National Association of Software and Services Companies ('NASSCOM'), New Delhi V. CIT (Exemptions), New Delhi

ITA 3187/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5244 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NIDHI SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Business income; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record; Benefit of exemption; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 263; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO-3187/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOFTWARE AND SERVICES COMPANIES (NASSCOM) INTERNATIONAL YOUTH CENTRE, 2 ND FLOOR, PT. UMA SHANKAR DIXIT MARG, CHANAKYAPURI NEW DELHI AAATN2595Q VS CIT (EXEMPTIONS) 26 TH FLOOR, E-2, BLOCK, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAWAN, DR. S.P. MUKHERJEE CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI REVENUE BY SH. GAURAV JAIN, ADVOCATE & SH. DEEPESH JAIN, ADVOCATE ASSESSEE BY SH. NIDHI SRIVASTAVA, CIT, DR ORDER PER K. NARSIMHA CHARY, J.M. CHALLENGING THEORDER DATED 30/03/2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) (CIT(E)) U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (THE ACT). THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THIS APPEAL. DATE OF HEARING 14.05.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.05.2019 ITA NO. 3187/DEL/2015 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 AND HAS BEEN THE PRAYER PREMIER TRADE BODY AND THE CHAMBER OF COMMER CE OF THE IT/BPO INDUSTRIES IN INDIA. THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS TO DRIVE OF TECHNOLOGY OF SERVICES MARKET BY TAK ING UP THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC ADVISOR TO THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IND USTRY. IT WAS SET UP UNDER 1988 AND A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION. 3. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE FI LED THE RETURN ON 15/10/2010 DECLARING NIL INCOME. THEY HAVE NOT CLAIMED ANY EXEMPTION OF INCOME U/S 11 OF THE IT AC T, THOUGH REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEV ER, CLAIMED SOME PART OF ITS INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 8,32,29, 451/- AS EXEMPT ON THE PRINCIPAL OF MUTUALITY WHICH WAS DENIED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO BY ORDER DATED 18/3/2013 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS.12,14,81,569/- BY DENYING THE BENEFIT OF MUTUALITY AND OTHER DISALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF DON ATIONS MADE. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIT(E), ON A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INCURRED THE GLOBAL TRADE DEVELOPMENT (GTD) ACTIVITY EXPENSE S IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AIMS AND OBJECTS FOR WHICH IT W AS ESTABLISHED AND THEY NOT PROPER ENQUIRY MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON THAT ASPECT. LD.CIT(A), THEREFORE, AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ER RONEOUS INASMUCH AS IT IS A PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE FOR ITA NO. 3187/DEL/2015 3 NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE GTD EX PENSES AFTER DUE VERIFICATION. LD.CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DENIED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.8,32,29,451/- ON ACCOUNT O F PRINCIPAL OF MUTUALITY, HE FAILED TO GIVE EFFECT THERETO IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND ERRONEOUSLY COMPUTED THE SUM AT RS.12,14 ,81,569/- AS AGAINST RS.14,67,57,376/-. ON THESE TWO GROUNDS LD. CIT(A) SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING O FFICER TO EXEMPT THE ISSUE OF ADMISSIBILITY OF GTD EXPENSES AFRESH A ND THE COMPUTE THE INCOME CORRECTLY. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, AGGRIEVED OF THE IMP UGNED ORDER AND CHALLENGED THE SAME BEFORE US IN THIS APPEAL ST ATING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALREADY EXAMINED THE ISSUE RE LATING TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF GTD EXPENSES AND COMPUTED THE ASSES SED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CORRECTLY. IT IS STATED THAT THE A SSESSEE INCURRED SUCH THE EXPENDITURE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE AIMS AND OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID T HAT ALLOWING SUCH AN EXPENDITURE WAS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE LD. A R SUBMITTED THAT IF FOR ANY REASON THE LD.CIT(A) FELT THAT THER E WAS NO OR INADEQUATE ENQUIRY, THE LD.CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE TAKEN IT TO THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION BY ADOPTING AT INDEPENDENT ENQUI RY BY HERSELF AND RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS UNSUSTAINABLE OR THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS ER RONEOUS ITA NO. 3187/DEL/2015 4 INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BY DEMONSTRATING THE SAME WITH COGENT REASONS. 6. PER CONTRA, IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR THA T IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT LD. CIT(E) TO RELY ON THE MATERIAL AS IT STANDS NOT ONLY AT THE TIME WHEN THE ORDER IN QUESTION WAS PASSED B Y THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT ALSO THE RECORD AS IT STANDS AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION OFLD. CIT(E) IN THIS MATTER. IT IS CLE AR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF THAT WHEN THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED A QUERY SEEKING DETAILS FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED OUT OF INDIA, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH SUCH A DETAILS AND ON THE OTHER HAND STATED THAT SINCE THEY ARE NOT AVAILING ANY BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT, AND THEIR INCOME HAS BEEN TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AS PER SECTION 28(III) OF THE ACT, SUCH DETA ILS WERE IRRELEVANT. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON EITHER SIDE. THERE IS NO DISPU TE THAT THE AIMS AND OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AS ARE TO BE FOU ND FROM THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED AT PAGE NO. 56 TO 74 OF THE PAPER BOOK, VIDE CLAUSE 3(7 AND 24) INCLUDE THE PROMOTION OF EXPERT OF INDIAN SOFTWARE & ASSOCIATED SERVICES AND ALSO SPONSORING ON ITS OWN AND OR ARRANGE THROUGH THE A GENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT VISITS OF DELEGATIONS OF MEMBERS TO COUN TRIES TO PROMOTE THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIAN INDUSTRY IN GEN ERAL AND ITA NO. 3187/DEL/2015 5 SOFTWARE INDUSTRY IN PARTICULAR IN THE AREAS SUCH A S MARKET SURVEYS, EXPORTS, JOINT VENTURES AND COLLABORATIONS, ENGINEE RING CONSULTANCY STUDIES AND ALL OTHER ALLIED MATTERS. FURTHER, IT W AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(E) THAT THE NATURE OF THE GTD EX PENSES AS THAT IT IS PRIMARILY IN THE NATURE OF THE FEES ETC. BEING PAID TO VARIOUS CONSULTING (PUBLIC AFFAIR) FIRMS OF INTERNATIONAL R EPUTE, RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIGHLIGHT THE VALUE PROPOSITION WIT H KEY POLICY MAKERS TO MAINTAIN & ENHANCE THE BUSINESS IMAGE OF INDIA AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INDIA BRAND TO FACILITATE OP ENING UP OF INTERNATIONAL MARKETS AND TO PROVIDE A LEVEL PLAYIN G GROUND TO INDIA COMPANIES COMPETING FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINES S, WITH LARGE MULTINATIONALS IN THE INDIAN MARKET PLACE. 8. FURTHER, PURPOSE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AND THE BEN EFITS DERIVABLE THERE FROM IS AIMED AT BENEFITTING L.C.T & BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT (BPM) INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE, WHICH NOT DENOTES THE MEMBER FRATERNITY OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT ALSO THE INDUSTRY AT LARGE IN INDIA. THE MONETARY & IN PRIN CIPAL SUPPORT TO GTD ACTIVITY BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA CLEARLY ESTABLI SH THE UTILITY OF SUCH EXPENSES FOR THE INDIA I.T INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE . 9. IT IS FURTHER NOTEWORTHY THAT FOR THE YEARS EARL Y TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND SUBSEQUENT TO 2012-13 S UCH AN EXPENSEWAS ALLOWED WITHOUT RAISING ANY QUERY. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WAS PASSED ON 9/2/2015 ITA NO. 3187/DEL/2015 6 AND IT WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(E) WHEN SHE PASSED THE ORDER U/S 263 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. SO ALSO, WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-16 WERE PASSED ON 8/2/2016, 23/3/2016 & 15/3/2 017, THIS ORDER DATED 30/03/2015 U/S 263 WAS VERY MUCH AVAILA BLE BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SPITE OF THIS FACT, RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT ANY CONSISTENCY IS FOLLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND SUBSEQUENT TO 2012-13. 10. ON A PERUSAL OF THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY IN T HE LIGHT OF THE NATURE OF GTD EXPENSES AND THE NATURE AND PURPOSEOF SUCH EXPENSES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY HOW ALLOWANCE OF S UCH EXPENSES WAS UNSUSTAINABLE. 11. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(E), LD. A.O F AILED TO MAKE ANY ENQUIRIES WITH RESPECT TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE GTP ACTIVITY EXPENSES. HOWEVER, THE IMPUGNED ORDER DOES NOT SHOW ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY UNDERTAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(E). THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. D.G. HOUSING PROJECTS LTD AND ALSO 2012 343 ITR 329 DELHI AND PCIT VS. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 705/DEL/2017 DATED 5/9/2017 FOR THE PRINCIP LE THAT IN CASE THE CIT(A) IS OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS A CASE OF NO ENQUIRY OR INADEQUATE ENQUIRY, IN ORDER TO SAY THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS ERRONEOUS, IT IS SINE QUA NON FOR THE LD. CIT(E ) TO CONDUCT ITA NO. 3187/DEL/2015 7 NECESSARY ENQUIRY TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS. 12. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES GOVERNMENT GRANT AND SUBSIDIES AN D THE UNFUNDED AMOUNT HAVE BEEN CARRIED FORWARD TO THE SU BSEQUENT YEARS AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE NOTES TO ACCOUNTS A T PAGE NO 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE INCOME A ND EXPENDITURE AMOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31 ST , 2010, THE GTD EXPENSES WERE SHOWN AT RS. 274,56,234/- WAS DECLARED AND IT IS SO INCONSONANCE WITH THE PRACTICE FOR EARLIER YEARS. 13. IN D.G HOUSING PROJECTS LTD. (SUPRA), THE HONB LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- 16. THUS, IN CASES OF WRONG OPINION OR FINDING ON ME RITS, THE CIT HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION AND HIMSELF DECIDE THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, BY CONDUCTING NECESSARY ENQUIRY, IF REQUIRED AND NECESS ARY, BEFORE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 IS PASSED. IN SUCH CASES, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL BE ERRONEOUS BECAUSE THE ORDER PA SSED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE SAID FINDING MUST BE RECO RDED. CIT CANNOT REMAND THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE W HETHER THE FINDINGS RECORDED ARE ERRONEOUS. IN CASES WHERE THERE IS I NADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT NOT LACK OF ENQUIRY, AGAIN THE CIT MUST G IVE AND RECORD A FINDING THAT THE ORDER/INQUIRY MADE IS ERRONEOUS. THIS CAN HAPPEN IF AN ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION IS CONDUCTED BY THE CIT AND HE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH AND SHOW THE ERROR OR MISTAKE MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, MAKING THE ORDER UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN SOME CASES POSSIBLY THOUGH RARELY, THE CIT CAN ALSO SHOW AND ESTABLISH THAT THE FACTS ON RECORD OR INFERENCES DRAWN FROM FACTS ON RECORD PER SE JUSTIFIED A ND MANDATED FURTHER ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION BUT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD ERRONEOUSLY NOT UNDERTAKEN THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE SAID FINDING MUST BE CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS AND NOT DEBATABLE. THE MATTER CANNOT BE REMITTED FOR A FRESH DECISION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT FURTHER ITA NO. 3187/DEL/2015 8 ENQUIRIES WITHOUT A FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IS A CONDITION ORREQUIREMENT WHICH MUST BE SATISFIED FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. IN SUCH MATTERS, TO REMAND THE MATTER/ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD IMPLY AND MEAN THE CIT HAS NOT EXAMINED AND DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO DECIDE THE ASPECT/QUESTION. 17. THIS DISTINCTION MUST BE KEPT IN MIND BY THE CI T WHILE EXERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER THE SAID SECTI ON IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN MOST CASES OF ALLEGED 'INADEQUATE I NVESTIGATION', IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO HAD CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES AND HAD ACTED AS AN INVESTIGATOR , IS ERRONEOUS, WITHOUT CIT CONDUCTING VERIFICATION/INQUIRY. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE OR MAY NOT BE WRONG. CIT CANNOT DIRECT R ECONSIDERATION ON THIS GROUND BUT ONLY WHEN THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. A N ORDER OF REMIT CANNOT BE PASSED BY THE CIT TO ASK THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS. THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. AN ORDER IS NOT ERRONEOUS, UNLESS THE CIT HOLD AND RECORDS REASONS W HY IT IS ERRONEOUS. AN ORDER WILL NOT BECOME ERRONEOUS BECAUSE ON REMIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DECIDE THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS . THEREFORE CIT MUST AFTER RECORDING REASONS HOLD THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEO US. THE JURISDICTIONAL PRECONDITION STIPULATED IS THAT THE C IT MUST COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND IS UNSUSTAI NABLE IN LAW. WE MAY NOTICE THAT THE MATERIAL WHICH THE CIT CAN RELY I NCLUDES NOT ONLY THE RECORD AS IT STANDS AT THE TIME WHEN THE ORDER IN Q UESTION WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT ALSO THE RECORD A S IT STANDS AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY THE CIT(A). 14. SO ALSO IN DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD . (SUPRA), THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXERCISING JURISDICTIONAL U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE C ONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF A.O IS ERRONEOUS AND THE PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF THE REVENUE HAS TO BE PRECEDED BY MINIMAL ENQUIRY AND IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE PCIT TO CONDUCT SUCH ENQUIRY WHE RE THE PCIT ITA NO. 3187/DEL/2015 9 WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O DID NOT UNDERTAKEN ANY ENQUIRY. IT IS FURTHER HELD THAT SUCH AN ENQUIRY HAS TO BE EXERCIS ED ONLY BY THE PCIT. IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. MODI CARE LTD. (ITA NO. 759/DEL/2016) DATED 14/9/2017,THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT, AFTER NOTICING THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF D.G HOUSING P ROJECTS LTD. AND ALSO DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD HELD THAT THE EXERCISE U/S 263 OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OUTSOURCED BY TH E CIT(A) TO A.O AND INSTEAD OF DIRECTING THE A.O TO VERIFY THE CORR ECTNESS OF THE CLIENT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE UNDERTAKEN AN ENQUIRY AND GIVE REASONS FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSI ON THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 15. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A)(E) IN THIS MATTER DID NOT UND ERTAKE THE EXERCISE OF ENQUIRY REQUIRED TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BECAUSE FIRSTLY, THERE IS NO FINDING TH AT THE GTD ACTIVITY EXPENSES WERE NOT FOR FURTHERANCE OF THE A IMS AND OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY OR THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER IS ERRONEOUS FOR ANY REASONS TO BE RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(E). FOR WANT OF AN ENQUIRY TO REACH SUCH A CONCLUSION WE FIND IT DIFFI CULT TO SUSTAIN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN SO FAR AS GTD EXPENSES ARE CONCE RNED. 16. NOW, COMING TO THE ASPECT OF THE COMPUTATION ER ROR ADVERTED TO BY THE LD. CIT(E) IN RESPECT OF THE DEN IAL OF EXEMPTION ITA NO. 3187/DEL/2015 10 OF RS. 8,32,29,451/-,THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D ON THIS ASPECT AND THERE WAS NO SUCH MENTION IN THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 263 OF THE ACT. ON A PERUSAL OF THE COPY, NOTICE THAT PAGE NO. 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT THERE I S NO REFERENCE TO THIS COMPUTATIONAL ERROR AND THE RECORD DOES NOT REVEAL THAT THE CIT(E) HAD GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THIS ASPECT. 17. ON THIS ASPECT OF VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NA TURAL JUSTICE, LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE A PEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT(A) VS. AMITABH BACHCHAN 2016 384 200 SC WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT FAILURE TO GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD RENDER THE REVISIONAL ORDER LEGALLY FRAGILE NOT ON THE GROUND OF MATTER OF JURISDICTION, BUT ON THE GR OUND OF VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. FURTHER, RELIANC E IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 3563/MUM/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN AM BUJA CEMENT LTD. VS. CIT(A) LTU MUMBAI, WHEREIN WHILE FO LLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF A MITABH BACHCHAN (SUPRA)THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE OBLIGATI ON TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD ON THE POINT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE LD. COMMISSIONER FOUND THE ASSES SMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER EST OF REVENUE IS DEFINITELY CAST ON THE COMMISSIONER AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE ITA NO. 3187/DEL/2015 11 APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF AMITABH BANCHCHAN (SUPRA ). IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT FOR VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES O F NATURAL JUSTICE,THE IMPUGNED ORDER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN SO FAR AS THE COMPUTATION ERROR IS CONCERNED. 18. WE, THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS OR OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE IM PUGNED ORDER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. W E ACCORDINGLY QUASHED THIS. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.05.2019 SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (K. NARSIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17.05.2019 R.N COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI ITA NO. 3187/DEL/2015 12 DATE OF DICTATION 15.05.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 16.05.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER