JAI HIND CO-OP HSG. SOC LTD., MUMBAI V. PR. CIT-25, MUMBAI

ITA 1762/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4330 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATAP SINGHLD
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH R. SHAHLD
• Keywords: Revision of order; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Set aside
• Section: 263; 143(3); 143(2)

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.1762 & 1763/MUM/2020 JAI HIND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 & 2016-17 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MODE) ./ I.T.A. NO.1763/MUM/2020 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) & ./ I.T.A. NO.1762/MUM/2020 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17) JAI HIND CO - OPERATIVE HOU SING SOCIETY LTD. PLOT NO.51, N.S.ROAD NO.11 JVPD SCHEME, VILE PARLE(W) MUMBAI-400 049 / VS. ACIT - 25 (2) 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO.241 KAUTILYA BHAVAN, G-BLOCK BKC, BANDRA(E) MUMBAI-400 051 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAAAJ-2782-R ( /APPELLANT ) : ( !' / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJESH R. SHAH-LD. AR REVENUE BY : SHRI PRATAP SINGH-LD.CIT DR / DATE OF HEARING : 10/02/2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/02/2021 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEALS BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEA RS [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2015-16 & 2016-17 CONTES T VALIDITY OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 AS EXERCISED BY LD. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-25, MUMBAI [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS PR. CIT] VIDE SEPARATE ORDERS BOTH DATED 03/03/2020. SINCE FACTS LEADING TO ITA NOS.1762 & 1763/MUM/2020 JAI HIND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 & 2016-17 2 INVOCATION OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 STEM FROM IDENTI CAL SET OF FACTS, IT IS ADMITTED POSITION THAT ADJUDICATION IN ANY YEAR SHALL EQUALLY APPLY TO OTHER YEAR ALSO. 2. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION, FACTS FROM AY 2 015-16 HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO BY US. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE READ AS UNDER: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE PRINCIPAL CIT -25, MUMBAI, ERRED IN PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT THOUGH PROVISIONS OF S.263 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE PRINCIPAL CIT -25, MUMBAI HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PR EJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIE D HIS MIND AND PASSED ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE FULL FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. THE PRINCIPAL CIT- 25, MUMBAI HAS NO JURISDICTION TO PASS AN ORDER ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF OPINION ONLY. 3. THE PRINCIPAL CIT-25, MUMBAI, FAILED TO APPRECI ATE THAT: A) PRINCIPAL CIT - 25 HAS NO POWER TO REVISE ORDER MERELY BECAUSE PRINCIPAL CIT IS OF OTHER VIEW OR IN HIS OPINION OR DER PASSED HAS DIFFERENT VIEW THAN THAT OF AO. B) PRINCIPAL CIT - 25 CANNOT SET ASIDE ORDER TO CAR RY OUT AN ENQUIRY/VERIFICATION, HE HAS TO DECIDE WHAT IS TO B E DONE. THE PRINCIPAL CIT CANNOT SET ASIDE THE CASE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FURTHER ENQUIRIES OR TO DECIDE WHETHER THE FINDINGS RECORDED ARE ERRONEOUS WITHOUT A FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND HOW THAT IS SO. A MERE SETTI NG ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPLIES THAT THE CIT HAS NOT DECIDED WHETHE R THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE TH E ASPECT WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. C) PRINCIPAL CIT - 7 ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING T HE REPLY FILED IN DETAILED ALONG WITH EVIDENCES WHICH WERE ON RECORD AND ALSO NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY ONLY TO V ERIFY THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE PRINCIPAL CIT - 25 ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER THOUGH THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER AS THE AO HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) AF TER VERIFICATION AND CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM AND THEREFORE ORDER IS NOT AN ERRONEOUS ORDER AND HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE THE PRINCIPAL CIT - 2 5 ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE DEDUCTION IS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE UNDER SEC TION 80(2)(D) IN RESPECT OF INTEREST RECEIVED FROM COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. ITA NOS.1762 & 1763/MUM/2020 JAI HIND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 & 2016-17 3 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AN D PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT S HAVE DULY BEEN DELIBERATED UPON. THE PRIME ARGUMENT OF LD. AR REVO LVE AROUND THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF S.263 JURISDICTION WAS DULY CONSIDERED BY LD. AO DURING ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS AND A PLAUSIBLE / POSSIBLE VIEW WAS TAK EN IN THE MATTER, WHICH COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE CONTRARY TO L AW. THE LD. CIT- DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE LATER DECISI ON OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN PR. CIT V/S TOTAGARS CO- OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (2017 395 ITR 611) FOR THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE INTEREST EARNED BY ASSESSEE COOPERATIVE SO CIETY FROM COOPERATIVE BANKS WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/ S 80P(2)(D) AND SINCE THE DEDUCTION WAS ERRONEOUSLY GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME MADE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUD ICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AMENABLE TO REVISIONAL JURI SDICTION U/S 263. THEREFORE, THE REVISION AS DONE BY LD. PR.CIT WAS P ERFECTLY JUSTIFIED. 4. THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE THAT AN ASSESSMENT WAS FR AMED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 08 /11/2017. THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY A ND NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 28/07/2016 WHEREIN ONE OF THE ISSUE IDENTIFIED FOR VERIFICATION WAS DEDUCTION UNDER CH APTER-VI-A AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.61.40 LACS WHILE FIL ING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THIS DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED U/S 80P(2)(D) AG AINST INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM COOPERATIVE BANKS. THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE ASSESSEE, VIDE REPLY DATED 16/08/2017, RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN LANDS END CO- ITA NOS.1762 & 1763/MUM/2020 JAI HIND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 & 2016-17 4 OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. (ITA NO.3566/MUM/201 4 DATED 15/01/2016) , DEFENDED THE DEDUCTION SO CLAIMED. THE ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT THE SAID DECISION ALREADY CO NSIDERED THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. V/S ITO (2010 322 ITR 283) BUT THE SAME WAS FOUND TO BE RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF SEC.80P(2)(A )(I) AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF SEC. 80P(2)(D) AND HENCE DISTINIGUISHABLE. 5. HOWEVER, VIDE LETTER DATED 13/09/2017, THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN SHOW-CAUSED AS TO WHY THE INTEREST SO DERIVED WAS NOT TO BE DISALLOWED. THE SAME WAS DULY RESPONDED TO BY THE A SSESSEE VIDE SUBMISSIONS DATED 16/10/2017 WHEREIN THE STAND AS S TATED ABOVE WAS REITERATED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES RE PLIES AND SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED ON 08/11/201 7 WHEREIN LD. AO CHOSE TO ACCEPT THE RETURNED INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. UPON PERUSAL OF ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX, IT IS QUIT E EVIDENT THAT A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED BY LD. AO DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REGARDING DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80P(2)( D) WHICH WERE DULY RESPONDED TO BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN LANDS END CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. (ITA NO.3566/MUM/2014 DATED 15/01/2016) WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF LD. AO IN SUPPORT OF THE DEDUCTION. THEREFORE, I T COULD BE CONCLUDED THAT LD. AO WAS CLINCHED WITH THE ISSUE O F DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) AND ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS ALLOWED AFTER DU E APPLICATION OF MIND AND A VIEW WAS ALREADY TAKEN IN THE MATTER. 7. SUBSEQUENTLY, LD. PR. CIT, UPON PERUSAL OF CASE RECORDS, OPINED THAT THE ORDER WOULD REQUIRE REVISION U/S 26 3 SINCE THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) AS GRANTED BY LD. AO ON ACC OUNT OF ITA NOS.1762 & 1763/MUM/2020 JAI HIND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 & 2016-17 5 INTEREST RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM COOPERATIVE BANK WAS REQUIRED TO BE DENIED. THE FAILURE TO DO SO HAS RESULTED INT O UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, A SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 04/12/2019 PROPOSING REVI SION OF THE ORDER. IN THE NOTICE, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THAT COOPERATIVE BANK ARE COMMERCIAL BANK WHICH DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE PU RVIEW OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND THEREFORE, INCOME SO EARNED WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D). SINCE THE ASS ESSMENT WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT VERIFYING THIS ISSUE, THE ORDER W OULD REQUIRE REVISION U/S 263. 8. THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, INTER-ALIA, BY SUBMITTING THAT THE CASE LAW OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. V/S ITO (201 0 322 ITR 283) WAS RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) AN D NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF SEC. 80P(2)(D), AS ALREADY CONSIDERED BY MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN LANDS END CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. (ITA NO.3566/MUM/2014 DATED 15/01/2016). IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WAS SPECIFICALLY VERIFIED AND A VIEW WAS TAKEN IN THE MATTER WHICH WAS ONE OF PLAUSIBLE VIEW. IT WAS NOT A CASE OF OMISSION ON THE PART OF LD. AO TO VERIFY THE SAME. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT CO-OPERATIVE BANKS FROM WHICH THE ASSE SSEE EARNED INTEREST INCOME WERE ALSO COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES UND ER THE MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. FINALLY RELY ING UPON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT HOLDING FIELD OF VAL IDITY OF JURISDICTION U/S 263, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE W AS NO ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY, A PLEA WAS RAISED TO DROP THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263. ITA NOS.1762 & 1763/MUM/2020 JAI HIND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 & 2016-17 6 9. HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED WITH ASSESSEES SUBMISSIO NS AS WELL AS EXPLANATIONS, LD. PR.CIT, INVOKING EXPLANATION-2 TO SEC.263, OPINED THAT THE ISSUES WERE NOT INQUIRED TO BY LD. AO WHICH MADE THE ORDER ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO LD. AO TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDE R CONSIDERING THE ISSUES RAISED IN NOTICE U/S 263. AGGRIEVED AS A FORESAID, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US ASSAILING I NVOCATION OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263. 10. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, AS ALREADY NOTED BY US IN PARA-6 ABOVE, A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED BY LD. AO DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REGARDING DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80P(2)(D) WHICH WAS DULY RESPONDED TO BY THE ASSESS EE. THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN LANDS END CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. (ITA NO.3566/MUM/2014 DATED 15/01/2016) WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF LD. AO IN SUPPORT OF THE DEDUCTION. THE LD. AO WAS CLINCHED WITH THE ISSUE O F DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) AND ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS ALLOWED AFTER DU E APPLICATION OF MIND AND A VIEW WAS ALREADY TAKEN IN THE MATTER. THEREFORE, THE ALLEGATION OF LD. PR. CIT THAT THE DEDUCTION WAS AL LOWED WITHOUT VERIFICATION AND NECESSARY INQUIRES IS BEREFT OF AN Y MERITS. WE FIND THAT IT NOT A CASE OF NO INQUIRY BUT IT IS A CASE WHEREIN A PLAUSIBLE / POSSIBLE VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY LD. AO AFTER DUE CO NSIDERATION OF ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D). 11. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT SURVIVE FOR CONSIDERATIO N IS THAT WHETHER THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD. AO WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW OR NOT ? WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RELIED UPON FAV ORABLE DECISION ITA NOS.1762 & 1763/MUM/2020 JAI HIND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 & 2016-17 7 OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN LANDS END CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. (ITA NO.3566/MUM/2014 DATED 15/01/2016) WHICH WAS RENDERED AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COUR T IN TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. V/S ITO (2010 322 IT R 283). FURTHER, AT THE TIME OF FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT ON 08/11/2017, THE FAVORABLE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN PR. CIT V/S TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. (392 ITR 74 05/01/2017) HOLDING THE VIEW THAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, WAS ALSO AVAI LABLE. THIS DECISION HAS SIMILARLY DISTINGUISHED THE CITED DECI SION OF HONBLE APEX COURT. HOWEVER, THERE WAS SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN PR. CIT V/S TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. (395 ITR 611 16/06/2017) WHICH HAS TAKEN A VIEW FAVORABLE TO THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, IT COULD BE OB SERVED THAT THERE WERE TWO POSSIBLE VIEWS ON THE ISSUE AT THE TIME OF FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT. 12. DEALING WITH SIMILAR CONFLICTING POSITION, MUMB AI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KALIANDAS UDYOG BHAVAN PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. V/S ITO (ITA NO.547/MUM/2017 DATED 25/04/2018) RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN T HE CASE OF K. SUBRAMANIAN V/S SIEMENS INDIA LTD. (1983 15 TAXMAN 594 / 156 ITR 11) HELD THAT WHERE THERE ARE CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF NON- JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS THEN A VIEW WHICH IS IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE PREFERRED AS AGAINST THAT TAKEN A GAINST HIM. HENCE, THE COORDINATE BENCH CHOSE TO TOOK A VIEW T HAT INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ON ITS INVE STMENTS HELD WITH A CO-OPERATIVE BANK WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAI M OF DEDUCTION ITA NOS.1762 & 1763/MUM/2020 JAI HIND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 & 2016-17 8 UNDER SEC.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. SIMILAR FAVORABLE V IEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN VARIOUS SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF THIS TRIBU NAL WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN TABULATED BY LD. AR IN THE LEGAL PAPER -BOOK. 13. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION AND IN VIE W OF THE FACT THAT NO DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT H OLDING THE FIELD IS AVAILABLE, IT COULD SAFELY BE CONCLUDED THAT THE IS SUE WAS A DEBATABLE ONE AND THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD.AO WAS ONE O F THE POSSIBLE VIEW WHICH COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE CONTRAR Y TO LAW. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER COULD NOT BE HELD T O BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WHICH WO ULD REQUIRE REVISION U/S 263. 14. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V/S CIT (243 ITR 83 10/02/2000) HAS HELD THAT THE PHRASE 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE' HAS T O BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME-TAX OFFICE R ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RE SULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE; OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE IN COME-TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIO NER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY T HE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE SAID PRINCIPAL HAS BEEN REITERATED BY HONBLE COURT IN ITS SUBSEQUENT JUDGM ENT TITLED AS CIT V/S MAX INDIA LTD. (295 ITR 282). SIMILAR PRINCIPAL HAS BEEN ITA NOS.1762 & 1763/MUM/2020 JAI HIND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 & 2016-17 9 FOLLOWED BY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. V/S CIT (321 ITR 92). THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, CIT V/S VIKAS POLYMERS (194 TAXMAN 57 16/08/2010) OBSERVED THAT AS REGARDS THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE EXPRESSION 'ERRONEOUS', HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LTD. [1993 203 ITR 108 (BOMBA Y)] , HELD WITH REFERENCE TO BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY THAT AN 'E RRONEOUS JUDGMENT' MEANS 'ONE RENDERED ACCORDING TO COURSE A ND PRACTICE OF COURT, BUT CONTRARY TO LAW, UPON MISTAKEN VIEW O F LAW; OR UPON ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES' AND THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT AN ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS 'ERRONEOUS' UNLESS IT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF AN INCOME-TAX OFFICER ACTIN G IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MAKES A CERTAIN ASSESSMENT, THE SAME CANNO T BE BRANDED AS 'ERRONEOUS' BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY OR MORE ELABORATELY. THE SECTION DOES NOT VISUALIZE THE SUB STITUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THAT OF THE INCOME -TAX OFFICER, WHO PASSED THE ORDER UNLESS THE DECISION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 15. THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION AS INVOKED BY LD. PR. CIT COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE VALID UNDER LAW. BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03/03/2020, WE ALLOW ASSESSEES APPEAL. ITA NO.1762/MUM/2020 16. AS ALREADY NARRATED IN OPENING PARAGRAPHS, THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 IN THIS YEAR HAS BEEN TRIGGERED ON IDENTICA L FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO DENY DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D). WE F IND THAT SIMILAR ITA NOS.1762 & 1763/MUM/2020 JAI HIND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 & 2016-17 10 QUERIES WERE RAISED BY LD. AO WHILE FRAMING ORIGINA L ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED TO THE AS SESSEE. HOWEVER, LD. PR. CIT OPINED THAT THE DEDUCTION WOUL D NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDE R WAS PROPOSED TO BE REVISED. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEING PARI-M ATERIA THE SAME, OUR ADJUDICATION AS IN AY 2015-16 SHALL MUTATIS-MUTANDIS APPLY TO THIS YEAR ALSO. RESULTANTLY, THE REVISION ORDER PASSED U/S 263 STAND QUASHED. CONCLUSION 17. BOTH THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR ABOVE ORDER. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (MANOJ K UMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 12/02/2021 SR.PS, KASARLA THIRUMALESH / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT 3. * ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. * / CIT CONCERNED 5. )+,!)$))- , )- , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ,./0 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.