NIVO CONTROLS P. LTD., MUMBAI V. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

ITA 1765/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4631 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANPREET DUGGAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHASH SHETHY
• Keywords: Business income; Revision of order; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 263; 143(3); 142(1); 115JB; 133(6); 143(1); 143(2); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1765/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2015-16) NIVO CONTROLS PVT LTD 8, MOHATTA BHAVAN, 2 ND FLOOR, OFF DR. E MOSES ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI 400018. VS. PR. CIT 1, ROOM NO. 330, 3 RD FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI- 400020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACN6646C APPELLANT .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI. SUBHASH SHETHY. AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI . RAHUL RAMAN & SHRI. MANPREET DUGGAL, DR DATE OF HEARING 13 .0 8 .2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 .0 9 .2021 / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THE LD. PCIT ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER FOR AY 2015-16 BY INVOKING POWERS UNDER S 263, WHEN THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 2. THE LEARNED PCIT ERRED IN EXERCISING POWERS U/S 263 , ITA NO. 1765/MUM/2020 M/S. NOVO CONTROLS P LTD, MUMBAI - 2 - WHEN THE JURISDICTIONAL CONDITIONS FOR THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN SATISFIED. 3. THE LEARNED PCIT FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2015-16 WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) WHICH IS PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN PASSED 'ONLY AFTER T AKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL WHICH THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, ITO - 1(3)(2) - AO HAS GATHERED'. WITHOUT BRINGING ANY FURTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH AC OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED, THE POT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS. 4. THE LEARNED PCIT ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE ORDER O F THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT) IN THE IDENTICAL CASE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR AY 201213, WHICH HAD BECOME FINAL AS DECIDED IN ITA NO 1838/MUM2017 AND ITA NO. 2232/MUM/2017, BOTH DECIDED UNDER A COMMON ORDE R DATED 11.05.2018 AND IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION N O. 751/MUM/2018 ORDER DATED 13.11.2019, ARISING OUT OF THE DEPT'S APPEAL IN HA NO. 2232/MUM/2017. IN THE SAID AY 2012-13, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITO-1 (3)(2) IN HIS ORDER U/S 143(3) HAD DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE COMM ISSION PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. IN FIRST APP EAL, THE DISPUTED COMMISSION PAYMENT AMOUNT WAS ALLOWED IN F AVOUR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2 AND THE DEPT'S FURTHER APPEA L AND SUBSEQUENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BEFORE T HE HON'BLE ITAT, BOTH WERE DISMISSED. 5. THE LEARNED PCIT COMMITTED A GROSS ERROR OF LAW IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE HON' BLE ITAT FOR AY 2012-13 HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE B Y THE DEPARTMENT AND, THEREFORE, SUCH AN ORDER CAN HAVE N O BEARINGS ON THE OUTCOME OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 2015-16. 6. THE LEARNED PCIT COMMITTED A GROSS ERROR OF LAW AND FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE FINDINGS AND CON CLUSIONS OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR AY 2012-13, ON IDENTICAL FACTS AS AY 2015-16, WERE BINDING ON HIM UNLESS THE SAME IS REVERSED BY A HIGHER ITA NO. 1765/MUM/2020 M/S. NOVO CONTROLS P LTD, MUMBAI - 3 - AUTHORITY. 7. THE LEARNED PCIT ERRED IN NEITHER COMMUNICATING HIS FINAL ORDER U/S 263 FOR AY 2015-16 DATED 16.03.2020 TO THE AP P ELLANT COMPANY EITHER BY EMAIL (E MAIL ID OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY REGISTERED AND AVAILABLE ON THE DIT'S PORTA L) OR SPEED-POST OR BY HAND DELIVERY. 8. THE ORDER OF LEARNED POT IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE. 9. THE APPELLANT COMPAN Y CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL . 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF ELECTRONIC PROCESS CONTROLS. THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2015-16 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.(-) 53,286/- AND BOO K PROFIT U/S 115JB OF RS.1,63,291/- AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER THE CASS AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1)OF THE ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAI RE WAS ISSUED. IN COMPLIANCE, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE H AS APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND SUBMITTED THE INFORMATION AND THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED. THE A.O AFT ER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS AND FACTS HAS ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.(-)53,286/- AND PASSED THE ORDER U/S 1 43(3) OF THE ACT DATED 08.11.2017. ITA NO. 1765/MUM/2020 M/S. NOVO CONTROLS P LTD, MUMBAI - 4 - 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PR.CIT FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT EXAMINED THE LARGE COMMISSION EXPENSES AND LOW NET PROFIT AND THERE IS A MISMATCH OF INTEREST PAID TO THE RELATED PERSONS U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. THEREFOR E, THE PR. CIT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE A.O HAS FAILED T O EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS AND REASONABLENESS OF THE C LAIM OF LARGE COMMISSION PAID TO M/S. TOSHBRO CONTROLS P LTD WHICH IS ALSO RELATED PARTY. THE PR. CIT OBSERVED THAT THE A.O HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND AND THE COMMISSION EXPENSES PAID TO M/S TOSHBRO CONTROLS P LTD IS NO T VERIFIED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE SUBMISSIONS AN D EXPLAINED THAT FOR THE A.Y 2012-13 THE HONBLE TRIB UNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WH EREAS FOR THE A.Y 2014-15, THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE T HE CIT(A). IN THE ASSESSEEMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN RESPONS E TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT THE CONCERNED PARTY H AS RESPONDED. WHEREAS THE PR.CIT IS OF THE OPINION TH AT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS WITHOUT PROPER ENQUIRY AND THEREFORE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE OVERR ULED. THE PR.CIT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO EN QUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE A.O. AND HAS SET ASIDE THE ORD ER PASSED U/S 143(3) FOR THE A.Y 2014-15 AS PREJUDICIA L TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND DIRECTED THE A.O TO CARRY OUT THE ENQUIRIES AND VERIFICATION OF LARGE COMMISS ION EXPENSES AND MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT AND PASSED ORD ER ITA NO. 1765/MUM/2020 M/S. NOVO CONTROLS P LTD, MUMBAI - 5 - U/S 263 OF THE ACT DATED 16.03.2020.AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THA T THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE REVISION ORDER IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COOP ERATED IN THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS AND SUBMITTED THE INFORMATION, AND COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICES. FURTHER , THE LD. AR SUBMITTED ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE OF CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS, THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS GRANTE D THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND SUBSTANTIATED THE SUBMISSIONS WITH THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND VOLUMIN OUS PAPER BOOK AND PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE RELIEF. 5. CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE PR . CIT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O HAS NOT CONDUCTED ENQUIRY AND HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM WITHOUT VERIFICAT ION. 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. PRIMA-FACIE, THE DISPUTE ENVIS AGED BY THE LD.AR THAT THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY THE PR. CIT IS BAD IN LAW AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/SEC143( 3) OF THE ACT DOE SATISFY THE TWIN CONDITIONS OF (I) ERRO NEOUS AND(II) PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE PR. CIT HAS OBSERVED THAT A.O. HAS NOT CONDUCTED ENQUIR Y ITA NO. 1765/MUM/2020 M/S. NOVO CONTROLS P LTD, MUMBAI - 6 - IN RESPECT OF LARGE COMMISSION PAYMENTS AND THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE CLAIMS WITH PROPER EVIDEN CES IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHEREAS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COOPERATED AND SUBMITTED THE INFORMATION AND REFERRED TO THE NOTIC E ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT AND THE REPLY FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE. EVEN OTHER WISE, THE CONTEN TION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE SIMILAR CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAY MENT WAS DISALLOWED IN THE A.Y 2012-13 AND THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. WH EREAS FOR A.Y 2014-15 ON THE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE, THE A PPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (CI T(A)). THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AR THAT THE CLAIM IS WHO LLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINES S AND THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE CRITERIA. THE LD. AR RE FERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK AND REFERED TO THE DETAILS OF ACTIV ITIES AND THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED. FURTHER THE LD.AR EMPHASI ZED ON THE AGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y AND M/S TOSHBRO CONTROLS PVT LTD. THE LD. AR DEMONSTRATED THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PROFIT EAR NED BY THE ASSESSEE DUE TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF COMMISSI ON PAYMENT FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS AT PAGE 65 OF THE P APER BOOK. FURTHER, THE STATEMENT OF COMMISSION RECEIV ED BY M/S TOSHBRO CONTROLS PVT LTD ON ORDERS PROCURED FRO M VARIOUS OTHER PARTIES REFERRED AT PAGE 66 TO 67 OF THE ITA NO. 1765/MUM/2020 M/S. NOVO CONTROLS P LTD, MUMBAI - 7 - PAPER BOOK. THE LD.AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT SATISFY THE TWIN CONDIT IONS OF ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. WE FIND THAT THE PR. CIT HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE LARGE COMMISSION PAYMENT S ARE MADE TO M/S. TOSHBRO CONTROLS PVT LTD AND LOW P ROFIT. WE FIND THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OW N CASE FOR THE A.Y 2012-13 HAS DEALT ON COMMISSION PAYMENT S AND OBSERVED AT PAGE 4 PARA 4 TO 6 OF THE ORDER READ AS UNDER: 4. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CI T(A). FURTHER THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO PAGE NO. 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK, SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR DISALL OWANCE OF COMMISSION TO SISTER CONCERN WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REFERRING TO THE D ETAILS OF SALES COMMISSION TO M/S. TOSHBRO CONTROLS PVT. LTD. AND BREAKUP OF THE SALES SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE FINA NCIAL YEAR 2011-12 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SALES MADE THROUGH THE SISTER C ONCERN M/S. TOSHBRO CONTROLS PVT. LTD., IS 58.30% AND THE PERCE NTAGE OF TOTAL SALES MADE DIRECTLY BY THE ASSESSEE IS 32.47% . REFERRING TO THE SAID CHART, IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF COMMISSION OF SALES MADE TO M/S. TOSHBRO CONTROLS P VT. LTD. IN EARLIER YEARS RIGHT FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007 -08 TO 2014- 15 STOOD BETWEEN 11.57% TO 18.83% BASED ON PERCENTA GE OF SALES MADE THROUGH M/S. TOSHBRO CONTROLS PVT. LTD., AND SUCH SALES COMMISSION WAS ALL ALONG ACCEPTED BY THE REVE NUE. THEREFORE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSION PAID TO SISTER CONCERN IS NOT TO SHIFT ANY PROFITS AND THE SALES C OMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION . ITA NO. 1765/MUM/2020 M/S. NOVO CONTROLS P LTD, MUMBAI - 8 - 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED SALES COMMISSION PAID TO M/S. TOSHBRO CONTROLS PVT. LTD. MAINLY ON TWO GROUNDS FIRSTLY THE PARTIES THROUGH WHOM M/S. T OSHBRO CONTROLS PVT. LTD. MADE SALES HAVE STATED THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED MATERIAL DIRECTLY FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y AND M/S. TOSHBRO CONTROLS PVT. LTD. IS A LOSS MAKING CO MPANY AND THEREFORE HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IN ORDER TO SEE T HAT THERE IS NO TAX INCIDENCE, THE PROFITS WERE SHIFTED TO THE L OSS MAKING COMPANY BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE COMMISSIO N IS NOT ALLOWABLE. THE LD.CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OBSERVING THAT TH E RECIPIENT COMPANY IS A LOSS MAKING COMPANY AND IS NOT A GROUN D FOR DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION. HE ALSO ACCEPTED THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT M/S. TOSHBRO CONTROLS PVT. LTD . IS KNOWN TO CUSTOMERS BY ITS FLAG SHIP COMPANY AND MAY NOT B E AWARE OF THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AND THEREFORE THE CUSTOME R MIGHT HAVE STATED THAT THEY HAVE GOT MATERIALS DIRECTLY F ROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY M/S. NOVA CONTROLS PVT. LTD. WHICH IS THE FLAG SHIP COMPANY. 6. WE FURTHER FIND FROM THE DETAILS THAT SIMILAR CO MMISSION HAS BEEN PAID TO M/S. TOSHBRO CONTROLS PVT. LTD., DURIN G THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2007-08 TO 2014-15 AND THE PERCENTA GE OF TOTAL SALES MADE THROUGH THE M/S. TOSHBRO CONTROLS PVT. LTD. BY THE ASSESSEE RANGES FROM 58.30% TO 78.78% AND TH E COMMISSION PAID RANGES BETWEEN 11.57% AND 18.83% DEPENDING UPON THE PERCENTAGE OF SALES TO TOTAL SAL ES. WE FIND THAT THAT THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IN ALL THE EARLIER YEARS AND DISALLOWANC E WAS MADE ONLY DURING THIS YEAR AND BASED ON AN APPREHEN SION THAT THE SISTER CONCERN IS MAKING LOSS AND THEREFOR E ASSESSEE TRIED TO SHIFT THE PROFITS, THIS FACT IS NOT PROVED BEYOND DOUBT. WHEN THE COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTE D IN ALL EARLIER YEARS THERE IS NO REASON WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER ITA NO. 1765/MUM/2020 M/S. NOVO CONTROLS P LTD, MUMBAI - 9 - PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE. HENCE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS SUSTAINED ON TH IS ISSUE. 7. FURTHER THE REVENUE HAS FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION(M.A) AGAINST THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN MA NO. 751/MUM/2017 DATED 13.11.2017.THE OBSERVATIONS ARE AT PAGE 2 PARA 4 OF THE ORDER AS UNDER: 4. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL ON APPRECIATION OF FACTS ON RECORD TAKEN A CONSCIOUS DECISION IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSIO N EXPENSES AND RESTORING THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELLI NG EXPENSES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS MISCE LLANEOUS APPLICATION THE REVENUE IS SEEKING REVIEW OF ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THE REVENUE COUL D NOT POINT OUT ANY PATENT MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THUS, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON REC ORD ON THE FACE OF THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL. 8. CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THA T THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE EA RLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. WHEREAS IN RESPE CT OF TWIN CONDITIONS OF (I) ERRONEOUS AND (II) PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WE FIND THE REVENUE IS DI SPUTING OF THE ASSESSEEMENT ORDER. WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HA S DISCHARGED THE BURDEN BY SUBMITTING THE INFORMATION AND REQUISITE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR BY ISSUE OF STATUTORY NOTICE U/SEC142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH THE QUESTIONER WHICH CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED. SINCE THE ITA NO. 1765/MUM/2020 M/S. NOVO CONTROLS P LTD, MUMBAI - 10 - INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE A.O IN THE COURS E OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE A.O. HAS CONSIDERED THE FACT S, SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES FILED AND TOOK A POSSIBLE VIEW. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HA S RESPONDED TO THE CLARIFICATIONS/ QUERIES RAISED BY THE A.O. AND AFTER VERIFICATION AND SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O) HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/SEC143(3) OF THE ACT. WE CONSIDERING THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ORDE R PASSED U/SEC143(3) OF THE ACT DOES NOT SATISFY THE TWIN CONDITIONS OF ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE REVISION O RDER PASSED BY THE LD.PR.CIT IS QUASHED AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. . 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.09.2021. SD/- SD /- ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 28.09.2021 ITA NO. 1765/MUM/2020 M/S. NOVO CONTROLS P LTD, MUMBAI - 11 - KRK, PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / THE CIT(A) 4. ( ) / CONCERNED CIT 5. '#$%&&' , )* , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. %-./0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '& //TRUE COPY// 1. ( ASST. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI