M/s City Clinic Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 112/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5169 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Rectification of order; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 115JB; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES(SMC), CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 112/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S CITY CLINIC PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT SCO-47-49, SECTOR 34 A CIRCLE 4(1), CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AABCC7800N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 01/06/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/06/2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, GURGAON DT. 25/11/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE, THE WORTHY CIT(A) IN APPEAL NO. 204/2013-14 DATED 25.11 .2016 HAS ERRED IN PASSING THAT ORDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE WORTHY CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO WH EREIN HE HELD THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT AS PER EXPLANATION TO SEC TION 115JB, THE REDUCTION OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OR DEPRECIATION WHICHEVER IS L ESS, IS TO BE COMPUTED AS PER INCOME TAX ACT FIGURES AND NOT AS PER BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS OF THE APPELLANT EVEN WHEN THE SAID INTERPRETATION IS DIRECTLY CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND HENCE HE HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING REDUCTION OF RS. 9,2 5,932/- FROM BOOK PROFIT AS AGAINST CORRECTLY CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AT RS. 5 8,28,298/- AND HAS HENCE ERRED IN ENHANCING THE ASSESSED BOOK PROFIT BY RS. 49,02,366/-. 3. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE WORTHY CIT (A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE ISSUE THAT COMPUTAT ION OF BOOK PROFIT AND REDUCTION OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OR DEPRECIATION WHICHEVER I S LESS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE TAKEN UP IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 AND THE R ECTIFICATION CARRIED OUT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 O F THE ACT. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FI LED RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTI NY. THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A HOSPITAL UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF MUKUT HOSPITAL AND HEART INSTITUTE AT CHANDIGARH. THE AO DISALLOWED SOME EXPENSES AND COM PUTED THE TOTAL 2 INCOME AT RS. 2,63,419/- AND AFTER REDUCING UNABSOR BED DEPRECIATION INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT NIL VIDE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) DT. 25/11/2008. THE ASSESSEE HAS CALCULATED TAX UNDER SECTION 115JB AND SHOWN TA X LIABILITY AS NIL. THE AO ON PERUSAL OF COMPUTATION SHEET NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HA S SHOWN BOOK PROFIT AT RS. 48,84,807/- DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UND ER APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN RS. 9,25,932/- AS B/F BUSINESS LOSSES SE T OFF AND RS. 59,51,104/- AS B/F DEPRECIATION SET OFF. THUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPU TATION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 115JB, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9,25,932/- WAS TO BE REDUCE D FROM THE BOOK PROFIT OF RS. 48,84,807/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS REDUCED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 59,51,104/- FROM THE BOOK PROFIT RESULTANTLY REDUCE THE MAT AS 9,43,492/ - AND HAS NOT PAID ANY TAX UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. THE AO THEREFORE NO TED THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY BEFORE THE AO WH ICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT AND READS AS UND ER : THAT FROM THE ABOVE REFERRED FIGURE OF BOOK PROFIT , THE ASSESSEE REDUCED A FIGURE OF RS. 8,28,299/- BEING THE LOWER OF UNABSORBED DEP RECIATION OR BUSINESS LOSS WHICHEVER IS LESS. HOWEVER ON PERUSAL OF THE PRESEN T NOTICE, IT APPEARS THAT HERE LIES SOME DISPUTE. YOUR GOODSELF IS OF THE OPINION THAT ACTUALLY BUSINESS LOSS IS RS. 9,25,932/- AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS RS. 59,51 ,104/-. HENCE THE LOWER OF THESE TWO I.E. RS. 9,25,932/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLO WED DEDUCTION FROM BOOK PROFIT INSTEAD OF RS. 58,28,299/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE FIGURE OF BUSINESS LOSSS IS RS. 9,25,932/- AND UNABSORBED DEP RECIATION IS RS. 59,51,104/-, POINTED OUT BY YOUR GOODSELF TO BE REDUCED, IS ACTU ALLY FIGURE OF LOSS/DEPRECIATION AS PER PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX A CT WHEREAS THE FIGURES TO BE REDUCED FROM PROFIT AS PER P&L ACCOUNT ARE AS PER B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF PROVISION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDE R: (III) THE AMOUNT OF LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD OR UNABSO RBED DEPRECIATION, WHICHEVER IS LESS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. EXPLANATION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE. (A) THE LOSS SHALL NOT INCLUDE DEPRECIATION; (B) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CLAUSE SHALL NOT APPLY IF TH E AMOUNT OF LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS NIL; OR FROM THE ABOVE EXTRACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT TO BE REDUCED FROM PROFIT AS PER P&L ACCOUNT IS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NOT AS PER INCOME TAX PROVISIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED THE SA ID FIGURES. A COPY OF STATEMENT OF LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS ENCLOSED. THE FIGURES OF BROUGHT FORWARD TOTAL LOSS AS ON 31/03/2 005 AS PER BALANCE SHEET IS RS. 2,66,66,990.86. COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF BALANCE SH EET IS ENCLOSED. THE BREAKUP OF THIS FIGURE IS RS. 2,08,37,277.88 IS BUSINESS LO SS AND RS. 58,28,298.68 IS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. THE LOWER OF THESE TWO BEING RS. 58,2 8,298.68 HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION TO ARRIVE AT FIGURE OF BOOK PR OFIT. 3 THE AO HOWEVER PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 O F THE ACT DT. 18/03/2013 AND RAISED THE DEMAND OF RS. 5,14,727/-. THE ORDER OF THE AO IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED . THE ASSESSEE HAS 'ALSO FURNISHED A CHART IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION LOSSES IN RESPECT OF PREVIOUS YEARS, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESS EE ARRIVED AT THE BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.2,08,37,277/- AND DEPRECIATION LOSS TO THE TUNE OF RS.58,28,298/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASKED TO RECONCILE THE FIGURES BY FURNISHI NG THE BALANCE SHEETS AND COMPUTATIONS OF PREVIOUS YEARS ON THE BASIS OF WHIC H THE ASSESSEE ARRIVED AT SUCH FIGURES. THE LOSSES CLAIMED ARE NOT SUBSTANTIATED B Y PROPER DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE, THE FIGURES OF B/F LOSSES AT RS.9,25,932 /- AND B/F UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AT 59,51,104/- IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAT CALCULATION. IN THIS LIGHT, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO REDUCE T HE LEAST' AMOUNT WHICH WAS RS.9,25,932A FROM THE BOOK PROFIT. SINCE THE MISTAK E IS APPARENT FROM RECORD, THE SAME IS HEREBY RECTIFIED AND CALCULATION OF MAT IS AS UNDER: PROFIT AS DECLARED 48,84,807/- LESS: BUSINESS LOSSES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE 9,25, 932/- BOOK PROFIT 39,58,875/- TAX @ 7.5% 2,96,916/- SURCHARGE 29,691/- EDUCATION CESS @ 2% 6,532/- TOTAL 3,33,140/- LESS: TDS 53,397/- 2,79,743/- ADD: INTTL. U/S 234B 2,34,984/- TOTAL DEMAND 5,14,727/- ASSESSED: ISSUED REVISED DOCUMENTS. 3. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, HOWEVER APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED. 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF C OMPUTATION UNDER SECTION 115JB IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE AND AS SUCH NO ORDER UNDE R SECTION 154 SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE AO. LD. COUNSEL RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ITAT, AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. CARDINAL DRUGS PVT. LTD. [2 013] 37 CCH 22 AND ORDER OF ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. UFLEX LTD . [2013] 55 SOT 43. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. CIT(A)RELIED UPON THE ORDE R OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF HIND USTAN LEVER LTD. VS. JCIT AND 4 OTHERS [2006] 284 ITR 42 HELD THAT MISTAKE MUST BE OBVIOUS THAT IT CAN BE EASILY CORRECTED, TO WIT AN ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE, QUOTATIO N OF WRONG SECTION ETC. AND NOT ON DEBATABLE ISSUE. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF ITO VS. VOLKART BROTHERS AND OTHERS 82 ITR 50 HELD THAT A MISTAKE A PPARENT ON RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. ITAT AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT V S. CARDINAL DRUGS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) IN PARA 7 TO 9 HELD AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A). SECT ION 154 OF THE I.T. ACT PROVIDES THAT WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY MAY AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT. THEREFO RE, THERE SHOULD BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES WHILE EXERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. 7.1. HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HIN DUSTAN LEVER LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS [2006] 284 IT R 42 (CAL) HELD THAT MISTAKE MUST BE OBVIOUS THAT IT CAN BE EASILY CORRECTED, TO WIT AN ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE, QUOTATION OF WRONG SECTION, ETC. AND NOT ON DATABLE ISSUE. 7.2 HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. VO LKART BROTHERS & ORS (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) HELD THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE REC ORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTAB LISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY C ONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. 8. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LO SS OF RS.9,81,556/-, WHICH WAS ACCOMPANIED BY AUDITOR'S REPORT IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITORS THAT THE TAX PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 115JB I N RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS NIL, WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED ON T HE BASIS OF DETAILS IN ANNEXURE-A TO THIS FORM. THE A.O. PASSED THE ASSESS MENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY MAKING ADDITION OF THE DISALLO WANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION OF INTEREST WRITE BACK FROM MPFC & SBI AND OF RELIE F IN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE DUE TO IT BEING NOT SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANY AND HAS COMPUT ED THE INCOME AT RS.12,83,00,230/-. THE SAID ADDITION HAS BEEN ADMIT TEDLY DELETED BY THE ID. CIT. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 23.07.2008 (P.B.32) A.O. GA VE APPEAL EFFECT UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE ACT ON DATED 26.08.2008 (P.B.53) AND TOTAL LOSS WAS CARRIED FORWARD IN A SUM OF RS.9,81,556/-. THE TRIBUNAL ALS O UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A) BY DISMISSING THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE A UDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ANNEXURE-A ALSO REDUCED THE LOSS OF SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANY FROM THE PROFIT. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE PARTICULA RS REGARDING INCOME TO BE COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 115JB WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME. THE CERTIFICATE REGARDING ASSESSEE IS SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANY ISSUE D BY BIFR WAS ALSO FILED AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THEREFORE, WHEN THE A.O. APPLIED HIS MIND TO ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AND WHILE GIVING APPEAL EFFECT, ULTIMATELY THE INCOME/LOSS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR THE A.O. TO HAVE RESORTED TO THE P ROVISION OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ID. CIT (A) GAVE SPECIFIC FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE A.O. O N LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING SHOULD NOT HAVE PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SE CTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE A.O. IN PROCEEDING UNDER SECTIO N 154 OF THE ACT IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE WHICH REQUIRES THE ISSUE TO BE RECONSIDER ED BY THE A.O. ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT WHICH WAS NOT RAISED BY THE A.O. IN ASSESSMENT OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. TH EREFORE, A.O. HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW HIS ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND TO MAKE CERT AIN ADDITIONS WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ALL P ARTICULARS REGARDING ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT TO BE FRAMED UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. WHEN THE A.O. HAS CONSCIOUSLY TAKEN THE VIEW TO FRAME A REGULAR ASSES SMENT AND MADE CERTAIN 5 ADDITIONS, WHICH HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE ID. CIT(A ) AND CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE A.O. IS NOT EMPOWERED TO TAKE A CONTR ARY VIEW TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALREADY FRAMED. IT IS AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF PROVISION OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ID. CIT(A) CORRECTLY HELD TH AT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND A.O. CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO PASS THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON DEBATABLE ISSUE. LD. CIT(A) CORRECTLY CANCELLED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO CORRECTLY DE MONSTRATED FROM THE PROVISION OF SECTION 115JB(2) OF THE ACT THAT WHATEVER AMOUNT WAS REDUCED FROM THE PROFIT OF BUSINESS ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS TO SICK INDUSTRIAL C OMPANY WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A.O. TO PASS THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. UFLEX LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: IF THE ISSUE REQUIRES DEBATE AND DISCUSSION, IT C ANNOT BECOME A SUBJECT-MATTER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER S. 154 OF THE ACT BECAUSE UN DER THIS SECTION ONLY PATENT AND OBVIOUS MISTAKES OF LAW AND FACTS CAN BE RECTIFIED. IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE AO TO GO INTO THE TRUE SCOPE OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF T HE ACT IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 154 OF THE ACT. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS OF THE C ASE THAT THERE WERE DEBATABLE QUESTIONS RELATING TO DEBENTURE REDEMPTION RESERVE AND PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES WHILE DETERMINING BOOKS PROFITS U/S. 115JB OF THE A CT.. 7. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT O F THE ABOVE DECISIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT AO HAS WRONGLY EXERCISED JURISDICTION UN DER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT . THE CALCULATION UNDER SECTION 115JB WAS AVAILABLE O N RECORD OF THE AO. THE AO PASSED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER SCRUTINY UNDER SECTION 143(3) AFTER EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. AO DID NOT DISPUTE THE COMPUTATION UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT AT ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT THERE IS DISP UTE WITH REGARD TO THE EXPLANATION SOUGHT FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THE RECTIFI CATION NOTICE AND ACTUAL CALCULATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. THEREF ORE, THE AO, ON LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING SHOULD NOT HAVE PASSED THE ORD ER UNDER SECTION154 OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE AO IN PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE AND REQUIRES THE ISSUE TO BE RECON SIDERED BY THE AO ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF PROVISION OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT WHICH WAS NOT RAISED BY THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THEREFORE AO HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW HIS ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND TO MAKE CERTAIN ADD ITIONS IN THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED A LL PARTICULARS REGARDING COMPUTATION AND ASSESSMENT TO BE FRAMED UNDER SECTI ON 115JB OF THE ACT. WHEN THE AO HAS CONSCIOUSLY TAKEN THE VIEW TO FRAME REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND 6 MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS, AO IS NOT EMPOWER TO TAKE C ONTRARY VIEW TO REVIEW ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALREADY FRAMED. IT IS AGAIN ST THE SPIRIT OF PROVISION OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE AO CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO PASS IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 ON DEBATABLE ISSUE. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE AO TO PASS RECTIFICATION ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT TO DISTURB THE C ALCULATION UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT, ALREADY CONSIDERED. I ACCORDINGLY SET A SIDE THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND QUASH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. ADDITION STANDS DELETED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 02/06/2017 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, THE CIT(A), THE DR