M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, Madurai

ITA 2772/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96224 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: T N SEETHARAMAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Business income; Depreciation; Double taxation relief; Earning of tax free income; Period of limitation; Permanent establishment; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Time period of passing order; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , ! ' , # $% & [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NOS.2772 & 2773/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. PLANTATIONS P. LTD, NO.40, M.R.M ARCADE, AMMAN SANNATHI STREET, KARAIKUDI VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE II, MADURAI [PAN AACCM 9058R ] ( '( / APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NOS. 2946, 2947 & 2948/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE II, MADURAI VS. M/S. M.R.M. PLANTATIONS P. LTD, NO.40, M.R.M ARCADE, AMMAN SANNATHI STREET, KARAIKUDI [PAN AACCM 9058R ] ( '( / APPELLANT) ( )*'( /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. T.N. SEETHARAMAN, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, IRS, JCIT. / DATE OF HEARING : 30-09-2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-10-2015 ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 2 -: / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE ITA NOS.2772 & 2773/MDS/2014 ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NOS.2946, 2947 & 2948/MDS2014 ARE FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- I, MADURAI, DATED 25.09.2014 FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO.2947/MDS/2014 FOR ADJUDICAT ION. THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS NO T MADE OUT A CASE THAT THERE WAS A PERMANENT ESTABLIS HMENT IN INDIA IN REGARD TO CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF P LANTATIONS IN MALAYSIA. 3. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE REASON FOR ASSESSING THE INCOME STATED BY THE AO WAS THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND IS THEREFORE, RESIDENT, AS PER SECTION 6(3); ANNUAL REPORT AND DIRECTORS REPORT STATED THA T THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ITS BRANCH IN MALAYSIA AND THE CONTROL AND, MANAGEMENT OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE MALAY SIAN BRANCH IS SITUATED IN INDIA AS THE SHARE HOLDERS AN D ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING WERE CONDUCTED IN INDIA; THE INCOME OF THE MALAYSIAN BRANCH IS INCLUDED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY AND THE PROFITS APPROPRIATED. 4. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THAT THE APEX COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P.V.A. KULA NDAGAN CHETTIAR (267 ITR 657) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRE SENT CASE SINCE THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 3 -: MALAYSIAN BRANCH OF THE ASSESSEE IS SITUATED IN IND IA AS THE SHARE HOLDERS AND ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING WERE CONDUCTED IN INDIA. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2006 -07 ON 21.11.2006 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF C13,77,120/-. THE RETUR N WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1)(A) ON 15.02.2008. AS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WAS INITIAT ED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 DT. 22.03.2012. THE REASONS FOR INIT IATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AY 2007-08, THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME WAS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT T HE INTEREST INCOME HAD TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. SINCE THE COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS INCOME, THE EXPENDITURE DID NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S.57. SIMILARLY, ON VERIFICATION OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS FOR THE AY 2006-07, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN RECEIPT OF ONLY INTEREST INCOME AGAINST WHICH TH EY HAVE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF 13,54,443/- WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE. FURTHER, ON VERIFICATION OF STATEMENT OF INCOME, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE INCOME FROM MALAYSIAN BRANCH AMOUNTING TO 55, 92,897/- IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION IN INDIA. THE CA SE LAW CIT VS.PVRM KULANDAYAN CHETTIAR [267 ITR 657] IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE FOR THE FOLLO WING REASONS. A) THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND IS THEREFORE, A RESIDENT, AS PER SECTION 6(3). ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 4 -: B) ANNUAL REPORT AND DIRECTORS REPORT STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ITS BRANCH IN MALAYSIA AND THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE MALAYSIAN BRANCH IS SITUATE IN INDIA AS THE SHARE HOLDERS AND ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING WERE CONDUCTED IN INDIA. C) THE INCOME OF THE MALAYSIAN BRANCH IS INCLUDED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY AND PROFITS APPROPRIATED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REA SONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME TO THE TUNE OF C69,47,340/- HAS ESCAPED ASSE SSMENT. ACCORDINGLY ASSESSMENT WAS COMPUTED INTERALIA TAXI NG THE MALAYSIAN PLANTATION. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED THAT IN VIEW OF T HE JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PVRM KULANDAYAN CHETTIAR 267 ITR 654, P LANTATION INCOME RECEIVED FROM MALAYSIAN CANNOT BE TAXED IN INDIA. AGAINST THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PVRM KULANDAYAN CHETTIAR ( CITED SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT BUSINESS INCOME ARISING OUT OF RUBBER PLANTATIONS IN MALAYSIA CANNOT BE TAXED IN INDIA BECAUSE OF CLOSER ECONOMIC RELATIONS ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 5 -: BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MALAYSIA WHICH DETERMINES THE FISCAL DOMICLE OF THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 4 OF TH E DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND MALAYSIA; BEING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE ASSESSEE HAVING PERMANENT ESTABLISHMEN T IN INDIA. IN ARTICLE 5(2)(G) THE TERM PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT SHALL INCLUDE ESPECIALLY A FARM OR PLANTATION. 6. IN THIS CASE, THE PLANTATION IN MALAYSIA WOULD BE T HE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT THROUGH WHICH THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND APPLYING THE TEST OF PERMANENT EST ABLISHMENT THE INCOME FROM THE PLANTATION WOULD BE TAXABLE ONLY IN MALAYSIA AND NOT IN INDIA. THE ASSESSEE ALREADY FILED ITS RETURN O F INCOME AND THE RETURN FILED FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH WAS KEPT IN RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, IN OUR OPINION THE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS TO BE CONFIRMED. THIS APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.2773/MDS/2014, ASSESSMENT YEAR 206-2007, (AS SESSEE APPEAL) 7. IN THIS APPEAL, THE FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE AT C43 ,35,061/- AND ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE SAID AMOUNT WAS INCUR RED BY THE MALAYSAIN BRANCH OF THE COMPANY AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 6 -: HEAD OFFICE OF THE COMPANY AT CHENNAI WAS C15,65, 918/- ONLY WHICH IS ALLOWABLE AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS/OTHER SOURCES . 8. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR TH E YEAR ENDED 2006- 07, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED INTEREST INCOME FROM BANK AND OTHERS AND DIVIDEND RECEIPT OF C12,70,603/-. FROM THE INTERES T INCOME AND DIVIDEND RECEIPTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED MAJOR E XPENSES AS UNDER:- SALARY AND BONUS : C11,61,594/- MANAGING DIRECTOR REMUNERATION AND COMMISSION : C14,06,799/- VEHICLE MAINTENANCE : C 2,15,908/- POSTAGE & TELEPHONE EXPENSES : C 1,12,743/- TRAVELLING EXPENSES : C 2,81,078/- RATES AND TAXES : C 32,860/- REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE : C 34,150/- INCOME TAX PAID : C10,89,929/- ------------------ TOTAL : C43,35,061/- ----------------- THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT AS THE INTEREST INC OME FROM BANKS IS TO BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE ABOVE EX PENSES CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS PER SEC.57 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO KNOWN BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN INDIA. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES TO THE TU NE OF C43,35,061/- AND COMPUTED ACCORDINGLY. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS). THE ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 7 -: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS I N APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. UNDER SECTION 57 ONLY EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH EARNING OF INCOME WAS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME IS BY WAY OF INTEREST FROM THE BANK DEPOSITS. IT WAS SEEN THAT THE EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS SALARY, REMUNERATION, COMMISSION, BUILDING MAINTENANCE ETC, THESE EXPENSES HAVE NO NEXUS WITH EARNING OF INTEREST ON BANK DEPO SITS AND CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S.57 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, TH E ASSESSEE MADE A PLEA BEFORE US THAT EXPENDITURE AT HEAD OFFICE AT C 15,65,918/- INSTEAD OF C43,35,061/-. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ALREADY BROUGHT ON RECORD THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE AT C43,35,061/- AS RECORDED IN EARLIER PARA. BEING SO, THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE COUNSE L IS DEVOID OF MERIT AS IT IS NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCES. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 10. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOL DING THE ADDITION OF C8,04,623/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING EXCHANGE RATE FLUCTUATION BROUGHT TO CHARGE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION OR ASSIGNING REASONS IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 8 -: 11. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED C8,04,623/- ON ACCOUNT O F EXCHANGE RATE FLUCTUATION WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED AS INCOME. THE A SSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO TAX C8,04,623/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 12. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED C8,04,623/- DUE TO EXCHANGE RATE FLUCTUATION. GAIN DUE TO EXCHANGE RATE ON THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE H ELD ON REVENUE ACCOUNT IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME. DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ADDUCED ANY ARGUMENT AS TO WHY THE GAIN IS NOT INCOME EXCEPT ARGUING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D ADDED C8,04,623/- WITHOUT REASON. THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 13. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE SUM OF C8,06,423/- WAS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2006 WITH THE NARRATION AMOUNT ADJUSTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF FINALIZING THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE HEAD OFFICE AND THE BRANCH OWING TO FLUCTUATION IN FORE IGN EXCHANGE AND IS A MERE NOTIONAL ENTRY MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EQUAL IZING THE BALANCE ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 9 -: BETWEEN THE HEAD OFFICE AND THE MALAYSIAN BRANCH OF FICE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SUM OF C8,06,42 3/- WAS A NOTIONAL AMOUNT AND NOT A GAIN REAL TERMS, BEING AN ACCOUNT ING ENTRY RELATING TO THE ASSESSEES OWN BRANCH IN MALAYSIA WHICH CANN OT RESULT IN ANY INCOME. 14. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 15. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY RECEIVED THE ABOVE AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF EXCHANGE RATE FLUCTUATION WHICH IS REVEN UE RECEIPT AND THE SAME TO BE LIABLE TO BE TAXED AND IT CANNOT BE CONS IDERED AS NOTIONAL ENTRY ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE OF THE APPEAL IN ITA NO .2773/MDS/2014 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.2946/MDS/2014, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 (DE PARTMENT APPEAL) 16. THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS IDENTICAL WHICH WAS C ONSIDERED IN ITA NO.2773/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 2007,. APPLYING THE ABOVE RATIO, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 10 -: ITA NO.2772/MDS/2014, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 (AS SESSEE APPEAL): 17. THE GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL IS SIMILAR TO THE GROUND S IN ITA NO.2773/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 AND THERE IS ONLY CHANGE IN AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE. APPLYING T HE RATIO LAID IN ITA NO.2773/MDS/2014, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ITA NO.2948/MDS/2014, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 (DEPA RTMENT APPEAL): 18. IN THIS APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED REVISED G ROUNDS OF APPEAL AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, MADURAI IS OPPOSED TO LAW ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2.1 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE R E- OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE IT ACT, 19 61 IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007~08 ARE; INVALID. 2.2 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS ALSO ERR ED IN HOLDING THAT RE-VISITING OF THE SAME ISSUE WHICH WA S CONSIDERED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WITH A DIFFER ENT MEANING FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AMOUNTS TO CHANGE OF OPINION. 2.3 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS FAILED T O NOTE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSES (B) AND (C) OF THE ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 11 -: EXPLANATION (2) TO SECTION 147 ARE CLEARLY APPLICAB LE IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 UND ER CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE. HAD DELIBERATEL Y KEPT AWAY THE INCOME OF MALAYSIAN PLANTATION FROM INDIAN TAXATION LAWS WHEN THE COMPANY AFFAIRS ARE CONTROLL ED IN INDIA. 2.4 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE'S TOTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 HAD BEEN UNDER ASSESSED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.12.2009, INTER A LIA TO AN EXTENT OF RS.9841036/- BEING INCOME FROM PLANTATION FROM MALAYSIA WHICH WAS NOT EARLIER INCLUDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE SAID ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT THEREBY ATTRACTING APPLICATION OF PROVIS IONS OF CLAUSE OF EXPLANATION (2) TO SECTION 147 OF THE. INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 I.E 'WHERE AN ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MAD E BUT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS BEEN UNDER ASSESSED'. 2.5 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAV E NOTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DELIBERATELY K EPT AWAY THE INCOME FROM PLANTATION IN MALAYSIA TREATING IT AS NOT FORMING PART OF TOTAL INCOME BY QUOTING THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DECISION OF CIT VS P.V.KULANDAYAN CHETTIAR WHEREAS THE RATIO OF THE SAID DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. 2.6 IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE A SSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WERE TO BE CONSIDERED, EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 147 OF TH E ACT WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW MAY KINDLY BE TAKEN NOTE OF :- 'PRODUCTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ACCOUNT BOOKS OR OTHER EVIDENCE FROM WHICH MATERIAL EVIDENCE COULD WITH DUE DILIGENCE HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL NOT NECESSARILY AMOUNT TO DISCLOSURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOREGOING PROVISION' I.E PROVISO 1 OF SECTION 147). 2.7 THIS ISSUE OF JURISDICTION TO REOPEN ASSESSMENT U/S 147 ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 12 -: BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REITERATED IN MANY CASE S BY THE SUPREME COURT FOR MERE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THERE MAY BE OMISSION OR FAILURE TO MAKE A TRUE AND FULL DISCLOS URE BY THE ASSESSEE, IF SOME MATERIAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT L AY EMBEDDED IN THE EVIDENCE WHICH THE REVENUE COULD HAVE UNCOVERED BUT DID NOT, THEN, IT IS THE D UTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO BRING IT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE KNOWS ALL THE MATERIAL AND REL EVANT FACTS IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MIGHT NOT. BUT IF TH ERE IS OMISSION TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. THIS DEC ISION WAS TAKEN IN THE FOLLOWING CASES BY THE SUPREME COU RT. 1. INDO-ADEN SALT MFG. & TRADING CO. VS CIT(SC) 159 ITR 124 2. HAZI AMIR MOH. MIR AHMED VS CIT, AMRITSAR (SC) 110 ITR 630 3. ITO I WARD, DISTT. VI CALCUTTA & OTHERS VS LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS (SC) 103 ITR 437 4. MALEGON ELECTRICITY CO. P. LTD VS. CIT , BOMBAY (SC) 78 ITR 466. 5. CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO. LTD VS. ITO, COMPANIES DIST I CALCUTTA AND ANOTHER (SC) 41 ITR 191. IN THIS CASE, ON VERIFICATION OF STATEMENT OF INCOM E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE INCOM E FROM MALAYSIAN BRANCH AMOUNTING TO 55,92,897/- WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSES SEE. FROM THE ANNUAL AND DIRECTORS REPORT, IT WAS OBSERVED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT O F THE AFFAIRS OF THE MALAYSIAN BRANCH WAS SITUATED IN IND IA AS THE SHARE HOLDERS AND THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING WAS CO NDUCTED IN INDIA. AS THERE IS OMISSION OR FAILURE TO MAKE A TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS A VALID REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2007-2008 IN RESPECT OF THIS CASE. 2.8 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAV E UPHELD THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S.147 FOR THE ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 13 -: ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008. 19. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2007 -08 ON 23.110.2007 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF C10,13,510/-. THE RETUR N WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1)(A). THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY A ND ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 22.12.2009 RAISING THE DEMAND OF C6,01,419/-. AS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAP ED ASSESSMENT, PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WAS INITIATED BY ISSUE OF NOTIC E U/S 148 DT. 22.03.2012. THE REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AY 2007-08, THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME WAS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT T HE INTEREST INCOME HAD TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. SINCE THE COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS INCOME, THE EXPENDITURE DID NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S.57. SIMILARLY, ON VERIFICATION OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS FOR THE AY 2006-07, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN RECEIPT OF ONLY INTEREST INCOME AGAINST WHICH TH EY HAVE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF 13,54,443/- WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE. FURTHER, ON VERIFICATION OF STATEMENT OF INCOME, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE INCOME FROM MALAYSIAN BRANCH AMOUNTING TO 55, 92,897/- IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION IN INDIA. THE CA SE LAW CIT VS.PVRM KULANDAYAN CHETTIAR [267 ITR 657] IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE FOR THE FOLLO WING REASONS. ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 14 -: A)THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND IS THEREFORE, A RESIDENT, AS PER SECTION 6(3). B)ANNUAL REPORT AND DIRECTORS REPORT STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ITS BRANCH IN MALAYSIA AND THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE MALAYSIAN BRANCH IS SITUATE IN INDIA AS THE SHARE HOLDERS AND ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING WERE CONDUCTED IN INDIA. C)THE INCOME OF THE MALAYSIAN BRANCH IS INCLUDED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY AND PROFITS APPROPRIATED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TH E REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME TO THE TUNE OF C98,41,036/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY ASSESSMENT WAS COMPUTED INTERALIA THE MALAYSIAN PLANTATION. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 20. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED T HAT THE GIST OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMEN T WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) AND THE SAME ISSUE WAS EXAMINED AND A FI NDING WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REOPENING THE SAME IS SUE WITH A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION WOULD AMOUNT TO CHANGE OF OPINION. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PLACED RELIANC E ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.2326/ MDS/2012, DATED ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 15 -: 05.07.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005, WHERE IN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 16. SO FAR AS INCOME FROM MALAYSIAN BRANCH IS C ONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESEMNT ORDER HAS CONSID ERED THE MDS SALARY AND COMMISSION OF MALAYSIAN BRANCH AND EXAMI NED THE ISSUE AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME OF MALAY SIAN BRANCH IS AN EXEMPT INCOME AND THEREFORE, COMMISSION PAID TO THE MD IS NOT ALLOWABLE AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE SAME. IT MEANS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND APPL IED HIS MIND. THEREFORE, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AGAIN ON THE SA ME ISSUE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. IN THE CASE OF KELVINTOR OF INDIA LTD (SUPRA) THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT AFTER 1 ST APRIL, 1989, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POWER TO REOPEN THE ASSES SMENT UNDER SECTION 147 PROVIDED THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REAS ONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THERE IS NO TANGI BLE MATERIAL TO COME A CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS AN ESCAPEMENT OF IN COME. MERE CHANGE OF OPINION CANNOT PER SE TO BE REASON TO REO PENING. 17. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HA VING CONSIDERED ENTIRE MATERIAL AND AFTER APPLYING THE MIND, COMPLE TED ASSESSMENT T UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, A NOT ICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED ON 24.03.2011 I.E. AFTER FOUR YEARS AND REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT IS CHANGE OF OPINION, WHICH IS NOT PERMI SSIBLE UNDER LAW. THEREFORE, THE REOPENING IS INVALID. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED T HAT REOPENING IS INVALID. AGAINST THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 21. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.2326/MDS/ 2012 & ITA 233/MDS/2013, DATED 05.07.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2004-05 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL ANNULLED REASSESSMENT OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 16 -: 16. SO FAR AS INCOME FROM MALAYSIAN BRANCH IS CONC ERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS C ONSIDERED THE MDS SALARY AND COMMISSION OF MALAYSIAN BRANCH AND HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME OF MALAYSIAN BRANCH IS AN EXEMPT INCOME AND THEREFORE, COMMISSION PAID TO THE MD IS NOT ALLOWABLE AND ACCORDINGLY DIS ALLOWED THE SAME. IT MEANS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND APPLIED HIS MIND. THEREFORE, REOPENING OF ASSESSMEN T AGAIN ON THE SAME ISSUE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. IN THE CAS E OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HA S OBSERVED THAT AFTER 1 ST APRIL, 1989, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POWER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 PROVIDED TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCA PED ASSESSMENT AND THERE IS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO COM A CONCLUSI ON THAT THERE IS AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. MERE CHANGE OF OPINION CAN NOT PER SE TO BE REASON TO REOPENING. 17. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HA VING CONSIDERED ENTIRE MATERIAL AND AFTER APPLYING THE M IND, COMPLETED ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREAF TER, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED ON 24.03.2011 I.E. AFT ER FOUR YEARS AND REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT. IN OUR OPINION, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT IS CHANGE OF OPINION, W HICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. THEREFORE, THE REOPENING IS INVALID. 18. APART FROM THE ABOVE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AFTER FOUR YEARS; THEREFORE, PROVISO TO SECTION 147 IS APPLICABLE TO ASSESSEES CASE. IN THIS CONTEXT, CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. IN THE CASE OF FENNER (INDIA) LTD. V. DCIT 241 ITR 672 , THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVE D THAT IN ORDER TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT AFTER EXPIRY OF FO UR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MUST SUMMARILY RECORD HIS REASONABLE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, BUT ALSO DEFAULT ON FAILURE OF THE ASSE SSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE MATERIALS FACTS. NOTICE ISS UED UNDER SECTION 148 AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME, IF ANY, NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS FULLY AND TRULY . THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ELGI FINANCE LTD. [286 ITR 674] HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVING TRULY AND FULLY DISCLOSED ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESS ARY FOR WORKING OUT THE QUANTUM OF DEPRECIATION, NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 148 ISSUED AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR TO WITHDRAW THE EXCESS DEPRECIATION ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND ILLEGAL. THE HONBLE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE LAW RELATING T O REASSESSMENT HAS UNDERGONE TO A CHANGE FROM 01.04.1989. THE CHAN GE WAS ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 17 -: BROUGHT BY DIRECT TAX LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987. TW O SETS OF PROVISIONS ARE AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 147 IN CLAUS E (A) AND CLAUSE (B). THIS DISTINCTION HAS NOW BEEN TAKEN AWA Y BY THE AMENDMENT ACT. PREVIOUSLY, THE LINE OF DISTINCTION WAS A LIMITATION PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AND THE LIMITATION PERIOD EXCE EDING FOUR YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD REOPEN A BACK AS SESSMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AS LONG AS HE HAD REA SON TO BELIEVE IN CONSEQUENCE OF ANY INFORMATION, THAT INCOME HAS BEE N UNDER ASSESSED OR INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THE C ASE OF LIMITATION, PROVIDING FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING FOUR Y EARS, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS LEADING TO THE E SCAPEMENT OF INCOME. BUT, AS A RESULT OF THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT W ITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.1989, THE ABOVE DISTINCTION HAD BEEN OBLITERA TED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD REASSESS THE INCOME AS LONG AS HE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE HAD ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT. THE NEW LAW HAS INSERTED A PROVISO TO SECTION 147 I N THE FOLLOWING WORDS: PROVIDING THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTI ON (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FO R THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM TH E END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) O F SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 19. IN ADDITION TO THE TIME LIMITS PROVIDED FOR UN DER SECTION 149, THE LAW HAS PROVIDED ANOTHER LIMITATION OF FOU R YEARS UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147. AS FAR AS THE ABOVE PRO VISO TO SECTION 147 IS CONCERNED, THE LAW PRESCRIBES A PERIOD OF FO UR YEARS TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, UNLESS THE INCOM E ALLEGED TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WAS MADE OUT AS A RESULT OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY AL L MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. THE HONBLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN CASES WHERE THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NECESSAR ILY RECORD NOT ONLY HIS REASONABLE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BUT ALSO THE DEFAULT OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSE SSEE. FAILURE TO DO SO WOULD VITIATE THE NOTICE AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDI NGS. MERE ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 18 -: ESCAPE OF INCOME IS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE INI TIATION OF ACTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. SUCH ESCAPEMENT MUST BE BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE EITHER TO FILE A RETURN REFERRED TO IN THE PROVISO OR TO TRULY AND FULLY DISCLOSE THE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. 20. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED AFTER FOUR YEARS. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDI NG BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REASONS RECORDED AS EXTRAC TED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLO SE FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE PARTICULARS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESS MENT. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 IS NOT VALID. 21. IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. V. ACIT (268 ITR 332) HAS OBSERVED THAT REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER NOWHERE STATING THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECE SSARY FOR ASSESSMENT AND, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3), AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT WAS NOT VALID. 22. IN SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD. V. DCIT (333 ITR 483) , THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY AVERMENT THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED BY REASON OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DI SCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT F OR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE VERY INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AFTER E XPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS B AD AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 23. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERA TION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ISSUAN CE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM T HE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS BAD AND CANNOT BE SUSTA INED AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 24. SO FAR AS REVENUES APPEAL IS CONCERNED, ONCE THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS DECIDED AS BAD AND NOT V ALID, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DECIDE THE ISSUES ON MERITS. THEREFORE , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. THE OT HER GROUNDS RAISED ITA NOS.2772, 2773, 2946 , 2947 & 2948/2014 :- 19 -: BY THE REVENUE ARE ONLY ACADEMIC AND REQUIRE NO ADJ UDICATION IN VIEW OF QUASHING OF ASSESSMENT. THIS GROUND OF THE APPE AL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 22. IN THE RESULTS, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.2772 &2773/MDS/2014 ARE DISMISSED AND THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS. 2946, 2947 & 2948/MDS/2014 ARE ALSO DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! ' ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI / DATED:09.10.2015 KV ! # $% &% / COPY TO: 1 . '( / APPELLANT 3. ) () / CIT(A) 5. %+, # - / DR 2. #.'( / RESPONDENT 4. ) / CIT 6. ,/ 0 / GF