Chennai Hotels (India) Pvt.Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1003/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64398 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR S MOHARANA
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Business income; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A.NOS.1000 TO 1004/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 TO 2005-06 M/S CHENNAI HOTELS(INDIA) PVT LTD 103, ASHOK NAGAR MAIN ROAD KODAMBAKKAM CHENNAI VS THE ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE I(3) CHENNAI [PAN AABCC 5173E] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, CA RESPONDENT BY : DR. S MOHARANA, CIT/DR DATE OF HEARING : 04-10-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-10-2012 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT, CHENNAI-I, DATED 27.3.2012, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2005-06. 2. THE A.R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THE APPEALS, THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IS THAT THE CIT DID NOT HAV E JURISDICTION TO I.T.A.NOS. 1000 TO 1004/12 :- 2 -: INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AS THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR ANY PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE REVENUE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SURVEY OPER ATION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESS EE ON 26.10.2006. EVIDENCES WERE GATHERED IN THE FORM OF 40 PAGES NOT EBOOKS IN WHICH THE DAILY COLLECTION OF BAR, ROOM RENT ETC. WERE RE CORDED. WHEN COMPARED WITH THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FURNISHE D TO THE INCOME- TAX DEPARTMENT IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ACTUAL INCOME WAS NOT FOUND DISCLOSED. IT WAS FOUND THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 01-02 THE ACTUAL INCOME WAS ` 16,60,320/-, THE RETURNED INCOME WAS ` 16,15,999/- AND THE DIFFERENCE WAS ` 44,321/-. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, THE ACTUAL INCOME WAS ` 34,51,937/- AND THE RETURNED INCOME WAS ` 15,43,050/- AND THE DIFFERENCE WAS ` 19,08,937/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE ACTUAL INCOME WAS ` 25,23,068/-, THE RETURNED INCOME WAS ` 9,96,176/- AND THE DIFFERENCE WAS ` 15,26,892/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, THE ACTUAL INCOME WAS ` 21,80,438/-, THE RETURNED INCOME WAS ` 10,43,726/- AND THE DIFFERENCE WAS ` 11,36,712/-. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ACTUA L INCOME WAS ` 23,42,288/-, THE RETURNED INCOME WAS ` 12,75,745/- AND THE DIFFERENCE WAS ` 10,66,543/-. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WI TH THE ABOVE WORKINGS, THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO OFFER THE A BOVE AMOUNTS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEA RS UNDER I.T.A.NOS. 1000 TO 1004/12 :- 3 -: CONSIDERATION. IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE AS SESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT BY MAKIN G THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN INCOME FOUND BETWEEN T HE INCOME FOUND FROM THE MATERIALS FOUND DURING SURVEY AND INCOME AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. THE ASS ESSEE FILED DETAILED REPLY TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED REPLY TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, DROPPED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 4. THEREAFTER, THE CIT ISSUED NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE A CT ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER SHEET IS CRYPTIC AND READS AS FOLLOWS: MR. BALAGANESH, FCA APPEARED AND FILED SUBMISSION. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE PENALTY PROCEEDING IS HEREBY DROPPED. 5. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, IN REPL Y TO NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, HAS STATED THAT THE ASSE SSEE-COMPANY HAD FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED AND HENC E, ON THAT GROUND ITSELF THE LEVY OF PENALTY WAS NOT WARRANTED. THE CIT OBSERVED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT LED TO THE ADDITION MADE IN THE SCRUTINY I.T.A.NOS. 1000 TO 1004/12 :- 4 -: ASSESSMENTS WHICH COULD BE SEEN FROM THE SURVEY REP ORT ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HAD BEEN NARRATED IN THE WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS DATED 18.5.2009 AND THEREFORE, EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC TION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSE SSEES CASE SINCE THE CONCEALED INCOME WAS DETECTED AND SUBJECTED TO TAXA TION ONLY AS A RESULT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL ACTION AND THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE OFFERED THE SAME TO TAXATION BUT FOR THE SURVEY OPE RATION. THEREFORE, THE CIT HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 18.5.2009 DROPPING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS ERRO NEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. ACCOR DINGLY, HE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIREC TED HIM TO EXAMINE ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND PASS A FRESH ORDER IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. THE A.R OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED AND SUBMITTED THAT ONCE A PLAUSIBLE VIEW IS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AF TER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS, THE CIT HAS N O JURISDICTION TO PASS AN ORDER U/S 263 A REVISING SUCH AN ORDER. H E RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF C.N.NARASIMHA REDDY VS CIT, [2011] 135 TTJ (BANG) 6 38 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ONE OF THE FINEST PRINCIPLES OF TAXAT ION IS THAT THE TAX MUST BE LEVIED AND COLLECTED WITH LEAST AMOUNT OF R ESISTANCE AND LITIGATION AND THE SAID PRINCIPLE BEING SATISFIED, THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DROP PING THE PENALTY I.T.A.NOS. 1000 TO 1004/12 :- 5 -: PROCEEDINGS. