HIRANANDANI REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI V. PR.CIT, CENTRAL-1, MUMBAI

ITA 2373/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8777 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR JHA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANUJ KRISNADWALLA
• Keywords: Revision of order; Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Block assessment
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 153A; 263; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SANDEEP GOSAIN (JM) I.T.A. NO. 2373/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ) I.T.A. NO. 2374/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) I.T.A. NO. 2375/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) I.T.A. NO. 2376/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) HIRANANDANI REALTORS PVT. LTD. 514, DALAMAL TOWERS 211 FPJ MARG NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI-400 021. PAN :AABCH5909F VS. PR.CIT (CENTRAL)-I MUMBAI ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI VIJAY MEHTA & SHRI ANUJ KRISNADWALLA DEPARTMENT BY SHRI SUNIL KUMAR JHA DATE OF HEARING 18 . 1 0 . 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26 . 1 2 . 201 8 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) :- ALL THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL)-I AND THEY RELATE TO A.YS. 2008-09 TO 2011- 12. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUES URGED IN THESE APPEALS, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REVI SION ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIT IN ALL THESE APPEALS. 3. FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE DISCUSSED IN BRIE F. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL PREM ISES AT OLD MAHABALIPURAM ROAD, CHENNAI. THE ASSESSEE BELONGS TO HIRANANDAN G ROUP, WHICH WAS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS SURVEY ACTION U/S. 133A OF THE ACT ON 11.3.2014. THEREAFTER, IT WAS NOTICED TH AT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS HIRANANDANI REALTORS PVT. LTD. 2 BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND AT THE PREMISE S OF THOSE GROUP CONCERNS. ACCORDINGLY, PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT WAS I NITIATED FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED ASSE SSMENT OF ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S. 153C READ WITH SECTI ON 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 18.6.2015. 4. THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIT PASSED REVISION ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, AS HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE PRIMA FACIE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE AO U/S 153C OF THE ACT IN PURSUANCE OF SEARCH PROCEEDI NGS CONDUCTED ON 11.3.2014 IN THE HANDS OF HIRANANDANI GROUP OF COMP ANIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 153A OF THE ACT, ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF UNABATED ASSESSMENTS. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD H AVE MADE ANY ADDITION TO THE INCOME ALREADY ASSESSED BY HIM IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THESE YEARS, ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, I.E., THE AO COULD NOT HAVE EXAMINED THE IS SUES ALREADY CONCLUDED BY EARLIER RETURN OF INCOME/ASSESSMENT ORDER. FOR THIS PROPOSITION THE ASSESSEE PLACED ITS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON 'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING NAVASHEVA CORPO RATION/ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. (374 ITR 645), WHICH HAS UPHELD THE DECISION RENDERED BY SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL LYING DOWN THE ABOVE SAID PROPOSITION. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE SEARCH OFFICIALS DID NOT UNEARTH ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED I N THE HANDS OF HIRANANDANI GROUP RELATING TO THE YEARS UNDER CONSI DERATION, I.E., A.YS. 2008- 09 TO 2011-12. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE MADE ANY ADDITION IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT O RDERS COMPLETED BY HIM AND HENCE THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION IN THESE YEARS. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIT SHOULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED HIS HIRANANDANI REALTORS PVT. LTD. 3 REVISIONARY POWERS U/S. 263 OF THE ACT FOR THESE YE ARS, AS THE AOS POWER U/S 153A WAS LIMITED FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, I.E., RESTRICTED TO THE INCRIMINATING MATERIALS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 5. THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISS IONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME FOR T HE REASON THAT THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON'BLE BOM BAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING/ALL CARGO GLOBAL LO GISTICS LTD (SUPRA) BY FILING SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BEFORE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT. ACCORDINGLY HE PROCEEDED TO PASS REVISION ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE AC T ON FOLLOWING ISSUES:- (I) ASSESSMENT OF THE AY 2008-09 BASED ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO THE MERGER WITH STONEWOOD CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. (II) NON-TREATMENT OF INTEREST INCOME AND MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. (III) NON-VERIFICATION OF EXPENDITURE DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AND CAPITALIZATION OF THE EXPENDITURE TO THE WIP. (IV) NON-VERIFICATION OF ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMER S AND CUSTOMER DEPOSITS TOWARDS SALE OF FLAT. (V) NON-VERIFICATION OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. (VI) NON-VERIFICATION OF CORRECTNESS OF THE WORK IN PROG RESS AND ITS VALUATION. (VII) NON-VERIFICATION OF RS. 304.41 CRORES RECEIVED THRO UGH DEBENTURES ISSUED TO AN OVERSEAS PARTY. ALL THE ABOVE SAID ISSUES HAVE BEEN MENTIONED BY LD PR. CIT IN AY 2008-09. THE ISSUES LISTED AS (II) TO (VII) ARE MENTIONED IN AY 2009-10 TO 2011-12. THE LD PR. CIT PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON FOLLOWING CASE LA WS TO SUPPORT HIS CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IN ALL T HESE YEARS IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE:- (A) SUBHLAKSHMI VANIJYA (P) LTD (172 TTJ 721)(KOL) (B) CIT VS. AMITABH BACHHAN (2016)(384 ITR 200)(SC) HIRANANDANI REALTORS PVT. LTD. 4 (C) TOYOTA MOTOR CORPN (2008)(174 TAXMAN 395)(DELHI) AF FIRMED IN (2008)(173 TAXMAN 458)(SC). (D) JAGDISH KUMAR GULATI (2004)(139 TAXMAN 369)(ALL) (E) MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD (2000)(109 TAXMAN 66)(SC ) (F) CROMPTON GREAVES LTD (2017)(82 TAXMANN.COM 246)(MUM -ITAT) ACCORDINGLY LD PR. CIT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS FAILED TO CARRY OUT NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AS WARRANTED BY THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND APPLY CORRECT PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AS DISCUSSE D BY HIM IN THE REVISION ORDER. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED WITH THE APPROVAL OF ADDL. CIT, THE LD PR. CIT SET ASIDE BOTH THE ORDERS AND D IRECTED THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFRESH AFTER CONDUCTING NECESS ARY ENQUIRES ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED POINTS AND AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER OBTAINING FRESH APPROVAL U/S 153D OF THE ACT. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE REVISIONS ORDERS SO PASSED BY LD PR.CIT. 7. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSES SMENT YEARS FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF UNABATED ASSESSMENTS AND HENCE TH E PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ( NHAVA SEVA) LTD/ ALL CARG O LOGISTICS LTD (SUPRA) SHALL APPLY TO THESE YEARS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SEARCH OFFICIALS DID NOT UNEARTH ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL CONCERNING THESE YEARS AND HENCE THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLE TED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE BOM BAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE ABOVE SAID CASES THAT THE AO CAN MAKE ANY AD DITION IN UNABATED ASSESSMENT YEARS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ANY INCRIMINA TING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE LD A.R CONTENDED THAT, W HEN THE AO IS NOT EMPOWERED TO MAKE ANY ADDITION AS PER THE LEGAL POS ITION OF LAW, THE LD PR. CIT COULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. IN SUPPOR T OF THIS PROPOSITION, THE LD A.R PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: - (A) JITENDRA J MEHTA VS.CIT (ITA NO.1872/MUM/2015 DATED 24.6.2015) HIRANANDANI REALTORS PVT. LTD. 5 (B) M/S HANSPRO.COM PVT LTD VS. PR. CIT(ITA NO.3573 /MUM/2016 DATED 31.01.17) (C) MRS.SHWETA AVARSEKAR VS. PR. CIT (ITA NO.3186 & 3187/MUM/2016 DATED 01-08-2016) HE SUBMITTED THAT, IN ALL THE ABOVE CASES, THE REVI SION ORDERS PASSED FOR UNABATED ASSESSMENT YEARS U/S 153A OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL ON IDENTICAL REASONING. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO MAKE ENQUIRY IN RESPECT OF THE ITEMS CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PA SSED WITHOUT MAKING INQUIRIES OR VERIFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MA DE, THE SAME IS DEEMED TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF RE VENUE AS PER EXPLANATION 2 TO SEC.263 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLA NATION GIVEN UNDER SEC.153A(2) OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHALL APPLY TO THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153A, 153B A ND 153C OF THE ACT. THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE SAID EXPLANATION SH ALL BE RENDERED OTIOSE, IF THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY LD A.R IS ACCEPTED. TH E LD D.R PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. S.AJIT KUMAR (2018)(404 ITR 526) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE THAT THE MATE RIAL OR EVIDENCE FOUND/COLLECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATI ONS CAN BE UTILISED FOR MAKING BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S 158BB OF THE ACT. HE S UBMITTED THAT THE POWER GIVEN UNDER SEC.153A IS WIDER THAN THE POWER GIVEN U/S 158BB OF THE ACT, I.E., UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.153A, THE AO IS REQUIRE D TO ASSESS TOTAL INCOME BY COMBINING INCOME ALREADY DECLARED AND THE UNDISCLOS ED INCOME FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF ASSE SSMENT MADE U/S 158BB OF THE ACT, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO ASSESS ONLY THE UNDI SCLOSED INCOME FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. ACCORDINGLY THE LD D.R SUBMI TTED THAT THE AO WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE PROPER ENQUIRIES, WHICH HE HAS FAI LED TO SO IN THESE YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD PR. C IT WAS JUSTIFIED IN PASSING HIRANANDANI REALTORS PVT. LTD. 6 THE IMPUGNED REVISION ORDERS AND ACCORDINGLY PRAYED THAT THE REVISION ORDERS SHOULD BE UPHELD. 9. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS RENDERED ITS DECISION IN THE CASE OF AJIT KUMAR (SUPRA) IN THE CONTEXT OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.158BB OF THE ACT. IT ONLY STATES THAT THE MATERIAL COLLECTED IN A SURVEY PROCEEDING CONDUCTED IN THE HANDS OF A CON NECTED PERSON SIMULTANEOUSLY CONDUCTED WITH THE SEARCH PROCEEDING S IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE USED FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 158B B OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SCOPE FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT UNDE R THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MADE U/S 158BB OF THE ACT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.153A OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF SEC.153A/153C OF THE ACT ARE ALSO DIFFERENTLY WORDED. IN ANY CASE, IN T HE INSTANT CASE, THE REVENUE DID NOT CONDUCT ANY SURVEY OPERATIONS. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF AJIT KUMAR (SUPRA) WILL NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SCO PE OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED LUCIDLY BY HONBLE AN DHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SPECTRA SHARES AND SECURITIES (2013)(35 4 ITR 35)(AP). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COUR T HAS HELD IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE THAT LD CIT SHOULD GIVE PROPER REASONS FO R INVOKING REVISION PROCEEDINGS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD PR.CIT HAS AL SO REFUSED TO FOLLOW THE BINDING DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT ON THE REASONING THAT THE REVENUE HAS FILED SLP BEFORE THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE A REASON TO REFUS E TO FOLLOW THE BINDING DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION W ERE COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153C R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT, I.E., CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN THE HANDS OF HIRANA NDANI GROUP OF COMPANIES. THESE ASSESSMENTS FALL UNDER THE CATEGOR Y OF UNABATED HIRANANDANI REALTORS PVT. LTD. 7 ASSESSMENTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.153A OF T HE ACT, I.E., THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERA TION DO NOT ABATE. 11. THE LAW RELATING TO ASSESSMENTS FOR UNABATED ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (SUPRA) AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE AO IS ENTITLED TO MAKE ADDITION IN UNABATED ASSESSMENT YEARS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS FOUND DURING SEARCH. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE SEARCH OFFICIALS DID NOT FIND ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIALS RELATING TO THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THES E SET OF FACT, THE AO COULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY ADDITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY I NCRIMINATING MATERIAL, TO THE TOTAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE, I.E., NO T ONLY THE MATTERS ALREADY CONCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CO ULD NOT BE DISTURBED BY THE AO EXCEPT ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIA L FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, BUT ALSO ANY FURTHER ADDITION COULD BE M ADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH. 12. THE QUESTION THAT ARISES IS WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) CAN HOLD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTERESTS OF REVENUE FOR NOT CONDUCTING PROPER ENQUIRY IN A SITUATION, WHEN THE AO WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO DISTURB ANY MATTERS CONCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS VERY SAME QUESTION WAS EXAMINED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LD A.R ABOVE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIE NCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HANSPRO.COM PVT LTD (SUPRA):- 4. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN THE AO HIMSELF D ID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE THE SAID LOAN, THEN HOW THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT CAN TAKE A VIEW THAT NON EXAMINATION OF LOAN BY THE AO MADE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IT IS NOTED BY US THAT THE LEGAL POSITION HAS ALSO BEEN CLARIFI ED IN THIS REGARD BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF JI TENDRA MEHTA (SUPRA) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- HIRANANDANI REALTORS PVT. LTD. 8 '4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTEN TIONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN WHICH HE HAS DEALT W ITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER CA NNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF REVENUE AS AO DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO THE MAKE ADDITION ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE AS THE SAME IS NOT BASED ON SEIZED M ATERIAL. SUCH CONTENTION HAS BEEN REJECTED ONLY ON THE GROUND THA T THERE ARE CONFLICTING VIEWS RENDERED BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS A ND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE I.T.A. NO.3573/MUM/2016 HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION I S BASED ON SEIZED MATERIAL. ALSO THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECOR D TO SUGGEST THAT ISSUE REGARDING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON WIND MIL L WAS BASED ON SEIZED MATERIAL. THEREFORE, CERTAINLY, THIS ISSUE I S OTHER THAN THE ADDITIONS BASED ON SEIZED MATERIAL. IF IT IS SO THE N ACCORDING TO THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SHEVA) LTD .(SUPRA), THE AO WOULD NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO BRI NG SUCH ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S. 153A R.W.S 143(3) AND NON- CONSIDERATION THEREOF IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD NOT MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153A AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E.' 5. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY MUMBAI BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MRS. SHWETA AVARSEKAR VS DICT (SUPRA). THUS , FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND LEGAL DISCUSSION AS MADE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE FOR THE REASON AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY LD. PRINCIPAL CIT. WE FIND THAT THE IM PUGNED ORDER U/S 263 IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS AND, THEREFORE, THE SA ME IS HEREBY QUASHED. 13. IN THE CASE OF HANSPRO.COM P LTD (SUPRA) ALS O, THE LD PR. CIT REVISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 153C R.W.S 143(3) OF TH E ACT IN RESPECT OF AN UNABATED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM A SISTER CONCE RN. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY A NOTHER CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF JITENDRA J MEHTA VS. CIT (ITA NO.1872/M UM/2015 DATED 24.6.2015), HAS QUASHED THE REVISION ORDER PASSED B Y LD PR. CIT. THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES SHAL L SQUARELY APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASES. HIRANANDANI REALTORS PVT. LTD. 9 14. THE LD D.R PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECIS ION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AJIT KUMAR (SUPRA). H OWEVER, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY LD A.R, THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF SEC.158BB OF THE ACT, WHOSE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT IS TOTALLY DI FFERENT FROM THE ASSESSMENTS FRAMED U/S 153A OF THE ACT. THE LD D.R ALSO PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION GIVEN U/S 153A(2) OF THE ACT IN ORDER TO CONTEND THAT ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHALL APPLY TO THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153C OF THE ACT. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE SCOPE OF ASSE SSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF UNABATED ASSESSMENTS HAS SINCE BEEN S ETTLED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTA L WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (SUPRA). THE EXPLANATION GIVEN U/S 153A(2) OF THE ACT, IN OUR VIEW, DOES NOT EXPAND THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT BEYOND WHAT WAS INTERPRETED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. 15. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD PR. CIT WAS NOT CORRECT IN LAW IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED REVISION ORDERS AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO IN THESE YEARS, WHICH FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF UNABATED YEARS, CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ER RONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY WE QUASH THE REVISION ORDERS PASSED BY LD CIT(A) FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 16. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26.12.2 018. SD/- SD/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 26/12/2018 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) HIRANANDANI REALTORS PVT. LTD. 10 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( (( ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY) KISHORE, SPS ITAT, MUMBAI