ACIT, UDAIPUR V. M/s. Hycron India, UDAIPUR

ITA 305/JODH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 30523314 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R H GOHEL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Audit objection; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 80IB; 147; 27; 148; 154

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI .N.L. KALR A ) ITA NO.305/JU/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 PAN: AADFH 8284 M THE ACIT VS. M/S. HYCRON INDIA CIRCLE- NOBLE HOUSE, NEAR SWAROOP NAGAR UDAIPUR UDAIPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI R.H. GOHEL ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMIT KOTHARI DATE OF HEARING: 07-12-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16-12-2011 ORDER PER N.L. KALRA, AM:- THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), UDIAPUR DATED 31-03-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2.1 THE FIRST GROUND OF REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CI T(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN QUASHING TE ACTION OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 148 OF THE AC T. 2.2 THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN ON 2 ND DEC. 2003 AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1)(A) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY SCRUTINY ASSESSM ENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 27- 12-2005. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REDUCED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA FROM PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS FOR COMPLETING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WA S ISSUED ON 9-2-2007 AND THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THAT NOTICE STATED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 2-12-2007 MAY BE TREATED AS HAVING BEEN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 2 2.3 BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE REASONS RECORDED FOR OPENING OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AS PROVIDED TO HIM BY THE AO. SUCH REASONS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THESE ARE REPRODUCED A S UNDER FOR READY REFERENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC AMOU NTING TO RS. 38,02,273/- AND RS. 1,33,90,552/- U/S 80IA. THE TOT AL TURNOVER EXPORT TURNOVER OVER AND THE PROFITS FROM ALL THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BUT INDIRECT COST HAS BEEN WORKED OUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION TOTAL INDIRECT COST OF ALL THE BUSINE SS PROPORTIONATE TO THE EXPORT TURNOVER OF TRADE GOODS/ TOTAL TURNOVER AS P ER ABOVE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THUS, AS PER ABOVE OF THE ACT THE INDIRECT COST W ORKS OUT AS UNDER:- TOTAL INDIRECT COST RS. 15,01,229/- TOTAL TURNOVER RS. 10,93,05,699/- TOTAL EXPORT TURNOVER RS. 1,45,67,260/- 15012291/- X 14567260 109305699 = 20,00,700/- AS AGAINST WROKED OUT RS. 298774/- FURTHER, AS PER ABOVE PROVISIONS U/S 80IA OF THE AC T WHILE COMPUTING PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC, DEDUCTION ALLOWED 80I WAS TO BE REDUCED WHERE AS THE SAME WAS NOT REDUCED. AS SUCH ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC WORKS OUT AS UND ER:- INCOME FROM BUSINESS RS. 59170477/- ADD: ADDITION U/S 154 ON A/C DEFERRED REVENUE EXP RS. 312138/- ADDITION CONFIRMED ON A/C OF TELEPHONE EXP. RS. 15000/- PROFIT FROM BUSINESS RS. 59497615 LESS: 90% OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON FDR AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE RS. 1394472/- (90% OF RS. 1549413) LESS: DEDUCTION ALLOWED U/S 80IB RS. 13390522/- BUSINESS PROFITS FOR CALCULATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC RS. 44712621/- 3 2.4 BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE LD. AR FILED THE SUBM ISSIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AT PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THESE SUBMISSIONS ARE AS UNDER:- MERCURY TRAVELS LTD., VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER 258 ITR 533 (CALCUTTA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT : 'WHERE EXPRESSLY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHD WAS CLAIMED AND IT WAS EXAMINED AND GRANTED BY THE ASSE SSING AUTHORITY, THERE WAS NO OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ANY MATERIAL FACT NECESSARY FO R THE ASSESSMENT. AT THE TIME OF SUBRILISAION OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN, AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CERTIFICATES FROM THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN THE PRESCRIBED FOR MS CLAIMING SUCH EXEMPTIONS. THUS, THE PRIMARY FACTS WERE BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN HE MADE THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 AND IT WAS NOT OPEN TO HIM TO INVOKE TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENTS BE CAUSE HE MIGHT HAVE OMITTED TO NOTICE CERTAIN FACTS BY OVERSIGHT. FOR CHANGE OF OPINION, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE PUT TO SERVICE. THE NOTICES WERE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. ' THE AR HAS ALSO CITED THE DECISIONS IN THE FOLLOWIN G CASES:- I) CIT VS. DIGVIJAYSINGH (MP) 292 ITR 314 II) BAPOLAL & CO., EXPORTS VS. JT. CIT (2007) 2891TR 37 (MAD) III) CIT VS. CAMCO COLOUR CO. (2002) 254 ITR 565,(BOM) IV) CIT VS. CORPORATION BANK LTD. (2002) 254 ITR 791 (S C) V) CIT VS. KELIVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (DELHI) (FB) VI) CIT VS. PITHWA ENGINEERING WORKS (2005) 276 ITR 519 (ROM) 2.5 THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS HELD THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS INVALID AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIO N AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS REOPENED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION BY THE APPELLANT U/S. 80HHC AND 801A WHILE WORKING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 801MC AND 801A, THE TOTAL TURNOV ER, EXPORT TURNOVER AND PROFITS FROM ALL THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN TAKEN IN TO 4 CONSIDERATION BUT INDIRECT COST HAS BEEN WORKED OU T TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION TOTAL INDIRECT COST OF ALL THE BUSINE SS PROPORTIONATE TO EXPORT TURNOVER OF TRADE COST, TOTAL TURNOVER AS PER ABOVE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. AS PER WORKING OF THE AO, INDIRECT COST WORKS OUT T O RS. 20,00,700/- AS AGAINST RS. 2,98,774/- BY THE APPELLANT. THE REOPEN ING INVOLVES THREE ISSUES, DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC, U/S. 801A AND INDIREC T C6ST FOR GIVING DEDUCTION U/S. 801I-IC. FURTHER AS PET WORKING OF T HE AO GIVEN IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED EXCESS DEDUCTION OF RS. 14,23,202/- U/S. 80HHC OF T HE ACT. ON GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE REASONS RECORDED FOR REO PENING THE ASSESSMENT AND LETTER DATED 16.9.2005 GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT TO ACIT, CIRCLE-L, UDAIPUR, IT IS FOUND THAT THE AO' HAS ALR EADY DEALT WITH THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT INCLUDING 90% OF IN TEREST RECEIVED, EXPLANATION BA(A) OF SECTION 8OHHC AND INDIRECT COS T WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE PARA 2(B) OF 1, 2, 4, 2(C), 2(E) AND 2(F). ALL THE ABOVE THREE ISSUES HAVE AGAIN BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, IF THE AO HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR HE MAY SUBJECT TO PROVISION S OF-SECTION PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148, 215(3) ASSESSED OR REASSESSED SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED AS SESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF P ROCEEDINGS UNDER, THIS SECTION OR RECOMPUTE AND LOSS OR DEPRECIATION ALLOW ANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE AS THE CASE MAY BE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R CONCERNED. AS PER EXPLANATION 2 TO THIS SECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TH IS SECTION ALSO BE DEEMED TO BE EXCESS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS ESCAPED AS SESSMENT. CLAUSE-C OF THIS EXPLANATION IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE A PPELLANT WHERE THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE BUT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO T AX HAS BEEN ASSESSED SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN MADE SUBJECT TO EXCESSIVE RELI EF UNDER THIS ACT OR EXCESSIVE LOSS OR DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTH ER ALLOWANCE UNDER THIS ACT HAS BEEN COMPUTED. _ THE RELEVANT PORTION OF TH IS SECTION IS THAT SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT OR PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (C) AS MENTIONED ABOVE. IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT ALL THE THREE ISSUES WHICH HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE AO I.E. DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC, 80IA/80IB, INDIRECT COST, 90% OF INTEREST INCOME IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WERE ALSO CONSIDERED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE REPL Y OF THE APPELLANT MENTIONED ABOVE. IT MEANS THAT THE AO HAS NO NEW FA CTS OR MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE WITH HIM TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF ANY OTHER INCOME WHICH WAS LEFT BY THE AO AT THE TIME O F ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. FURTHER, THERE VAS ALSO NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF T HE APPELLANT TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR TH E ASSESSMENT FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CITATIONS GIVEN BY THE AR ARE ALSO FULLY APPLICABLE IN 5 ITS CASE AND SUPPORTS ITS POINT. THE AO HAD MERE CH ANGE OF OPINION OF ALL THE THREE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE REASSESSMENT WHICH HAS ARISEN OUT OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION, THE AO HAD ALREADY CONSIDERED- THESE ISSUES IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HAD ALLOWED THEM AS C LAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THUS, THERE WAS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE WI TH THE AO TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. THE LAW ON CHANGE OF OPINION HAS DISQUA LIFICATION FOR REASSESSMENT EVEN FOR SUCH PROCEEDINGS WITHIN SCHED ULED LIMIT FOR FOUR YEARS IS CONFIRMEDLY ESTABLISHED AFTER THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN INDIAN AND EASTERN SOCIETY VS. CIT, THE WRIT ALSO P OINTED OUT BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT ITS EARLIER DECISION IN KALYANJI MANJI & CO. VS. CIT WHICH HAD TAKEN THE VIEW THAT ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME DUE TO 'OVERSIGHT, INADVERTENCE OR MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE AO' WHIL E JUSTIFYING REASSESSMENT IS A PROPOSITION TO WIDELY STATED AND TRAVELS FURTHER THEN STATUTE WARRANTS REAPPRAISAL IS PERMITTED FOR REASS ESSMENT. THE WORD REASON TO BELIEVE IN SECTION 147, IMPORT THE BUSINE SS FOR ELEMENTS: I) SOME MATERIAL OR MATERIALS NOT MERE FANCY, IMAGI NATION, SPECULATION, SUSPICION, II) NEXUS BETWEEN MATERIAL AND THE BELIEF OF ESCAP EMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OUTLINE D IN CLAUSE (A) OR (B), III) AN APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO TO SUCH MATER IAL AND IV) AN INFERENCE BASED ON REASONS DRAWN TENTATIVELY BY THE OFFICER THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPEMENT ASSESSMENT . NE XT ALL THE FOUR ELEMENTS MENTIONED ABOVE HAS BEEN FOUND F OR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY THE AO. THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAD CONSIDERED DISCUSS ING REASSESSMENT OR AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) AS IS CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF AND RE PLY OF THE APPELLANT DATED 16.9.2005. THE AO HAD NO NEW MATERI AL, FACTS AVAILABLE WITH HIM AT THE TIME OF REASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, HE HAS ACTED ON LY ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENT OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AUDIT DEPARTMENT . IT IS ONLY A CHANGE OF OPINION OF NOTHING CONCRETE. THEREFORE, I NITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 IS UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL, UN WARRANTED AND, THEREFORE, QUASHED. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR TECHN ICAL PURPOSE. 2.6 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ORIGINAL AS SESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 27 TH DEC. 2005. WE HAVE ALREADY REPRODUCED THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. DR HAS RELIED ON THE 6 FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CANCELING THE REASSESSMENT. 1. CONSOLIDATED PHOTO & FINVEST LTD. VS ACIT, 281 ITR 394 (DEL.) IN THIS CASE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A MERE CHANGE O F OPINION IS APPLICABLE TO A SITUATION WHERE THE AO H AS APPLIED HIS MIND AND HAS TAKEN A CONSCIOUS DECISION ON A PA RTICULAR MATTER OF ISSUE. CHANGE OPINION IS NOT APPLICABLE I N CASE WHERE THE ORDER OF THE OF ASSESSMENT DOES NOT ADDRESS IT SELF TO THE ASPECT WHICH IS BASIS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSME NT . 2. PRAFUL CHUNILAL PATEL VS ACIT, 236 ITR 832 (GUJ. ), IN THIS CASE IF A PARTICULAR ITEM THOUGH REFLECTED ON RECORDS WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO ASSESSMENT THEN THE AO CAN INITIATE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS IT WILL NO T BE A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION 3. CIT VS PVS BEEDIES (P) LTD., 237 ITR 13 (SC) IF A FACT IS POINTED OUT BY THE AUDIT THEN REOPENIN G ON THE BASIS OF FACTUAL ERROR POINTED OUT BY THE INTERNAL AUDIT PARTY IS PERMISSIBLE 4. GRUH FINANCE LTD. VS JCIT , 243 ITR 482 (GUJ.) THE AO ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON NON-EXISTENT MACHINE RY THOUGH THE MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE WAS NO CONSCIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL AND THEREFO RE, REOPENING OF CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF O PINION. 2.7 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR HAS ALSO RELIED UPO N FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. CIT VS RAJASTHAN SYNTEX LTD. , 7 LD. DR 393 (RAJ.) IN THIS CASE, IF THE AO HAS TAKEN A DECISION AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS THEN REOPENING PROCEEDIN GS IS ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE OF OPINION AND THAT IS NOT PERMIS SIBLE UNDER LAW 2. CIT VS SAMBHAR SALT LTD., 262 ITR 675 (RAJ.) 7 IN THIS CASE, IF THE AO HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW T HEN ANOTHER VIEW WILL NOT CONSTITUTE INFORMATION WIT HIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147(B) OF THE ACT. 3. CIT VS KELVINATOR OF INDIA LD , 320 ITR 561 (SC) IN THIS CASE, THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HELD THAT THE AO HAS POWER TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT PROVIDED THERE IS TAN GIBLE MATERIAL TO COME TO CONCLUSION AS THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF IN COME. 2.8 WE HAD ALREADY REPRODUCED THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. THE AO HAS POINTED OUT THE FAC TS WHICH WERE AVAILABLE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND THESE FACTS WERE CONSIDERED BY THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WHEN THE AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE RE WERE DECISIONS THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC AND 80IB ARE TO BE SEPARATELY COMPUTED . JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RACHI RAM & SONS, 272 ITR 444 HELD THAT DEDU CTION U/S 80IA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AFTER REDUCING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. THU S IN RESPECT OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION SEPARATELY U/S 80HHC AND 80IB, THERE WERE DECISIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND IF THERE IS A DECISION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THEN THE SAME IS TO BE APPLIED. THE AO HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW. WE HAVE SEEN THAT O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AVAILABLE AT PAGES 1 AND 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE REVENU E. THE OFFICE NOTE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWED THAT ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER DISCUSSION WITH ADDL. CIT, RANGE1, UDAIPUR. THE AO HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE ASPECTS. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD TH AT CHANGE OF OPINION DOES NOT STAND OBLITERATE AFTER THE SUBSTITUTION OF SECTION 147 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BY THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987. THE CONCEPT OF CHA NGE OF OPINION MUST BE TREATED AS AN IN-BUILT TEST TO CHECK THE ABUSE OF POWER. TH E RECORDS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE AO WANTED TO REVIEW THE ORIGINAL ORDER. THERE IS NO TA NGIBLE MATERIAL WITH THE AO FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITIATING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSME NT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE 8 THAT JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR HON'BLE APEX COUR T HAS HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC IS TO BE ALLOWED AFTER REDUCING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. OF COURSE THERE IS DIVERGENCE OF OPINION ON THIS ISSUE BUT ONCE THE AO HAS TAKEN THE DECISION IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT THEN THE DECISION CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED BY ANOTHER AO BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE, FEEL THAT THE LD.CIT( A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN QUASHING THE ACTION OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 2.9 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE ISSUE U/S 8 0HHC, 80IA AND 90% OF INTEREST INCOME. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS QUASHED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. WE THEREFORE, FEEL THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT DECIDING TH ESE ISSUESNN AS REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN QUASHED. HENCE, THE ISSUE OF DEDUC TION U/S 80HHC AFTER 80IA AND REDUCING 90% INTEREST ARE NOT DECIDED. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16-1 2-2011. SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (N.L. KALRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JODHPUR DATED: 16 /12/2011 MISHRA COPY TO: 1. THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, UDAIPUR 2. M/S. HYRCON INDIA, UDAIPUR 3.THE LD. CIT (A) BY ORDER 4.THE CIT 5.THE D/R 6.THE GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 305/JU/09) A.R.. ITAT: JODHPUR 9 10 11 12