M/s.Cochin International Airport Ltd, Cochin V. The ACIT, Ernakulam

CO 4/COCH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4056 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHANTOM BOSE
• Assessee Lawyers: SATHYANARAYANAN
• Keywords: Audit objection; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 264; 192; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO 463 & CO 4/C/2015 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH KOCHI BEFORE S/ SHRI B P JAIN , AM & GEORGE GEORGE K, JM ITA NO 463/COCH/2014 (A SST YEAR 2006 - 07 ) & CROSS OBJECTION NO.4/COCH/2015 THE ASST COMMR OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI VS M/S COCHIN INTERNATIO NAL AIRPORT LTD GCDS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX MARINE DRIVE KOCHI 31 ( APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT /CROSS OBJECTOR ) PAN NO. AAACC9658B ASSESSEE BY SH SATHYANARAYANAN REVENUE BY SH SHANTOM BOSE, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING 19 TH JU LY 2016 DATE OF PRONOUN CEMENT 27TH JU LY 2016 ORDER PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JM; THIS APPEAL , AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 30.6.2014. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2006 - 07. 2 IN T HE APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1 THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS - II) COCHIN IN APPEAL NO. ITA - 35/R - 1/E/CIT - (A) - 1I/2011 - 12 DATED 30.6.2014 IS OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING ITA NO 463 & CO 4/C/2015 2 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES/GROUNDS OF APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS, HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF THE CASE U/S 148 WAS NOT VALID. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ISSUES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND AS SUCH THERE WAS ONLY A CHANGE OF OPINION, WHEREAS THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECI ATE THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SILENT ON THE ISSUES TAKEN UP IN THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A PPEALS) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED . 3 THE FACTS, IN RELATION TO THE REVENUES APPEAL, ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS OF AIRPORTS. FOR THE A Y 2006 - 07, RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 29.11.2006 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,23,76,569/ - . THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED BY ORDER DATED 30.12.2008. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I T ACT WAS ISSUED ON 28.3.2011. THE REASONS FOR REOPE NING WERE FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 26.5.2011. THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) W.R.S 147 WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 24.10.2011. 4 AGGRIEVED BY THE REASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED A PPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. ON MERITS, ITA NO 463 & CO 4/C/2015 3 VARIOUS OBJECTIONS ON DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE PRIMARY I SSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 IS NOT VALID. SINCE THE REOPENING WAS QUASHED BY THE CIT(A), THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE CIT(A). THE RELEVANT FINDING S OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IS INVALID, READ AS FOLLOWS: 5.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REASONS FOR REOPENING THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD . IT IS SEEN THAT THE REOPENING HAS BEEN DONE ON THE BASIS OF REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTIONS ON AS MANY AS 10 ISSUES. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT THERE WERE AUDIT OBJECTIONS ON AS MANY AS 10 ISSUES AND AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED ALL OF THESE OBJECTIONS, BUT IS IS STATED IN THE PROPOS AL FOR REOPENING THE CAS E UNDER SECTION 147 THAT THE ACTION IS BEING TAKEN AS A MATTER OF ABUNDANT CAUTION. 5.3.1 IT IS FELT THAT MERELY CHANGE OF OPINION IN THE MIND OF AO ON INTERPRETATION OF LAW BASED ON AUDIT OBJECTIONS, MAJORITY OF WHICH WERE EVEN NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO, CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR FORMING REASON TO BELIEVE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. IF AT AL THE CASE WAS BEING REOPENED, THE AO SHOULD HAVE REOPENED ONLY ON THE POINTS WHERE IT WAS FELT THAT THE AUDIT OBJECTION IS RIGHT AND ACCEPTABLE . SECTION 147 DOS NOT EMPOWER THE AO TO REVIEW ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN FRAMED, MERELY BY FRESH APPLICATION OF MIND BASED ON THE OPINION OF SOME OTHER AGENCY TO ITS OWN DECISION OR TO THE DECISION OF PREDECES SOR. 5.3.2 THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY FRESH/NEW MATERIAL ON RECORD AND NEITHER RECEIVES ANY FRESH INFORMATION. I AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AD AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT . 5.3.3 RE OPENING OF AN ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF NEW OPINION FORMED ON THE SAME MATERIAL WHICH HAPPENED TO BE THE MATERIAL OF SEC 143(3) ASSESSMENT . THE APEX COURT , IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . KELV I NA TOR OF INDIA LTD . , 320 ITR 561 (SC) HAS HELD THAT AD HAS POWER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S . 147 PROVIDED THERE IS TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT REASONS MUST HAVE A LIVE LINK WITH THE FOR MATION OF THE BELIEF . ITA NO 463 & CO 4/C/2015 4 THUS, THE AO MUST HAVE SOME SORT OF TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO ESTABLISH THAT HE HAS 'REASON TO BELIEVE' THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT . 5.3.4 FURTHER IT IS HELD I N A NUMBER OF DECISIONS THAT FORMATION OF BEL IEF FOR REOPENING THE CASE HAS TO BE OF AO'S OWN. THEREFORE , IF IN THE INDEPENDENT OPINION OF AO, THERE IS NO ESCAPEMENT BUT THE NOTICE U/S 148 I S ISSUED BY HIM AS I NSTRUCTED BY ANY SUPERIOR AUTHORITY OR ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT OBJECTION , THEN THE IMPUGNED NOTICE HAS TO BE QUASHED . THIS POSITION OF LAW WAS CLEARED BY HONORABLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADANI EXPORTS VS . DCIT , REPORTED IN 240 ITR 224. I N ANOTHER CASE , THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE AO CANNOT REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT MERELY ON THE BA SIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE INFORMATION AND FORMING AN OPINION . THE REASONS MUST SHOW DUE APPLICATION OF M I ND TO THE I NFORMATION . HE ALSO CANNOT REOPEN MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO DO SO BY A SUPERIOR OFFICER . (CI T VS . SFIL STOCK BROKING LTD. , 325 ITR 285 (DELHI ) . 5.3.5 IT IS A GENERAL PRACTICE IN THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DUE TO THE INSTRUCTION NO . 1928 OF CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DATED 7TH AUGUST 1995, TO REOPEN THE CASES ON AUDIT OBJECTIONS . PARA 1 OF THE SAID INSTRUCTION READS AS UNDER : 'REMEDIAL ACTION SHOULD INVARIABLY BE INITIATED AS A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE IN RESPECT OF ALL AUDIT OBJECTIONS, EVEN IF THE OBJECTION IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX. WHEN AN OBJECTION IS ACCEPTED, SU ITABLE REMEDIAL ACTION SHOULD BE INITIATED AND COMPLETED EXPEDITIOUSLY . ' FOLLOWING THIS INSTRUCTION , THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER REOPENS THE ASSESSMENT EVEN THOUGH THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AUDIT ARE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . FURTHER I N MANY INSTANCES THE REVENUE AUDIT DROPS THE OBJECTION RAISED AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER . HOWEVER , IN THE MEANTIME CASE AFTER REOPENING OR REVISION ORDER MAY HAVE BEEN PASSED CAUSING GREAT HARDSHIP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF TAX DEMANDED AND RAISING THE ISSUE IN APPEAL . 5.3.6 RECENTLY THE KOLKATA HIGH COURT CONSIDERED SUCH AN ISSUE IN I . M . C . LTD . V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX , 261 ITR 731 (2003) WHERE CONSEQUENT UPON OBJECTION RAISED BY THE REV ENUE AUDIT , NOTICES WERE ISSUED BY THE INCOME - TAX DEPARTMENT FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT ALREADY COMPLETED. ITA NO 463 & CO 4/C/2015 5 THE HIGH COURT CONSIDERED INSTRUCTION NO. 192 8 DATED AUGUST 7, 1995, ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MENTIONED ABOVE. THE COURT C ONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF I NDIAN AND EASTERN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY V . CIT , ( 1979 ) 119 ITR 996 AND OTHER CASES AND QUASHED THE NOT I CES FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT . THE COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT 'I HAVE MY RESERVATIONS AS TO T HE LEGAL I TY OF THE I NSTRUCT I ONS ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES , THE RELEVANT PORTION WHEREOF HAS BEEN QUOTED HEREINABOVE . HOWEVER, I AM NOT CALLED UPON TO DECIDE TH I S ISSUE BECAUSE THIS WAS NOT URGED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER . ' ON A SIMILA R ISSUE IN ADANI EXPORT VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(1999) 240 ITR 224(GUJ)WHEREIN THE NOTICE U/S 147(B) WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE AUTHORITY VESTED WITH POWER TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION FOR ISSUING NOTICE IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT EXISTENCE OF SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY WARRANT EXERCISE OF SUCH POWER . T HE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF INDIAN AND EASTERN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY OBSERVED THAT 'TO SAY THE LEAST, SUCH ULTRA VIRES INSTRUCTIONS CANNOT BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE TO SAVE THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.147, IN ABSENCE OF HOLDING OF ANY BELIEF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY ARROGATING THE POWER TO ITSELF, THE BOARD BY ISSUING SUCH DIRECTIONS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF L AW AT THE PAIN OF SUBJECTING THE OFFICER TO PAIN OF EXPOSING HIM TO CHARGE OF INSUBORDINATION'. CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT QUASHED THE NOTICE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING LEGAL POSITION, SINCE THE REOPENING IS BASED ON THE AUDIT OBJE CTIONS MAJORITY OF WHICH WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO AO AND THERE WAS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL IN ADDITION TO WHAT WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THE REOPENING OF THE CASE IS HELD AS NOT VALID. SINCE REOPENING OF THE CASE IS HELD TO B E NOT VALID, THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE UPON OTHER GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE . WITH THESE REMARKS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5 THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148 IS NOT VALID. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD DR THAT THE DEPARTMENTS AUDITORS HAD RAISED VARIOUS OBJECTIONS AND BASED ON THE ITA NO 463 & CO 4/C/2015 6 SAME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. THE LD DR RELIED ON THE JUDGM ENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS P. V. S. BEEDIES PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 237 ITR 13. I T WAS FURTHER CONTENDED BY THE LD DR THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT IS REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148, THE AO IS AUTHORIZED TO EXAMINE THE OTHER ISSUES WHICH WERE NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, THE LD DR RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH OF HON;BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS BEST WOOD INDUSTRIES AND SAW MILLS REPORTED IN 331 ITR 63 (KA R). 6 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, APART FROM RELYING THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A), HA D SUBMITTED A BRIEF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LAWS RELATING TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE FOR REASSE SSMENT AS IT STAND PRIOR TO THE AY 1989 - 90 AND SUBSEQUENT TO AY 1989 - 90. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD AR RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FORAMER VS CIT REPORTED IN 247 ITR 436 WHICH WAS AFFIRMED BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN 264 ITR 566 . HE ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JINDAL PHOTO FILMS REPORTED IN 234 ITR 170 . IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS POWER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT, PROVIDED THERE IS TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS MUST HAVE A LIVE LINK WITH THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF ITA NO 463 & CO 4/C/2015 7 AND MUST NOT BE A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KELVINATOR OF INDIA REPORTED IN 320 ITR 561(SC ). FURTHER, BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LUCAS TVS LTD 249 ITR 306 ( SC), IT WAS CONTENDED THAT A RE OPENING , BASED ON AN AUDIT OBJECTION , WAS FOUND TO BE A CASE OF MER E C HA NGE OF OPINION WHERE THE AU DIT PA R TY T OOK AN INTERPRETATION WHICH WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE TAKEN FROM T H E ASSESSI N G OFFICER WHICH ALSO WAS A POSSIBLE VIEW . BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF V I JAY RAMESHBHAI GUP T A VS ACIT(215 TAXMANN 465) , IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT A RE - OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WHERE THE A O H AS ACTED ONLY UNDER COMPULSION OF AUDIT PARTY AND NOT INDEPENDENTLY, A C T ION OF RE - OP ENING ASSESSMENT IN SUCH CASE WOULD BE VITIATED. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT W HERE THE AO ON THE BASIS OF NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED BY ANOTHER AO FR A MED REASSESSMENT WITHOUT RECORDING REASONS AND WITHOUT ISSUING FRESH N OT I CE UNDER SECTION 148, THE REASSESSM ENT WAS HELD TO BE INVALID . IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F D R M RS K.B KUMAR VS ITO (47 SOT 192) (DELHI) . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, IT WAS STATED THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE RE - OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT I S IN VALID . 7 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE , THERE ARE TEN REASONS TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT AND THE SAME EVIDENT FROM THE LETT ER DATED 26 TH MAY 2011 WRITTEN BY THE AO TO THE ITA NO 463 & CO 4/C/2015 8 ASSESSEE (PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE). THE CIT(A), AFTER PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS HAD CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE TEN REASONS STATED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON T HE OBJECTIONS OF THE AUDIT PARTY AND THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE OPINION OF THE AUDIT PARTY ON ALL THE REASONS MENTIONED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT , H OWEVER, AS AN ABUNDANT CAUTION , PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WERE INITIATED BY THE AO. THIS CATEGORICAL FINDI NGS OF THE CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. ON PERUSAL OF THE TEN REASONS STATED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, WE FIND THAT NONE OF THE REASONS ARE PURE FACTUAL ERROR S/ OMISSION S WHERE THERE IS NO DISPUTE INVOLVED. AN AUDIT OPI NION IN REGARD TO APPLICATION OR INTERPRETATION OF LAW CANNOT BE TREATED AS REASON FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE ABOVE SAID PROPOSITION OF LAW IS WELL SETTLED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN AND EASTERN NEWSPAPER SOCIE TY VS ITO REPORTED IN 119 ITR 996 . 7.1 FURTHER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF V I JAY RAMESHBHAI GUP T A VS ACIT(215 TAXMANN 465), HELD THAT A RE - OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WHERE THE A O H AS ACTED ONLY UNDER COMPULSION OF AUDIT PARTY AND N OT INDEPENDENTLY, A C T ION OF RE - OPENING ASSESSMENT IN SUCH CASE WOULD BE VITIATED. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAGAT JAYANTILAL PARIKH VS DCIT REPORTED IN 355 ITR 400. 7.2 THE CIT(A) HAD CAT EGORICALLY FOUND THAT THE AO HAS ACTED ONLY ON COMPULSION OF AUDIT PARTY AND NOT INDEPENDENTLY . THIS CATEGORICAL FINDING OF THE ITA NO 463 & CO 4/C/2015 9 CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED BEFORE US. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT . IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 8 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. CROSS OBJECTION NO.4/COCH/2015 (BY ASSESSE) 9 . THE ASSESSEE, IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION, APART FROM SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), H AS ONLY STATED THE ISSUE R AISED ON MERIT, OUGHT TO HAVE BE ADJUDICATED BY THE CIT(A). SINCE THE ISSUE ON REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT IS DECIDED AGAINST T HE REVENUE, THE GROUNDS REGARDING THE MERIT IS NOT ADJUDICATED. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 10 IN THE R ESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF JULY 2016 . SD/ - SD/ - B P JAIN GEORGE GEORGE K (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER ) COCHIN: DATED 27 TH JU LY 2016 RAJ* ITA NO 463 & CO 4/C/2015 10 COPY TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT, 5 . DR 6 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN