DCIT, Jaipur V. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., Jaipur

ITA 206/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2044 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDERA MEHTA
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 148; 154; 15

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 92/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD. UDYOG BHAWAN, TILK MARGE, C- SCHEME, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6 JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AABCR4695J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 206/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6 JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD. UDYOG BHAWAN, TILK MARGE, C- SCHEME, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AABCR4695J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI VARINDERA MEHTA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 25/01/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20/02/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 2 PER BENCH: THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2014 OF LD. CIT (A), JAIPUR FOR A.Y. 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE VALIDITY OF ORDE R PASSED U/S 147. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF OTHER INCOME ON TH E GROUND THAT SAME IS NOT DERIVED FROM AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 17,56,304 U/S 14A BY APPLICATION OF RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE IT RULES. HE HAS FURTHER ERRED IN APPLYING RULE 8D(2)(III) BY HOLDIN G THAT THE WORD INVESTMENT USED IN THIS RULE WOULD INCLUDE SHARES /SECURITIES HELD AS STOCK IN TREAD. 4. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEALS. 5. THE APPROPRIATE COST BE AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS AS UND ER:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING SET-OFF OF LOSSESS OF UNITS OF RS. 1,36,34,565/- OF EARLIER YEARS FROM GROSS DEDUCTION U/S 80A (4) OF RS. 98,13,07,575/- INSTEAD OF RS. 95,11,66,028/- CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA ON INTEREST INCOME INCLUDING PENAL INTEREST INCOME AND ON OTHER INCOME. ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 3 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSE SSEE OUT OF ADDITION U/S 14A OF INCOME TAX ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES ITS RIGHTS TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 2. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSEAS SEE ARE REGARDING VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESS EE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.09.2008 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 81.29 CRORES AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 95.11 CRORES. THE AO ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION 80IA OF THE ACT WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 22.12.2010. THE REAFTER THE AO PROPOSED TO RECTIFY THE ORDER BY ISSUING A NOTICE U /S 154 ON 08.06.2012 ON THE ISSUE OF EXCESS DEDUCTION U/S 80IA WAS ALLOW ED WITHOUT ADJUSTING THE LOSS OF PREVIOUS YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS . 1,36,34,565/- IN RESPECT OF TWO UNITS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY DATED 15.06.2012 AND EXPLAINED THAT EVEN AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF THE LOSS OF RS. 1,36,34,565/- THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA WOULD BE MORE THAN THE CLAIM OF RS. 95.11 CRORES ALLOWED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT. THE AO THEN ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 21.11.2012 FOR THE REAS ONS THAT WHILE CALCULATING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE LOSS OF RS. 1,36,34,565/- IN RESPECT OF TWO UNITS. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 4 RAISED THE OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 BUT THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 ON 09.01.2014. THE ASSE SSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 3. BEFORE US, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 17.09.2013 EXPLAINED THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETE DETAILS OF WORKING OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA ALONG WITH THE AUDIT CERTIFICATE WERE FILED. I N THESE DETAILS THE LOSS IN RESPECT OF TWO UNITS WAS SEPARATELY REFLECTED AN D THE ASSESSEE EVEN HAS NOT CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF RS. 3,01,41,5 48/- IN RESPECT OF 7 UNITS THOUGH THERE IS NO WITHDRAWAL OF NOTIFICATIO N. THUS, LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT EVEN W HEN THE EARLIER LOSS OF RS. RS. 1,36,34,565/- IN RESPECT OF TWO UNITS IS SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THESE TWO UNITS IN THIS YEAR, THE ELIGIB LE DEDUCTION WOULD BE RS. 96.76 CRORES AS AGAINST RS. 95.12 CRORES ALLOWE D BY THE AO. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO ESCAPEMENT SO AS TO WARRANT ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR HAS FUR THER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 CAN BE MADE ONLY WHEN THE AO HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAP ED ASSESSMENT. AS ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 5 PER EXPLANATION 2 AN INCOME HAS BEEN MADE A SUBJECT MATTER OF EXCESSIVE RELIEF UNDER THIS ACT, THE SAME WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE A CASE WHERE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSME NT. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE PROFIT OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKIN G ON WHICH DEDUCTION U/S 80IA WAS ALLOWED OF RS. 98.13 CRORES BUT AFTER CONSIDERING THE PREVIOUS YEAR LOSS OF RS. 1,36,34,565/- THE CURRENT DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT IS ELIGIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE COMES TO R ES. 96.76 CRORES. AS AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/ S 80IA OF RS. 95.11 CRORES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED ANY EXCESSIVE RELIEF UNDER THE ACT NOR HAS THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS BEEN UNDER ASSESSED. THE ASSESSEE FILED COMPLETE DETAILS OF CL AIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA ALONG WITH THE AUDIT FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF EA CH UNDERTAKING WITH AUDITED REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB VIDE LETTER DATED 14.07.2010. THEREFORE, THE AO ALLOWED THE CLAIM AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING DETAILS AS WELL AS AUDITED FINANCI AL STATEMENTS OF EACH UNDERTAKING ALONG WITH AUDIT REPORT. THE LD. AR HAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE AO INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 WHIC H WAS PENDING THEN INITIATING PROCEEDING U/S 147 FOR TAXING THE SAME I NCOME IS ONLY A CHANGE OF OPINION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 6 BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 322 ITR 369 (CAL. ) MAHINDER FREIGHT CARRIER VS. DCIT 56 DTR 247 (MUM.) STERILITE INDISTRIES INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT 209 TAXMAN N 76 (MAD) THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABOVE CITED DE CISION IT WAS HELD THAT WHILE PROCEEDING U/S 154 WERE PENDING THE INIT IATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 147 ON THE SAME ISSUE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS THE RE CANNOT BE PARARAL PROCEEDINGS ON THE SAME ISSUE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RE IS NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT EVEN WHERE THE PROCEEDING U/S 154 ARE PENDING. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON THE SAME ISSUE IT AMOU NTS TO CLOSER OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT. SINCE, THE ISSUE CO ULD NOT BE ADJUDICATED U/S 154 DUE TO THE LIMITED JURISDICTION AND DEBATABLE ISSUE AND LIMITATION OF SCOPE OF SECTION U/S 154 OF THE A CT , THEREFORE, THE AO DROPPED THE PROCEEDING U/S 154 AND INITIATED THE AP PROPRIATE PROCEEDING U/S 148 OF THE ACT. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT IN COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA O F THE ACT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADJUST THE EARLIER YEAR LOSS OF RS. 1,36,34,565/- IN RESPECT OF TWO UNITS AND THEREFORE IT WAS DETECTED BY THE AO AFTER ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 7 COMPLETION U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE NEW FACT CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO ARE SUFFICIENT TO FORM THE BELIEF THAT IN COME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT TO THE EXTENT OF LOSS OF RS. RS. 1,36,34,565/- WAS NOT ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PROFIT BEFORE CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143 (3) WAS COMPLETED ON 22.12.2010 WHEREBY THE AO ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF RS. 95,11,66,038/-. THEREAFTER, THE AO ISSU ED A NOTICE U/S 154/155 OF THE ACT DATED 8.06.2012 TO RECTIFY THE M ISTAKE OF NOT ADJUSTING THE LOSS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF RS. RS. 1,36,34,565/- IN RESPECT OF TWO UNITS WHILE ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U /S 80IA OF THE ACT. FOR READY REFERENCE WE REPRODUCE THE GIST OF THE NO TICE ISSUE U/S 154 DATED 08.06.2012 AS UNDER:- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 THE ASSESSMENT/REFUND ORDER U/S 143(3) FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09 MADE ON 22.12.2010 REQUIRES TO BE AMENDED A S THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD WITHIN THE MEANI NG OF SECTION 154/155 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE RECTIFICAT ION OF THE MISTAKE, AS PER PARTICULARS GIVEN BELOW, WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT/REDUCING THE REFUND/INCREA SING YOUR LIABILITY. ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 8 IN RESPECT OF ALLOWING UNITS LOSS OF A.Y. 2007-08 H AS BEEN NOT SET OFF AN PER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80IA CS BEFORE THE PR OFIT OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AS UNDER:- S.NO. UNIT INITIAL YEAR PROFIT OF THE YEAR 08-09 LOSS OF THE A.Y. 07-08 1. EPIP SITAPURA-1ST A.Y. 2005- 06 RS. 16770973 RS. 5020008 2. BORHADA A.Y. 2005- 06 RS. 38561187 RS. 8614556 TOTAL 1,36,34,564 IT IS APPARENT FROM THE NOTICE U/S 154 OF THE ACT T HAT THE AO PROPOSED TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE IN RESPECT OF THE LOSS OF RS . RS. 1,36,34,564/- TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE UND ERTAKING FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED U/S 154 THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY DATED 15.06.2012 AS UNDER: - WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF YOUR AFORESAID NOTICE IN WHI CH YOU HAVE PROPOSE TO REDUCE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA BY RS. RS. 1,3 6,34,564/-, IN THIS CONNECTION WE ARE TO SUBMIT THAT DURING THE YE AR ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF VARIOU S INDUSTRIAL AREA AND FOR WHICH AUDIT CERTIFICATE U/S 80IA HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS COMPLETED U/S 143(3). TOTAL ELIGIBLE PROFIT U/S 80I A OF ALL THESE INDUSTRIAL AREA WORKS OUT TO RS. 98,13,07,585/- AGA INST WHICH ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AT RS. 95,1 1,66,037/-. IF THE LOSS OF TWO UNIT I.E. EPIP, SITAPURA & BORANADA OF RS. 1,36,34,564/- IS CONSIDERED WHILE WORKING OUT ELIGI BLE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA THEN ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION WORKS OU T TO RS. ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 9 96,76,73,021/- (98,13,07,585- 1,36,34,564) AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AT RS. 95,1 1,66,037/- ONLY. SINCE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AT LESSER AMOUNT AS COMPARED TO COMPUTED BY YOUR GOOD SELF, THUS THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENT U/S 154/155 . THUS, THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY EXPLAINED THAT THE PROFI T OF THE ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IS RS. 96,76,73,021/- E VEN AFTER THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE SAID LOSS OF RS. 1,36,34,564/-. H ENCE, THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF RS. 95,11,66,03 7/- IS NOT A MISTAKE AS STATED IN THE NOTICE U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE AO THEN ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 21.11.2012 BY RECORDING THE REASO NS AS UNDER:- REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S147 AND ISS UE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF M/S RA JASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD ., JAIPUR (PAN NO. AABCR4695 A.Y. 2008-09. THE ASSESSMENT IN CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 22.12.2010. LATER IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS WORKED OUT DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS ELIGIBLE PROJECTS AT RS. 98,13,07,575/-. HOWEVER, IT HAS CL AIMED THE DEDUCTION AT RS. 95,11,66,028/- ANTICIPATING THAT D EDUCTION ALLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS TO CERTAIN UNITS MAY BE WI THDRAWN (THOUGH NOT WITHDRAWN TILL DATE). WHILE CALCULATING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE LOSS I N RESPECT OFTWO UNITS VIZ. SITAPURA EPIP-I AT SEZ BORANADA AM OUNTING TO RS. 50,20,009/- AND RS. 86,14,565/- RESPECTIVELY TO TALING TO RS. 1,36,34,565/- WHICH WOULD HAVE FURTHER REDUCED FROM RS. 95,11,66,028/- WHILE WORKING OUT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA. ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 10 2. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES I HAV E SUFFICIENT REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,36,34,5 65/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 147 O F THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 IN WHI CH THE SAND TRANSACTION FALLS. IT IS APPARENT THAT THE REASONS FOR ISSUING THE NOT ICE U/S 154 AS WELL AS THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMEN T U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT ARE SAME TO RE-COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION U/S 80 IA AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF LOSS OF RS. 1,36,34,564/-. THE ASSESS EE HAS RAISED A LEGAL OBJECTION AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 147/148 WHILE THE PROCEEDING U/S 154 OF THE ACT WERE PENDING AND NOT REACHED TO THE FINALITY EITHER BY DROPPING THE SAME OR PASSING ANY ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 147/148 IS NO T PERMISSIBLE. THE BENCH ASKED THE LD. CIT DR TO PRODUCE THE ASSESSMEN T RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE STATUS OF THE PROCEEDING U/S 154 ON THE DA TE OF INITIATING OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. IT WAS FOUND TH AT THE AO HAS NOT PASSED ANY ORDER EITHER FOR DROPPING THE PROCEEDING OR CONCLUDING THE PROCEEDING U/S 154 PRIOR TO ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THUS, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THERE IS NO RECORD OF CLOSING THE PROCEEDING U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO QUARREL THAT THE DOCTRINE OF E STOPPEL IS NOT APPLICABLE AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/ S 147/148 EVEN WHEN ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 11 THE AO INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT . HOWEVER, WHEN THE ISSUE IN THE TWO PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 154 AS W ELL AS U/S 147OF THE ACT IS THE SAME THAN WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PROCEE DING U/S 154 OF THE ACT THE AO CANNOT INITIATE PARALLEL PROCEEDING U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT ON THE SAME ISSUE. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF STERILITE INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT(SUPRA) WHILE DEALING WITH AN IDENTICAL ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF THE AO HAS HELD IN PARAS 2 8 O 30 AS UNDER:- 28. AS ALREADY POINTED OUT, IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2003-04, THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154 ON 20.7.2006, WHEREIN, THE OFFICER PROPOSED TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80 HHC, PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS AND DIMINUTION OF VALUE OF CURRENT INVESTMENT AND INCOM E TAX DEBITED IN RESPECT OF SECTION 115 JB ASSESSMENT AND ON THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) IN RESPECT OF THE A LLEGED MISTAKE IN GRANTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB, FOR INCOME TAX AND WEALTH TAX DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOU NT AND THE SHARE ISSUE EXPENSES AND FRN ISSUE EXPENSES WRITTEN OFF TO BE DISALLOWED, BEING CAPITAL IN NATURE. 29. A READING OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE A CT AND THE REASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 11TH MAY 2009 SHOWS THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE ON THE ISSUES SOU GHT TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THESE NOTICES, EXCEPT THE FACT THA T WHILE IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154, THE NOTICE IS BASED ON THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF TH E RECORD WARRANTING A RECTIFICATION, THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER S ECTION 147 ALLEGED THAT BY REASON OF THE UNTRUE AND INCORRECT PARTICULARS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE HAD BEEN AN ESCAPEMENT OF TAX. GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE AREA OF OPERATION OF BOTH T HESE PROVISIONS ARE ON TOTALLY DIFFERENT FIELDS, THE SIMULTANEOUS A SSUMPTION OF ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 12 JURISDICTION UNDER SECTIONS 154 AND 147 ON THE SELF SAME ISSUE, PLAINLY SHOWS THE CONTRADICTION IN THE REASONING OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND AS WITHOUT LOGIC OR REASON. 30. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNS EL APPEARING FOR THE PETITIONER PLACING RELIANCE ON TH E DECISION REPORTED IN PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD. (SUPRA), WHEN ONCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF REC TIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154, THE SELF SAME ISSUE CANNOT BE TH E SUBJECT MATTER OF REASSESSMENT BY TAKING RECOURSE TO SECTIO N 147 OF THE ACT. THUS, ON THE FACTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TODAY, A S FAR AS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004 IS CONCERNED, THERE ARE T WO PROCEEDINGS, ONE UNDER SECTION 154 AND ANOTHER UNDE R SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE JURISDICTION GIVEN UNDER BOTH T HE SECTIONS THUS OPERATING ON DIFFERENT FIELDS, (AS FAR AS THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR IS CONCERNED), AND WITH THE DOUBT IN THE MIND OF TH E OFFICER AS TO WHICH DIRECTION HE HAS TO GO, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE LACKS THE VERY BASIS FOR ASSUMPTION OF J URISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. FOR THE REASONS THAT THERE CANNOT BE TWO PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS ON THE SELF SAME ISSUE AS ONE BASED ON THE VIEW THAT THERE WERE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHICH WARRANTED EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 15 4 AND THE OTHER INITIATED UNDER SECTION 147 THAT THERE WAS ES CAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM TAX ON ACCOUNT OF THE FAILURE OF THE AS SESSEE FROM DISCLOSING THE FULL AND CORRECT PARTICULARS, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN QUASHING THE NOTICE ON REASSESSMENT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AS HELD THAT THEN CANNOT BE TWO PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS ON THE SELF SAME ISSUE AS ARE BASED ON THE VIEW THAT THERE WERE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHICH WARRANTED EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION U/S 154 AND THE OTHER INITIATED U/S 14 7 THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM TAX. THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 13 CASE OF MAHINDER FREIGHT CARRIER VS. DCIT 129 ITD 278 HAS HELD IN PARA 10 AS UNDER:- 10. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT AND SAID PROCEEDING, A S PER RECORD, HAS NOT REACHED THE FINALITY, EITHER BY DROPPING TH E SAME OR PASSING ANY ORDER IN THE SAID PROCEEDING. AS PER TH E REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 154, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 AND IN CONSEQUENCE ISSUED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. IT IS ALSO ADMITTED FACT THAT EXCEPT THE RETURN OF INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE AND ITS ENCLOSURES, NO OTHER EXTRA MATERIAL OR INFO RMATION WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS TRUE THA T THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTIC E ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT SHOW ING THE RENTAL INCOME AS AN INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, BUT THE AS SESSEE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO CHALLENGE PROCEEDING INITIATED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. NOW IT IS WEL L-SETTLED PRINCIPLE BY DIFFERENT JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY 'ESTOPPEL' AGAINST THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. ADMITTEDLY, IN THIS CASE, THE MANDATE OF SECTION 147 IS NOT FULFIL LED FOR THE REASONS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF WAS NOT SURE WHETHER THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY COULD BE THE SUBJECT-MATTE R OF SECTION 154 OR THE SAME CAN BE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF PROCEE DINGS UNDER SECTION 147. LD. D.R. PLACED HIS HEAVY RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF DAMODAR H. SHAH(SUPRA). IN THE SAID CASE THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT HAS EXPLAINED IN DETAILS THE DIFFERENCE BETWE EN SECTION 154 VIZ-A-VIZ SECTION 147. AS PER SAID DECISION THE RE IS NO BAR TO EVOKE SECTION 147 BUT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO DEMO NSTRATE WHY HE WAS REQUIRED TO DO SO. NOTHING HAS BEEN DEMONSTR ATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE. IN OUR OPINION, FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN ISSUING THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 148 AND WE, AC CORDINGLY, ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 14 HOLD THE SAME AS VOID AB INITIO AND QUASH THE PROCE EDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14 7. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE ALLOWED. AS THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THE I SSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE RECORD THAT ALL RELEVANT M ATERIALS AND FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENTS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE A SSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSEE PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND FURTHER THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ALLOWED WHILE PASSING THE OR DER U/S 143(3) WOULD NOT BE EXCESSIVE EVEN IF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT OF LOS S OF PREVIOUS YEAR IS MADE AGAINST THE PROFIT OF THE CURRENT YEAR. THE AS SESSEE REMINDED THE AO IN ITS REPLY TO THE NOTICE U/S 154 THAT EVEN AFT ER THE ADJUSTMENT OF LOSS OF RS. 1.36 CRORES ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION WOULD BE MORE THAN RS. 95.11 CRORES ALLOWED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. TH EREAFTER, THE AO WITHOUT BRINGING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE IT ACT TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSION HAD INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME FACT AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE ASSE SSMENT RECORD. THUS, REOPENING ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON ASSESSMENT RECORD IS NOTHING BUT BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION. THE HONBLE CALCULTA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD IN PARAS 42 TO 53 ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 15 42. HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE VIEW TH AT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY REASON OF A MISTAKE APPAR ENT FROM RECORDS, AND TAKES RECOURSE TO SECTION 154, BUT FIN DS LATER, THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE, THEN HE CANNOT, IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER GROUND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE STILL HAS REA SON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, START REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT AGAIN START REASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME REASONS. 43. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE REASONS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO STILL BELIEVE THAT INCOME THAT WAS THE SUBJECT- MATTER OF RECTIFICATION HAD STILL ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T THOUGH THAT WAS NOT DUE TO ANY OBVIOUS MISTAKE, BORNE OUT FROM EXIS TING RECORDS. 44. THE JUDGMENT IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. V. ITO REPORTED IN [2003] 259 ITR 19 , CITED BY MR. BHOWMIK WAS RENDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THAT CASE. THE SUPREME COURT HELD (PAGE 20) : 'WE SEE NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE. HOWEVER, WE CLARIFY THAT WHEN A NOTICE U NDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS ISSUED, THE PROPER COU RSE OF ACTION FOR THE NOTICEE IS TO FILE A RETURN AND IF HE SO DESIRE S, TO SEEK REASONS FOR ISSUING NOTICES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO FURNISH REASONS WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. ON RECEIPT OF REA SONS) THE NOTICEE IS ENTITLED TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO ISSUANCE OF NOTIC E AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS THE REASONS HAVE BEE N DISCLOSED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO DIS POSE OF THE OBJECTIONS, IF FILED, BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER, BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVESAID FIV E ASSESSMENT YEARS.' 45. THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INITIATION OF REASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS IS, IN ANY CASE, THE FORMATION OF THE B ELIEF, BASED ON NEW MATERIALS THAT ANY INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T. A NOTICE ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 16 UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT MAY NOT BE ISSUED MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION. 46. IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, ON RECEIPT OF A NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE ASSESS EE SHOULD FILE A RETURN, ASK FOR THE REASONS AND THEN FILE ITS OBJEC TION. HOWEVER, WHERE THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ISSUANCE OF A NOT ICE ARE ABSENT, THE NOTICE MIGHT BE CHALLENGED BY FILING A WRIT PET ITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 47. IN CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO. LTD. V. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 201, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT IN EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER ARTICLE 226, THE COURT MIGHT EXAMINE WHETHER THE CONDITIONS PRECEDEN T FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION TO REASSESS EXISTED. THE SUPREME CO URT, INTER ALIA, HELD AS FOLLOWS (PAGE 207 AND 208) : 'THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH ALTERNATIVE REMEDY IS NOT HO WEVER ALWAYS A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR REFUSING A PARTY QUICK RELIEF BY A WRIT OR ORDER PROHIBITING AN AUTHORITY ACTING WITHOUT JURISDICTIO N FROM CONTINUING SUCH ACTION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE COMPANY CONTENDS THAT THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 34 WERE NOT SATISFIED AND CAME TO THE COURT AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY. THERE IS NOTHING IN ITS CONDUCT WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE REFUSAL OR PROPER RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 226. WHEN THE CONSTITUT ION CONFERS ON THE HIGH COURTS THE POWER TO GIVE RELIEF IT BECOMES THE DUTY OF THE COURTS TO GIVE SUCH RELIEF IN FIT CASES AND THE COU RTS WOULD BE FAILING TO PERFORM THEIR DUTY IF RELIEF IS REFUSED WITHOUT ADEQUATE REASONS.' 48. MOREOVER, IN THIS CASE, WHERE THE WRIT PETITION HAD BEEN ENTERTAINED AND KEPT PENDING FOR ABOUT SIX YEARS AN D DIRECTIONS ISSUED FOR FILING OF AFFIDAVITS, THIS COURT IS NOT INCLINED TO DECLINE RELIEF ONLY ON THE GROUND OF EXISTENCE OF AN ALTERN ATIVE REMEDY OF FILING AN OBJECTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D THEN TAKING RECOURSE TO AN APPEAL UPON REASSESSMENT. ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 17 49. IN RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. V. ITO REPORTED IN [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) CITED BY MR. BHOWMICK, THE SUPREME COURT WAS SATISFIED ON FACTS THAT JURISDICTION TO REASSESS HA D VALIDLY BEEN ASSUMED. 50. IF THERE ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESC APED ASSESSMENT, AND JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE OF REA SSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT HAS BEEN EX ERCISED, THE COURT OUGHT NOT TO WEIGH THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE REA SONS IN EXERCISE OF ITS EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION UND ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 51. THE COURT MAY, HOWEVER, IN EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW EXAMINE WHETHER THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION TO REOPEN ASSESSMENT AT ALL EXIST. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEW AND/OR FRESH MATERIALS, ON THE BASIS OF WHI CH THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE FORMED THE OPINION THA T INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LACKED JU RISDICTION TO REOPEN ASSESSMENT. 52. THE REASSESSMENT NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR VIRTUAL LY THE SAME REASONS FOR WHICH RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS HA D EARLIER BEEN INITIATED BUT DROPPED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO T DISCLOSED ANY NEW MATERIALS FOR REOPENING ASSESSMENT. ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION, AS HAS APPARE NTLY BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON BEING S ATISFIED THAT THERE WAS NO APPARENT ERROR IN COMPUTATION OF INCOM E, ON THE BASIS OF EXISTING RECORDS, DROPPED THE RECTIFICATIO N PROCEEDINGS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEW AND/OR FRESH MATERIALS AND I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASON FOR FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT EVEN THOUG H THERE WAS NO APPARENT MISTAKE OR ERROR, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER LACKED JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE. 53. FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE IMPUGNED NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS SET ASIDE. THE WRIT PETITION IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 18 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AS WELL AS THE DECI SIONS CITED (SUPRA) WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE REOPENING IS NOT SUSTAINABLE WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT WERE PENDIN G ON THE SAME ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTIAL REASSESSMENT ORDER. A S WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 147/148 AND CONSEQ UENTIAL REASSESSMENT ORDER, THEREFORE, THE OTHER GROUNDS RA ISED ON THE MERITS BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED AND REVENUE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/02/2018 SD/ SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 20/02/2018. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015 M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS.ACIT, JAIPUR 19 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 92 & 206/JP/2015} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR