UP Housing & Development Board, Lucknow V. ACIT, Lucknow

ITA 229/LKW/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 22923714 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 234B; 12AA; 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.229/LKW/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004 - 05 UP HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (UP AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, 104, M.G. MARG, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAAJU0103A VS. A.C.I.T., RANGE - II, LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 15/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 5 /09/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - I, LUCKNOW DATED 24/02/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 2005. 2. THE CONCISE/REVISED GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 30.3.2006 ARE NOT VALID AS THERE EXISTED NO MATERIAL, MUCH LESS RELEVANT MATERIAL, WHICH COULD LEAD TO THE FORMATION OF REQUISITE 'REASON TO BELIEVE'. 2. BECAUSE THE APPELLANT ALREADY STOOD RECOGNIZED AS AN INSTITUTION EXISTING FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, AS PER CERTIFICATE DATED 17.1.2006, ISSUED BY THE ID. CIT - I, LUCKNOW UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AND ON 30.03.2006 (WHICH IS THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148) IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SAID OR HELD 2 THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, SO AS TO CONFER JURISDICTION ON THE 'ASSESSING OFFICER' TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 3. BECAUSE IN ANY CASE BEFORE S ERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, THE APPELLANT HAD DULY FILED THE 'RETURN' UNDER SECTION 139 ON 31.3.2006 WHICH WAS A VALID 'RETURN' AND DURING THE PENDENCY OF VALID 'RETURN', THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 147 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO RE MAIN IN FORCE, SO AS TO EMPOWER THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2006 (IN PURSUANCE OF ACTION TAKEN UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT.) 4. BECAUSE THERE EXISTED A 'DISHARMONY' BETWEEN THE 'PERSON' IN WHOSE CASE THE PROCEEDINGS UND ER SECTION 147 HAD BEEN INITIATED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 30.3.2006 AND THE 'PERSON' DESCRIBED AS ARTIFICIAL JURIDICAL PERSON (AJP) ON WHOM THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2006 AND ON A DUE CONSIDERATION OF THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER, THE CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE HELD THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2006 WAS VOID AB - INITIO. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONTENTION RAISED IN THE FOREGOING GROUNDS: 5. BECAUSE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.1 2.2006, CAPTIONED AS ORDER 'U/S 143(3) / 148 OF THE I.T. ACT', CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN FULLY DECIDED AS VARIOUS GROUNDS TAKEN THEREIN BEING THE GROUNDS READING AS UNDER: - '(9) BECAUSE THE CLAIM OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE ON BANKS FIXED DEPOSITS AND DEPOSIT WORKS BE ALLOWED AS THE TDS CERTIFICATE FOR THE LIKE AMOUNT NOT RECEIVED FROM BANKS COULD NOT BE FILED EARLIER. (10) THAT FORM NO.10 IS BEING FILED AS IT COULD NOT BE FILED EARLIER UNAVOIDABLY. 3 (11) BECAUSE THE CHARGES OF INTEREST U/S 23 4A - B & C AS DIRECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS AGAINST FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL. (12) BECAUSE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY ADVANCE TAX AS PER PROVISION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND HENCE THE DIRECTION TO CHARGE IN TEREST U/S 234B IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ILLEGAL. REMAINED UNADJUDICATED UPON. 3. REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT THE REOPENING IS NOT VALID BECAUSE THE REASONS FOR REOPENING WERE RECORDED ON 30/03/2006 WHEREAS THE RETURN FOR THE PRESENT YEAR COULD BE FILED BY 31/03/2006 AND ON THIS DATE , THE RETURN H AS ACTUALLY BEEN FILED ALSO AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID TH AT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON 30/03/2006 WHEN PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WERE INITIATED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEING PARA NO. 5 TO 7 ARE RE PRODUCED BELOW: 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE DISCUSSIONS AS AFORESAID AND PARTICULARLY THE CHRONOLOGY OF RELEVANT DATES AND EVENTS AS HAS BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 2 HEREINFORE, IT IS SEEN THAT FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 REASONS WERE RECORDED ON 30 .03.2006/ WHEREAS THE 'RETURN' FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 COULD BE FILED UNDER SECTION 139(4) BY 31.03.2006 (ON WHICH DATE THE 'RETURN' HAD ACTUALLY BEEN FILED ALSO). THUS/ AS SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER; - '(4) ANY PERSON WHO HAS NOT FURNISHED A RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED TO HIM UNDER SUB - SECTION (1), OR WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142, MAY FURNISH THE RETURN FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER: 4 PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE RETURN RELATES TO A PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1988, OR ANY EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE REFERENCE TO ONE YEAR AFORESAID SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS A REFERENCE TO TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR.' THE 'RETURN' FILED BY THE PARISHAD ON 31.03.2006 WAS A VALID RETURN. THEREFORE/ IT COULD NOT BE HELD OR SAID THAT ANY 'INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX' AS ENVISAGED IN SECTION 147/ HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON 30.03.2006 WHERE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 WERE INITIATED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. FROM THIS IT FOLLOWS THAT VERY INITIATION OF PROCEE DINGS UNDER SECTION 147, BY 'RECORDING REASON' ON 30.03.2006 AND ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON THAT DATE IS INVALID. 6. OTHERWISE ALSO , THE 'REASONS RECORDED' ARE DEFICIENT AS THE SAME ARE NOT BASED ON RELEVANT MATERIAL. AS PER SPECIFIC DATES GIVEN IN THE CHRONOLOGY OF DATES AND EVENTS, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAD OVER RULED, BY ITS ORDER DATED 25.07.2005 (ANNEXURE - II) THE CIT'S VIEW (TAKEN BY HIM IN HIS ORDER DATED 29.09.2003) THAT THE PARISHAD HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF CONSTRUCTIO N OF HOUSE ETC. IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAID ORDER, THE ID. CIT - I, LUCKNOW HAD GRANTED REGISTRATION ALSO ON 17.01.2006. THESE WERE THE RELEVANT FACTS/MATERIAL WHICH HAD THE BINDING EFFECT ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARRIVING AT THE SATISFACTI ON THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SUCH 'RELEVANT FACTS' AND 'MATERIAL' HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE 'REASONS RECORDED'. IN OTHER WORDS, INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 ARE NOT BASED ON 'RELE VANT MATERIAL' CAPABLE OF FORMING A 'NEXUS' BETWEEN 'FORMATION OF REASON TO BELIEVE' AND 'INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT'. IN THE ABSENCE OF 'MATERIAL' WHICH CAN LEAD TO FORMATION OF SUCH A NEXUS, THE 'REASONS RECORDED' CANNOT BE SAID TO VALID IN THE EYES OF L AW. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: - ( I ) SHEO NATH SINGH VS. APPELLATE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX REPORTED IN (1971) 82 ITR147 ( II ) ITO VS. LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS REPORTED IN (1976) 103 ITR 437(SUPREME COURT) ( III ) GANGA SARAN & SONS P. LTD. VS. ITO REPORTED IN (1981) 130 ITR 1 AND ON DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDRA PRASTHA CHEMICALS LTD. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN (2004) 271 ITR 113 WHEREIN AFTER FOLLOWING THE SAID CASE LAWS, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HE LD AS UNDER: - 5 'UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REASSESSMENT CAN BE INITIATED ONLY IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE QUESTION WHETHER TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REASONS TO BELIEVE IS NOT A QUESTION OF LIMITATION ONLY BUT IS A QUESTION OF JURISDICTION, A VITAL THING, WHICH CAN ALWAYS BE INVESTIGATED BY THE COURT IN AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION AS HELD IN DAULATRAM RAW ATMAL V. ITO [1960] 38 ITR 301 (CAL); JAMNALAL KABRA V. ITO [1968] 69 ITR 461 (ALL); CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO. LTD. V. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC); C.M. RAJGHARIA V. ITO [1975] 98 ITR 486 (PATNA) AND MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIES LTD. V. ITO [1965]57 ITR 637 (SC). THE WORDS 'HAS REASON TO BELIEVE' ARE STRONGER THAN THE WORDS 'IS SATISFIED'. THE BELIEF ENTERTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST NOT BE ARBITRARY OR IRRATIONAL. IT MUST BE REASONABLE OR, IN OTHER WORDS, IT MUST BE BASED ON REASONS WHICH ARE RELEVANT AND MATERIAL AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN GANGA SARAN AND SONS P. LTD. V. ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1. THE EXPRESSION 'REASON TO BELIEVE' IN SECTION 147 DOES NOT MEAN PURELY SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE BELIEF MUST BE HELD IN GO OD FAITH; IT CANNOT BE MERELY A PRETENCE. IT IS OPEN TO THE COURT TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE REASONS FOR THE BELIEF HAVE A RATIONAL CONNECTION OR A RELEVANT BEARING TO THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF AND ARE NOT EXTRANEOUS OR IRRELEVANT TO THE PURPOSE OF THE SECTI ON. TO THIS LIMITED EXTENT, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN STARTING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 IS OPEN TO CHALLENGE IN A COURT OF LAW AS HELD IN S. NARAYANAPPA V. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 219 (SC); KANTAMANI VENKATA NARAYANA AND SONS V. FIRST ADDITIONA L ITO [1967] 63 ITR 638 (SC); MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIES LTD. V. ITO [1970] 77 ITR 268 (SC); SOWDAGAR AHMED KHAN V. ITO [1968] 70 ITR 79 (SC); ITO V. LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC); ITO V. NAWAB MIR BARKAT AH KHAN BAHADUR [1974] 97 ITR 239 (SC); CST V. BHAGWAN INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. [1973] 31 STC 293 (SC) AND STATE OF PUNJAB V. BALBIR SINGH [1994] 3 SCC 299. THE FORMATION OF THE REQUIRED OPINION AND BELIEF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT. WITHOUT SUCH FORMATION, HE WILL NOT HAVE J URISDICTION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147. THE FULFILLMENT OF THIS CONDITION IS NOT A MERE FORMALITY BUT IT IS MANDATORY. THE FAILURE TO FULFILL THAT CONDITION WOULD VITIATE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF JOHRI 6 LAL (HUF) V. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 439 (SC) AND SHEO NATH SINGH V. AAC OF I.T. [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC). THE REASONS FOR THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF MUST HAVE RATIONAL CONNECTION WITH OR RELEVANT BEARING ON THE FORMATION OF BELIEF. RATIONAL CONNECTION POSTULATES THAT THERE MUST BE A DIRECT NEXUS OR LIVE LINK BETWEEN THE MATERIAL COMING TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE FORMATION OF HIS BELIEF THAT THERE HAS BEEN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM ASSESSMENT IN THE PARTICULAR YEAR. IT IS NOT AN Y AND EVERY MATERIAL, HOWSOEVER VAGUE AND INDEFINITE OR DISTANT, REMOTE AND FARFETCHED , WHICH WOULD WARRANT THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF RELATING TO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM ASSESSMENT, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF IT O V. LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS [1976] 103 ITR 437. IF THERE IS NO RATIONAL AND INTELLIGIBLE NEXUS BETWEEN THE REASONS AND THE BELIEF, SO THAT, ON SUCH REASONS, NO ONE PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON FACTS AND LAW COULD REASONABLY ENTERTAIN THE BELIEF, THE CONCLUSION WOULD BE INESCAPABLE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE. IN SUCH A CASE, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM WOULD BE LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN AS INVALID AS HELD IN THE CASE OF GANGA SARAN AND SONS P. LTD. V. ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC). THUS, IT I S WELL SETTLED THAT THE 'REASON TO BELIEVE' UNDER SECTION 147 MUST BE HELD IN GOOD FAITH AND SHOULD HAVE A RATIONAL CONNECTION AND RELEVANT BEARING ON THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF AND SHOULD NOT BE EXTRANEOUS OR IRRELEVANT. FURTHER, THIS COURT IN PROCEEDING S UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CAN SCRUTINIZE THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT. THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE MATERIAL CANNOT BE GONE INTO BUT RELEVANCY CERTAINLY BE GO NE INTO.' (PAGES 118/119) 7. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ABOVE, INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 ARE NOT VALID WITH THE RESULT THAT ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE THEREOF INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE NULL AND VOID. 4. AS AGAINST THIS, LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 30/03/2006 AND THE SA ME WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 7 30/03/2006 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31/03/2006. THESE FACTS ARE NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IN PARA NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER IT CAN BE SAID THAT AN INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT I.E. ON 30/03/2006. THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW IS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME BY THE DUE DATE U/S 139 (1) , INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THIS STAND TAKEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION , IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NO T FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AS PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ISSUE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 142(1)(I) AS UNDER: 142(1) (I) WHERE SUCH PERSON HAS NOT MADE A RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OR BEFORE THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR TO FURNISH A RETURN OF HIS INCOME OR THE INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THIS ACT, IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. 5.1 FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142(1)(I) OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE DOES NOT FILE ITS RETURN OF INCO ME WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ASK THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME. SIMILARLY AS PER THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 147, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT , HE CAN ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME. FOR THIS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RECORD HIS REASON S FOR BELIEF AND THEN ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, TILL THE TIME AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FILING 8 RETURN U/S 139(4) HAS NOT EXPIRED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SUCH TIME HAS NOT EXPIRED ON 30/03/2006 WHEN TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 148 AND THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT VALID BECAUSE NO INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT TILL THAT DATE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HENCE, WE HOLD TH AT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT VALID AND AS A CONSEQUENCE , THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3)/148 HAS NO LEGS TO STAND AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS QUASHED. 5.2 IN VIEW OR OUR DECISION AS PER ABOVE PARA , NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR REGARDING THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 0 5 /0 9 /2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR