PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. C.I.T. CIR.7, MUMBAI

ITA 210/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3682 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M DAYASAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: R S SAMRIA
• Keywords: Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Condonation of delay; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 234B; 14A; 147; 263; 10

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 PEOPLE INFOCOM PRIVATE LTD. C/O- SAMRIA & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 2E, COURT CHAMBERS, 35, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. CIT - 7, ROOM NO.611, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 PAN NO. AADCP5658H ( / ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) / ASSESSEE BY SHRI R.S.SAMRIA / REVENUE BY SHRI M.DAYASAGAR CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 19/05/2016 / DATE OF ORDER: 19/05/2016 ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10/07/2012, OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INVOKING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). 2. HOWEVER, THERE IS DELAY OF 252 DAYS IN FILING T HE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED OR DER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATI ON. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT PURSUANT TO THE DECISION FROM HONBLE MADRAS HIGH C OURT, IN IDENTICAL MATTER IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN (HEREINAFTER ES OP) CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SSI LTD. VS DCIT (2004) 85 TTJ (CHENNAI) 1049 HOLDING THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS TO FOLLOW SEBI DIRECTIONS AND BY FOLLOWING SUCH DIRECTIONS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE ASCERTAINED AM OUNT AS LIABILITY FOR DEDUCTION. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DECISION, THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO FILE AN APPEAL. IT WAS CONTEND ED THAT ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 3 THE DECISION FROM HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT CAME IN JUNE 2012 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE FIL ED THE APPEAL ON 07/01/2013. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT KEEPIN G IN VIEW, THE SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE, THE DELAY M AY BE CONDONED. 2.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI M. DAYASAGAR, LD. CIT - DR, CONTENDED THAT DELAY MAY NOT BE CONDONED FOR WH ICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUN AL IN VIKAS BHALCHANDRA (ITA NO.3245/MUM/2012) ORDER DATE D 20/08/2014 AND SHRI VIJAY V. MEGHANI VS DCIT (ITA NO.5418 & 5419/MUM/2011) ORDER DATED 20/08/2014. L D. CIT-DR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO AMENDMENT MADE BY T HE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01/06/2015. 2.2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDER THE FACTS NARRATED BEFORE US, CONSIDERING THE SITUATION, NO DOUBT FILING OF AN APPEAL IS A RIGHT GRANTED UNDER THE ST ATUTE TO THE ASSESSEE AND IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC PRIVILEGE, THE REFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS EXPECTED TO BE VIGILANT IN ADHERING TO THE MANNER AND MODE IN WHICH THE APPEALS ARE TO BE FILE D IN ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 4 TERMS OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. NEVERT HELESS, A LIBERAL APPROACH HAS TO BE ADOPTED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, WHERE DELAY HAS OCCURRED FOR BONA FID E REASONS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE REVENUE IN FILING THE APPEALS. IN MATTERS CONCERNING THE FILING OF A PPEALS, IN EXERCISE OF THE STATUTORY RIGHT, A REFUSAL TO CONDO NED THE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITORIOUS MATTER BEING THRO WN OUT AT THE THRESHOLD, WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. THE JUDICIARY IS RESPECTED NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS PO WER TO LEGALIZE INJUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS BUT BECAUSE IT IS CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUSTICE AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO. 2.3. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN A CELEBRATED DECISI ON IN COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS MST. KATIJI & ORS. 1 67 ITR 471 OPINED THAT WHEN TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE COURTS ARE EXPECTED TO FURTHER THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JU STICE. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT AN OPPOSING PARTY, IN A DISPUTE, CANNOT HAVE A VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON- DELIBERATE DELAY. THEREFORE, IT FOLLOWS THAT WHILE CONSIDERING MATTERS RELATING TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY, ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 5 JUDICIOUS AND LIBERAL APPROACH IS TO BE ADOPTED. I F SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS FOUND TO EXIST, WHICH IS BONA -FIDE ONE, AND NOT DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DELA Y NEEDS TO CONDONED IN SUCH CASES. THE EXPRESSION SUFFICI ENT CAUSE IS ADEQUATELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS T O APPLY LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER, WHICH SUB-SERVES THE EN D OF JUSTICE- THAT BEING THE LIFE PURPOSE OF THE EXISTEN CE OF THE INSTITUTION OF THE COURTS. WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIC E AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTH ER, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERR ED. THIS MEANS THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO MALAFIDE OR DILATORY TACTICS. SUFFICIENT CAUSE SHOULD RECEIVE LIBERAL CONSTRUCTIO N TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. THE HONBLE APEX COUR T IN COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS MST. KATIJI & ORS. ( 167 ITR 471) OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 3. THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONFERRED THE POWER TO COND ONE DELAY BY ENACTING SECTION 51 OF THE LIMITATION ACT OF 196 3 IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO P ARTIES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON DE MERITS. THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE IS ADEQUATELY EL ASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES THE ENDS OF JUSTICE THAT BEING THE LIFE-PURPOSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE INSTITUTION OF COURTS. IT I S COMMON ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 6 KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS COURT HAS BEEN MAKING A JUSTIFI ABLY LIBERAL APPROACH IN MATTERS INSTITUTED IN THIS COUR T. BUT THE MESSAGE DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE PERCOLATED DOWN TO ALL THE OTHERS COURTS IN THE HIERARCHY. 2.4. FURTHERMORE, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VEDABAI ALIA VAIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATIL V S. SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL 253 ITR 798 HELD THAT THE C OURT HAS TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETION ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE KEEPING IN MIND THAT IN CONSTRUING THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE PRINCIPLE OF ADVANCING SUBS TANTIAL JUSTICE IS OF PRIME IMPORTANCE. THE COURT HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE SHOULD RECEIVE LIBERA L CONSTRUCTION. 2.5. SO FAR AS, THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD. CIT -DR IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIKASH BHALCHANDRA VS ACIT, THERE WAS DELAY OF 2009 DAYS A ND IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIJAY MEGHANI, THERE WAS DELAY OF 2984 DAYS, WHEREAS, IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS DELAY OF 252 DAYS, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE HUGE DELAY IN THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT-DR AND COMPARATIVE LY, LESSER DELAY IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE REASONS OF DELAY, ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 7 EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING MADE THE AF ORESAID OBSERVATION AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL FACTS AVAI LABLE ON RECORD, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, BY TAKING A LENIENT V IEW, THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 3. SO FAR AS, THE MERITS OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE-4 OF THE PAPER BOOK, PAGES-40 & 42 OF THE PAPER BOOK EXPLAINED THAT THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION WAS WRON GLY INVOKED. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO FILED AN ORDER U/S 7 (1) OF THE R.T.I. ACT, 2005 DULY SIGNED BY THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER/DCIT, CIRCLE-7(3)(2), MUMBAI. O UR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE ORDER SHEET (PAGE -3, ANNEXURE-A AND PAGE-4) ALONG WITH THE FACTUAL MATRI X RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT NECESSARY DETAILS WERE FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WERE DULY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. 3.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT-DR, DEFENDED T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT BY CONTENDING THAT THE NECESSA RY DETAILS ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 8 WERE NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT PUT INTO WRITING THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE AND ALSO THE ORDER IS SHORT ONE, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILED ASSESSMENT ORDER, PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSE D TO THE REVENUE. 3.2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (PAGE-40 & 41 OF THE PAPER BOO K), THE FACTS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MOBILE VALUE, ADDED SERV ICES UNDER THE BRAND NAME MAUJ, DECLARED LOSS OF RS.8,37,31,010/- IN ITS RETURN FILED ON 31/10/2007, WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(3) ON 27/02/2009. THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS, THER EFORE, NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS SERVED UPON THE AS SESSEE. THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S 142(1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAI RE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FURNIS HED THE REQUISITE DETAILS ALONG WITH PHYSICAL COPY OF E-FIL ED RETURN AND THE CASE OF DISCUSSED, AS IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE- 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN PARA -3, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 9 DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OUT OF STAF F WELFARE EXPENSES AND AT PAGE-2(PAGE-41 OF THE PAPER BOOK), THERE IS MENTION ON EXAMINATION OF DETAILS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE MEANING THEREBY, THE FACTS WERE DULY EXAMINED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. LIKEWISE, IN PARA-4, DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MADE WITH RESPECT TO BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AND IN PARA-5, FURTHER DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MADE ON DISALLOWANCE OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES AND THEREAFT ER IN PARA-6, THE INCOME WAS COMPUTED. IN THE CONCLUDING PARA, DIRECTION HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR GIVING CREDIT FOR PRE -PAID TAXES AND CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C AS APPLICABLE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 14 /12/2009 ADDRESSED TO THE ACIT (PAGES 42 TO 45 OF THE PAPER BOOK) EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO ESOP AND THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES WAS FURNISHED. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER BLINDLY. POSSIB LY, THE ORDER MAY NOT BE DETAILED ONE BUT THAT DOES NOT MEA N THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FACTS, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO B E ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REV ENUE. ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 10 3.3. SO FAR AS, THE SCOPE OF REVISION U/S 263 OF T HE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS ENLIGHTENED US IN ITS ORDER DATED 15/04/1993 IN CIT VS GABRIAL INDIA LTD. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (PAGES 9 TO 1 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK), WHEREIN DISCUSSION WAS MADE AT LENGTH AND FINALLY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELE VANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES A ND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, THE C OMMISSIONER AND THE TRIBUNAL. ON PERUSAL OF THE ADMITTED FACTS, IT APPEARS THAT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD EXAMINED THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUC TION OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS. 99,326. WHILE DOING SO, HE ASKE D FOR AN EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO THE NATU RE THEREOF. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A DETAILED EXPLANATION, VIDE HIS LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 1975. IT WAS ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID EXPLANATION AND ON BEING SATISFIED THAT IT WAS A RE VENUE EXPENDITURE THAT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER ALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION. IT IS, HOWEVER, CORRECT THAT IN HIS ORDE R, HE DID NOT MAKE ANY DISCUSSION IN REGARD TO THE QUERY MADE BY HIM AND THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THERETO. 8. ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER DID NOT DISCLOSE ANY APPLICATION OF MIND. HE ISSUED THE NOTICE AS HE FELT THAT THE EXPENDITURE I N QUESTION MIGHT BE A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. BUT DESPITE EXAMINING THE MATTER AT LENGTH AND HEARING THE ASSESSEE, HE COULD NOT COME TO ANY CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT REVENUE EXP ENDITURE BUT EXPENDITURE OF CAPITAL NATURE. HE REFERRED THE MATT ER BACK TO THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME AND TO DECID E AFRESH. ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 11 THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT APPROVE SUCH ACTION OF THE COM MISSIONER. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATI ON IS WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER WITHOUT ARRIVING AT A FINDING THAT THE ORDER IN QUESTION WAS ERRONEOUS CAN SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT IN EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. IT MAY BE EXPEDIENT AT THIS STAGE TO SET OUT SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. SECTION 263 , SO FAR AS RELEVANT, RUNS AS FOLLOWS : '263. REVISION OF ORDERS PREJUDICIAL TO REVENUE. - (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 INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEO US IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENU E, HE MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD A ND AFTER MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEE MS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIF YING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECT ING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. (2) NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) - (A) TO REVISE AN ORDER OF REASSESSMENT MADE UNDER S ECTION 147 , OR (B) AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED. . . . 9. FROM A READING OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 263 , IT IS CLEAR THAT THE POWER OF SUO MOTU REVISION CAN BE EXERCISE D BY THE COMMISSIONER ONLY IF, ON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY O RDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS 'ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE'. IT IS NOT AN ARBITRARY OR UNCHARTERED POWER. IT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY ON F ULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN IN SUB-SECTION (1). THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSIONER AS TO WHETHER AN ORDER IS ERRON EOUS IN SO ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 12 FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE RE VENUE, MUST BE BASED ON MATERIALS ON THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS CALLED FOR BY HIM. IF THERE ARE NO MATERIALS ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE COMMISSIONER ACTING IN A RE ASONABLE MANNER COULD HAVE COME TO SUCH A CONCLUSION, THE VE RY INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY HIM WILL BE ILLEGAL AN D WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROC EEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO STARTING FISHING AND ROVING ENQUIRIES IN MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED. SUCH ACTION WIL L BE AGAINST THE WELL-ACCEPTED POLICY OF LAW THAT THERE MUST BE A POINT OF FINALITY IN ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, THAT STALE ISSUE S SHOULD NOT BE REACTIVATED BEYOND A PARTICULAR STAGE AND THAT LAPS E OF TIME MUST INDUCE REPOSE IN AND SET AT REST JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL CONTROVERSIES AS IT MUST IN OTHER SPHERES OF HUMAN ACTIVITY. (SEE PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD. V. ITO ). 10. AS OBSERVED IN SIRPUR PAPER MILLS LTD. V. ITO BY RAGHUVEER J. (AS HIS LORDSHIP THEN WAS), THE DEPARTMENT CANNO T BE PERMITTED TO BEGIN FRESH LITIGATION BECAUSE OF NEW VIEWS THEY ENTERTAIN ON FACTS OR NEW VERSIONS WHICH THEY PRESE NT AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE INFERENCE OR PROPER INFERENCE EITHER OF THE FACTS DISCLOSED OR THE WEIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. IF TH IS IS PERMITTED, LITIGATION WOULD HAVE NO END, 'EXCEPT WHEN LEGAL IN GENUITY IS EXHAUSTED'. TO DO SO, IS '. . . TO DIVIDE ONE ARGUM ENT INTO TWO AND TO MULTIPLY THE LITIGATION'. 11. THE POWER OF SUO MOTU REVISION UNDER SUBSECTION (1) IS IN THE NATURE OF SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION AND THE SAME CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED THEREIN EXIST. TWO CIRCUMSTANCES MUST EXIST TO ENABLE THE COMMISSIONER TO EXERCISE POWER OF REVISION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION, VIZ., (I) THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS; (II) BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONE OUS PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IT HAS, THEREFORE, TO BE CONSIDERED FIRSTLY AS TO WHEN AN ORDER CAN BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS. WE FIND THAT THE EXPRESSIONS 'ERRONEOUS' , 'ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENT' AND 'ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT' HAVE BEEN DEFI NED IN BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY. ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION , 'ERRONEOUS' ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 13 MEANS 'INVOLVING ERROR; DEVIATING FROM THE LAW'. 'E RRONEOUS ASSESSMENT' REFERS TO AN ASSESSMENT THAT DEVIATES F ROM THE LAW AND IS, THEREFORE, INVALID, AND IS A DEFECT THAT IS JURISDICTIONAL IN ITS NATURE, AND DOES NOT REFER TO THE JUDGMENT OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FIXING THE AMOUNT OF VALUATION OF THE PR OPERTY. SIMILARLY, 'ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT' MEANS 'ONE RENDERED ACCORDING TO COURSE AND PRACTICE OF COURT, BUT CONT RARY TO LAW, UPON MISTAKEN VIEW OF LAW; OR UPON ERRONEOUS APPLIC ATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES'. 12. FROM THE AFORESAID DEFINITIONS IT IS CLEAR THAT AN ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS UNLESS IT IS NOT IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF AN INCOME-TAX OFFICER ACTING IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW MAKES A CERTAIN ASSESSMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCOR DING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABOR ATELY THIS SECTION DOES NOT VISUALISE A CASE OF SUBSTITUTION O F THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THAT OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFI CER, WHO PASSED THE ORDER UNLESS THE DECISION IS HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. CASES MAY BE VISUALISED WHERE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICE R WHILE MAKING AN ASSESSMENT EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES E NQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINES THE INCOME EITHER BY ACCEPTING THE ACCOU NTS OR BY MAKING SOME ESTIMATE HIMSELF. THE COMMISSIONER, ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, MAY BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ESTIMAT E MADE BY THE OFFICER CONCERNED WAS ON THE LOWER SIDE AND LEFT TO THE COMMISSIONER HE WOULD HAVE ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT A FIGURE HIGHER THAN THE ONE DETERMINED BY THE INCOME-TAX OF FICER. THAT WOULD NOT VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH POWER TO RE-EX AMINE THE ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINE THE INCOME HIMSELF AT A HIGH ER FIGURE. IT IS BECAUSE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAS EXERCISED THE QUASI- JUDICIAL POWER VESTED IN HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ARRIVED AT CONCLUSION AND SUCH A CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER DOES N OT FEEL SATISFIED WITH THE CONCLUSION. IT MAY BE SAID IN SU CH A CASE THAT IN THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSIONER THE ORDER IN QUE STION IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. BUT TH AT BY ITSELF WILL ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 14 NOT BE ENOUGH TO VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH THE POW ER OF SUO MOTU REVISION BECAUSE THE FIRST REQUIREMENT, VIZ., THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, IS ABSENT. SIMILARLY, IF AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, TH EN ALSO THE POWER OF SUO MOTU REVISION CANNOT BE EXERCISED. ANY AND EVERY ERRONEOUS ORDER CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF REV ISION BECAUSE THE SECOND REQUIREMENT ALSO MUST BE FULFILL ED. THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY THE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE ON AN INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION A LESSER TAX THAN WHAT WAS JUST HAS BEEN IMPOSED. 13. AS OBSERVED IN DAWJEE DADABHOY AND CO. V. S. P. JAIN [1957] 31 ITR 872 (CAT), AT PAGE 881, 'THE WORDS 'PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE' HAVE NOT BEEN DEFINED, BU T IT MUST MEAN THAT THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT CHALLENGED ARE SUCH A S ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN CONSEQUENCE WHEREOF THE LAW FUL REVENUE DUE TO THE STATE HAS NOT BEEN REALISED OR C ANNOT BE REALISED. IT CAN MEAN NOTHING ELSE'. THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS WERE ALSO APPLIED BY THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN ADDL . CIT V. MUKUR CORPORATION [1978] 111 ITR 312. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AFORESAID INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE CALC UTTA HIGH COURT TO THE EXPRESSION 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES TS OF THE REVENUE' IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION. 14. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT IN ORDER TO EXERCISE P OWER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT THERE MUST BE MATERIAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER TO CONSIDER THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS I T IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. WE HAV E ALREADY HELD WHAT IS ERRONEOUS. IT MUST BE AN ORDER WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OR WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY IN UN DUE HASTE. WE HAVE ALSO HELD AS TO WHAT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. AN ORDER CAN BE SAID TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE IF IT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW IN CONSEQUENCE WHEREOF THE LAWFUL REVENUE DUE TO THE S TATE HAS NOT ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 15 BEEN REALISED OR CANNOT BE REALISED. THERE MUST BE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD CALLED FOR BY THE COMMISSIO NER TO SATISFY HIM PRIMA FACIE THAT THE AFORESAID TWO REQUISITES A RE PRESENT. IF NOT, HE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FO R REVISION. EXERCISE OF POWER OF SUO MOTU REVISION UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WILL AMOUNT TO ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF POWER. IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT WHEN EXERCISE OF STATUTORY POWER IS DEPENDENT UPON THE EXISTENCE OF CERTAIN OBJECTIVE FACTS, THE AUTHORITY BEFORE EXERCISING SUCH POWER MUST HAVE MATERIALS ON RECORD TO SATISFY IT IN THAT REGARD. IF THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITY I S CHALLENGED BEFORE THE COURT IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE COURTS TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE RELEVANT OBJECTIVE FACTORS WERE AVAILAB LE FROM THE RECORDS CALLED FOR AND EXAMINED BY SUCH AUTHORITY. OUR AFORESAID CONCLUSION GETS FULL SUPPORT FROM A DECIS ION OF SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J. (AS HIS LORDSHIP THEN WAS) I N RUSSELL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. V. A. CHOWDHURY, ADDL . CIT . IN OUR OPINION, ANY OTHER VIEW IN THE MATTER WILL AMOUNT TO GIVING UNBRIDLED AND ARBITRARY POWER TO THE REVISING AUTHORITY TO IN ITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR REVISION IN EVERY CASE AND START RE -EXAMINATION AND FRESH ENQUIRIES IN MATTERS WHICH HAVE ALREADY B EEN CONCLUDED UNDER THE LAW. AS ALREADY STATED IT IS A QUASI JUDICIAL POWER HEDGED IN WITH LIMITATION AND HAS TO BE EXERC ISED SUBJECT TO THE SAME AND WITHIN ITS SCOPE AND AMBIT. SO FAR AS CALLING FOR THE RECORDS AND EXAMINING THE SAME IS CONCERNED, UN DOUBTEDLY, IT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACT, BUT ON EXAMINATION 'TO CONSIDER' OR IN OTHER WORDS, TO FORM AN OPINION THAT THE PARTICU LAR ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO TAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT ERESTS OF THE REVENUE, IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL ACT BECAUSE ON THIS CO NSIDERATION OR OPINION THE WHOLE MACHINERY OF RE-EXAMINATION AND RECONSIDERATION OF AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, WHICH HA S ALREADY BEEN CONCLUDED AND CONTROVERSY WHICH HAS BEEN SET A T REST, IS SET AGAIN IN MOTION. IT IS AN IMPORTANT DECISION AND TH E SAME CANNOT BE BASED ON THE WHIMS OR CAPRICE OF THE REVI SING AUTHORITY. THERE MUST BE MATERIALS AVAILABLE FROM T HE RECORDS CALLED FOR BY THE COMMISSIONER. ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 16 15. WE MAY NOW EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CAS E IN THE LIGHT OF THE POWERS OF THE COMMISSIONER SET OUT ABOVE. TH E INCOME- TAX OFFICER IN THIS CASE HAD MADE ENQUIRIES IN REGA RD TO THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN DETAILED EXPLANATION IN THAT REGARD BY A LETTER IN WRITING. ALL THESE ARE PART OF THE RECORD OF THE CA SE. EVIDENTLY, THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. SUC H DECISION OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE 'ERRONE OUS' SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HIS ORDER HE DID NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE D ISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD. MOREOVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE COM MISSIONER HIMSELF, EVEN AFTER INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR REVI SION AND HEARING THE ASSESSEE, COULD NOT SAY THAT THE ALLOWA NCE OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ERRONEOUS AND THAT THE EX PENDITURE WAS NOT REVENUE EXPENDITURE BUT AN EXPENDITURE OF C APITAL NATURE. HE SIMPLY ASKED THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO R E-EXAMINE THE MATTER. THAT, IN OUR OPINION, IS NOT PERMISSIBL E. FURTHER INQUIRY AND/OR FRESH DETERMINATION CAN BE DIRECTED BY THE COMMISSIONER ONLY AFTER COMING TO THE CONCLUSION TH AT THE EARLIER FINDING OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WAS ERRON EOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. WITHOU T DOING SO, HE DOES NOT GET THE POWER TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE COMMISSIONER DID SO AND IT IS FOR THAT RE ASON THAT THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT APPROVE HIS ACTION AND SET ASIDE H IS ORDER. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ABOVE CONCLUSION O F THE TRIBUNAL. 16. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE AN SWER THE QUESTION REFERRED TO US IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THAT IS , IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 3.4. IN THE CELEBRATED CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. VS CIT (243 ITR 83)(SC), IT WAS HELD T HAT FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION U/S 263 BY THE LD. COMMISSION ER, THE ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 17 ORDER SHOULD BE EITHER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT W AS FRAMED WITHOUT MAKING AN ENQUIRY BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER, IN THAT SITUATION, EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICT ION BY THE CIT WAS HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESE NT CASE, DUE ENQUIRIES WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE NECESSARY DETAILS, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE EXAMI NED, THEREFORE, THIS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS SUPPORTS TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IDENTICAL RATIO WAS LAID DOWN IN C IT VS MAX INDIA LTD. (2007) 295 ITR 282, WHEREIN, THE DECISIO N OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. WAS ALSO CONSIDERED AND THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT WAS DISMISSED. IT IS ELEMENTARY, AS WAS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO LTD VS CIT [(2000) 24 3 ITR 83 (SC)], EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A N ORDER OF AO CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER ESTS OF THE REVENUE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN ITO ADOPTED ONE OF TH E COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN L OSS OF REVENUE; OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE IT O HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGREE, I T CANNOT ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 18 BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITO IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. LEARNED COMMISSIONER WAS THU S IN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MADE ENQUIRIES WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT AND RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF THE REVENUE, WE FIND NO SUCH ERROR, WHICH CAN LE AD TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING SUBJECTED TO THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263. 3.5. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION IN SIDDHI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS VS CI T (ITA NO.2630 TO 2635/MUM/2012) ORDER DATED 13/05/2014, WHEREIN, VARIOUS DECISIONS LIKE MUDHIT MADANLAL GUP TA VS ACIT (51 DTR 217), DCIT VS MAGAPATTA TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (141 ITD 682)(PUNE), RAHUL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS ITO (ITA NO.1250/PN/2009), CIT VS VANDANA PROPERTIES (2012) 353 ITR 36 (BOM.) AND VARIOUS DECISIONS WERE CONSIDERED AND FINALLY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 19 3.6. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. (2011) 332 ITR 167 ORDER DATED 11/09/2009 , AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS DECISIONS, MADE AN ELABOR ATE DISCUSSION AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THERE IS DISTINCTION BETWEEN LACK OF ENQUIRY AND INADEQUATE ENQUIRY AND HOLD THAT IF THERE IS AN E NQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE, THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCA SION TO THE CIT TO PASS ORDER US/ 263, MERELY BECAUSE HE HA S A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER. THIS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT SQUARELY DEFENDS THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE. WHILE COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION, THE HONBLE COURT DULY CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING DECISION A. ASSTT. CIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD . (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 30 (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) B. CIT VS. MYSORE SPUN CONCRETE PIPE (P) LTD. (1991) 9 7 CTR (KAR) 117 (1992) 194 ITR 159 (KAR) C. CIT VS. SESHASAYEE PAPER & BOARDS LTD. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (MAD) D. GEE VEE ENTERPRISES VS. ADD!. CIT 1975 CTR (DEL) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (DEL) E. MADRAS INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. C IT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 555 (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC) F. MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 20 3.7. NOW, WE SHALL DEAL WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT-DR WITH RESPECT TO AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANC E ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 01/06/2015. THE PROVISION OF THE A CT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE:- 263. (1) THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER MA Y CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT ERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEE MS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CAN CELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. [ EXPLANATION 1 . ] FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED T HAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, ( A ) AN ORDER PASSED ON OR BEFORE OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 1988 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL INCLUDE ( I ) AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSISTANT COMM ISSIONER OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER ON TH E BASIS OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER UNDER S ECTION 144A; ( II ) AN ORDER MADE BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IN EXERCI SE OF THE POWERS OR IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF AN ASSESS ING OFFICER CONFERRED ON, OR ASSIGNED TO, HIM UNDER THE ORDERS OR DIRECTI ONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD OR BY THE [PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR] C HIEF COMMISSIONER OR [PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR] DIR ECTOR GENERAL OR [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER AUTHORI SED BY THE BOARD IN THIS BEHALF UNDER SECTION 120; ( B ) 'RECORD' SHALL INCLUDE AND SHALL BE DEEMED ALWAYS TO HAVE INCLUDED ALL RECORDS RELATING TO ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS A CT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER; ( C ) WHERE ANY ORDER REFERRED TO IN THIS SUB-SECTION A ND PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN Y APPEAL FILED ON OR BEFORE OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 1988, THE POWE RS OF THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER UNDER THIS SUB-SECTIO N SHALL EXTEND AND SHALL BE DEEMED ALWAYS TO HAVE EXTENDED TO SUCH MATTERS AS HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN SUCH APPEAL. ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 21 [EXPLANATION 2. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, IF, IN THE OPINION OF THE PRINCIPAL CO MMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, ( A ) THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT MAKING INQUIRIES OR V ERIFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE; ( B ) THE ORDER IS PASSED ALLOWING ANY RELIEF WITHOUT I NQUIRING INTO THE CLAIM; ( C ) THE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN Y ORDER, DIRECTION OR INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE BOARD UNDER SECTION 119; OR ( D ) THE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY DECISION WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE, RENDERED BY T HE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE OR ANY OTHER PERSON. ] (2) NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AF TER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH T HE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS PASSED. (3) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTI ON (2), AN ORDER IN REVISION UNDER THIS SECTION MAY BE PASSED AT ANY TI ME IN THE CASE OF AN ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED IN CONSEQUENCE OF, OR T O GIVE EFFECT TO, ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER OF THE A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL, [NATIONAL TAX TRIBUNAL,] THE HIGH COURT O R THE SUPREME COURT. EXPLANATION .IN COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR THE PUR POSES OF SUB-SECTION (2), THE TIME TAKEN IN GIVING AN OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO BE REHEARD UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 129 AND ANY PERIOD DURING WHICH ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS SECTION IS STAYED B Y AN ORDER OR INJUNCTION OF ANY COURT SHALL BE EXCLUDED. IF THE AFORESAID INSERTION OF EXPLANATION -2 IS ANA LYZED THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CAN BE INVOKED ONLY WHEN (A) THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT MAKING ENQUIRIES OR VER IFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE (B) THE ORDER IS PASSED ALLOWING ANY RELIEF WITHOUT ENQ UIRING INTO THE CLAIM ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 22 (C) THE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY ORDER, DIRECTION OR INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE BOARD U/S 11 9 OR (D) THE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN Y DECISION WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE, RENDERED BY T HE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR SUPREME COURT IN A CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY OTHER PERSON. 3.8. IF THE AFORESAID INSERTION, W.E.F. 01/06/2015 , IF KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION WITH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE INSER TION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS AND ON EXAMINATION/VERIFICATION OF THE SAME AND THE RELIE F WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER MAKING DUE ENQUIRY, THEREFORE, SO FAR AS, EXPLANATION-2(A) AND (B) IS CONCERNED, CONSEQUENTLY, ON THIS COUNT ALSO, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ASSERTION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3.9. THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S. SIMANDHAR ASSOCIATION VS PRINCIPAL CIT (I.T.A. NO. 789/MUM/2016) ORDER DATED 21/03/2016 HAS DISCUSSED THE SCOPE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREU NDER:- ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 23 THE SCOPE OF REVISION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WAS CONSIDERED BY HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT , IN THE CASE OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. V CIT (321 ITR 92) B Y TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS ARE EXTRACTED BELOW: SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 EMPOWERS THE COMMISSIONER TO C ALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE 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 INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, TO PASS AN ORDER UPON HEARING THE ASSE SSEE AND AFTER AN ENQUIRY AS IS NECESSARY, ENHANCING OR MODI FYING THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTI NG A FRESH ASSESSMENT. THE KEY WORDS THAT ARE USED BY SECTION 263 ARE THAT THE ORDER MUST BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN TERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY TH E SUPREME COURT IN SEVERAL JUDGMENTS TO WHICH IT IS NOW NECES SARY TO TURN. IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT [2000] 243 IT R 83, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PROVISION CANNOT BE IN VOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COM MITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDE R IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. THE SUPREME CO URT HELD THAT AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACT OR AN INCORRECT APP LICATION OF LAW, WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEIN G ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF N ATURAL JUSTICE OR WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, WOULD BE AN ORDER F ALLING IN THAT CATEGORY. THE EXPRESSION PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE STS OF THE REVENUE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD, IT IS OF WIDE IMP ORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO A LOSS OF TAX. WHAT IS PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IS EXPLAINED IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT (HEADNOTE) : THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE RE VENUE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSE QUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CANNOT BE TREATED A S PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME-TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN L AW AND IT HAS ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 24 RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHIC H THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED A S AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND EXPLAINED IN A SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME C OURT IN CIT V. MAX INDIA LTD. [2007] 295 ITR 282. THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE COURTS ARE THAT THE LEARNED CIT CANNOT INVOKE HIS POWERS OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES AND APPLI ED HIS MIND TO THE ISSUES. IF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PAS SED BY CAUSING ENQUIRIES, THEN IT WOULD NOT GIVE OCCASION TO THE C OMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER. THE CONSIDER ATION OF THE COMMISSIONER AS TO WHETHER AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE MUST BE BAS ED ON MATERIALS ON RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS CALLED FOR B Y HIM. IF THERE ARE NO MATERIALS ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE COMMISSIONER ACTING IN A REASONABLE MANNER COULD HAVE COME TO SUCH A CONCLUSION, THE VERY INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY HIM WILL BE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURI SDICTION. THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIE W TO START FISHING AND ROVING ENQUIRIES IN MATTERS OR ORDERS W HICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED. 3.10. THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE AHMADABAD BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ADITYA MEDISALES VS ADDL. C IT (ITA NO.1334/AHD/2015) ORDER DATED 16/02/2016 FURTHER SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN, THE REV ISIONAL JURISDICTION INVOKED U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS QUASHED . THE ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 25 RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE AFORESAID ORDER IS REPROD UCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE:- 7. WE HAVE NOTED THAT AS ON THE TIME OF PASSING T HE IMPUGNED REVISION ORDER, THE MATTER REGARDING DISAL LOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14 A WAS PENDING FOR I . T.A . NO. 1334/AHD/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 -1 1 CONSIDERA TION BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEA L BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 22ND MARCH 2013 AND EVEN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED ON 14TH OCTOBER 2013. LEARNE D CIT(A) WAS THUS IN SEISIN OF THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER TH E DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A WAS CORRECTLY MADE, AND LET US NOT FORGET THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ALL THE POWERS, C O TERMINUS WITH THE POWERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INCLUDING THE POWERS OF ENHANCEMENT. AS TO WHETHER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER COULD HAVE EXERCISED HIS REVISION POWE RS UNDER SECTION 263 AT THIS POINT OF TIME, WE FIND GU IDANCE FROM HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT, IN THE CASE O F CWT VS SAMPATHMAL CHORDIA [(2002) 256 ITR 440 (MAD)], W HICH OBSERVES, INTER ALIA, AS FOLLOWS: 2. THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CANNOT BE EXERCISED IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN DEPRIVING THE APPELLATE AUTHO RITY OF THE POWER TO EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL, WHEN AN APPEAL, HAS, IN FACT, BEEN FILED IN RESPECT OF THOSE MATTERS AND WAS PENDING BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY. THE EXPLANATION TO S. 25(2) IN CL. (C) THEREOF, AFTER I TS AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT OF 1989 MAKES THIS ABUNDANTLY CL EAR. THAT PROVISION SETS OUT THAT WHERE THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ONE PASSED BY THE AO AND HAD BEEN MADE T HE SUBJECT-MATTER OF AN APPEAL, THE POWER OF THE CWT W ILL EXTEND TO SUCH MATTERS AS HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED A ND DECIDED IN SUCH APPEAL. 8. THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION (C) TO SECTION 25( 2) TO THE WEALTH TAX ACT AND EXPLANATION C TO 263(1) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPL ETENESS, HOWEVER, THESE TWO PROVISIONS ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 26 (C) WHERE ANY ORDER REFERRED TO IN THIS SUB-SECTION AND PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN THE SUBJECT MATTE R OF ANY APPEAL FILED ON OR BEFORE OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF J UNE, 1988, THE POWERS OF THE COMMISSIONER UNDER THIS SUB-SECTI ON SHALL EXTEND AND SHALL BE DEEMED ALWAYS TO HAVE EXTENDED TO SUCH MATTERS AS HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN SUCH APPEAL. [EXPLANATION C TO SECTION 25(2)] (C) WHERE ANY ORDER REFERRED TO IN THIS SUB-SECTION AND PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN THE SUBJECT MATTE R OF ANY APPEAL FILED ON OR BEFORE OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF J UNE, 1988, THE POWERS OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISS IONER UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL EXTEND AND SHALL BE DE EMED ALWAYS TO HAVE EXTENDED] TO SUCH MATTERS AS HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN SUCH APPEAL. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ANALYSIS, AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER WAS INDEED IN ERROR IN EXERCIS ING HIS REVISION POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. AS LEARNED CIT(A) WAS I N SEISIN OF THE SAME MATTER, I.E. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14 A, IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LEARNED COMMISSIONER COULD N OT HAVE INVOKED HIS REVISION POWERS ON THE ISSUE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER W AS AFTER DUE EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER AND A CONSIDERED VIEW AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE RELEVANT FACTOR AND EVE N IF A DIFFERENT VIEW, ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS, WAS POSSI BLE, THE POSSIBILITY OF ANOTHER VIEW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE DID NOT RENDER THE ASSESSMENT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE SO AS TO TRIGGER REVISION UNDER SECTION 263. IN ANY EVENT, EVEN ON MERITS, THE STAND OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS INCORRECT AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW . FOR ALL THESE REASONS, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO UPHOLD TH E IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVISION ORDER STANDS QUASH ED. ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 27 3.11. TO SUM UP THE ISSUE, ADMITTEDLY, AN INCORREC T ASSUMPTION OF FACT OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF L AW WOULD SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS U/ S. 263 OF THE ACT. THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, HAS TO BE READ IN CON JUNCTION WITH THE EXPRESSION ERRONEOUS ORDER BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, MEANING THEREBY, PREJUDICE M UST BE PREJUDICE TO THE REVENUE ADMINISTRATION. AT THE SAM E TIME, IF ANOTHER VIEW IS POSSIBLE REVISION IS NOT PERMISS IBLE. OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION FROM HIMACHAL PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPN. (186 TAXMANN 105)(HP), BISMILLAH T RADING CO. (248 ITR 292)(KER.) AND CIT VS. GREEN WORLD COR PN. (314 ITR 81)(SC) . FOR INVOKING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MUST CONTAIN GRIEVOUS ERROR WH ICH IS SUBVERSIVE OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF REVENUE. FURTHE R, EXACT ERROR MUST BE DISCLOSED BY THE COMMISSIONER AS WAS HELD IN CIT VS. G.K. KABRA (211 ITR 336)(AP) . TOTALITY OF FACTS, CLEARLY INDICATES THAT ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF TH E ACT WAS ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 28 FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER OBTAINING NEC ESSARY DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THE SAME WERE EXAMINED BY HIM. THEREFORE, EVEN IF, THE SAME HAS N OT BEEN SPELT ELABORATELY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS A LACK OF ENQUIRY OR PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE REVENUE, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED VARIOUS CASE LAWS IN EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER WHICH ARE IDENTI CAL TO THE FACTS BEFORE US. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT WHILE INVOKI NG THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION, THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS N OT POINTED OUT EXACT ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SPE CIFYING AS TO HOW THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS/PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS FROM HON'BLE APEX COURT, VA RIOUS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AND VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIB UNAL, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER INVO KING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, BEING N OT WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE LAW, AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS FR AMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING NECESSAR Y DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAM E. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED IN A HA STY ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 29 MANNER OR WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL MATRIX/NECESSARY DETAILS. THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE ASSUMED MERELY STATING THAT ADEQUA TE ENQUIRY WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE DECISION FROM DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS SUNBEAM AU TO LTD (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN VEGESIN A KAMALA VS ITO (2016) 66 TAXMAN.COM 280 (VISHAKHAPATNAM) SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CONSI DERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMEN T, THE REVISIONAL ORDER IS QUASHED. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 19/05/2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ' # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ # / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; # DATED : 19/05/2016 F{X~{T? P.S/. .. ITA NO.210/MUM/2013 PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD. 30 !%$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %& '( / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. )*'( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ++ , ( %& ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. ++ , / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, 5. /01)2 , +%& %23 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 145 / GUARD FILE. ! / BY ORDER, */&) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI