M/s. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

ITA 140/AHD/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6485 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRENDRA OJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY GOVANI
• Keywords: Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Audit objection
• Section: 153A; 115JB; 201; 263

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD (THROUGH WEB-BASED VIDEO CONFERENCING PLATFORM) ] ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 140, 141 & 142/AHD/2021 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS (P) LTD., 1101, VENUS AMADEUS, JODHPUR CROSS ROAD, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD-380015 PAN : AAHCS 6254 J VS THE PCIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI, SR. ADVOCATE SHRI PARIMALSINH B PARMAR, AR & SHRI VIJAY GOVANI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI VIRENDRA OJHA, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 28/07/2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09/09/2021 / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT : THE PRESENT THREE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTA NCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF EVEN DATED 31.03.2021 PA SSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), AHM EDABAD UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAK EN 11 GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN EACH YEAR. THE GROUNDS ARE VERBATIM SAME; THEREFOR E, FOR THE FACILITY OF REFERENCE, WE TAKE NOTE OF THE GROUNDS FROM ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2013-14, WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. PCIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD ('THE PCIT' ) HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN INVOKING JURISDICTION U/S 263 O F THE ACT AND HAS FURTHER ITA NOS. 140 TO 142/AHD/2011 VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD VS. PCIT AY : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 2 ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMEN T ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. PCIT HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN PASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IGNORING THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSMENT SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED IN THE CASE OF THE OF THE APP ELLANT WAS ALREADY QUASHED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMED ABAD. 3. THE LD. PCIT HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INVOCATION OF JURISDICTION BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS BAD IN LAW AND IN GROSS DISREGARD OF THE SETTLE D LAW THAT THE ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A ARE REQUIRED TO BE MADE ONL Y ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH. 4. THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN PASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLA NT WITHOUT APPRECIATING AND DEALING WITH VARIOUS CASE LAWS SUBMITTED IN SUP PORT OF APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A & NON MAINTAINABILITY OF ACTION U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN P ASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT M ECHANICALLY FOLLOWING THE OLD AND STALE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT F OR THE A.Y. 2012-13, WITHOUT CITING ANY FRESH MATERIAL RELEVANT TO THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SAID FINDINGS WERE FOUND INCORRECT BY THE CIT(A) AND THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) WAS ALLOWED AFTER EX AMINING ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MATTER IN GREAT DETA ILS. 6. THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN P ASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT B Y MECHANICALLY FOLLOWING THE AUDIT OBJECTION WITHOUT EXAMINING SPECIFIC AND COMPELLING FACTS MADE AVAILABLE ON RECORDS REGARDING VALID CLAIM OF DEDUC TION U/S 80IB(10) AND HAS FURTHER ERRED IN PASSING ORDER U/S WITHOUT RECORDIN G ANY FINDING AFTER EXAMINING THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AS TO WHY THE APPE LLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10). 7. THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN P ASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT I GNORING THE CONSIDERED POSITION TAKEN BY THE AO WITH REGARD TO COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT BY THE APPELLANT BY TAXING NOTIONAL INCOME FORM HOUSE PROP ERTY FROM UNSOLD HOUSING STOCK. 8. THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN P ASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT C ONTRADICTING HIMSELF WITH ITA NOS. 140 TO 142/AHD/2011 VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD VS. PCIT AY : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 3 HIS OWN ASSERTION MADE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE T HE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE APPEALS FILED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 9. THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN P ASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT I N HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS VIOLATED 80IB(10)(E)/(F) OF THE ACT C ITING FACTS MUCH PRIOR TO A.Y. 2012-13, WHICH THE AO HAD CONSIDERED THE SAME IRRELEVANT EVEN WHILE DENYING 80IB(10) FOR AY 2012-13, IGNORING UNDISPUTE D FACT THAT NO TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS WERE ALLOTTED/SOLD TO ONE INDIVID UAL/RELATIVE OF RELATIVE. 10. THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN P ASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLA NT WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANYTHING WRONG WITH REGARDS TO REPLY FILED BY THE A PPELLANT ABOUT THE MINIMUM ALTERNATE TAX PAYABLE BY THE APPELLANT. 11. THE AFORESAID GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER AND APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LIBERTY TO ADD FRESH GROUND(S) OF APPEA L AND ALSO TO AMEND, ALTER, MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VER Y OUTSET, SUBMITTED IN BRIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CHALLENGING THE AC TION TAKEN UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN THESE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. AT THE OUTSET, HE SUBMITTED THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZU RE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 10.03.2015. THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME T AX ACT ON 29.12.2017. THE VALIDITY OF THESE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE CHALLE NGED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ULTIMATELY THE ISSUE TRAVELLED UP TO THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 12.11.2020 HAS QU ASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ON THE GROUND THAT THESE ARE NOT PASSED WITH IN THE TIME PERIOD PROVIDED IN THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS H AVE ALREADY BEEN QUASHED IN ALL THESE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THERE CANNOT BE ANY SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE EVEN UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS ASPECT WAS BROUGHT TO T HE NOTICE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER WHO TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THIS FACT; BUT, INSTEAD OF DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS, PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BY KEEP ING IN MIND THE ITA NOS. 140 TO 142/AHD/2011 VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD VS. PCIT AY : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 4 DEPARTMENT WANTS TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE. HE PLACE D ON RECORD COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE ON QUANTUM. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN COGNIZANCE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE A CT AND HAS RIGHTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE. 4. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS IN ITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 IN ALL THESE THREE ASSESSMENT YEA RS BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON 12.02.2020. THE SH OW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM READS AS UNDER:- 4. ACCORDINGLY, A NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE I.T . ACT, 1961 DATED 12/02/2020 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PART OF NO TICE IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE CASE RECORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY YOU U/S 80IB(10) O F THE ACT, FOR NON- COMPLETED PROJECT TILL 31/03/2012. MOREOVER, THE SR . TOWN PLANNER, AUDA VIDE LETTER DATED 21/01/2014 STATED THAT BU PE RMISSION HAS BEEN GRANTED TO 480 UNITS (OUT OF 860) ONLY AS REMAINING BLOCKS WERE INCOMPLETE WITH RESPECT TO GDCR. THUS, YOU VIOLATED THE CONDITION NO.(A)(III) OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 3.1. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT SHRI NARESH T KHANCHANDANI MADE BLOCK BOOKING OF 5 FLATS BY DEPOSITING RS.1,00,00,0 00/- IN F.Y.2007-08 WHICH WAS RETURNED BACK WITHOUT ANY INTEREST ON 22. 12.2011. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED AN ADVANCE OF RS.20,3 3,855/- FOR FLAT NO.303 AND RS.19,66,105/- FOR FLAT NO.304 FROM SHRI RAMESH GIDWANI. THUS, YOU VIOLATED THE CONDITION NO.(F) OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 3.2. FURTHER, YOU HAD RECEIVED AN ADVANCE OF RS.51, 000/- FOR FLAT NO.D- 406 AND RS.51,000/- FOR FLAT NO.408 FROM SHRI SUNDE RDAS MINMOHAL HUF. THUS, YOU VIOLATED THE CONDITION NO.(E) OF SEC TION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS. 140 TO 142/AHD/2011 VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD VS. PCIT AY : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 5 3.3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED T HE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY YOU U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT DURING SCRUTINY FOR A.Y .2012-13 FOR NON- COMPLETION OF PROJECT TILL 31.03.2012. WHEN THE PRO JECT WAS NOT COMPLETED TILL 31.03.2012, THEN THERE IS NO QUESTIO N OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 4. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF P&L ACCOUNT, COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD NET PROFIT OF RS.51,43,31,107/- AFTER DEBIT OF RS.14,36,96,811/- OF CURRENT INCOME TAX AND RS.85,593/- OF DEFERRED TAX. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO S EEN FROM COMPUTATION OF INCOME THAT WHILE CALCULATING REGULAR INCOME THE AS SESSEE HAD ADDED RS.52,75,510/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON INCOME TAX . HOWEVER, IN COMPUTING ITS BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT, ASS ESSEE ADDED ONLY DEBITED AMOUNT OF DEFERRED TAX OF RS.85,593/- AND CURRENT I NCOME TAX OF RS.14,36,96,811/-. THE AMOUNT DEBITED INTEREST ON I NCOME TAX OF RS.52,75,510/- WAS NOT ADDED BACK WHILE DETERMINING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF CLAUSE (A) OF EXPLANATION I, THE AMOUNT OF DEBITED INTEREST ON INCOME TAX OF RS.52,75,510/- REQUIRED TO BE ADDED FOR DETE RMINING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.1 43(3) R.W.S 153A OF THE ACT DATED 29/12/2017 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS PRIMA FACIE BOTH ERRONEOUS AS ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF TH E REVENUE AND THEREFORE, I INTEND TO REVISE THE SAID ORDER U/S.263 OF THE I.T . ACT.' 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER, THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE THAT THESE PROCEEDIN GS HAS NO LEGS TO STAND BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CA N ONLY BE INITIATED IF SAME VALIDITY PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH HAS BEEN BASED BY THE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER TO CONSTRUE THE ERROR CREPT IN THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH H AS CAUSED PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, HAS ALREADY BEEN QUASH ED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THIS FACT A ND RECORDED THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:- THE ASSESSEE, VIDE LETTER DATED 12.1.2021 HAS FURT HER STATED THAT THE ORDER UNDER QUESTION HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED ITA NOS. 140 TO 142/AHD/2011 VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD VS. PCIT AY : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 6 12.11.2020. THEREFORE, IT IS STATED THAT PROCEEDING S U/S 263 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 6. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE IT AT HAS QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THEREFORE THE PROPOSED NOTICE AND ASSESSMENT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW IS NOT CORRECT. THE BASIC FEATURE S OF SEC. 263 ARE THAT THE PR. COMMISSIONER MAY REVISE ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PRO VIDED IT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, TH AT THE REVISION ORDER CAN BE PASSED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCI AL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS PASSED AND THE ASSESSEE MU ST BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE ANY PROCEEDINGS U NDER THE SECTION ARE TAKEN. THE PRE-CONDITIONS FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER SECT ION 263 HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. MOREOVER, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTE D THE ORDER OF THE IT AT AND CONTEMPLATING TO FILE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THIS REGARD. THE ORDER UNDER REVISION IS CH ALLENGED ON ACCOUNT OF VALIDITY OF ORDER U/S 153A, WHEREAS THIS ORDER IS F OR NON-APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80ID(10) OF THE ACT. THEREFOR E ISSUES ARE DIFFERENT. EVEN THOUGH THESE ISSUES ARE INTERLINKED, BUT TO KE EP THE ISSUE ALIVE AND IN THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, THIS PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPL ETED. 6.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED THAT IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT ABATED AND AS SUCH NO ADDITIONS WHICH ARE N OT BASED ON THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH PRO CEEDINGS CAN BE MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON VERIFICATI ON IT IS FOUND THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ASSESSMENT IS ABATED AND THERE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AT FULL LIBERTY IN VERIFYING ALL THE ISSUES WITH OUT LIMITING IT TO THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. TH IS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND TRUE AND IS REJECTED. 6.2 REGARDING THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THE DOCTRINE OF ME RGER, IT IS TO BE POINTED OUT THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA HAS NO APPLICATION TO INCOME-TAX MATTER AND AN ASSESSMENT FOR A PARTICULAR YEAR IS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE IN RELATION TO THAT YEAR AND T HE DECISIONS GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT IN EARLIER YEAR ARE NOT BINDING EITHER O N THE ASSESSEE OR THE DEPARTMENT IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 6. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIV ES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. A PERUSAL OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WOULD REVEAL THAT IT CONTEMPLATES THAT THE PRINCIPAL COMM ISSIONER OR LEARNED COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE ASSESSING ITA NOS. 140 TO 142/AHD/2011 VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD VS. PCIT AY : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 7 OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER CONDUCTING AN INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY, PASS S UCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSM ENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT FOR INSTITUTING A VALID PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THERE SHOU LD BE A VALID LEGAL PROCEEDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ONCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS PASSED AFTER LIMI TATION PROVIDED IN THE ACT FOR PASSING SUCH ORDER, THEN IT IS TO BE CONSTR UED THAT NO ASSESSMENT ORDER IS AVAILABLE ON WHICH LEARNED COMMISSIONER CO ULD FORM AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER ANY ERROR IS AVAILABLE IN SUCH ORDER OR NOT. SECTION 263 OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATES THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN E RROR EITHER IN THE PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAS CA USED PREJUDICE TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. NOW, IN THE PRESENT APPE ALS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CANCELLED MEANING THEREB Y IT HAS EXTINGUISHED, AND THEREFORE, NO SUBSEQUENT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CA N BE INITIATED. FOR THE COMPLETENESS OF THE FACTS, WE TAKE NOTE OF THE OPER ATING PART OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN IT(SS)A NO. 106, 107 AND 108/AHD/20 19 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-16, WHEREIN THE TRI BUNAL, AFTER AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION, HAS QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. THE OPERATING PART OF THE ORDER READS AS UNDER:- 64. IN FACT WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 132(3) OF THE ACT FOR PASSING THE PROHIBITORY ORDER S WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH. ACCORDINGLY, THESE ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 132( 3) OF THE ACT HAVE NO VALIDITY IN THE EYES OF LAW. 65. ONCE THE PROHIBITORY ORDERS IN THE CASE ON HAND HAS BEEN HELD AS INVALID THEN THE SEARCH CONCLUDED IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 201 5 SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE BASE FOR CALCULATING THE PERIOD OF PASSING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER AS PROVIDED ITA NOS. 140 TO 142/AHD/2011 VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD VS. PCIT AY : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 8 UNDER SECTION 153B OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS THE T IME LIMIT IN THE CASE ON HAND EXPIRES FOR PASSING THE ORDER AS ON 31 MARCH 2 017. THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ORDERS HAVE BEEN FRAMED BEYOND THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 66. BEFORE PARTING WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE BANK LOCKE RS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH PROHIBITORY ORDERS WERE PASSED UNDER SECTION 132(3) OF THE ACT WERE BELONGING TO THE OTHER PARTIES WHO ARE THE INCOME T AX ASSESSEE. ON THIS COUNT ONLY THE PROHIBITORY ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORISE D OFFICER IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH THE LOCKERS HELD BY OTH ER PARTIES, THOUGH RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE USED FOR EXTENDING THE TI ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 153B OF THE ACT. AS WE HAVE HELD THAT ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAS BEEN FRAMED BEYOND THE TIME PROVIDED UND ER THE STATUTE WHICH HAS NO VALIDITY IN THE EYES OF LAW, ACCORDINGLY WE QUAS H THE SAME. 67. AS WE HAVE DECIDED THE TECHNICAL GROUND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS R DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO REFER THE I SSUE ON MERIT. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE ON MERIT AS INFRUCTUOUS. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR BY HOLDING THAT SINCE THE REVENUE WANTS TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE, IT IS NE CESSARY TO PASS SUCH ORDER. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS , THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. ACC ORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN ALL THESE THREE ASSESSMENT YEA RS AND ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9 TH SEPTEMBER 2021 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) (R AJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD, DATED 09/09/2021 *BT ITA NOS. 140 TO 142/AHD/2011 VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD VS. PCIT AY : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 9 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) ( / THE CIT(A)- 5. , , /DR,ITAT, AHMEDABAD, 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION- 08.09.2021 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 08.09.2021 OTHER MEMBER 08.09.2021. 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S. - 09.09.2021 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 09.09.2021.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .09.09.2021 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER