Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1727/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7747 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S. SANKARALINGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: WAY OF AN APPEAL BEFORE
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Revision of order; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Unabsorbed depreciation; Change of opinion; Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 260A; 143(2); 43; 13; 22

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , ' # . $ & ' BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-98, 1997-98 & 2003-04 M/S. TAMIL NADU CEMENTS CORPORATION LIMITED, LLA BUILDING 735, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002. [PAN: AABCT 1819J] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE III(1), NO.121, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 034. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE -.) * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SANKARALINGAM, CIT SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT * /DATE OF HEARING : 09.02.2017 * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.02.2017 /O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE APPEALS ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -III, CHENNAI VIDE DIFFEREN T PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NOS. 1951/2013-14 DATED 19.03.2014, ITA NO. 1954/CIT(A)- III/2013-14 DATED 26.09.2014 & ITA NO. 1266/2013-14 DATED 18.12.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS :-2-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 1997-98, 1997-98 & 2003-04 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED T O AS LD. AO) U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (HEREIN AFTER REFE RRED TO AS THE ACT). ALL THE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 1727/MDS/2014 ASST YEAR 1997-98 2. THIS IS AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD AO PURSUANT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD AO U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 28.12.2007, THE LD AO SOUGHT TO MAKE DETERMINATION OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF UNABSORB ED DEPRECIATION AND UNABSORBED INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE. THE BRIEF FACTS O F THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING OF GOVERNME NT OF TAMIL NADU ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF CEMENT. THE ASSESSEE SUPPLIES CEMENT TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF DEVELO PMENT SCHEMES / WORKS AS ANNOUNCED BY THE CENTRAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT SC HEMES. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 THE COMPANY FILED THE RETUR N OF INCOME ON 01.12.1997 ADMITTING AN INCOME OF RS. 5,16,30,292/-U/S. 115JA. THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) WAS COMPLETED AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 13 .03.2000 WITH THE ASSESSED INCOME OF RS. 5,45,22,080/- THE CASE WAS RE-OPENED U/S. 147 DUE TO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME BECAUSE OF EXCESS ALLOWANCE OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. TH E ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 ON 31.02.2005 ADMITTING A TO TAL INCOME OF RS. 11,47,36,500/- U/S. 115JA AND A DEMAND OF RS. 4,93, 36,695/- WAS RAISED. AS PER :-3-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 THIS ORDER THE TOTAL INCOME U/S. 115JA WAS RS. 6,07 ,35,200/- AND AS PER COMPUTATION IT WAS RS. 7,99,83,130/-. HENCE TOTAL INCOME WAS ARRIVED AT RS. 7,99,83,130/- AND AN ADDITIONAL DEMAND OF RS. 1,22, 76,805/- WAS RAISED. PURSUANT TO THE APPELLATE ORDERS, THE LD AO WAS DIR ECTED TO EXAMINE THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION, BUSINESS LOSS AND INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT. THE LD AO AFTER GOING THROUGH THE CHART PREPARED FOR SET O FF OF LOSSES AND THE LOSSES ADJUSTED IN THE EARLIER ORDERS , ARRIVED AT THE FIG URE OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS AVAILABLE FOR SET OFF AT RS. 2,11,44,606/-. TH E ASSESSEE PLEADED BEFORE THE LD AO THAT UNABSORBED INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE S ET OFF ON PRIORITY BASIS AS THE MAXIMUM PERIOD FOR SET OFF OF THE SAME IS ONLY 8 YEARS , WHEREAS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION COULD BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF F OR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME. THE LD AO HOWEVER, BY PLACING RELIANCE ON CERTAIN D ECISIONS PREPARED THE ORDER OF SET OFF OF VARIOUS LOSSES AND HELD THAT THE UNAB SORBED DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE FIRST SET OFF AS PER THE SAID ORDER AND ONLY THEN T HE UNABSORBED INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE COULD BE ADJUSTED. 2.1. MEANWHILE, THE LD CIT-I, CHENNAI SOUGHT TO RE VISE THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT AND PASSED AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT DATED 30.3.2 007 DIRECTING THE LD AO TO RECOMPUTED THE INCOME AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD AND AFTER EXAMINING HIS CLAIM. THE LD CIT ALSO DIRECTED TH E LD AO TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO CARRY FORWARD INVESTM ENT ALLOWANCE BEYOND 8 YEARS IN TERMS OF SECTION 34A OF THE ACT AND REVISE THE ASSESSMENT QUANTIFYING :-4-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION ACCORDI NGLY. ACCORDINGLY A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THEIR CASE WITH THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT H AD BEEN ALREADY DECLARED AS A SICK COMPANY BY BOARD FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION (BIFR) AND THAT THEY HAD FOLLOWED A PARTICULAR METHOD OF SET O FF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES IN THE PAST AND REQUESTED THE LD AO TO FOLLOW THE SAME . THE LD AO HOWEVER DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO OBTAIN AN ORDER FROM BIFR IN THIS REGARD DIRECTING THE REVENUE TO HAVE THE ORDER OF SET OFF OF LOSSES SO T HAT WHICH WOULD BIND THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 263 ORDER ALSO COULD BE COMPLETED AFTER GIVING PROPER EFFECT TO SET OFF OF UNABSORBED INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION YEAR ON YEAR. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OBTAIN ANY ORDER FROM BIFR IN THIS REGARD TILL THE COMPLETION OF THIS ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE FILED A SUBMISSION DATED 20.12.2007 ST ATING THAT IT HAD REVISED THE CALCULATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SET OFF OF UNABSORB ED INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. BUT THE LD AO FOUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND ACCOR DINGLY PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 263 ORDER BY RED UCING THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FIGURE OF RS. 2,11,44,606/- AS ORIGINA LLY ARRIVED AND WORKED OUT BY HIM AS STATED SUPRA. IN THIS ORDER, THE LD AO DETE RMINED THE INCOME AT RS. 16,61,24,220/- VIDE ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 28.12.2007 UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. :-5-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 2.2. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THIS ORDER BEFORE THE LD CITA WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD AO BY MAKING THE FOL LOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE SAID ORDER OF THE AO, THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN 8 GROUNDS. ALL OF WHICH PERTAIN TO THE ACTIO N OF THE AO IN FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT ORDER U/S. 263. AT GROUND NO. 2 IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE APPELLANT HAS STATED AS UNDER:- 'THE AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE CIT U/S. 263 HAS NOT BECOME FINAL AND THE SAME IS PENDING BE FORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.' 7. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS ORDER OF THE AO GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX U/S. 263. AS SEEN FROM THE SAME, THIS ORDER FOLLOWS THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT U/S. 263. ON MERITS, THE APPELLANT'S AR HAS STATED THAT MATTER H AS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE ITAT AND THE APPELLANT IS BEFORE THE HON'BL E HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN FURTHER APPEAL. AS ON DATE, THE ORDER OF THE HO N'BLE ITAT IS FINAL 8. THE AO HAS PASSED THE ORDER FOLLOWING THE DIRECT IONS OF THE CIT U/S. 263. SINCE AO HAS FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINE D THEREIN AND THE SAID ORDER U/S. 263 HAS ALSO BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, THERE IS NO CASE FOR INTERFERENCE BY THE UNDERSIGNED IN THE ORDER OF THE AO. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.' 2.3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 2.3.1 THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) DATED 19.3.2014 CONFIRMING ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143 (3 ) R.W.S. 263 OF THE :-6-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 INCOME TAX ACT IS ERRONEOUS, ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO L AW AND FACTS AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 2.3.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERR ED IN STATING THAT THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU NAL DATED 30.03.2012 IN ITA NO.1544/MDS/2007 HAS BECOME FINAL IN SO FAR AS THE SAME IS PENDING IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH CO URT IN T.C.(A) NO.148 OF 2012. IN FACT THE FACTUM OF ADMISSION OF THE APP EAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT ON 4.6.2012 WAS SPECIFICALLY INFORMED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHO OUGHT TO HAVE AWAITED THE RESULT THEREOF. 2.3.3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUG HT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE UNAB SORBED DEPRECIATION AND INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRO VISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS SU PPORTED BY THE JUDGMENTS OF VARIOUS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AND TRIBUN ALS. 2.3.4 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 19.3.2014 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DETAILED GROUNDS ON THE MERITS OF THE MATTER AN D NO OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD. THE DETAI LED GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE HE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE READ AS PART AND PARCEL OF THIS APPEAL. 2.3.5 ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE RAISED AT THE TI ME OF PERSONAL HEARING. 2.4. THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE LD CITA HAD ACTUALLY MISUNDERSTOOD THE FACT THAT THE LD CIT U/S 263 ORDER HAD MERELY DIRECTED THE LD AO TO DETERMINE THE INCOME AS PER THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. ACTUALLY THE LD CIT HAD ONLY SET ASIDE THAT ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS ES OF UNABSORBED INVESTMENT :-7-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 ALLOWANCE AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WHICH WOULD H AVE BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL INCOME YEAR ON YEAR. THE LD AR FAIRLY STATED THAT THE APPEAL AGAINST THE SECTION 263 ORDER OF LD CIT BEFO RE THIS TRIBUNAL WAS DISMISSED AND AN APPEAL AGAINST THAT IS PENDING BEFORE THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. HE ARGUED THAT FROM THE LD CITA IN THE IMPUGNED APP ELLATE ORDER HAD ONLY ADJUDICATED GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT THE OTHER GROUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, HE PRAYED FOR SETTING ASIDE OF THIS AP PEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD CITA WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE FINDING ON THE OTHER GROUN DS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD DR ARGUED THAT THE ORDER OF PRIORITY OF SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES HAD BEEN DULY CONSIDE RED BY THE LD AO IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE LD AO HAD FOLLOWED THE DIREC TIONS OF THE LD CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN FULL. ACCORDINGLY HE PLACED RELIANC E ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 2.5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED 8 GROUNDS BEFORE THE LD CITA , BUT THE LD CITA HAD ADJUDICATED ONLY GROUND 2 IN HIS ORDER AND HAD NOT GIVEN HIS FINDING ON THE OTHER GROUNDS, WHICH ARE VERY CRUCIAL TO THE DETERMINATIO N OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DEEM IT FIT AND APPROPR IATE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, TO SET ASIDE THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD CITA, TO DECIDE THE OTHER GROUNDS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. MEANWHILE, IN CASE IF ANY DIRECTIONS WERE GIVEN BY BIFR WITH REGARD TO DETERMINATION OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AT LIBERTY TO FILE THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SAME BEFORE THE :-8-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 LD CITA. AS THE ISSUE RELATES TO ASST YEAR 1997-98 , BEING VERY OLD, WE DEEM IT FIT AND APPROPRIATE TO SET A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME IN THI S REGARD FOR DISPOSAL OF THIS APPEAL. HENCE THE LD CITA IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE TH IS APPEAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO CO- OPERATE WITH THE EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THIS APPEA L BEFORE THE LD CITA. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO. 1727/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASST YEAR 1997-98 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. ITA NO. 3118/MDS/2014 ASST YEAR 1997-98 4. THIS IS AN APPEAL ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF T HE LD CITA IN ITA NO. 1954/CIT(A)-III/2013-14 DATED 26.9.2014 PASSED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD AO U/S 154 OF THE ACT DATED 16.10.2008 FOR THE ASST YE AR 1997-98. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 28.12.2007 PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 16,61,24,220/-. THIS ORDE R WAS LATER REVISED VIDE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT DATED 18.1.2008 WHICH THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED THAT IT WAS NEVER SERVED ON IT AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS AFFORDED TO IT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT EVEN THE IMPUGNED ORDER U /S 154 OF THE ACT DATED 16.10.2008 WAS PASSED BY THE LD AO WITHOUT EVEN ISS UING THE NOTICE U/S 154 OF THE ACT AND WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE ON THIS CO UNT. HOWEVER, IN THIS SECTION :-9-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 154 ORDER DATED 16.10.2008, THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DE TERMINED AT THE SAME FIGURE OF RS. 16,61,24,220/- BUT BY RAISING AN ADDITIONAL DEMAND FOR RS. 5,59,30,100/- ON THE ASSESSEE. THIS WAS AGITATED BY THE ASSESS EE BY WAY OF AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CITA WHO HELD THAT SINCE THE SECTION 263 ORD ER PASSED BY THE LD CIT WAS UPHELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ONLY GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN THE SECTION 263 ORDER OF LD CIT AND HE NCE THERE WAS NO FAULT IN THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD AO. BY THESE OBSERVATIONS, HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 4.1 THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) DATED 26.09.2014 CONFIRMING ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 154 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT IS ERRONEOUS, ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS AN D LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED IN FULL. THIS IMPUGNED ORDER IS BARRED BY LIMITATION A S WELL. 4.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT NOTING THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATE D 30.03.2012 IN ITA NO.1544/MDS/2007 IS PENDING IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HO N'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN T.C.(A) NO.148 OF 2012 AND HAS BEEN ADMITT ED BY THE HIGH COURT ON 4.6.2012. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) THUS OUGHT TO HAVE AWAITED THE RESULT THEREOF. 4.3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED UNABSORB ED DEPRECIATION AND INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISI ONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS SUPPOR TED BY THE JUDGMENTS OF VARIOUS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AND TRIBUNALS. :-10-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 4.4 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 26.09.2014 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLAN T WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DETAILED GROUNDS ON THE MERITS OF THE MATTER. T HE DETAILED GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEF ORE THE HIGH COURT IN APPEAL U/S 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT MAY BE READ A S PART AND PARCEL OF THIS APPEAL. 4.5 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN STATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY ERRORS IN THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE ADVANCED THAT H AVE NOT BEEN ADVERTED TO 4.6 ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF PERSONAL HEARING. 5. THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THERE WERE TWO SECTION 15 4 ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD AO I.E ONE ON 18.1.2008 AND ANOTHER ON 16.10.2008. HE ARGUED THAT ORDER DATED 18.1.2008 WAS NEVER SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT IN THE IMPUGNED PROC EEDINGS, NO NOTICE U/S 154 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSES SEE WAS NEVER HEARD IN THE SECTION 154 PROCEEDINGS DATED 16.10.2008 ESPECIALLY WHEN AN ADDITIONAL DEMAND OF RS. 5,59,30,100/- WAS RAISED ON THE ASSESSEE EVE N THOUGH THE TOTAL INCOME HAD REMAINED UNDISTURBED. HE ARGUED THAT THE PRINC IPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN GROSSLY VIOLATED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD AND ACCORDINGLY PRAYED FOR QUASHING OF THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS THEREON. IN RE SPONSE TO THIS, THE LD DR STATED THAT THE DEMAND HAD ACTUALLY REDUCED IN THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS AND :-11-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 HENCE THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE LD AO TO ISSUE NOTIC E U/S 154 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE TOTAL INCOME IS NOT DISTURBED BY TH E LD AO. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION HEREINABOVE IN ITA NO. 1727/MDS/2014 FOR THE VERY SAME ASST YEAR 1997-98, WHEREIN, WE HAD SE T ASIDE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD CITA TO GIVE INDEPENDENT FINDINGS ON VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO CORRECT DETERMINATION OF TO TAL INCOME INCLUDING THE SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED INVESTMENT ALLOWA NCE AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION , WE FEEL THAT THE ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BECOMES ACADEMIC AND WOULD NOT SERVE ANY FRUITFUL P URPOSE EITHER TO THE ASSESSEE OR TO THE REVENUE. SINCE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE OPEN BEFORE THE LD CITA WITH REGARD TO CORRECT DETERMINATION OF TOTAL INCOM E, THE GRIEVANCES, IF ANY, OF THE ASSESSEE COULD BE ADDRESSED IN THAT FORUM ITSEL F. HENCE WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL AS IN FRUCTUOUS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO. 3118/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASST YEAR 1997-98 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ITA NO. 1728/MDS/2014 ASST YEAR 2003-04 8. THIS IS AN APPEAL ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF T HE LD CITA IN ITA NO. 1266/2013-14 DATED 18.12.2013 PASSED AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD AO U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT DATED 7.8.2008 FOR THE ASST Y EAR 2003-04. AT THE OUTSET, WE :-12-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 FIND THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 37 DAYS IN FILING TH E APPEAL BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT STAT ING THAT THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY WAS UNWELL AND HAD REPORTED TO DUTY ONLY IN FIRST WEEK OF JUNE 2014 AND IMMEDIATELY ON JOINING THE DUTY, HE HAD SIGNED THE APPEAL PAPERS AND FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. HENCE HE PRAYED FOR CONDONAT ION OF THE DELAY WHICH WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD DR OBJECTED TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM REASONABLE CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME BEFORE US AND ACCORDINGLY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES, DEEM IT FIT, TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION. 9. THE PRIMARY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE REASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE AC T IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES COULD BE CONSTRUED AS ONE FRAMED IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW. 10. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE RETU RN OF INCOME FOR THE ASST YEAR 2003-04 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25.11.2003 CLA IMING LOSS OF RS. 1,04,77,200/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH U/S 143(1 ) OF THE ACT ON 9.12.2003. LATER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE A CT ON 8.3.2006 DETERMINING THE TOTAL LOSS AT RS. 1,03,30,348/-. THIS WAS LAT ER SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 24.3.2008. IN THE SAID REASSESSMENT , ADDITIONS TOWARDS PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DE BTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,00,56,447/- AND PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL AD VANCES AMOUNTING TO RS. :-13-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 12,11,148/- WERE MADE AND LOSS WAS CONVERTED INTO I NCOME AT RS. 9,37,250/-. THE ASSESSEE QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMEN T ON LAW AND ALSO ON MERITS BEFORE THE LD CITA. THE LD CITA UPHELD THE ORDER O F THE LD AO. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GR OUNDS :- 10.1 THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) DATED 18.12.2013 IS ERRONEOUS AND PERVERSE BOTH IN LAW AN D ON FACTS. 10.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGH T TO HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THE OBJ ECTIONS RAISED BY ASSESSEE BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER AND THUS THE IM PUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IN TERMS OF SEC.143(3) R.W.S 147 D ATED 07.08.2003 IS INHERENTLY DEFECTIVE AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCI PLES LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE IN GKN DRIVESHAFT (INDIA) LTD VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER & OTHERS, (259 ITR 19 (SC)). 10.3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGH T TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AMOUNT TO A REVI EW AND A CHANGE OF OPINION ON THE MATERIAL THAT WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THUS, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE RE-ASSESSMENT IS WHOLLY WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF S.147 AND S.148. 10.4 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGH T TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE NO OPPORTUNITIES WERE AFFORDED TO THE APPE LLANT PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AND THUS VITIATES THE PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 10.5 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE PROVISIONS CREATED ON ACCOUNT OF BAD AND DOUBTF UL DEBTS OF AN AMOUNT OF PROPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHILE DISPUTI NG THE SAME, IN ANY EVENT, THIS RS.1,00,56,447/- AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.12 , 11,148/- HAD BEEN :-14-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 DULY NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE O F ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND ONLY THEREAFTER ALLOWED. THUS, THE REASSESSMENT IS MERELY A CHANGE OF OPINION AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO HAVE BEEN QUASHED . 10.6 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRS IN CONFIRMING THE RE-ASSESSMENT MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT THE APPELLAN T HAS AGREED FOR THE ADDITION CANNOT BE THE SOLE BASIS OF CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE. THE VERY FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE ADD ITION MADE BY WAY OF APPEAL INDICATES NON- ACCEPTANCE OF THE ADDITION AN D THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED ON MERITS, ON THE ASPECT OF J URISDICTION AS WELL AS MERITS. 10.7 THE JUDGMENTS RELIED ON BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE TOTALLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IGNORED THE RATIONALE OF VARIO US JUDGMENTS CITED THAT SUPPORT THE STAND OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN. 10.8 THE DETAILED GROUNDS RAISED ON THE MERITS OF THE DISALLOWANCES AND LEVY OF INTEREST MAY BE READ AS PART AND PARCEL HER EOF. 10.9 ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE RAISED AT THE TI ME OF PERSONAL HEARING. 11. THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE REASSESSMENT NOTICE WAS ISSUED WITHIN A PERIOD OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HENCE THE SANCTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE FOR REOPENING SHOULD BE GIVEN B Y A PERSON WHO IS IN THE RANK OF JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. IN THE INSTAN T CASE, THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY GETTING THE SANCTION FROM THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX WHICH IS IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151(2) OF THE ACT. HENCE THE :-15-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 REASSESSMENT DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AS VOID ABINITI O. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DEC ISIONS :- CIT VS SPLS SIDDHARTHA LTD REPORTED IN 345 ITR 22 3 (DEL) GHANSHYAM K. KHABRANI VS ACIT REPORTED IN 346 ITR 443 (BOM) 12. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD DR SOUGHT TIME TO VERIFY THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WITH REGARD TO THE FACTUM OF SANCTION FOR I SSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FROM 7.2 .2017 TO 9.2.2017. ON 9.2.2017, THE LD DR ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS CONFIRMED THAT THE SANCTION U/S 151 OF THE ACT WAS GIVEN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX IN THE INSTANT CASE, BUT ARGUED THAT THE SANCTION BY A HIGHER AUTHORITY SHOULD NOT ACT AS A DETERRENT FOR THE PROCEEDINGS AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WOULD NOT STAND VITIATED ON THAT COUNT. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS PRIMARY ISSUE OF SANCTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE IN TERMS OF S ECTION 151 OF THE ACT BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL AS IT GOES INTO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND ALSO GETS INTO THE BASIC DOCTRINE OF LEG ALLY VALID ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151 OF THE ACT ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN:- [ SANCTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE 151. (1) NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE :-16-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS THE PRINCIPAL CHIE F COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIO NER IS SATISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. (2) IN A CASE OTHER THAN A CASE FALLING UNDER SUB-S ECTION (1), NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF JOINT COMMISSIONER, UNLESS THE JOINT CO MMISSIONER IS SATISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. (3) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION (1) AND SUB-SEC TION (2), THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSIONER OR THE JOINT COMMI SSIONER, AS THE CASE MAY BE, BEING SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT FITNESS OF A CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UND ER SECTION 148 , NEED NOT ISSUE SUCH NOTICE HIMSELF.] WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE , ADMITTEDLY, THE REOPENING WAS DONE WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E ON OR BEFORE 31.3.2008. THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 24.3.20 08. HENCE THE SAID NOTICE NEEDS TO BE ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 151(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH MANDATES THAT THE SAME COULD BE ISSUED AFTER OBTAINING THE SATISFACTION OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BASED ON THE R EASONS RECORDED BY THE LD AO. IN VIEW OF THE CONFIRMATION GIVEN BY THE LD DR BEFORE US PURPORTEDLY AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS, WE HOLD THAT THE REASS ESSMENT HAD NOT BEEN VALIDLY INITATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 151(2) OF THE A CT. WE FIND THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD AR ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF :-17-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 GHANSHYAM K. KHABRANI VS ACIT REPORTED IN 346 ITR 4 43 (BOM) IS VERY WELL FOUNDED, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT :- 6. THE SECOND GROUND UPON WHICH THE REOPENING IS SOUG HT TO BE CHALLENGED IS THAT THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF ELECTION 151(2 ) HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED. SECTION 151 REQUIRES A SANCTION TO BE TAKEN FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IN CERTAIN CASES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AN ASSESSMENT HAD NOT BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OR SECTION 147 F OR A.Y. 2004-05. HENCE, UNDER SUB-SECTION 2 OF SECTION 151, NO NOTICE CAN B E ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER WHO IS BELOW THE RANK O F JOINT COMMISSIONER AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE REL EVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE IS SUE OF SUCH NOTICE. THE EXPRESSION 'JOINT COMMISSIONER' IS DEFINED IN SECTI ON 2(28C) TO MEAN A PERSON APPOINTED TO BE A JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX OR AN ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 117(1). IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL ON 28 MARCH 2011 TO THE CIT(1) THANE THROU GH THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RANGE (1) THANE. ON 28 M ARCH 2011, THE ADDITIONAL CIT FORWARDED THE PROPOSAL TO THE CIT AN D AFTER RECORDING A GIST OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED T HAT : 'AS REQUESTED BY THE A.O. NECESSARY APPROVAL FOR IS SUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED IN CASE, IF APPROVED.' ON THIS A COMMUNICATION WAS ISSUED ON 29 MARCH 2011 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(1) CONVEYING APPROVAL TO THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE IS MERIT IN THE CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 151(2) COULD HAVE ONLY B EEN FULFILLED BY THE SATISFACTION OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. SECTION 151(2) MANDA TES THAT THE SATISFACTION HAS TO BE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER. THAT EXPRESSIO N HAS A DISTINCT MEANING :-18-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 BY VIRTUE OF THE DEFINITION INFECTION 2(28C). THE C OMMISSIONER-OF INCOME TAX IS NOT A JOINT COMMISSIONER WITHIN THE MEANING OF S ECTION 2(28C). IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FORWARDED THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPROVAL WHICH HAS BEEN GRANTED IS NOT BY THE A DDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BUT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . 'THERE IS NO STATUTORY PROVISION HEREUNDER WHICH A POWER TO BE E XERCISED BY AN OFFICER CAN BE EXERCISED BY A SUPERIOR OFFICER. WHEN THE ST ATUTE MANDATES THE SATISFACTION OF A PARTICULAR FUNCTIONARY FOR THE EX ERCISE OF A POWER, THE SATISFACTION MUST BE OF THAT AUTHORITY. WHERE A STA TUTE REQUIRES SOMETHING TO BE DONE IN A PARTICULAR MANNER, IT HAS TO BE DONE I N THAT MANNER. IN A SIMILAR SITUATION THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V. SPL'S SIDD HARTHA LTD. [2012] 204 TAXMAN 115 / 17 TAXMANN.COM 138 (DELHI) HELD THAT POWERS WHICH ARE CONFERRED UPON A PARTICULAR AUTHORITY HAVE TO BE EX ERCISED BY THAT AUTHORITY AND THE SATISFACTION WHICH THE STATUTE MANDATES OF A DISTINCT AUTHORITY CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE SATISFACTION OF ANOTHER. WE A RE IN RESPECTFUL AGREEMENT WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT. 13.1. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISI ON, WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS INHERENTLY DEFECTIVE AND HENCE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REASSESSMENT FRAMED PUR SUANT TO SUCH ILLEGAL NOTICE DESERVE TO BE QUASHED. SINCE THE REASSESSMENT IS Q UASHED ON PRELIMINARY GROUND OF INVALID ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION, WE RE FRAIN TO GIVE OUR OPINION ON THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ADJUDICATION OF THE SAME WOULD ONLY BE ACADEMIC IN NATURE. :-19-: I.T.A. NOS. 1727, 3118 & 1728/MDS/2014 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1728/MDS/2014 IS ALLOWED. 15. TO SUM UP, THE DECISION OF THE VARIOUS APPEALS ARE AS BELOW:- ITA NO. 1727/MDS/2014 FOR ASST YEAR 1997-98 IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, ITA NO. 3118/MDS/2014 FOR ASST YEAR 1997-98 IS DISM ISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS, ITA NO. 1728/MDS/2014 FOR ASST YEAR 2003-04 IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRU ARY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - ( ' # . $ ) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - ( ) (M. BALAGANESH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 3 /DATED: 16TH FEBRUARY, 2017 JPV * -&45 65 /COPY TO: 1. ) APPELLANT 2. -.) /RESPONDENT 3. 7 ( )/CIT(A) 4. 7 /CIT 5. 5 -&& /DR 6. 9 /GF