M/S. Aakash Ganga Promoters & Developers, Bargarh V. Principal CIT, Sambalpur, Sambalpar

ITA 164/CTK/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1041 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B.N.AGRAWALBINOD AGARWAL
• Keywords: Business income; Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Audit objection; Competent authority; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 263; 143(3); 142(1); 201; 13

Judgement Text

P A G E 1 | 19 + IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 164 /CTK/ 2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201 5 - 16 M/S. AAKASH GANGA PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS, AT: HALDIPALI, PO/DIST: BARGARH. VS. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR PAN/GIR NO. AAWFA 8864 A (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.N.AGRAWAL/BINOD AGARWAL, AR S REVENUE BY : SHRI S.M.KESHKAMAT , DR DATE OF HEARING : 15 / 11 / 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 / 1 2 / 201 9 O R D E R PER C.M.GARG,JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OF THE LD. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR DATED 29.3.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND: THAT T HE FINDING OF THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIT) IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.3.2017 FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES AFRESH WITH A DIRECTION TO THE LD AO TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFTER PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND APPLIC ATION OF LAW IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF POWERS CONFERRED U/S.263(1). 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 2 | 19 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 21.3.2017 ASSESSING INCOM E OF RS.6,81,740 . SUBSEQUENTLY, HOWEVER, THE PD. COMMISSIONER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE SAID ASSESSMENT NOT BE SUBJECTED TO REVISION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : .IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PROFIT @ 3.24% ON TOTAL TURNOVER, WHICH IS TOO LOW. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE LIKE BILLS & VOUCHER AND DETAILS & DOCUMENTS OF SALE OF FLATS ET C., BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE SAME BEFORE THE AO DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS. AS THE REASON FOR CASS IS REAL ESTATE BUSINESS WITH HIGH CLOSING STOCK', THE INFORMATION ABOUT ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, ESTIMATED SALE VALU E OF THE PROJECT, SELLING PRICE OF INDIVIDUAL FLATS, PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION ETC. SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BEFORE COMPLETION OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. BUT, DUE TO NON - SUBMISSION OF THE REQUIRED DETAILS BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO ESTIMATED THE PROFIT @ 4.24% IN STEAD OF 3.24% AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. BUT, THE REASON FOR THE SELECTION OF SCRUTINY WAS '(A) REAL ESTATE BUSINESS WITH HIGH CLOSING STOCK (VERIFY WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD) AND (B) MI SMATCH IN SALES TURNOVER REPORTED IN AUDIT REPORT AND ITR .' THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET SALES OF FLATS AT RS.2,49,60,000/ - IN THE P&L ACCOUNT, BUT NO DETAILS OF THE, PARTIES / PERSONS TO WHOM SALES OF FLATS WERE MADE HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY THE) ASSESSEE. TH ERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD ABOUT SALE DEEDS. SECONDLY, AS PER BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS AMOUNTING TO RS.2,58,08,000/ - HAD BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO DID NOT VERIFY IN DETAIL ABOUT THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF WHOM ADVANCE WAS SHOWN. FURTHER, THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE INFORMATION LIKE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, THE ESTIMATED SALE VALUE OF THE PROJECT, THE ESTIMATED SALE VALUE OF THE PROJECT, SELLING PRICE OF INDIVIDUAL FLAT, PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION/ COMPL ETION ETC. T HIRDLY, THERE WAS A MISMATCH IN SALES TURNOVER REPORTED IN AUDIT REPORT AND RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . IN THE ITR THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RS.2,31,60,000. THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 3 | 19 RS.18,00,000/ - IS DEDUCTED AS LAND VALUE FRO M THE TOTAL SALES TURNOVER, AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT, THE AO HAS NOT MADE DETAILED EXAMINATION ON THIS ASPECT. 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 14.1.2019, THE ASSESSEE, INTER ALIA, SUBMITTED AS UNDER: I) AFTER DUE EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS PRODUCED AND AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE AO COMPLETED THE LIMITED SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT @ 4.24% AS AGAIN ST 3.24% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. II) THE TOTAL SALES VALUE OF LAND AMONG THE TOTAL SALES IS RS.18.00 LACS, WHICH CAN BE PROVED UPON RECEIPT OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF SALE DEEDS, WHICH WE ARE EXPECTING TO COLLECT FROM SRO WITHIN 10 DAYS. AS THE LAND BELONGS TO KISHAN LAL AGRAWAL, HUF, THE LAND VALUE IS SHOWN IN HIS RETURN AND A COPY OF COMPUTATION AND ITR V OF KISHAN LAL AGARWAL, HUF IS FURNISHED. III) SHRI KISHAN L AL AGRAWAL ONE OF THE PARTNERS STATED THAT THE TOTAL SALE VALUE OF OF 9 SALE DEEDS IS RS.18.00 LAKHS 4. LD. PR. CIT DID NOT FIND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTABLE. ACCORDING TO HIM , THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET SALES OF FLATS AT RS.2,49,60,000/ - IN P&L ACCOUNTS BUT NO DETAILS OF THE PARTIES/PERSONS TO WHOM SALES OF FLATS WERE MADE HAVE BEE N FURNISHED; THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE RECEIVED ADVANCE OF RS.2,58,08,000/ - FROM CUSTOMERS BUT THE AO HAS NOT VERIFIED IN DETAIL ABOUT THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 4 | 19 AND THERE IS MISMATCH IN SALES TURNOVER REPORTED IN AUDIT REPORT AND RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH LEADS TO DIFFERENCE OF RS.18,00,000/ - . HENCE, THE PR. CIT OBSERVED THAT THESE ASPECTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT BY CALLING RELEVANT DETAILS/DOCUMENTS. THE PR. CIT ACCORDINGLY EXERCISED HIS POWERS U/S.263 OF THE ACT AND SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.3.2017 TO THE FILE AO WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS: (I) THE AO IS REQUIRED TO VERIFY THE NET SALES OF FLATS SHOWN AT RS.2,49,60,000/ - IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BY CALLING FOR THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES / PERSONS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE RECEIVED SALE PROCEEDS OF FLATS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16. (II) THE AO IS ALSO REQUIRED TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS AND CORRECTNESS OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,58,08,000/ - CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS. (III) THE AO IS FURTHER REQUIRED TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES FR OM WHOM ADVANCE IS SHOWN TO HAVE RECEIVED AND THE INFORMATION LIKE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, THE ESTIMATED SALE VALUE OF THE PROJECT, SELLING PRICE OF INDIVIDUAL FLAT, THE PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS/ COMPLETION OF PROJECT ETC. SHOULD BE OBT AINED. (IV) THE AO IS AGAIN REQUIRED TO VERIFY THE MISMATCH IN SALES FIGURE APPEARING IN AUDIT REPORT & RETURN OF INCOME FILED AND IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING ON 31.03.2015. IN THE AUDIT REPORT & RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS.2,31,60,000/ - AS SALES TURNOVER WHEREAS AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE TOTAL SALES TURNOVER IS RS.2.49.60.000/ - . THUS, T HERE IS D IFFERENCE OF RS. 18,00.000/ - BETWEEN THE SALES FIGURE DISCLOSED IN AUDIT REPORT & RETURN OF INCOME AND THE SALES F IGURE REFLECTED IN P&L ACCOUNT WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS AS LAND ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 5 | 19 VALUE AND DEDUCTED THE SAME FROM THE TOTAL SALES TURNOVER. THE AO IS REQUIRED TO VERIFY THIS ASPECT THOROUGHLY BY EXAMINING THE RELEVANT DETAILS/DOCUMENTS 5. HENCE, T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, INTER ALIA, PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONSISTING OF 159 PAGES, WRITTEN SYNOPSIS AND CASE LAWS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. LD COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY ON TWO POINTS I.E. (I) REAL ESTATE BUSINESS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CLOSING STOCK TO VERIFY WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AND (II ) MISMATCH IN SALES TURNOVER REPORTED IN THE AUDIT REPORT AND INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED STATUTORY NOTICES U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), WHICH W AS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR NECESSARY COMPLIANCE AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICES, THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY AND ALSO SUBMITTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AND THERE WAS SUFFICIE NT AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRY BY THE AO ON BOTH THE POINTS ON WHICH LIMITED SCRUTINY WAS STARTED. LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 20.3.2017 STATING THAT THE ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 6 | 19 ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD FOR CALC ULATING THE PROFIT FROM THEIR ONGOING PROJECT AND TO CALCULATE THE PROFIT ON PERCENTAGE BASIS EVERY YEAR ON TURNOVER. LD COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE COPY OF SAID LETTER AVAILABLE AT PAGE 51 OF PAPER BOOK, IT IS DISCERNIBLE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS C LEARLY STATED THAT IT HAS ESTIMATED PROFIT @ 3.24% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER. AS MOST OF THE INVENTORY HAS NOT BEEN SOLD DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL PERIOD , IT IS LYING AT CLOSE STOCK. THEREFORE, THE WORK - IN - PROGRESS AS ON 31.3.2015 WAS ON LITTLE HIGHER SI DE. 8. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT FROM ORDER SHEET DATED 14.1.2019 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.E. ACIT, SAMBALPUR, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SENT A PROPOSAL FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT ALONWTIH DRAFT NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE ACT AND LD PCIT HAS NEVER APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE ACT DATED 14.1.2019 ON WHICH PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AND NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE AO WHO IS NOT COMPETENT TO DO SUCH EXERCISE. LD A.R. SUBMIT TED THAT PR. CIT HAS SIMPLY APPROVE D THE PROPOSAL AND DRAFT NOTICE PUTFOWARD BY THE AO PRIOR TO INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT. THUS, THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE PR. CIT BEFORE INITIATING REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT NEITHER TO THE ASSESSMENT RECORD NOR AT THE TIME OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S.263 ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 7 | 19 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, PROCEEDINGS, NOTICE AND IMPUGNED ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT IS VOID AB INITIO AND BAD IN LAW. LD COUNSEL STRENUOUSLY CONTENDED THAT LD PR. CIT HAS NOT EXAMINE D ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS AND NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE ACT , WHICH HAS BEEN INITIATED WITHOUT APPLICATION ONLY ON THE PROPOSAL OF THE AO, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS PER MANDATE OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AS PER LATEST PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND FIRST AND FOREMOST REQUIREMENT OF INITIATION OF REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IS THAT PR. CIT MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, AND IF HE CONSIDERS THA T ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A PECULIAR CASE WHEREI N PR. CIT HAS ONLY PROCEEDED TO INITIATE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S.263 ON THE PROPOSAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE MANDATE OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT RECORDS AN D OTHER RELEVANT MATERIALS. THEREFORE, THE ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 8 | 19 ENTIRE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS, IMPUGNED NOTICE AND ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW. 9. FURTHER, DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 5 /2016 DATED 14.7.2016, LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT SAID IN STRUCTION S ARE THE DIRECTION REGARDING SCOPE OF INQUIRY IN THE CASE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY WHICH WERE SELECTED THROUGH COMPUTER AIDED SCRUTINY SELECTION ( CASS ) FOR 2015 & 2016 WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE PERIOD PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16. LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AS PER TH IS INSTRUCTION OF CBDT, THE GENERAL SCOPE OF ENQUIRY IN SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE RELEVANT PARAMETERS WHICH FOR MED THE BASIS FOR SELECTING THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY AND IF THE AO, DURING THE LIMITED SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, IS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS POTENTIAL ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ABOVE A PRESCRIBED MONEY LIMIT, THEN HE HAS TO TAKE PERMISSION OF PR. CIT/CIT/PR. DIT/DIT TO CONVERT THE LIMITED SCRUTINY CASE INTO COMPLETE SCRUTINY CASE AND TO ASSUME VALID JURISDICTION TO PREPARE THE LIMITED SCRUTINY AS COMPLETE SCRUTINY, OTHERWISE, THE AO CANNOT TRAVEL BEYOND THE POINTS FOR WHICH THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR COM PLETE SCRUTINY. LD COUNSEL REITERATED THAT THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY O N TWO POINTS ONLY FOR WHICH THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 46 & 47 AND THE A O ALSO ISSUED NOTICE U /S.143(2), COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 45 OF PB. LD COUNSEL ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS EARLIER BOARD INSTRUCTION NO.20/2015 DATED 29.12.2015 ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 9 | 19 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE QUESTIONNAIRE U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE LIMITED SCRUTINY CASE SHALL REMA IN CONFINED ONLY TO THE SPECIFIC REASONS/ISSUES FOR WHICH CASE HAS BEEN PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. LD A.R. DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR VS ITO IN ITA NO.434/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2014 - 15 ORDER DATED 12.9.2 019 AND ANOTHER ORDER OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF REKHA GUPTA VS PR. CIT IN ITA NO.1007/DEL/2019 FOR A.Y. 2014 - 15 ORDER DATED 25.9.2019 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE MANDATE GIVEN TO THE AO IN THE CASE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY HAS TO BE FOLLOWED BY T HE AO ONLY AND SHALL NOT TRAVEL BEYOND THE ISSUE AND SCOPE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY AND, THEREFORE, IF THE PR. CIT ALLEGES THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY ON OTHER ISSUES, THEN, ON SUCH ISSUES, THE ALLEGATION CANNOT BE LEVELLED AGAINST THE AO. LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IF THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE PR. CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT THAT THERE IS LACK OF ENQUIRY BY THE AO ON THE ISSUES OF LIMITED SCRUTINY THEN THE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE TRIGGER ED AND INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF CBDT CIRCULARS (SUPRA), THE AO WAS RIGHT IN CONFINING HIMSELF ONLY TO THE ISSUES FOR WHICH THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY , THE AO CANNOT TRAVEL BEYOND THE ISSUES OF LIMITED SC RUTINY. 10. ON THE ISSUE OF APPLICATION OF MIND BY PR. CIT AND INQUIRY OF PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUE OF NOTICE ON THE PROPOSAL BY AO, LD COUNSEL HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ITAT KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF MANISH CHIRANIA VS PR. ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 10 | 19 CIT ORDER DATED 8,11.2019 IN ITA NO.1161/KOL/2019 FOR A.Y. 2015 - 16 AND ANOTHER ORDER OF PUNE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SPAN OVERSEAS LTD VS CIT, ORDER DATED 21.12.201 5 IN ITA NO.1223/PN/2013 FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09. LD COUNSEL FURTHER PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ITAT MUMBAI F BENCH IN THE CASE OF VINAY PRATAP THACKER VS CIT ORDER DATED 27.2.2013 IN ITA NO.2939/MUM/2011 FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 SUBMITTED THAT ON RECEIPT OF PROPOSAL FROM THE AO U/S./263 OF THE ACT, POINTING OUT SOME DISCREPANCIES/SHORTCOMINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BASED UPON AN AUDIT OBJECTION, WHICH WAS USED BY THE AO TO CONVINCE THE CIT TO INVOKE HIS JURISDICTION U/S.263, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT WITHOUT APPLYI NG HIS OWN MIND HAS TO BE SET ASIDE AND INITIATION OF REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE ANNULLED BEING BAD IN LAW. 11. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ELABORATING THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO ON BOTH THE POINTS OF LIMITED SCRUTINY , SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IS SUED NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT AND ANOTHER NOTICE U/S.142 ( 1) OF THE ACT ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE BOTH ON 18.1.2016, WHICH WERE DULY REPLIED BY THE AO BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 19.8.2016, 30.11.2016, 19.1.2017 AND 20.3.2017, WHICH REVEALS THAT TH E AO BY WAY OF ISSUING NOTICE ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE HAS MADE DETAILED ENQUIRY WHICH WERE COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. LD COUNSEL ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.3.2017 PASSED U/S./143 (3) OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO AFTER ISSUING NOTICE AND ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 11 | 19 TAKING ON RECORD THE ASSESSEES REPLY HAS DEALT THE ISSUES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REGARDDING MISMATCH IN SALES TURNOVER REPORTED IN AUDIT REPORT AND ITR HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND VERIFIED AND THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD RESULTING INTO HIGHER CLOSING STOCK. LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE POINTS HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ENQUIRED , EXAMINED, VERIFIED AND THEREAFTER THE AO HA S PASSED THE LIMITED SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ORDER AND, THEREFORE, SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE TAGGED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND IN THIS SITUATION, LD PR. CIT IS NOT ALLOWED TO INVOKE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT FOR TINKERING THE LIMITED SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ORDER. 12. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS OPERATING PARAS 10 & 11 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF MISMATCH IN SALES TURNOVER REPORTED IN THE AUDIT REP ORT AND ITR FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH AND ADJUDICATED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DESPITE THIS FACT, THE PR. CIT ALLEGES THAT THIS ASPECT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT BY CALLING RELEVANT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS. LD A.R. PRAYED THAT INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT, NOTICE AND IMPUGNED REVISIONAL ORDER SHOULD BE QUASHED. 13. REPLYING TO ABOVE, LD CIT DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD PR. CIT AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY, THE AO IS NOT ALLOWED TO ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 12 | 19 PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT SUFFICIENT ENQUIRY AND DUE DILIGENCE. LD CIT DR ALSO INVITED SOME PART OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ESPECIALLY PARA 10 & 11 AND SUBMITTED THAT NO PREJUDICE IS GOING TO BE CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE IF THE ISSUES ARE VERIFIED BY THE AO, WHICH WERE NOT PROPERLY ENQUIRED, VERIFIED AND EXAMINED BY THE AO DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. LD CIT DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS REQUIRED TO VERIFY THE NET SALES OF FLATS SHOWN IN THE PROFI T AND LOSS ACCOUNT BY COLLECTING FOR THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES/PERSONS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE RECEIVED SALE PROCEEDS OF FLATS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16. LD CIT DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS ALSO R EQUIRED TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS AND CORRECTNESS OF THE AMOUNTS CLAIM TO HAVE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS RECEIPTS FROM THE CUSTOMERS. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE. 14. PLACING REJOINDER TO ABOVE, LD A.R. REITERATING THE EARLIER SUBMISSIONS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 29.12.2015 AND 14.7.2016 (SUPRA) IN THE CASE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO CONFINE ONLY ISSUES TO LIMITED SCRUTIN Y AND QUESTIONNAIRE , ENQUIRY, INVESTIGATION, ETC WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO SUCH ISSUES ONLY. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AFTER DETAILED ENQUIRY ON BOTH THE ISSUES FOR WHICH THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY CANNOT BE AL LEGED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED BY QUASHING ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 13 | 19 THE PROCEEDINGS, NOTICE AND IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT. 15. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS, FIRST OF ALL, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT UNDISPUTEDLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16 WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY ON TWO POINTS I.E. (I) REAL ESTIMATE BUSINESS WITH HIGH CLOSING STOCK (VERIFY WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD) AND (II) MISMATCH IN SALES TURNOVER REPORTED IN AUDIT REPORT AND ITR. 16. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAI RE TO THE ASSESSEE BOTH ON 1.8.2016, WHICH WERE DULY SERVED AND COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF FILING REPLIES ON 19.8.2016, 30.11.2016, 19.1.2017 AND 20.3.2017. FROM THE REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED AT ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 50 - 51, IT IS CLE ARLY DISCERNIBLE THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE TOTAL TURNOVER HAS BEEN SHOWN A T RS.2,31,60,000/ - AND THE SAME FIGURE HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IN CL.40 OF FORM 3CD UNDER THE HEAD P&L, THE TOTAL TURNO VER HAS BEEN SHOWN AS SAME FIGURE AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISMATCH IN THE SALE TURNOVER SHOWN IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. FROM THE REPLY DATED 19.1.2017, WE CLEARLY NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED COPY OF AUDIT REPORT, COMPLETE ITR FORM & PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TO SUBSTANTIATE SALES TURNOVER FIGURE WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER DUE ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 14 | 19 DELIBERATION DONE AT PAGE 1 PARA 3 & 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER FROM PA RA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE ALSO GATHER THAT THE AO, AS A RESULT OF ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION MADE BY HIM, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AND HAS ESTIMATED PROFIT @ 3.24% OF THE TURNOVER AND MOST OF THE INVENTORY WAS N OT SOLD AND WAS IN STOCK, THE WORK - IN - PROGRESS AS ON 31.3.2015 WAS THUS ON A HIGHER SIDE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE AO HAS MADE ENQUIRY, VERIFICATION AND EXAMINATION ON BOTH THE POINTS FOR WHICH THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTIN Y AND FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD PR. CIT U/S.263 OF THE ACT, IT IS ALSO AMPLE CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION BY HIM AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY ON ANY OF THE ISSUES FOR WHICH THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMI TED SCRUTINY. 17. IN VIEW OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE REACH TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT THE AO HAS MADE SUFFICIENT, ADEQUATE AND PROPER ENQUIRY AND THEREAFTER TOOK BOTH THE ISSUES TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSION BY WAY OF ADJUDICATION AND DELIBERATION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. TH EREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE HELD AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 18. NOW, WE PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE P - LD P R. CIT PROCEEDED TO INITIATE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS, ISSUED N OTICE AND PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PROPOSAL PUTFORWARD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DRAFT NOTICE PREPARED BY THE AO ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 15 | 19 19. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED LIMITE D SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 21.3.2017 AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TERMINATED ON THE SAID DATE. FROM THE ORDER SHEET OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PLACED AT PAGE 52 OF PAPER BOOK VIDE DATED 14.1.2019, WE OBSERVE THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO . I.E. JCIT, RAGNE - 2, SAMBALPUR VIDE LETTER DATED 5.7.2018 SEND A PROPOSAL TO ACIT, SAMBALPUR FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT. FROM THE SECOND PARA OF SAID ORDER SHEET, WE NOTE THAT THE ACIT, SAMBALPUR MENTIONED THAT ON ANALYSIS OF THE F ACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PROFIT @ 3.24% ON TOTAL TURNOVER WHICH IS TOO LOW. LD ACIT FURTHER NOTED TH A T THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE LIKE BILLS & VOUC HERS AND DETAILS & DOCUMENTS OF SALE OF FLATS ETC BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE SAME BEFORE THE AO DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. THE ACIT FURTHER STATED THAT AS THE REASON FOR CASS IS REAL ESTATE BUSINESS WITH HIGH CLOSING STOCK, THE INFORMATION ABOUT ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, ESTIMATED SALE VALUE OF THE PROJECT, SELLING PRICE OF INDIVIDUAL FLATS, PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION ETC SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BEFORE COMPLETION OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. BUT DUE TO NON - SUBMISSION OF THE R EQUIRED DETAILS BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO ESTIMATED NET PROFIT @ 4.24% INSTEAD OF 3.24% AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. IN PARA 3.4 OF THE SAID NOTE SHEET, LD ACIT NOTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, AS PROPOSED BY THE LD JCIT, ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 16 | 19 RANGE - 2, SAMBALPUR, REVISION U/S.263 MAY BE INITIATED BEFORE 31.3.2019. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE LD ACIT SENT DRAFT NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE ACT TO PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR. THE LD. PR. CIT HAS APPROVED THE PROPOSAL GIVEN BY LD ACIT ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 14.1.2019 AND THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THE VERY SAME DATE TO THE ASSESSEE SHOW CAUSING FOR INITIATION OF REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT. FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THIS CONTENTION, WE FIND IT NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: 263. (1) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR 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 OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. 20. FROM THE SPIRIT AND MANDATE OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH PRO VIDES REVISIONAL POWERS TO PR. CIT/CIT IN THE CASE S WHERE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR ANY OTHER PROCEEDING S UNDER THIS ACT, PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE . THIS SECTION IS ITSELF A MINI CODE WHEREIN PROCEEDI NGS FOR REVISION HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED AND AS PER THIS PROVISION, THE FIRST AND FOREMOST REQUIREMENT FOR INVOKING THE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS IS THAT THE LD. PR. CIT/CIT SHALL CALL AND EXAMINE THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, WHICH INCLUDE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND IF AFTER APPLYING HIS MIND TO SUCH RECORD O ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 17 | 19 PROCEEDINGS, HE CONSIDER THAT ANY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, THEN, HE MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH ENQUIRY, HE DEEMS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON, AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, WHICH INCLUDES AN ORDER OF ENHANCEMENT OR MODIFICATION ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT WIT H A DIRECTION TO PASS FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, FROM THE ORDER SHEET DATED 14.1.2019, IT IS VIVID THAT THE JCIT, RANGE - 2, SAMBALPUR SENT A PROPOSAL FOR INITIATION OF REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT TO ACIT, SAMBALPUR AND LD AC IT, SAMBALPUR AFTER MAKING OBSERVATION REGARDING REQUIREMENT OF EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN ISSUES FORWARDED THE PROPOSAL TO LD. PCIT ALONGWITH DRAFT NOTICE U/S.263 WHICH WAS APPROVED BY LD PCIT IN A MANNER IN WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ARE PROVED. HENCE, WE ARE COMPELLED TO HOLD THAT THE INITIATION OF REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS , ISSUE OF NOTICE HAS BEEN DONE ON THE PROPOSAL OF JCIT, RANGE - 2, SAMBALPUR THROUGH ACIT, SAMBALPUR AND MANDATE OF PROCEDURE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED AND ON THIS COUNT, THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT ALSO BECOME UNSUSTAINABLE. WHILE TAKING THIS VIEW, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF MANISH CHIRANIA ORDER OF PUNE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SPAN OVERSEAS LTD AND ORDER ITAT MUMBAI F BENCH IN THE CASE OF VINAY PRATAP THACKER (SUPRA). 21. ON THE ABOVE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE REACH TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSION ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 18 | 19 THAT THE LD JCIT RANGE - 2, SAMBALPUR PREPARED A PROPOSAL FOR REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 AND LD ACIT, SAMBALPUR IN THE ORDER SHEET DATED 14.1.2019 CREATED AN EXPLANATION FROM THE AO THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE ASKED THE ASSESSEE PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELATED TO ITS BUSINESS LIKE BILLS AND VOUCHERS, DETAILS OF DOCUMENTS OF SALE OF FLATS BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SU BMIT THE SAME BEFORE THE AO DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, HE ALLEGED THAT IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS WITH HIGH CLOSING STOCK, THE INFORMATION ABOUT ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, ESTIMATED SALE VALUE OF THE PROJECT, SELLING PRICE OF INDIVIDUAL FLATS, PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION ETC SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BEFORE COMPLETION OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT BUT THE LD ACIT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT IT WAS A CASE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY ONLY ON TWO POINTS AND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.3.2017, IT IS CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE THAT THE AO HAS MADE ENQUIRY AND DELIBERATION ON BOTH THE POINTS AND AS PER CBDT CIRCULARS (SUPRA), HE IS NOT ALLOWED TO TRAVEL BEYOND THE AMBIT OF THE POINTS FOR WHICH, CASE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY. THEREFORE, THE LD A CIT, WHO WAS NOT HAVING REVISIONAL POWER U/S.263 WRONGLY ALLEGED THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ENQUIRY ON CERTAIN POINTS. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY LD PCIT IN PARAS 10 & 11 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND THE AO HAS MADE SUFFICIENT ENQUIRIES, INVESTIGATIONS AND EXAMINATION ON BOTH THE POINTS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS, ITA NO.164/CTK/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 P A G E 19 | 19 ISSUE OF NOTICE AND IMPUGNED ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT IS QUASHED. 22. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18 / 1 2 /201 9 . S D/ - SD/ - (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) ( CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 18 / 1 2 /20 1 9 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER SR . PVT. S ECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : M/S. AAKASH GANGA PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS, AT: HALDIPALI, PO/DIST: BARGARH. 2. THE RESPONDENT. PR. CIT, SAMBALPU 3 . DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 4 . GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//