Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 1190/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 119020514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIDHI SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 145; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD .. , ( .) , BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL,VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1190/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. 708, SARKHEJ DHOLKA ROAD BHAT, AHMEDABAD-382 210 / VS. THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 AHMEDABAD % & ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACC 6251 E ( %( / APPELLANT ) .. ( )*%( / RESPONDENT ) %( + / APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR WITH PARIN SHAH ARS )*%( , + / RESPONDENT BY : MS.NIDHI SRIVASTAVA, CIT-DR -. , /& / DATE OF HEARING 28/07/2015 0123 , /& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26/08/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AHMEDABAD [PR.CIT IN SHORT] DATED 31/03/2015 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND RELIEF PRAYED FOR: ITA NO.1190/AHD /2015 CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. PR.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - 1. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED PRINCIP AL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I, AHMEDABAD U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 IS BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND THE SAID ORDER DESERVES TO BE CANC ELLED. 2. THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF THE INCO ME TAX-1, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DIRECTING THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX RANGE 1, AHMEDABAD TO MAKE THE FRESH ASSESSMENT WITH INTE NTION TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSED BUSINESS INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF UNUTILISE D BALANCE OF THE MODVAT CREDIT BY CONSIDERING THE SAME AS TAXABLE INCOME BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A OF THE INCOME TAX, ACT 1961 FOR RS 1,5 3,40,871/-THE ORDER U/S 263 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INSTRUCTING THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BE DROPPED. 3. THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF THE INCO ME TAX HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN I NITIATING THE REVISION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER BY TREATING THE UNUTILISED CLOSING BALANCE OF MODVAT CREDIT AMOUNTING RS. 1,53,40,871/- AS TAXABLE INCOME IGNOR ING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT, WHILE ACCOUNTING FOR PURCHASES, HAD NOT DEBITED THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY AS DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HENCE THIS TRANSACTION AND ITS ACCOUNTING IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE HENCE THE PR OCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 263 BE DROPPED. YOUR APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER, MO DIFY, AMEND OR DELETE, ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUND/(S), EITHER BEFORE OR DURING TH E APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S .143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 21/03/2013; THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) COMPUTED BOOK PROFIT AT RS.29,59,90,386/- AGAINST THE BOOK PROFIT AS PER RETURN OF INCOME OF RS.27,73,65,400/-. THE LD.PR.C IT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT REVISED THIS O RDER VIDE ORDER DATED 31/03/2015; THEREBY THE LD.PR.CIT CANCELLED THE ASS ESSMENT FOR THE AY ITA NO.1190/AHD /2015 CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. PR.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - 2009-10 AND DIRECTED THE AO TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMEN T. THE ASSESSEE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER IS NOW IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 3. ALL THE GROUNDS ARE INTER-CONNECTED AND, THEREFO RE, THE SAME ARE DISPOSED OF TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED AT LENGTH THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.PR.CIT IS UNJUSTIFIED AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. HE SUBMITT ED THAT AS PER LD.PR.CIT, THE REASONS FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCLUDED THE UNUTILIZ ED BALANCE OF CENVAT CREDIT IN THE BALANCE-SHEET UNDER THE HEAD LOANS & ADVANCES. AS PER INCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING U /S.145A OF THE ACT, THIS WAS TO BE SHOWN AS CLOSING STOCK. THE LD.PR.C IT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT BY DCIT (OSD) IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING OF THE LD.PR.CI T IS CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE OR DER OF THE LD.PR.CIT IS BAD IN LAW. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW O UR ATTENTION TOWARDS REPLY DATED 26/02/2015 PLACED AT PAGE NO.3 OF THE A SSESSEES PAPER-BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE WHERE THE AO H AS NOT DELIBERATED UPON THE ISSUE. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NOS.33 TO 38 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, WHEREIN A COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 26/11/2012 IS ENCLOSED. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWA RDS PAGE NO.37 OF THE PAPER-BOOK OF CLAUSE NO.25 OF THE NOTICE. HE F URTHER DREW OUR ITA NO.1190/AHD /2015 CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. PR.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NOS.39 TO 65 OF THE PAPER-BO OK, WHEREIN THE REPLY DATED 14/12/2012 ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS PLACED. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NO.55 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, WHE REIN THE REPLY TO CLAUSE-25 IS GIVEN. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH (ITAT A BENCH, A HMEDABAD) RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MADHUSUDAN INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT IN ITA NO.853/AHD/2013 FOR AY 2008-09, DATED 31/10/2013. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE LD.PR.CIT WOULD BE COMPETENT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE ACT SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF TWIN CONDITIONS AS EMBEDDED INTO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT THAT ANY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE IN HAND, N EITHER OF THE TWO CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSMENT ORDER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD.PR.CIT IS EX-FACIE BAD IN LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONING GIVEN FOR INVOKING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW. H E SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROHIBITION UNDER LAW FOR FOLLOWING THE INCLUSIV E OR EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING SINCE BY BOTH THE METHODS SAME CONCL USION IS REACHED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO UNDERSTATEMENT IN THE V ALUE OF CLOSING STOCK BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DEBITED THE VALUE OF EXCISE DUTY TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AT THE TIME OF ACCOUNTING PURCHASES A ND THE EXCISE DUTY COMPONENT HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED AND RECOGNIZED SEPARAT ELY IN THE FINANCIAL ITA NO.1190/AHD /2015 CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. PR.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 5 - STATEMENTS AS CURRENT ASSETS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE LD.PR.CIT IGNORED THE FACTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS PASSED THE ERRONEOUS ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO P REJUDICE HAS CAUSED TO THE REVENUE. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.CIT-DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED T HAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.PR.CIT. SHE SUBMI TTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACTUAL ASPECTS. THEREFORE, THE LD. PR.CIT WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26 3 OF THE ACT. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE RE SHOULD BE ONLY LOSS OF REVENUE THAT WOULD CAUSE PREJUDICE TO THE REVENUE A N ERRONEOUS APPROACH FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT WOULD ALSO CAUS E PREJUDICE TO THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONE OUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT T HE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 145A OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT FAILURE TO DO S O RESULTED INTO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE QUESTION WHICH REQUIRES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION I S WHETHER THE LD.PR.CIT IS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 263 OF ACT. ITA NO.1190/AHD /2015 CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. PR.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 6 - THE REVENUE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE FACT THAT THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD RAISED A SPECIFIC QUERY IN NOTICE DATED 26/11/2012 CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO STATE WHETH ER TAX, DUTY, CESS, ETC. INCLUDED IN TURNOVER AND INVENTORY IN COMPLIANCE TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A OF THE ACT. IF NOT, GIVE DETAILS OF TAXES LIA BLE TO BE INCLUDED IN TURNOVER AND INVENTORIES. IN RESPONSE TO THIS SPEC IFIC QUERY, THE ASSESSEE HAD VIDE REPLY DATED 14/12/2012 SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANT ANNEXURE OF TAX AUDIT GIVES THE DESIRED DETAILS. IT IS NOT D ISPUTED THAT THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS PLACED BEFORE THE AO. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AO HAD APPLIED HIS MIND AND FOUND THE COMPLIANC E OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A IN ORDER. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE INF ERRED CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTI ON 145A OF THE ACT. THE LD.PR.CIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED THE EXCLUSIVE METHOD FOR ACCOUNTING CENVAT AS AGAINST I NCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING MANDATED U/S.145 OF THE ACT AND, THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED WITHOUT THE STATUTORY ADJUSTMENT OF THE COST OF RAW-MATERIALS AND WORK-IN-PROGRESS BY UNUTILIZED CENVAT CREDITS A T THE BEGINNING AND END OF RELEVANT YEAR AS STIPULATED IN SECTION 1 45A OF THE ACT. AGAINST THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE RE IS NO UNDERSTATEMENT IN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEBITED THE VALUE OF EXCISE DUTY TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AT TH E TIME OF ACCOUNTING PURCHASES AND THE EXCISE DUTY COMPONENT HAS BEEN AC COUNTED AND RECOGNIZED SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS A S CURRENT ASSETS FOR THE ITA NO.1190/AHD /2015 CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. PR.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 7 - YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASS ESSEE IS THAT BY DIRECTING THE DY.COMMISSIONER TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSM ENT, THE LD.PR.CIT HAS, IN FACT, INTENDED TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSED BUSI NESS INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF UNUTILIZED BALANCE MODVAT CREDIT BY CONSI DERING THE SAME AS TAXABLE INCOME BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 145 OF THE ACT. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH INTENTION IS CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW AS THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.UNIQUE INDUSTRIES REPORTED AT (2008) 307 ITR 350 (GUJ.) HAS RULED THAT MODVAT CREDIT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF CENTRAL EXCISE ACT IS NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED. BEFO RE THE LD.PR.CIT A RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGEMENT(S) OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INDO NIPPON CHEMICALS CO.LTD. R EPORTED AT (2003) 261 ITR 275(SC) AND OF CIT VS. SHRI RAM HONDA POWER EQUIPMENT LTD. REPORTED AT (2013) 258 CTR 329(SC). THE RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. UNIQUE INDUSTRIES REPORTED AT (2008) 307 ITR 350(GU J) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF BEMCO SLEEPERS LTD. AURANGABAD VS. DEPARTMENT OF INCOME T AX IN ITA NO.715/PN/2011 DATED 20/06/2012 IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT IT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE TAXABLE INCOME IF THE ASSESSEE ADOPTS INCLUSIVE OR EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. FURTHER, THE LD.PR .CIT DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT AFTER AMENDMENT IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A OF THE ACT, IT IS MANDA TORY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ITA NO.1190/AHD /2015 CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. PR.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 8 - INCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF ANY TAX, DUTY, CESS OR FEE ( BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED), IN ITS VALUATION; NAMELY, PURCHASE, SALE A ND INVENTORY. THE MOOT QUESTION WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO INCLUDE THE DUTY IN ITS CL OSING STOCK AND WHETHER SUCH ACT HAS CAUSED EVASION OF TAX LIABILITY?. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED BEFORE THE LD.PR.CIT WHICH IS NOT REBUTTED BY THE R EVENUE THAT THERE IS NO UNDERSTATEMENT IN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK BECAUS E THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DEBITED THE VALUE OF EXCISE DUTY TO PROFIT & LOSS A CCOUNT AT THE TIME OF ACCOUNTING PURCHASES AND THE EXCISE DUTY COMPONENT HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED AND RECOGNIZED SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMEN TS AS CURRENT ASSETS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THERE IS ANOTHER ASP ECT OF THE MATTER ALSO, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT MODVAT SCHEM E PROVIDES FOR INSTANT CREDIT OF THE INPUT ONLY ON THE RAW-MATERIA L CONSUMED. THE CREDIT HAS A DIRECT LINKAGE WITH THE CONSUMPTION OF THE RAW-MATERIAL. IT IS OBTAINED ON THE DATE WHEN THE RAW MATERIAL IS PURCH ASED. HENCE, IT IS CLEAR THAT WHETHER ONE APPLIES THE NET METHOD OR TH E GROSS METHOD THE GROSS PROFIT REMAINS THE SAME. MOREOVER, THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INDO NIPPON CHEMICALS CO.LTD.(SUPRA). THE HON BLE APEX COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 4. THE HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN THE SEVERAL ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE CHARTS PLACED BEFORE IT BY BOTH SIDES AND DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE ARE TWO POSSIBLE METHODS OF VALUATION OF STOCK. THE FIRST WOULD BE THE 'GROS S METHOD', IN WHICH THE STOCK IS VALUED AT COST PRICE INCLUSIVE OF THE EXCI SE DUTY ELEMENT. IF THIS METHOD ITA NO.1190/AHD /2015 CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. PR.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 9 - IS ADOPTED, THEN THE UNCONSUMED STOCK ALSO MUST NEC ESSARILY BE VALUED IN THE SAME MANNER. THE OTHER METHOD IS THE 'NET METHOD', IN WHICH THE RAW MATERIAL PURCHASED IS VALUED AT THE ACTUAL COST, TH AT IS THE ACTUAL PURCHASE PRICE AND, ON THIS, MODVAT CREDIT WOULD BE AVAILABL E. IF THIS METHOD IS TO BE ADOPTED, THEN UNIFORMLY THE SAME METHOD MUST BE ADO PTED WHILE VALUING THE UNCONSUMED STOCK AT THE END OF THE YEAR. WHICHEVER METHOD ONE ADOPTS, THE RESULT WOULD BE THE SAME. 5. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE VIEW OF THE AO THAT MER ELY BECAUSE MODVAT CREDIT IS AN IRREVERSIBLE CREDIT AVAILABLE TO THE M ANUFACTURERS UPON PURCHASE OF DUTY PAID RAW MATERIAL, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO INCOM E WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE ACT. 4.1. IN THE LIGHT OF AFOREMENTIONED JUDICIAL PRONOU NCEMENT, IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT ERRONEOUS . MOREOVER, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED A SPECIFIC QUERY AND REACHED TO A CONCLUSION THAT METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CAUSED ANY PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE SINCE THERE I S NO UNDERSTATEMENT OF CLOSING STOCK. THIS CONCLUSION OF AO IS NOT ABSURD OR ERRONEOUS. THEREFORE, THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE ACT BY LD.PR.CIT FAILS. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MA LABAR INDUSTRIAL CO.LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) HAS HELD THAT THE CIT HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE AO SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT, IF THE O RDER OF THE ITO IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE, RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO S.263(1). 4.2. IT IS NOT POINTED OUT BY THE LD.PR.CIT AS TO W HAT PREJUDICE HAS CAUSED TO THE REVENUE. IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC FINDING BY THE ITA NO.1190/AHD /2015 CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. PR.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 10 - LD.PR.CIT, WE CANNOT CONFIRM HIS ORDER REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW TWIN CONDITIONS A S LAID DOWN IN SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, I.E. ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS SO FAR IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ARE NOT SATISFIED. UNDER T HESE FACTS, WE ARE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE FINDINGS OF LD.PR.CIT, SAME A RE HEREBY QUASHED. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND QUAS HED. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 5. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON WEDNESDAY, THE 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) ( . ) ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( KUL BHARAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 26/ 08 /2015 6/..-, .-../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*%( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 789 : / CONCERNED CIT 4. : ( ) / THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD 5. ;< )-89 , / 893 , 7 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <= >. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, *; ) //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD