M/S Lakshami Energy & Foods Ltd, Chandigarh V. Commssioner of Income Tax,

ITA 329/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0091 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.329/CHD/2015 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) M/S LAKSHAMI ENERGY & FOODS LTD., VS. THE C.I.T. SCO 18-19, SECTOR 9-D, (CENTRAL), CHANDIGARH. GURGAON. PAN: AAACL3147J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.04.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), GURGAON DATED 11.3.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2010-11, PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AS ON 31.3.2013. LATER ON, ON EXAMINATION OF RECORD, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX FORMED THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT 2 APPRECIATE EVIDENCES ON RECORD, FAILED TO EXAMINE A ND ARRIVE AT CORRECT LOGICAL AND LEGAL CONCLUSION AND IN THIS PROCESS ALLOWED A DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF T HE ACT, WHICH WAS NOT UNDER THE FACTS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSE SSEE. IN THIS VIEW, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT W AS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE DATED 29.12.2013. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS TH AT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB (11A) OF THE ACT WAS PARTLY ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING THAT BESIDES THE BUSINESS OF RICE MILLING, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN THE INTEGRATED BUSINESS OF HANDLING, STO RAGE AND TRANSPORTATION OF FOOD GRAINS. HE ALSO MENTIO NED THAT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, SUCH CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT (APPEALS) CONFIRMED T HE STAND OF THE DEPARTMENT. FURTHER, IN THIS ORDER IT SELF, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MENTIONED THAT EVEN THOU GH SUBSEQUENTLY ON 26.2.2014, I.T.A.T. DECIDED THE MAT TER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.250 & 251/CHD/201 3 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 BUT SINCE THE ORDER OF I.T.A.T. IS UNDER CHALLENGE, THE CONCLUSION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 80IB(11A) OF THE ACT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, SELF CONT RADICTORY AND HIGHLY ERRONEOUS. FOR THIS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NOTED DOWN HIS VARIOUS OBJECTIONS, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BY HIM IN HIS ORD ER AT 3 PAGES 1 TO 3. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER FACTUAL POSITION AND DID N OT MAKE INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION ON THE SAID ISSUE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 263 OF THE ACT POINTED OUT THAT THE I.T.A.T., CHAND IGARH BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 26.2.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 HAD ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION BY PASSING A SELF SPEAKING ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE. IN THIS ORDER, ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX WERE HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SPITE OF ALL THESE, THE ASSESSEE GAVE POINT TO POINT REBU TTAL OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF TH E ACT. THIS POINT TO POINT REBUTTAL IS REPRODUCED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN HIS ORDER IN PARA 3.2 AT PAGES 2 TO 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SET ASIDE T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11 WITH DIRECTION TO FOLLOW THE CONSISTENT VIEW POI NT AS HAS BEEN TAKEN IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008 -09, EVEN THOUGH THE SAME HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE I.T. A.T., SINCE THE MATTER IS BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT F OR ADJUDICATION. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON HAS ERRED IN ASSUMING THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 AND, THEREBY, HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2010-11 IS ERRONEO US 4 AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND AND AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND THU S, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON HAS ALSO GROS SLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDERS FOR EARLIER TWO YEARS , ARE ERRONEOUS AND SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2010-11 TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT DENOVO AS PER DIRECTION CONTAINED IN THE ORDER AS PASSED U/S 263 O F THE ACT. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, THE MATTER HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-2009 AND 2009-2010 VIDE ORDER, DATED 26.02.2014 AND THOSE DIRECTIONS WERE BINDING UPON THE CIT(C) GURGAON AND, AS SUCH, THE ASSESSMENT AS SET ASIDE IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THAT THE FINDINGS OF CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON AS CONTAINED IN THE ORDER U/S 263 ARE TOTALLY INCORRECT , AS BEING ADJUDICATED TOO AND THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE HIM HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE MAKING ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS ON THE MERITS OF THE C ASE, STATED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS NOT 5 APPLIED HIS MIND WHILE ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BUT WAS INFLUENCED BY THE LE TTER FROM THE CIT, I.T.A.T. DR AND WHICH INFORMATION WAS PROCURED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE RTI AND COPY OF THE SAME WAS PLACED ON RECORD. IT WAS STATED THAT THE LETTER OF THE CIT DR CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT WHATEVER PO INTS WERE DICTATED BY HIM, THE SAME WERE COPIED WORD BY WORD BY THE CIT WHILE ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 O F THE ACT. THE APPREHENSION OF THE LEARNED CIT DR IN THE SAID LETTER WAS THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WAS GOING TO ADVERSELY EFFE CT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AN D 2009-10. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT EVEN THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX WHILE PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HAS RELIED ON THE SAME REASONS AS GIVEN IN THE SAID LETTER BY THE CIT DR AND THERE IS NOT EVEN A C HANGE OF COMMA OR FULL STOP. 6. ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IT WAS ARGUED THAT T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT RUNS INTO 46 PAGES, WHICH WAS DELIVERE D BY HER AFTER DETAILED APPLICATION OF MIND. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HER MIND TO VARIOUS ISSUES CON CERNING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT, WHICH WER E LATER ON RAISED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN HI S NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. OUR ATTENTI ON WAS INVITED TO PAGES 1 AND 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREBY DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 80IB(11A) AND 80IA OF THE ACT WERE CLAIMED. AT 6 PAPER BOOK PAGES 3 AND 4, A REVISED RETURN FILED AS ON 28.3.2012 WAS ANNEXED. THE RETURNS WERE ACCOMPANIE D BY AUDITED BALANCE SHEETS WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 5 TO 30 ALONGWITH REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB AT PAGES 31 TO 37. ON FIRST QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 38, QUERIES REGAR DING DEDUCTIONS ARE AT QUESTION NO.12. IN REPLY TO THE SAID QUESTIONNAIRE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 26 .2.2013, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 43 ONWARDS AND RELEVANT REP LIES ARE AT ITEM NO.72. THIS LETTER WAS ANNEXED WITH VA RIOUS ANNEXURES. ANNEXURES 9,10,11 AND 13 WERE WITH RESP ECT TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 890IA WITH REGARD TO SAN CTION OF MEGA PROJECT, CERTIFICATE REGARDING MACHINERY, DOCUMENTS SHOWING STORAGE AND DOCUMENTS SHOWING TRANSPORTATION RESPECTIVELY. IN ANOTHER REPLY AT P AGE 47 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE FACTS RELATING TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(11A) OF THE ACT WERE EXPLAINED IN DETA IL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE ISSUE OF INTEGRATED BUSINESS OF HANDLING, STORAGE A ND TRANSPORTATION AND POWER GENERATION WAS DULY REPLIE D BY THE ASSESSEE, THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PAPER BOOK ARE 103 TO 109. IN ANOTHER LETTER DATED 7.3.2013, THE REPLIES REGARDING MEGA PROJECT WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF ALL THIS, IT WAS EMPHASIZED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS QUITE OPEN TO THE ISSUE OF DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO VAR IOUS ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN THE ACT, W HICH WERE QUERIED BY HER IN A NUMBER OF NOTICES ISSU ED TO THE 7 ASSESSEE, WHICH WERE DULY REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THESE REPLIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD ALLOWED ONLY A PORTION OF THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. ANOTHER CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN HIS ORDER, HIMSELF AFFIRMED THE FACTS THAT ALL THESE IS SUES WERE BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009- 10. THEREFORE, EVEN ON THE MERITS, THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN TEREST OF THE REVENUE. JUST BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHICH IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY T HE I.T.A.T. ON VARIOUS ISSUES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERR ONEOUS. 8. THE LEARNED D.R. ON THE ISSUE OF INITIATION OF PROVISION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF A LETTER WRITTEN BY THE CIT DR, STATED THAT THIS DOCU MENT IS AN INTERNAL DOCUMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADMINISTRAT ION AND NOTHING BEYOND THAT AND, THEREFORE, NO COGNIZAN CE OF THE SAME SHOULD BE TAKEN QUA THE SAID DOCUMENT. TH IS DOCUMENT CAN NEVER BE CONSTRUED AS RECORD FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. O N THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND FURTHER STATED T HAT EVEN IF THE ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80I B(11A) OF THE ACT IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSME NT 8 YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10, SINCE THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, THIS FACT ITSELF PROVES THAT THERE ARE DIVERGENT VIEW ON THE SAID ISSUE. THEREFORE, PRESUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UND ER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX IS AS PER LAW. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANSAL HOUSING CONSTRUCTION LTD. 60 TAXMANN.COM 376. FURT HER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF PUNJAB & HAR YANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJESH MAHAJAN ( 2011) 16 TAXMANN.COM 85. COPY OF THE ORDER OF I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF VODAFONE SOUTH LTD . CIT (2015) 61 TAXMANN.COM 108 AND BASERA REALTORS P. LT D. VS. CIT (2015) 55 TAXMAN.COM 327 WERE ALSO FILED BE FORE US. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD,. THE UNDISPUTED FACT WHICH IS ALSO COMING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PASSED UNDER SECT ION 263 OF THE ACT IS THAT THE ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN R AISED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN PROCEEDINGS UN DER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WERE ALL PRESENT IN ASSESSME NT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 ALSO IN ASSESSEES CASE A T THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWE VER, AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF T HE ACT, THE ISSUES WERE DECIDED BY THE I.T.A.T. IN ITA NOS. 250 & 251/CHD/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009- 9 10. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIMSELF ADMITS THAT THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE BY THE I.T.A.T. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF T HE I.T.A.T. BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. NOWHERE IN HIS ORDER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS GIVEN ANY FINDING THAT ANY OF THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I S NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE I.T.A.T. IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. TIME AND AGA IN, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN HIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HAS STATED THAT SINCE THESE POINTS WERE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND ALSO THE CIT (APPEALS) IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 -09 AND 2009-10, THE ORDER IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT Y EAR IS ERRONEOUS SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MAINT AINED CONSISTENCY IN HER VIEW POINT. 10. FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, TWIN CONDITIONS OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEO US AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ARE TO BE SATISFIED SIMULTANEOUSLY. WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERST AND THAT ONCE THE PARTICULAR ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE I.T.A.T., EVEN IF IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, HOW THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X CAN INFER THAT THE SAME VIEW HAVING BEEN TAKEN BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, IS ERRONEOUS. THIS IS TOTALLY AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AND BINDING PRECEDENT. IT IS T HE SPIRIT 10 OF LAW THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY A HIGHER AUTHORITY IS BINDING ON ALL THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. VIEW TAKEN BY I.T.A. T. IS BINDING ON ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT (APPEAL S) AND EVEN ON COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. EVEN IF AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DI D NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. IN EA RLIER YEARS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WHILE ASSUMI NG JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 HAD THE BENEFIT OF T HE SAME. THEREFORE, THE ORDER WAS BINDING ON COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX. 11. SINCE THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN SETTLED BY THE I.T.A.T. AND THE SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOW IN THE GARB OF PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CANNOT TINKER WITH HER ACT STATING THAT THE SAME DO ES NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND CIT (APPEALS) IN EARLIER YEARS. IN THI S ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WE DO NOT FIND EVEN AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE AND OBSERVE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY OF THE INFERENCES DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHIC H IS NOT AS PER THE VIEW OF THE I.T.A.T. GIVEN IN EARLIE R ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOT TO TALK ABOUT THE PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE 11 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT AS PER LAW. 12. EVEN OTHERWISE, ALL THE NINE ISSUES RAISED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WHICH HE HAS RECORDED I N HIS ORDER AT PAGES 1 TO 3, HAVE BEEN REPLIED BY THE ASS ESSEE, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BY HIM IN HIS ORDER AT PARA 3.2 , FROM THE PERUSAL OF WHICH WE SEE THAT ALL THE ISSUES ARE RELATED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. ALL TH E ISSUES HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED PROPERLY BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. IN VIEW OF THIS ALSO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY HOL D THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED UNDER SECTION 263 TO BE ILLEGA L AND QUASH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (RANO JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 18 TH APRIL, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH