DCIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI V. AIR INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1207/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5699 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MEENA LD
• Assessee Lawyers: D J SHUKLALD
• Keywords: Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

AIR INDIA LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO. 1207/MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(1)(1) ROOM NO.568,5 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI 400 020 / VS. AIR INDIA LIMITED OLD AIRPORT KALINA,SANTACRUZ (E) MUMBAI 400 029 ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AACCA-9213-E ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) & CROSS OBJECTION NO.171/MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) AIR INDIA LIMITED OLD AIRPORT KALINA,SANTACRUZ (E) MUMBAI 400 029 / VS. DEPUTY COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(1)(1) ROOM NO.568,5 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI 400 020 ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AACCA-9213-E ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) & ./I.T.A. NO. 1208/MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(1)(1) ROOM NO.568,5 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI 400 020 / VS. AIR INDIA LIMITED OLD AIRPORT KALINA,SANTACRUZ (E) MUMBAI 400 029 ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AACCA-9213-E ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) & AIR INDIA LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 2 CROSS OBJECTION NO.58/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) AIR INDIA LIMITED OLD AIRPORT KALINA,SANTACRUZ (E) MUMBAI 400 029 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(1)(1) ROOM NO.568,5 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI 400 020 ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AACCA-9213-E ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : D.J.SHUKLA,LD. AR REVENUE BY : R.P.MEENA, LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 22/05/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/07/2018 / O R D E R PER BENCH 1. AFORESAID APPEALS BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S [AY] 2006-07 & 2007-08 CONTEST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS-OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE SAM E. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOSED-OF F BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVIT Y. FIRST, WE TAKE UP CROSS APPEALS FOR AY 2006-07. CROSS APPEALS FOR AY 2006-07 2.1 THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR AY 2006-07 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, MUMBAI [CI T(A)], APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-10/DCIT-5(1)/210/2013-2014 DATED 12/12/20 14 BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL:- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VAL UE THE FRINGE BENEFITS IN RESPECT OF FREE / CONCESSIONAL TICKETS TO THE EMPLOYEES AT PAR WITH THE PROVISIONS MADE IN AIR INDIA LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 3 RESPECT OF FREQUENT FLIER PROGRAMME AND THEREAFTER THE AMOUNTS RECOVERED FROM THE EMPLOYEES, IF ANY SHOULD BE REDUCED AS HAS BEEN DIR ECTED BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S JET AIRWAYS IN A.Y.2006-07. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS R EADS AS UNDER:- 1) THE LEARNED DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (D.C. I.T) ERRED IN REOPENING FRINGE BENEFIT TAX (ASSESSMENT) FOR ASST. YEAR 2006 -07 WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION THAT FRINGE BENEFITS CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 2) THE LEARNED D.C.I.T ERRED IN REOPENING FRINGE BE NEFIT TAX (F.B.T) ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S.115WE(3) OF THE I.T.ACT,1961 VIDE ORD ER DATED 30-12-2008 3) THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE PROV ISIONS OF SEC.115WG OF I.T.ACT,1961 FOR REOPENING THE F.B.T. ASSESSMENT CA NNOT BE RESORTED TO FOR REVIEWING A FBT ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S.115WE(3) O F THE I.T.ACT,1961. 4) ON THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE LAW THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22-03-2013 PASSED IN CONTRAVENTION OF L AW BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VALUE F RINGE BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF FREE/CONCESSIONAL TICKETS TO THE EMPLOYEES AT PAR W ITH THE PROVISION MADE IN RESPECT OF FREQUENT FLIER PROGRAMME AND REDUCE THER EFROM AMOUNTS RECOVERED FROM THE EMPLOYEES FOR VALUATION OF F.B.T. IN RESPE CT OF SUCH TICKETS. 2) THE LEARNED C.I.T(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VALUE F.B.T IN RESPECT OF FREE TICKETS ISSUED TO EMPLOYEES AT R S.NIL. THE ASSESSMENT OF FRINGE BENEFIT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(1), MUMBAI [AO] ON 22/03/2013 U/S 115WE(3) READ WITH SECTION 115WG OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . 2.2 BRIEFLY STATED THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT CORPORATE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN AIRLINES BUSINESS WAS SUBJECTED TO RE-ASSESSMENT OF FRINGE BENEFIT [FB] U/S 115WE (3) READ WITH SECTION 115WG OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 22/03/2013. THE RETURN OF FRINGE BENEFIT TAX [FBT] WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28/11/2006 DECLARING VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFIT AT RS.6.79 CRORES WHICH WAS ASSESSED U/S 115WE(3) AT R S.8.38 CRORES ON 30/12/2008. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE SUBJ ECTED TO REASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 115WG BY ISSUANCE OF AIR INDIA LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 4 STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 115WH DATED 06/11/2012 FOLLOWE D BY NOTICE U/S 115WE(2). THE REASONS FOR REOPENING HAVE BEEN EXTRA CTED BY LD. AO ON PAGE-2 OF THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SAME WERE ALSO SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE REQUEST. THE PE RUSAL OF THE SAME REVEAL THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SHOW ANY EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD OF FREE AND CONCESSIONAL TICKETS TO THE EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAM ILY MEMBERS WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE BEING AN AIRLINE COMPANY , THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPENDITURE UNDER THIS HEAD COULD NOT BE IGNORED. 2.3 DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED FREE / CONCESSIONAL TICKETS TO ITS EMPLOYE ES / THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS, THE VALUE OF WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF LD. AO, WAS SUBJECTED TO FRINGE BENEFIT TAX [FBT]. THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESS EE IN PROVIDING FREE TICKETS TO THE EMPLOYEES SINCE THE EMPLOYEES COULD UNDERTAKE JOURNEY ON THESE TICKETS ONLY IF THERE WERE UNSOLD SEATS IN THE AIRCRAFT WHICH WOULD EVEN OTHERWISE REMAIN VACANT WHETHER THE EMPL OYEE TRAVELS OR NOT AND THEREFORE, THE VALUE THEREOF WAS NIL FOR FBT PURPOSES. HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED, LD. AO RELYING UPON CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 8/2005 , WORKED OUT ADDITIONAL FRINGE BENEFIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.62.38 CRORES WHICH WAS ARRIVED AT AFTER MULTIPLYING THE NUMBER OF FREE TIC KETS ISSUED WITH AVERAGE REVENUE PER PASSENGER GENERATED BY THE AIRLINE DURI NG THE YEAR. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME BEFOR E LD. CIT(A) ON LEGAL GROUNDS AS WELL AS ON MERITS WITH PARTIAL SUC CESS VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12/12/2014 WHEREIN LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UPHELD THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. A PARTIAL R ELIEF WAS GRANTED TO THE AIR INDIA LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 5 ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO VALUATION OF THE TICKETS I N TERMS OF JUDGMENT OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED VS DCIT [153 TTJ 624] AND THE LD. AO WAS DIRECTED TO VALUE THE TICKETS AT PAR WITH THE PROVISIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO FREQUENT FLIER PROGRAMME WHICH WOULD BE FURTHER REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT RECOVE RED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS EMPLOYEES IN THIS REGARD. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IN T HIS REGARD, ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- 5.3. GROUND NOS.4 TO 6 PERTAINS TO THE TAXABILITY AND THE VALUATION OF FR INGE BENEFIT TAX IN RESPECT OF FREE AND CONCESSIONAL AIR TICKETS ISSUED TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE A.O. HAS VALUED IT ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL FAIR WHEREAS THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE VALUATION OF S UCH TICKETS SHOULD BE THE COST OF THE TICKETS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANTS COMPANY AND IT SHOULD BE VALUED AS CONCESSIONAL TICKETS PROVIDED UNDER THE SCHEME OF T HE FREQUENT FLIERS FOR WHICH REGULAR PROVISION IS MADE IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE APP ELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS VEHEMENTLY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S JET AIRWAYS IN A.Y.2006-07, WHERE UNDER ALMOST SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE VALUATION OF THE FRINGE BENEFITS OF CONCESSIONAL TICKETS HAS BEE N DIRECTED TO BE AT PAR WITH THE COST OF SUCH TICKETS TO THE APPELLANT AS WORKED OUT IN THE PROVISIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF TH E FREQUENT FLIER SCHEME. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S JET AIRWAYS IN A.Y. 2006-07 , THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO VALUE THE FRINGE BENEFITS IN RESPECT OF FEE/ CONCESSIONAL TIC KETS TO THE EMPLOYEES AT PAR WITH THE PROVISIONS MADE IN RESPECT OF FREQUENT FLIER PR OGRAMME AND THEREAFTER THE AMOUNTS RECOVERED FROM THE EMPLOYEES, IF ANY, SHOUL D BE REDUCED AS HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE IS IN FU RTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THE ISSUE ON LEGAL G ROUNDS AS WELL AS ON MERITS WHEREAS THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY RELIE F PROVIDED BY LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR], SHRI R.P.MEENA SUPPORTED THE APPROACH ADOPTED BY LD. AO TO ARRIVE AT THE VALUATION OF FRINGE BENEFIT. THE SAME WAS CONTROVERTED BY LD. AUHTORIZED AIR INDIA LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 6 REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE [AR], SHRI D.J.SHUKLA, BY SUBMITTING THAT REOPENING WAS BAD IN LAW SINCE THERE WERE NO MATERI AL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST ANY ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND SAME WAS RESORTED TO BY THE REVENUE ONLY TO VERIFY CERTAIN FACTS. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE LEGAL GROUNDS QUESTIONS T HE VERY JURISDICTION ACQUIRED BY THE LD. AO UNDER LAW, WE TAKE UP THE SA ME FIRST. WE FIND THAT THE AY UNDER QUESTION IS AY 2006-07, WHEREIN T HE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 115WE(3) ON 30/12/2008 . THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED VIDE I SSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 115WH DATED 06/11/2012 AND THE REASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ON 22/03/2013. THE REASONS TO INITIA TING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS EXTRACTED IN THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER, READ AS FOLLOWS:- IN THIS CASE, SUBSEQUENT TO COMPLETION OF ASSESSM ENT, INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM DCIT-5(2), MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF JET AIRWAYS INDIA LTD. FOR A.Y.2006- 07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09, THAT THE COST OF FREE AND CONCESSIONAL TICKETS PROVIDED BY THE AIRLINE COMPANY TO ITS EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAMI LY MEMBERS WAS EARLIER NOT OFFERED TO TAX FOR THE RELEVANT A.YRS. AS FRINGE BE NEFIT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115WB(1)(B) OF THE I.T.ACT. THEREFORE, THE SAME HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE SAID SECTION AFTER REOPENING THE CASE. ON THE BASIS OF THIS INFORMATION RECEIVED, THE DET AILS OF THE FBT RETURN FOR A.Y.2006- 07 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE (M/S. AIR INDIA LTD.) HAS BEEN PERUSED AND IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY EXPEND ITURE UNDER THE HEAD OF FEE AND CONCESSIONAL TICKETS TO THE EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. HOWEVER, BEING AN AIRLINES COMPANY THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPEND ITURE INCURRED UNDER THIS HEAD CANNOT BE IGNORED. THE REASSESSMENT PROVISIONS AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 115WG ARE EXTRACTED HERE-IN-BELOW:- '115WG : FRINGE BENEFITS ESCAPING ASSESSMENT - IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY FRINGE BENEFITS CHARGEAB LE TO TAX HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTIONS 115WH, 150 AIR INDIA LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 7 AND 153, ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH FRINGE BENEFITS AN D ALSO ANY OTHER FRINGE BENEFITS CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COME TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE RELE VANT ASSESSMENT YEAR) EXPLANATION - FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, THE FOLLOWING SHALL ALSO BE DEEMED TO BE CASES WHERE FRINGE BENEFITS CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, NAMELY :- (A) WHERE NO RETURN OF FRINGE BENEFITS HAVE BEEN FURNIS HED BY THE ASSESSEE; (B) WHERE A RETURN OF FRINGE BENEFI TS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT NO ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND IT IS NOTICED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED THE VALUE OF FRINGE BE NEFITS IN THE RETURN; (C) AN ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE, BUT THE FRINGE BENEFIT S CHAR GEABLE TO TAX HAVE BEEN UNDER-ASSESSED.' A PERUSAL OF THE SAME REVEAL THAT THE PRIME CONDIT ION TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS THAT THE LD. AO HAS REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT ANY FRINGE BENEFITS CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED A SSESSMENT. THE EXPLANATION TO THIS SECTION CREATES A DEEMING FICTI ON WHEREIN, IN CERTAIN SITUATION, THE FRINGE BENEFITS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AR E DEEMED TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ORIGINAL LY BEEN ASSESSED, ITS CASE IS COVERED BY CLAUSE (C) OF THE EXPLANATIO N, SINCE THE INFORMATION AS RECEIVED BY LD. AO, SUGGESTED POSSIB LE ESCAPEMENT OF FRINGE BENEFIT. AT THIS STAGE, ONLY A PRIMA FACIE OPINION SUGGESTING UNDER- ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE FORMED BY LD. AO, WHICH HAS APPA RENTLY BEEN FORMED. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT DEEMING FICTION HAS TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY. THE LD. AO, SUBSEQUENT TO COMPLETION OF A SSESSMENT, CAME ACROSS CERTAIN INFORMATION WHICH SUGGESTED POSSIBLE UNDER-ASSESSMENT OF FRINGE BENEFIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THI S BEING THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. AO WAS CLINCHED WIT H VALID JURISDICTION TO REASSESS THE FRINGE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL STAND DISMISSED. AIR INDIA LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 8 6. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT L D. CIT(A) HAS GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING U PON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD. VS. DCIT [153 TTJ 624] . SINCE A VIEW HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL ON IDENTICAL FACTUAL MATRIX, TAKING THE SAME VIEW, WE CONFIRM THE STAND OF LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD PARTICULARLY WHEN THE REVENUE IS UNABLE TO P LACE ON RECORD ANY CONTRARY JUDGMENT OF ANY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. ACCORD INGLY, THIS GROUND AS RAISED BY REVENUE IN THE APPEAL AND AS RAISED IN CR OSS-OBJECTIONS, STANDS DISMISSED. 7. IN NUTSHELL, THE CROSS APPEALS STANDS DISMISSED. CROSS APPEALS FOR AY 2007-08 8. THE CROSS APPEALS FOR AY 2007-08 ARE ON SIMILAR FACTUAL MATRIX WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REASSESSED FOR FRINGE BENEFITS ON 20/02/2014 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN SADDLED WITH ADDITIO NAL FRINGE BENEFITS OF RS.78.83 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF FREE / CONCESSIONAL T ICKETS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS EMPLOYEES / THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. T HE LD. CIT(A), IN SIMILAR MANNER, HAS PROVIDED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE IS IN CROSS APPEAL BEFORE US WITH IDENTICAL WORDED GROUNDS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE, IN ITS CROSS OBJECTIONS, HAS FILED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND VIDE LET TER DATED 03/05/2018. THE LD. DR HAS OPPOSED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS ALTOGETHER A NEW GROUND AND BEING RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME AND THEREFORE NOT VALID. HOWEVER, THE SAME BEI NG LEGAL GROUND WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE APPRECIATION OF NEW FACTS AND HENCE, TAKEN ON RECORD IN TERMS OF JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT R ENDERED IN NTPC AIR INDIA LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 9 COMPANY LTD VS CIT [229 ITR 383]. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND READS AS FOLLOWS:- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, SINCE T HE ORDER U/S.115WG OF I.T.ACT 1961 WAS NOT PASSED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT STIPULATE D U/S 153(1B) OF THE I.T.ACT,1961, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE SAME IS BAD IN LAW AND MAY BE CANCELLED. AS EVIDENT FROM ADDITIONAL GROUND, THE QUANTUM ASSE SSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN CHALLENGED ON THE PREMISE THAT THE SAME IS TIM E BARRED AS PER STATUTORY PROVISIONS. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES IN THIS REGARD. UNDISPUTEDLY THE REASSESSMENT NOTICE U/S 115WH HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 06/11/2012, A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 115WG HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON 20 /02/2014. THE TIME LIMIT TO COMPLETE THE RE-ASSESSMENT, IN SUCH A CASE, HAS BEEN PROVIDED U/S 153(1B). THE SAID PROVISION, AS IT STO OD AT THE RELEVANT TIME, READ AS FOLLOWS:- 153. TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENTS AND R EASSESSMENTS.- (1) NO ORDER OF ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE UNDER SECTION 143 OR SECTION 144 AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXPIRY OF (1B) NO ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT SHALL B E MADE UNDER SECTION 115WG AFTER THE EXPIRY OF NINE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 115WH WAS SERVED. UPON FACTUAL MATRIX, WE FIND THAT SINCE THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 06/11/2012, THE RE-ASSESSMENT U/S 115WG WAS TO BE C OMPLETED WITHIN 9 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. BY 3 1/12/2013. AS AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON 20/02/20 14, WHICH IS AIR INDIA LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 10 CLEARLY TIME BARRED AS PER STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153 (1B). THIS BEING THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN FRAMED WITHIN THE AMBIT OF STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND THEREFO RE, THE SAME BEING TIME BARRED, COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYES OF LAW. RESULTANTLY, WE QUASH THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. THE REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS OTH ER GROUNDS RAISED IN ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION STANDS DISMISSED, BEING INFRUCTUOUS. 10. IN NUTSHELL, THE REVENUES APPEAL STAND DISMISS ED WHEREAS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STAND PARTLY ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR ABOVE ORDER. CONCLUSION 11. CO.NO.58/MUM/2017 STAND PARTLY ALLOWED WHEREAS ALL THE OTHER APPEALS / CROSS OBJECTION STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH JULY, 2018 SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 11.07.2018 SR.PS:-THIRUMALESH ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. + ,$ - , - , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , ./0 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI