M/s Jay Bilnath Construction, JUNAGADH V. The Commr. of Income Tax-III, Rajkot, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 105/RJT/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2280 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DM RINDANI
• Keywords: Revision of order; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 194C; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AH MEDABAD] (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 105/RJT/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) M/S. JAY BILNATH CONSTRUCTION NAYAN SOCIETY, ZANZARDA ROAD, JUNAGADH V/S THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, RAJKOT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AABFM5827H APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.M. RINDANI, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI YOGESH PANDEY, CIT/ D.R . ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 02 -03-201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 -03-2016 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. WITH THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE J URISDICTION OF THE COMMISSIONER RAJKOT-3 FOR MAKING AN ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT ITA NO. 105/ RJT/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 2 HOLDING THAT THE ORDER MADE U/S. 143(3) BY THE A.O DATED 20.12.2012 IS ERRONEOUS AND PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF TH E REVENUE. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER IS IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN AS MUCH AS THE COMMISSIONER HAS MADE THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT ON ISSUES WHICH WERE NOT THERE IN THE SHOW CAUSE NO TICE. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER STATED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED BY TH E LD. COMMISSIONER HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND THOROUGHLY VERIFIED BY THE A .O DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF, THEREF ORE, THE COMMISSIONER GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 3. SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER, THE D .R. STATED THAT THE A.O HAS ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM WITHOUT PROPER ENQ UIRY AND THE COMMISSIONER HIMSELF HAS COLLECTED THE DETAILS ON T HE ISSUES RAISED BY HIM AND AFTER COLLECTING THE FACTS, THE COMMISSIONE R FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LESSER RECEIPTS IN ITS ACCOUNT I N COMPARISON TO THE RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE AND ALSO THE PAYMENT FOR TRANSPORT WAS WITHOUT TDS AND THE SAME HAS TO BE DI SALLOWED. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER STATED THAT EVEN THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON FIXED DEPOSITS WAS NOT ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME, THEREFORE THE AS SESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE R EVENUE AND THE LD. CIT HAS RIGHTY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26 3 OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE G IVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BROUG HT ON RECORD BEFORE US IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 263 ITA NO. 105/ RJT/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 3 DATED 01.10.2013 WAS ISSUED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER AND THE RELEVANT PART READS AS UNDER:- SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 196 1 CONSEQUENT UPON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS WHERE IN THE DCIT CIR-I, JUNAGADH HAS FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AY 201 0-11 ON ADDITION OF RS 2.08 LAKHS ON VARIOUS GROUNDS RESULTING IN ASSESSED INCOME OF RS 22 , 55,370/-, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE FOLLOWING POINTS HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AO : - (A) RCC LABOUR EXPENSES OF RS 1.64 CRORES HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BEFORE ALLOWING DEDUCTION. (B) CAPITAL INTRODUCTION BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED. (C) DIFFERENCE IN RECEIPTS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES, 26A S STATEMENTS AND AUDITED P&L ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED WHICH COULD HAVE RESU LTED IN DISCOVERY OF ADDITIONAL SOURCE OF INCOME. (D) PROCUREMENT OF RAW MATERIALS WORTH RS 1.35 CRORES H AS NOT BEEN EXAMINED (E) SUB-CONTRACT EXPENSES WERE ALLOWED BY AO DESPITE HA VING SUBSTANTIAL EXPENSES UNDER THE HEADS RCC LABOUR, PIPE DIGGING LABOUR, PIPE FIT TING EXPENSES AND CONSTRUCTION WAGES. (F) DEPOSITS AND ADVANCES MADE TO VARIOUS PERSONS AS AP PEARED IN THE BALANCE SHEET HAVE NOT BEEN, EXAMINED. FROM THE FACTS MENTIONED ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2010-11 IS ERR ONEOUS AS HE HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND WHILE CONDUCTING VERIFICATION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THUS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS. T HEREFORE, I INTEND TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT AND PASS A SUITAB LE ORDER. BEFORE PASSING SUCH ORDER, YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER. PLEASE STATE AS TO WHY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN YOUR CASE SHOULD NOT BE REVISED AFTER MAKING NECESSARY INQUIRY, HI THIS CON NECTION, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO ATTEND THIS OFFICE ON 11/10/2013 AT 11.00 AM. IN THE EVENT OF NON-COMPLIANCE, IT SHALL BE ITA NO. 105/ RJT/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 4 PRESUMED THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE INITIATION OF PROPOSED PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT. 5. NOW, LET US SEE THE RELEVANT QUERIES RAISED BY THE A.O DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE NOTICE DA TED 26.06.2012. Q3. PLEASE FURNISH THE DETAIL OF CONTRACT WORK INCO ME OF RS. 9017629/- AND SUB- CONTRACTOR RECEIPT OF RS. 50896173/- WITH COPY OF A CCOUNT, CONTRACT RECEIPT AND COPY OF TDS VOUCHERS. Q4. IN RESPECT OF ALL PURCHASES OF CONSTRUCTION MAT ERIAL EXCEEDING RS. 1 LACS FROM ANY SINGLY PARTY . FURNISH THE DETAILS GIVING OPENI NG BALANCE, TOTAL AMOUNT OF PURCHASES, TOTAL PAYMENTS MADE AND CLOSING BALANCE. Q6. ON VERIFICATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET, IT IS FOU ND THAT THE FIRM HAS SHOWN COPIES OF BANKS ACCOUNT/FINANCE COMPANY WITH WHAT K IND OF BANK GUARANTEE/SECURITY GIVEN AGAINST THE ACQUIRED LOAN. Q7. IN RESPECT OF ALL UNSECURED LOANS ABOVE RS. 10, 000/- WHETHER SQUARED UP OR NOT, SUBMIT INFORMATION GIVING FULL NAME AND ADDRES S OF THE DEPOSITOR, OPENING BALANCE, ADDITION DURING THE YEAR, REPAYMENT DURING THE YEAR, BALANCE AMOUNT OF INTEREST CREDITED, WITH TDS IF ANY. Q10. DETAILS OF THE CAPITAL A/C. OF THE PARTNERS AN D WITHDRAWALS ALONG WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE CREDIT ENTRY. Q11. FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF EXPENSES CLAIM ED UNDER THE HEAD DIRECT EXPENSES, SELLING AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND D EPRECIATION. Q15. FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS OF TDS IN RESPONSE TO THE SPECIFIC QUERIES. THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY DATED 16.07.2012 WH ICH IS EXHIBITED AT PAGES 9, 10, 11 AND 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND READ AS UNDER:- Q3. WE HEREWITH FILE FOLLOWING DETAILED LEDGER ACCO UNTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTRACT WORK INCOME OF RS. 90,17,629/- AS WELL AS SUB CONTRACT WORK INCOME RS. 5,08,96,173: (I) CONTRACT WORK INCOME. RS. 90,17,629/- (II) SUB CONTRACT WORK INCOME RS. 2,76,57,989/- (III) JOB WORK INCOME A/C. RS. 2,32,38,184/- RS. 5,08,96,173/- TOTAL RS. 5,99,13,802/- ITA NO. 105/ RJT/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 5 Q4. IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF MATERIAL EXCEEDING OF RS. 1 LAKHS, LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF 24 PARTIES ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH. Q6. SO FAR AS SECURED LOAN OF RS. 184143 IS CONCERN ED, WE HAVE TO INFORM YOU THAT THE SAME WAS TAKEN FROM SUNDRAM FINANCE CO. LTD. TO PURCHASE MAHENDRA MAXI VEHICLE. LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SUNDRAM FINANCE IS ENCLO SED HEREWITH. Q7. SO FAR AS UNSECURED LOAN IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE TO INFORM YOU THAT THERE WERE FOLLOWING THREE SUCH LOANS: A. VEJABHAI GHELABHAI B. RAJUBHAI VEJABHAI C. GANESH CONSTRUCTION WE HEREWITH, FILE LEDGER COPY OF ALL WITH CONTR A ACCOUNT OF VEJABHAI AND RAJUBHAI AND XEROX OF RECEIPT OF INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY BOTH OF THEM Q10. THE DETAILS OF DRAWINGS MADE BY THE PARTNERS W ILL BE FURNISHED ON THE DATE OF NEXT HEARING. Q11. WE HEREWITH FILE MONTH WISE SUMMARY OF PURCHA SES, EXPENSES ETC AMOUNTING TO RS. 41169140. MOREOVER LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SELLING AND ADM. EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION ACCOUNTS ARE ENCLOSED HER EWITH. OVER AND ABOVE THIS, THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF DEPRECIATION ARE ALSO GIVEN IN THE SCHEDULE B OF AUDIT REPORT FILED HERETO. Q15. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TAX WAS DE DUCTED FROM SUB CONTRACT WORK I.E. UNDER SECTION 194C AND COMPLETE DETAILS O F TDS MADE IS FILED ALONG WITH XEROX COPY OF RECEIPT OF FILING OF TDS RETURN BEFOR E NSDL. THE DETAILS ASKED FOR ARE COVERED IN THIS. IN CASE OF MORE DETAILS OR DOC UMENTS IS/ARE REQUIRED WE MAY PLEASE BE INFORMED. 6. THUS, IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE DULY REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED BY RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS AND AFTER EXAMINING THE RELATED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER READ AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 105/ RJT/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 6 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING PROCEEDINGS, ON VER IFICATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITE D THE R.C.C. WORK LABOUR OF RS.1,64,31,200/-, CENTING EXPENSES OF RS.16,47,300/ -, PIPE FITTING WAGES OF RS.35,30,000/-. ON VERIFICATION OF THESE PAYMENT VO UCHERS, IT WAS FOUND THAT SOME OF THE VOUCHERS WERE SELF PREPARED, NOT PROPERLY NARRATED AND VERIFIABLE, IN THIS REGARD, A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED AS TO WHY 50,000/- SHOU LD NOT BE DISALLOWED TO COVER UP THE LACK OF THESE ASPECTS, THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AGREED FOR PROPOSED DISALLOWANCE. THE SAME IS BEING ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON VERIFICATION OF P & L ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE H AS DEBITED INTEREST PAID TO THE SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD FOR TRUCK LOAN OF RS. 18,720/- . SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. IS A NON- BANKING FINANCE CO., THEREFORE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON INTEREST PAYMENT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A OF THE IT . ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX ON INTEREST AMOUNT OF RS. 18,720/-. HENCE, THE SAME IS LIABLE FOR DISALLOWANCE. I, THEREFORE, MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS. 18,720/- ON THIS ACCOUNT. 5. FURTHER, ON VERIFICATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE E XPENSES, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTERALIA DEBITED THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES; OFFICE EXPENSES RS. 44,874/- DEPRECIATION ON CAR RS. 59,570/- TOTAL RS. 1,04,444 OUT OF THE ABOVE EXPENDITURES THE ELEMENT OF P ROBABLE PERSONAL USE ATTRACTS WHICH CANNOT BE DENIED, ON BEING ASKED TO THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE SEPARATE RECORD, IF ANY, MAINTAINED OR PERSONAL USE/NON BUSI NESS PURPOSES, IT IS STATED BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO SUCH RECORDS/ REGISTERS HAS BEEN MAINTAINED TO QUANTIFY THE AMOUNT FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES. FOR WANT OF ANY D ETAILS FURNISHED IN THIS REGARDS, I DISALLOW RS. 10,000/- OUT OF THE ABOVE EXPENSES FOR PROBABLE PERSONAL USE AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE REMARKS/DISCUSSION, THE TOTA L INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS DETERMINED AS UNDER; ITA NO. 105/ RJT/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 7 TOTAL INCOME AS PER RETURN OF INCOME RS. 21,76 ,650/- ADD:-AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN PARA -3 RS. 50,000/- AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN PARA-4 RS. 18,720/- AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN PARA-5 RS. 10,000/- RS. 78,720/- TOTAL INCOME RS. 22,55,370/- ASSESSED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT,1961. CHARGE INT EREST U/S. 234/A/B/C AS THE CASE MAY BE. ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE AND CHALLAN 7. COMING BACK TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER MA DE U/S. 263, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE A.O HAS NOT VERIFIED THE NATURE, REASONABILITY AND GENUINENESS OF RCC LABOUR EXPENSES CLAIM OF SUCH A HUGE VOLUME. THIS OBSERVATION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER IS NOT IN LINE WITH THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. 243 ITR 83 WHER EIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE A.O CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, FOR E.G. WHEN AND ITO ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF R EVENUE OR WHERE TWO VIEW ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ITO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WI TH WHICH THE LD. COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED A S AN ORDER WHICH IS ERRONEOUS OR PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REV ENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITO IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 8. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. GABRIAL IN DIA LTD. 203 ITR 108 HAS HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HIS ORDER, H E DID NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD. ITA NO. 105/ RJT/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 8 9. A FURTHER PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISS IONER U/S. 263 SHOW THAT HE HAS DELIBERATED ON ISSUES WHICH WERE NOT TH ERE IN HIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 01/10/2013. FOR EXAMPLE IN HIS O RDER AT PAGE 10, THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS GIVEN INSTANCES OF PAYMENT S FOR WHICH NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE CASE OF ASHISH RAJPAL 320 ITR 674 HONBLE DE LHI HIGH COURT HAS THE OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE WHERE THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER REFERRED TO FOUR ISSUES WHE REAS THE ORDER OF REVISION REFERRED TO NINE ISSUES, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPO ND TO THE DISCREPANCIES WHICH FORMED PART OF THE ORDER IN REVISION BUT WERE NOT P ART OF NOTICE DATED MAY 11, 2006. EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COMMISSI ONER BEFORE COMMENCING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 REFERRED TO FOUR ISSUES, THE F INAL ORDER PASSED REFERRED TO NINE ISSUES, SOME OF WHICH OBVIOUSLY DID NOT FIND M ENTION IN THE EARLIER NOTICE AND HENCE RESULTED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEING VITIATED AS A RESULT OF THE BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 11. A SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CONTIMETERS ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. 317 I TR 249 WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- THE TRIBUNAL WAS ALSO RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE CO MMISSIONER DID NOT EVEN CALLED FOR ANY EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ISSUE O F FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80IA HAD NOT BEEN PART OF THE SHOW CAUSE NO TICE. THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT FORM THE BASIS FOR REVISION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 263. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AROSE. ITA NO. 105/ RJT/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 9 12. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF D.N. DOSANI 280 ITR 275 NEED WORTH MENTIONING HERE. HELD, THAT, IN THE INSTANCE CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE COMMISSIONER TO TENDER AN EXPLANATION QUA TWO ITEMS MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. ON A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 263(1) OF THE ACT, IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE COMMISSIONER COULD NOT HAVE TREATED ANY FURTHER ITEM OF PARTY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS BEING ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THEREFORE, WHAT THE COMMISSIONER HIMSELF COULD NOT HAVE DONE, COULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO BE DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT T O THE ORDER U/S. 263. THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT, IN THE F RESH ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN PURSUANCE OF THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ENTITLED TO CONSIDER ONLY THOSE TWO ITEMS WHICH HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CONSIDER ANY O THER ITEMS AFRESH FOR MAKING ADDITIONS. 13. AFTER GIVING A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION FROM ALL PO SSIBLE ANGLES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAD E U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 20.12.2012 DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. WE, TH EREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT AND RESTORE THAT OF THE A. O, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 04 - 03 - 2016. SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: -