YASHASHVI DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI V. CIT 24, MUMBAI

ITA 2183/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78980 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHAKALA CHANDA
• Assessee Lawyers: S C TIWARI; NATASHA MANGAT
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Assessment record; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 147; 263; 12

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G, BENC H MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM ./ ITA NO.2183/MUM/2012 ( ! ! ! ! / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08) M/S YASHASHVI DEVELOPERS, 101/3, KEDIA CHAMBERS, S.V.ROAD, MALAD (W), MUMBAI-400 064 VS. CIT-24, MUMBAI ' ./ # ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFY 2929 A ( '$ / APPELLANT ) .. ( %&'$ / RESPONDENT ) '( ) )) ) * * * * /ASSESSEE BY : MR.S.C.TIWARI & MS. NATASHA MANGAT ) )) ) * * * * /REVENUE BY : SMT. ASHAKALA CHANDA ) (+ / DATE OF HEARING : 19 TH MAY, 2014 ,-! ) (+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 RD MAY,2014 . . . . / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN (A.M.) : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 PASSED BY LD CIT-24, MUMBAI U/S 263 OF T HE ACT AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE IS CH ALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REVISION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE LD. CIT. 2 . THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 24.12.200 9 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN HE ALLOWED DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO LD A.R, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUB MITTED ALL THE RELEVANT ITA NO.2183 /12 2 DETAILS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS CONSIDE RED ALL OF THEM WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD COUNSEL SUBMI TTED THAT THE LD CIT, ON EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, TOOK THE V IEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE ON THE REASONING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IB OF THE ACT WITHOUT EXAMI NING FOLLOWING ASPECTS VIZ., (A) THE AO HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S COMPLETED THE HOUSING PROJECT BEYOND 4 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF GRANTING APPROVAL BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. (B) THE AO HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED COMMERCIAL SPACE EXCEEDING 2000 SQ. FT. , WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. HENCE THE LD CIT INITIATED THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 3 . THE LD A.R INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE PROVI SIONS OF SUB-CLAUSES (I) AND (II) OF CLAUSE (A) TO SEC. 80IB(10) AND SUBMITT ED THAT THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF 4 YEARS IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON OR AFTER 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2004. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPROVAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS GRANTED PRIOR TO 1 ST APRIL, 2004, HENCE THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF 4 YEAR S IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT, AS PER SU B-CLAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE (A) TO SEC. 80IB(10), THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO C OMPLETE THE PROJECT BY 31-03-2008 AND IN FACT, THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED P RIOR TO THE ABOVE SAID DATE. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT WAS NOT RIGHT IN ITA NO.2183 /12 3 ENTERTAINING THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE PROJECT WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. 4 . THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LIMIT FO R CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL UNITS WAS INTRODUCED BY FINANCE (NO.2) A CT, 2004 W.E.F. 1.4.2005. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MUMBAI BENCH OF TR IBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.1.2014, PASSED IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. YASH DEVELOPERS IN ITA NO.809/MUM/2011 AND ITA NO.3644/MUM/2011 HAS HELD T HAT THE ABOVE SAID LIMIT WOULD APPLY ONLY TO THOSE PROJECTS WHICH WAS APPROVED ON OR AFTER 1.4.2005 AND THE AMENDED PROVISIONS (AMENDED W.E.F. 1.4.2005) WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE PROJECTS APPROVED PRIOR TO 3 1.3.2005. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED PROJECT PRIOR TO 31.3.2005 AND HENCE THE V IEW ENTERTAINED BY LD CIT ON THIS POINT IS ALSO NOT CORRECT. 5 . THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A COPY OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 26.02.2008 ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE LD CIT. HOWEVER, THE FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE ABOVE SAID CERTIFICATE IS NOT COMPLE TION CERTIFICATE (AS CONTEMPLATED IN SEC. 80IB OF THE ACT) AND FURTHER I T IS ONLY PART OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT HAS NOT POINTED OUT THIS ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SHOW CAUSE N OTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THE LD CIT DID NOT CONFRONT TH E SAME WITH THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING ALSO. THE LD A.R S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED A CLARIFICATORY LETTER FROM T HE LOCAL AUTHORITY, WHEREIN THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ITA NO.2183 /12 4 SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATORY LETTER IS ENCLOSED IN PAG ES 10-11 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6 . ACCORDINGLY, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE IM PUGNED REVISION ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS THE SAM E HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE LEGAL POSITION ON THE ISSUES POINTED BY LD CIT AND WITHOUT CONFRONTING SOME ISSUES WITH THE ASSESSEE. 7 . ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, HAS PASSED A CRYPTIC ORDER WITHOU T MAKING ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DI D NOT DISCUSS ANY OF THE ISSUES POINTED OUT BY LD CIT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. HENCE IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID APPLY HIS MIND AND HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW IN THIS MATTER. SHE FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT IT IS A WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD BE RENDERED ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVEN UE, IF THERE IS LACK OF APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER. 8 . IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FROM THOSE RECORDS ONLY; THE LD CIT HAS DRAWN ADVER SE INFERENCES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DULY CONSIDERED ALL THE DOCUMENTS / DET AILS RELATING TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IB OF THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH HE DID NOT DISCUSS ABOUT THEM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, H E SUBMITTED THAT THE ITA NO.2183 /12 5 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE IMPUG NED ISSUE AND HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DELHI HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR INDIA LTD, HAS EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDER ED ALL THE DETAILS / DOCUMENTS BEFORE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR INDIA LTD WAS RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF SEC. 147 OF THE ACT, THE RATIO OF THE SA ID DECISION WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/ S 263 OF THE ACT. 9 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE RECORD. THE SCOPE OF REVISION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTI ON 263 OF THE ACT WAS CONSIDERED BY HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CAS E OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. V CIT (321 ITR 92) BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. THE RELEVANT OB SERVATIONS ARE EXTRACTED BELOW: SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 EMPOWERS T HE COMMISSIONER TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD O F ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT AND, IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEO US IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, TO PASS AN ORDER UPON HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER AN ENQUIRY AS I S NECESSARY, ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. THE KE Y 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 I S PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THIS PROVISION HAS B EEN INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN SEVERAL JUDGMENTS TO WHICH IT IS NOW NECESSARY TO TURN. IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V . CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE O R ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT IS ON LY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACT ED. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACT OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW, WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, WOU LD BE AN ORDER FALLING IN THAT CATEGORY. THE EXPRESSION PREJUDICIAL TO THE ITA NO.2183 /12 6 INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD, IT IS OF WIDE IMPORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO A LOSS OF TAX. WHAT I S PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IS EXPLAINED IN THE JUD GMENT 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 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE A S A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, C ANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REV ENUE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME-TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN L OSS OF REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE IN COME- TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMI SSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONE OUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLES S THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IN MALABAR I NDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND EXPLAINED IN A SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. MAX INDIA LTD. [2007] 295 ITR 282. 10 . IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS A CRYPTIC ONE AND IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY DISCUS SION ABOUT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB(10) OF T HE ACT. THE QUESTION WHETHER ANY ORDER PASSED WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS WHATSOEVER WOULD BE SUSCEPTIBLE FOR REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS CONSIDERED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION (306 ITR 49) . THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- IT IS ALSO NECESSARY FOR THE PARTIES TO KNOW THE R EASONS THAT HAVE WEIGHED WITH THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY IN COM ING TO A CONCLUSION. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER SHOULD BE A SELF CONTAINED ORDER GIVING THE RELEVANT FACTS AND REASONS FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION BASED ON THOSE FACTS A ND LAW. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS CRYPTIC, TO SAY THE LEASE, AND IT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN REASONING TO JUSTIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HI MSELF DID NOT GIVE ANY REASON IN THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ANSWER THE QUESTION IN AFFIRMATIV E, IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH ITA NO.2183 /12 7 IN TERMS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE, IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE, CHALLENGED T HE ORDER PASSED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT BY FILING APPEAL BEFORE TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN ITS ORDER REPORTE D IN 306 ITR 52 HAS EXPRESSED THE FOLLOWING VIEW:- WHAT THE HIGH COURT HAS DONE IS TO REQUIRE THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO PASS A REASONED ORDER. THE HIGH COURT W AS OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL COULD NOT HAVE SUBSTITUTED ITS OW N REASONINGS WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, ALL RELEVANT ASPECTS WER E PLACED FOR CONSIDERATION AND IF THE OFFICER DID NOT RECORD REA SONS, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE FAULTED. WE DO NOT THING IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE AT THIS S TAGE. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT WHEN THE MATTER BE TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON REMAND, IT SHALL BE HIS DUTY T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE RELEVANT ASPECTS INCLUDING THE MATERIALS, IF ANY, A LREADY PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND PASS A REASONED ORDER. THUS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS UPHELD THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WHIC H HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE A SELF CO NTAINED ORDER GIVING THE RELEVANT FACTS AND REASONS FOR COMING TO THE CO NCLUSION BASED ON THOSE FACTS AND LAW. 11 . IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE HONBLE PUNJ AB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS ALSO EXPRESSED IDENTICAL VIEW IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS SUNIL KUMAR GOEL (2005) 274 ITR 53 (P &H) BY DULY CONSIDERING THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE AP EX COURT IN MUKHERJEE (S.N.) VS UOI (1990) AIR 1990 SC 1984 . 12 . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS CRYPTIC ONE AND IT DID NOT CONTAIN ANY DISCUSSI ON ABOUT THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. THOUG H THE LD A.R CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ALL THE DETAILS / DOCU MENTS BEFORE THE ITA NO.2183 /12 8 ASSESSING OFFICER, NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID APPLY HIS MIND ON THOSE MATER IALS BEFORE ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD (SUPRA) HAS HE LD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE DET AILS / DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE RENDERED ERRONEO US. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE OR NOT HAS GOT TAX IMPLICATIONS. 13 . THOUGH THE LD. A.R HAS CONTENDED THAT THE VIEW S ENTERTAINED BY LD CIT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, YET THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMI NED THE VARIOUS DETAILS RELATING TO THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. IN ANY CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT CERTAIN FACTUAL ASPECTS LIKE THE DATE OF COMPL ETION OF THE PROJECT, THE DETAILS RELATING TO COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ETC. ARE REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED. APPARENTLY THESE POINTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO BEFORE ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD CIT WAS WITH IN HIS POWER TO PASS THE IMPUGNED REVISION ORDER, SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS RENDERED ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVEN UE IN VIEW OF LACK OF APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER. 14 . BEFORE US, THE LD A.R VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED O N THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF VARIOUS ISSUES CONSIDERED BY THE LD CIT. SINCE THE LD CIT HAS EXPRESSED HIS VIEWS ON THOSE ISSUES, THERE IS A POS SIBILITY THAT THE SAME MAY HAMPER THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM TAKING AN IND EPENDENT VIEW ON ITA NO.2183 /12 9 THOSE ISSUES. THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD CIT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR ON THIS ASPECT. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT EVERY RIG HT TO PUT FORTH HIS ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT O F THOSE ISSUES. HENCE, WE MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT AND DIR ECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE SHOULD EXAMINE VARIOUS ISSUES RELAT ING TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WITHOUT BEING INFLU ENCED BY THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY LD CIT, I.E., THE ASSESSING OFFICER SH OULD EXAMINE THE CLAIM INDEPENDENTLY BY DULY CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS CONTE NTIONS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE LAW. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ' (/ '( ) . 1( ) ( 23 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD MAY, 2014. . ) ,-! 4 5/ 23 RD MAY,2014 - ) SD/- SD/- ( ) (SANJAY GARG) ( . . ) (B.R.BASKARAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 5 DATED 23/05/2014 %. . /PKM , . / PS . . . . ) )) ) %(7 %(7 %(7 %(7 87!( 87!( 87!( 87!( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : . . . . / BY ORDER, 9 99 9 / 2 2 2 2 ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. '$ / THE APPELLANT 2. %&'$ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. : / CIT 5. 7; %( , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. < = / GUARD FILE. &7( %( //TRUE COPY//