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL, [2001] 251 ITR 9, AND ARGUED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT ONCE REVISED RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN REGULARIZE D BY THE REVENUE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD DECLAR ED ADDITIONAL INCOME TO BUY PEACE TO COME OUT OF LITIGATION COULD BE BONAFIDE AND PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CIT/DR FULLY JUSTIFIED THE O RDER OF THE CIT AND ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P.MADHUSUDHANAN VS CIT, [2001]251 ITR 99 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD T HAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PROVE THAT HIS FAILURE TO RETURN HIS CORRECT INCOME WAS NOT DUE TO FRAUD OR NEGLECT, HE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS THEREOF. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION VS CIT, [20 08] 306 ITR 52(S.C) AND SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING PASSED CRYP TIC ORDER DROPPING PROCEEDINGS U/S 271C AND WHICH ORDER WAS HELD TO B E ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, NO INT ERFERENCE WAS CALLED FOR WITH THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRING TO HIM TO PASS A REASON ED ORDER. HE I.T.A.NOS. 1000 TO 1004/12 :- 6 -: FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION [2008] 306 ITR 49(DEL) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING PASSED CRYPTIC ORDER DROPPING PROCEEDINGS U/S 271C , CIT WAS JUST IFIED IN EXERCISING POWERS U/S 263 TO REVISE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHA BAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS BRAJ BHUSAN COLD STORAGE [2005] 275 ITR 360 (ALL) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION 4 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON REDUCTION OF L OSS AND OR ASSESSMENT AT NIL INCOME; TRIBUNAL WAS NOT THEREFOR E, JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. H E FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS SARA ENTERPRISES [1997] 224 ITR 169(MDS) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN ASSESSMENT MADE ON 2.11.19 77 DROPPED BY THE ITO ON 22.3.1980; LIMITATION PRESCRIBED IN SECT ION 275 WOULD NOT APPLY WHERE THE CIT IN REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 DIRECTED THE ITO TO RESUME PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. HE FURTHER RELIED O N THE DECISION OF HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHAB BIR T. CHASS VS ACIT,[2010] 4 ITR (TRIB)297(HYD) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DROPPING THE PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT RECORDING REASONS THEREFOR WOULD BE PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND COULD BE REVISED U/S 263 BY THE CIT. HE ALSO I.T.A.NOS. 1000 TO 1004/12 :- 7 -: RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PATNA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF R.A.HIMMATSINGKA & CO. VS CIT, [2012] 20 TAXMANN.CO M 849(PAT.) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE DROPPING OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDING AS WAS MANIFEST FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS DEFINITELY ERR ONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE C IT HAS PASSED A DETAILED ORDER HOLDING, INTER ALIA, THAT LOSS OF RE VENUE HAS BEEN CAUSED AS IT IS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER. THE CUMULATIVE TEST I S SATISFIED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT WITH. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE DISCLOSED MORE INCOME IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED IN PURSUANCE TO THE NOTICES U/S 148 OF THE ACT WHICH WERE ISSUED AFTER CONDUCTING O F A SURVEY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY , A DIARY WAS FOUND AND THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE RECEIPT SHOWN IN THE DIARY WERE ITS ACTUAL BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERED TO PAY TAX ON THE EXCESS RECEIPTS RECORDED IN THE DIARY OVER THE RECE IPTS SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURNS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSMENTS U/S 1 47 R.W.S 143(3) WERE COMPLETED ON THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICES ISS UED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCE EDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENTS MADE U/S 1 47 R.W.S 143(3) OF I.T.A.NOS. 1000 TO 1004/12 :- 8 -: THE ACT. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE S FOR PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 18.5.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2005-06 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CONSIDERING THE SAID SUBMISSIONS, DROPPED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THEREAFTER, THE CIT, IN EXERCISE OF J URISDICTION AVAILABLE U/S 263 OF THE ACT CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DATED 18.5.2009 IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL DROPPING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 9. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE CIT PASSED U/ S 263, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. THE ARGUMENT OF THE A.R IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, IN PASSING ORDERS DROPPING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, TOOK A POSSIBLE VIEW ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY THE DE CISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (SUPRA) AND THEREFORE, THE CIT COULD NOT HAVE REVIS ED THE SAID ORDERS FOR TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW ONLY. THE A.R ALSO FIL ED BEFORE US A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF C.N.NARASIMHA REDDY VS CIT, [2010] 4 ITR(TRIB)530 ( BANG) TO SUBMIT THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS A POSSIBLE VIEW. I.T.A.NOS. 1000 TO 1004/12 :- 9 -: 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CIT/DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE CIT. 12. WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ITS LETTERS DATED 18.5.2009 THAT IT FULLY CO-OPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT IN ASSESSING THE CO RRECT INCOME AFTER SURVEY AND AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICES U/S 148 OF TH E ACT AND AT NO POINT OF TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, TRIED TO CONCEAL ANY INCOME. THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE IN COME ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IN THE RETURNS FILED U /S 148 WHICH WERE REGULARIZED AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO PAID TAX THEREON TO AVOID VEXATIOUS AND PROTRACTED LITIGATION AND PURCHASING PEACE FROM THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE, IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT ON THE ABOVE FACTS PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE, ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL(SUPRA). THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CONS IDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CAME TO THE CONCLUSIO N THAT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT WARRANTED IN THIS CASE AND ACCORDINGLY DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS. 13. WE FIND THAT THE CIT HAS NOWHERE RECORDED IN THE O RDERS PASSED U/S 263 THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (SUPRA) WAS NO T APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE I.T.A.NOS. 1000 TO 1004/12 :- 10 -: TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF C.N.NARASIMHA REDDY VS CIT( SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 4 . W E H E ARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER IN DETAIL. IT IS A FACT THAT IN TH E C O UR SE OF S UR VE Y, TH E A SS E SS EE HAD OFFERED AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 10 L AKHS. IT IS ALSO A FACT ON R ECO RD THAT TH E ASS E SSEE STOOD BY HIS WORD AND OFFERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME IN TH E RETURN FIL E D TH E R EAF T E R. T H E R E F O R E , TH E C O - OP E RATION E X TENDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SURVEY PROCE E DINGS A S W E LL AS IN THE AS S ESS M E N T P R OCEE DING S I S APPARENT . SUPPOSE, THE ASSESSEE OFFERS SOM E AMOUNT IN TH E CO UR SE OF S URV E Y PRO CEE DING S AND THEREAFTER RETRACTS AND DOES NOT OFFER SUCH INCOME IN HI S R E TU R N , W H AT IS TH E REM E DY AVAI L ABLE BEF OR E TH E A SSES S I NG AUTHORITY? THE REMEDY IS TO MAK E A N A DDITION O N TH E B A S I S O F TH E EA RLI E R P R OMI S E S AND OTHER MATERIALS, IF ANY. SUCH A PROPOSAL WOULD B E R ES I S T E D B Y TH E ASSESS E E AND SUCH AN ADDITION COULD BE MADE ONLY AT THE COST OF L I T I GATION. THEREFORE , THER E I S MUCH F O RC E IN TH E FINDING OF TH E AO THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD CO - OPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT IN TH E SURV EY PR OCEE DING S A S WEL L A S IN THE A S S ES SMENT PROC E EDINGS . ON E OF THE FINEST PRIN C IPL E S OF TA XA TI O N I S T HAT TH E TAX MUST BE LEV I ED AND COLLECTED WITH L E AST AMOUNT OF RESISTANCE AND LITIGATION . TH E S AID PRIN C IPL E HAS B EE N SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY WRONG ON TH E PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DROPPING THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS. THERE IS NO GROUND TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND. AS THE FACTS ARE VERY MUCH A PPARENT ON THE RECORDS OF THE CASE, THE EXTENT OF THE SPEAK ING ORDER IS A MATTER OF RELATIVITY. 14. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DROPPING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CAN NOT BE HELD AS NOT A POSSIBLE VIEW. IT IS AN ESTABLISHED POSITION OF LA W THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED BY THE CIT FOR SUBSTITUTING H IS OWN VIEW IN PLACE OF THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNLESS I T IS FOUND THAT THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT A POS SIBLE VIEW. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO AN ESTABLISHED POSITION OF LAW THAT AN ORDER CANNOT I.T.A.NOS. 1000 TO 1004/12 :- 11 -: BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS ONLY BECAUSE IN THE VIEW OF THE CIT THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ALL ARE PART OF RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOV E, WE ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS O F THE CIT PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UND ER APPEAL. 15. , IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 05 TH OF OCTOBER, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:05 TH OCTOBER, 2012 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR