A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Ltd., Gurgaon V. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2438/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97589 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: R M MEHTA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Assessment record; Tax effect; Time period of passing order; Reason to believe; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 145; 263; 2

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING VS CI T SERVICES LTD., O-116, DELHI-I, DLIF SHOPPING MALL, NEW DELHI. ARJUN NAGAR, DLF PHASE-I, GURGAON. (PAN: AAECA1203A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI R.M. MEHTA, AD VOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAVI JAIN, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING: 3.9.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.10.2015 O R D E R PER C.M. GARG, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT, DELHI-I, NEW DELHI DATED 27.3.12 FOR AY 2007-08 PA SSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT). 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APP EAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY PASSING ASSESSM ENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 15.12.2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED T HAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING MAINTENANC E SERVICES SUCH AS HOUSE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 2 KEEPING SECURITY SERVICES AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT MAKING ANY DISALLOWA NCE OR ADDITION IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. S UBSEQUENTLY, ON 12.3.12, THE CIT ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY ALLEGING THAT THE PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2007 SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 11,98,08,876 AS DEFERRED REVENUE INCOME BY CHANGING ITS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING SAID TO BE AS PER ACCOUNTING S TANDARD-7 WHICH HAS RESULTED IN LOWERING OF PROFITS BY THE SAME AMOUNT. THE CIT ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES C LAIM IN THIS REGARD WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY OR VERIFICATION AS TO WHETHER TH E METHOD WAS BONAFIDE AND WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED IN FUTURE, AND WHETHER IT WAS PERMITTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE CIT ALSO ALLEGED THAT A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER ANY EXPENDITURE CORRESPONDIN G TO THE DEFERRED REVENUE INCOME WAS DEBITED/CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHET HER THESE WERE ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT CORRESPONDING INCOME IS NO T TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND THUS TO THAT EXTENT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PRI MA FACIE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. WITH SAID OBSERVATIONS, THE CI T PROCEEDED TO INVOKE REVISIONSAL POWERS AVAILABLE TO HIM U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE CIT FINALLY PASSED IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.3.12 BY HOLDING THAT THE OR DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REV ENUE AND HE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER ONLY TO THIS EXTENT AND DIRECTED T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS ASPECT AFTER MAKIN G INQUIRIES/VERIFICATION AND INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 3 AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO T HE ASSESSEE. NOW, THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) IS BAD IN LAW, SANS JURISDICTION IN AS MUCH AS THE ORDER OF THE AO WHICH HAS BEEN REVISED IS NEITHER E RRONEOUS AND NOR IS IT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. 2. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ACCEPTING A METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRE D TO ADOPT AS PER THE MANDATE OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT READ W ITH SECTION 211 (3A) OF THE COMPANIES ACT COULD NOT BE TERMED A S ERRONEOUS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 263. 3. THE CIT ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN FURTHER TREATING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE STS OF REVENUE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SUM OF RS. 119,808,87 6/- WHICH HAD BEEN DEFERRED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 HAD BE EN OFFERED TO TAX IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 THERE BEING NO LO SS TO THE REVENUE. 4. THE CIT FURTHER ERRED IN IGNORING THE RECORD OF TH E REVENUE ITSELF AND WHICH SHOWED THAT THE SWITCH OVER FROM AS-9 TO AS-7 WAS BENEFICIAL TO THE DEPARTMENT BRINGING IN EXCESS REV ENUES IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS VIZ. 2008-09 TO 2011-12 IN WHICH THE CHANGED METHOD WAS CONTINUED. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID GROUNDS THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE SINCE THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATE D AT THE FAG END OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD AND THERE BEING A HURRY TO PASS THE ORDER WITHIN TIME THE HEARING WAS A MERE FORMALITY SINCE THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE RECEIVED WITHOUT ANY EFFECTIVE ORA L INTERACTION. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE EARLIER GROUNDS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT IS BAD IN LAW THERE BEING A COMPLETE ABSENCE IN THE ORDER IMPUGNED TO DEAL WITH THE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS SUPPORTED BY CASE LAW. 7. THE APPELLANT RESERVES TO ITSELF, THE RIGHT TO ADD , ALTER, AMEND, SUBSTITUTE, WITHDRAW AND/OR ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 4 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUMMARIZED THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AND REITERAT ED ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS/ARGUMENTS DATED 24.8.2015 WHICH READ AS UNDER: - (A) THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIT (THE AO) AFTER ISSUING STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) AND OBTAINING REQUISITE DETAILS AND WRITTEN SUBMISS IONS FROM TIME TO TIME. THE FOLLOWING IS EXTRACTED FROM THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES, SRI VIJAY BANSAL WHO I S THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ON VARIOUS DATES AND FILED THE NECESSARY DETAILS. THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH HIM. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS W ERE PERUSED AND PLACED ON RECORD. B) DISCLOSURE IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS (1) (B)CHANGES IN ACCOUNTING POLICIES DISCLOSING THE SW ITCH OVER FROM AS-9 TO AS-7 WITH AN INCOME IMPACT OF RS. 119,808,8 76/- (PAGE 24 OF THE PB) (2) BASIS OF REVENUE RECOGNITION AT (E) (PAGE 25 OF TH E PB) (3) SCHEDULE 13: CURRENT LIABILITIES REFLECTING DEFERR ED REVENUES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 119,808,876/- (PAGE 2 2 OF THE PB). C) EXAMINATION BY THE AO THE AO ENQUIRED INTO THE SWITCH OVER FROM AS-9 TO A S-7 VIS- A-VIS THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE SAME WAS EXPLAIN ED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTERS DATED 20.10.2009 AND 30.10.20 09 (PAGES 1 TO 5 OF THE PB). IN FACT THE ANNEXURES TO THE LETTER DAT ED 30.10.2009 CONTAINED A DETAILED CONTRACT WISE WORKING EXPLAINI NG THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AS-9 AND AS-7. THE ORDER OF ASSE SSMENT WAS PASSED ON 15.12.2009. THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS WHEN CONSIDERED IN THE CONT EXT OF THE OBSERVATIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (REPRODUCED EA RLIER) LEAVES NO INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 5 DOUBT ABOUT THE DUE APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE AO TO THE POINT AT ISSUE. IN OTHER WORDS IT IS A CASE OF ENQ UIRY AND NOT A CASE OF NO ENQUIRY AS IS THE VIEW OF THE LEARNED CIT. ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED U/S 263 THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN AN INORDINATE HURRY ON 27.03.2012 AFTER A SOLITARY HEARING ON 26.03.2012. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS ALSO THE JUDGEMENTS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS THE ORDER U/S 263 IS PASSE D IN A MECHANICAL MANNER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. JUDGEMENTS 1. CIT VS ASHISH RAJPAL 320 ITR 674 (DELHI) (PARA 16 AT PAGE 41 OF THE PB OF JUDGEMENTS TO BE R EAD ALONG WITH PARA 15 AT PAGE 40 OF THE PB) 16. THE FACT THAT A QUERY WAS RAISED DURING THE COURSE F>SCRUTINY WHICH WAS SATISFACTORILY ANSWERED BY TH E ASSESSEE BUT DID NOT GET REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WOUL D NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO ENQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN ENQUIRY CAN ALSO BE DEMONSTRATED WITH THE HELP OF T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE MATERIAL, TO WHICH A REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE IN THE IMPUGNED JUD GMENT, WOULD SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO UNDUE HASTE? IN EXAMINING T HE MATERIAL PRIOR TO THE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.03.2005. AT LEAST FOUR LETTERS DATED 27.04.2004, 22.02.2005, 28 .02.2005, AND 18.03.2005 WERE ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER GIVING DETAILS, DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION PERTAININ G TO VARIOUS QUERIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THESE HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT EXAMINATION WAS LESS THAN EXACTING. THEREFORE, THE CONCLUSION OF TH E COMMISSIONER THAT THERE WAS LACK OF PROPER VERIFICATION IS UN SUSTAINABLE. 2. CIT VS VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD. 212 TAXMAN 184 (D ELHI) PARAS 10 & 11 AT PAGES 44 & 45 OF THE PB) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 6 10. THIS COURT IS CONSCIOUS THAT AN EARLIER BENCH OF COURT IN CIT VS. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD., (2011) 332 ITR 167, HAD HELD THAT IF THERE IS SOME ENQUIRY BY THE A.O. IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING S EVEN IF INADEQUATE THAT CANNOT CLOTHE THE COMMISSIONER WITH JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 MERELY BECAUSE HE CAN FORM ANOTHE R OPINION. IT WAS EMPHASIZED HERE THAT THE NOTICE AND QUESTIONNAI RE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE DULY REPLIED, WERE EVIDENCE OF FULL AND DUE ENQUIRY ABOUT THIS EXPENDITURE. AFTER SATISFYING HI MSELF THAT THEY WERE IN FACT REVENUE EXPENDITURE, THE ASSESSEES CL AIM WAS UPHELD UNDER SECTION 37. THE COURT IN SUNBEAM AUTO (SUPRA) HELD AS FOLLOWS: ' LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS RIGHT IN HIS SUBMISSION THAT ONE HAS TO KEEP IN MIND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN 'LA CK OF INQUIRY' AND INADEQUATE INQUIRY'. IF THERE WAS ANY INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCAS ION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO ORDERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT , MERELY BECAUSE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTE R. IT IS ONLY IN OF 'LACK OF INQUIRY '. 11. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RECORDS REVEAL THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY QUERIED REGARDING THE NATURE AND C HARACTER OF THE ONE-TIME REGULATORY FEE PAID BY IT AS WELL A S THE BANK AND STAMP DUTY CHARGES. A DETAILED EXPLANATION IN THE F ORM OF STATEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REQUIRED OF BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER WERE PRODUCED AT THE STAGE OF ORIGINAL ASSE SSMENT. CLEARLY THIS WAS NOT A CASE OF 'NO ENQUIRY'. THE LACK OF AN Y DISCUSSION ON THIS CANNOT LEAD TO THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND. 3. DIT VS JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (DELHI) (PARA 5 AT PAGE 49 TO BE READ ALONGWITH PARA 15 AT PAGE 48 AND PARAS 16 & 17 AT PAGE 49 OF THE PB) 5. IN THE PRESENT CASE, INQUIRIES WERE CERTAINLY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS NOT A CASE OF NO INQUIRY. THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 ITSELF RECORDS THAT THE DIRECTOR FELT T HAT THE INQUIRIES WERE NOT SUFFICIENT AND FURTHER INQUIRIES OR DETAIL S SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED. HOWEVER, IN SUCH CASES, AS OBSERVED IN THE CASE OF DG HOUSING PROJECTS LIMITED (SUPRA), THE INQUIRY SHOUL D HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OR DIRECTOR HIMSELF T O RECORD THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS. HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT THE SAID INQUIRY. INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 7 4. CIT VS MAHENDRA KUMAR BANSAL 297 ITR 99 (ALL) (PAGES 3 & 4 OF THE JUDGEMENT) SO FAR AS THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1983-84 IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MAD E UNDER SECTION 143(3)/148 OF THE ACT. THE DATE FIXED BY TH E ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS 18TH JULY, 1986 AND ON THAT VERY DATE THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL HAD FILED CERTAIN DETAILS AND EVIDENCES AND AFTER DISCUSSION THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED. EVEN THOUGH IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER THERE IS NO MENTION THAT THE DETAILED ENQUIRY HAS B EEN MADE NOR ANY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED YET WE FIND THAT THE RE TURNED INCOME WAS ACCEPTED. THE NECESSITY FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT U NDER SECTION 143(3)/148 OF THE ACT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE RETURN HAVING BEEN FILED BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. IN THE CASE OF GOYAL PRIVATE FAMILY SPECIFIC TRUST [1988] 171 ITR 698, THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCO ME-TAX OFFICER MAY BE BRIEF AND CRYPTIC, BUT THAT BY ITSELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT REASON TO BRAND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND IT WAS FOR THE COMMISS IONER TO POINT OUT AS TO WHAT ERROR WAS COMMITTED BY THE INCOME-TA X OFFICER IN HAVING REACHED TO HIS CONCLUSION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT WAR RANTED. AS HELD BY THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF GOYAL PRIVATE FAMILY SPECIFIC TRUST [1988] 171 ITR 698, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAD NOT WRITT EN LENGTHY ORDER IT WOULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/148 OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD SPECIFIC INSTANCES, WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME- TAX HAS FAILED TO DO. 5. CIT VS DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD. 323 ITR 206 (B OMBAY) (PAGE 34 OF THE PB) WE HAVE INDICATED THIS ONLY AS AND BY WAY OF AN IL LUSTRATION IN AID OF OUR FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS OR JUSTIFICA TION FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263. IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD AFTER MAKING AN ENQUIRY AND ELICITING A RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.622.39 LAKHS ON THE VALUE OF SECUR ITIES HELD ON THE TRADING ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TANGIBLE MAT ERIAL TO THE CONTRARY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COULD NOT HAVE TREATED INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 8 THIS FINDING TO BE ERRONEOUS OR TO BE PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE OBSERVATION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ARRIVED AT HIS FINDING WI THOUT CONDUCTING AN ENQUIRY WAS ERRONEOUS, SINCE AN ENQUIRY WAS SPEC IFICALLY HELD WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH A DISCLOSURE OF DETAILS WAS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. CIT VS HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. (2010) 194 T AXMAN 175 (DELHI) (PARA 18 OF THE JUDGEMENT TO BE READ ALONGWITH PARA S 14 TO 17) 18. FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE EXPRESSION PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE A PPEARING IN SECTION 263 HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXPRESSION 'ERRONEOUS' AND THAT EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CON SEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN CASES WHERE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ADOPTS ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW OR WHE RE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE V IEW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CANNOT EXERCISE HIS POWE RS UNDER SECTION 263 TO DIFFER WITH THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER EVEN IF THERE HAS BEEN A LOSS OF REVENUE, OF COURSE, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKES A VIEW WHICH IS PATENTLY UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW , THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CAN EXERCISE HIS POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 WHERE A LOSS OF REVENUE RESULTS AS A CONSEQUENC E OF THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT WHILE PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 263, THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX HAS TO EXAMINE NOT ONLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BUT THE ENTI RE RECORD OF THE PROFITS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE WAY AN ASSESSMENT ORDER IS DRAFTED AND SINCE, GENERALLY, T HE ISSUES WHICH ARE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DO NOT FIND M ENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ONLY THOSE POINTS ARE TAKEN NO TE OF ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATIONS ARE REJECTED AND ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES ARE MADE, THE MERE ABSENCE OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(13) RE AD WITH SECTION 80IA(9) WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE SAID PROVISIONS. AS POINTED OUT IN KELVINATOR OF INDIA (SUPRA), WHEN A REGULAR ASSESSMENT IS MADE UN DER SECTION 143(3), A PRESUMPTION CAN BE RAISED THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED UPON AN APPLICATION OF MIND. NO DOUBT, THIS PRESUMP TION IS REBUTTABLE, BUT THERE MUST BE SOME MATERIAL TO INDI CATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND. INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 9 F) SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSIONS RESTRICTING THE SUBMISSIONS TO THE QUESTION OF APPL ICATION OF MIND AND DUE VERIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE AO THE FOLL OWING LEGAL PROPOSITIONS EMERGE FROM THE JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON . (1) A MATTER CONSIDERED AFTER DUE ENQUIRY ON THE PART O F THE AO CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 UNLESS THE VIEW EXPRESSED IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. (2) WHEN A REGULAR ASSESSMENT IS MADE U/S 143(3) A PRES UMPTION CAN BE RAISED THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED UPON AN AP PLICATION OF MIND. NO DOUBT THIS PRESUMPTION IS REBUTTABLE, BUT THERE MUST BE SOME MATERIAL TO INDICATE THAT THE AO HAD NOT APPLI ED HIS MIND. (3) WHERE DETAILS AND EVIDENCE HAD BEEN FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AND ASSESSMENT FRAMED THEREAFTER U/S 143(3) THE FACT TH AT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY ENQUIRY OR A REFERENCE TO ANY EVIDENCE OR THE ORDER IS BRIEF AND CRYPTIC T HAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT ARM THE CIT TO BRAND THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. (4) IF DURING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO RAISED QUERIES AN D REPLIES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE CONSIDERED, THE MERE FACT THAT TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SILENT ON THESE THE SAME COULD NOT BE HEL D TO BE ERRONEOUS ON ACCOUNT OF ABSENCE OF INQUIRY. (5) IF THERE IS SOME ENQUIRY BY THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS EVEN IF INADEQUATE THAT CANNOT CLOTHE THE CIT WITH THE J URISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263, MERELY BECAUSE HE CAN FORM ANOTHER OPI NION. (6) ONE HAS TO KEEP IN MIND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN L ACK OF INQUIRY AND INADEQUATE INQUIRY. IF THERE WAS ANY INQUIRY EVEN INADEQUATE THAT BY ITSELF WOULD GIVE NO OCCASION TO THE CIT TO PASS ORDERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT, MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT O PINION IN THE MATTER. (7) IN THE CASE OF INADEQUATE INQUIRY THE CIT MUST H IMSELF CONDUCT REQUISITE ENQUIRY BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 263 AND THE MATTER CANNOT BE REMITTED TO THE AO TO CONDUCT SUCH FURTHE R ENQUIRIES. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ELABORATED HIS SUBMISSIONS DATED 26.3.12 FILED BEFORE THE CIT IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 10 ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT PROPOSED TO REVI SE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT AS PER ALLEGAT IONS IN THE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LOWER PROFITS BY CH ANGING ITS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ON THE BASIS OF AS-7 AND THE AO HAS ACCE PTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY/VERIFICATION. LD. COUNS EL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT ALSO ALLEGED THAT THE AO HAS NOT OBSERVED WHETH ER THE CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WAS BONA FIDE AND THE SAME WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED IN THE FUTURE AND THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED WHETHER TH E CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WAS PERMITTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF TH E ACT. LD. COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE LAST ALLEGATION OF THE CIT IS TH AT THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO THE IN COME NOR BOOKED VIS--VIS THE CHANGED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT TO FOLLOW ACCOUNTING STANDARD (AS) IS MANDATORY IN NATURE AS PER DIRECTIONS OF THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA (ICAI) AND AS PER SECTION 211(3)(A) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, IT HAS BEEN MANDATED THAT EVE RY COMPANY HAS TO PREPARE ITS BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD FRAMED BY THE ICAI. FURTHERMORE, LD. COUN SEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT AS PER SECTION 145(4) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, IT HAS BEEN RADICALLY RECAST W.E.F. 1.4.1997 SO AS TO PROMOTE O NLY CASH OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AS ALSO TO ENFORCE ADHERENCE TO THE A CCOUNTING STANDARD NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 11 4. ELABORATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E PRESENT CASE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER SCHED ULE XIII TO THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.11.98 CRO RE WAS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD OF CURRENT LIABILITY UNDER DEFERRED REVENUES ( PB PAGE NO. 22) AND IN THE NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ITEM II(B), IT IS CLE AR THAT THE REASON FOR THE CHANGEOVER FROM ITEM AS-9 TO AS-7 AND ITEM 2(E) DEA LS WITH REVENUE RECOGNITION (PAGES 24 & 25 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK). LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER INQUIRED INTO THE CHANGED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING VIS--VIS PRECEDING A SSESSMENT YEAR AND THE ISSUE WAS PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE L ETTER DATED 20.10.2009 AND 30.10.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER D URING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON RECORD. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD, IN FACT, FILED CONTRACT WISE WORKING IN SUPPORT OF THE CHANGED METHOD OF REVENUE RECOGNITION AND ALL EXPEN DITURE PERTAINING TO DEFERRED REVENUE WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE RECOG NIZING THE REVENUE IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE ISSUE OF CONSISTENCY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS FOLLOWED THE SAME METHOD OF REVENUE RECOGNITION I.E. ADOPTION OF ACCO UNTING STANDARD 7 IN ALL THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM T HE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FILED BEFORE THE CIT AND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FINA NCIAL YEARS ENDING ON 31.3.08, 31.3.09, 31.3.10 AND 31.3.2011. LD. COUNS EL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ACCOUNTING STANDARD PER ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 12 2009-10 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS BEEN RECOGN IZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHANGED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING VIDE ACCOUNTING ST ANDARD-7 WHICH HAS REGULARLY AND CONSISTENTLY BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ASS ESSEE DURING ALL SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 5. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED T HAT THE POSITION OF LAW IS SETTLED WITH A REGULAR METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESS EE AND CANNOT BE REJECTED MERELY BECAUSE IT GIVES BENEFIT TO ASSESSEE IN CERT AIN YEARS, MORE PARTICULARLY, IN THE YEAR OF CHANGE AS THE CHOICE OF METHOD CAN BE C HANGED UNILATERALLY WITHOUT ANY PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SHOW THAT THE METHOD EMPLOYED IS REGULARLY FOLLOWED IN THE SU BSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED THIS FACT BY WAY OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED FOR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. LEARNED COUNSEL O F THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS STATUTORILY BOUND TO PREP ARE ITS ACCOUNTS AND TO RECOGNIZE ITS REVENUE AS PER ACCOUNTING STANDARD FR AMED BY ICAI AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CHANGED METHOD OF AC COUNTING AFTER DUE EXAMINATION AND DELIBERATIONS WITH THE ASSESSEES R EPRESENTATIVE. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE M ETHOD OF ACCOUNTING APPROVED BY ICAI HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AFTER DUE VERIFICATION AND EXAMINATION CANNOT BE REJECTED AT THE THRESHOLD IN THE REVISIONARY INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 13 PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK PAGE NO . 11 WHEREIN A CHART SHOWING TAXABLE INCOME AND TAX EFFECT DUE TO CHANGE OF ACCOUNTING POLICY AND STANDARDS FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TO 2011-12 H AS BEEN TABULATED AND SUBMITTED THAT ADJUSTMENT OF INCOME DUE TO ACCOUNTI NG STANDARD-7 WAS BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST YEAR OF CHA NGE BUT IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY HIGHER AMOU NT OF TAX SURCHARGE AND EC BY ADOPTING ACCOUNTING STANDARD-7 INSTEAD OF ACC OUNTING STANDARD-9, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNO T BE HELD AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 6. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ELABORA TED THAT IT IS FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF TH E ACT TO SHOW THAT THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND BOTH THE CONDITIONS MUST EXIST TO ENABLE THE COMMIS SIONER TO ACT AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WOULD BE A RIDER FOR I NVOKING REVISIONAL POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALS O POINTED OUT THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DUE VERIFICAT ION AND EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUE ON DEFERRED REVENUE CANNOT BE HELD AS ERRONEO US AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE INASMUCH AS HE HAS ACCEPTED THE CHANGE OF ACCOUNTING STANDARD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY PROPER APPLICAT ION OF MIND AND AFTER CONSIDERING ALL RELEVANT FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR RECOGNITION OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 14 REVENUE AS PER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND C OMPANY LAW. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE FAULTED FOR AC CEPTING THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING APPROVED BY THE ICAI AND MANDATED BY THE STATUTE WHICH OTHERWISE IS BENEFICIAL TO THE REVENUE ACCOUNTING STANDARD CO MPARED TO THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED TILL 31.3.2006 I.E. ACCOUNTING STANDARD-9. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT NEITHER OF T HE CONDITIONS REQUIRED AND STIPULATED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ARE SPECIFIED IN THIS CASE VIZ. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THEREFORE, THE CIT HAD NO VALID JURISDICTION TO INVOKE REVISIONARY POWERS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE LASTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE HELD A S UNSUSTAINABLE OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THEREFOR E, THE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS IMPUGNED ORDER MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED . 7. LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST, LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER ORDER SHEETS OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DATE D 20.10.09, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE A SSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DEFERRED REVENUE ITEMS AND TO GIVE SUBMISSIONS AS TO HOW THE Y ARE TAKEN TO THE NEXT YEAR FIXING THE CASE FOR 26.10.09 AND THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FROM SAME DATE I.E. 20.10.09 AND ALSO FILED ANOTHER RETURN DATED 30.10.09 ALONG WITH DETAILED CONTRACT WISE WORKING DETAIL AND SHOW CAUSE FOR ADOPTING INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 15 ACCOUNTING STANDARD-7 FROM 1.4.06, THEREFORE, IT CA NNOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY INQUIRY IN THIS REGARD AND THUS THE ACTION OF THE CIT INVOKING REVISIONARY POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT LEGAL AND CORRECT WHICH IS NOT ONLY BAD IN LAW BUT VOID AB INITIO AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 8. LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ACTION OF THE CIT AND POINT ED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND TO THE RAD ICAL CHANGE OF ACCOUNTING STANDARD BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT EXAMINE AND VERIFY THE ISSUE OF DEFERRED REVENUE INCOME ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADOPTING ACCOUNTING STANDARD-7 FROM 1.4.06. LD. DR VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSE ES CLAIM IN THIS REGARD WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER CHANGE WAS BONAFIDE AND WAS ALSO CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED FOR THE FUTURE ASSESSMENT YEA RS. 9. LD. DR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS ALSO NOT EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER ANY EXPENDITURE CORRESPONDING TO THE DEFERRED REVENUE INCOME WAS DEBITED AND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHETHER THESE WERE ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT CORRESPONDING INCOME IS NOT T AKEN INTO ACCOUNT. LD. DR LASTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED THAT WHETHER THE CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING STANDARD FROM AS-9 TO AS-7 WAS PERMITTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND UP TO THAT EXTENT, THE AS SESSMENT ORDER WAS RIGHTLY HELD AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F REVENUE. INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 16 10. LD. DR FINALLY SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN PU RSUANCE TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THEREFORE NO PREJUDICE WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE IF THE ISSUE IS AGAIN VERIFIED AND EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . 11. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS O F BOTH THE SIDES AND CAREFUL PERUSAL OF RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECO RD INTER ALIA PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE SPREAD OVER 211 PAGES, IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF SUBMISSIONS BY THE ASSESSEE , WE NOTE THAT THE CIT ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT DATED 12.3.1 2 TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH READS AS UNDER:- THE PERUSAL BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2007 SHOWS T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.11,98,08,876/- A S DEFERRED REVENUE INCOME BY CHANGING ITS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING , SAID TO BE AS PER AS-7. THIS HAS RESULTED IN LOWERING OF PROFI TS BY RS.11,98,08,876/-. THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE 'S CLAIM IN THIS REGARD WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY/VERIFICATION S, AS TO WHETHER THE CHANGE WAS BONAFIDE & WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED IN FUTURE, AND WHETHER IT WAS PERMITTED UNDER THE I.T. ACT, THE AO HAS ALSO NOT EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER ANY EXPENDITURE CORRESPONDING TO THE DEFERRED REVENUE INCOME WAS DEBITED/CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHETHER THESE W ERE ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT CORRESPONDING IN COME IS NOT TAKEN INTO A/C. HENCE TO THAT EXTENT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PRIME FACIE PREJUDICIAL TO-THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE.' 12. THE CRUX OF THE ALLEGATIONS MENTIONED THEREIN A RE MAINLY ON TWO COUNTS VIZ. I) THE CHANGE IN THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD BY TH E ASSESSEE FROM AS-9 TO AS- INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 17 7 HAS RESULTED INTO LOWERING OF PROFITS AND THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY/VER IFICATION SO AS TO WHETHER THE CHANGE WAS BONA FIDE AND WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLO WED IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS; II) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ALSO EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER ANY EXPENDITURE RELATED TO THE DEFERRED REV ENUE INCOME WAS DEBITED/CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHETHER THESE W ERE ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT CORRESPONDING INCOME HAS NOT BEEN TAK EN INTO ACCOUNT. 13. WHEN WE ANALYSE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FIRST ALLEGATION, WE NOTE THAT AS PER ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 20.10.09, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DEFERRED REVENUE ITEMS AND TO GIVE SUBMISSIONS AS TO HOW THEY ARE TAKEN INTO THE NEXT YEAR. THE ASSESSE E FILED TWO REPLIES IN THIS REGARD; FIRST ON 20.10.09 AVAILABLE AT PAGE 1 OF AS SESSEES PAPER BOOK AND SECOND ON 30.10.09 WHICH IS ALSO AVAILABLE AT PAGES 2 TO 5 OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED DETAIL ED CONTRACT WISE WORKING PERTAINING TO THE DEFERRED REVENUE. HOWEVER, FROM A CAREFUL READING OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO DETAILED DELIBERATION ON THIS ISSUE AND THERE IS A BARE MENTION OF PRESENCE OF ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE ON VARIOUS DATES AND IT HAS BEEN ALSO NOTED THAT THE A R FILED NECESSARY DETAILS AND AFTER DISCUSSION WITH HIM, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILE D ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE PERUSED AND PLACED ON RECORD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 18 14. IN THIS SITUATION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MADE INQUIRIES ON THE ISSUE OF DEFERRED REVENUE WHICH WERE REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SUBMITTING ITS STAND ALONG WITH CONTRACT WISE DETAILED WORKING . AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE RESPECTFULLY TAKE COGNIZANCE OF ORDER OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LT D. REPORTED IN (2012) 212 TAXMAN 184 (DELHI), AS RELIED BY LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, WHER EIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN THE AO SPECIFICALLY QUERIED R EGARDING THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF ONE TIME FEE PAID BY IT AS WELL AS THE BANK AND STAMP DUTY CHARGES AND THE DETAILED EXPLANATION IN THE FORM OF SUBMISS IONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE PRODUCED AT THE STAGE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THEN CLEARLY THIS WAS NOT A CASE OF NO INQUIRY AND THE LACK OF ANY DISCUSSION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT LEAD TO THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND. IN THIS JUDGEMENT, HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS ALSO REFERRED DICTA L AID DOWN BY IT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (DELHI) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ONE HAS TO KEEP IN MIND THE DISTINCTION BETWEE N LACK OF INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE INQUIRY AND IF THERE WAS ANY INQUIRY, IF INADEQUATE, THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MA TTER. THE PRESENT CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE D ICTA OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SUNBEAM A UTO LTD. (SUPRA). INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 19 15. THE NEXT ISSUE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS THAT WH ETHER THE ASSESSEE CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED THE SAME ACCOUNTING STANDARD (AS-7) THROUGH SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. WHEN WE ANALYSE WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE THE CIT DATED 26.3.12 AVAILA BLE AT PAGES 207 TO 211 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK, IT IS CLEAR THAT IN COLU MN E PAGE 3, IT HAS BEEN EXPLICITLY MENTIONED THAT THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FILE D FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING ON 31.3.08, 31.3.09, 3103.10 & 31.3.11, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED THE SAME SYSTEM OF REVENUE RECOGNITION I.E . AS-7 IN ALL THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 2 9.10.10 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND ON 13.5.2011 FOR 2009-10, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREI N THE REVENUE HAS BEEN BOOKED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHANGED METHOD OF ACC OUNTING I.E. AS-7. IN VIEW OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR COULD NOT SHO W US THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FOLLOW AS-7 IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND IN VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO S UBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ANNUAL ACCOUNTS AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, 2009-10, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE CONSIS TENTLY FOLLOWED AS-7 FOR RECOGNITION OF REVENUE WHICH WAS CHANGED W.E.F. 1.4 .2006. 16. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 15.12.09 AND THE CIT ISSUE D IMPUGNED NOTICE U/S 263 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 20 OF THE ACT ON 12.3.12 AND IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED ON 27.3.12 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AND PASSING ORDER WERE COMPLETED WITHIN 15 DAYS TIME. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS SPREAD OVER 5 PAGES ON 26.3.12 ALONG WITH A PAPER BOOK AND THE CIT HAS ONLY CONSIDERED ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO ASSESSEES LETTERS DATED 20.10.09 AND 30.10.09 AND AFTER REPRODUCING THE CON TENTS OF THESE LETTERS, THE CIT JUMPED TO RECORD HIS CONCLUSION WITHOUT ANY DEL IBERATION ON THE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT READS AS UN DER:- 3. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ME RELY FILED SOME DETAILS REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF EXCESS BILLING AND THE CHANGE IN ASSESSEE'S REVENUE RECOGNITION POLICY. THIS DOES NO T SHOW THAT THE AO HAS MADE RELEVANT ENQUIRY/VERIFICATION AS TO WHETHE R THE CHANGE WAS BONAFIDE AND WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED IN FUTURE. THE LD. COUNSEL WAS NOT ABLE TO POINT OUT THAT THE AO HAS MADE ANY ENQUIRY/VERIFICATION INTO THESE ASPECTS. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE AO HAS MADE INVESTIGATIONS TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE BONAFIDES OF THE CHANGE IN THE POLICY. THERE IS ALS O NOTHING ON THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE AO VERIFIED THAT THE CHANGED POLIC Y WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED IN FUTURE. THERE IS ALSO NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE AO HAD MADE ANY EXAMINATION TO FIND OUT WHETHER ANY EX PENDITURE CORRESPONDING TO THE DEFERRED REVENUE INCOME WAS DE BITED/CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHETHER THESE WERE ALLOWABLE IN VI EW OF THE FACT THAT CORRESPONDING INCOME IS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. SIN CE THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE CHANGE IN THE REVENUE RECOGNITION POLI CY I.E. METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY/VERIFICATION WHICH H AS RESULTED IN LOWERING OF PROFITS BY RS. 11,98,08,876/-, THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER DATED 15/12/2009 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER TO THIS EXTENT IS SET ASIDE AND AO IS DIRECTED TO MAKE A FR ESH ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS ASPECT AFTER MAKING INQUIRIES/VERIFICATIONS AS ABOVE AND AFTER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 21 GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY OF BEING HEARD. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THE CIT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDINGS ON THE ISSUE OF CONSISTENCY IN FOLLOWING THE AS-7 IN THE SUBSEQU ENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND WHEN HE IS ISSUING NOTICE ON 12.3.12 AND PASSING OR DERS ON 23.12.12, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE COPIES OF THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDING ON 31.3.07, 31.3.08, 31.3.09, 31.3.10 AND ALSO COPIES OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDERS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10 (SUPRA) WERE PA RT OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND IF THE SAME WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN TH E LIGHT OF SUBMISSIONS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U /S 263 OF THE ACT, THEN THE CIT COULD HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING A S-7 NOT ONLY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION VIZ. 2007-08, B UT THE SAME WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR RECOGNISING REVENUE FROM ENGINEERING BUSINESS SEGMENT WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FOLLOWED PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AS PRESCRIBED UNDER AS-7 ISSUED BY ICAI FOR THE ACCOUNTING OF CONTRACTORS. AT THE COS T OF REPETITION, WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED LETTERS DATED 20.10.09 AND 30.10.09 SHOWING THE CAUSE OF CHANGE OF METHOD OF RECOGNITION OF DEF ERRED REVENUE AS PER AS-7 INSTEAD OF AS-9 ALONG WITH DETAILED CONTRACT WISE W ORKING WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING T HE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THERE WAS A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VI DE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 22 20.10.09 AND THE SAME WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE B Y FILING TWO LETTERS VIZ. FIRST ON 20.10.09 AND 30.10.09 ALONG WITH RELEVANT DETAIL S. 17. AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILE D TABULATION CHART SHOWING TAXABLE INCOME AND TAX EFFECT DUE TO CHANGE OF ACCO UNTING POLICY AND STANDARD (ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 11) WHEREIN IT IS A MPLY CLEAR THAT TAX SURCHARGE AND EC AS PER AS-7 WAS CALCULATED AT RS.8,34,63,477 AND TAX SURCHARGE AND EC PAYABLE AS PER AS-9 WAS RS.12,37,91,145 AND IN THE VERY FIRST YEAR, THE ASSESSEE CHANGED ITS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FROM AS-9 TO AS-7 , THERE WAS AN AMOUNT OF REFUND OF RS.4,03,27,668. AT THE SAME TIME, FROM T HE SAID TABULATION CHART WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM 2008-09 TO 2011-12 THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY HIGHER AMO UNT OF TAX, SURCHARGE AND EC BY FOLLOWING AS-7 INSTEAD OF AS-9, THEREFORE, IN TH E TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CHANGED ITS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FROM AS-7 TO AS-9 WITH AN INTENTION TO A VOID TAX LIABILITY AND THEREFORE THIS RESULTED INTO LOWERING OF PROFITS. HOWEVER, AS WE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT THAT IN THE VERY FIRST YEAR OF CHANGING OF ACCOUNTING STANDARD, THERE WAS A LESSER TAX LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE BUT IN T HE SUBSEQUENT FOUR YEARS, THE TAX LIABILITY WAS MUCH HIGHER WHEN THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED AS-7 AS AGAINST AS-9. 18. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELI ANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MAHENDRA KUMAR 282 ITR 503 (ALL) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD PASSED THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 23 ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER OBTAINING CERTAIN DETAILS AN D AFTER DISCUSSION WITH THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DID NOT MENTION THE FACT OF DETAILED INQUIRY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD N OT MAKE THE ORDER ERRONEOUS AND THE CIT(A)S ORDER SETTING ASIDE ASSESSING OFFI CERS ORDER WAS NOT HELD TO BE VALID. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS NOT EXPRESSLY MENTIONED ABOUT THE CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING STA NDARD BY THE ASSESSEE FROM AS-9 TO AS-7 BUT FROM THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES AND W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, I T IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND APPLIED HIS MIND TOWARDS C HANGE IN ACCOUNTING STANDARD AND THE ISSUE OF DEFERRED REVENUE AND MERE LY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MENTION THE DELIBERATIONS REGARDING INQUIRY WOULD NOT MAKE THE ORDER ERRONEOUS. PER CONTRA, AS WE HAVE ALREADY NO TED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE OF DEFERRED REVENUE AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND CONTRACT WISE DETAI LED SUBMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTI ON THAT THE CIT HAS PASSED IMPUGNED ORDER IN A HASTY MANNER WITHOUT ANY DELIBE RATION ON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUBMITTED BY PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND HE JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION WITHOUT ANY ADJUDICATION ON THE SUBMISSION AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE CIT WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE WELL-ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF A DJUDICATION AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. OUR VIEW ALSO FINDS SUPPORT F ROM THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 24 HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD. (SUPRA). 19. LASTLY, WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE CIT HAS DIRECT ED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE ASPECT OF DEFE RRED REVENUE BY HOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THIS ASPECT BUT THE CIT HAS NOT DRAWN ANY CONCLUSION THA T THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THUS, THE SAME IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. TH E CIT HAS NOT MADE ANY INQUIRY IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED BY HIM IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND IN THE LIGHT OF WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS AND PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE. IN THIS SITUATION, THE IMPUGNED ORDER FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF DICTA LAID BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF DIT VS JYOTI FOU NDATION (SUPRA) WHEREIN, AFTER CONSIDERING THE RATIO OF ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS DG HOUSING PROJECT LTD. , THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T HELD THAT WHERE THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT RECORDS THAT THE INQUIRIES WERE NOT SUFFICIENT AND FURTHER INQUIRIES OR DETAILS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED FOR BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER, THEN IN SUCH CASES, THE INQUIRY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY TH E COMMISSIONER HIMSELF TO RECORD THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ER RONEOUS. THEIR LORDSHIPS EXPLICITLY HELD THAT THE CIT SHOULD NOT HAVE SET AS IDE THE ORDER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT THE SAID INQUIRY. THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SQUARELY FALLS WITHIN THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.,2438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 25 OF JYOTI FOUNDATION (SUPRA) AND HENCE WE REACH TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT DATED 12.3.12 AND IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT WAS NOT PASSED UNDER VALID ASSUMPTION OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION A VAILABLE TO THE CIT(A) U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THUS, THE SAME ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE B EING BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE IMPUGNED NOTICE AND ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT ARE HEREBY QUA SHED. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.10.2015. SD/- SD/- (N.K.SAINI) (C.M. GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21 ST OCTOBER, 2015 GS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR