Bajaj Parivahan pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. CIT, KOLKATA-5, Kolkata

ITA 1107/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4301 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K KANDAI FCA SHRI G MAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PASS KOLKATA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 142(1); 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1107/KOL/2016 M/S. BAJAJ PARIVAHAN P.LTD 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA D B ENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1107/KOL/ 2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 BAJAJ PARIVAHAN PVT. LIMITED P-3, NEW CIT ROAD, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 073 [PAN : AABCB1031C] APPELLANT -VS.- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-5, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, EM BY PASS, KOLKATA-700 107 RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI S.K.KANDAI, FCA, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI G. MALLIKARJUNA, CIT, DR, FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF HEARING : 23-08- 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 1 -10-2016 SHRI. S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST AN ORDER DT:31- 03-2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(APPEALS) U/SEC 263 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012. ITA NO.1107/KOL/2016 M/S. BAJAJ PARIVAHAN P.LTD 2 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1.0 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 IS GROSSLY ARBITRARY AND BAD IN LAW IN RELATION TO THE ISSUES RAISED AND ADJUDICATED THEREIN AND NEEDS TO B E SUMMARILY QUASHED. 2.0 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, KOLKATA (HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS LD. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/ S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS THE PROCEEDINGS WERE PROMPTED WITHOUT A PPLICATION OF MIND AND IS THEREFORE BAD IN LAW. 3.0 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE SET ASIDE TO SIMPLY TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRIES AND THEREAFTER PASS FRESH OR DER OF ASSESSMENT AND AS SUCH THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 IS CONTRARY TO LAW AN D UNSUSTAINABLE. 4.0 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, LD. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THE CONJECTURE THAT THE CERTAI N EXPENDITURE MIGHT HAVE BEEN INFLATED. 5.0 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AO H AD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND WHILE MAKING AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF 1 % OF EXPENDITURE AS 'CLAIMS'. 5.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 263 SINCE THE A.O. HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED THE MATERIALS AND EXPLANATION S OF THE APPELLANT FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND COMPLETED THE A SSESSMENT AFTER FULL APPLICATION OF MIND . 6.0 THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY, RESCIND, SUPPLEMENT, OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS STATED HERE-I N-ABOVE, EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 3. THE SOLE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS A S TO WHETHER THE CIT IS JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/SEC 263 O F THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NO.1107/KOL/2016 M/S. BAJAJ PARIVAHAN P.LTD 3 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE TRA NSPORT BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED ITS INCOME AT RS. 18,43,384/- THR OUGH RETURN OF INCOME ON 17.03.2012. UNDER SCRUTINY NOTICE U/S 143(2), AND, THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 142(1) WERE ISSUED, FOR WHICH, THE ASSESSEE, APPEAR ED AND FURNISHED DETAILS. 5. THE AO FOUND THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED RS. 3,37,7 2,755/- ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIMS. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSES SEE INFLATED EXPENSES AS THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT OWNING THIRTEEN HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES AND BRANCHES IN TWENTY SIX CITIES AND MAIN TAINING FIFTY SIX BANK ACCOUNTS BECAUSE OF THE NATURE AND VOLUME OF THE B USINESS. IN EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT TRANSPORT TEA STOCKS ON BEHALF OF TEA ESTATES TO THE CONSIGNEES AND THAT ANY LOSS IN TRANSIT IN R ESPECT OF WEIGHT OF CONSIGNMENTS IN HANDLING SUCH STOCKS BORNE BY THE A SSESSEE AND PRODUCED EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF VOUCHERS OF SUCH CLAIMS AN D ACCORDING TO AO THAT ALL SUCH VOUCHERS ARE SELF-MADE AND THE VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS AS IN THE VOUCHERS WERE INFLATED. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO AO, T HE ASSESSEE ITSELF OFFERED 1% OF SUCH EXPENSES FOR TAXATION, BASING ON WHICH A SUM OF RS.3,37,727/- WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AS MATTER STOOD THUS, THE PRL.CIT FOUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM 'TRUCK HIRE CHARGES' TO THE TUNE OF RS. 69,17,19,199/- AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,37,727/- AT 1% OF CLAIM ON EST IMATION IS MEAGER AND THE AO DID NOT EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN PROPER PERSPECT IVE AND AO SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED VARIOUS DETAILS, LIKE, (I). WHETHER THERE WAS ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS CLIENT ON THIS MATTER AND IF, SO, WHETHER ITS ITA NO.1107/KOL/2016 M/S. BAJAJ PARIVAHAN P.LTD 4 TERMS AND CONDITION SPECIFICALLY COVER SUCH CLAIM, (II) WHETHER THE CLAIM WAS COVERED THROUGH INSURANCE, IF SO WHETHER THE ASSESS EE HAS RECEIVED /LODGED ANY INSURANCE CLAIM IN THAT REGARD AND (III) WHETHE R THE CLIENTS HAVE ALSO MADE SIMULTANEOUS CLAIM UNDER THE SAME HEAD . AN EXPLANATION SOUGHT FROM THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT HAVING EXERCISING JURISDICTION TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSME NT ORDER BE SET ASIDE AS IT WAS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN TEREST OF REVENUE TO THE EXTENT TO THE OBJECTIONS AS POINTED OUT BY HIM. 7. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE PROCEED INGS U/S 263, TO THAT EFFECT FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION DT:28/03/16 WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: ' .. THAT ASSESSEE IS MAINLY ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATI ON OF TEA FOR VARIOUS CONSIGNORS/CONSIGNEES. THE ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY OF DELIVERY OF GOODS VESTS WITH THE ASSESSEE. FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE, WE ARE ENCLOSING SAMPLE CONTRACT WHICH WERE ALSO PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE A.O. CONTRACT WITH WARREN TEA LTD. (MARKED AS ANNE XURE C PG. 5 TO 12) CONTRACT WITH GOODRICKE GROUP LTD(MARKED AS ANNEXUR E 0 PG. 13 TO 27) CONTRACT WITH STEWARD HOLL LNDIA LTD.(MARKED AS ANN EXURE E PG. 18 TO 22) CONTRACT WITH JAMES WARREN TEA LTD.(MARKED AS ANNEX URE F PG. 23 TO 27) ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT CLAIM ON LOSS IN TRANSIT OF GOODS IS TO BE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY. FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE, WE ARE ALSO ENCLOSING ONE S INGLE BILL FOR CLAIM OF RS. 29,20,2001- FROM JAMES WARREN TEA LTD. (MARKED AS AN NEXURE G PG. 28). THUS, ALL THE ELEMENTS WHICH ARE ESSENTIALS OF A VAL ID CONTRACT AS PER 'THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872' ARE SEEN TO BE PRESENT AS UNDER .- (I)THERE IS AN INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL OBLIGATION THROUGH OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE (II)FREE CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES EXISTS (III)COMPETENCY OR CAPACITY OF PARTIES TO ENTER INTO CO NTRACT EXISTS (IV) LAWFUL CONSIDERATION WAS PAID, AND ITA NO.1107/KOL/2016 M/S. BAJAJ PARIVAHAN P.LTD 5 (V) AGREEMENT IS NOT EXPRESSLY DECLARED VOID BY ANY PARTY ENTIRE PAYMENTS FOR CLAIMS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEGUES OR WERE DEDUCTED FROM FREIGHT BILLS BY THE PARTIES. ALL PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES OR T HE CLIENTS CUSTOMERS AT THE TIME OF MAKING PAYMENTS TO ASSESSEE, DEDUCTED THE LOSS ON TRANSIT OF GOODS AND ONLY NET AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE. THEREFORE, TO ASSUME THAT ASSESSEE WOULD BE BEARING SUCH TRANSIT LOSSES EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT ATTRIBUTABLE OR ENTITLED TO BE RECOVERED FROM IT WOULD NOT BE CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE IS WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY THEFT/PILF ERAGE/LOSS IN TRANSIT OF ANY GOODS AT THE TIME OF TRANSPORTATION. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIAT E TO ASSUME THAT ASSESSEE WOULD ACCEPT SUCH ADJUSTED PAYMENTS FROM ITS CLIENTS IN ABSENCE OF ANY ACCOUNTABILITY. FURTHER, IT HAS ALREADY BE SUBSTANT IATED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS INDISPENSABLE IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. COMPLETE DETAILS OF TOTAL CL AIMS BREAK UP SHOWING DATE WISE/ PARTY-WISE ALREADY PROVIDED TO AO, AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. 8. THE PRL.CIT HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AB OVE, OPINED THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM IN DEPTH, THEREBY, S ET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECTED THE AO CONDUCT THE ISSUE DE NOVO AT LENGTH, OF WHICH OBSERVATION IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND ALSO RELYING ON THE RATIO OF JUDGMENT CITED ABOVE I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR INTERVENTION U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THUS THE OBJEC TIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT AC CEPTED. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS, I FIND THAT T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.03.2014 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER EST OF REVENUE BY DISALLOWING ONLY 1 % OF TOTAL CLAIMS OF EXPENSES OF RS. 3,37,72,755/- UNDER THE HEAD' CLAIMS' WITHOUT ANY PROPER VERIFICATION AN D HENCE, THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO BE SET ASIDE U/S. 263 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER REVISION IS HEREBY S ET ASIDE WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE AO TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT DE NOVO AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE AT LENGTH. THE AO IS FURTHER DIRECTED THAT, W HILE DOING SO, HE SHALL PROVIDE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1107/KOL/2016 M/S. BAJAJ PARIVAHAN P.LTD 6 9. HAVING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF PRL.CIT, THE AS SESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US BY AFOREMENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. LD.A R SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A TRANSPORTER OF TEA BAGS AND STOCKS AN D DELIVERS THE SAME TO CONSIGNEES. ANY DAMAGE OR LOSS IN THE TRANSIT DURI NG SUCH TRANSPORTATION LIES ON THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY CLAIMED THE EXPENSE S IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND SUCH CLAIMS MADE BY THE CONSIGNEES FOR DAMAGE O R LOSS THAT WOULD CAUSE TO TEA ESTATES DURING TRANSIT AND PAYMENT TO THAT E FFECT IS IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION. THE LD.AR SUBMITS THAT THE FACTS RELA TING TO THE ISSUE ARE BOUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE PRL.CIT BY WAY OF WRITT EN SUBMISSION AND HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE SAME AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE RE SPONSIBILITY OF TRANSPORT OF GOODS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE AND REFERRED TO AN AGREE MENT DATED 30-04-2010, WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 52 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NOS. 64 & 66 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT LIABILI TY OR RISK LIES WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AR FURTHER REFERRED TO PAGE NO.10 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT ALL THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO CLAIM WERE FILE D BEFORE THE AO IN RESPONSE TO HIS NOTICE DATED 12/13-11-2013 ISSUED U/S. 143(2) O F THE ACT AND POINTED OUT PAGE NOS. 11-43 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN SUCH DET AILS OF CLAIM WERE FILED. THE LD.AR SUBMITS THAT DISALLOWANCE @ 1% OF TOTAL C LAIM WAS MADE FOR A.Y 2011-12 AND THAT NO ADDITION WAS MADE BY AO IN THI S REGARD FOR AY 2010-11, AY 2012-13 & AY 2013-14 AND ALL SUCH ASSESSMENTS W ERE COMPLETED UNDER SCRUTINY AND ARGUED THAT ALL THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF SAID CLAIM WERE BEFORE THE AO. 10. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.DR SUBMITS THAT WHEN TH E ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THE LOSS OR DAMAGE AS A WARRANTY, ACCORDING TO HON BLE SUPREME COURT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE A SEPARATE MECHANISM TO MAKE P AYMENT ON SUCH CLAIMS. ITA NO.1107/KOL/2016 M/S. BAJAJ PARIVAHAN P.LTD 7 HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF PRL.CIT AND URGED TO SEN D THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO IN PURSUANCE TO THE ORDER OF THE PRL.CIT. 11. HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE DETAILS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE PRL.CIT INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 OF THE ACT ON THE GR OUND THAT THE AO DISALLOWED @ 1% OF TOTAL CLAIMS AS EXPENSES AND ACCEPTED 99% O F SUCH CLAIM WITHOUT EXAMINING THE DETAILS OF SUCH CLAIM AND AGREEMENT, IF ANY, WITH THE TEA ESTATE COMPANIES. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED AND DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO.10 IN WHICH DETAILS OF PARTICULARS OF PAYMENTS M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF WAREHOUSE EXPENSES, COMMISSIONS AND CLAIMS WERE FUR NISHED. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED PARTY WISE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS, VEHICLE NO., AMOUNT CREDITED AND TDS DEDU CTED ON SUCH CLAIMS. THE SAID DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO IN RESPONSE T O THE NOTICE DATED 12/13-11- 2013 ISSUED U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE AO CALLED FOR, TO PRODUCE THE ACCOUNTS AND DOCUMENTS AND TO FURNISH THE SAME IN W RITING. THEREFORE, THE GROUND ON WHICH THE PRL.CIT INVOKED HIS JURISDICTIO N U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IS APPEARS TO BE MISCONCEIVED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE A O DID NOT EXAMINE THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO CLAIM IN RESPECT OF LOSS OR DAMAGE IN TRANSIT. 12. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE, THE LD.AR DREW OUR AT TENTION TO THE DETAILS OF CLAIMS AND PAYMENTS MADE THEREON TO THE PARTIES, WH ICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 11 TO 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN IT IS OBSE RVED THAT THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED SUCH DETAILS BRANCH WISE, DATE WISE, NAME AND ADDRESS WISE OF ITA NO.1107/KOL/2016 M/S. BAJAJ PARIVAHAN P.LTD 8 CLAIMANTS AND AMOUNT CLAIMED THEREON. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS IN SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS B EFORE THE AO AND THAT WAS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT, W HICH IS EVIDENTLY PRIOR TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS PASSED BY THE PRL.CIT. 13. WITH REGARD TO THE NON EXAMINATION OF AGREEMEN TS AS POINTED OUT BY THE PRL.CIT, THE LD.AR FILED THREE SUCH AGREEMENTS WHIC H WERE SAID TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE CONSIGNEES PLACE D AT PAGE NOS. 52 TO 63 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN AT POINT NO.3 (B) CLEARLY M ENTIONED THAT IN THE EVENT OF LOSS OR DAMAGE OF GOODS WAS ENTRUSTED TO THE CAR RIER AND THE LIABILITY THEREON LIES WITH THE CARRIER AND CLAIM IN RESPECT OF SUCH DAMAGE OR LOSS WILL BE RECOVERED FROM THE CARRIER I.E. THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED THEREIN. TO SUPPORT MAKING CLAIM AND PAYMENT OF SUC H CLAIM, THE LD. AR DREW OUT ATTENTION TO PAGE NOS. 64 TO 67 OF THE PAPER BO OK, WHEREIN SUCH DOCUMENTS GOES TO SHOW THAT THE GOODS BOOKED AT CAR RIERS RISK AND PAYMENT ON SUCH CLAIMS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BY RAIS ING RESPECTIVE BILLS. THEREFORE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE AND MATERIAL DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ALL DETAILS IN RESPECT OF SUCH CLAIMS I.E. DAMAGE OR LOSS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO, AND THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME AND TAKIN G INTO CONSIDERING THE EARLIER ASSESSMENTS, WHICH SAID TO HAVE BEEN COMPLE TED UNDER SCRUTINY, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY ADOPTED @ 1% OF DISALLOWANCE ON SUCH EX PENSES. THUS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE PRL.CIT PASSED U/S. 263 IN D IRECTING THE AO TO MAKE DE NOVO ASSESSMENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE S ET ASIDE THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED. ITA NO.1107/KOL/2016 M/S. BAJAJ PARIVAHAN P.LTD 9 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST OCTOBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- M.BALAGANESH S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 21/10/2016 COPIES TO : **PP/SPS (1) BAJAJ PARIVAHAN PVT. LIMITED, P-3, NEW CIT ROAD, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 073 (2) THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-5 , AAYAKAR BHAWAN P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700069. (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA