M/s Abrol Engineering Co. (P) Ltd, Kapurthala V. The Principal Commissioner of income Tax-2, Jalandhar

ITA 185/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7715 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: Y K SUD
• Keywords: Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 263; 63; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO. 185/(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAN: AABCA2907L M/S. ABROL ENGINEERING CO. (P) LTD., INDUSTRIAL AREA, KAPURTHALA. VS. PR. C. I. T.-2 JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. Y. K. SUD ( C.A.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (D. R.) DATE OF HEARING: 13.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.11.201 7 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT, JALANDHAR PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY ASSESSEE ARE REPR ODUCED BELOW: (1) THAT THE PR. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CANCELI NG THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 263. (2) THAT THE PR. CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. (3) THAT PR. CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT INVESTM ENT MADE BY THE COMPANY WAS FROM ITS OWN FUNDS THAT TOO IN THE PREVIOUS YEA RS THEREFORE NO EXPENSE COULD BE ATTRIBUTED ON THE INVESTMENT FOR THE PURPO SE OF SECTION 14-A. (4) THAT ON ONE HAND PR. CIT HAS AGREED THAT THE D ELHI HIGH COURT HAS SETTLED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREA S ON THE OTHER HAND HE STILL CANCELLED THE ORDERS BEING ERRONEOUS AND PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THIS ACTION OF THE PR. CIT IS CONTRADICTOR Y IN NATURE HENCE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. (5) THAT THE ORDER OF THE PR. CIT IS AGAINST THE L AW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA NO. 185(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 2 3. THE CRUX OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE ACTION OF LD. CIT BY WHICH HE HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT . 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT HAS DIRECTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFTER EXAMINATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,25,000/- IN MUTUAL FUNDS THE INCOME FROM WHICH WAS EXEMPTED. THE LD. CIT HELD THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT EXAMINED THIS ASPECT AND HAD NOT MADE ANY ADDITION FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A WHICH WAS NECESSARY IN VIEW OF BOARD CIRCUL AR NO. 5 OF 2014. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE L D. CIT THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS AND NO FRESH I NVESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND FURTHER NO INCO ME HAD ACCRUED AND ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY INCOME FROM THIS INVE STMENT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWA NCE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON A NUMBER OF CASE LAWS AS MENTIONED BY LD. CIT IN HIS ORDER BUT LD. CIT RELYING ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 , HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT DECIDED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A, AND THEREFORE THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THAT IS WHY HE PASSED ORDER U/S 263. TH E LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND TH EREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A WAS WARRANTED. THE LD. AR IN T HIS RESPECT PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON AN ORDER OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 185(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 3 REDINGTON (INDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 392 ITR 633 AND SUB MITTED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE HON'BLE COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FA VOUR OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF EXEMPT INCOME, THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D ARE NOT APPLICABLE. IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE HON'BLE COURT HAS DISCUSSED CIRCULAR NO. 5 /2014 WHICH THE LD. CIT HAS RELIED AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME HAS H ELD THAT WHERE THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME, SECTION 14A IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE LD. AR FURTHER PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON AN ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S DLF LTD. WHEREIN UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES, THE CIT HAD PASSED ORDER U/S 263, AND APPEAL FILED BY REVEN UE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WAS DISMISSED. THE HON'BLE COURT HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF REVENUE ON THE BASIS THAT THE DISALLW ANCE U/S 14A WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE AND THEREFORE HELD THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAD RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. FURTHER RELIANCE WA S PLACED ON AN ORDER OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. M/S LAKHANI MARKETING INCL. WHEREIN AGAIN THE HON'BLE COURT HAD HELD THAT UNTIL THERE IS RECEIPT OF EXEMPTED INCOME SECTION 14A OF THE AC T CANNOT BE INVOKED AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, T HE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 5 THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD. VS. PR. CIT WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT DEPARTMENT OF FICERS ARE BOUND BY THE CBDT CIRCULARS. THE LD. DR FURTHER RELIED ON A JUDGMENT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PUNJAB TRACTORS L TD. VS. CIT. ITA NO. 185(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 4 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH OUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED FA CT THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY DIVIDEND INCOME BEING EXEMPT INCOME DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THERE ARE MANY JUDGMENTS OF VARIOUS HON'BLE COURTS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT RECEIVE ANY EXEMPT INCOME DURING A PARTICULAR YEAR, NO DISALLOW ANCE CAN BE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY LD. AR ALSO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF NOT RECEIVIN G ANY DIVIDEND INCOME, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A WAS NOT WARRANTED. THE HON 'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF REDINGTON (INDIA) LTD. HAS DEC IDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 BY ALLOWING APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE COURT ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: PER CONTRA, SRI T. RAVIKUMAR APPEARING ON BEHALF O F THE REVENUE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE MARGINAL NOTES OF SECTION 14A POINTING OUT THAT THE PROVISION WOULD APPLY NOT ONLY WHERE EXEMPTED, INCOME IS 'INCLUDED' IN THE TOTAL INCOME, BUT ALSO WHERE EXEMPT INCOME I S 'INCLUDABLE' IN TOTAL INCOME. HE RELIED UPON A CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOA RD OF DIRECT TAXES IN CIRCULAR NO. 5 OF 2014, DATED FEBRUARY 11, 2014 (SEE [2014] 361 ITR (ST.) 94) TO THE EFFECT THAT SECTION 14A WAS IN TENDED TO COVER EVEN THOSE SITUATIONS WHETHER THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF EXEMPT INCOME BEING EARNED IN FUTURE. THE CIRCULAR, AT PARAGRAPH 4, STATES THAT I T IS NOT NECESSARY FOR EXEMPT INCOME TO HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE INCOME O F A PARTICULAR YEAR FOR THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE TRIGGERED. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE MADE APP LICABLE, IN TERMS OF SUB-SECTION (1) THEREOF TO INCOME 'UNDER THE ACT' A ND NOT 'OF THE YEAR' AND A DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A, READ WITH RULE 8D CAN THUS BE EFFECTED EVEN IN A SITUATION WHERE A TAXPAYER HAS NOT EARNED ANY TAXABLE INCOME IN A PARTICULAR YEAR. WE ARE NOT ABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE AFORESAID VIEW. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A WERE INSERTED AS A RESPONSE TO THE JUDG MENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. MAHARASHTRA SUGAR MILLS LID. [1971] 82 ITR 452 (SC) AND RAJASTHAN STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION V. CIT [200 0) 242 ITR 450 (SC) IN TERMS OF WHICH, EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY AN ASSES SEE CARRYING ON A COM- POSITE BUSINESS GIVING RISE TO BOTH TAXABLE AS WELL AS NON-TAXABLE INCOME, ITA NO. 185(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 5 WAS ALLOWABLE M ENTIRETY WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT, IT WAS THUS THAT SECTION 14A WAS INSERTED PROVIDING THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE EARNING OF INCOME EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. AS OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE J UDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. WALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS (P.)' LTD. [ 2010] 326 HR 1 (SC) (PAGE 16) : THE MANDATE OF SECTION 14A IS CLEAR. IT DESIRES TO CURB THE PRACTICE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME AGAINST TAXABLE INCOME AND AT THE SAME TIME AVAIL O F THE TAX INCENTIVE BY WAY OF AN EXEMPTION OF EXEMPT INCOME WITHOUT MAKING ANY APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME.' THE PROVISION THUS IS CLEARLY RELATABLE TO THE EARN ING OF ACTUAL INCOME AND NOT NOTIONAL OR ANTICIPATED INCOME. THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT SECTION 14A WOULD BE ATTRACTED EVEN TO EXEMPT INCOME INCLUDABLE IN TOTAL INCOME WOULD ENTA IL THE ASSESSMENT OF NOTIONAL INCOME, ASSUMED TO BE EXEMPT IN THE FUTURE , IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME IN TERMS OF SECTION 5 OF THE ACT IS ON REAL INCOME AND THERE IS NO SANCTION IN LAW FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ADMITTEDLY NOTIONAL INCOME, PARTICULA RLY IN THE CONTEXT OF EFFECTING A DISALLOWANCE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. THE COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE IN TERMS OF RULE 8D IS BY WAY OF A DETERMINATION INVOLVING DIRECT AS WELL AS INDIRECT ATTRIBUTION. THUS, ACCEPT- ING THE SUBMISSION OF THE REVENUE WOULD RESULT IN T HE IMPOSITION OF AN ARTIFICIAL METHOD OF COMPUTATION ON NOTIONAL AND AS SUMED INCOME. WE BELIEVE THIS WOULD BE CARRYING THE ARTIFICE TOO FAR . THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL RELIES ON THE DECISION S OF TIRE DIVISION BENCH OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. V. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 111 (KER); [2014] 49 TAXMANN.COM 100 (KER) AND CIT V. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. [2012] 344 ITR 259 (KER) AS WELL A S THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN DHANUK A AND SONS V. CIT [2011] 339 FIR 319 (CAL); [2011] 12 TAXMAMR.COM 227 (CAL) IN ALL OF WHICH TIRE ASSESSEE DID, AS A MATTER OF FACT, EARN DIVIDE ND INCOME. THE AFORESAID DECISIONS ARE THUS FACTUALLY DISTINGUISHABLE AND DO NOT ADVANCE THIS PRO- POSITION OF THE REVENUE. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON A DECISION OF THE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BEACH MINERALS CO. PVT. LTD. V. ASST . CIT IN TCA NO. 681 OF 2013, DATED DECEMBER 2, 2013. IN THAT CASE, PAYMENT S OF INTEREST BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SOUGHT TO BE DISALLOWED INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ON THE PREMISE THAT THE SAME RELATED TO BORROWI NGS THAT HAD BEEN INVESTED AND WOULD YIELD EXEMPT RETURNS. THE ASSESS EE CONTESTED THE DIS- ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A ON MULTIPLE GROUNDS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT RESERVES AND SURPLUSES AVAILA BLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENTS, AND BORROWED FUNDS, FOR WHICH THE PAYM ENT OF INTEREST HAD BEEN INCURRED, HAD NOT BEEN INVESTED. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO DRAW A NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND THE INTEREST P AYMENTS, HIGHLIGHTING THE POSITION THAT THE QUANTUM OF AVAIL ABLE FREE FUNDS WAS FAR IN EXCESS OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE. THE BENCH, IN TH E LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, REMANDED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ITA NO. 185(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 6 CONSIDERED DE NOVO AND AFTER CONDUCTING A PROPER EN QUIRY. INTER ALIA A DIRECTION WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO TENDER A PR OPER EXPLANATION FOR THE INTEREST PAYMENTS. THE OPEN REMAND WAS MADE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CASE AND NO CONCLUSION WAS DR AWN BY THE BENCH ON THE POSITION OF LAW INVOLVED. IN FACT, THE SUBSTANT IAL QUESTION OF LAW RAISED IN THAT CASE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT WAS COUCHED IN GENERAL TERMS AS FOLLOWS: 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS RIGHT IN LAW 7 IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 55,00,000 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 ?' NOTHING MUCH TURNS ON THE USE OF THE WORD INCLUDABL E AND THE PHRASE UNDER THE ACT IN SECTION 14A AND WE ARE NOT PERSUAD ED TO ACCEPT THE EMPHASIS LAID OR THE INTERPRETATION OF TIRE SAME BY THE REVENUE. AN ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS SPECIF IC TO AN ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE RELATED PREVIOUS YEAR. SECTION 4 OF TH E ACT, WHICH IMPOSES THE CHARGE TO TAX READS THUS: '4. CHARGE OF INCOME-TAX.(1) WHERE ANY CENTRAL ACT ENACTS THAL INCOME- TAX SHALL BE CHARGED FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR AT ANY RATE OR RATES, INCOME- TAX AT THAT RATE OR THOSE RATES SHALL BE CHARGED FO R THAT YEAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH, AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS (INCLUDING PROV ISIONS FOR THE LEVY OF ADDITIONAL INCOME-TAX) OF, THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF EVERY PERSON: PROVIDED THAT WHERE BY VIRTUE OF ANY PROVISION OF T HIS ACT INCOME- TAX IS TO BE CHARGED IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME OF A PERIOD OTH ER THAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, INCOME-TAX SHALL BE CHARGED ACCORDINGLY.' THUS, WHERE THE STATUTE INDENTED THAT INCOME SHALL BE RECOGNIZED FOR TAXATION IN RESPECT OF ANY PREVIOUS YEAR OTHER THAN THAT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE PROVISI ON SHALL EXPRESSLY STATE SO. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10 IN CHAPTER I II OF THE ACT DEALING WITH 'INCOMES NOT INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME 'COMMENCES WI TH THE PHRASE'. IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF A PREVIOUS YEAR, ANY INCOME FALLING WITHIN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED . . .' THE EXEMPTION EXTENDED TO DIVIDEND INCOME WOULD REL ATE ONLY TO TIRE PREVIOUS YEAR WHEN THE INCOME WAS EARNED AND NONE O THER AND CONSE- QUENTLY THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONNECTION THER EWITH SHOULD ALSO BE DEALT WITH IN THE SAME PREVIOUS YEAR. THUS, BY APPL ICATION OF THE MATCHING CONCEPT, IN A YEAR WHERE THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME, THERE CANNOT BE A DIS- ALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO SUCH ASSUME D INCOME. (MADRAS INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. V. CIT [1997 ] 225 ITR 802 (SC). THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 14A(1) SHOULD BE READ IN TH AT CONTEXT AND SUCH THAT IT ADVANCES THE SCHEME OF THE ACT RATHER THAN DISTORT IT. IN CONCLUSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES CANNOT BE MADE APPLI CABLE IN A -VACUUM, I.E., IN THE ABSENCE OF EXEMPT INCOME. THE QUESTION S OF LAW ARE ANSWERED ITA NO. 185(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 7 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE DEPARTMEN T AND THE APPEAL ALLOWED. NO COSTS. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . DLF LTD. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE TR IBUNAL ORDER, QUASHING THE ORDER U/S 263 HAS AGAIN HELD THAT WHERE THERE I S NO EXEMPT INCOME, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD EVEN RECEIVED SOME EXEMPT INCOME ALSO EVEN THEN THE HON'BLE COURT HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A WA S A DEBATABLE ISSUE AND THEREFORE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS SUSTAINABLE ONE AND THEREFORE SECTION 263 WAS NOT APPLICABLE. F OR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE COURT ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 4. IN ITA-236/2010, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE TRIBUNA L FOLLOWED ITS PREVIOUS ORDERS SETTING ASIDE THE REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE CI T. THE TRIBUNAL HAD TO CONSIDER THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER MADE PURSUANT TO THE FRESH PROCEEDINGS DIRECTED BY THE CIT. THE TRIBUNAL MEREL Y FOLLOWED ITS PREVIOUS ORDER OBSERVING THAT THE AO WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER MADE BY THE CIT UNDER SECTION-263 HAD DISALLOWED THE PROPORTION ATE EXPENDITURE AND THAT SINCE THE REVISIONAL ORDER ITSELF HAD BEEN SET ASIDE, THE APPEAL AGAINST THE AO'S ORDER ALSO HAD TO BE SET ASIDE. 5. IT IS A RGUED BY COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE TRIBUNAL FELL INTO ERROR IN NOT SA YING THAT SECTION-14-A MANDATES THE AO TO DETERMINE PROPORTIONATE EXPENDIT URE IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME SUCH AS DIVIDEND INCOME. NEITHER THE ORDER NOR THE PROCEEDINGS REFLECTED ANY APPLICATION OF MIND TO TH IS MANDATORY PROVISION. IT WAS URGED IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ITAT PROCEED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE AO TOOK INTO ACCOUNT ALL TH E NECESSARY FACTORS AND HAD IMPLIEDLY ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT NO SUCH DEDUCT ION COULD BE MADE. IT WAS HIGHLIGHTED IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE EXPRESSION 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE' HAS TO BE SEEN IN THE BACKGROU ND OF AN ERRONEOUS ORDER BY THE AO. ACCORDING TO SETTLED PRINCIPLES IT IS ONLY IN CASES WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE THAT REVISIONAL ORDER UNDER SECTION-263 CANNOT BE MADE. COUNSEL RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPRE ME COURT REPORTED AS MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD V. CIT, 243 ITR 83 = (2002-TIOL-491- SC-IT) . LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO RELIED UPON THE QUESTIONNAIR E FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSE DATED 21.9.2004 WHICH DID NOT REFLECT A NY APPLICATION OF MIND AS FAR AS THE QUESTION OF SECTION-14A OR ITS APPLIC ABILITY WAS CONCERNED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE ORDER SHEET MERELY SHOW ED THAT A BREAKUP OF INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME HAD BEEN SOUGHT ON 6.1 2.2004. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY ASSUMP TION THAT THE AO HAD EVER CONSIDERED THE QUESTION OF PROPORTIONATE EXPEN DITURE AND ACCEPTED THE ITA NO. 185(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 8 ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENT. 6. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE EMPHASIZED THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WOULD REVEAL THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A SINGLE DIVIDEND CHEQUE OF RS. 6,93,69, 4 02/-. THE MATERIALS ON RECORD CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE AO HAD CALLED FOR PA RTICULARS AND HELD PROCEEDINGS ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. THE MATERIALS WERE CLEARLY BEFORE HIM AS ALSO WAS IN THE NATURE OF INVESTMENT I.E. IN A SUBSIDIARY COMPANY FOR A PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. SUCH BEING A CASE, THE Q UESTION OF THERE BEING ANY ERROR MUCH LESS ONE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE DID NOT ARISE. 7. IT WAS ARGUED NEXT THAT THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER SHO ULD NOT BE INTERFERED WITH BECAUSE IF ENQUIRIES ARE CONDUCTED BY THE COMM ISSIONER, HE CANNOT GO INTO OR SCRUTINIZE THE QUESTION OF APPROPRIATENE SS OF THE PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED IN THIS REGARD THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN CIT V. M/S SUNBEAM AUTO L TD, 332 ITR 167 = (2009-TIOL-552-HC-IT) SHOWS THAT THERE CAN BE NO ROVING AND FISHING ENQUIRY BY THE COMMISSIONER AND HE HAS TO MERELY CO NFINE HIMSELF TO THE MATERIALS ON RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS CALLED FOR B Y HIM. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE AO MAKES AN ASSESSMENT ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW THAT CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED U PON THE JUDGMENT REPORTED AS CIT V. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, 335 ITR 72 (D EL) = (2010-TOIL-267- HC-DEL-IT) . IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT WHEREVER TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE, THE COMMISSIONER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE P OWER OF REVISION UNDER SECTION-263. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE ASS ESSEE'S COUNSEL RELIED UPON CIT V. MAX INDIA LTD., 295 ITR 282 (SC) = (200 7-TIOL-203-SC-IT) . IT WAS LASTLY URGED THAT ANY ORDER OF REVISION WHICH D OES NOT SPECIFY THE PRIMA FACIE ERROR IN THE ORDER OR APPROACH OF THE A O, WOULD BE BEYOND JURISDICTION. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, RELIANCE WAS PL ACED UPON COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX V. PRITHVI RAJ AND COMPANY, 199 ITR 4 24. 8. SECTION 263, TO THE EXTENT RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSES, IS EX TRACTED BELOW; '263. (1) THE 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 INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY, AFTER GIVING T HE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING OR CAUS ING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THER EON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORD ER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSM ENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT.' 9. IN MALABAR (SUPRA) THE SUPREME COURT EXPLAINED T HE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF REVISIONAL POWER OF COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 2 63 AS FOLLOWS: 'A BARE READING OF THIS PROVISION MAKES IT CLEAR TH AT THE PREREQUISITE TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER SUO MO TO UNDER IT, IS THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS INSOFA R AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT - IF THE ORDER OF THE INCO ME TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS N OT ERRONEOUS BUT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE - RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SECTION 263(1) OF THE ACT. THE PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EAC H AND EVERY TYPE OF ITA NO. 185(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 9 MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ; IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACT ED. AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. IN THE SA ME CATEGORY FALL ORDERS PASSED WITHOUT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL J USTICE OR WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. THE PHRASE 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE' IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF ART AND IS NOT DEFINED IN T HE ACT. UNDERSTOOD IN ITS ORDINARY MEANING IT IS OF WIDE IMPORT I AND IS NOT CONFERRED TO LOSS OF TAX. THE SCHEME OF THE ACT IS TO LEVY AND COLLECT' TAX I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THIS TASK IS ENTRUSTED TO THE REVENUE. IF DUE TO AN ERRONEOUS ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THE REVE NUE IS LOSING TAX LAWFULLY PAYABLE BY A PERSON, IT WILL CERTAINLY BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE PHRASE 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE RESTS OF THE REVENUE' HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER P ASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT ERESTS OF THE REVENUE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF R EVENUE; OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS T AKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW.' IN CIT VS MAX INDIA LTD, 295 ITR 282 (S.C) = (2007- TIOL-203-SC-IT) AFTER NOTICING THE JUDGMENT IN MALABAR, THE SUPREME COURT APPLIED THE LAW DECLARED BY IT, AND ALSO CLARIFIED THAT: 'THE PHRASE 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REV ENUE' IN SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNC TION WITH THE EXPRESSION 'ERRONEOUS' ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. FOR EXA MPLE, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTS ONE OF TWO COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LA W AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AN D THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABL E IN LAW.' 10. IT IS THUS, NOT MERE PREJUDICE TO THE REVENUE, OR A MERE ERRONEOUS VIEW WHICH CAN BE REVISED, UNDER SECTION 263. THERE SHOU LD (POST MAX INDIA) BE THE ADDED ELEMENT OF 'UNSUSTAINABILITY' IN THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH CLOTHES THE COMMISSIONER WITH JURISD ICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE, AND PROCEED TO MAKE APPROPRIATE ORDERS. 11. IN THIS CASE, THE RECORD REVEALS THAT THE AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE, AND HELD PRO CEEDINGS ON SEVERAL DATES (OF HEARING) BEFORE PROCEEDING TO FRAME THE A SSESSMENT. HE ADDED NEARLY RS. 2 CRORES TO THE INCOME AT THAT TIME. THE COMMISSIONER TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DISCLOSED AN ERROR, IN THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 14-A HAD NOT BEEN MADE. NOW, WHILE TH E STATUTORY DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CALCULATE, PROPORTIONAT ELY, THE EXPENDITURE WHICH AN ASSESSEE MAY INCUR TO OBTAIN DIVIDEND INCO ME, FOR PURPOSES OF DISALLOWANCE, CANNOT BE LOST SIGHT OF, EQUALLY, SUC H A REQUIREMENT HAS TO BE VIEWED IN THE CONTEXT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH GIV EN CASE. IN THE PRESENT ITA NO. 185(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 10 CASE, IT WAS REPEATEDLY EMPHASIZED THAT THE ASSESSE E DIVIDEND INCOME WAS CONFINED TO WHAT IT RECEIVED FROM INVESTMENT MA DE IN A SISTER CONCERN, AND THAT ONLY ONE DIVIDEND WARRANT WAS RECEIVED. TH ESE FACTS, IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, WERE MATERIAL, AND HAD BEEN GIVEN WEIGHTAGE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS IMPUGNED ORDER. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE INVESTMENT TO THE SISTER CONCERN, WAS NOT QUESTIONED; EVEN THE CO MMISSIONER HAS NOT SOUGHT TO UNDERMINE THIS ASPECT. EQUALLY, THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SAY THAT APART FROM THAT SINGLE DIVIDEND WARRANT, ANY OTHER DIVIDEND INCOME WAS RECEIVED. FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD T O SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO EXPEND EFFORT, OR SPECIALLY ALLOCATE RESOURC ES TO KEEP TRACK OF ITS INVESTMENTS, ESPECIALLY DIVIDEND YIELDING ONES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAID THAT WHETHER TIP DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 14-A WAS WARRANTED, WAS A DEBATABLE FACT. IN ANY EVENT, EVEN IF IT WERE NOT DEBATABLE, THE ERROR BY THE AO IS NOT 'UNSUSTAINABLE'. POSSIBLY HE COULD HAVE TAKEN ANOTHER VIEW; YET, THAT HE DID NOT DO SO, WOULD NOT RENDER HIS OPINION AN UNSUSTAINABLE ONE, WARRANTING EXERCISE OF SECTION 2 63. 12. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THE QUESTION OF LAW IS A NSWERED AGAINST THE REVENUE, AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTL Y, THE APPEALS FAIL AND ARE DISMISSED. THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DABWALI TRANSPORT CO. LTD. VS. DCIT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED JU NE 17, 2016 HAD ALSO DECIDED THE SIMILAR ISSUE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 32. IN THIS REGARD, THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A CANNOT BE RAI SED IN THE PROCEEDINGS 63 OF THE ACT. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON CIT V. D LF LTD [2013] 350 ITR 214 TAXMAN 555/214 TAXMAN 91/31 TAXMANN.COM 158 (DE LHI), WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT TO MAKE A DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A, POWERS U/S 263 CANNOT BE EXERCISED. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN SUBMITTED THAT SINCE DURING THE RELEVANT YEARS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ENJOY ANY EXEM PT INCOME, ON MERITS ALSO, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS WARRANTED 4A. FOR THIS PR OPOSITION, RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE (1) CIT V. LAKHANI MARKETING INC. [2014] 49 TAXMANN .COM 257/226 TAXMAN 45 PUNJ & HAR.) (2) CIT V. HOLCIM INDIA (P.) LTD [2015] 57 TAXMANN. COM 28 (DELHI) (3) CIT V. CORRTECH ENERGY (P) LTD. [2015] 372 ITR 97/[2014] 223 TAXMAN 130/45 TAXMANN.COM 116 (GUJ.) (4) CIT V. SHIVAM MOTORS(P.)LTD [2015]55TAXMANN.CO M 262/230TAXMAN 63 (ALL.) (5) CHEMINVEST LTD V. C1T-IV [2015] 378 ITR 33/234 TAXMAN 761/61 TAXMANN.COM 118 (DELHI) ITA NO. 185(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 11 33. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT SO FAR AS REGARDS TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2011-12, THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SAID YE ARS HAVE BEEN FRAMED PRIOR TO 31.03.2012, WHEREAS THE NOTICES U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAD BEEN ISSUED MUCH AFTER THE STATUTORY PERIOD OF TWO YEARS , FROM THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED, I .E., IN NOV,, 2015.THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSU E OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN RAISED BY HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS FOR ALL THESE YEARS. FOR THIS, RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON CHEMIN VEST LTD (SUPRA) AND. CIT V. ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD.[ 2007] 293ITR 1/162 TAXMAN 465 (SC) AND CIT V. ICICI BANK LTD [2012] 343 ITR 74/212 TAX MAN 130/J2012] 19 TAXMANN.COM 142 (SC). 34. CONCERNING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THE STA ND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL BY THE AO WH ILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AN INQUIRY LETTER DATED 18.11.201 4 (APB-78) WAS ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY DATED 17.12.2014 ( APB79 TO 97). THE AO MADE FULL APPLICATION OF MIND WHILE FRAMING THE AS SESSMENT. 35. THE ID. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS STRONGLY REL IED ON THE ORDER UNDER APPEALS. 36. IN THIS REGARD, THE PROPOSITION SETTLED IN DLF LTD (SUPRA) IS THAT THE POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED FOR MAK ING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. WHILE OBSERVING SO, IT WAS HELD THA T IT IS NOT MERE PREJUDICE TO THE REVENUE OR A MERE ERRONEOUS VIEW, WHICH CAN BE REVISED U /S 263 OF THE ACT AND THAT THERE SHOULD EXIST THE ADDED ELEME NT OF SUSTAINABILITY IN THE ORDER OF THE AO, WHICH CLOTHES THE CIT (HERE, T HE PR. CIT) WITH JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE AND PROCEED TO MAKE AP PROPRIATE ORDER. 37. BEFORE US, NOTHING IS AVAILABLE EITHER IN THE I MPUGNED ORDERS, OR BY WAY OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD, TO SUGGEST THA T THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. AS OBSERVED IN DL F LTD (SUPRA), POSSIBLY, THE AO COULD HAVE TAKEN A VIEW DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE TAKEN BY HIM, BUT HE DID NOT DO SO AND THIS WOULD NOT RENDER HIS OPINION AS AN UNSUSTAINABLE OPINION WARRANTING EXERCISE OF REVISI ONAL POWERS. THE UNDISPUTED STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT DID NOT EARN ANY EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE RELEVANT YEARS. THEREFORE ALSO, N O DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A WAS CALLED FOR. THE DECISION IN LAKHANI MARKETING I NC. (SUPRA), HOLCIM INDIA (P.) LTD (SUPRA), CORRTECH ENERGY (P) LTD (SU PRA) AND SHIVAM MOTORS (P.) LTD (SUPRA) ARE TO THE SAME EFFECT. WE DO NOT DIFFER WITH LD. DR AS REGARDS HIS RELIAN CE IN THE CASE OF JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD. DECIDED BY HON'BLE PUNJ AB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HOLDING THAT DEPARTMENTAL OFFICERS ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULARS BUT THE ISSUE HERE IS AS TO WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST ITA NO. 185(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 12 OF REVENUE WHERE IN THE ABSENCE OF EXEMPT INCOME TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE. IN OUR OPINION SUCH ORDER IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AS NO DISALL OWANCE U/S 14A WAS WARRANTED IN THE ABSENCE OF EXEMPT INCOME. THE OTHER CASE LAW RELIED ON BY LD. DR IS NOT APPL ICABLE AS IN THAT CASE THE HON'BLE COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE OF APP LICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SAT ISFIED. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES AND IN VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER P ASSED BY LD. CIT U/S 263 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THEREFORE IT IS QUASHED. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS WE QUASH THE ORDER PASSED B Y LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 8. IN NUTSHELL, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.11.2017 SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30.11.2017. /GP/SR. PS . COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., ITA NO. 185(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 13 TRUE COPY BY ORDER