAS BEEN A DIS - PROPORTIONATE DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENSES BETWEE N VARIOUS UNITS BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80LATLS OF THE ACT. THIS IS A FURTHER INDICATION OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DURING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 SOUGHT I NFORMATION IN RESPECT OF THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES AND THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE PETITIONER WAS FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM QUERY DATED 27TH DECEMBER, 2004 AND THE PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO THE SAME ON 25TH JANUARY, 2005 EXPLAINI NG THE MANNER OF DISTRIBUTION OF COMMON EXPENSES FOR DELAYING THE PROCESS OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80LALIB OF THE ACT. ALL THIS WOULD INDICATE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FORMED AN OPINION WHILE PASSING THE ORDER DATED 9TH MARCH, 2005. THIS C OURT IN ARONI COMMERCIALS LTD. V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MANU/MH/1838/2014 0: 367 ITR 405 HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER SOMEWHAT SIMILAR SUBMISSION MADE BY THE REVENUE AND NEGATIVED THE SAME BY HOLDING THAT WHEN A QUERY HAS BEEN RAISED WITH RE GARD TO A PARTICULAR ISSUE DURING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT MUST FOLLOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPLIED HIS MIND AND TAKEN A VIEW IN THE MATTER AS IS REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BESIDES, THE MANNER IN WHICH AN ASSESSING OFFIC ER WOULD DRAFT/FRAME HIS ORDER IS NOT WITHIN THE CONTROL OF AN ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, IF EVERY CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH EVEN IF ACCEPTED IS TO BE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEN AS OBSERVED BY THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT V. NIRMA CHEMICALS LTD. MANU/GJ/0136/2008 0: 305 ITR 607, THE ORDER WOULD RESULT INTO AN EPIC TOME. BESIDES, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPLETE ALL THE ASSESSMENTS WHICH HAVE TO UNDER GONE SCRUTINY AT ITS HAND. IN THE ABOVE VIEW, IT IS CLEAR THAT ONCE A QUERY HAS BEEN RAISED DURING THE ITA NO. 5972 /M/2012 AND CO 254/M/2013 14 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE PETITIONER HAS RESPONDED TO THE QUERY TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 9TH MARCH, 2005 ACCEPTS TH E PETITIONER'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80LA / IB OF THE ACT. IT MUST FOLLOW THAT THERE IS DUE APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ISSUE RAISED. 15. THEREFORE, AS THERE IS A CHANGE OF OPINION IN ISSUING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE HAVIN G REGARD TO THE OPINION FORMED WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD CEASE TO HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN KELVINATOR OF INDIA (SUPRA) . MOREOVER, THE POWER TO REASSE SS UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT IS NOT A POWER TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 1 6 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMI S SIONS. IN OUR VIEW THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE LIABLE T O BE QUASHED FOR THE REASON THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 1 47 OF THE ACT HA S BEEN INITIATED MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THAT , WHILE COMPLETING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THE AO HAS MADE ENQUIRIES WITH REGARD TO THE DETAILS OF LOSS ON SALE OF ASSETS AND FURTH ER THE DETAILS OF THE CUSTOMS DUTY ON THE PLANT & MACHINERY DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN P & L ACCOUNT AS THE ASSET WAS NOT EXISTING DURING THE YEAR. THUS WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE AND HAS TAKEN A VIEW. ON PERUSAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY AO FOR INITIATING THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS , WE NOTICE THAT THE ABOVE SAID DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. HE NCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO, ON A MERE CHANGE OF O PINION , HAS ISSUED THE NOTICE FOR RE - ASSESSMENT. IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE AO TO RESORT TO PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION. ITA NO. 5972 /M/2012 AND CO 254/M/2013 15 17. FURTHER, WE NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HENCE IT IS IMPERATIVE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE FIRST PROVISO TO SEC. 147 ARE COMPLIED WITH. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. 18. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, W E ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 147 HAS NOT BEEN VALIDLY INITIATED BECAUSE THE SAME HAS BEEN INITIATED MERELY O N A CHANGE OF OPINION WITHOUT ANY FRESH MATERIAL COMING INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE AO. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE INVALID AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT IS QUASH ED. 19. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE REASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE S RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE C ROSS O BJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS_ 2 3RD _ DAY OF SEP T, 2015. SD SD (B. R. BASKARAN) ( LALIT KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI: 23RD SEP , 2015 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS ITA NO. 5972 /M/2012 AND CO 254/M/2013 16 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CON CERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI