AMT Construction Co., Narsapur V. THE ITO, WARD - 1, Palakol

ITA 284/VIZ/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9622 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 40A(3); 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 142(1); 143(2); 264; 13

Judgement Text

ITA NO.284/VIZAG/2014 AMT CONSTRUCTION CO., NARSAPUR 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.284/VIZAG/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) AMT CONSTRUCTION CO., NARSAPUR VS. ITO, WARD - 1, PALAKOL [PAN: AANFA 2769B ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. GURUSWAMY, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 01.12.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.12.2016 / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST ORDER OF THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY DATED 27.3.2014 U/S 263 OF THE ACT , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.284/VIZAG/2014 AMT CONSTRUCTION CO., NARSAPUR 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXECUTION OF CIVIL WORKS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 29.9.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 16,35,190/-. THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUT INY THROUGH CASS AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'THE AC T') WERE ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS, BILLS & VOUCHERS ALONG WITH OTHER DETAILS CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 19.12.2011, DETE RMINING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 24,65,930/- INTER-ALIA BY MAKING ADDITION OF ` 8,30,738/- TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURE AND EXC ESS DEPRECIATION CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 4.9.2013 AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 19.12.2011 SHALL NOT BE REVISED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE CIT PROP OSED TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE REASON THAT ON EXAMINATION OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT CERTAIN OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS WERE NOTICED, WHICH RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONE OUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS ITA NO.284/VIZAG/2014 AMT CONSTRUCTION CO., NARSAPUR 3 PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE CI T, IN THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S FAILED TO EXAMINE CERTAIN CORE ISSUES, SUCH AS LOW NET PROFIT DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE, SUB- CONTRACT PAYMENTS AND ITS REASONABLENESS, EXPENDITU RE ON PLANT AND MACHINERY, CORRECTNESS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND WITH HELD AMOUNT, DISALLOWANCE U/S SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, ACTUAL COST OF THE ASSET BROUGHT BY THE PARTNERS TO THE FIRMS BOOKS AND VER IFICATION OF OD ACCOUNT AND CURRENT ACCOUNTS. THE CIT FURTHER OBSE RVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED MEAGER NET PROFIT FROM A HUGE TURNOVER OF ` 9,02,56,306/-. THE CIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE A SSESSEE IS HAVING CERTAIN BANK ACCOUNTS, WHICH WERE NOT EXAMINED BY T HE A.O. THE A.O. FAILED TO EXAMINE THE TRANSACTIONS ROUTED THROUGH T HE OVER DRAFT ACCOUNT, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED AN AM OUNT OF ` 1,48,00,000/- TO ONE OF THE PARTNERS ACCOUNTS. SI MILARLY, THE CIT OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED A HUGE EXPE NDITURE ON PLANT AND MACHINERY BEING CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENTS AS AGAI NST WHICH EARNED AN INCOME OF ` 8,25,000/- WHICH RESULTED INTO NET LOSS OF ` 13,36,183/-. THE A.O. NOT ONLY EXAMINED THE ISSUES, BUT ALSO FAI LED TO APPLY HIS MIND BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, WHICH RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO.284/VIZAG/2014 AMT CONSTRUCTION CO., NARSAPUR 4 4. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION VIDE LETTER DATED 20.11.2013 AND SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS NEITHER ERRO NEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, AS THE A.O. HAS VER IFIED ALL ISSUES POINTED OUT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AT THE TIME OF COMPLET ION OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS IS SUED DETAILED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CALLING FOR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHE R DETAILS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS & V OUCHERS, BANK STATEMENTS AND OTHER DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. THE A.O. AFTER SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE AS SESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING CERTAIN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE S WHICH CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN SO FAR AS, NET PROFIT IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED LOW NET PROFIT BECAUSE OF HIGH DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST AND THE FACT OF WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE A.O. SIMILARLY, AS REGARDS SUB CONTR ACT PAYMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS ALONG WITH N AME AND ADDRESS OF THE SUB CONTRACTORS AND ALSO FURNISHED NECESSARY PR OOF OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON SUB CONTRACT PAYMENTS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT SUB CONTRACT PAYMENTS JUST BECAUSE THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED AGREEMENTS WITH THE SUB CONTRACTORS. SIM ILARLY, THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.284/VIZAG/2014 AMT CONSTRUCTION CO., NARSAPUR 5 HAS FILED REPLIES TO OTHER ISSUES POINTED OUT BY TH E CIT AND CONTENDED THAT EACH AND EVERY ISSUES POINTED OUT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT . THEREFORE, THE CIT WAS INCORRECT IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 5. THE CIT AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS FURNI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 19.12.2011 IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE CIT FURTHER HELD THAT THE A.O. FAILED TO EXAMINE CERTAIN CORE ISSUES SUCH AS SUB CONTRACT PA YMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, LOW NET PROFIT, SUNDRY CREDITORS AND WITH HELD AMOUNTS, ASSETS BROUGHT INTO THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM AND ITS VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER, BANK ACCOUNTS AND ANALYSIS OF OVER DRAFT ACCOUNTS AND ITS UTILIZATION TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE C IT FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING AN OVER DRAFT ACCOUNT AT TH E ANDHRA BANK, NARSAPUR BRANCH WHEREIN THE DEBIT BALANCE OF ` 81,13,345/- IS SHOWN. IT IS SHOWN THAT EARLIER THE ASSESSEE HAS ONE MORE OD ACCOUNT WITH NO.1567, WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED TO ACCOUNT NO.1589 A ND STATEMENT OF THAT ACCOUNT IS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD CURRENT ACCOUNTS IN ANDHRA BANK, RAJAHMUNDRY WITH A CCOUNT NO.9357, 654 & 697 AND NONE OF THESE ACCOUNTS WERE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING ITA NO.284/VIZAG/2014 AMT CONSTRUCTION CO., NARSAPUR 6 OFFICER. EVEN DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESS EE DID NOT SUBMIT COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS. THE CIT ALSO OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED NET LOSS OF ` 13,36,182/- AS AGAINST REVENUE OF ` 8,25,000/- FROM HIRING OF MACHINERY. THE A.O. FAILED TO EXAMI NE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST REVENUE RECEIPT TOW ARDS HIRING OF MACHINERY. IN SO FAR AS CASH PAYMENT IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE HUGE CASH PAYMENTS TO SUB CONTRACTORS. THE A. O. FAILED TO EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. SINCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT VERIFY THESE I SSUES PROPERLY AT THE TIME OF COMPLETING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT , THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.12.2011 NEEDS TO BE REVISED AS PREJU DICE WAS CAUSED TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE OF THE ERRORS C OMMITTED BY THE A.O. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO PASS CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED AND AFTER GIVING OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT HAS ERRED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, AS ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F THE REVENUE. THE LD. ITA NO.284/VIZAG/2014 AMT CONSTRUCTION CO., NARSAPUR 7 A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS EXAMINED A LL THE ISSUES POINTED OUT BY THE CIT RIGHT FROM VERIFICATION OF LOW NET P ROFIT TO LOSS INCURRED FROM HIRING OF PLANT AND MACHINERY. THE ASSESSEE H AS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND T HE A.O. AFTER SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED ASSESSMENT BY MAKING CERTAIN ADHOC DISALLOWANCES. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT WAS INCORRE CT IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY STAT ING THAT ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE A.O. IS INADEQUATE AND THE A.O. HA S NOT APPLIED HIS MIND, BUT THE FACT IS THAT THE A.O. HAS COMPLETED A SSESSMENT AFTER THOROUGH SCRUTINY OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DE TAILS. THEREFORE, THE CIT WAS INCORRECT IN ASSUMING JURISD ICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPP ORTED THE ORDER OF CIT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE CIT ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT O RDER FOR THE REASON THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT CONDUCTED PROPER ENQUIRY OF C ERTAIN ISSUES AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, THEREBY THE ASSES SMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ITA NO.284/VIZAG/2014 AMT CONSTRUCTION CO., NARSAPUR 8 REVENUE. THE CIT QUESTIONED VARIOUS ISSUES IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. ACCORDING TO THE CIT, THE A.O. FAILED TO EXAMINE CE RTAIN CORE ISSUES SUCH AS LOW NET PROFIT ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, SUB CON TRACT PAYMENTS, SUNDRY CREDITORS AND WITHHELD AMOUNTS, LOSS INCURRE D FROM HIRING OF PLANT AND MACHINERY, OVER DRAFT ACCOUNT, CURRENT AC COUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CASH PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESS EE AND CONSEQUENT APPLICATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) O F THE ACT. THE CIT GAVE HIS OWN REASONS FOR REVISING THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. ACCORDING TO THE CIT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS BRIEF AND CRYPTIC AND THE A.O. HAS DISCUSSED NONE OF THE ISSUES POINT ED OUT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A.O. HAS VERIFIED ALL THE ISSUES POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAS FURNISHED EACH AND EVERY DETAIL IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTIONNAIRE ISS UED BY THE A.O. AND THE A.O. AFTER SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED ASSESSMENT BY MAKING CERTAIN ADHOC DISALL OWANCES, THEREFORE, THE CIT WAS INCORRECT IN ASSUMING JURISD ICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 8. THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, I S TO VEST A SUPERVISORY POWER TO THE CIT TO MODIFY OR CANCEL AN Y ORDER INCLUDING THE ITA NO.284/VIZAG/2014 AMT CONSTRUCTION CO., NARSAPUR 9 ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE A.O., IF HE IS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. BUT, TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE TWIN CONDITIONS EMBEDDED IN THE SECTION MUST BE SAT ISFIED I.E. (I) ORDER OF THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS (II) IN SO FAR AS IT IS PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. UNLESS BOTH CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED, THE CIT CANNOT ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF REVISION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER COMES ONLY WHEN ASSESS MENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS OR NOT AND WHICH CAUSED PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE HAS TO BE DECIDED BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. WHETHER THE A.O. HAS VERIFIED PARTICULAR ISSUE OR NOT WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESS MENT OR HAD HE APPLIED HIS MIND WHILE ADJUDICATING PARTICULAR ISSU E IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IS TO BE DECIDED BASED ON THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS, SUCH AS ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DETAILS SUBMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. BEING QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY EXPECTED TO EXERCISE HIS POWER JUDICIALLY WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE A T THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. IF THE A.O. PASSED AN ERRONEOUS ORDER, NOT ONLY REVENUE, SOMETIMES THE ASSESSEE WILL ALSO LAND IN PROBLEM, S O THAT THE LAW PROVIDES FOR REVISION OF ORDERS SUO-MOTO BY THE COM MISSIONER IN CASE ITA NO.284/VIZAG/2014 AMT CONSTRUCTION CO., NARSAPUR 10 REVENUE IS PREJUDICED AND ASSESSEE CAN FILE APPLICA TION U/S 264 OF THE ACT TO CORRECT THE MISTAKES COMMITTED BY THE A.O., THEREFORE, THE LAW IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE FOR BOTH SIDES WHO CAN SEEK REME DY IN CASE IT IS REQUIRED. THEREFORE, THE POWERS OF THE COMMISSIONE R U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS VIDE ENOUGH SO THAT HE CAN ENTER INTO CORRECT TH E MISTAKES CAUSED BY THE A.O. 9. THE CIT MAY CONSIDER AN ORDER OF THE A.O. TO BE ERRONEOUS, NOT ONLY WHEN IT CONTAINS SOME APPARENT ERROR OF REASON ING OF LAW, OR BUT ALSO WITH ITS STEREO TYPED ORDER WHICH SIMPLY ACCEP TS WHAT ASSESSEE HAS STATED IN THE RETURN AND FAILED TO MAKE ANY ENQUIRI ES ON THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. AN ORDER TO BE REVISED U/S 263 OF THE AC T, WOULD BE ERRONEOUS AND FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF ERRORS ONLY W HEN IT HAS BEEN PASSED BASED ON AN INCORRECT ASSESSMENT OF FACT OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW OR NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY TH E A.O. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE A.O. TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE INTEREST OF B OTH THE PARTIES I.E. THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE. IF HE FAILS TO DISCHA RGE HIS DUTIES OR PASS AN ARBITRARY ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH CAN BE CORRECT ED EITHER AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IF THE ASSESSEE IS PREJUD ICED OR AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE, IF THE REVENUE IS PREJUDICED. WHIL E MAKING AN ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS A FAIR ROLE T O PLAY. HE IS AN INVESTIGATOR AS WELL AS ADJUDICATOR OF THE ISSUE. AS AN ADJUDICATOR OF THE ITA NO.284/VIZAG/2014 AMT CONSTRUCTION CO., NARSAPUR 11 ISSUE, HE HAS TO DISCHARGE HIS DUTIES JUDICIALLY AN D JUSTIFY THE CASE FOR BOTH THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, WHILE PASSING THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. MUST RECORD HIS FINDINGS ON THE RELEVANT ISSUE BEFORE ALLOWING ANY CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THE A.O. IS ALLOWED TO M AKE ASSESSMENT IN AN ARBITRARY MANNER WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE NATURE OF T HE TRANSACTIONS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD, THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSI DERED ERRONEOUS BY ANY APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE P RINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WHICH REQUIRE THAT THE AUTHORITY MUST INDI CATE THE REASONS FOR ADVERSE ORDER. THEREFORE, THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR TH AT WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. IS EXPECTED TO VERIFY TH E ISSUES AND ALSO THE MATERIALS ON WHICH HE PLACED HIS RELIANCE BEFORE CO MING TO THE CONCLUSION OR ALLOWING THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESS EE. 10. HAVING SAID, LET US EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE PR ESENT CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, THE CIT ALLEGED THAT THE A.O. NOT ONLY FAILED TO EXAMINE CERTAIN ISSUES, BUT ALSO FAILED TO APPLY HI S MIND BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, WHICH RENDER THE ASSESSME NT ORDER ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. WE FIND MERITS IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT, FOR THE REA SON THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS O N THE ISSUES ON WHICH THE CIT QUESTIONED IN HIS PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE SAME WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES. WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON PERUSAL OF ITA NO.284/VIZAG/2014 AMT CONSTRUCTION CO., NARSAPUR 12 THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND ALSO DETAILS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISCUSSED NONE OF THE ISSUES POINTED OUT BY THE CIT. WE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PAS SED BY THE A.O. IS BRIEF AND CRYPTIC AND THE A.O. NEITHER DISCUSSED TH E ISSUE POINTED OUT BY THE CIT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR OBTAINED ANY INFORMATION ON WHICH HE PLACED HIS RELIANCE BEFORE ACCEPTING THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE A SSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY THE CIT HAS RIGHTLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HENCE , WE UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD DEC16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 23.12.2016 VG/SPS ITA NO.284/VIZAG/2014 AMT CONSTRUCTION CO., NARSAPUR 13 )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT AMT CONSTRUCTION CO., 6-12-8, MA IN ROAD, , NARSAPUR- 534275, WEST GODAVARI DIST. 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD-1, PALAKOL 3. + / THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A), RAJAHMUNDRY 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 12 . (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) . , # / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM