Gujarat Flurochemicals Ltd., Baroda V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 1377/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94300 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEPT A Y
• Keywords: Business income; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 148; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ANIL CHATURVEDI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. I.T.A. NO.1377/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) A.Y.2003-0 4 2. I.T.A. NO.1378/AHD/2009 ( -DO- ) A.Y.2004-05 3. I.T.A. NO.1659/AHD/2009 (BY DEPT.) A.Y.2003-04 4. I.T.A. NO 1660/AHD/2009 ( -DO- ) A.Y. 2004-05 1&2.GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD., ABS TOWERS, 2 ND FLOOR, OLD PADRA ROAD, BARODA. (ASSESSEE) PAN AAACG 6725 VS. 1&2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BARODA. (REVENUE) 3 & 4 DY. CIT,CIR.1(1),BARODA (REVENUE) 3 & 4 GUJARAT FLOUROCHEMUICALS LTD. (ASSSESSEE) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, SR. ADV. RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.I. PATEL, CIT D.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 24-07-2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/8/2015 / O R D E R ITA NO. 1377,1378,1659,1660/ AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD. 2 PER BENCH. IN THIS CASE TWO SEPARATE CROSS APPEALS ARE FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A)-I, BAR ODA BOTH DATED 13- 03-2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 RE SPECTIVELY. WE FIRST PROCEED WITH A.Y. 2003-04 (ITA NO.1377 & 1 659/AHD/2009). 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI AL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY STATED TO BE IN THE BU SINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF REFRIGERANT GASES. IN THIS CASE, A SSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y.2003-04 ON 10-10-2003 DECL ARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.32,14,22,050/-. CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 12-12-2008 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.33,04,39,540/ -. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS REOPENED ON 28-3-2008 BY ISSUING NOTIC E U/S. 148 FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITA L GAINS OF RS.11,45,926/- UNDER THE CAPITAL GAINS WHICH RESULT ED INTO ASSESSEE BEING ASSESSED AT A LOWER SLAB OF TAX THOUGH SUCH INCOME WAS REQUIRED TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF TH E BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND THEREFORE, THE INCOME HAD ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) R .W.S 147 VIDE ORDER DATED 12-12-2008 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DET ERMINED AT RS.44,60,10,860/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESS ING OFFICER, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT (A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 13-03-2009 GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), THE ASSES SEE (ITA NO.1377/AHD/2009) AS WELL AS THE REVENUE (ITA NO.16 59/AHD/2009) ITA NO. 1377,1378,1659,1660/ AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD. 3 ARE NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED ON ACCOUNT OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 WHILE THE REVE NUE IS AGGRIEVED ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUANTUM RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT (A). THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED 1. IN HOLDING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSM ENT U/S. 147 BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION OF THE SAME SET OF FACTS. YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSME NT BE HELD INVALID. 2. IN NOT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AT THE TIM E OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS RAISED AND IN PROCEEDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT, WHILE CONFIRMING THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE PASSING RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 BE HELD INVALID. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENU E READS AS UNDER:- 1.(A) ON THE FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT TREATING THE INCOME FR OM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AT RS.12,42,10,064/-, IRRESPEC TIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE A.O. PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT HOW THE LONG AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS WERE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME BY CLEARLY DISCUSSING FROM THE ANGL E OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND SECURITIES, TURNOVER OF SH ARE TRANSACTION VIS--VIS GAS MANUFACTURING TURNOVER, FREQUENCY OF SHARE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF SHARES/SECURITIES. (B) THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARATS DECISION IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX VS. R. A. KOTHARI (2006) 238 ITR 338 (GUJ.) AND ALSO HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PARI MANGALDAS ITA NO. 1377,1378,1659,1660/ AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD. 4 GIRDHARDAS V/S. CIT (1977) CTR 647 (GUJ.) WHEREIN T HE HON. HIGH COURT IN THE LAST PARA HAS LAID DOWN THE MOST IMPORTANT TEST I.E. VOLUME, FREQUENCY, CONTINUITY A ND REGULARITY OF TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOODS CONCERNED. 2.(A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING TO THE EXTE NT OF RS.1,10,56,871/-OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,75,70,871/- TOWARDS INTEREST DISALLOWANCE, WHI CH WAS INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPTED INCOME OF DIVI DEND AND TAX-FREE INTEREST, WITHOUT TAKING NOTE OF THE L ANDMARK DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT (A) V/S. ABHISHEK INDUS TRIES LTD. 286 ITR 01(P&H), LAYING DOWN THAT, IN VIEW OF SECTION 106 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, THE FACTS BEING IN THE SPE CIAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS UP TO HIM TO ADDU CE EVIDENCE THAT ALL THE BORROWINGS WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS AND IT IS ASSESSEES OWN SURPL US FUNDS THAT WERE INVESTED IN THE SHARES AND DEPOSITS EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME AND, EVEN IN CASE OF MIXED FUNDS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST COULD BE MADE. (B) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE S PLEA THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND DEPOSITS BEING LESS TH AN THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS IN THE BALANCE SHEET, NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WAS CALLED FOR, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS ALREADY STOOD INVESTED IN FIXED ASSETS OR AS WORKING CAPITAL WHEN THE BORROWINGS WERE MADE; OTHERWISE, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR SUCH BORROWINGS AND HENCE IT IS THESE BORROWING WHI CH WERE UTILIZED TO EARN EXEMPTED INCOME AND THE CO- RELATION BETWEEN THE BORROWINGS AND UTILIZATION CAN NOT BE REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET PREPARED ON A PARTIC ULAR DATE. (C) THE KLD.CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS U/S. 36(1 )(III) BY FURNISHING DAY-TO-DAY CASH FLOW TO SHOW THAT NO IN TEREST- BEARING FUNDS WERE DEPLOYED TO EARN EXEMPTED INCOM E AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DRAWING INFERENCE AS PER THE RATIO SETTLED IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. MOTOR GENERAL FINANCE LTD. 254 ITR 449 (DEL.) SINCE CONFIRMED IN PRINCIPAL BY THE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF MOTOR GENERAL FINANCE VS. CIT 267 ITR 381 (SC). ITA NO. 1377,1378,1659,1660/ AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD. 5 (D) THE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWAN CE OF INTEREST AND OTHER EXPENSES RELATING TO EXEMPTED IN COME BY PUTTING ARBITRARY AND NARROW MEANING ON THE TERM INCURRED IN SECTION 14A WHEN THIS SECTION NOWHERE REFERS TO INCURRING OF EXPRESSLY QUANTIFIED EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO EXEMPTED INCOME AND, INSTEAD, USES THE WIDER EXPRESSION IN RELATION TO AND NOT FOR EARNING OF . (E) THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE RE CENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMEN T PVT. LTD., A.Y. 2001-02, THE HON. ITAT, SPECIAL BEN CH, MUMBAI IN ITA NO.8057/MUM/2003, WHEREIN IT WAS CLEA RLY HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(2) AND (3)O F THE I.T. ACT BEING CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN INTRODUC ED BY FINANCE ACT, 2006 W.E.F. 1-4-2007. SECTION 14A HAS BEEN INSERTED RETROSPECTIVELY BY FINANCE ACT, 2001, WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1962. HON. SPECIAL BENCH HAS HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(2) AND 14A (3) ARE ALSO RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND IN RESULT RULE 8D WILL ALSO APPLY ACCORDINGLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT (A), OU GHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF INTERES T CALCULATED AS PER RULE 8D. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND OR A LTER THE ABOVE GROUNDS AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY. 5. WE FIRST TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL.(ITA NO.1 377/A/2009) - 6. BEFORE US THE LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSION S MADE BEFORE THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT (A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ON 10-10-2003 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) VID E ORDER DT.28-03- 2008. FROM THE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REO PENING WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE-3 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE POINTED OUT T HAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN SH OWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS CAPITAL GAINS AND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A .O. IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 143(3) AS CAPITAL GAINS, SHOUL D HAVE BEEN TAXED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND BUSINESS OF PROFESSION . THE LD. A.R. ITA NO. 1377,1378,1659,1660/ AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD. 6 SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE HAS BEEN REOPENED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION AND NO NEW INFORMATION HAS COME T O THE NOTICE OF THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF WHICH A.O. HAS REASON TO BELIE VE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT. HE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED WHOLLY AND TRULY ALL MA TERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE P ART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN U/S. 139 OR TO DISCLOSE WHOLLY AND TR ULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A.O. HAD CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS AND FIGURES WHICH WERE AVA ILABLE ON RECORD AND THEREAFTER A.O. HAS PASSED THE ORDER ASSESSING THE CAPITAL GAINS. THE LD. A.R. POINTED AT PARAGRAPH 6 & 7 OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE MATTER WAS ALREA DY CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. IN DETAIL WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING IS ON THE BASIS OF CHA NGE OF OPINION ON SAME SET OF FACTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERE D BY THE A.O. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSITIO N THAT REOPENING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE ON CHANGE OF OPINION, HE PLACED REL IANCE ON THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR INDIA LTD. , REPORTED AT 320 ITR 561, DELHI TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF DELHI I NDUSTRIES AND ENTERPRISES V/S. ACIT REPORTED IN (2013) 31 TAXMAN 384 (DEL. TRIB).THE LD. A.RS SECOND ARGUMENT FOR REOPENING T O BE BAD IN LAW WAS THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ASSESSEE HAD CAR RIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE. LD. AR. THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ORDER OF A.O. GOT MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), A.O. HAS NO POWER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT AND FOR THIS PROPOSI TION HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD., V/S CIT IN SPL. CIVIL APPL ICATION NO.3352/2001 ORDER DATED 8-3-2011 AND THE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S. GOKUL REFOILS & SOLVENT LTD., IN ITA NO.3233 & ITA NO. 1377,1378,1659,1660/ AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD. 7 3235/AHD/2008 ORDER DATED 12-8-2011. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS. 7. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT (A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF NAVDEEP INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. V/S. ACIT (2014) 45 TAXMAN.COM 207 (GUJ.) WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LD. A.R. A RE ON DIFFERENT FACTS AND THEREFORE, THE RATIO OF THE AFORESAID DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE. HE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF APEX COU RT IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. VS. DCIT & ANOTHER R EPORTED IN (2012) 340 ITR 64 AND IN THE CASE OF RAJENDRA KUMAR DWIVED I V/S. CIT [2012] 349 ITR-432(ALL). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 24-3-2006 AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED ON 28-3- 2008 AND THUS REOPENING HAS BEEN INITIATED WITHIN A PERIOD OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN T HE PRESENT CASE, THE REASON FOR REOPENING INDICATED IN THE NOTICE IS ON ACCOUNT OF CONSIDERING THE INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS AS CAPITAL GAINS. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED IN D ETAIL BY THE A.O. AND THEREAFTER, HE HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN IN THE CASE OF REOPENING OF A SSESSMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSME NT YEAR A.O. HAS TO HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TA X HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF TANGIBLE MATERIAL. WHEN ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR DETERMINATION OF THE INCOME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND A.O. HAS TAKEN A PARTICULAR VIEW ON TH OSE DISCLOSED FACTS WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN REGULAR PROCE EDINGS THEN WITHOUT ANYTHING MORE IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO REOPEN THE AS SESSMENT ITA NO. 1377,1378,1659,1660/ AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD. 8 PROCEEDINGS AS IT WOULD BE A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPIN ION AND REOPENING ON CHANGE OF OPINION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AND FOR WHI CH WE ALSO FIND SUPPORT BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN TH E CASE OF KELIVINATOR INDIA LTD., REPORTED IN 320 ITR 561. FURTHER IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS SEEN THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, A SSESSEE HAD PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). LD CIT (A) VIDE O RDER DATED 13-3- 2009 HAD EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN PARAGRAPH 5.3 AND HA D DIRECTED THE A.O. TO COMPUTE THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND THUS THE ADDITION MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME AS BUSINESS INCO ME WAS DELETED AND THUS THE ORDER OF THE A.O. STOOD MERGED WITH TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). ON THE ISSUE OF REOPENING OF A CASE WHEN THE O RDER OF A.O. HAS MERGED WITH THAT OF LD. CIT (A) WE FIND THAT THE HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD. VS. ADD L. CIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF I TEMS FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT IS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED HAS MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND AS SUCH THE ORDER OF A.O. HAD NO I NDEPENDENT EXISTENCE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE REOPENED IN RESPECT OF THOSE ITEMS. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THE DECISION O F HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD., ( SUPRA) SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE REOPE NING OF ASSESSMENT IS ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION AND IS THEREFORE NOT PERMISSIBLE AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF RE-ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS QUASHED AND IS SET ASIDE. 9. SINCE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE STOOD ALLOWED AND R E-ASSESSMENT IS HELD TO BE NOT VALID, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVE NUE DOES NOT SURVIVE AND THUS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISM ISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D AND THAT OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1377,1378,1659,1660/ AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD. 9 11. AS FAR AS APPEALS FOR A.Y. 2004-05 ARE CONCERNE D, IN VIEW OF THE ADMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US THAT THE FA CTS OF THE CASE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 ARE SIMILAR TO A.Y. 2003-04, WE THEREF ORE FOR THE SAME REASONS GIVEN HEREINABOVE WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2003-04, AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS QUASH THE REASSESSMENT ORDE R FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND THUS THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THAT OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND THAT OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 28 TH AUGUST,2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (A NIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. DATE:- 28-08-2015 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! / CONCERNED CIT 4. ! () / THE CIT(A), AHMEDABAD 5. $%& '', , )*++ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &,- . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO. 1377,1378,1659,1660/ AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD. 10 1. DATE OF DICTATION- 24-7-2015 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER :27-7-2015 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 10-8-2015/11-8- 2015/21-8-2015 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 28-8-2015: 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 28-8 -2015 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER