IDEAS.COM INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT (3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1914/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79515 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 24-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF CA SE
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Change of opinion; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI JH FOT; IKY JKO U;KF;D LNL; JH FOT; IKY JKO U;KF;D LNL; JH FOT; IKY JKO U;KF;D LNL; JH FOT; IKY JKO U;KF;D LNL; ,OA ,OA ,OA ,OA JH JKTSUNZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K JH JKTSUNZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K JH JKTSUNZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K JH JKTSUNZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA[;K / ITA NO.1914/MUM/2010 FU/KKZJ.K O'KZ @ ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2002-03 IDEAS.COM INDIA PVT. LTD. 87-88, MITTAL CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021. VS.` DY. CIT (3)(2) 608, 6 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. MARG, MUMBAI 400 020. PAN:- AAACP7800Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 8.12.2009 OF CIT|(A) FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED FOLLOWING GROUNDS ALONG WITH FORM -36 AND MEMO OF APPEALS. 1. THE HON. CIT (APPEALS) -7, MUMBAI HAS ON THE FA CTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE ENTIR E AMOUNT OF THE COMPENSATION OF RS. 10, 00,0001- PAID TO ONE OF THE DIRECTORS MRS. RINA PRITISH ANDY FOR NON COMPETING WITH APPELLANTS BUSINESS. THIS DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN AL LEGEDLY MADE AS APPELLANT IS NOT HAVING ANY INCOME FROM MEDIA LIASONING BUSINESS TIL L THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ASSESSEE BY / FU/KKZFJRH DH VKSJ LS FU/KKZFJRH DH VKSJ LS FU/KKZFJRH DH VKSJ LS FU/KKZFJRH DH VKSJ LS SHRI ASHOK PATIL REVENUE BY/ JKTLO DH VKSJ LS JKTLO DH VKSJ LS JKTLO DH VKSJ LS JKTLO DH VKSJ LS SHRI SUNIL AGARWAL DATE OF HEARING 24.07.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.07.2014 IDEAS.COM INDIA PVT. LTD. 2 | P A G E ALSO BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT APPELLANT WAS HAVIN G MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS EARLIER AND NOW IT SHIFTED ITS FOCUS TO MEDIA LIASO NING WHICH IS A NEW BUSINESS, THUS TREATING THE EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND DISALLOWING THE SAME FOR WANT OF EXPLANATION TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSE S CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAIL S, AND THE EXPENDITURE IS IN FACT REVENUE IN NATURE BEING WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCU RRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. IN VIEW OF THIS T3E ENTIRE ADDITION MADE TO THE RET URNED INCOME OF RS. 10,00,0001- MAY BE DELETED. 2 SUBSEQUENTLY VIDE LETTER DATED 23 RD DECEMBER 2011, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND WHIC H READS AS UNDER:- ADITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RE: INVALID REASSESSMENT 1.1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(2), M UMBAI, ['THE ASSESSING OFFICER'] ERRED IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 1.2 WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT - (I) IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT THE APPELLANT HAD PROVIDED THE DETAILS AND AN EXPLANATI ON REGARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1 0,00,000/- PAID TO MRS. RINA PRITISH NANDY AS NON-COMPETE FEES; (II) HIS ACTION OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WAS BAS ED MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW; (III) THE NECESSARY PRE-CONDITIONS WERE NOT FULFILL ED BEFORE INITIATING AS WELL AS BEFORE THE FRAMING THE REASSESSMENT. 1.3 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE REASSESSMENT BE HELD IS BAD, ILLEGAL AND VOID. IDEAS.COM INDIA PVT. LTD. 3 | P A G E 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR AND C ONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD ON THE POINT OF ADMISSION OF ADD ITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF FILING THE GROUND OF APPEA L, THE ASSESSEE HAS INADVERTENTLY HAVE NOT INCLUDED THE GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDI TY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL G ROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND NO NEW FACTS ARE REQUIRE D TO BE INVESTIGATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THIS GROUND. THE LD. DR OBJECTED THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT AND AT THIS ST AGE IT HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING. 4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS GIVING THOUGHT ON THE ISSUE, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. WE FURTHER NOTE THA T NO NEW FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE INVESTIGATED OR VERIFIED IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION (229 ITR 383), THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147/148 IS ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERIT. 5. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSE E HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 29.12.2003. SU BSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING A NO TICE U/S 148 DATED 30.03.2007 ON IDEAS.COM INDIA PVT. LTD. 4 | P A G E THE REASON THAT A WRONG CLAIM OF RS. 10,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT TO ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3). THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF THE CLAIM OF RS. 10,00,000/- IN QUESTION WAS DULY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3). HE HAS REFERRED THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH NOTICE U/S 142(1) AND AS PER THE QUESTION NO. 15, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF COMPENSATION DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,00,000/-. THUS THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS RAISED A SPECIFIC QUERY ON THIS ISSUE WHICH WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE I TS LETTER DATED 7.12.2012 AND A DETAILED NOTE ON THIS ISSUE WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AS SESSEE. AFTER THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED THE CLAI M WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) AND, THEREFORE, THE SUBSEQUENT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE REASON OF WRONG ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM IS BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS RE LIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CARTINI IN DIA LTD. VS. CIT ( 314 ITR 275) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE EXPLANAT ION OFFERED ARRIVED AT A FINAL CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT ION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT FORM A PRIMA FACIE OPINION THAT THE DEDUCTION WAS NOT ALLOWABLE BASED ON THE SAME MATERIAL AND ACCORDINGLY, REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT O N THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE LD. A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS PLEADED THAT WHEN NO NEW MATERIAL OR INFORMATION O N THE CLAIM OF ALLOWABILITY OF RS. 10,00,000/- PAID TO ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASS ESSEE AS NON COMPETE FEE HAS COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN THE REOPENING ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ALREADY ON RECORD AND CONSIDERED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IDEAS.COM INDIA PVT. LTD. 5 | P A G E 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DI SCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3), THEREFORE, THER E IS NO APPLICATION ON MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT. THUS THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THERE IS NO ADJUDICATION ON THE ISSUE THEN THE QUESTION OF FORMING THE OPINION AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT AND SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF OPINION DOES NOT ARISE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR AND C ONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE OR IGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 29.12.2007. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT HAS ISSUED A DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE CONTAINING SEV ERAL QUERIES ALONG WITH NOTICE U/S 142(1). THE QUESTION NO. 15 OF THE SAID ANNEXURE TO THE SAID NOTICE U/S 142(1) READS AS UNDER:- 15 DETAILS OF COMPENSATION DEBITED TO THE P&L A/C. AMOUNTING TO RS. 10 LACS. PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SAME WAS PAID 8. THE QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF MANIFEST THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAISED A SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT THE CO MPENSATION DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS 10 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THIS AMOUNT WAS PA ID. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE REPLY DATED 9.9.2004 WHEREBY FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF COMPENSATION PAID TO ONE OF THE DIRECTORS MS. RINA PRITESH NANDY. FURTHER THE ASSES SEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 7.12.2004 HAS SUBMITTED A DETAILED NOTE ON THIS ISSUE AS UNDE R:- IDEAS.COM INDIA PVT. LTD. 6 | P A G E DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PAID RS, 10,00,000 TO MRS. RINA NANDY WHO WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN MEDIA -AND ENTERTAINMENT FI ELD FOR NON COMPETING WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY NOT CARRYING ON ACTIVITY PERTAINING TO M EDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT SECTOR INCLUDING NOT COMPETING FOR PROJECTS OF LIASON AND CONSULTANCY IN THE MEDIA FIELD AND NOT CARRYING ON ACTIVITY OF PRODUCING TELEVISION CONTENT IN RELATION TO TELEVIS ION PROGRAMME PRODUCTION BUSINESS FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING ON 114/2001 AND ENDING ONTO 3113/ 2002. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF BIKANER GYPSUM LTD. VIS CIT (1990) 53 TAXMAN 279 (1991) 187 DR 39 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS AN EXISTING RIGHT TO CARRY ON BUSINESS, ANY EXPENDI TURE INCURRED BY IT DURING COURSE OF BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVAL OF ANY RESTRICTION OBSTR UCTION OR DISABILITY WILL BE ON. REVENUE ACCOUNT, PROVIDED EXPENDITURE DOES NOT ACQUIRE ANY CAPITAL A SSETS. EVEN IN THE INSTANT CASE THE EXPENDITURE BEING TO REMOVE THE OBSTACLE/OBSTRUCTIO N OF COMPETITION, THE EXPENDITURE IS FULLY ALLOWABLE. EXPENDITURE TO WARD OFF COMPETITION WOULD CONSTITUT E CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ONLY IF THE ADVANTAGE DERIVED IS IN RESPECT OF A PERIOD OVER SOME LENGTH OF TIME. CIT VS. COAL SHIPMENT (P) LTJ. (1971) 82 ITR 902 (SC). IN THIS CASE THE EXPENDITURE TO WA RD OF COMPETITION IS IN RESPECT OF HE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR ONLY AND HENCE IS FULLY ALLOWABLE. 9. ON THE DIRECTION OF THE BENCH, THE LD. DR HAS PR ODUCED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD FROM WHICH WE HAVE VERIFIED THAT THE LETTER DATED 7 .12.2004 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THE ABOVE SAID NOTE WHICH WAS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FUNISHED THE DETAILED REPLY A ND TOOK SUPPORT OF THE CASE LAWS AS MENTIONED IN THE NOTE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE REPLY IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURIN G THE ORIGINAL SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND AFTER CONSIDERING THESE REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT WHILE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO DISCUSS THE REASONS FOR EACH AND EVERY CLAIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WHEN THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CLEARLY SUGGETS THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION OF RS. 10 LACS WAS DULY CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER B Y RAISING THE QUERY AND THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN EVEN IF A CLAIM IS WRONG LY ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, IT WILL NOT GIVE THE AUTHO RITY AND JURISDICTION TO THE ASSESSING IDEAS.COM INDIA PVT. LTD. 7 | P A G E OFFICER TO MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCY IN THE ASSESSMENT ON HIS PART IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT PERMITTED TO REVIEW OR REVISED HIS OWN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) ON THE REASON TH AT HE HAS NOT CONDUCTED A PROPER ENQUIRY IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE INCOME TAX ACT ENTAILS APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS TO DEAL WITH EACH AND EVERY SITUATION SEPARATELY AND THE NON CONDUCT OF ENQUIRY AND NON APPLICATION OF MIND IN T HE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE A SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 148/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THE CASE INHAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE OPENED ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME MATERIAL WHICH WAS ALREADY ON RECORD AT THE TI ME OF PASSING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3). IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF REOPENING ON THE BASI S OF CHANGE OF OPINION WITHOUT ANY CHANGE OR NEW DEVELOPMENT WI TH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OR RELEVANT MATERIAL. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CARTINI INDIA LTD. VS. CI T (SUPRA) WHILE DEALING WITH THE SIMILAR SITUATION HAS CONCLUDED IN PARA 23 AS UNDER:- WHERE THE MATERIAL ON RECORD HAS ALREADY BEEN CONS IDERED AND ADJUDICATED UPON, IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISAG REE WITH THE VIEW ALREADY TAKEN ON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN SUCH A CASE, REOPENING O F THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE MATERIALS ALREADY CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEWING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY RE APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH IS NOT CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS COVERED UNDER EXPLANATION 2(C) TO SEC TION 147 OF THE ACT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL OTHER THAN THE MATERIAL CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFO RE, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHERE, THE MATERIALS ON RECORD HAVE ALREADY BEEN CO NSIDERED AND CONCLUSIVELY DECIDED IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT, WE ARE CLEARLY OF THE OP INION THAT THE PRIMA FACIE OPINION TO THE CONTRARY FORMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE VERY SAME MATERIAL WOULD BE MERE CHANGE OF OPINION, AND THEREFORE, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED . 10. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WHERE THE MATERIALS ON RECORD HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED A ND CONCLUSIVELY DECIDED IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND A CONTRARY OPINION FORMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE IDEAS.COM INDIA PVT. LTD. 8 | P A G E BASIS OF THE VERY SAME MATERIAL WOULD BE A MERE CHA NGE OF OPINION AND, THEREFORE, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CA RTINI INDIA LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE REOPENING IN THIS CASE IS BASED ON CH ANGE OF OPINION AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME IS QUASHED. 11. AS REGARDS THE GROUND RAISED ON MERITS ON THE C LAIM OF COMPENSATION OF RS. 10 LACS, IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING ON THE VALIDITY OF REO PENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASHING OF THE ORDER, WE DO NOT PROPO SE TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME AS BECOME PURELY ACADEMIC IN NATURE. 12. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E 3 0-7-2014 SD/- SD/- ( RAJENDRA ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER/ YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER/ U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; ) MUMBAI DATED 30-7 -2014 SKS SR. P.S, COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, I BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI