Bipin Chimanlal Ptel, Ahmedabad V. Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

ITA 1076/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9161 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRENDRA OJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Earning of tax free income; Source of fund; Fair market value; Assessment record; Capital receipt; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 2(A); 13; 263; 10

Judgement Text

, A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD ( CONVENED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1076/AHD/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) BIPIN CHIMANLAL PATEL 240, KADVA PATIDAR VAS, CHANDKHEDA, AHMEDABAD / VS. PR.CIT-2 1 ST FLOOR, NAVJEEVAN TRUST BUILDING, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AMNPP4464E ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. N. DIVATIA, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIRENDRA OJHA, CIT.DR DATE OF HEARING 10/02/2021 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22/03/2021 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX-2, AHMEDABAD (PR.CIT IN SHORT), DATED 26.03.2 018 PASSED UNDER S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) W HEREBY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A O) DATED 31.12.2015 UNDER S. 143(3) OF THE ACT CONCERNING AY 2013-14 WAS ITA NO. 1076/AHD/18 (BIPIN CHIMANLAL PATEL VS. PR.CIT) A.Y. 2013-14 - 2 - SOUGHT TO BE SET ASIDE FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF SUPERVISORY DIRECTIONS. 2. AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE PR.CIT UN DER S.263 OF THE ACT AND AS A COROLLARY, SOUGHT TO IMPUGN THE REVISI ONAL ORDER PASSED BY THE PR.CIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT AS EXPROPRIATO RY. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, AN ASSESSMENT UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT FOR AY 2013-14 WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO ACCEPTING THE INCOM E AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12. 2015 WAS PASSED TO THIS EFFECT. THEREAFTER, THE PR.CIT IN EXERCISE OF ITS REVISIONARY POWERS, ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.02.2018 U NDER S. 263 OF THE ACT REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT SO FRAMED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT SHOU LD NOT BE MODIFIED/SET ASIDE ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE SH OW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED IN THIS REGARD IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR RE ADY REFERENCE: 'YOU HAD FILED YOUR RETURN OF INCOME ON 23.9.2013 D ECLARING INCOME OF RS 15,71,830/- IT IS OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION, YOU HAD SHOWN AN INCOME OF RS 16,81,827/- FROM 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' AND SHARE IN PROFIT FROM FIRM 'SUYOG INFRASTRUCTURE' AM OUNTING TO RS 2,52,57,038/- (WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S 10 (2A) OF THE IT ACT). INCOME WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT ON 31. 12.2015 ACCEPTING THE INCOME AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME. ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT:- (I) THE FIRM 'SUYOG INFRASTRUCTURE' IN WHICH YOU WE RE A PARTNER HAD UNDERGONE CHANGES IN ITS CONSTITUTION DURING THE YE AR. THE DETAILS ARE AS FOLLOWS :- (I) AS PER THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 1.4.2009, Y OURSELF AND SHRI PRATIK BIPINCHANDRA PATEL WERE PARTNERS WITH 50% SHARE EAC H. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT YOUR FIRM HAD BOUGHT LAND AT RS. 4,85,00,000/- ON 12.8.2009. (II) THEREAFTER, VIDE THE REGISTERED DEED DATED 3.9 .2012, 5 NEW PARTNERS WERE INTRODUCED IN THE FIRM AND THE TWO ORIGINAL PA RTNERS SHRI BIPINCHANDRA CHIMANLAL PATEL (I.E YOU) AND SHRI PRATIK BIPINCHAN DRA PATEL RELINQUISHED THEIR 5% SHARE EACH IN THE FIRM IN FAVOUR OF 4 NEW PARTNERS. IN THE SAID PARTNERSHIP DEED, THE VALUE OF LAND HAS BEEN RECORD ED AT RS 10,19,19,000/- AND THE FIVE NEW PARTNERS BOUGHT 10% STAKE IN THE F IRM ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID LAND VALUE. ITA NO. 1076/AHD/18 (BIPIN CHIMANLAL PATEL VS. PR.CIT) A.Y. 2013-14 - 3 - (III) AGAIN VIDE THE NOTARIZED PARTNERSHIP DEED DAT ED 14.12.2012, THERE WAS FURTHER CHANGE IN PARTNERSHIP DEED WHEREIN YOU AND SHRI PRATIK BIPINCHANDRA PATEL HAVE RELINQUISHED YOUR COMPLETE SHARE HOLDING RETROSPECTIVELY FROM 30.9.2012 IN FAVOUR OF NEWLY I NTRODUCED 5 PARTIES. (II) IT IS PERUSED THAT DURING THE A, Y. 2013-14, T HE FIRM 'SUYOG INFRASTRUCTURE' HAS DECLARED INCOME OF RS 24,63,089 /- ONLY WHEREAS YOU HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED SHARE OF PROFIT OF RS 2,52 ,52,038/- FROM THE FIRM WHICH YOU HAVE CLAIMED AS EXEMPT INCOME U/S 10(2A) OF THE IT ACT. WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDE RED THE EXPLANATION ATTACHED TO SECTION 10(2A) OF THE IT ACT ACCORDING TO WHICH QUANTUM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(2A) IS THE AMOUNT WHICH BEARS TO T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE FIRM THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE AMOUNT OF SHARE IN THE PROFITS OF THE FIRM IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARTNERSHIP DEED BEARS TO SUCH PROF ITS. THE SAID INCOME OF RS 2,52,57,038/- HAS NOT BEEN A PART OF THE INCOME FROM THE FIRM 'SUYOJ INFRASTRUCTURE ' AND THUS IT CANNOT BE A PART OF YO UR INCOME WHICH CAN BE CLAIMED AS EXEMPT INCOME U/S 10(2A) OF THE IT ACT. MOREOVER, YOU WERE NOT A PARTNER IN THE FIRM AS ON 31.3.2013. HENCE THE APPO RTION OF PROFIT IN YOUR CASE DOES NOT ARISE. (III) ALL THESE POINT OUT THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVE D BY YOU DURING THE YEAR FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS NOT OF THE NATURE OF P ROFIT FROM THE FIRM WHICH CAN BE CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S 10(2 A) OF THE IT ACT. 3. LOOKING AT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PA SSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND WITHOUT MAKING PROPER INQUIRIES WHICH S HOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND ALSO IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION 2(A) OF SECTION 263, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOU S AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THEREBY I INTEND TO REVISE THE SAME U/S 263 OF IT ACT ' 4. THE PR.CIT, IN ESSENCE, ALLEGED THAT THE ORDER O F THE AO SUFFERS FROM NON-APPLICATION OF MIND AND RENDERED W ITHOUT PROPER ENQUIRIES AND VERIFICATION OF CRUCIAL FACTS REQUIRE D IN DISCHARGE OF ITS STATUTORY FUNCTION. ON A BROADER RECKONING, IT WAS ALLEGED THAT (I) THE ASSESSEE AS A PARTNER OF THE PARTNERSHIP AS SET WAS LIABLE FOR TAXATION ON HIS SHARE OF INCOME ON TRANSFER OF INTE REST IN LAND IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND NOT ENTITLED TO EXCESSIVE EXEM PTION WRONGLY CLAIMED IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION ATTACHED TO SECTION 10(2A) OF THE ACT; (II) THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPLY HIS MIND TO T HE FACT THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER OF INTEREST OF EXISTIN G PARTNERS IN THE LAND HELD BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM TO A NEW SET OF P ARTNER, FROM THE ANGLE OF A COLOURABLE DEVICE ADOPTED TO TRANSFER TH E CAPITAL ASSET FROM ONE SET OF PARTNERS TO ANOTHER SET OF PARTNERS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF TAXES DUE THEREON; (III) THE AO HAS FAILED TO A PPLY HIS MIND TO ITA NO. 1076/AHD/18 (BIPIN CHIMANLAL PATEL VS. PR.CIT) A.Y. 2013-14 - 4 - THE FACT THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 47(II) OF THE A CT HAS BEEN DELETED FROM THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE AMOUNT DISTRIBUT ED BY PARTNERSHIP FIRM TO THE ASSESSEE OVER THE BOOK VALU E OF LAND ON TRANSFER OF INTEREST TO NEW PARTNERS WOULD NOW BE T AXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS HIS INCOME FOR WHICH ASPECT, THE AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND AND WRONGLY ACCEPTED THE INCOME RE TURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE PR.CIT ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESS MENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED MECHANICALLY ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME WITHOUT CARRYING ANY WORTHWHILE ENQUIRIES TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUE CHARGEABLE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THUS C ONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT I S ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. CONSEQUENTLY, PR.CIT INVOKED THE REVISIONAL POWERS VESTED UNDER S .263 OF THE ACT READ WITH EXPLANATION (2) APPENDED THERETO AND SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECTED THE AO TO FRAME AFRES H ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER CONDUCTING REQUISITE ENQUIRIES ON THE P ERTINENT ISSUES INVOLVED. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. S. N. D IVATIA SUBMITTED AT THE OUTSET THAT THE NECESSARY BACKGROU ND FOR EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL POWER OF PR.CIT DOES NOT EXIST. THE LEA RNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN WAS FILED DECLARING INCOM E CORRECTLY AS INCUMBENT UPON ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY ASSESSE D BY THE AO IN SYNC WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE NEXT SUBMITTED THAT POINTED QUESTION WAS A SKED VIDE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S.142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 14.10.2015 W HICH IS EXTRACTED AS; ITA NO. 1076/AHD/18 (BIPIN CHIMANLAL PATEL VS. PR.CIT) A.Y. 2013-14 - 5 - DETAILS OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY YOU IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. PLEASE FURNISH THE SOURCE OF FUND U TILIZED FOR EARNING THESE INCOMES. 6.1 IT WAS ASSERTED THAT IN RESPONSE TO QUERY RAISE D,COMPLETE FACTS IN RELATION TO THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PARTNERS HIP FIRM AND CLAIMED AS EXEMPTION UNDER S.10(2A) OF THE ACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER MIS-DIRECTED HIMSELF IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING LACK OF APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE AO TOWARDS ELIGIBILITY OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER S .10(2A) OF THE ACT. 6.2 IT WAS NEXT OBSERVED THAT THE SUM PAID BY THE A SSESSEE FIRM TO THE RETIRING PARTNER ON CHANGE OF CONSTITUTION OF F IRM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNE RSHIP FIRM UNDER S.45(4) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AMOUNT DISTRIBUTED BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM ON ACCOUNT OF REVALUATION O F THE LAND AT FAIR MARKET VALUE TO THE OUTGOING PARTNERS FOR THE PURPO SES OF ASSIGNING SHARE OF INTEREST TO THE INCOMING PARTNERS IS NEVER THELESS A CAPITAL RECEIPT OUT OF AMBIT OF TAXATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUM RECEIVED FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM TOWARDS SHARE OF PROFIT IS EL IGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S.10(2A) OF THE ACT. 6.3 THE LEARNED COUNSEL NEXT SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS TAKEN PLAUSIBLE VIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN SO FAR AS TAXATION OF PARTNER ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED AND THUS THE ASSESSME NT ORDER PASSED CANNOT BE MADE SUSCEPTIBLE TO REVISIONAL PROCEEDING S UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT BY CAPRICIOUS EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION. IT WAS THUS URGED THAT THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED ON WRONGFUL ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT REQUIRES TO BE QUASHED. ITA NO. 1076/AHD/18 (BIPIN CHIMANLAL PATEL VS. PR.CIT) A.Y. 2013-14 - 6 - 7. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE REVISIONAL ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN ALL THE AL LEGATIONS MADE IN THE REVISIONAL ORDER ARE INTEGRATED WITH UNDERLYING FACTS, THE CONCLUSION OF ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD BE U NESCAPABLE. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT PR.CIT HAS MERELY SET ASIDE T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER TAKING NOTE OF LEG AL ISSUE AND FACTUAL ASPECTS. THE ACTION OF PR.CIT IS THUS JUST IFIED IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 8. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE CONTROVERSY IN HAND ON ALLE GED WRONGFUL ASSUMPTION OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION AND PERUSED THE REVISIONAL ORDER CONSEQUENTLY PASSED BY THE PR.CIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS CITED. 8.1 TO BEGIN WITH, WE TAKE NOTE OF VARIOUS ALLEGATI ONS BROADLY MADE BY THE PR.CIT FOR INVOKING SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WHICH IS SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: (I) HAVING REGARD TO CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S. SUYOG INFRASTRUCTURE WHEREBY BOTH ORIGINA L PARTNERS (INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE PARTNER) RELINQUISHED THEIR SHARES IN PARTNERSHIP IN FAVOUR OF FIVE NEW PARTNERS AFTER VA LUING THE LAND AT RS.10,19,19,000/- IN F.Y. 2012-13 RELEVANT TO AY 20 13-14 IN PLACE OF BOOK VALUE OF LAND ACQUIRED IN AUGUST 2009 AT RS .4,85,00,000/-, THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE QUANTUM OF INCOME ELIG IBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S.10(2A) OF THE ACT AS THE EXEMPTIO N CLAIMED IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO SHARE OF PROFIT CLAIMED TO BE E XEMPT BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. IT IS ALSO ALLEGED THAT THE AO F AILED TO CONSIDER EXPLANATION ANNEXED TO SECTION 10(2A) OF THE ACT, E SPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A PARTNER IN THE FIRM AT THE E ND OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR AS ON 31.03.2013. ITA NO. 1076/AHD/18 (BIPIN CHIMANLAL PATEL VS. PR.CIT) A.Y. 2013-14 - 7 - (II) THE SUM OF RS.2,52,52,038/- SO RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM (SUYOG INFRASTRUCTURE) AS AGAI NST THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM RS.24,63,089/- IS NOT IN CONGRUENCE WITH EXEMPT INCOME FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENVISA GED UNDER S.10(2A) OF THE ACT. (III) THE AO HAS ALSO FAILED TO APPLY HIS MIND FROM THE PERSPECTIVE THAT PROFITS ON RELINQUISHMENT OF INTEREST IN PARTN ERSHIP FIRM ALONG WITH OTHER EXISTING PARTNER TO ANOTHER SET OF PARTN ERS (INCOMING PARTNERS) WHEREBY THE LAND (BOOK VALUE OF RS.4.85 C RORE; MARKET VALUE 10,19,19,000/-) WHICH STOOD DISTRIBUTED TO OU TGOING PARTNERS WAS A RUSE AND A DEVICE ADOPTED TO TRANSFER THE CAP ITAL ASSET FROM ONE SET OF PARTNERS AND TO ANOTHER SET OF PARTNERS THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM RESULTING IN LOSS OF REV ENUE. 8.2 AS NOTICED EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE IN ITS COMPUTA TION OF INCOME HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF RS.2,52,57,038/- UNDER S.1 0(2A) OF THE ACT TOWARDS SHARE OF INCOME FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM, NAMELY, SUYOG INFRASTRUCTURE. ON REVIEW OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS, T HE PR.CIT FOUND THAT THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM FO R THE F.Y. 2012- 13 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2013-14 IN QUESTION STANDS AT R S.24,63,089/- ONLY. WHEN TESTED ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 10(2A) OF THE ACT, THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER OBSE RVED THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXEMPTION UNDER S.10(2A) OF THE ACT , THE SHARE OF A PARTNER IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE FIRM SHALL BE IN PROPORTION TO HIS INTEREST IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. NO DOCUMENT HAD BEEN PLACED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT TH E AO, AT ANY POINT OF TIME, APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE APPARENT MIS-MATCH IN THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPTION INCOME CLAIMED UNDER S.10(2A) OF THE A CT QUA THE CORRESPONDING INCOME DECLARED BY THE PARTNERSHIP FI RM. THE ISSUE ITA NO. 1076/AHD/18 (BIPIN CHIMANLAL PATEL VS. PR.CIT) A.Y. 2013-14 - 8 - APPARENTLY DID NOT WEIGH IN THE MIND OF THE AO, WHI CH HAS RESULTED IN SERIOUS PREJUDICE TO THE REVENUE. THE PLEA OF A LL PERVASIVE SCRUTINY CONDUCTED BY AO THUS DOES NOT RESONATE WIT H APPARENT GAFFES SHOWN. 8.3 IT IS ALSO THE CASE OF THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIO NER THAT THE AO HAS NOT TESTED THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 10(2A) OF THE ACT WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A SUBSISTING PARTNER OF THE FI RM AS END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND THEREFORE APPORTIONMENT OF PROFI T WOULD NOT ARISE. 8.4 AS PER PARA 4.3 OF THE REVISIONAL ORDER, THE PR .CIT HAS ALSO ALLEGED NON-APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE PATTERN OF T RANSACTION WHICH SMACKS OF A DEVICE TO TRANSFER THE LAND IN FAVOUR O F NEW PARTNERS WITHOUT PAYING DUE TAXES. THE IMPACT OF OMISSION O F S.47(II) HAS ALSO NOT FOUND TO BE WEIGHED. 9. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS PASSED A VERY CRYPTIC AN D NONDESCRIPT ORDER WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION ON ANY OF THE POINT RA ISED IN THE REVISIONAL ORDER. ALONGSIDE, IT ALSO COULD NOT BE SHOWN THAT THE AO WAS ALIVE TO SUCH PERTINENT CONCERNS AND REASON THE REOF AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. A PLAIN READING OF EXPLANATION TO S ECTION 10(2A) OF THE ACT DOES NOT SUMMARILY RULE OUT AN EMBEDDED PLA USIBILITY IN THE CONCERN OF EXCESS DEDUCTION CLAIMED AS EXPRESSED BY THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER. NON-EXAMINATION OF SUCH CRUCIAL ASPE CTS WHICH HAS DIRECT BEARING ON THE CORRECT ASSESSMENT OF INCOME HAS OSTENSIBLY RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS AS WE LL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WE THUS HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN SUCH GROSS LACK OF APPLICATION OF M IND CAUSING PREJUDICE IS THUS AMENABLE TO JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 1076/AHD/18 (BIPIN CHIMANLAL PATEL VS. PR.CIT) A.Y. 2013-14 - 9 - 10. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE MAY HOWEVER HASTEN TO ADD THAT WE ARE ON THE LIMITED POINT OF APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE COR RECTNESS OF EXEMPTION ELIGIBLE TO ASSESSEE UNDER S.10(2A) OF TH E ACT READ WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF ACT AND CONSEQUENT EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION VESTED UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT. HAVING REGARD TO TH E PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE, WE CONSCIOUSLY REFRAIN OURSELVES FROM TESTING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALLEGATION OF THE PR.CIT ON ITS INTRINSIC MERITS IN THE ABSENCE OF NUANCED DISCUSSION ON MERITS AT THIS STAGE. PRESENTLY, OUR REMIT IS LIMITED TO TEST THE SCOPE O F JURISDICTION UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT ALONE. THEREFORE, WHILE UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE PR.CIT, OUR OBSERVATIONS SHOULD NOT BE INFERRED AS EXPRESSION ON MERITS IN ANY MANNER. 11. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (PRADIP KUMA R KEDIA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 22/03/2021 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 22/03/2021