REPUTE PROPERTIES P.LTD, MUMBAI V. CIT 9, MUMBAI

ITA 2794/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3413 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJIT K SHRIVASTVA
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY R SINGH
• Section: 143(3); 148; 263; 63

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSA IN, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 2795/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) M/S. RACHANA FINANCE & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. A WING, 2 ND FLOOR, MHATRE PEN BUILDING, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, DADAR (WEST), MUMBAI-400 028. / VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, 3 RD FLOOR, AAAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACR 4930A ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ I.T.A. NO. 2794/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) M/S. REPUTE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. A WING, 2 ND FLOOR, MHATRE PEN BUILDING, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, DADAR (WEST), MUMBAI-400 028. / VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, 3 RD FLOOR, AAAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACR 4929A ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI AJAY R. SINGH / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJIT K. SHRIVASTVA / DATE OF HEARING : 07/12/2015 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/03/2016 2 ITA NO. 2794&2795/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2004-05) $% / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J. M.: THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY TWO ASSESSEE S AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, DATED 28.03.2014 FOR A.Y. 2004-05. THIS IS COMMON ORDER COVERING THE DISPOSAL OF TWO APPEALS W HICH HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY TWO SEPARATE ASSESSEES AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT, MUMBAI BOTH DATED SAME PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. SINCE BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE THE CASES HA VE BEEN HEARD AND DISPOSE OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND B REVITY. 2. FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP ITA NO. 2795/MUM/2014 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, M/S. RACHNA FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND THE OUTCOME OF THE SAME WILL BE APPLICABLE TO OTHER ANALOGOUS APPE AL I.E. ITA NO. 2794/MUM/2014 FILED BY ANOTHER ASSESSEE NAMELY, M/S. REPUTE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. FOR A.Y. 2004-05. 3. IN APPEALS OF ASSESSEE, M/S. RACHNA FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.03.2014 WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE CIT WHEREIN 3 ITA NO. 2794&2795/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2004-05) THE CIT HAS INVOKED HIS JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT FOR AY 2004-05 WHICH IS UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE CIT WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 PASSED ON 28 .10.2011, WAS ERRONEOUS INASMUCH AS IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF T HE REVENUE. THE ENTIRE ISSUE REVOLVES AROUND INVESTMENTS OF RS.25 LAKHS BY WAY O F SHARE APPLICATION AND SHARE PREMIUM IN SHARE OF M/S. TURKHIA GROUP OF COMPANIES . THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO OF THE BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIF IED THE ISSUE REGARDING HIGH SHARE PREMIUM PAID BY ASSESSEE TO M/S. TURKHIA GROUP OF C OMPANIES AND THE MONEY TRAIL WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R. W.S. 147 FOR AY 2004-05. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT HAS PASSED AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT,1961 THEREBY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 DATED 28-10-2011 FOR AY 2004-05 IS SET ASIDE WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE AO T O FRAME AFRESH ASSESSMENT IN THE LIGHT OF OBSERVATION MADE IN IMPUGNED ORDER AGAINS T WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED H EREIN BELOW. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN COMING TO T HE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 DATED 28.10.2011 IS 4 ITA NO. 2794&2795/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2004-05) ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN SETTING ASI DE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 DATED 28.10.2011 WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FRAME FRESH ASSESSMENT. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY OR SUBSTITUTE ANY GROUND/GROUNDS AND TO ADD ANY NEW GROUND OR GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2004-05 ON 15.11.2004 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 6,658/-. THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS REOPENED ON 31.03.2011 AFTER OBTAINING PRIOR AP PROVAL OF ADDL. CIT, RANGE 9 (3), AND MUMBAI. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIES, THE AO PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT ON 28.10.2011. WHEREBY THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ASSESSED AT RS .6,658/-. CIT NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.25 LAKHS BY W AY OF SHARE APPLICATION AND SHARE PREMIUM IN SHARE OF M/S. TURKHIA GROUP OF COM PANIES AND NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED THE ISSUE REGARD ING THE HIGH SHARE PREMIUM PAID 5 ITA NO. 2794&2795/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2004-05) BY ASSESSEE TO M/S. TURKHIA GROUP OF COMPANIES THER EFORE AFTER SERVING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND CONSIDERING REPLY, THE CIT PASSED ORDER U/S 263 OF I.T. ACT,1961. 3.1 AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE. GROUND NO. 1&2 4. SINCE ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INTER-CONNECTED AND INTER- RELATED THEREFORE WE THOUGHT IT FIT TO DISPOSE OFF THE SAME THROUGH THE PRESENT COMMON ORDER. 4.1 AT THE VERY OUTSET LD. AR REPRESENTING THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143 R.W.S. 147 DATE D 28.10.2011 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THE PROVISION OF SECTION 263 WERE NOT AT ALL ATTRACTED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THA T THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE GROUND OF EXAMINATION OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT M ADE BY ASSESSEE OF RS.25 LACS TOWARDS ACQUISITION OF SHARES FROM ONE COMPANY M/S. TURAKHIA FEROMAT PVT. LTD. THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM SHIRDI INDUSTRIES LTD AND THE BANK STATEMENT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED ON RECORD WHERE IN THE AMOUNT RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY 6 ITA NO. 2794&2795/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2004-05) WAS REFLECTED. THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF SHIRDI INDUSTRIES LTD AND COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SAID COMPANY WERE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DETAILED EXAMINATION AND MAKING FULL INQUIRIES IN THE MATTER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO CASE OF THE SAID ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. SPECIFIC STAND TAKEN BY THE LD. AR IS TH AT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND INQUI RIES TO THE SOURCE OF MONEY AND INVESTMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE COMPANY. AND SINCE THER E IS NO OTHER NEW EVIDENCES WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIAL TH E GROUND TAKEN BY CIT THEREFORE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED O RDER U/S 263. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT MADE INQUIRIES FOR JU STIFICATION OF PREMIUM FOR ISSUING OF SHARES IN THE CASE OF RECIPIENT COMPANY WHO RECEIVED THE MONEY AND ISSUED THE SHARES AND SINCE NO SHARE APPLICATION M ONEY WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE EXAMINATION OF JUSTIFICATION OF SHARE PREMIUM WAS NOT AT ALL WARRANTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON JUDGEMENT OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF M/S. TURA KHIA FEROMAT PVT. LTD. PASSED BY ITAT MUMBAI BENCH AND AS PER THE AFORESAID MENTI ONED JUDGEMENT ITAT WAS PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE SIMILAR ORDER PASSED U/S 2 63 OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE SAID CASE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR REPRESENTING THE REVENU E HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY CIT(A) U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT AND IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. DR THAT SINCE 7 ITA NO. 2794&2795/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2004-05) THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE O F SHARE APPLICATION AND SHARE PREMIUM WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143 R.W .S 147 DATED 28.10.2011 THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 263 OF I.T. ACT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME AND READING SECTION 263(1) IT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PRE-REQUISITE TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY TH E COMMISSIONER SUO MOTTO UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ISTHAT THE ORDER OF THE AO I S ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE COM MISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED WITH THE TWIN CONDITIONS: (I) THE ORDER OF THE AO SORT TO BE REVISED IS ERRO NEOUS AND (II) IT IS TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THE CONDITION IS ABSENT IT CANNOT BE INVOKE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF I.T. ACT FOR THESE OBSERVATIONS, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREM E COURT, IN CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD VS. CIT (SC) 243 ITR 83. WE HAV E NOTICED THAT IN THIS CASE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S 147 ON THE SIMILAR GROUNDS WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE C OMMISSIONER AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143 R.W.S. 147 WAS COMPLETED ON 28.1 0.11. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE GROUND OF EXAMIN ATION OF SOURCES OF 8 ITA NO. 2794&2795/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2004-05) INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.25 LAKHS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SHARES FROM ONE M/S. TURAKHIA FEROMAT PVT. LTD, IN THIS RESPECT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM SHIRD I INDUSTRIES LTD AND THE BANK STATEMENT OF SHIRDI INDUSTRIES WAS ALSO SUBMITTED O N RECORD ALONG WITH COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF SHIRDI INDUSTIRES AND COPY OF ACK NOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF THE SAID COMPANY ALONG WITH THE BANK STATEMENT OF ASSES SEE COMPANY. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DETAILED EXAMINATI ON OF RECORDS HAD PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SAID FACTS ARE ALSO MENTIO NED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 143 R.W.S. 147 OF THE A CT WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED BY THE AO THAT THE REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED RELEVANT DETAILS AND AFTER DISCUSSING THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ASSESSED WHICH SHOWS THE CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE D OCUMENTS AND APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THERE IS NO FURTHER EVIDENCE WHICH HAS COME ON RECORD AFTER PASSING OF ORDER BY AO. SINCE THE AO HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE BY MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES, T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE HELD ERRONEOUS. SINCE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IS O NE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 6.1 WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE C OORDINATE MUMBAI BENCH OF ITA NOS. 4148 TO 4152/MUM/2013 IN CASE OF M/S. TUR AKHIA FERROMET PVT. LTD. VS. 9 ITA NO. 2794&2795/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2004-05) CIT AND ITA NOS.3966 TO 3969/MUM/2013 IN CASE OF M/S. STANDARD CONDUITS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT WHEREIN ALSO THE ISSUE BEFORE TH E COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT WAS SAME I.E. U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THE COMPANIES NAME D ABOVE ARE THE RECIPIENT COMPANIES WHO RECEIVED THE MONEY AND ISSUED THE SHA RES. IN THEIR CASE ALSO THE CIT(A) FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND FOR OTH ER YEARS HAD PASSED ORDERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON SIMILAR GROUNDS AND THE COORDINAT E BENCH IN THE CASE OF RECIPIENT COMPANY HAD SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) U/S 2 63 OF THE ACT AND IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH ORDERS SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS IN RESPECT OF RECIPIENT COMPANY W HO ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ISSUE THE SHARES. 6.2 WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE WHICH CONTAINS ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO AS W ELL AS THE CIT INCLUDING COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME, COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND ANNU AL ACCOUNTS, COPY OF NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 31.03.2011, COPY OF REPLY DATED 14/10 /2011 SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH DETAILS OF INVESTMENT AND ADVANCES ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS RECIPIENT COMPANY AND COPY OF ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF SH IRDI INDUSTRIES. 10 ITA NO. 2794&2795/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2004-05) 6.3 IN THE PRESENT CASE ALTHOUGH THE AO HAS MENTION ED REGARDING THE SUBMISSIONS OF DOCUMENTS AND DISCUSSION CARRIED OUT BUT STILL THE CIT HAS MENTIONED WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE AC T THAT THE ORDER OF AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E. IN THIS RESPECT WE WOULD FURTHER LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE ORDER OF AO IN THE PRESENT CASE MAY BE BRIEF BUT THAT BY ITSELF IS NOT A SUFFICIENT REASON TO HELD T HE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE U/S 263 IS NOT TO SET ASIDE MERELY UNFAVAOURABLE ORDERS AND BR ING TO TAX SOME MORE MONEY TO THE TREASURY NOR IS THE SECTION MEANT TO GET AT SHE ER ESCAPEMENT OF REVENUE WHICH IS TAKEN CARE OF BY OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE ACT. POWER UNDER SECTION 263 CANNOT BE EXERCISED FOR STARTING FISHING AND ROVING ENQUIRIES . IN THE GARB OF EXERCISING POWER UNDER SECTION 263, THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO STARTING FISHING AND ROVING ENQUIRES IN MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED. 6.4 WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE JUDGEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR DECIDED BY ITAT KOLKATA BENCH IN CASE OF BISAKHA SALES (P.) L TD. VS. CIT HOWEVER IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED SHARE AP PLICATION MONEY WITH HUGE AND UNJUSTIFIED SHARE PREMIUM FROM CORPORATE ENTITIES B UT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY O R SHARE PREMIUM FROM 11 ITA NO. 2794&2795/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2004-05) CORPORATE ENTITIES. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CITED CA SE ARE DIFFERENT AND ARE NOT SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE HENCE THE CITED JU DGEMENT IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. SI MILAR IS THE POSITION OF ANOTHER CASE DECIDED BY KOLKATA HIGH COURT TITLED CIT VS. MAITHAN INTERNATIONAL FACTS OF THE AFORE MENTIONED CASE ARE ALSO DIFFERENT AND DIS TINGUISHABLE AND THEREFORE THE SAID JUDGMENT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS O F THE PRESENT CASE. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND MATERIAL EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD REPRODUCED ELSEWHERE IN THE ORDER BY US, IN OUR CON SIDERED VIEW THE ORDER OF CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT STAND ON ITS OWN LEG, W E ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT U/S 263 DATED 28.3.14 AND RESTORE THAT OF TH E AO. THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. GROUND NO.3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO SEPAR ATE ADJUDICATION. 8. NOW, WE WILL TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE M/S. REPUTE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 2794/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2004-05). 8.1 THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL DATE D 28.3.14 HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT WHERE IN THE CIT HAS INVOKED ITS JURISDICTION FOR AY 12 ITA NO. 2794&2795/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2004-05) 2004-05 ON SIMILAR ISSUE WAS INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE I.E. RACHANA FINANCE INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. WHEREIN WE HAVE ALREA DY GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE LD. COUN SEL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LD. DR AND CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND THE MAT ERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD, WE HAVE ALREADY SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATIO N ARE SIMILAR. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR OWN DECISION GIVEN IN THE AFORE SAID APPEAL, WE ALSO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, NAMELY M/S. RACHANA FINACE & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED OF CIT U/S 263 O F THE ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23RD MARCH , 2016 SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &' $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) MUMBAI; *$ DATED :23.03.2016 PS. ASHWINI 13 ITA NO. 2794&2795/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2004-05) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. + ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. + / CIT - CONCERNED 5. ./0 ''12 , 12# , ( ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 045 6 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / !'# (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) #$ %, ( ) / ITAT, MUMBAI