SLEEK INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 32(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3327/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4735 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSHIL KUMAR PODDAR LD
• Assessee Lawyers: GOVIND JHAVERI LD ARS
• Keywords: Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Valuation report; TDS; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 271E; 13; 147; 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO.3327/MUM/2019 M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.3327/MUM/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL 501, K.L. MEHRISE, GUJAR LANE OFF S.V. ROAD, SANTACRUZ(W) MUMBAI-400 054. / VS. A CIT - 3 2(3) KAUTILYA BHAVAN 7 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.723 G-BLOCK BKC, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI-400 051. ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAOFS-7553-E ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $!# / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI VIJAY MEHTA & GOVIND JHAVERI- LD.ARS REVENUE BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR PODDAR - LD.CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 06/12/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/02/2020 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1.1 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, SPECIFIC REVENUE AUTHORITIES NAMELY PR. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX / COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS VESTED WITH THE SUPER VISORY POWERS OF SUO-MOTO REVISION OF ANY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER [AO]. ITA NO.3327/MUM/2019 M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 2 FOR THE SAID PURPOSE, THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT AND MAY PROCEED TO REVISE THE SAME PROVIDED TWO CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED-(I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS ; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THE CONDITION IS ABSENT I.E. IF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS ERRO NEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOU S BUT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE - RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V/S CIT [243 ITR 83 10/02/2000] & NOTED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S VIKAS POLYMERS [194 TAXMAN 57 16/08/2010]. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V/S CIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE PHRASE 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE ' HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT ERESTS OF THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME-TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF R EVENUE; OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAS T AKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINAB LE IN LAW. THE SAID PRINCIPAL HAS BEEN REITERATED BY HONBLE COURT IN I TS SUBSEQUENT JUDGEMENT TITLED AS CIT V/S MAX INDIA LTD. (295 ITR 282). SIMILAR PRINCIPAL HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. V/S CIT (321 ITR 92). ITA NO.3327/MUM/2019 M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 3 1.2 THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, CIT V/S VIKAS POLYMERS (SUPRA), FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS REGARDS THE SCOPE AND AMBI T OF THE EXPRESSION 'ERRONEOUS', HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LTD. [1993 203 ITR 108 (BOMBAY)] , HELD WITH REFERENCE TO BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY THAT AN 'ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT' MEANS 'ONE RENDERED ACCORDING TO COURSE AND PRACTICE OF COURT, BUT CONTRARY TO LA W, UPON MISTAKEN VIEW OF LAW; OR UPON ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRIN CIPLES' AND THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT AN ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS 'ERRONEOUS' UNLESS IT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF AN INCOME-TAX OFFICER ACTIN G IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MAKES A CERTAIN ASSESSMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE BRANDED AS 'ERRONEOUS' BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACC ORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY OR MORE ELABORATELY. THE SECTION DOES NOT VISUALIZE THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THAT OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WH O PASSED THE ORDER UNLESS THE DECISION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 1.3 FURTHER, ANY AND EVERY ERRONEOUS ORDER CANNOT B E THE SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION BECAUSE THE SECOND REQUIREMENT A LSO MUST BE FULFILLED. THERE MUST BE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT TAX W HICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED AS HELD IN GABRIEL INDIA LTD. HOWEVER, THE EXPRESSION 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE', AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.'S CASE, IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF ART AND IS NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT AND , THEREFORE, MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN ITS ORDINARY MEANING. IT IS OF WIDE I MPORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO THE LOSS OF TAX AS HELD IN VARIOUS JUDI CIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. AT THE SAME TIME, THE WORDS 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE ST OF THE REVENUE', AS OBSERVED IN DAWJEE DADABHOY AND CO. VS. S.P. JAIN, (1957) 311 ITR ITA NO.3327/MUM/2019 M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 4 872 (CALCUTTA), CAN ONLY MEAN THAT 'THE ORDERS OF A SSESSMENT CHALLENGED ARE SUCH AS ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN CONS EQUENCE WHEREOF THE LAWFUL REVENUE DUE TO THE STATE HAS NOT BEEN REALIZ ED OR CANNOT BE REALIZED.' THUS, THE COMMISSIONER'S EXERCISE OF REV ISIONAL JURISDICTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 CANNOT BE BASED ON WHIMS OR CAPRICE. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT IT IS A QUASI-JUDICIA L POWER HEDGED IN WITH LIMITATION AND NOT AN UNBRIDLED AND UNCHARTERED ARB ITRARY POWER. THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER IS LIMITED TO CASES WHERE THE COMMISSIONER ON EXAMINING THE RECORDS COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EARLIER FINDING OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIA L TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND THAT FRESH DETERMINATION OF THE CAS E IS WARRANTED. THERE MUST BE MATERIAL TO JUSTIFY THE COMMISSIONER'S FIND ING THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT WAS PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 1.4 THE HONBLE DELHI COURT, IN THE CITED DECISION, FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A FINE THOUGH SUBTLE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ' LACK OF INQUIRY' AND 'INADEQUATE INQUIRY'. IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF 'LACK OF INQUIRY' THAT THE COMMISSIONER IS EMPOWERED TO EXERCISE HIS REVISIONA L POWERS BY CALLING FOR AND EXAMINING THE RECORDS OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UN DER THE ACT AND PASSING ORDERS THEREON. IN GABRIEL INDIA LTD. (SUPR A), IT WAS EXPRESSLY OBSERVED: - 'THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO STARTING FISHING AND ROVING ENQUIRIES IN MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALR EADY CONCLUDED. SUCH ACTION WILL BE AGAINST THE WELL-ACCEPTED POLICY OF LAW THAT THE RE MUST BE A POINT OF FINALITY IN ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, THAT STALE ISSUES SHOULD NOT BE REACTIVATED BEYOND A PARTICULAR STAGE AND THAT LAPSE OF TIME MUST INDUCE REPOSE IN AND SET AT REST JUDICIAL AND QUASI- JUDICIAL CONTROVERSIES AS IT MUST IN OTHER SPHERES OF HUMAN ACTIVITY [PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD. VS. ITO , (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC)]. ITA NO.3327/MUM/2019 M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 5 IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 'FROM THE AFORESAID DEFINITIONS AS IT IS CLEAR THAT AN ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS UNLESS IT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF AN INCOME-TAX OFFICER ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MAKES A CERTAIN ASSESSMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCOR DING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY. THIS SECTION DO ES NOT VISUALIZE A CASE OF SUBSTITUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FO R THAT OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WHO PASSED THE ORDER UNLESS THE DECISION IS HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. CASES MAY BE VISUALIZED WHERE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WHILE MAKIN G AN ASSESSMENT EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES ENQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINES THE INCOME EITHER BY ACCEPTING THE ACCOUNTS OR BY MAKING SOME ESTIMATE HIMSELF. THE COMMISSIONER, ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, MAY BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE OFFICER CONCE RNED WAS ON THE LOWER SIDE AND LEFT TO THE COMMISSIONER HE WOULD HAVE ESTIMATED TH E INCOME AT A FIGURE HIGHER THAN THE ONE DETERMINED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER. THAT WOULD NOT VEST THE COMMISSIONER WITH POWER TO RE-EXAMINE THE ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINE THE INCOME HIMSELF AT A HIGHER FIGURE. IT IS BECAUSE THE INCOM E-TAX OFFICER HAS EXERCISED THE QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER VESTED IN HIM IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW AND ARRIVED AT CONCLUSION AND SUCH A CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE ERRONE OUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT FEEL SATISFIED WITH THE CONCL USION. X X X X THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL ON RECORD T O SHOW THAT TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIGIBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY T HE APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE ON AN INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATIO N A LESSER TAX THAN WHAT WAS JUST HAS BEEN IMPOSED. 1.5 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V/S AMITABH BACHCHAN (69 TAXMANN.COM 170 11/05/2016) HELD THAT THE POWER OF APPEAL AND REVISION IS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER XX OF THE ACT WHIC H INCLUDES SECTION 263 THAT CONFERS SUO MOTU POWER OF REVISION IN THE COMMISSIONER. THE DIFFERENT SHADES OF POWER CONFERRED ON DIFFERENT AU THORITIES UNDER THE ACT HAS TO BE EXERCISED WITHIN THE AREAS SPECIFICALLY D ELINEATED BY THE ACT AND THE EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER ONE PROVISION CANNO T TRENCH UPON THE POWERS AVAILABLE UNDER ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE ACT . IN THIS REGARD, IT MUST BE SPECIFICALLY NOTICED THAT AGAINST AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, SO FAR AS THE REVENUE IS CONCERNED, THE POWER CONFERRED UN DER THE ACT IS TO REOPEN THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 A ND/OR TO REVISE THE ITA NO.3327/MUM/2019 M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 6 ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 263. THE SCOPE OF TH E POWER/JURISDICTION UNDER THE DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WOULD NAT URALLY BE DIFFERENT. THE POWER AND JURISDICTION OF THE REVENUE TO DEAL WITH A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CO NTEXT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RELEVANT SECTIONS. WHILE DOING SO , IT MUST ALSO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAD NOT VESTED IN THE REVENUE ANY SPECIFIC POWER TO QUESTION AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT BY MEANS O F AN APPEAL. REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 263, WHAT HAS TO BE SEEN IS THAT A SATISFACTION THAT AN ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE IS THE BASIC PRE- CONDITION FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTIO N 263. BOTH ARE TWIN CONDITIONS THAT HAVE TO BE CONJOINTLY PRESENT. ONCE SUCH SATISFACTION IS REACHED, JURISDICTION TO EXERCISE THE POWER WOULD B E AVAILABLE SUBJECT TO OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WHI CH IS IMPLICIT IN THE REQUIREMENT CAST BY THE SECTION TO GIVE THE ASSESSE E AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. FURTHER, THERE COULD BE NO DOUBT THAT SO LONG AS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A POSSIBLE VIEW, THE SAME OUGHT NOT TO BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTIO N 263 MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS ANOTHER POSSIBLE VIEW OF THE M ATTER. PERMITTING EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL POWER IN A SITUATION WHERE T WO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE WOULD REALLY AMOUNT TO CONFERRING SOME KIND OF AN A PPELLATE POWER IN THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. THIS IS A COURSE OF ACTION TH AT MUST BE DESISTED FROM. 1.6 THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT MOIL LTD. VS. CIT [81 TAXMANN.COM 420] OBSERVED THAT IF A QUERY IS RAISED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IF THE QUERY IS RESPONDE D BY THE ASSESSEE, THE MERE FACT THAT THE QUERY WAS NOT DEALT WITH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITA NO.3327/MUM/2019 M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 7 THEN IT WOULD NOT LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT NO MIND HAS BEEN APPLIED TO IT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT EXPECTED TO RAISE MORE QUERIES, IF HE WAS SATISFIED ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CLAIM ON T HE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AND THE DETAILS SUPPLIED. 1.7 AS AN EXTENSION OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT THERE MUS T BE MATERIAL TO JUSTIFY THE COMMISSIONER'S FINDING THAT THE ORDER O F THE ASSESSMENT WAS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE REST OF THE REVENUE. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN PR.CIT V/S DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD. (398 ITR 8 05/09/2017) HAS HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXERCISING JURISDICTION U/S 263, THE CONCLUSION THA T THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HAS TO BE PRECEDED BY SOME MINIMAL INQUIRY . IN FACT, IF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT UNDERTAKE ANY INQUIRY, IT BECOMES I NCUMBENT ON THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TO CONDUCT SUC H INQUIRY. BY THE SAME LOGIC, EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION MER ELY AT THE INSTANCE OF LD. AO, WITHOUT DUE APPLICATION OF MIND BY REVISION AL AUTHORITY, WOULD NOT FULFIL THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 263 S INCE IT WAS CLEARLY TO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE TWIN CONDITIONS I.E. ERR ONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, WERE CONJOINTLY PRE SENT IN THE GIVEN FACTUAL MATRIX. 1.8 AN EXPLANATION-2 HAS BEEN INSERTED BY FINANCE A CT 2015 IN SECTION 263 WITH EFFECT FROM 01/06/2015 TO DECLARE THAT ORDER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, IF IN THE OPINION OF APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY -(1) THE ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT MAKING INQUIRIES OR VERIFICATIONS WH ICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN ITA NO.3327/MUM/2019 M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 8 MADE; (II) THE ORDER IS PASSED ALLOWING ANY RELIEF WITHOUT INQUIRING INTO THE CLAIM; (III) THE ORDER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN Y DIRECTION OR INSTRUCTIONS ETC. ISSUED BY THE BOARD U/S 119; OR (IV) THE ORDER WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENT. HOWEVER, THE INSER TION OF AFORESAID EXPLANATION WOULD NOT ALTER THE POSITION THAT TWIN CONDITIONS AS ENVISAGED BY SEC.263 MUST CONJOINTLY BE PRESENT BEFORE THE PO WER OF REVISION COULD BE EXERCISED BY REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. 2.1 KEEPING IN MIND AFORESAID PRINCIPLE, WE FIND TH AT THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE US, IS UNDER APPEAL CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION EXERCISED BY LD. PR. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX-32, MUMBAI (PR.CIT-32) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 VIDE ORDER DATED 29/03/2019. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: - 1. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) BY THE L EARNED JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AO)-32(3) IS NOT AN ERRONEOUS ORDER IN ANYWAY. THE ACTION OF LEARNED PR. CIT U/S 263 IS WHOLLY UNREASONABLE AND BAD IN L AW, WHICH MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2. THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 32, MUMBAI, ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AO)-32 (3) WITH RESPECT TO REPAYMENT OF LOAN/DEPOSIT AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,51,63,562/- OTHE RWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE/DRAFT AND CONSIDERING THIS AS CONTRAVENTION OF SEC. 269T LEADING TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271E OF THE IT ACT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED LOAN CONFIRMATION FROM LENDERS. BIFURCATION OF BORROWINGS DEDUCTED FR OM VALUE OF ASSETS AND AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF SLEEK INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITE D, WITH BUSINESS TRANSFER AGREEMENT HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN WHICH SHOWS THE UNSEC URED LENDERS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED INDIVIDUALLY IN THE NEW COMPANY, WERE N OT PLACED ON RECORD. THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED AS THE AFORESAID IN FORMATION WERE NOT ASKED TO FURNISH DURING THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE APPELLANT HA VE REPAID THE LOAN/DEPOSIT AMOUNTING TO RS.3,51,63,562 BY VIRTUE OF BUSINESS T RANSFER AGREEMENT DATED 02.08.2013 BETWEEN SLEEK INTERNATIONAL PAN AAOKS755 3E AND SLEEK INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED PAN AECS1836K WHEREIN IT HAVE BEEN AGREED TO SELL, SIGN AND TRANSFER THE TARGET BUSINESS AS A GOING CONCERN ALO NG WITH ALL ASSETS & LIABILITIES BY WAY OF SLUMP SALE AT LUMP SUM CONSIDERATION OF RS. 61,17,00,000 WITHOUT VALUES BEING ASSIGNED TO THE INDIVIDUAL ASSETS AND LIABILI TIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF APPLICABLE LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMI TED TO THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT,.1961 3. THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 32, ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AO)-32(3) WITH R ESPECT TO DISALLOWING THE INTEREST ITA NO.3327/MUM/2019 M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 9 ON LATE PAYMENT OF TDS RS.2,73,425/- AND CUSTOM INT EREST PENALTY RS.83,860/- AND THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED AS THE EXPENDITURE ARE RELATED TO BUSINESS PURPOSE. 4. THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 32 , ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AO)-32(3) WITH R ESPECT TO DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.40,63,486/- NOT RECKON WITH HOLDING ANY SUCH INV ESTMENTS THROUGH WHICH SUCH HUGE DIVIDEND INCOME WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN EARNED. FURTHER THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 32, ALSO ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AO)-32 (3) WITH RESPECT TO SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON SALE OF SUNDARAM UNITS AMOUNTING TO RS.2,41,37,225/- ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT SAID UNITS MIGHT HAVE BEEN TRADED AND ISSUE OF DIVIDEND STRIPPING AS PER SEC. 94(7) OF THE IT ACT AND BONUS STRIPPING AS PER SEC. 94(8) WOULD HAVE ATTRACTED. THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED AS:- (I)THE APPELLANT HAVE RECEIVED THE DIVIDEND INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUNDS, OTHER THAN THE UNITS OF SUNDARAM MUTUAL FUND, HELD DURING THE YEAR AND HENCE SEC.94(7) IS NOT APPLICABLE. (II) THE SUNDARAM MUTUAL FUND UNITS 2408303.832 WOR TH OF RS. 5,00,00,000 WAS PURCHASED ON 05/09/2013 AND ON THE RECORD DATE I.E. 23/12/2013 THE BONUS UNITS 2408303.832 WERE ALLOTTED ON THE BASIS OF 1:1 RATIO . THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD THE ORIGINAL UNITS 2408303.832 FOR RS.2,58.62,775/- ON 07/01/2014 THEREBY INCURRING SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.2,41,37,525/- (I.E.RS .5,00,00,000- RS.2,58,62,775).SECTION 94(7) AND 94(8) OF THE IT A CT IS NOT APPLICABLE AS THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED ORIGINAL UNITS PRIOR TO PER IOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE RECORD DATE AND THEREFORE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS O N SALE OF SUNDARAM UNITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,41,37,525 TO BE ALLOWED. 5. THE LEARNED PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 32 , ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AO)-32(3) WITH R ESPECT TO CORRECTNESS OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DUE TO SLUMP SALE AMOUNTING TO RS.56,66,00,226/- AS FORM NO. 3CEA AS REQUIRED U/S 50B HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHE D THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED AS THE APPELLANT HAVE FURNISHED FORM NO. 3C EA AS REQUIRED U/S 50B DURING THE PROCEEDINGS FOR COMPUTING NET WORTH. 2.2 THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION WAS FRAMED BY LD. AO U/S 143(3) ON 26/12/2016, ACCEPTING THE R EVISED RETURNED INCOME OF RS.53 CRORES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30/ 11/2014. THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT FIRM WAS STATED TO BE ENGAG ED IN WHOLESALE BUSINESS OF KITCHEN APPLIANCES, STAINLESS STEEL ARTICLES ETC. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS A SHORT ORDER AND TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE VERIFIED ON TEST-CHECK B ASIS. IT ALSO TAKES NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS T RANSFERRED TO ANOTHER ITA NO.3327/MUM/2019 M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 10 ENTITY VIDE BUSINESS TRANSFER AGREEMENT DATED 02/08/2013 ON SLUMP SALE BASIS FOR AGGREGATE CONSIDERATION OF RS.61.17 CRORES WITH OUT VALUES BEING ASSIGNED TO THE INDIVIDUAL ASSETS & LIABILITI ES. 2.3 SUBSEQUENTLY, LD. PR.CIT-32, MUMBAI, AFTER RECE IPT OF PROPOSAL SENT BY LD. ACIT, ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE (SCN) U/ S 263 TO THE ASSESSEE ON 05/11/2018 WHICH WAS LATER ON REVISED O N 18/03/2019 & 27/03/2019. THE FIRST NOTICE ISSUED ON 05/11/2018 I S MERELY THE REPETITION OF EARLIER NOTICE ISSUED ON 12/09/2018. IN THE NOTI CE, IT WAS STATED THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE REPAID LOAN/DEPOSIT A MOUNTING TO RS.3,51,63,562/- OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE/DRAFT IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 269T AND THEREFORE, THE PE NALTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED U/S 271E. HENCE, BY INVOKING EXPLANATI ON-2 TO SEC. 263, THE QUANTUM ORDER WAS PROPOSED TO BE REVISED U/S 26 3. IN THE SAID NOTICE, THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY IMPOSABLE WAS ERRONEO USLY REFERRED TO AS RS.5.50 LACS WHICH WAS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IN SI MILAR NOTICE ISSUED ON 18/03/2019. 2.4 THEREAFTER, A REVISED SCN WAS ISSUED ON 27/03/2 019 IN WHICH MORE POINTS WERE RAISED AND REVISION U/S 263 WAS PR OPOSED ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT I) INTEREST ON LATE PAYMENT OF TDS FOR RS.2.73 LACS WAS NOT ALLOWABLE; II) CUSTOM INTEREST PENALTY OF RS.0. 83 LACS NOT ALLOWABLE; III) ISSUE OF DIVIDEND STRIPPING U/S 94(7) AND BONU S STRIPPING U/S 94(8) ON SALE OF SUNDARAM UNITS NOT EXAMINED; IV) FORM NO. 3 CEA NOT FILED / EXAMINED TO ASCERTAIN THE NET WORTH OF THE UNDERTAK ING AS SLUMP SALE AND THEREFORE, THE CORRECTNESS OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED. ITA NO.3327/MUM/2019 M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 11 2.5 IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE, VIDE REPLIES DATED 2 5/09/2018, 21/02/2019, 26/03/2019 & 29/03/2019, SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES BUSINESS WAS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER ENTITY I.E. M/S SLEEK INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED AS A GOING CONCERN ON SLUMP SALE BASIS FOR CONSIDE RATION OF RS.61.71 CRORES. AS PER THE ARRANGEMENT, THE LOA NS & DEPOSITS STANDING IN ASSESSEES BOOK WERE ALSO TRANSFERRED T O THE SAID ENTITY. THIS TRANSACTION WAS REFLECTED BY THE TAX AUDITOR AS REP AYMENT OF LOAN U/S 269T OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. HOW EVER, CONSIDERING THE FACTS, PENALTY WOULD NOT BE LEVIABLE SINCE THER E WOULD BE NO CONTRAVENTION OF SEC.269T. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SUNDARAM UNITS WERE PURC HASED BEFORE 3 MONTHS FROM RECORD DATE AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISIO NS OF SEC. 94(7) & 94(8) WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX. TH E COPY OF FORM 3CEA AS REQUIRED U/S 50B WAS ALSO FILED ALONG WITH REPLY . 2.6 HOWEVER, AFTER PERUSING THE VALUATION REPORT OF BUSINESS TRANSFER AGREEMENT AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE CUMULATIVE VALUED WAS DONE IN RESPECT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES. BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE CONFIRMATION OF THE UNSECURED LENDERS CONFIRMING THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID TO THEM. F URTHER, THE BORROWINGS WERE DEDUCTED FROM GROSS VALUE OF ASSETS , BUT BIFURCATION OF THE BORROWINGS WAS NOT FILED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE BALANCE SHEET OF TRANSFEREE ENTITY TO SHOW THAT UNS ECURED LOANS WERE TRANSFERRED INDIVIDUALLY IN THE NEW COMPANY. THEREF ORE, THE JUSTIFICATION MADE BY ASSESSEE REGARDING TRANSFER AS WELL AS BORR OWING WAS NOT SUPPORTED WITH SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE LEAD ING TO CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ON WHICH LD. AO FAILED TO MAKE ENQUIRIES ITA NO.3327/MUM/2019 M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 12 LEADING TO NON-LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271E OF THE ACT. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, AN OPINION WAS FORMED THAT LD.AO FAILED TO MAKE PROPER ENQUIRIES REGARDING PENALTY U/S 271E. ANOTHER OBSERVATION WAS THAT INTEREST ON LATE PAYME NT OF TDS AND CUSTOM INTEREST PENALTY AGGREGATING TO RS.3.57 LACS WAS WRONGLY ALLOWED AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO REVENUE TO THAT EXTENT. REGARDING ISSUE OF DIVIDEND STRIPPING U/S 94(7) AND BONUS STRIPPING U/S 94(8), IT WAS OBSERVED THAT RELEVANT DETAILS / DOCU MENTS WERE NOT PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AND THEREFORE, DETAILED INVESTIGATION AND PROPER APPRECIATION OF F ACTS WAS NOT CARRIED OUT AT THE TIME OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. IN THE BACKDROP OF AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, THE QUAN TUM ASSESSMENT ORDER, ON THE STATED ISSUES, WAS SET ASIDE AND LD.A O WAS DIRECTED TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED AS AFORESAID, THE ASSESSEE IS U NDER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, P ERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS DURING REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS. WE HAVE ALSO DELIBERATED ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS CITED BY BOTH THE REPRESENTATIVES . 4. THE PRIME ARGUMENTS OF LD. AR ARE MULTI-FOLDS VI Z. I) THE REVISION COULD NOT BE TRIGGERED MERELY AT THE BEHEST OF ASSE SSING OFFICER; II) THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY WAS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO CAR RY OUT MINIMAL INQUIRY SO AS TO FORM AN OPINION THAT THE ORDER WAS ERRONEO US AS WELL AS ITA NO.3327/MUM/2019 M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 13 PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE; III) RE VISION COULD NOT BE RESORTED TO IN CASE OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF LD. A O TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AU CONTRAIRE, LD. CIT-DR ASSERTED THAT NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY LD. AO TO THE RELEVANT ISSUES WOULD MAKE THE ORDER ERRO NEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. CIT-DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT WRONG ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR INCORRECT APPLICA TION OF LAW WOULD CERTAINLY MAKE ORDER LIABLE FOR REVISION U/S 263. I T WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FIRSTLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS EXPECTED TO SUBMIT T HE DETAILS TO LD. AO, WHO, WITH DUE APPLICATION OF MIND, SHOULD HAVE CONS IDERED THE ISSUES RAISED BY REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. SINCE THERE WAS FAI LURE ON THE PART OF LD. AO TO APPLY HIS MIND TO THE ISSUES, THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION WAS VALIDLY INVOKED BY LD. PR.CIT-32. 5. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SAME. SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENT THAT REVISIONAL AUTHORITY COULD NOT INVOKE JURISDICTIONA L MERELY AT THE INSTANCE OF LD. AO, IS CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT SO LONG AS THE TWIN CONDITIONS AS ENVISAGED BY SEC.263 ARE FUL FILLED BY CONDUCTING MINIMAL ENQUIRY, THE JURISDICTION WOULD CERTAINLY B E VALID NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE SAME WERE TRIGGERED AT THE BEHEST OF LD.AO. THEREFORE, THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION COULD NOT BE TERMED AS BAD IN LAW SIMPLY BECAUSE THE SAME WAS TRIGGERED AT THE INSTANCE OF A NOTHER OFFICER. WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE SAME AND REJECT TH E SAID PLEA. 6. PROCEEDING FURTHER, IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE FACT THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER ENTITY V IDE BUSINESS TRANSFER AGREEMENT DATED 02/08/2013 ON SLUMP SALE BASIS FOR A SUM OF RS.61.17 WITHOUT INDIVIDUAL VALUES BEING ASSIGNED TO THE ASS ETS AND LIABILITIES, WAS ITA NO.3327/MUM/2019 M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 14 WELL APPRECIATED BY LD. AO SINCE THE BODY OF ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) RECORD THIS FACT. THEREFORE, TO SAY THAT THE SAID FACT WAS OMITTED TO BE CONSIDERED BY LD. AO, WOULD NOT BE CO RRECT. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCLOSED THE FACTS OF TRANSFER O F BUSINESS IN SCHEDULE-N OF ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE COMPUTATION OF CAP ITAL GAIN ON SLUMP SALE WAS PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HA D BIFURCATED THE BALANCE SHEET REFLECTING FINANCIAL POSITION BEFORE TRANSFER OF BUSINESS AND SUBSEQUENT TO TRANSFER OF BUSINESS. THE COPY OF BUSINESS TRANSFER AGREEMENT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TO LD. AO VIDE SUBMISSIONS DATE D 21/12/2016. UPON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WE FIND THAT ALL THE ISSUES CONNECTED WITH TRANSFER OF BUSINESS WERE UNDER DUE CONSIDERATION OF LD.AO DURING REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ANOTHE R ASPECT TO BE NOTED IS THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 271E, N O SATISFACTION IS REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED IN THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT O RDER BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271E. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEP T THE VALIDITY OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION ON THIS POINT. 7. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS WITH RESPECT TO ASSESSEES CLAIM OF INTEREST ON TDS AND CUSTOMS PEN ALTY. THE LD. AR ASSERTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED UNDER LIMITED SCRUTINY WHICH WAS NEVER CONVERTED INTO FULL SCRUTINY. THE I SSUE OF TDS AND CUSTOM PENALTY WERE NONE OF THE REASONS FOR WHI CH THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. THE LD. A R DREW ATTENTION TO THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.7/2014 DATED 26/09/2014 WHI CH PROVIDE THAT IN CASE OF SCRUTINY CASES SELECTED UNDER CASS, THE SCO PE OF INQUIRY SHOULD BE LIMITED TO VERIFICATION OF PARTICULAR ASPECTS ON LY. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SAME. THE PERUSAL OF DOCUMENTS ON RE CORD WOULD REVEAL ITA NO.3327/MUM/2019 M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 15 THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NEVER RAISED BY LD.AO AND THERE FORE, THERE COULD BE NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE ANY SUBMISSION S IN THIS REGARD. THIS BEING THE CASE, PRIMA FACIE, THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED BY LD. REVISIONAL AUTHORITY WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY MINIMAL INQUIRY TH AT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. THE CONCL USION WAS DRAWN ON MERE ALLEGATION THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS INADM ISSIBLE EXPENDITURE. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT THE REVISION JURI SDICTION COULD NOT BE EXERCISED TO MAKE FISHING OR ROVING INQUIRY WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THE FACT THAT THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH EXERC ISE OF REVISION JURISDICTIONS ON THIS ISSUE. 8. SIMILAR IS THE SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO THIRD I SSUE I.E. APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 94(7) / 94(8) TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE, VIDE SUBMISSIONS DATED 29/03/2019, HAD SU BMITTED THAT THE DIVIDEND WAS NOT EARNED ON THE UNITS OF SUNDARAM MUTUAL FUND AND IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME, LEDGER EXTRACT OF DIVIDEND INC OME AS WELL AS STATEMENT OF RESPECTIVE MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH GAVE RIS E TO DIVIDEND INCOME WAS FURNISHED WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT NO DIV IDEND WAS EARNED ON SUNDARAM MUTUAL FUND . IN THE SAID BACKGROUND, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 94(7) WERE NOT APPLICABLE. S IMILARLY, THE UNITS OF SUNDARAM MUTUAL FUND WERE STATED TO BE PURCHASED ON 05/09/2013 WHEREAS RECORD DATED WAS 23/12/2013 WHEN THE BONUS UNITS WERE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A GA P OF MORE THAN 3 MONTHS BETWEEN THE PURCHASE OF UNITS AND RECORD DAT E AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 94(8) WERE STATED TO BE NOT APPLICABLE. THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAID FACT , WERE ALSO FURNISHED. ITA NO.3327/MUM/2019 M/S. SLEEK INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 16 HOWEVER, WE FIND THE LD. PR.CIT-32 DID NOT CONSIDER ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND TERMED THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND P REJUDICIAL WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY MINIMAL INQUIRY. THEREFORE, THE ACTI ON, ON THIS ISSUE, COULD NOT BE UPHELD. NO DIRECTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED WITH RESPECT TO LAST ISSUE I.E. NON-FILING OF FORM 3CEA AND THEREFORE, THE SAME NEED NOT BE DE LVED INTO. 9. TO SUMMARIZE, THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION AS EXE RCISED BY LD. PR. CIT-32 COULD NOT BE UPHELD IN THE EYES OF LAW. THER EFORE, BY QUASHING THE SAME, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL. 10. THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR ABOVE ORDER. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (C.N. PRASAD) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 25/02/2020 SR.PS, JAISY VARGHESE -./012.1 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. - ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. - / CIT CONCERNED 5. ./ & , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /12 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.